http://gamingtrend.com
January 25, 2015, 04:19:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 230 231 [232] 233 234 ... 290
9241  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (8/27) on: August 27, 2007, 02:13:41 PM
Armageddon Empires
9242  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: The GT Scariest Games Ever Thread on: August 27, 2007, 02:06:54 PM
Any game on a 1st batch 360.
9243  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Rock Band - now with more awesomeness on: August 27, 2007, 01:28:39 PM
Stopped by a Gamestop in a busy mall in California to ask how the preorders were going for Guitar Hero 3 and Rock Band.  The gal there said that she was getting more Guitar Hero preorders by far, pointing out that it's just a bit harder to sell people on "just $5 down now, and $195 when you pick it up!"

If I were Harmonix I'd be trying to convince people that even just the guitar portion of Rock Band is superior to the entirety of Guitar Hero 3.  The full RB equipment set is intimidating to buy, but if you can get your foot in the door with the base game--even sans guitar, taking advantage of the GH guitar install base--the RB peripherals and DLC addiction will come.
9244  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: PC Exclusives on the Horizon on: August 26, 2007, 07:02:17 PM
For now, though, it's only announced for the PC.  On the list it goes!
9245  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: 360: Widescreen and fullscreen on: August 25, 2007, 05:15:26 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on August 24, 2007, 05:59:31 AM

I have a 19" screen, and a 23" wide screen.  The wide screen has a bigger screen.  Trust me.

Is the 23" wide screen bigger or smaller than this 4:3 screen?


Believe me, I understand what you guys are saying.  All I'm trying to illustrate that it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness, and exploit--

Wait, hold on.

I'm just trying to illustrate that it is possible, however unlikely, that the 16:9 Bioshock view is indeed perfect and whole and everything we would want out of widescreen, while the 4:3 view is a vertically extended rather than horizontally cropped adaptation.  If they had designed the 4:3 view to have letterbox black bars on the top and bottom, people might never have realized that they were supposed to be angry about the 16:9 view.
9246  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: 360: Widescreen and fullscreen on: August 24, 2007, 12:42:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on August 23, 2007, 06:11:24 PM

Because when you have a bigger screen, you should be seeing more, not less.

16:9 isn't a bigger screen, it's a different shape screen.  Both 4:3 screens and 16:9 screens come in many different sizes.
9247  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: July NPD - "The Wii is just a fad" on: August 24, 2007, 12:34:54 AM
I'm impressed with how well Guitar Hero 80s Edition sold.
9248  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 06:03:56 PM
Here you go, Rainbow 6 Vegas, first person:

16:9, proper angle:


4:3 letterboxed, same angle:


4:3 extended, still same angle:


This could be the case for Bioshock, but we can't figure it out with the screenshots people have been posting.  What we need is for someone to do something like stand on the corner of a square rug in the game and see what kind of angle the edges make in 4:3 and 16:9.
9249  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 05:44:48 PM
A third person game was indeed a bad choice, but my reasoning is consistent with the plot thickens explanation Kevin posted above.  My Gears of War example still works if you assume you are not the soldier behind cover, but someone behind him in the hallway with a first person view of the action.
9250  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 05:32:04 PM
Re: unbreakable

I'm not sure if you're getting what I'm getting at.

Go go gadget Paint!

Gears of War, in 16:9, proper viewing angle:



Now we stick it on a 4:3 screen, with black bars on the top and bottom, still a proper viewing angle:



Now instead of black bars, let's extend the vertical view:



Per your illustration, the viewing angle would not be changed.  It's still the same 16:9 angle, but with more visibility on the top and bottom.

9251  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Rock Band - now with more awesomeness on: August 22, 2007, 05:06:03 PM

Quote from: Brendan on August 22, 2007, 04:52:22 PM

But that person's clearly wrong.

If you hit the wall at different angles it makes different sounds!  Weee!
9252  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 05:05:36 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on August 22, 2007, 04:43:31 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 04:35:28 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on August 22, 2007, 04:25:25 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 04:20:23 PM

Would that extra visible space on the top and bottom really turn the view into a fish-eye effect?  To me it feels like it would just be like widening the visor that we're looking through when we're simulating human vision.

It's the same thing- you're widening the angle in both situations.  For whatever reason, the industry seems to have arrived at a FOV of 90 degrees as being "normal" for FPS on a 4:3 screen.  Anything beyond that is going to be abnormal which is what you would do in the second part of your example since you'd be giving yourself a 100+ degree FOV on a 4:3 screen. 

Thanks for your patience!  But how did the horizontal FOV change on my jury rigged 4:3 screen?  If you taped up a piece of cardboard on the top and bottom it would look exactly the same as that smaller 16:9 TV.



AFAIK, FOV only refers to horizontal width (someone correct me if I'm wrong).  If you take the viewing point of your eyes, then in a proper widescreen view you are seeing 100+ degree arc around you.  Adding information to the top and bottom of that ("opening the matte") doesn't change the width of that arc.

And this is what I've been trying to get at.  The widescreen view in Bioshock is wrong if it's not a 100° arc or whatever's proper for 16:9, it's not wrong just because it doesn't have extra real estate on the sides that the 4:3 view doesn't have.  In other words, you can't point to the extra top/bottom real estate in the 4:3 as proof that the 16:9 view is improper.  The 16:9 could be proper and the 4:3 could be (though we know now with Bioshock it is not) the same as my jury rigged TV: a 16:9 FOV with some bonus top/down visibility.
9253  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Community: I need your help. on: August 22, 2007, 04:42:31 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on August 22, 2007, 04:36:42 PM

Anything 'left over' will be used on our next trip.  It isn't going into my 'hey!  A new video card!' fund or anything like that. smile

Oh there you go being reasonable.  Times are tough for wiseasses.
9254  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 04:35:28 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on August 22, 2007, 04:25:25 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 04:20:23 PM

Would that extra visible space on the top and bottom really turn the view into a fish-eye effect?  To me it feels like it would just be like widening the visor that we're looking through when we're simulating human vision.

It's the same thing- you're widening the angle in both situations.  For whatever reason, the industry seems to have arrived at a FOV of 90 degrees as being "normal" for FPS on a 4:3 screen.  Anything beyond that is going to be abnormal which is what you would do in the second part of your example since you'd be giving yourself a 100+ degree FOV on a 4:3 screen. 

Thanks for your patience!  But how did the horizontal FOV change on my jury rigged 4:3 screen?  If you taped up a piece of cardboard on the top and bottom it would look exactly the same as that smaller 16:9 TV.

Why does an increased vertical view turn it into a different FOV angle?  If I close one eye, in real life I'd have a conical, not letterboxed view, and it feels like my jury rigged 4:3 screen is just showing me more of the up/down that we crop out of games, movies, and TV because it's less interesting.
9255  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 04:20:23 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 03:56:18 PM

Ok, I'm on board.

Wait, sorry!  Still resisting!

Start with a 16:9 TV.  Let's say the screen is exactly 20" from top to bottom.  FOV is correct and does not look distorted.

Tape a red 4x3 rectangle onto the screen.  There is obviously screen real estate to the right and left of the box.

Now we hold up another, smaller 16:9 TV.  The left and right sides of the screen fit exactly inside the red box.  Smaller screen, but it's still 16:9 so the FOV is still correct and it does not look distorted.

Finally, magically add some pixels above and below that smaller 16:9 TV, so that it fills the red box, making this TV 20" from top to bottom.  Would that extra visible space on the top and bottom really turn the view into a fish-eye effect?  To me it feels like it would just be like widening the visor that we're looking through when we're simulating human vision.
9256  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Community: I need your help. on: August 22, 2007, 03:58:11 PM

Quote from: DamageInc on August 22, 2007, 03:54:42 PM

Payment sent from Mr_joshua account.

Good luck to you and the team.

What's the money go to now, bribes to EA? slywink
9257  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 03:56:18 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on August 22, 2007, 03:50:14 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 03:45:35 PM

As more and more people have widescreen TVs and computer monitors, more and more games are going to be developed for 16:9 first and adapted for 4:3 second.  Some games already force the 4:3 view to have black bars on the top and bottom.  If instead of using black bars they increased the vertical view on 4:3, it would not suddenly make the 16:9 view wrong.

This isn't film!  There is no OAR when it comes to FPS.  There is no almost no reason that you can't have two separate FOVs for FPS games- one of about 90 degrees for 4:3 and one wider for 16:9/16:10.  These are standards and Irrational even recognizes that it deviated from them.

Ok, I'm on board.
9258  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 03:54:04 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on August 22, 2007, 03:42:53 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 03:18:26 PM

I guess I just disagree with the statement that "widescreen displays should show you more, not less."  I think that widescreen displays should show you the correct FOV for the widescreen aspect ratio.  The 4:3 display can either chop off the sides or add to the top and bottom; it doesn't change the correctness of the widescreen.

The reason the side by side comparisons came out is indeed because the hardcore people who care about this (ie those over at Widescreen Gaming) did indeed notice it looked funky. 

And there is a general standard for FOV- 85-90 for 4:3 and a bit wider (duh) for widescreen.  It's usually pretty noticeable when games diverge from it too much.  Jedi Knight 2 initially made a lot of people kind of nauseous (including myself) because it defaulted to a much narrower FOV than most games. 

With Bioshock it looks like it's about 90 for both full screen and widescreen.  Proper implementation means that each setting (4:3 and 16:9) should have it's own native FOV.  To use your above example, if they "opened up the matte" after implementing the proper widescreen FOV, then it would be incorrect for 4:3 gamers at that point with an excessive FOV for 4:3 gaming. 

This is more like it.  If people looked at the FOV angle and noticed it was off, I'm all on board the complain train.  Everything I've seen, though, just points to 4:3 having more real estate and complaining about that alone.  If you're saying that if they opened the matte, people would've noticed the distortion on 4:3, why didn't anyone (except the widescreen videophiles) notice the distortion on 16:9?  Are people getting motion sickness on the 360 version, or does it look just fine unless you tell people they shouldn't be happy?
9259  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 03:45:35 PM
Re: unbreakable

Yes yes, we've seen the screenshot.

How do I make this more clear?

How can you tell whether the 16:9 is a cropped 4:3 view, or the 4:3 view is a letterboxed 16:9 view with extra vertical FOV instead of black bars?

If you can remember getting drunk in Everquest, you develop tunnel vision.  Definitely too much FOV for the screen.  Crop the sides and stretch too much, that's too little FOV.  There's an amount of peripheral vision that the game developers decide to give us.  It should look natural to our eyes.  How do we know that the FOV Bioshock gave us for 16:9 is not correct.  (Again, before they confirmed it to be so.)

As more and more people have widescreen TVs and computer monitors, more and more games are going to be developed for 16:9 first and adapted for 4:3 second.  Some games already force the 4:3 view to have black bars on the top and bottom.  If instead of using black bars they increased the vertical view on 4:3, it would not suddenly make the 16:9 view wrong.
9260  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Home Theater Speakers on: August 22, 2007, 03:31:04 PM

Quote from: Thin_J on August 22, 2007, 03:08:40 PM

That depends on what you're after my friend.

If you want to be prepared for HD stuff then the minimum seems to be in the $400 range for one particular Onkyo model. If you just want tons of inputs and a nice receiver and aren't worried about Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD and all that then there's an awesome sony (STR-DG910) on Amazon for about $370.

I'm all about future-proofing as much as possible, so it's good to know that at $400 the point of entry isn't too terrible.
9261  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 03:28:28 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on August 22, 2007, 03:21:10 PM



Except your picture is wrong.  You aren't getting the red box... you are getting the area in the blue box, having the top and bottom cut off where the red lines are, and stretched to fit the screen.  THAT'S the problem.

How can you tell whether you're getting the red box or a cropped blue box?
9262  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: The Great Drought is Over in just 1hr! on: August 22, 2007, 03:25:43 PM

Quote from: CeeKay on August 22, 2007, 03:05:01 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 22, 2007, 11:30:24 AM

Quote from: CeeKay on August 22, 2007, 06:27:13 AM

Quote from: Calvin on August 22, 2007, 04:12:07 AM

Quote from: ATB on August 21, 2007, 02:14:02 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 21, 2007, 01:02:49 PM

I thought about making a new thread, but I didn't want Calvin's suicide on my conscience.

+1!

You really are trying too hard.

he's got to try and catch up with you somehow  icon_wink

No dummies.  I did a plus one for each thread title change. 

I know it was too subtle for you, but given the likelihood that you have some experience with adventure games, you should have been able to catch on.

ad-vent-ure games?  sounds like a mythological beast, like the unicorn.

?

9263  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 03:18:26 PM
But let's say they do release a patch expand the FOV for widescreen.  There is much rejoicing.  But they also accidentally change the 4:3 view to be as wide as the new widescreen view, but with some extra FOV on the top and bottom.

Is the widescreen view wrong again because the 4:3 view shows more?

I guess I just disagree with the statement that "widescreen displays should show you more, not less."  I think that widescreen displays should show you the correct FOV for the widescreen aspect ratio.  The 4:3 display can either chop off the sides or add to the top and bottom; it doesn't change the correctness of the widescreen.

In this case it's a dead debate since they've acknowledged it is indeed a problem, but before the side by side screenshot comparisons came out I don't remember anyone complaining that the widescreen FOV looked funky.
9264  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Home Theater Speakers on: August 22, 2007, 03:02:24 PM

Quote from: Thin_J on August 22, 2007, 03:00:14 PM

I've been looking lately too and I think I'm going to end up going to a local home audio shop and getting a full set of Paradigm Cinema 70's. Should be about $500 for the entire speaker set.

Those look like a good deal.  How much do receivers cost these days?
9265  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on August 22, 2007, 02:34:05 PM

The problem is that you are getting less with widescreen, when you should be getting more.

But how do you know (well, before Kevin Levine acknowledged it as a problem) that the widescreen view isn't giving us the proper viewing angle, and the 4:3 view is giving us a distorted extra up/down view?  If the 4:3 view had black bars at the top and bottom instead of extra real estate, would anyone have an issue with the 16:9 viewing angle?

Laner's Super 35 example is great:



Are widescreen viewers getting screwed because 4:3 viewers get to see Dyson's knees?  No, the widescreen view is still the proper framing of the scene.  (And I realize in this example the widescreeners still do see more on the left and right, but I think the point still stands if you ignore the blue box and assume 4:3 viewers get to see the whole image.)
9266  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Rock Band - now with more awesomeness on: August 22, 2007, 02:09:07 PM
Ok ok. 

It mirrors the challenge and reward of learning to play a real instrument, and mimics the instruments well enough that you feel like you're really playing.  Even if you already know how to play the guitar, it's still fun to just fire up your console and have a band and a good singer backing you up.  You get to play your favorite songs, or find out about new songs you never knew about.  The games have a wide difficulty range so that people can pick it up and instantly have fun, but still have enough to challenge them for months and months.

Rock Band adds drums to the equation, along with the ability to team up with 3 of your friends.

But really, it's popular because it's very very fun.
9267  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Rock Band - now with more awesomeness on: August 22, 2007, 02:04:28 PM

Quote from: Lockdown on August 22, 2007, 02:01:09 PM

I don't see the draw.  What is it I'm not understanding?

It's fun.
9268  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo (Another Xbox 360 Bites the Dust) on: August 22, 2007, 01:56:22 PM
If I were in your shoes, Conan, I'd just be glad my 360 died with the rings instead of by a problem not on the extended extended don't make us recall warranty.
9269  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Rock Band - now with more awesomeness on: August 22, 2007, 01:42:26 PM

Quote from: Ralph-Wiggum on August 22, 2007, 01:36:53 PM

That announcement makes me sad I sold my PS2.  icon_frown

Nah, you'll be glad to have the downloadable content me thinks.  I just hope that they can manufacture enough of the peripherals for a three system launch.
9270  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 01:36:51 PM
Now if they touted triple monitor support and the game gave you this view:



Ok, I guess I would probably join the complainers.
9271  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Rock Band - now with more awesomeness on: August 22, 2007, 01:12:05 PM
The little old console that just wouldn't die:

Rock Band coming to PS2?!

Some new songs announced too, all original versions:

Rolling Stones -- “Gimme Shelter”
Deep Purple -- "Highway Star"
The Clash -- “Should I Stay or Should I Go”
Faith No More -- "Epic”
Smashing Pumpkins -- “Cherub Rock”
Radiohead -- “Creep”
Beastie Boys -- “Sabotage”
Jet -- “Are You Gonna Be My Girl”
OK Go -- “Here It Goes Again”
Nine Inch Nails -- “The Hand That Feeds”
9272  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 22, 2007, 12:45:52 PM

Quote from: CeeKay on August 22, 2007, 03:55:10 AM


I dunno, people are in a flipsy about that all over the place, but is it really an issue?  What if the wide-screen view is the intended viewing angle and they increased the vertical range for 4:3 monitors rather than putting up black bars?
9273  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 21, 2007, 11:15:50 PM

Quote from: Greggy_D on August 21, 2007, 11:00:06 PM

Did you guys try the latest Nvidia Bioshock drivers?

Yup.
9274  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 21, 2007, 10:52:03 PM
I guess I was latching on to AGP as the cause because it didn't seem like the 7600s should be that much of an improvement over the 6800 GT: upping the resolution with all the bells and whistles turned on instead of struggling to just function at low res no bells.
9275  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Atlus will break your arm. on: August 21, 2007, 08:28:39 PM
Quote
The machine isn't that strong, much less so than a muscular man. Even women should be able to beat it," company spokesman Ayano Sakiyama told AP news agency.

Arm Spirit gamers advance through 10 levels, pitting their strength against a French maid, a drunken martial arts master and a Chihuahua dog before reaching the final challenge - a professional wrestler.

Sir, we've established that you're clearly much weaker than a muscular man, or the average woman, but for the police report can you help us narrow down if you're also weaker than a French maid or a Chihuahua?
9276  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 21, 2007, 08:21:06 PM

Quote from: EddieA on August 21, 2007, 08:14:16 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 21, 2007, 01:40:44 AM

I almost had to throw a dart to pick which Bioshock thread to post this in!

So I fired up the demo expecting it to run really poorly on my system.  OUCH.  It ran even worse than I expected.

Athlon 64 3500Mhz
GeForce 6800GT (256MB) (Today's BETA nvidia drivers)
2GB Ram
Audigy 2
Windows XP

I have the same processor (if by 3500Mhz, you mean a 3500+), only 1 GB of RAM, and a 7600GS.  At 1024, with everything on high, the game is silky smooth in the water at the beginning, and only slightly less so once I get indoors.  I don't know how the video cards compare, but it should be running smoothly on yours.  Unless the video card is holding you back, there must be some other problem.

From the reports coming in here and there, everyone I've seen with similar specs that has AGP: unplayable.  Similar specs with PCI-E: runs pretty good.
9277  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [ds] etrian odyssey impressions on: August 21, 2007, 07:36:28 PM
Avoid'em. smile
9278  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Bioshock pc review...pc better on: August 21, 2007, 06:37:37 PM

Quote from: Gratch on August 21, 2007, 06:25:52 PM

Well that answers the "will it run on my system" question with a resounding no.   I've got pretty similar specs with less RAM (1 GB) and a better vid card (7800).  Since I'm completely hopeless playing FPS on consoles, it looks like I'm out of luck on Bioshock until I can afford a PC upgrade.   Which will be...well...never.   tear
It's been sounding like it runs very decently on other people's systems just like yours.  I'm convinced that as long as you're past the AGP generation of cards you're okay.
9279  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Need your help guys [POLL] on: August 21, 2007, 05:30:44 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 14, 2007, 08:40:36 PM

I have to say this Tom's of Maine stuff actually seems to be working really well for me.  Guess I've been pumping myself full of aluminum for no reason all these years.

I know you're all dying to hear more about my hops-filled armpits.  Tom's is holding up just fine for ordinary day-to-day duties, but there was a particularly hot & humid day last week that may have brought me to environmental hazard levels of stink.
9280  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: This Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD thing is taking a long time to finish on: August 21, 2007, 04:58:25 PM

Quote from: gellar on August 21, 2007, 04:54:00 PM

Quote from: th'FOOL on August 21, 2007, 04:41:35 PM

Well, I think you guys are wrong.  The tech as it stands now isn't good enough, yes.  But there are a shitload of people working on ways to make it more viable, and I'll bet $5 right now that downloadable, on-demand programming trumps Blu-Ray and HD before either of those formats peel away half of the marketshare that DVD currently holds.

You think studios are going to sell their movies for $5 and that the DRM development costs will be covered in that price?  The movie studios are more Nazi like in their DRM practices than the record labels are.  It's THE reason the majority of them back Blu-Ray.

I'd be stoked if you were right though.  It'd make me actually buy movies again slywink

gellar

I'll bet $2 that movie studios will not base their pricing on people's bets. slywink
Pages: 1 ... 230 231 [232] 233 234 ... 290
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.243 seconds with 21 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.112s, 1q)