2K claims the console versions are not effected.
We know its not as intended because 2K said so.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Bioshock 2 Fixes
- Thread starter Derangel
- Start date
2K claims the console versions are not effected.
We know its not as intended because 2K said so.
MarshMellow
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 81
Doesn't really make it easier. Why is vertical more important? You need a calculation either way to figure out the other fov and vertical size of screen changes going from 4:3 to 16:19/16:10. . 4:3 users may feel boxed in at that setting. Basically it needs to be configurable and have some decent defaults depending upon aspect ratios.
There is no magic VFOV/HFOV that looks great on all aspect ratios. You have 4:3 owners going "what the fuck are you complaining about nancy boy it looks great", if you forced some 16:9 ratio on them they would be the ones complaining instead. The developer of this game put millions of dollars into hiring crap programmers and buying crap tech obviously, because it would take a real programmer 5 minutes to fix it, I know because it took me 5 minutes to fix some code the other week that suffered from setting a horizontal fov without taking into account differing aspects, simple fix just let people change it and have a few defaults, 5 minutes.
The bigger companies get the less efficient and slower they become when it comes to these things.
But they are affected if they're currently the same as the PC, which I've been told, they are.
Where did 2K say that current 16:9 is not what they intended?
Hey, I'm just saying what I've heard. I don't own any consoles with which to confirm or deny that its a problem there.
http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/article/widescreenannouncement
They'll probably just adapt the fix used on Bioshock 1 for this game. As I recall, it fixed everything so that the aspect ratio was correct on 16:9 and 16:10 displays.
Yes, there is nothing special about the exact FOV of 90 at 4:3, but it gives a reasonable approximation of what your eyes should be seeing, and it looks and feels right.
You know when you've gone outside of the bounds of a reasonable FOV because it then feels wrong. A FOV of 75 gives you the experience you'd have if your eyes were about 1 foot in front of your head. It would look fine, until you moved, when you'd have the bizarre experience of your view moving overly quickly and in a weird fashion.
The "claustrophobic" feeling you mention with a low FOV happens because your brain knows that something is wrong, you're not seeing as much as you should be seeing.
By the way:
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
I agree. Thats the kind of feeling I get with most of today's FPS games. It felt to me like they are too simplified, designed to make life easy for console's controller but when its played with a keyboard+mouse, shooting guns in these games becomes so easy its lame and boring.
That fix suggests 16:9 is currently not correct already. Who's saying it isn't and why? The person who started this thread, for one, says it's not right. How would they know?
You do realize I AM the one who started this thread, right?
lol my bad, I thought I saw another name.
Anyways, I'm just wondering why single widescreen users are upset. There's nothing to suggest they're currently seeing anything less than what they're supposed to see. So what if 4:3 sees more on top and bottom. They DO have taller screens... perhaps they seeing more than designed
The only legitimate complaint is from multi widescreen users, where gameplay is probably affected because they ARE losing a good chunk of FOV they are supposed to have.
Anyways, I'm just wondering why single widescreen users are upset. There's nothing to suggest they're currently seeing anything less than what they're supposed to see. So what if 4:3 sees more on top and bottom. They DO have taller screens... perhaps they seeing more than designed
The only legitimate complaint is from multi widescreen users, where gameplay is probably affected because they ARE losing a good chunk of FOV they are supposed to have.
Bioshock 1 had the exact same problem and it was fixed. So 2K themselves admitted it was wrong by fixing it once.
Enduring_Warrior
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,973
Thanks whoever posted the rant at the front page. Now I feel reassured for not buying something that doesn't depends on me. And well thank you for the review. I guess giving a tantrum on something as insignificant as a video game must be part of the fun too. Muns't have any real problems to complain about other than screwing himself up.
How can you say it's exactly the same case?
Maybe Bioshock 1's baseline aspect was 4:3, and so the game needed a patch to make all wider aspects Hor+, so that single widescreen users weren't seeing less what was intended with a Vert- implementation.
But if Bioshock 2's baseline aspect is 16:9, then we're already seeing everything we're supposed to, and who cares if 4:3 sees more?
And how will you feel if the patch leaves 16:9 as is, which is what the Cult of Rapture announcement and images suggest will happen?
Maybe Bioshock 1's baseline aspect was 4:3, and so the game needed a patch to make all wider aspects Hor+, so that single widescreen users weren't seeing less what was intended with a Vert- implementation.
But if Bioshock 2's baseline aspect is 16:9, then we're already seeing everything we're supposed to, and who cares if 4:3 sees more?
And how will you feel if the patch leaves 16:9 as is, which is what the Cult of Rapture announcement and images suggest will happen?
Eyefinity is 16:9 anyway so it wouldn't bother me. As long as the FOV is correct.
I thought eyefinity's aspect depended on what combination of displays and resolutions you used with it.
And I'm saying there's a suggestion here that 16:9's FOV is already correct and that the patch will not affect it.
So then, what was your issue in the first place?
And I'm saying there's a suggestion here that 16:9's FOV is already correct and that the patch will not affect it.
So then, what was your issue in the first place?
Pretty sure its all 16:9. I've got three 16:10 monitors and Source engine games label the Eyefinity resolution as 16:9.
The patch is going to change the way resolutions scale. There are only two ways to do it. Vert-, which they are currently doing, and Hor+, which they will be doing. Whether it renders at 16:9 or 16:10 doesn't effect the horizontal FOV. The pictures I posted in the original post show what I'm talking about.
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
I'm completely disappointed with 2k over this shit , the first game had tons of retarded issues that took about 3 or 4 patches to only MOSTLY solve and now they think we'll just accept this shit?
I can't believe there isn't proper widescreen support in a 2010 PC game , HEY 2KGames widescreen monitors are FUCKING COMMON NOW IDIOTS. Jesus do we really need to take a trip back 4+ years for this bullshit? Also what the fuck is going on with the hyper fast and horrible mouse speed? Unless everyone that coded the PC version happen to snort coke during lunch breaks us regular folks need REGULAR mouse speed thanks.
The textures are another joke , its clear this was just a direct import of the 360 textures .. real lazy 2K and sad. Another failure .. next time you folks decide its time to make your PR department scream "latest features supported ! eyefinity! 3D Vision!" you MAY want to bother coding in proper support instead of the sloppy seconds rim job you put in the final retail version.
God I wish I could get a refund , I told myself "get the 360 version .. they fucked up on the first .. take the safe bet" but instead cause I got a new 5870 I wanted to get the latest game to push it. I'm just gonna put this game aside for a few months and come back to it but if it isn't completely patched by then to atleast a reasonable degree I'm not fucking playing another bioshock.
I can't believe there isn't proper widescreen support in a 2010 PC game , HEY 2KGames widescreen monitors are FUCKING COMMON NOW IDIOTS. Jesus do we really need to take a trip back 4+ years for this bullshit? Also what the fuck is going on with the hyper fast and horrible mouse speed? Unless everyone that coded the PC version happen to snort coke during lunch breaks us regular folks need REGULAR mouse speed thanks.
The textures are another joke , its clear this was just a direct import of the 360 textures .. real lazy 2K and sad. Another failure .. next time you folks decide its time to make your PR department scream "latest features supported ! eyefinity! 3D Vision!" you MAY want to bother coding in proper support instead of the sloppy seconds rim job you put in the final retail version.
God I wish I could get a refund , I told myself "get the 360 version .. they fucked up on the first .. take the safe bet" but instead cause I got a new 5870 I wanted to get the latest game to push it. I'm just gonna put this game aside for a few months and come back to it but if it isn't completely patched by then to atleast a reasonable degree I'm not fucking playing another bioshock.
+1 man.
I've tossed 2K on my "do not buy" list. They can keep Ubisoft company. I was really looking forward to Mafia 2 later this year, but I'm expecting more of the same bullshit so I'll pass.
The patch won't change anything regarding scaling. The patch will only change the way FOV is altered between aspects.
I'm aware it's going from Vert- to Hor+. However, that doesnt mean 16:9's FOV is going to change at all.
So if anyone has a problem with 16:9's FOV now, they should know the patch might not do anything for them. The images on Cult of Rapture suggest 16:9 FOV will stay exactly the same.
Hm. Damn. I hope you're wrong.
The only people it for sure benefits are super wide users (beyond 16:9). Because they won't be seeing any less than 16:9 users do now. They'll be seeing at least that, and extra on the sides.
IF the patch is implemented the other way, where 4:3 is the baseline instead of 16:9, then you'll be happy. However, since that is a significant increase in the FOV for 16:9, you have to expect that PS3 and 360 users will get the same treatment. If current 16:9 isn't as intended, then since they're all the same now, all 3 platforms will need the change.
IF the patch is implemented the other way, where 4:3 is the baseline instead of 16:9, then you'll be happy. However, since that is a significant increase in the FOV for 16:9, you have to expect that PS3 and 360 users will get the same treatment. If current 16:9 isn't as intended, then since they're all the same now, all 3 platforms will need the change.
to me, any changes in vertical angle between aspects are wrong, period. the world operates in 3 dimensions, but all movement is focused on a horizontal plane. in what world do people consider a higher verticle angle to be an increase in perspective? that's exactly what "design" sypathisers are trying to say, that going from wide to narrow and increasing height, is somehow the same as going from narrow to wide and increasing width. it's not, and even if they based their perspective on a 16:9 ratio, 75 is wrong no matter how you look at it. if they wanted to simulate the feeling of wearing a diving helmet all game, they should have done it with a static viewport.
it's the stupidest thing I ever heard of, and I laugh whenever some pr minion tries to tell the public that this is what was "intended", because you know it never had anything to do with design, it's a mechanical problem. devs simply spend more time making sure things work right, than making them look right, which is unacceptable because they're both equally as important, which they apparently failed on both counts.
saying that the perspective differences between widescreen and eyefinity are a different problem is just an extension of this misconstrued logic, that always seems to appear whenever there is a widescreen discussion, it makes as much sense for widescreen as it does for a multi monitor setup.
Well I never said that. In fact the point I was making is that simply comparing 4:3 and 16:9 cannot inform you if one aspect is losing or gaining information over the other. You need to know the intended aspect.
Games can and do have an intended FOV at a given aspect like 16:9. Historically it's been the FOV we get out of the box at 4:3. But that's not always the case.
Bioshock 2's baseline may very well be 4:3, and in that case people playing on single widescreens do need a fix. But if the baseline was 16:9 then no fix is needed for them. I haven't played the game at all yet and can't attest to how it feels, but clearly Bioshock 1's baseline was 4:3 and it needed the Hor+ fix it got.
point being that even if there is an intended aspect ratio, they cannot simply restrict others to achieve it. you can either keep it the same when moving downwards, or expand it in a logical way. the fact that they could not accomplish the latter means they screwed up.
further proof of this, since you mention bs1, is that they tried to claim the exact same thing last time. that "oh our game designers wanted it to look like that", then they backpedaled and introduced a patch anyway. this is not simply because of popular demand, if they had any real design ideals whatsoever, they would have stood by them, which there wasn't. it's a thin argument that pr has been trying to fall back on for a long time, thinking whatever damage control they can achieve in the short term can fix all their fuckups in the future.
further proof of this, since you mention bs1, is that they tried to claim the exact same thing last time. that "oh our game designers wanted it to look like that", then they backpedaled and introduced a patch anyway. this is not simply because of popular demand, if they had any real design ideals whatsoever, they would have stood by them, which there wasn't. it's a thin argument that pr has been trying to fall back on for a long time, thinking whatever damage control they can achieve in the short term can fix all their fuckups in the future.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
What? NO!
Your aspect ratio is the ratio of the width to the height of the screen in pixels.
1920x1200 for example is 1920/1200 = 1.6
It's a 16:10 resolution because 16/10 = 1.6
Eyefinity gives you something like 3x1920x1200 if you're running 3 monitors, that's 5760/1200 which is 4.8 or something like 24:5
In game you have a horizontal FOV and a vertical FOV, typically the vertical FOV is fixed and you adjust the horizontal FOV, the ratio between these FOVs wants to be the same as the aspect ratio of the screen. hence with a fixed vertical FOV introducing a wider monitor should give you a wider horizontal FOV.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Unbelievable that modern PC games have to be hacked/messed with to work correctly. Just another reason not to buy it along with the DRM.
TomGreen321
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 901
Not surprising Eyefinity doesn't work right considering the nVidia movie that plays at the beginning.
Intel_Hydralisk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,743
I think people are confused. The fact that the game is Vert- has nothing to do with eyefinity. It's just an algorithm the game uses to compute the FOV for different aspect ratios. All a game needs to be 'eyefinity compatible' is to be Hor+ instead of Vert-
Before triple wide gaming, people never paid much attention to the distinction. But the difference becomes night and day when you use triple wide. As such, I think there should be a general push for all developers to use Hor+ instead of Vert-. There doesn't need to be anything special for eyefinity to work, just a simple design decision as to how the game computes dynamic FOV.
Before triple wide gaming, people never paid much attention to the distinction. But the difference becomes night and day when you use triple wide. As such, I think there should be a general push for all developers to use Hor+ instead of Vert-. There doesn't need to be anything special for eyefinity to work, just a simple design decision as to how the game computes dynamic FOV.
My thoughts exactly. When I saw the intro logo I had a sad feeling that Eyefinity would suck.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Exactly right. In fact I posted several times in eyefinity threads back when it was announced but not released, that games have a nasty tendancy towards being vert- now a days and that this would be a problem for ultra wide aspect ratios. People with single widescreen tend not to notice which is why it's become so common without too much issue, there are some of us which have been protesting about this for a while now though.
This is why places like www.widescreengamingforum.com are great, because they gave a crap before eyefinity was about, a lot of the users are TH2G users who ran ultra wide configs way before we even knew about eyefinity.
I built up www.pcgamingstandards.com because I was sick of the problems in games like this, in fact Bioshock was one of the dissapointing releases which encouraged me to go through with that project. One of the standards I track there is widescreen vert- or horz+ so you can search for a game and see if widescreen is done right. Unfortunately I've not had time enough to keep it up to date recently due to another project which you'll all find out about soon
Last edited:
It's easier for us. If it's defined vertically, there's no FOV adjustment required when moving from 4:3 to 16:10 or 16:9 or any other wide aspect ratio. It's the same effect as offering a cvar to adjust the horizontal FOV but adding space to the sizes depending upon the desired aspect ratio (as it's done in id Tech 4 and Source). To bring up Carmack again, he had considered having the cvar in Tech 3 apply to the VFOV, but decided that it would cause too much user confusion if people were to put in "fov 90" and get the "big fisheye". I assume Valve had the same thought when they were developing Source.
For Eyefinity users in particular, not having to adjust the FOV for the correct representation is beneficial.
Hor+ dictates a horizontal FOV change. Vert- is an FOV change. They all dictate that the FOV changes.
2K said it wasn't correct, for starters.
It's been explained previously.
If it wasn't all screwy on Eyefinity setups, would it be such a big deal?
I realize the game has the same FOV issues as bioshock 1, but that doesn't seem to be the crux of the rant.
There's been a *creepy* amount of support on the [H] for eyefinity/ati lately. Eyefinity parties... shitting on anyone who hasn't adopted to the technology aka posting eyefinity demos and reviews after ragging on companies not yet supporting it...
I'm honestly worried for the site. To an outsider it must look like corporate bills are being thrown around.
I realize the game has the same FOV issues as bioshock 1, but that doesn't seem to be the crux of the rant.
There's been a *creepy* amount of support on the [H] for eyefinity/ati lately. Eyefinity parties... shitting on anyone who hasn't adopted to the technology aka posting eyefinity demos and reviews after ragging on companies not yet supporting it...
I'm honestly worried for the site. To an outsider it must look like corporate bills are being thrown around.
Last edited:
Yes, it would be. I hate the FOV even on a single monitor. The game looks like ass period, just looks worse in Eyefinity.
TomGreen321
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 901
The FOV needs to be adjusted for landscape mode though? That seems to be the issue I'm reading about.
Also you wouldn't classify having the FOV change depending on the resolution as "anything special"? Obviously simply having Hor+ isn't going to be the same as having an adjusted FOV to go along with it. You pretty much stated the obvious.
I bet if nVidia's multi-display solution were out with the release of this game it would be fully supported, since they endorse the game as seen in the opening videos.
BETA.
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,906
wtf is that? looks like they somehow made it zoom out while stretching the horizontal