Just found and confirmed this. It's a great game, but how could they let this pass through Quality control. We're supposed to see more with widescreen, not less.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/shortscreened/bioshocks-widescreen-pissing-people-off-291697.php

Wow, that's weak.

Well, I finished Bioshock, and had I not known about this issue I wouldn't have cared.

I just tested it, and in fact that is true. Does it upset me? Yes. Do I wish that I'd never known? Yes. Did I still love the hell out of the game? Yes.

Could an update fix this?

So, does that mean the demo was also cut off as well, or was it showing more than the retail version? The demo didnt bother me one bit. Thrillhouse do the Demo and retail look the same as far as content being shown on the screen?

I didn't mean to upset anyone, I just wanted the news out there so maybe we can discuss an update or something to rectify this.

I didn't mean to upset anyone, I just wanted the news out there so maybe we can discuss an update or something to rectify this.

Thanks for the info. man. Unfortunately, I know this is going to bother me. That is my question as well though. Would an update be able to correct this issue?

Have you guys tested/confirmed this on the 360? Or is it only an issue with the PC version?

Thanks for the info. man. Unfortunately, I know this is going to bother me. That is my question as well though. Would an update be able to correct this issue?

I'd like to know as well. I must admit, knowing about this now is going to bother the hell out of me later when I'm playing. I hope they can fix this with an update!

I no longer have the demo on my hard drive, but I can in fact confirm that kotaku is correct regarding the retail version.

While unfortunate, I don't think this will bother me while I am playing the game, unless someone can confirm that the demo was displayed any differently. I did not have a problem with the field of view in the demo.

http://images.pikapuff.com/games/bioshockws.png

Pictures of the issue from the 2k website forums. It appears to be a Field of View (FOV) issue.

Can this be corrected with a software patch?

Can this be corrected with a software patch?

That is my question as well, but based on a response from a 2K employee around 10am this morning, they are looking into the problem.

I so do not care. Bioshock is still an excellent game.

I guess a bunch of people are upset. Seems like the forums site is down!

I'm gonna hold onto my copy till they get this fixed!

hopefully they'll fix it, but big deal, even with the FOV "problem" it's the #2 rated game of all time.

it seems like everyone on AVS has to find SOMETHING to bitch about (including me obviously, since i'm bitching about those who are bitching :P)

This could affect image quality if, for instance, textures that are 720p are now chopped off to fit a real 720p screen.

I'll still probably bust my copy open and play tonight - although I kind of wish I'd not have read anything about it. Ignorance is bliss and all that... ;)

If it's too obvious for me I'll just play Space Giraffe until they fix it! :)

lol...who really cares?

The "issue" was there in the demo and nobody said a word; it was there when the reviewers kept giving the game a perfect score and it was never mentioned.

So where's the real issue? If there was MP involved, then I could understand some mild concern...but if it doesn't detract from the SP experience, what does it matter?

Can someone cut and paste the article? Thanks.

Does this refer to the 360 or PC version?

My guess is this is a patchable problem. Absolutely.

Guys, chill. I don't think the OP is being a jerk. He is just reporting the glitch.

I'm curious also.

Have you guys tested/confirmed this on the 360? Or is it only an issue with the PC version?

This matters in a movie because the data cut off is lost and you never see it. In a game, simply move your thumb a fraction of an inch and see what is there. You are not missing any information. No big deal.

I see it on my 360. It's not like this ruins the game or something. It is a great game with many great qualities. It is just a minor issue, albeit, one that should be taken care of. I was trying to keep my fellow avs members informed as to what is going on. I am not bashing the game, I love it. Hopefully, we can all be updated here as to what will happen. Thanks.

http://images.pikapuff.com/games/bioshockws.png

Pictures of the issue from the 2k website forums. It appears to be a Field of View (FOV) issue.

Holy CRAPOLA! That is a significant loss in field of view! Im dying to know if the Demo had this

I'm sure most people wouldn't know unless it was pointed out to them. I see that no one mentioned the excellent surround sound. Any thing that is cut off the screen is still audible.

Im going to throw this out there, completely as a theory, but what do you guys think:

Could this be the reason the demo had slight differences in texture/detail level between the opening sequence and the rest of the game? Because the beginning might have been full field of view, then when we got down into rapture somehow it cropped and blew up some of the picture to fill the screen?

I call for a worldwide boycott of BioShock, MS, the 360, all 2K games, and corn oil immediately.

I think we're all in agreement that this is not the OP's fault, nor does it detract from the awesomeness that is Bioshock. I played through the entire game, and never once thought there was a problem. Only after testing it out did I even notice. Should they fix it? If possible, yes. Does this mean you shouldn't play this game? Hell no.

I think we're all in agreement that this is not the OP's fault, nor does it detract from the awesomeness that is Bioshock. I played through the entire game, and never once thought there was a problem. Only after testing it out did I even notice. Should they fix it? If possible, yes. Does this mean you shouldn't play this game? Hell no.

Agreed, and I guess I didnt really see where anyone is fualting the OP? I appreciate the information!

Still looking forward to playing tonight.

Can this be corrected with a software patch?

Yes I believe this can be fixed with a patch. A similar thing happened when Halo 2 was released if I recall.

Yes I believe this can be fixed with a patch. A similar thing happened when Halo 2 was released if I recall.

I was just thinking the same thing and you're correct as I remember it part of the HUD was cut off and they fixed it reasonable quick so I would bet that this is easily fixed as well. At this point as long as it doesnt affect gameplay and doesnt cut off any necessary information I'm ok with it until they get it fixed

2K's website really is being pounded. As was stated earlier they are definitely looking into it. I keep trying to refresh the page there and it will only let me through about once every ten tries.

So this only effects PC's????

The problem Halo 2 had with widescreen, was although game play was being rendered correctly, the 4:3 HUD overlay was being stretched to fill 16:9. They patched it by adding a proper 16:9 image for the HUD.

Halo 2 has a very narrow FOV and they kept this and will be carrying it over to Halo 3.

So this only effects PC's????

Most reports are that this is an issue on both the 360 and PC versions. I'm unable to confirm though since I'm sitting at work.

Im going to throw this out there, completely as a theory, but what do you guys think:

Could this be the reason the demo had slight differences in texture/detail level between the opening sequence and the rest of the game? Because the beginning might have been full field of view, then when we got down into rapture somehow it cropped and blew up some of the picture to fill the screen?

I thought the same thing, but someone in the 2K forums confirmed that the opening sequence was cropped as well. The detail difference is probably due to something else fishy going on.

I call for a worldwide boycott of BioShock, MS, the 360, all 2K games, and corn oil immediately.
ANYTHING but corn oil! :D

This issue never even occurred to me when playing the demo, so I'm not too concerned. I'm pretty confident they'll correct this eventually with a patch.

A question for those that have the game...are the graphics improved in any way from the demo? The demo looked great, but I thought it might have been an older build.

This issue never even occurred to me when playing the demo, so I'm not too concerned. I'm pretty confident they'll correct this eventually with a patch.

A question for those that have the game...are the graphics improved in any way from the demo? The demo looked great, but I thought it might have been an older build.

They look exactly the same to me.

Well, that does explain why some of the textures looked so bad from close up - they would be blown up even more in widescreen when it is running this way.

Just got home and started playing the game. The game is not cropped at all for me. Maybe it has something to do with me using VGA. Not sure. But no problems at all. Gotta go and play some Bioshock. :)

By the way, the game starts just like the demo...

I call for a worldwide boycott of BioShock, MS, the 360, all 2K games, and corn oil immediately.
I agree, stupid corn oil

Alright, well after playing the demo, and now getting home and playing the retail for the first time, there is most definitely a difference. The demo did not look this cutoff on my TV.....are others noticing? This is definitely a bit distracting after being used to having a certain field of view and now its zoomed in. I hope 2k releases an update for this ASAP!

Its bothersome, yes, but I'm still enjoying the game. I agree however that they can't wait too long to release an update for this.

Just got home and started playing the game. The game is not cropped at all for me. Maybe it has something to do with me using VGA. Not sure. But no problems at all. Gotta go and play some Bioshock. :)

By the way, the game starts just like the demo...

So you are saying you can see his shirt sleeve holding your weapon or do you just see his hand?

This matters in a movie because the data cut off is lost and you never see it. In a game, simply move your thumb a fraction of an inch and see what is there. You are not missing any information. No big deal.

Ya know, as obvious as this is it didn't even occur to me at first, but you're absolutely right. I suppose we'll miss a tiny bit in the cinematic scenes, but it's far less of an issue when we can move our viewpoint around ourselves than it would be in a movie where the viewpoint is fixed.

Just got home and started playing the game. The game is not cropped at all for me. Maybe it has something to do with me using VGA. Not sure. But no problems at all. Gotta go and play some Bioshock. :)

By the way, the game starts just like the demo...

Same here... VGA is not cropped.

That is because VGA is the bomb!! At least for LCD screens.

So far the game is pretty amazing and creepy.

This is so weird that VGA doesnt experience this. The demo did not experience this...yet component with the disc does. Regardless, Im having a blast playing the game. I do hope they come out with a fix soon though! You dont realize how much nicer it is seeing the extra view until you go back and see the demo again.

This is so weird that VGA doesnt experience this. The demo did not experience this...yet component with the disc does. Regardless, Im having a blast playing the game. I do hope they come out with a fix soon though! You dont realize how much nicer it is seeing the extra view until you go back and see the demo again.

So the demo was not cropped, but the retail version is using component? Any more updates from the 2K site?

So the demo was not cropped, but the retail version is using component? Any more updates from the 2K site?

Ive been checking but havent seen anything. Its definitely strange if you ask me. At first I was thinking this meant the demo was cropped and thats why the graphics somehow were "blown up" from the opening scene....but it just turns out everything is exactly like the demo, except the field of view is much smaller and zoomed in. Seeing as the demo had full widescreen field of view I have no doubts there will be an update to fix this, especially if the VGA folks are reporting that this isnt an issue.

What about HDMI?

How come PCs are having the problem but those with VGA 360s are not? Very strange issue....

Same here... VGA is not cropped.

Best news I've gotten all day?


Yes.

haha i've been playing it on component since last week.. i didn't even notice.. lmao.. the game is so great.. you don't even notice it.. but now i'll start playing it with my vga connection.

This would bother me, but since I ran out of money this week and have to wait another 2 weeks before getting the game, then no big deal. I just hope they will have it patched by the the time I get it. If not then I will wait until it is patched. I have waited this long, so I can wait a little bit longer.....

Unreal Engine 3 game.....just unbelievable.

Its ******* 2007!!!

Why can't dev's avoid forking widescreen???:confused: I'll be buying this for the PC, once widescreen is fixed.

So the demo was not cropped, but the retail version is using component? Any more updates from the 2K site?

I just compared the demo to the full version, and both are cropped. You don't see the sleeve in either version. I'm using HDMI. Unfortunately, I don't have a digital camera. I would have happily posted screen shots.

When you guys say the game is cropped, is the atlas icon in the lower right corner closer to the edge of the screen or is it just the FOV?

For those of you that say VGA does not crop, what resolution are you using? I just tried my VGA connection at 1360x768 and it is EXACTLY the same as the component input...so for me the VGA connection crops as well...

Are you guys comparing to screen shots or swapping cables? If you are swapping cables you are going to have overscan which will make it look cropped...I adjusted my component overscan to eliminate it and therefore they look the same...

I'm using 1360x768 on my LCD and that is its native rez. and I see no cropping. I do see cropping on the demo when playing it on my 65" over component. I have not tried component on my LCD. Maybe just overscan of the TV?

The following was posted not so soon ago in the master thread detailing this issue over at the 2kgames forums by Ken, who is a moderator (post #623):

"Hey guys-

Sorry about all the conflict. IG development people (specifically Chris and Rowan who are both on vacation) were trying to take a day off today (we've been working about six months 6-7 days a week). I'm trying to see what everybody's concerns are and consult with the staff.

I know people are frustrated, but we are dealing with internet time here. It wasn't until 7 pm EST that I was able to even talk to anybody in our Australian studio, which is open today (9 AM their time).

I hear you that not everybody was thrilled with the PC launch. And I'm trying to collect information and see what the facts are. PC game development does not function in a matter of seconds or hours, especially when most of the team is on vacation. But I hear you, and we're looking into the issue. I'll only ask you have a bit of understanding as to the time scale that software development issues must occur in.

Best regards,

Ken Levine"

So I don't think they will disregard the issue. My guess is that a patch is coming soon.

By the way, in my eyes the cropping is a serious flaw, esspecially if it happens horizontally too. First, I would like to see and control everything as it was intended in this game. Also, serious cropping could make any game that takes place indoors more claustrophobic. And I was already scared enough to grab the controller based on the reviews... :)

yes... vga fixes it for me... I can now see the tattoo on the guy.. and more on screen action.

Come on...somebody has to take pics of component vs. vga. I gotta see the difference.

yes... vga fixes it for me... I can now see the tattoo on the guy.. and more on screen action.

I'd love to see it too...however I really think you guys are seeing cropping due to overscan using component whereas VGA has no overscan of course...do this...try a different game and compare...does component and VGA look the same? I bet they don't...

If you are talking about the tattoo on his wrist area, I can see that on my component setup because I dropped my overscan setting down to zero...

Yep.. I think you're right.. its overscan.. I cannot see the tattoo when I use component... but when I use vga I can see it and also can see some part of his shirt...

You know I meant to look and see if this was happening on my TV but as soon as I started playing the game I completely forgot to check (and go to bed on time dispite the egg timer I had setup).

I did notice that the game seems easier for me to see in than the demo. I am not sure if I somehow stumbled upon the right brightness setting or if the demo was just darker for some other reason. I remember I kept trying to adjust it the demo and felt I just couldnt see anything and felt clausterphobic but in the real game I am not getting this sense....So maybe mine was cropped in demo but not in the game and that caused the clausterphobic feeling. Or if its an overscan issue maybe its dependant on the TV being used. I am playing over component on an SXRD XBR1.

I'm really confused now, because some are saying they see this in both the demo and retail. I didnt see it in the demo....the demo without a doubt has a larger field of view than my retail version. I'm using component into a KDS-50A2000.

I'm using VGA 1080p, and the only time I can see the tatoo's, his shirt, and the bottom of the wrench are durring animations. When I'm just standing there, none of this is visable like the 4:3 shots that are out there.

So you are saying you can see his shirt sleeve holding your weapon or do you just see his hand?

You know...I played for about 3 hours last night and didn't notice (I was playing 1/2 asleep and I was focused on not getting killed). I'll check again tonight and get back to you. I can definitely see more then just a hand.

Regardless, the immersion of the game is unaffected by this.

I'm using VGA 1080p, and the only time I can see the tatoo's, his shirt, and the bottom of the wrench are durring animations. When I'm just standing there, none of this is visable like the 4:3 shots that are out there.

Same here for me, but I'm using HDMI.

Have a look at the video of the game after the demo. It's cropped as well; which leads me to believe that that is what the developer intended for us to see. I'm hoping that it isn't because, and you'll get no argument from me, a greater field of view would be better.

Regardless, the immersion of the game is unaffected by this.

Agreed, this "issue" is ridiculous. It's not like you can't look up and down, this isn't a movie!

Agreed, this "issue" is ridiculous. It's not like you can't look up and down, this isn't a movie!

That isnt the point. Yes, you can look up and down, and left and right.....however, the extreme up close field of view, especially on a larger display, can be a bit nauseating at times.....especially when you've already seen it play normally on the demo. It is most certainly an issue, however its a tolerable one and really doesnt take away from how great the game is. Still needs fixed though.

100% agreed. This is not a gameplay issue. I am not seeing it (1080i over component), but based on the pictures I have seen I wouldn't have noticed if I had not read about it.

I am a software developer. Trust me. All software ships with a few bugs. Some with a lot of bugs (I'm looking at you EA). At some point when you approach general release, you sit down and go over the remaining bugs and say, "What level is the severity of the bug? Can we still ship and fix it later?"

100% agreed. This is not a gameplay issue. I am not seeing it (1080i over component), but based on the pictures I have seen I wouldn't have noticed if I had not read about it.QFT. I defy and challenge anyone to demonstrate conclusively that this would have jumped out at them if they hadn't heard about it on the Interwebs.

That's a tough challenge, but I do remember thinking that the view looked a bit cramped while I played through the demo. I figured the claustrophobic FOV was intentional, but given the choice I'd prefer to have the blinders taken off.

Part of the reason why I don't like games in first person view is that I don't like the smaller field of view. I found it was bothering me a bit in the demo, and the fact that your fov is smaller than it should be doesn't help. I hope they do release a quick fix for this.

That's a tough challenge, but I do remember thinking that the view looked a bit cramped while I played through the demo. I figured the claustrophobic FOV was intentional, but given the choice I'd prefer to have the blinders taken off.

Same here. It seemed strange to me in the demo that you couldn't see his entire hand, wrist etc. I think I noticed this because you see that detail in just about every other FPS on the market and it seemed weird for it to be cut-off where it was.

It definitely doesn't detract from the immersion of the game though....This game is truly fantastic.

I am using HDMI at 1080p on my 60A2000, and I don't get anymore than his hand and most of the wrench. No wrist, no tattoo, no shirt. If I have time tonight, I will play part of the demo again to see if there was more in view there.

For me, the reason I care is because when cropped on all four sides, the image is then "blown up" to fill in the screen...therefore images onscreen are not as detailed and crisp as they could be...I agree...I wouldn't have noticed but now knowing that such a great game could be even greater is bothersome...

Btw, it looks like there is already a fix for pcs...look on the 2kforum site...that's the kind of thing I love about PC games vs. consoles...the problem is I've gotten sick of spending hundreds of dollars a year on video cards to try and play games with smooth framerates...

2K forks 16:9 on purpose.THE TRUTH ABOUT WIDESCREEN
August 22, 2007

We understand there has been some concern about the implementation of widescreen mode in BioShock. Hopefully, we can clarify how we’ve chosen to do this.

The first thing we want to make clear is the mode we developed the game on and the optimal mode for playing the game is the widescreen mode. 90% of our development stations were widescreen displays: artists, programmers and designers.

- BioShock was primarily developed and tuned for widescreen mode. Artists and designers worked with widescreen displays and chose a field of view (FOV) that best reflected their intentions with respect to the way the world is perceived, the perceived speed of movement of the player relative to the world and the amount of the world they wanted to be viewed for the best game-play experience. We went through dozens of iterations and finally settled upon a widescreen aspect ratio that best suited the gameplay experience.

- When playing in widescreen modes the game makes use of the full screen resolution, and does not crop or stretch a lower resolution image into a wide screen one. For example, at 720p the game renders natively to the full 1280x720 resolution.

- Once this FOV was established, we chose to keep exactly the same horizontal FOV for standard def displays, so as not to in any way alter the gameplay experience.

- Instead of cropping the FOV for 4:3 displays and making all 4:3 owners mad in doing so, we slightly extended the vertical FOV for standard def mode: we never wanted to have black bars on people’s displays. (This way, everybody is happy…) This does mean that people playing on a standard def display see slightly more vertical space, but, this does not significantly affect the game-play experience and, we felt that it best served our goal of keeping the game experience as close as possible to the original design and art vision on both types of displays. Reports of the widescreen FOV being a crop of the 4:3 FOV are completely false.

One thing we can assure you that all these decisions were made with the best interests of the game in mind. We didn’t save any money or development time by choosing this set of parameters. We did what we thought was the best thing for the game: developing and optimizing it for widescreen displays, and making the decision not to do the usual crop for 4:3 displays. As a consumer, you certainly have the right to disagree.

We understand that not all users might not be happy with these choices and we will be looking into options for allowing users to adjust FOV settings manually. But as we mentioned earlier, changes to video game code do not happen in minutes or hours. We appreciate your understanding. http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/home.html

- Once this FOV was established, we chose to keep exactly the same horizontal FOV for standard def displays, so as not to in any way alter the gameplay experience.


may I'm misunderstanding this, but that, to me, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Doesn't that basically negate the advantage you have from getting a widescreen image?

Since people keep asking for the image, which is posted through Kotaku.com, here it is.

You can see how much widescreen gamers loose.

Note the difference on the hand/wrist. Also note this means if you enter a hall, and there is something vertically above you, say on a ledge, or a staircase, you may miss it if you're viewing it on a widescreen tv/monitor.

-JR

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/08/bioshockwsshit.jpg

For me, the reason I care is because when cropped on all four sides, the image is then "blown up" to fill in the screen...therefore images onscreen are not as detailed and crisp as they could be...I'm about 98% sure that this isn't how it works. The on-screen image isn't "blown up" like an upscaled DVD, it's simply "zoomed in" a little further. The resulting picture will be every bit as detailed, you'll just be seeing the world of Rapture a little more closely. You won't be losing any detail or fidelity in the process.

But it can't be wrong, after all 2k games just got done explaining THE TRUTH ABOUT WIDESCREEN! ;)

Seems like some very fancy PR speak for "lets cover this up fast".

Seems like some very fancy PR speak for "lets cover this up fast".No.

But it can't be wrong, after all 2k games just got done explaining THE TRUTH ABOUT WIDESCREEN! ;)

Exactly. It sounds like damage control IMO because it doesn't make any sense. Then they'll just offer up the 'options' (i.e. fix) for people to make changes.

Seems like some very fancy PR speak for "lets cover this up fast".

Agreed!

No.


Eh? Care to elaborate, I read the response on the office 2k rapture page and it read similar to Mike Vick pleading innocent a few weeks ago.

Eh? Care to elaborate, I read the response on the office 2k rapture page and it read similar to Mike Vick pleading innocent a few weeks ago.Which is more likely -- that a seasoned and talented designer like Ken Levine made a conscious design decision and stuck with it, or that certain segments of the Internet get all blown out of whack over nothing? Of course, we live in a world where the Flat Earth Society still lives and thrives, so I guess folks will deny just about anything they can...

The gist of it is: they decided to optimize for a 4:3 AR and crop off extra information when being displayed on a 16:9 screen - as opposed to the opposite that we've become accustomed to.

I think the problem is, all of the console and game makers this generation are pushing the "high-def" aspect of gaming, and 16:9 aspect ratios are pretty much synonymous with high definition. Therefore, the decision to cater to people with non-high def screens (I know there are plenty of 4:3 monitors out there that display high def resolutions, but generally speaking) seems to be taking a step backwards.

Which is more likely -- that a seasoned and talented designer like Ken Levine made a conscious design decision and stuck with it, or that certain segments of the Internet get all blown out of whack over nothing? Of course, we live in a world where the Flat Earth Society still lives and thrives, so I guess folks will deny just about anything they can...

I agree that he's very talented, but they should have known that this issue would come up if this is actually the way the game was intended to be viewed. Having said that, they should have added an option in the menu to allow the customer to view the game in whichever view the customer would like.

Which is more likely -- that a seasoned and talented designer like Ken Levine made a conscious design decision and stuck with it, or that certain segments of the Internet get all blown out of whack over nothing? Of course, we live in a world where the Flat Earth Society still lives and thrives, so I guess folks will deny just about anything they can...


I have no doubts that the dev team made a conscious decision to design the wide screen resolutions in the manner they have posted. But it seems to me that this is a poor mans wide screen.

At the end of the day I really do not care, that much (enough that I am posting :) )
I bought the game.
I am playing the game.
I am more than enjoying my experience in Rapture.

If they patch it for the 360 great if not c'est la vie.

I think the problem is, all of the console and game makers this generation are pushing the "high-def" aspect of gaming, and 16:9 aspect ratios are pretty much synonymous with high definition. Therefore, the decision to cater to people with non-high def screens (I know there are plenty of 4:3 monitors our there that display high def resolutions, but generally speaking) seems to be taking a step backwards.I suspect you're right; I can accept that as an explanation, even if I don't agree with the folks who feel they're "losing" part of the screen.

What I wholeheartedly reject are the allegations that Ken Levine, a forthright guy and straight shooter, is somehow rushing to cover up some kind of major blunder. If he felt that he or his team had messed up, he'd be the first to say so. I also reject the notion that the resultant image is somehow less crisp or detailed, but we've already gone over that ground.

Having said that, they should have added an option in the menu to allow the customer to view the game in whichever view the customer would like.Well hopefully now that the issue is out there, they can create whatever bit of code that makes it possible to adjust the FOV. Personally I think Bioshock is the first game to come along in a long, long time that gets the view "right" ... a lot of others (the Darkness comes immediately to mind) can give me a headache and/or nausea after too much play.

Kotaku gets it right:So basically, instead of widescreen users getting to see more of the gameplay as 2K's Chris Kline promised originally, 4:3 users get a more expansive view at the price of having everything a little smaller. So did Kline lie, or did he, like the rest of us, assume the definition and advantages inherit to a widescreen format were just common sense? In a day when more and more people are opting to get widescreen displays and televisions, is catering to the standard size screen owner really an excuse for this?

The post does state that they are looking into ways to allow users to change their FOV settings manually, so they are attempting to fix that which they claim is not broken at least. Hit the link for the full explanation. I would not want to be a 2K forum mod today, that's for sure.

I don't understand the "more = better" mentality here.

It's basically like the difference between an open-matte or a pan-n-scan version of a 16:9 movie. They designed the game in 16:9, it plays perfectly in 16:9 (did anybody once complain that the FOV was too small before this came up?), and they "removed the mattes" for the 4:3 version. It happens all the time with movies, where the 4:3 version has more image than the widescreen. That doesn't mean it was the intended image.

It happens all the time with movies, where the 4:3 version has more image than the widescreen. That doesn't mean it was the intended image.

Ummm...what???

Wikipedia can explain it better than I can. Essentially, the exact same thing happens in movies, it's normal. Widescreen is not always more on the sides, sometimes it's less on the top and bottom.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/82/Open_matte_film_illustration.jpg/250px-Open_matte_film_illustration.jpg
A frame from a 35mm film print. Here, the picture is framed for the intended theatrical aspect ratio (inside the yellow box). Picture outside the yellow box is matted out when the film is shown in widescreen. For 4:3 television versions, a large portion of the picture can be used (inside the red box) with an open matte.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

It happens with some movies, but it's less common. Wasn't Terminator 3 like that? You got to see more of the naked hot chick on a 4:3 TV. :)

It happens with some movies, but it's less common. Wasn't Terminator 3 like that? You got to see more of the naked hot chick on a 4:3 TV. :)

Yes. Jurassic Park (except the CG scenes) and others are the same way. Sometimes (as in T3), it leads to things like extra nudity in the 4:3 version (see: Single White Female, also).

There are a lot of movies like that. It's commonly used with Super 35 film. You might be surprised by the list:

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Super%2035

And that's only the first 200 matches.

They designed this game for widescreeen gaming. They took their time and picked a FOV that created the best gameplay experience for widescreen users. Then when it came time to pick a FOV for 4:3 users, they decided that to created the best gameplay experience for them, it would be better to increase the vertical FOV, instead of cutting off the horizontal.

So what you are seeing/experiencing in widescreen is what the developers intended you to see. It is the 4:3 users that are getting the messed up FOV (eventhough it does show more).

This wouldnt bother me if it werent for the fact that, on my console at least, there is a blatant difference than what I played in the demo. My demo was "zoomed out" compared to the actual game, and it was much easier to look at. I could see more of the characters arm, and more on the sides. The real game feels way too zoomed in to me. I noticed it right away when playing the real game. As I was descending to rapture, you know when the whale swims by? In the demo, I could see the entire whale at one point. Playing the real version the first time, the whales head was always cut off.

I dont buy it one bit that this was a conscious decision among 2k games, especially since we have people who are using VGA claiming that they are seeing more than the rest of us. Something more is going on here....overscan, tv dependent, I dont know, but something is going on. Is it ruining the game for me? Absolutely not, I am still having a blast. I just hope they fix it so I can have even more of a blast.

This wouldnt bother me if it werent for the fact that, on my console at least, there is a blatant difference than what I played in the demo. My demo was "zoomed out" compared to the actual game, and it was much easier to look at. I could see more of the characters arm, and more on the sides. The real game feels way too zoomed in to me. I noticed it right away when playing the real game. As I was descending to rapture, you know when the whale swims by? In the demo, I could see the entire whale at one point. Playing the real version the first time, the whales head was always cut off.

I dont buy it one bit that this was a conscious decision among 2k games, especially since we have people who are using VGA claiming that they are seeing more than the rest of us. Something more is going on here....overscan, tv dependent, I dont know, but something is going on. Is it ruining the game for me? Absolutely not, I am still having a blast. I just hope they fix it so I can have even more of a blast.

Does anyone know if this is an issue on all HDTVs, I am play on a Mits WD-57731 and I honestly have no issues like some of you. like the Whale mentioned in the quote, I easily saw all of it. I also see the tats on the arm at all times, don't just when firing.

Does anyone know if this is an issue on all HDTVs, I am play on a Mits WD-57731 and I honestly have no issues like some of you. like the Whale mentioned in the quote, I easily saw all of it. I also see the tats on the arm at all times, don't just when firing.
The game will have the same appearance on all HDTVs running in widescreen mode. Obviously running in 480i or 480p and telling the Xbox 360 that one has a 4x3 screen would produce different results. Different people will interpret what they see differently, but from what it sounds like, the 16x9 mode did indeed get the short end of the stick here.

Though it's for the PC (demo) version, someone seems to have found a hack to fix the issue:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=108586#108586

Kind of gives hope for a patch.

They'll probably release a slider or setting that lets you adjust FOV, since it's gotten so much attention. Normally I'd say do what you want. In fact, I still say do what you want. But with a game that's designed around a cinematic presentation, why screw with what was intended? That's like saying the 4:3 open matte version of a widescreen film is superior because it shows more image, despite what the director intended the framing to be.

The game will have the same appearance on all HDTVs running in widescreen mode. Obviously running in 480i or 480p and telling the Xbox 360 that one has a 4x3 screen would produce different results. Different people will interpret what they see differently, but from what it sounds like, the 16x9 mode did indeed get the short end of the stick here.

I disagree....it seems to me there is gathering evidence that some folks are experiencing cutoff pictures on widescreen displays, and some folks arent, and that it has nothing to do with it being set to 480i or 480p. Methos says he sees a larger FOV on his TV than I do....and yes I'm assuming he is using 720 or 1080 on his TV and not 480i or 480p.

I dont think this is a matter of interpretation, you either see the characters arm/tattoos at all times or you dont.

Yes. Jurassic Park (except the CG scenes) and others are the same way. Sometimes (as in T3), it leads to things like extra nudity in the 4:3 version (see: Single White Female, also).

Hold the phone! Enough with Bioshock, but do you really see some T-X naughty bits or just more of her admittedly nice butt walking away?

As for Bioshock, I'm running VGA on a 1080p screen, so I'll see how it looks when I get my copy tomorrow (I hope!). I thought the demo had a nice FOV so I'm not sure what the brouhaha is all about. Maybe "cropping" the 4:3 image is saving them some processor speed to boost framerate? Does the xbox even care what resolution it is outputting?

I don't know I purchased my new LCD HDTV this weekend and before that I had downloaded the demo and played through it on my 20" CRT 4:3 screen (Xbox 360) and it looked sharp. Then I got a nice 37" LCD HDTV and I played through it again and everything felt zoomed in and not as clear but I thought it was just because I had a much bigger screen then I used to have. But it seems to be related to this cropping. Chopping the view top and bottom seems silly to me because you naturally tend to scan right to left and not up and down. So in a game widescreen people should have a wider FOV if you have a 16:9 because the 4:3 people can simply look left to right. but forcing the 16:9 peopel to scan up and down instead seems to be more unnatural to me because you naturally have a wider FOV then a taller FOV.

That is why people tend to prefer a wider FOV with a 16:9 screen and people with 4:3 displays never really seemed to mind the more narrow FOV. At least thats what I think on the matter. I find it a bit annoying but I doubt it will make me enjoy the game less unless it makes me sick.

The gist of it is: they decided to optimize for a 4:3 AR and crop off extra information when being displayed on a 16:9 screen - as opposed to the opposite that we've become accustomed to.

Exactly. The whole point of a widescreen display is to see more not less, and the way Bioshock is coded just doesn't allow this to happen.

Now I REALLY wish I'd grabbed the PC version...:mad:

I disagree....it seems to me there is gathering evidence that some folks are experiencing cutoff pictures on widescreen displays, and some folks arent, and that it has nothing to do with it being set to 480i or 480p. Methos says he sees a larger FOV on his TV than I do....and yes I'm assuming he is using 720 or 1080 on his TV and not 480i or 480p.

I dont think this is a matter of interpretation, you either see the characters arm/tattoos at all times or you dont.

Yeah, I am running it in 1080p. I was looking at the pics on the net of the differances, and I am seeing more data than the pics show I should.

Yeah, I am running it in 1080p. I was looking at the pics on the net of the differances, and I am seeing more data than the pics show I should.


I'm gonna go into engineer mode when I get home (even though I should be in that mode now :rolleyes: ) and do a bunch of testing with my setup and see if there are any difference at different TV settings and/or Xbox settings.

There's already a hack fix for the PC version. To be honest, I can't see how you 360 guys & the review sites didn't notice anything when playing the demo and the real game. To me, the problem was very apparent. It's no so much having the top and bottom cropped, but more a FOV issue. It's basically like playing the entire game with zoom. Think Halo & the pistol zoom.

Remember that if you are running the game over component cables overscan is going to be a factor.

Remember that if you are running the game over component cables overscan is going to be a factor.

Exactly...people need to remember that they can't necessary compare to pics on the web, etc because if one person is using component it will looked more cropped than over VGA...or two people could be using component but one of them has more overscan on their tv than someone else...

Exactly. The whole point of a widescreen display is to see more not less, and the way Bioshock is coded just doesn't allow this to happen.

Now I REALLY wish I'd grabbed the PC version...:mad:

Part of me wishes I had picked up the PC version too...except for the fact that I would have sacrificed other things in order to have a better FOV...with my 7900GS on the demo compared to the 360 version I have more framerate slowdowns, a much smaller screen to look at, and no surround sound...so to avoid the slowdowns I would have to go below the native res of my monitor and turn down the eyecandy a little...so for me, I'll take a cropping issue and keep the other perks...

Since there has been such a gigantic out cry from fans about this I would expect them to fix this issue with a patch. It doesn't really bother me but it would be nice.

I wouldn't hold my breath. It could be intended on the 360 for performance reasons.. at least that is speculation on the 2K boards.

Guess we will see... I too really hope it's patch-able. :confused:

This whole issue is much ado about nothing.

The developer themselves indicated that they designed all the visuals around 16.9 aspect - which means the levels and script triggers are designed expecting you to see a certain amount from various positions in the game world. As an after thought, they ask themselves "ok now what do we do for the older 4:3 displays?" and the answer they decide on is to maintain the view width and increase the height. So 1280x720 HD resolution turns into 1280x1024 for the typical non-HD LCD. Make perfect sense to me. If they decided instead to cut off the sides of the HD view instead they'd have to go back and retest the whole game in that extra aspect ratio to make sure it all looks right (which is alot of work for nothing). For example, imagine if they cropped the sides, scenes like the opening where the bathysphere is descending and the movie is playing... they might have to lock the position of the player in a different spot further back to avoid cropping the movie.

You are correct ZyronEnder. This is the videogame equivalent of Super35 film, where the movie is shot full height in the 4:3 film cell and then cropped to fit the 2.35:1 screen format. The director knows exactly what you'll be seeing in both versions and takes that into account when shooting the film. It was really the only way to avoid pan and scan on 4:3 television sets.

The gameplay experience is completely unaffected by this and you're doing yourself a huge disservice if you choose to wait and not play the game right away or play through it with some sort of chip on your shoulder.

2K's Chris Kline had previously stated in an interview "You will see more in widescreen. We use a different projection matrix; there is no squashing or stretching of the image involved."

Too bad the couldn't support widescreen the way they promised.

I stand corrected on something:

I rechecked my demo, and it is identical to the retail....they both show the same partial hand without sleeve. I could have sworn it was more zoomed in though, but I suppose thats the power of suggestion! However, there was still one thing: it WAS more zoomed in during the descent into rapture. I went back and rewatched the demo and retail....I see more of the whale in the demo than I do in my retail version. I tried capturing a good picture of this to post but they were coming out horrible (I have a 5 year old digital camera). Needless to say, I personally, and some others, are probably blowing this out of proportion. I never said anything nor did anyone else before this was discovered, and probably never would have. I dont care if I see less of a whale....the game kicks as$.

However, I STILL would like to know why the VGA guys are seeing more. Could someone with VGA please post a screenshot for us of widescreen field of view?

Thanks

This is the videogame equivalent of Super35 film, where the movie is shot full height in the 4:3 film cell and then cropped to fit the 2.35:1 screen format.

I hear you, but maybe the film analogy doesn't hold that well in this case because - based on the game dev's words - the game was filmed/planned/designed in wide screen format and addressing the 4:3 formatting issue came later.

2K's Chris Kline had previously stated in an interview "You will see more in widescreen. We use a different projection matrix; there is no squashing or stretching of the image involved."

Too bad the couldn't support widescreen the way they promised.

So given that the devs designed the game for widescreen and added the extra bits on top/bottom to fill in the 4:3 screen format, lets consider the alternative which is design the visuals of the game around 4:3 aspect and then when they took it to widescreen, just add the extra bits on the side, (knowing that no essential gameplay visuals would appear there.)

So now you are seeing "more" than the 4:3 guys, yet its not designed for widescreen anymore and doesn't take advantage of it.

Personally, I'm glad the devs took the path they did.

Personally, I'm glad the devs took the path they did.So Valve's FOV for HL2 wasn't as good??? One of the 2K dev's had previously stated gamers would "see more in widescreen"


Lame. :rolleyes:

This is an interesting post...

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4883&page=91

http://images.pikapuff.com/games/bioshockws.png

Pictures of the issue from the 2k website forums. It appears to be a Field of View (FOV) issue.

this is inaccurate. if you're using widescreen you're not getting a cropped image like this. how do you think they got this original widescreen image? it's a screenshot. so the SD version is just a little taller.

It bugs me to no end that people are talking about this as a cropping issue. If anything it's a Point of View issue, but I don't even think there is an issue. Ken Levine has already told us the game was designed for widescreen in the way you're seeing it now. You're not losing part of the image you weren't meant to see. Sure, you can see a little more on the top and the bottom in a 4:3 image, but you could always see more as you move the camera back. You could see tons more if this were a 3rd person game... do you see anybody arguing that Bioshock should be in 3rd person?

Think of it this way. They designed the game for widescreen at it looked exactly the same as the way we're seeing it now. What if (like other developers) they had decided to "crop" the image for 4:3 resolutions. We wouldn't be having this discussion but (for those of us with widesceen TVs) we'd still be experiencing the game the exact same way we are now. It would look exactly the same.

Where's the issue here? there is no issue.

well, I have to say i noticed something was strange with the widescreen almost right away but I could never figure it out. After reading this I checked a few things out on my tv's

Panny plasma, component. 720p or 1080i the image is indeed cropped. 480p, non widescreen I see the guys arm/tatoo etc.

Dell 24"HC VGA. 1080p/720p - Cropped.

Can't check my projector yet, still building new room.

So, this is indeed a real issue. Grranted, it is still an excellent game.

Check this video where the guy demonstrates switching between the standard and widescreen modes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73N-uqImH4s

Looks like I and many others in this thread are wrong about how the 16:9 and 4:3 aspect look relative to one another. Rather than being a strict crop in one dimension (or strict addition in the other dimension) it seems to be a little of both, unlike what has been shown in previous example pictures.

Once the video is all loaded, flip back and forth between the beginning where the widescreen is shown and the end where the standard size image is shown. What you'll see is that relative to the widescreen version the std sized image adds a bit of image at the top and bottom while also being cropped slightly at the sides. Conversely, the widescreen adds a bit of image at the edges while cropping a bit at the top.

Looking at the video, I don't see much to complain about.

Looking at the video, I don't see much to complain about.

I completely agree. In my eye.. it's a classic case of wanting yer cake and eating it too. :p

It appears they made the effort to make it adventagious (sp?) to both std and WS owners but in the end, pissed off the WS owners..

what the hell.. my copy should be here tomorrow.. I'm planning to drink a few beers and enjoy the hell out of it. :D

Don't get me wrong this glitch(IMO) won't keep me from enjoying the game.


This is especially true now that Racer_S has posted a FOV hack (http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=108586#108586) to fix the problem.

http://wsgfmedia.com/uploads/paddywak/screenshots/bioshock/Bio-1-T.jpg

classic case of wanting yer cake and eating it too.

I do not and probably never will understand why anyone would ask for cake and receive it, but only on the condition that it's not to be eaten. That's just cruel.

Don't get me wrong this glitch(IMO) won't keep me from enjoying the game.


This is especially true now that Racer_S has posted a FOV hack (http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=108586#108586) to fix the problem.

http://wsgfmedia.com/uploads/paddywak/screenshots/bioshock/Bio-1-T.jpg


ohhh an xbox fix? this is the xbox forum i think... :eek:

I do not and probably never will understand why anyone would ask for cake and receive it, but only on the condition that it's not to be eaten. That's just cruel.

LMFAO... yea.. who the hell came up with that anyway? Let's go kick there ass. :D

Let's go kick there ass.

I'll do you one better, let's force feed him cake.

PS I haven't noticed an issue, I'm playing the 360 version on a 16:10 monitor over VGA. Enjoying it just fine.

ohhh an xbox fix? this is the xbox forum i think... :eek:Yeah, I'll be playing it on the PC

Sorry if I misdirected you there.

Don't get me wrong this glitch(IMO) won't keep me from enjoying the game.


This is especially true now that Racer_S has posted a FOV hack (http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=108586#108586) to fix the problem.

http://wsgfmedia.com/uploads/paddywak/screenshots/bioshock/Bio-1-T.jpg

How does his fix help people in this forum?

Check this video where the guy demonstrates switching between the standard and widescreen modes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73N-uqImH4s

Looks like I and many others in this thread are wrong about how the 16:9 and 4:3 aspect look relative to one another. Rather than being a strict crop in one dimension (or strict addition in the other dimension) it seems to be a little of both, unlike what has been shown in previous example pictures.

Once the video is all loaded, flip back and forth between the beginning where the widescreen is shown and the end where the standard size image is shown. What you'll see is that relative to the widescreen version the std sized image adds a bit of image at the top and bottom while also being cropped slightly at the sides. Conversely, the widescreen adds a bit of image at the edges while cropping a bit at the top.

Looking at the video, I don't see much to complain about.


That video says it all. Either way (4:3 or 16:9) there is an advantage and disadvantage. I would rather have a bit more info at the sides which is what the 16:9 is giving you. Looking at that video this to me is a non issue.

The demo is the same as the retail version as far as this "issue" is concerned correct?

The problem is a FOV issue. It's not so much the fact that SD may get the sides chopped & WS may get the top and bottom chopped. The FOV is not common. So yeah, a lot of you guys dont have a problem with the game as is because you're not getting headaches (as a lot of people are). Yeah, you don't mind playing with a zoomed effect, or hell you don't care because you're running a SD display. Just because YOU personally don't have a problem with it doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. 200k views & 1000 posts in a single thread in 2 days about the issue says otherwise.

And YES it is a great game, even with the WS issue, anti-piracy issues, and minor bugs. For those that can playing it without throwing up, I say screw the fix and just play it as is because it's still very playable, but don't criticize people who may find this issue to be a REAL problem.


Background info if any of you people care...

http://news.com.com/5208-12_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=3410&messageID=18919&start=-1

So you are saying you can see his shirt sleeve holding your weapon or do you just see his hand?

Dawg, I do NOT see his shirt sleeve. Should I be able to? I see his hand, obviously, and most of his forearm just below his elbow. For most FPS, I don't remember see more then the hand up to the forearm.

I am playing on a 720p 46" DLP with a VGA connection. The resultion is set on the 360 to 1280x720.

The problem is a FOV issue. It's not so much the fact that SD may get the sides chopped & WS may get the top and bottom chopped. The FOV is not common. So yeah, a lot of you guys dont have a problem with the game as is because you're not getting headaches (as a lot of people are). Yeah, you don't mind playing with a zoomed effect, or hell you don't care because you're running a SD display. Just because YOU personally don't have a problem with it doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. 200k views & 1000 posts in a single thread in 2 days about the issue says otherwise.

And YES it is a great game, even with the WS issue, anti-piracy issues, and minor bugs. For those that can playing it without throwing up, I say screw the fix and just play it as is because it's still very playable, but don't criticize people who may find this issue to be a REAL problem.


Background info if any of you people care...

http://news.com.com/5208-12_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=3410&messageID=18919&start=-1

+1

The devs should have added an option to allow the user to choose their FOV. If they had, this never would have been an issue.

WOW I thought the camera looked strange and
"...but also has the effect of blowing up the textures and making the camera view tighter than it was before due to cramping."

this really sucks I am glad I rented the game because I couldnt buy it they were sold out but at Family Video they had 8 copies and 6 were still in at 9PM that day so I rented the game with the intention of buying it the next day when it was going to be a reshipment to the Best Buy in my area

but not now I will have to wait to see what happens with this



I like the game but I have noticed the camera loking strange like a fisheye lense and this is why BS just BS

Even if us "power users" would like it, most users don't really need to be have options to tinker with V-Sync and FOV and things of this nature. In this case, I think the default (i.e. what most people will use even if this option is available) is probably not quite right and may need some adjustment.

Honestly, even if it is an "FOV" issue, why can't the character have the exact same vertical field of view with some additional degrees of horizontal? The solution taken here is the lazy approach, where one just tells the 3D engine "OK, use a 16x9 field of view" and it does, by sort of averaging the difference.

I like the game but I have noticed the camera loking strange like a fisheye lense and this is why BS just BSA zoomed-in FOV (as Bioshock exhibits) would not result in a fish-eye effect. It would, in fact, result in exactly the opposite.

What if the developer really is telling like it is? Everyone seems to be ignoring what they said and we all keep calling it a "Zoomed in" view.

If they really did design the field of view around 16:9, then added vertical FOV to fit a 4:3 screen, then that doesnt change the fact that the 16:9 FOV is still exactly what the developer intended us to see, right?

Mountain <- molehill

What if the developer really is telling like it is?Well, in this day and age, it really doesn't matter if you're telling the truth or not; people will make up stuff to fill in the gaps. (Hence the undying rumor that Microsoft shelled out money to Paramount to get them to go HD-DVD exclusive, despite the fact that MS has said it's committed zero funds to the effort.)

There is, however, the matter of the 2K spokesman saying that widescreen users would see more. I have a feeling he might have spoken without really knowing how Levine and crew planned to handle the screen format, and based his comment on past experience.

Everyone seems to be ignoring what they said and we all keep calling it a "Zoomed in" view.I only referred to it as a "zoomed in" view because by comparison, many other FPS titles do widen the FOV in a widescreen title. This can offer you a nice advantage in multiplayer settings, but it's not necessary for a game like Bioshock. In real life, if you walk around with a wrench in your hand poised to strike, you're probably not even going to see your hand, much less your sleeve. (Try it sometime.) Same goes for much of your peripheral vision. Exploring an environment like Rapture becomes a participatory process in which you actually have to look around and move your character. Of course it was a deliberate decision. I don't believe it's accurate to say that Bioshock is "zoomed in" so much as other titles are "zoomed out".

If they really did design the field of view around 16:9, then added vertical FOV to fit a 4:3 screen, then that doesnt change the fact that the 16:9 FOV is still exactly what the developer intended us to see, right?I believe you're absolutely correct on all counts. I steadfastly refuse to believe that the man behind System Shock, Thief, Freedom Force, SWAT 4, and others suddenly knows so much less about game design than the peanut gallery that is the Internet.

Further, I'm not really interested in the number of people complaining 'bout how the game is giving them headaches... people have been getting motion sickness and other symptoms of physical distress since the days of DOOM. The remedies for dealing with game-induced nausea have been around for at least that long -- either learn to deal with it, or stop playing games.

What if the developer really is telling like it is? Everyone seems to be ignoring what they said and we all keep calling it a "Zoomed in" view.

If they really did design the field of view around 16:9, then added vertical FOV to fit a 4:3 screen, then that doesnt change the fact that the 16:9 FOV is still exactly what the developer intended us to see, right?
I don't think that the developer is telling it like it is. Refer to the following from the Games for Windows Technical Requirements (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/bb173456.aspx) and especially the part I highlighted:

1.5 Support Multiple Aspect Ratios and Resolutions
Requirement

The game must support at least the following aspect ratios and associated screen resolutions:

* 4:3 normal (800x600 or 1024x768)
* 16:9 widescreen (1280x720)
* 16:10 widescreen (1152x720 or 1680x1050 or 800x480)

For screen resolution configuration and detection, the game must adhere to the following rules:

* The game uses the desktop resolution of the display device by default if it is a supported resolution. The desktop aspect ratio must be used as a search criterion if the game chooses a different default resolution.
* The game must prompt the user to confirm new display settings when a change is made. If the user does not accept within 15 seconds, the display must revert to the previous setting.
* The game must not stretch pixels or center a 4:3 render window to support widescreen aspect ratios. However, letterboxing is acceptable.

Rationale

With the Windows Vista 3D desktop, a particular aspect ratio or resolution cannot be assumed, because of the following factors:

* Support for high-detail displays.
* Increased market share of widescreen monitors.
* HDTV deployments for Windows Media Center.
* Accessibility requirements.

I understand that we're discussing the 360 version here, but I would assume that if this was the director's intention then the 16:9 FOVs would be the same on both platforms. Hence, as highlighted above the developers would not have been permitted to do what they have.

I don't think that the developer is telling it like it is. Refer to the following from the [URL="http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/bb173456.aspx"]I understand that we're discussing the 360 version here, but I would assume that if this was the director's intention then the 16:9 FOVs would be the same on both platforms. Hence, as highlighted above the developers would not have been permitted to do what they have.Oh, for the love of ... :rolleyes:

Bioshock doesn't stretch pixels, nor does it simply center a 4:3 display (which would leave black bars/dead space to the left and right of the image).

I understood it as center the widescreen in the 4:3, hence supporting the widescreen asptect ratio, not just the widescreen display. About the stretching of pixels it says that or centering, not that and centering; so ignore it.

According to the bioshock forums, this POV problem is just a PC issue.

By the way, the widescreen issue is one of three problems with PC folks.

1) Widescreen
2) DRM issue whereby you can also install the game twice.
3) Driver issues

Very happy I made the switch from PC to console. :)

The 360 has a FOV problem as well. Its too close and cropped. The zoomed in effect is worse then most FPS out there. :( They needed to let us 360 users have access to adjust the FOV IMHO. Its like 60.. where 80 is ideal.

wtf big deal. This looks looks a little sharper and more vibrant than Gears of War on my TV. It definately isn't streched out...that would be easy to notice. I didn't even know of this problem till reading this thread just now.

My field of view is fine also. IMO Bioshock is a great game all around!

the widescreen isn't "cropped" guys... that would imply there was information there to begin with. the 4:3 version is zoomed out a bit and additional material is on the top and bottom.

4:3 and 16:9 are different shapes. you're going to make a sacrifice either way... if it's that big of deal, just plug your 360 into a CRT and play in SD.

it's an awesome game. nothing, repeat, nothing will ever be "perfect"... and to the reports of nausea, try taking a break once in a while. i'll get nauseous playing pacman if i sit there for 12 hours with no break.

There is, however, the matter of the 2K spokesman saying that widescreen users would see more. I have a feeling he might have spoken without really knowing how Levine and crew planned to handle the screen format, and based his comment on past experienceIt wasn't just a 2K spokesman, it was Bioshock's lead programmer.

2K has just announced an upcoming FOV patch for the PC, and are investigating one for the 360.And as for widescreen, we also want to say we completely understand a user's desire to augment their FOV. BioShock is a harrowing experience, but we don't want anyone to feel limited (or motion sick!). So we are in the process of working on an official PC patch to give widescreen PC users a choice to expand their horizontal FOV, and are investigating creating a similar update for the 360.

And finally, I want to personally congratulate Racer_S from the Widescreen Gaming Forums, and his awesome user patch to expand the widescreen FOV in BioShock. I'm currently tracking him down via email, but hopefully, he'll accept my gratitude, and maybe an Nvidia 8800 to boot. http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/home.html

It wasn't just a 2K spokesman, it was Bioshock's lead programmer.In which case, it would appear that the dev team does have some 'splainin to do. I appreciate the correction.

What if the developer really is telling like it is? Everyone seems to be ignoring what they said and we all keep calling it a "Zoomed in" view.

because all evidence points to the contrary.

If they really did design the field of view around 16:9, then added vertical FOV to fit a 4:3 screen, then that doesnt change the fact that the 16:9 FOV is still exactly what the developer intended us to see, right?

From another forum, but I feel it's a pretty reasonable argument.


If you wish to know my personal opinion it is that the developers, much like a movie director, are entitled to their creative vision and if they say they intended the fov to be this way I will take them at their word and enjoy the game as they delivered it. (However I am curious to try the fov hack after I complete the game and see how the experience differs for better or worse)

Yes it is their choice, but all art has standards by which it's judged. Say for example that you couldn't save your game, and they claimed that the lack of saves was a creative choice because they want you to play through the game in one sitting. Would you accept this, would you not criticize them for not having save capability like every other game on the market?

Many other video game developers have implemented hor+ widescreen, largely considered to be the correct, or at the very least, superior widescreen implementation because of the perspective/zoom issue as described above. Why should we not hold Bioshock to the same standards established by other games? So while it may have been their choice, it doesn't mean that it was the best one, or that we have to like it.

One of the great things about games is that criticism such as this can be much more easily addressed than other artistic mediums. Heck Racer_S did it in less than 48 hours and he wasn't even involved the game's development. So, we might seem spoiled for asking them to match a technical standard set by other games, but in the end we're really not asking for that much.

because all evidence points to the contrary."All evidence" does not.

This is pretty cool.. they are going to give the guy who figured out the FOV patch for the pc a free vid card.

And as for widescreen, we also want to say we completely understand a user's desire to augment their FOV. BioShock is a harrowing experience, but we don't want anyone to feel limited (or motion sick!). So we are in the process of working on an official PC patch to give widescreen PC users a choice to expand their horizontal FOV, and are investigating creating a similar update for the 360.

And finally, I want to personally congratulate Racer_S from the Widescreen Gaming Forums, and his awesome user patch to expand the widescreen FOV in BioShock. I'm currently tracking him down via email, but hopefully, he'll accept my gratitude, and maybe an Nvidia 8800 to boot

This is pretty cool.. they are going to give the guy who figured out the FOV patch for the pc a free vid card.Yeah, that is very cool.

I don't like their current widescreen implementation, but I think they are, on a whole, providing great customer service by announcing their intention to provide a patch for concerned users. The game was just released this week.

This is pretty cool.. they are going to give the guy who figured out the FOV patch for the pc a free vid card.

Not just a free video card. One of the best money can buy right now.

Well, I played it for a few hours last night and didn't notice ANYTHING that would diminish my appreciation for the game. Maybe my VGA connection is limiting the "zoom" effect, but it looked identical to the demo (can't see the bottom of the wrench) and it is a BLAST! By far the best 360 game since Oblivion, IMHO.

Yeah this wasn't a big deal to begin with. AND STILL the developer addressed the issue and is issuing a fix. Of the problems games and can have...missing a centimeter or so of FOV is WAYYYY at the bottom of the list.

http://images.pikapuff.com/games/bioshockws.png


What I dont understand about the images here is what is NORMAL WIDESCREEN? There's no cropping on this. I just dont get what is 'normal widescreen' and 'Bioshock widescreen'? Are you 'forced' to use 'Bioshock widescreen' and if so, how did the person get that image of 'normal widescreen'...how do you select that setting?

If you can select it, what's the problem?

^^

Not that hard to figure out. If you look at the middle image, that's SD. Due to the different dimensions, it's taller than a comparable W/S. So if you look at the bottom image, it shows the top and bottom missing. If you were to then superimpose the SD image on a wide screen tv, you'll get black bars on the sides. Instead of increasing the field of view to "fill in" the black bars (the red rectangle should extend to the far left & right of the image), the image is zoomed.

They probably used the WS hack or modified the SD image to show what the "normal widescreen" should look like.

If it's not something that bothers you, why worry about it?

Oh, for the love of ... :rolleyes:

Bioshock doesn't stretch pixels, nor does it simply center a 4:3 display (which would leave black bars/dead space to the left and right of the image).

BS it doesnt center a 4x3 image!!!! Bioshocks Widscreen is nothing more then a 4x3 image on a 16x9 HDTV zoomed in until the black screens on the side disappear!

It's exactly like watching 4x3 television and zooming in until the black bards on the side dissapear!! It's exactly like that!!

This right here is exactly how Bioshock is implementing widescreen: The pink bars on the top and bottom is what 4x3 users see, and 16x9 users dont, the black bars on the side is what what be showing if proper widescreen was implenented.
http://www.undefinedspace.com/bioshock.gif

http://images.pikapuff.com/games/bioshockws.png

Are you honestly saying 4x3 users were always supposed to see more then 16x9 users?

this is inaccurate. if you're using widescreen you're not getting a cropped image like this. how do you think they got this original widescreen image? it's a screenshot. so the SD version is just a little taller.

It bugs me to no end that people are talking about this as a cropping issue. If anything it's a Point of View issue, but I don't even think there is an issue. Ken Levine has already told us the game was designed for widescreen in the way you're seeing it now. You're not losing part of the image you weren't meant to see. Sure, you can see a little more on the top and the bottom in a 4:3 image, but you could always see more as you move the camera back. You could see tons more if this were a 3rd person game... do you see anybody arguing that Bioshock should be in 3rd person?

Think of it this way. They designed the game for widescreen at it looked exactly the same as the way we're seeing it now. What if (like other developers) they had decided to "crop" the image for 4:3 resolutions. We wouldn't be having this discussion but (for those of us with widesceen TVs) we'd still be experiencing the game the exact same way we are now. It would look exactly the same.

Where's the issue here? there is no issue.

I agree. That post was BS.

Bioshock crops the top and bottom, not the sides.

You gotta wonder what motivates the developers to write games for such a bunch of haters..

wtf big deal. This looks looks a little sharper and more vibrant than Gears of War on my TV. It definately isn't streched out...that would be easy to notice. I didn't even know of this problem till reading this thread just now.

My field of view is fine also. IMO Bioshock is a great game all around!

WTF is the big deal? 16x9 users are seeing less then 4x3 users, and 16x9 users are missing 100% of the viewing area we should be getting with proper 16x9.

http://images.pikapuff.com/games/bioshockws.png

The difference between the top and bottom picture, is that the top picture has 100% more viewing area!! How is that not an issue?!

I agree. That post was BS.

Bioshock crops the top and bottom, not the sides.

You gotta wonder what motivates the developers to write games for such a bunch of haters..

But because they crop the top and bottom that means we don't see the left and right that we should get with proper 16x9 :rolleyes:

It doesn't take a genius to realize Bioshocks widescreen is nothing more then a 4x3 image zoomed in until the black bars on the side go away!!!

http://www.undefinedspace.com/bioshock.gif

Is this really that hard to comprehend?!?!

It doesn't take a genius to realize Bioshocks widescreen is nothing more then a 4x3 image zoomed in until the black bars on the side go away!!! Is this really that hard to comprehend?!?!

BBS G35, the screen cap examples you are showing are misleading and not representative of what's really happening on the 360. In fact, those "comparison" pictures are completely doctored, all derived from a single screen capture.

Check this video where the guy demonstrates switching between the standard and widescreen modes, showing what they REALLY look like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73N-uqImH4s

Once the video is all loaded, flip back and forth between the beginning where the widescreen is shown and the end where the standard size image is shown. What you'll see is that relative to the widescreen version the std sized image adds a bit of image at the top and bottom while also being cropped slightly at the sides. Conversely, the widescreen adds a bit of image at the edges while cropping a bit at the top.

It seems to me like an entirely reasonable way to address 2 different screen sizes. I'm almost finished the game on my Pioneer 5070 plasma and the image has been superb all the way through. Amazing amazing game. It would be a tragedy if people didn't buy this game because they've heard the widescreen display is screwed up.

What I dont understand about the images here is what is NORMAL WIDESCREEN? There's no cropping on this. I just dont get what is 'normal widescreen' and 'Bioshock widescreen'? Are you 'forced' to use 'Bioshock widescreen' and if so, how did the person get that image of 'normal widescreen'...how do you select that setting?

If you can select it, what's the problem?

I still dont get it?

So can someone take a pic of he widescreen, then switch like the guy in the video did and take a pic of the standard screen and put them side by side so its easy to see. Until then the photoshopped version BBS G35 is showing makes the most sense.

Although, either way the game graphics work great.

BS it doesnt center a 4x3 image!!! Bioshocks Widscreen is nothing more then a 4x3 image on a 16x9 HDTV zoomed in until the black screens on the side disappear!No. You've completely misunderstood and misrepresented the method used. A centered 4:3 image is like watching an NTSC broadcast over cable or satellite with the black bars on the side. In Bioshock's widescreen mode, you are not watching a 4:3 image. You are watching a true 16:9 screen format. This is not rocket science. Refer to the YouTube video earlier in this thread for clarification.

It's exactly like watching 4x3 television and zooming in until the black bards on the side dissapear!! It's exactly like that!!If you want to believe that, then that's fine.

Are you honestly saying 4x3 users were always supposed to see more then 16x9 users?No, but I will tell you that Bioshock 4:3 and Bioshock 16:9 users have a comparable horizontal FOV, per the developer's vision -- and I'm fine with this.

But because they crop the top and bottom that means we don't see the left and right that we should get with proper 16x9 :rolleyes:


The point is, you don't get "less" on the horizontal plane (compared to the 4:3 view) You get less on the "vertical plane".

I guarantee you that if the 4:3 version had not included the extra vertical resolution (ie they used letter-boxing) you would have had "no problems" with the current FOV in widescreen mode.

Little kids, are like that. They love their toys right up until the moment one of their friends gets a bigger one.

What I dont understand about the images here is what is NORMAL WIDESCREEN? There's no cropping on this. I just dont get what is 'normal widescreen' and 'Bioshock widescreen'? Are you 'forced' to use 'Bioshock widescreen' and if so, how did the person get that image of 'normal widescreen'...how do you select that setting?

If you can select it, what's the problem?

I understand your confusion with the "Normal/Bioshock/4:3" labelling - Bioshock on the x360 has no such options - it goes by whatever your xbox dashboard video settings are.

It seems people keep posting that misleading "Normal/Bioshock/4:3 comparison" picture. Although its based on a single real screen capture, the comparisons are fake (a single screen capture was made and then photoshop'd into 3 screens.) How can anyone seriously consider a comparison of 3 screens without an actual picture of each?? I'm starting to suspect we're being had by trolls.

Please take a look at the video I linked to a few links back. It demonstrates what you ACTUALLY see and doesn't match the pictures posted above at all. What the game really does to handle different screen sizes makes perfect sense and looks great.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7497/widescreenhalflife2dm5.jpg
Half Life 2

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/4367/widescreencod2nm0.jpg
Call of Duty

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3294/widescreenquake4bc4.jpg
Quake 4

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4583/widescreenbioshockve1.jpg
Bioshock


Now why is it only Bioshock changes the FOV between 4x3 users and 16x9 users? Why it it only Bioshock gives 4x3 users more area to see then 16x9 users? The difference between Bioshocks 4x3 and 16x9 on the sides is very, very, very, very, very minimul, while the difference between the top and bottom viewing area is huge. But it's the FOV that really proves 2k chose the wrong way to implement Widescreen, and that's why people are getting motion sickness.

Now why is it only Bioshock changes the FOV between 4x3 users and 16x9 users? Why it it only Bioshock gives 4x3 users more area to see then 16x9 users?

If you go back and read post #84, you'll find that Irrational designed everything for the widescreen aspect - widescreen looks exactly as the artists and level designers intended. So, the question is not about which aspect ratio screen shows "more", the question is which aspect shows more accurately what the designers and artists intended for us to see.

If anything I'm surprised this debate doesn't happen in the reverse: Why aren't the 4:3 people up in arms because they aren't seeing the game the way it was meant to be seen? And why don't the 16:9 people gloat because they get the "director's cut" not the one hacked up by the guys who had to figure out how to squeeze the widescreen into the 4:3 aspect??

You know, at first this issue really pissed me off. Then I played the game and realized that it doesn't freaking matter. The game is awesome and the only way you could possibly know the difference is if you're looking at screenshots. Big whoop.

The game is fantastic and that's all I care about.

Now why is it only Bioshock changes the FOV between 4x3 users and 16x9 users?Levine and crew have already explained why, and so have several users here in this thread. The 16:9 version was the penultimate viewing field that the team chose, and they built the 4:3 version around it.
Why it it only Bioshock gives 4x3 users more area to see then 16x9 users?Levine and crew have explained this as well.

But it's the FOV that really proves 2k chose the wrong way to implement Widescreen, and that's why people are getting motion sickness.I believe the whole "it's giving me motion sickness" argument is a load of horse s***. Some people decry the narrow FOV (as they did in HL2), while others believe the distortion at the edges of a wider FOV because makes them even more queasy. In fact Bioshock is the first FPS in a while that I could play without feeling smacked down. Compare that to The Darkness, which kicks my butt every time I play it, Bioshock's a welcome relief.

Levine and crew have already explained why, and so have several users here in this thread. The 16:9 version was the penultimate viewing field that the team chose, and they built the 4:3 version around it.
Levine and crew have explained this as well.

I believe the whole "it's giving me motion sickness" argument is a load of horse s***. Some people decry the narrow FOV (as they did in HL2), while others believe the distortion at the edges of a wider FOV because makes them even more queasy. In fact Bioshock is the first FPS in a while that I could play without feeling smacked down. Compare that to The Darkness, which kicks my butt every time I play it, Bioshock's a welcome relief.

Sorry, your "he already explained this" is not good enough for me :rolleyes:

I can see with my own eyes, 4x3 users have a greater FOV then 16x9 users, and that's just wrong...

This is the only game where the FOV for 4x3 screens and 16x9 screens is different

BTW, SpeedyHTPC was complaining about motion sickness with Bioshock in the HTPC Gaming forum before he knew about the widescreen PROBLEM

If you go back and read post #84, you'll find that Irrational designed everything for the widescreen aspect - widescreen looks exactly as the artists and level designers intended. So, the question is not about which aspect ratio screen shows "more", the question is which aspect shows more accurately what the designers and artists intended for us to see.

If anything I'm surprised this debate doesn't happen in the reverse: Why aren't the 4:3 people up in arms because they aren't seeing the game the way it was meant to be seen? And why don't the 16:9 people gloat because they get the "director's cut" not the one hacked up by the guys who had to figure out how to squeeze the widescreen into the 4:3 aspect??


Please...I'm just supposed to believe everything they say? Why should I believe anything they say, when their "team" a couple months back said 16x9 users would see more then 4x3 users, and that's not the case! It's exactly the opposite! So why should I believe anything they say?

Look, i own the game for Xbox 360, I'm just not going to play it until they FIX the FOV.

Would you belive that you aren't supposed to see the Little Sisters glowing eyes the first one comes across you as you lay on the floor after getting the electro bolt plasmid? You don't with the games default FOV, but if you turn it up to made widescreen wider than 4:3 then you do see her eyes then and that part later where Atlas explains that they aren't really little girls is rather redundant.

Would you belive that you aren't supposed to see the Little Sisters glowing eyes the first one comes across you as you lay on the floor after getting the electro bolt plasmid? You don't with the games default FOV, but if you turn it up to made widescreen wider than 4:3 then you do see her eyes then and that part later where Atlas explains that they aren't really little girls is rather redundant.

Damn it, I've played a little bit, and stopped because of this FOV thing. That does suck that I didn't get to see her eyes. Guess I'll just start over when they fix it.

Sorry, your "he already explained this" is not good enough for me :rolleyes:At this point, it's clear that nothing will be good enough for you. It doesn't change the fact that your question has already been answered satisfactorily.

I can see with my own eyes, 4x3 users have a greater FOV then 16x9 users, and that's just wrong...No.

BTW, SpeedyHTPC was complaining about motion sickness with Bioshock in the HTPC Gaming forum before he knew about the widescreen PROBLEMI don't really care. Since the days of DooM and Quake II and Half-Life, various FPS games have made people reach for the Dramamine, while others play the same games and have no issues whatsoever. It all comes down to individuals and their anecdotes.

Damn it, I've played a little bit, and stopped because of this FOV thing. That does suck that I didn't get to see her eyes. Guess I'll just start over when they fix it.
There is nothing to fix. Again, you aren't supposed to be able to see her eyes at that point in the game, you are supposed to have the view you do which keeps you from seeing there is something strange about her. The patch will provide the option to provide a wider FOV for those of us who would prefer one, but that is in effect breaking the game by revealing the aforementioned plot point prior to when the developers intended, not fixing anything.

Honestly! Come on people, I think half the people posting in this thread sound like whiny little brats. Lord almighty, 2k released a great game and nobody would have noticed this had it not have been posted on the net. I didn't hear anyone complaining about the demo making them sick, or being "cropped". This whole thread has become one big load of you know what. You can afford an xbox 360 or a pc that can play this game... Not to mention the 50-60 dollars to buy the game. Just play and have fun, life could be a lot worse.

I think the mods should put a lock on this thread, it's wasting valuable bandwidth.

Thanks for posting JimD571.. but STFU if you don't know what your talking about.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/Pluvious/fovdemonstrationyh6.gif

well, thanks for cursing me out, still doesn't change the fact that you are overreacting. If this absolutely ruins your experience, I am sorry. Personally I love the game.

BTW, did it ever occur to you that they added the extra space on top and bottom so as not to present the 4:3 game in letterbox. IDK, just off the top of my head.

Really... who cares... if they had chopped the 4:3 users view or letter boxed it, no one would have known or cared.

No.

I don't really care. Since the days of DooM and Quake II and Half-Life, various FPS games have made people reach for the Dramamine, while others play the same games and have no issues whatsoever. It all comes down to individuals and their anecdotes.

You saying "No" doesn't cut it...

Whatever tho, I won. 2K is fixing the problem so whatever..

They aren't fixing anything becuase nothing is broken as it is. They are simply providing an option for people who have a problem with the view the developers intended.

You saying "No" doesn't cut it...Yes.

Whatever tho, I won. 2K is fixing the problem so whatever..Which begs the question of why some folks have expended so much energy throwing tantrums about the problem (read: non-issue) here on AVS.

EDIT: Of course, I look at it the way I deal with my 1 1/2 year old son. When he gets cranky, I just take him outside and turn on the garden hose. It's a very easy solution and it stops him from whining. I imagine 2K Games views their FOV fix much the same way.

Welcome to the new frontier of Tall Screen Gaming :rolleyes:

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/116/chartwu5.jpg

Welcome to the new frontier of Tall Screen Gaming :rolleyes:

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/116/chartwu5.jpg

lol

lol @ roller...

and a general question to the masses -- so is it definite that 2k is going to be providing a patch for the 360 version? i don't mind the view, but it's one of the few games that makes my gf sick within 5 mins or so, and it's a lot easier to find time for gaming when you have a sig other if they can take part in the fun :)

Buncha whiners in this thread. You lose no horizontal information in widescreen - fullscreen is the format that is screwy, as they made it taller than it should have been.

As a whole seperate issue, many of you are underestimating or ignoring the fact that a lot of displays out there have overscan built in - I'd be much more "up in arms" about that :p

Welcome to the new frontier of Tall Screen Gaming :rolleyes:

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/116/chartwu5.jpg
Tallscreen? Surely you aren't suggesting the vertical view is too much in widescreen?

I dont have any problems with this whole widescreen issue. But one thing that pissed me off was the subtitles during dialog. Sometimes it is on time, other times the dialog is displayed so fast that it ends 5 minutes before the conversation is over etc.
Didn't they do any quality control on this game? Otherwise the game is okay, I think it is a little bit hyped up more then it should be.

Mo!

So when is the 'fix' from 2K due?

Honestly! Come on people, I think half the people posting in this thread sound like whiny little brats. Lord almighty, 2k released a great game and nobody would have noticed this had it not have been posted on the net. I didn't hear anyone complaining about the demo making them sick, or being "cropped". This whole thread has become one big load of you know what. You can afford an xbox 360 or a pc that can play this game... Not to mention the 50-60 dollars to buy the game. Just play and have fun, life could be a lot worse.

I think the mods should put a lock on this thread, it's wasting valuable bandwidth.
This thread doesn't seem to bash the game,it's simply pointing something out.And,I appreciate it.Why post if you're just going to be negative.You saw the title.If there was nothing constructive for you to add then you should've not posted in here at all.

I can't see how anyone would possibly think the FOV is fine with Bioshock on PC or the 360. It's so 'zoomed' in and close its hard to get your barrings sometimes. Try aiming with your guns with them 'zoomed' in (click right stick) and then play the game that way. THATS how it seems to me the whole time. Adjustable FOV should be a standard option in all FPS's just as music volume is.

I think the point being made is that the 16:9 mode is how the game is supposed to look and the 4:3 mode is actually zoomed out like some DVD's are widescreen but then they open matte them to make a 4:3 image to make the full screen release. It isn't that the movie was supposed to be 4:3 and that widescreen users miss out on parts of the movie.. it is that the movie was intended to be 16:9 and the people who watch the 4:3 version see it in a way it was never intended to be shown.

Given that designers for both RE4 and Bioshock did all the design work in widescreen. It is interested to note how the Resident Evil 4 guys side stepped the whole issue (and in a way that the Bioshock guys could have also): they designed/released with support *only* for widescreen. If the Bioshock guys did what the RE4 guys did, and that is use letterbox black bars at top/botton when playing on a 4:3 screen, they would have saved themselves alot of complaints. Letterboxing on 4:3 aspect screens used to get people up in arms but is so common now that no one really notices anymore.

Well, at least widescreen owners can play both settings easily on their 360's. I suppose that counts for something.

I played it today a bit in 480p 4:3, and then switched it back to 720p 16x9. It's really a shame you loose so much information when in 16:9.

-JR

The only thing this thread is missing is someone saying that this issue is because the 360 doesn't have Blu-Ray and they had to zoom the view in because the DVD couldn't hold enough data for the correct FOV...

The problem is where do you stop? Maybe the 4:3 should have been zoomed out even more to give a wider field of view or maybe it should be a 3rd person veiw so you can see even more of the game field?

If you are kind of defending the way they implemented widescreen in Bioshock do you really want future big title games like Halo 3, Mass Effect, MGS4 to use the same widescreen method, because I sure as heck hope those games don't go that route, I can understand some smaller titles doing it but widescreen gaming in the future shouldn't be implemented that way. It is going backwards.

If you are kind of defending the way they implemented widescreen in Bioshock do you really want future big title games like Halo 3, Mass Effect, MGS4 to use the same widescreen method, because I sure as heck hope those games don't go that route, I can understand some smaller titles doing it but widescreen gaming in the future shouldn't be implemented that way. It is going backwards.

yup.

I for one felt Bioshock had a strang look and knew something was wrong before even reading this thread. It is simply not exceptable. Not in this game..not in any next gen game. This is espcially true for the 360 which boasts "all games will be high def". Well high def is not 4:3 which Bioshock is IMO.

Halo 3 has about the same narrow FOV that Bioshock does, just as Halo 2 did.

yup.

I for one felt Bioshock had a strang look and knew something was wrong before even reading this thread. It is simply not exceptable. Not in this game..not in any next gen game. This is espcially true for the 360 which boasts "all games will be high def". Well high def is not 4:3 which Bioshock is IMO.

And if they had letterboxed the 4:3 image we wouldn't even have this thread and you wouldn't have noticed anything.

It's just like an open matte 4:3 movie and it shouldn't be this big of a deal.

I logged many hours playing Bioshock this weekend. My opinion of the game has not changed. I think it is brilliant.

However, I did experience some bouts of motion sickness and I can only assume it is the FOV issue. By the way, I have NEVER experienced motion sickness playing a video game before.

If you are kind of defending the way they implemented widescreen in Bioshock do you really want future big title games like Halo 3, Mass Effect, MGS4 to use the same widescreen method, because I sure as heck hope those games don't go that route, I can understand some smaller titles doing it but widescreen gaming in the future shouldn't be implemented that way. It is going backwards.
AGREED.PLEASE, NOT MASS EFFECT!!!!

The only thing this thread is missing is someone saying that this issue is because the 360 doesn't have Blu-Ray and they had to zoom the view in because the DVD couldn't hold enough data for the correct FOV...


Indeed. This is pretty bad, except people complaining about motion sickness because of the narrow fov (I'm fine with it).

AVS should require people to be lurkers for x-months long and then take a test to post.

There is nothing to fix. Again, you aren't supposed to be able to see her eyes at that point in the game, you are supposed to have the view you do which keeps you from seeing there is something strange about her. The patch will provide the option to provide a wider FOV for those of us who would prefer one, but that is in effect breaking the game by revealing the aforementioned plot point prior to when the developers intended, not fixing anything.

^^^

Seems a rather strange argument.

If you aren't supposed to see her eyes, or anything else for that matter, why wasn't the game just made that way, programmed that way!!! It seems very strange to include something in a game in the first place and then only have it viewable in 4:3 and not 16:9, and to then go on to say it isn't meant to be seen as it spoils the plot or whatever the reason may be.

The game could quite easily have been made without this or any other 'spoiler' viewable in either 4:3 or 16:9!!!

If you aren't supposed to see her eyes, or anything else for that matter, why wasn't the game just made that way, programmed that way!!! It seems very strange to include something in a game in the first place and then only have it viewable in 4:3 and not 16:9, and to then go on to say it isn't meant to be seen as it spoils the plot or whatever the reason may be.

The game was designed that way. It's one of the many things that show 4:3 was an afterthought done in the quickest possible way.

I'm confused. A few weeks ago everyone was praising bioshock about how great the game is, now 2k devs are idiots hiding a conspiracy? wow yall jump ship with the quickness. NOONE complained when the demo came out. All the reviewers played the game with this "flaw" and it still got perfect scores. It sounds like people are arguing over something that doesn't affect gameplay at all.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7497/widescreenhalflife2dm5.jpg
Half Life 2

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/4367/widescreencod2nm0.jpg
Call of Duty

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3294/widescreenquake4bc4.jpg
Quake 4

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4583/widescreenbioshockve1.jpg
Bioshock


Now why is it only Bioshock changes the FOV between 4x3 users and 16x9 users? Why it it only Bioshock gives 4x3 users more area to see then 16x9 users? The difference between Bioshocks 4x3 and 16x9 on the sides is very, very, very, very, very minimul, while the difference between the top and bottom viewing area is huge. But it's the FOV that really proves 2k chose the wrong way to implement Widescreen, and that's why people are getting motion sickness.
You know, after looking at these pictures it seems that Bioshock's widescreen FOV is pretty much equivalent to those other games. It's the 4:3 that's different. I believe that this would tend to support the developers' assertion that they designed for 16:9 and just did a quick fix for 4:3. i.e., the widescreen gamer is missing no information that the developer intended them to see.

Now, you can argue that this was a stylistic mistake (especially with the reported motion sickness), but it's definitely not a technical mistake. Since these pictures suggest that the former is actually the case, have all the fun in the world arguing your point, but you'll only be arguing a matter of taste.

Halo 3 has about the same narrow FOV that Bioshock does, just as Halo 2 did.

And if you goto Bungie's official forum you'll see a HUGE threads pleading to have a wide FOV included. http://www.bungie.net/Search/default.aspx?q=fov&g=0

Sure, but if you look above my previous post you'll see people acting like BioShock's view is strange while ignoring the fact that the Halo games have about the same field of view.

^^

Only for WS tvs though. It wasn't that big of an issue when a lot of people weren't using WS monitors and TVs, which has gained more acceptance in recent years.

Also, I do not understand what is so bad about having the option to have a wider FOV. It doesn't affect gamers who like the narrower FOV. It's not that difficult for the devs to program in. Judging by the HUGE threads about it on the 2k forums, it's something people really want. If it was a multiplayer game, you could possibly argue that the people with the wider FOV will have an advantage, but it's not.

If the devs chose to implement a one size fits all mouse scroll speed, you'd have people defending it saying that it's more "realistic" and what the devs intended. Seeing as how it's become an industry standard to allow variable scroll speeds or inverse tracking, is that the truth or is that just an excuse? Seems to me a lot of people are taking an "apologist" position.

If it's not something you're bothered by, why keep posting in thread about the issue and trying to force your opinion on someone else. Is your viewpoint superior?

Only for WS tvs though. It wasn't that big of an issue when a lot of people weren't using WS monitors and TVs, which has gained more acceptance in recent years.A good point.

Also, I do not understand what is so bad about having the option to have a wider FOV.At no time in this entire thread has anyone argued against 2K implementing an adjustable FOV as an option. I admire that they're responding to their customers' wishes, and if they feel this is a good use of the team's time, then I support it.

If the devs chose to implement a one size fits all mouse scroll speed, you'd have people defending it saying that it's more "realistic" and what the devs intended.This is total nonsense. Best to stick to the subject of the screen format.

Seems to me a lot of people are taking an "apologist" position.No.

Through the course of this thread, the issue of the FOV has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrepresented. The integrity of Levine's team has been called into question, and slanderous allegations that the development team engaged in a cover-up have been bandied about. Falsehoods that the game was not presented in 16:9 were further reinforced by apocryphal evidence in the form of a Photoshopped still snap, while random anecdotes of motion sickness proved beyond a reasonable doubt (*snark*) that somehow the game suffered from a huge problem.

Someone ought to be apologizing, but it sure the heck ain't the folks who enjoy Bioshock and the vision that Ken Levine brought to the game.

If it's not something you're bothered by, why keep posting in thread about the issue and trying to force your opinion on someone else. Is your viewpoint superior?Right back at you.

No offense but saying that adding in an adjustable FOV would fix the problem isn't exactly fair... while these games aren't movies they are often artistic and tell a story and have a look or style a programmer or game designer is looking for. What you are asking for is like asking a director to include different color or camera angle options in the movie he makes becuase you didn't like the choices he made in his filming. How a game or movie is presented is important as well.. once you let people fiddle with all those settings some things are lost. We should enjoy the game as it is and stop asking for things to be changed. If anything the 4:3 people should be mad they are not seeing the game as intended.. not the other way around.

Field of View affects several aspects of video gaming. As in motion pictures those aspects go beyond just simply what you see, or what you don't see. FOV affects apparant motion including motion of on screen objects and camera motion, geometry, dimensionality, as well as having psychological affects (narrower FOV would make things more tense, wider FOV could make for a more relaxing experience) among other things.

As posted by the makers of BioShock they ave given their statement regarding how they have chosen to implement FOV in both the 16:9 & 4:3 ratios. Of course by nature of the internet and the conspiratorial tendencies of many AVSer's this statement comes under doubt as some sort of "cover up." There's no reason to doubt the sincerity of BioShock's creators.

As movies are artistic endeavors so are games especially in this era of reasonably advanced graphics.

CHOICE... CHOICE... guys that's what this is all about. They chose to present the game with this field of view. Cropped creates a more claustrophobic panicked mood, and that would be very much in the vein how BioShock presents itself. Artistically this is not a bad choice.

If this was a multiplayer based game where you're opponents were 100 times more whiley and a 10000 times more difficult to defeat then I would want the option of having a wider field of view. Otherwise the present CHOICE for the widescreen version is perfectly appropriate.

^^

Only for WS tvs though.
Nah, not only in widescreen, the Halo games have always had a narrow, FOV widescreen or otherwise. The only difference being Halo 2 and Halo 3's 4:3 view is narrower than their widescreen views rather than taller like BioShock.

Here's an interesting new interview with Ken Levine (creative force behind Bioshock.) He talks about a number of things including widescreen.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6177728.html

I've read a few interviews he's given now and he really comes across as a straight shooter and incredibly reasonable guy.

Here's an interesting new interview with Ken Levine (creative force behind Bioshock.) He talks about a number of things including widescreen.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6177728.html

I've read a few interviews he's given now and he really comes across as a straight shooter and incredibly reasonable guy.

Good interview.

No sign of a 360 'fix' for the FOV issue anytime soon:confused:

(Rant Mode On) Maybe there won't be a fix becuase ITS NOT BROKEN! ughh.. i guess people just don't understand what has been said in here about artist intent. If any fix should be put out it should be for the 4:3 mode not the 16:9! (Rant mode off :)

(Rant Mode On) Maybe there won't be a fix becuase ITS NOT BROKEN! ughh.. i guess people just don't understand what has been said in here about artist intent. If any fix should be put out it should be for the 4:3 mode not the 16:9! (Rant mode off :)

Ha! Too funny. I'm with you. This issue reminds me of the old Doom 3 release where there were tons and tons of complaints about Doom 3 being too dark and enclosed. And that it was a problem that needed to be "fixed". I used to imagine the "bug fix" dialog going something like:

Complainer: D3 is much too dark. Didn't you guys test this thing?? How could it get out the door in this condition?? The next patch has got to make it brighter!!
Developer: Um, well it's supposed to be dark and trigger an uncomfortable "scared of the dark" reaction in players. We spents months perfecting that art style.
Complainer: I don't care about details like that - its too dark. The game is going to sit on my shelf until the patch is available. And you know what? The game feels too enclosed as well, this game is going back unless the next patch has an outdoor level. Don't you guys know what you're doing?
Developer: Well the levels were designed to give you an uneasy claustrophobic feel...
Complainer: And there's not enough to "do" in the gameworld, there needs to be more to do? Did you guys even alpha test this thing??
Developer: Well, we were trying to target the audience that wants something easy to pickup and to run/gun not adventure or role play.
Complainer: And why did you pick a dumb name like Doom 3 - it should have been Far Cry 2! Come to think of it, Doom 3 isn't really like Far Cry at all!? What were you thinking??
Developer: WTF??!
Complainer: Don't you care about your customers!?! WE NEED A FIX FOR THIS ... NOOWWW!!

I loved Bioshock. No complaints.

Having said that: If watching a 16:9 movie on your 4:3 television gave us more film to watch, would we ever have gone to widescreen TVs?
"This film has been modified from its original version. It has been enhanced to fit your TV."

Call it what you want. Going from 16:9 to 4:3 has always caused the sides to be cropped. There's no reason for any movie/game maker to change that.

I loved Bioshock. No complaints.

Having said that: If watching a 16:9 movie on your 4:3 television gave us more film to watch, would we ever have gone to widescreen TVs?
"This film has been modified from its original version. It has been enhanced to fit your TV."

Call it what you want. Going from 16:9 to 4:3 has always caused the sides to be cropped. There's no reason for any movie/game maker to change that.

No it hasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

(Rant Mode On) Maybe there won't be a fix becuase ITS NOT BROKEN! ughh.. i guess people just don't understand what has been said in here about artist intent. If any fix should be put out it should be for the 4:3 mode not the 16:9! (Rant mode off :)

Exactly. IMHO, the people complaining are lemming-like morons. IMHO.
They should have just letterboxed the 4:3, and avoided the whining pea-brains. :rolleyes:

Thanks for that link Jokell I was trying to find a similar rescource to post so people could understand this proccess has been done many other times than just on this game. There are many DVD releases where the 4:3 version of the movie shows more than the widescreen release but the 4:3 version is the one that is incorrect. This is exactly what is going on with this game.

My two cents on the whole "which is the right display" argument to me seems pretty straight forward... it shouldn't come down to format or screen size, but pixels...

Pixels are a universal way to measure things in computer displays and easy to get a hold of for informational purposes.

Windows icons don't change when switching between formats. A square folder icon that is 64x64 on a 4:3 is still 64x64 on a widescreen. Why should it be different for anything else?

In my book it should be that some object at x distance will take up this many pixels. Thus if I took an 800x600 screengrab of the game, then pasted that onto the center area of a 16:9 screen that was 600 pixels tall, it would look exactly the same but with black bars on the edges.

In the case of Bioshock, they have decided that what was 400 pixels tall 2 feet away on a 4:3 screen is no 500 pixels tall on a 16:9 screen.

This points to an inherent problem for which there is no reason.

I believe other games do it properly, if an item is 400 pixels tall 2 feet away in a 4:3 game, it is also 400 pixels tall 2 feet away in a 16:9 game. This is far and "correct" in my book.

Preference is not something you can ever win, I still have friends who prefer pan and scan 4:3 to even a native anamorphic movie just because they like square pictures better. Fair enough, there is no definite measure to whats right in taste.

But in displays we have a definite measure, we have pixels, and in it seems the obviously "right" way to do something is that it's the same number of pixels tall on everyones display.

That's what I think at least, and that's why I think the way it's handled in Bioshock is "wrong".

In the case of Bioshock, they have decided that what was 400 pixels tall 2 feet away on a 4:3 screen is no 500 pixels tall on a 16:9 screen.Maybe the devs intended it to be 500 pixels tall, but had to change it to 400 pixels for the 4:3 crowd.

Just playing devil's advocate. :D

Edit: But I guess you are saying if they intended it to be 500 for the widescreen crowd, they should have kept it 500 for the standard crowd.

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

Pay special attention to both Super 35 and Open Matte. Super 35 was used rather often in recent years and that still fits my description of cropping the sides. It makes sense why Pan and Scan would be used on Super 35 films if you wanted the fine detail in action scenes.

If we took all the films of all the years, whats the ratio that Open Matte was used? It would be hard to pin point but I'd wager a very small ratio. I change my statement of 'always' to 'mostly'.

Name a big budget film developed in the past 3 years that used open matte.
We can name at least 1 game, that essentially was, however.

If they put boom mikes and camera tracks on the 4:3 version of Bioshock, I don't think the widescreeners would've complained. :rolleyes:

Heh, anyway it simply doesn't make sense that it was done this way.

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

Pay special attention to both Super 35 and Open Matte. Super 35 was used rather often in recent years and that still fits my description of cropping the sides. It makes sense why Pan and Scan would be used on Super 35 films if you wanted the fine detail in action scenes.

If we took all the films of all the years, whats the ratio that Open Matte was used? It would be hard to pin point but I'd wager a very small ratio. I change my statement of 'always' to 'mostly'.

Name a big budget film developed in the past 3 years that used open matte.
We can name at least 1 game, that essentially was, however.

If they put boom mikes and camera tracks on the 4:3 version of Bioshock, I don't think the widescreeners would've complained. :rolleyes:

Heh, anyway it simply doesn't make sense that it was done this way.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. And again, if they had simply letterboxed the 4:3 display we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Here's the real question - did you enjoy the game? Then who cares?

(Rant Mode On) Maybe there won't be a fix becuase ITS NOT BROKEN! ughh.. i guess people just don't understand what has been said in here about artist intent. If any fix should be put out it should be for the 4:3 mode not the 16:9! (Rant mode off :)

Fix was in inverted commas.

ughh.. i guess people just don't understand...'colloquialisms':p

http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

Pay special attention to both Super 35 and Open Matte. Super 35 was used rather often in recent years and that still fits my description of cropping the sides. It makes sense why Pan and Scan would be used on Super 35 films if you wanted the fine detail in action scenes.

If we took all the films of all the years, whats the ratio that Open Matte was used? It would be hard to pin point but I'd wager a very small ratio. I change my statement of 'always' to 'mostly'.

Name a big budget film developed in the past 3 years that used open matte.
We can name at least 1 game, that essentially was, however.

If they put boom mikes and camera tracks on the 4:3 version of Bioshock, I don't think the widescreeners would've complained. :rolleyes:

Heh, anyway it simply doesn't make sense that it was done this way.

Super 35 is generally used in a way that is almost exactly what was done with BioShock. In fact, with movies that have an aspect ratio below 2.35:1, you don't have the side cropping at all and the 4:3 simply shows more. Even with 2.35:1, if they used a common center instead of a common top (which the image at that link shows), you get something similar to BioShock, although with a larger discrepancy between the amount of image shown horizontally and vertically.

The image (composition, whatever) was designed at 16:9, which is the opposite of most games in history (though, will probably be common in the future). So, if the designers wanted an 80-degree FOV (making up that number), they made the "real" (16:9) version of the game 80 degrees.

Now, you really think they should cut the 4:3 version down to 50 or so degrees? That would be serious tunnel vision for those users (there's a lot of them). So, they gave the 4:3 viewers 80 degrees horizontally as well.

If "80 degrees" (made up number) was the "right" FOV before, it still is.

It's incredible that Levine is willing to give users what they want, but it's shortsighted to act like it was a mistake. It was a choice.

To use a movie analogy again, Woody Allen always (last I checked) mixes his movies in mono. One channel. Not the 5.1 standard. It can be irritating, but we can't really demand that he "fix his mistake" since we've got 5.1 (or 7.1, or whatever) channels to use. As the creator, he can choose. Bioshock is just as much a work of art (in my opinion), and it seems odd to force an artist to change what appears to be a conscious decison.

I suppose if you believe it was intended as an artistic expression to choose how they did it, then that's up to you. I personally don't...

If they were that worried about artistic expression they would have worked HARDER to ensure everyone got the same experience, and not "some get the see the eyes that are a giveaway that the girl is messed up and some don't".

Even if it involved letterboxing or pillarboxing I think it would be the superior solution, yes it would step on toes as well but if you really care enough about artistic expression as it is made out, you would trample those toes to provide the exact same experience to everyone.

In this case a standard is out there, the precedent is set and I don't see people getting all up in arms about the many other FPS's that do it the "standard" way... since this approach neither gaurantees everyone the same experience or meets the standard I have to say I am not sure why you would be happy about it.

In the end I still revert back to it all coming down to pixels... 400 pixels on your screen should be 400 pixels on my screen regardless of who's is taller or wider.

You know, there is one great thing about all this drama....

I seriously doubt that this is ever going to happen again. The amount of drama from this widescreen issue, is going to cause all other developers to never consider throwing the 4:3 set a bone. (At least when it comes to 360 and PS3 games). Of course, it's an opposite situation with the Wii. At least be glad that this is only an occasional screwup, while the Wii folks have to deal with non 480p games, and all kinds of games with fake widescreen or no widescreen.

The Wii is not a next gen console. 4:3 display users should stick with the Wii, it's designed for them.... ;)

...but yeah, I think you will see more letterboxed 4:3 games from now on, or they will be cropped on the sides, reducing the FOV for 4:3 users. As a widescreen user, I'm all for screwing the 4:3 people. It's about damn time they upgrade.