-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Order: 1886 is rendering in 2.40:1 ratio (1920x800), will this be a trend?
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
- Status
this!
Monty Mole
Member
That's not my point, I completely agree with 2.4:1 for the cinema because the screen is obviously much wider. Hence I don't want the sides cut off when watching on my TV so have no issue with the black bars in that scenario.
But here we're talking about a game, which is being designed first and foremost to be played not on a 2.4:1 cinema screen, but your 16:9 TV !
Just so I can try to understand the other side on this, does this image look the same in all those aspects to you? Meaning, do you not find any of them more pleasing or anything from one to the other? Do you feel the same feeling would be achieved by simply moving the camera back and forth?
Yes, because games should be movies right?
I'm not even a fan of black bars in my movies either, but its a different form of entertainment and there are other reasons why the black bars exist.
They shouldn't be in games. Games are not movies, and they don't have a "native source" that forced that issue when it was released for home viewing. I'd rather they run the game in 720/60/Full AA than this shit.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
This game is example #1 of how ridiculous this cinematic games bullshit has gotten. We're chopping off 20% of the screen for content that will only be displayed on 16:9 television for the sake of being "filmic".
And yet the developers of this very game think it'll benefit from this 2.4:1 aspect ratio and there are only two possible scenarios in my opininion:
1. They want to improve performance/get prettier effects by reducing the resolution
or
2. They think the aspect ratio will be beneficial to the atmosphere / "artistic vision" they have for this game
I don't know for certain which of these scenarios applies but I am pretty confident in saying they don't do this just to annoy gamers...
I wonder how many peoples TVs will just end up filling the screen anyway?
Do you think similarly of games like Silent Hill 2 or Mass Effect that add film grain which could be seen as an attack on image clarity for sake of being "filmic?"
They don't have a "native source" but they do have their own unique parameters from within which they work.
NullPointer
Member
I do. Its one of the first options I disable whenever the choice is present.
Wow...
Yeah ok, whatever makes you feel better. Funny how God of War didn't need them despite how "cinematic" that game is.
TouchMyBox
Member
At least it's better than scaling sub-native resolutions, I guess.
Do you think that you're making a good point?
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Going hard in the paint.
That's what I gathered from your comments - job well done!
CassidyIzABeast
Member
you can turn that off in ME1 on 360 if I remember correctly. Huge difference.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
A better argument would be that none of the TV shows with acclaimed cinematography, like Mad Men, need it, and they wouldn't used it because they are made for a TV screen.
Uno Venova
Banned
So is this is like a next gen wide standard. Or just two games that I can avoid if this bothers me.
lol, what is happening in this thread?
In fact I do.
Of course they're going to hide behind a "design decision" rather than flat out admit they couldn't hit 1080/30.
Devil's advocate: The trailer being in-engine doesn't necessarily mean that its exact resolution, aspect ratio, and framerate will be used during gameplay. Release is still a ways off, and a lot can change between now and then.
Yeah, when I first saw an interview with them saying this, I was like "Really? Come on!"
It's a different thing if it's an option you can enable and they frame the game elements/program it so people who choose to go for 2.4:1 aren't missing out on something. But the impression is completely different when it's forced during gameplay, pretty much just screams they weren't able to pull off proper 1920x1080.
They specifically stated in an interview, this is the aspect ratio they will maintain during gameplay. But yes, I do agree about framerate. I wonder how people will receive it if the game runs at 60fps.
It's a different thing if it's an option you can enable and they frame the game elements/program it so people who choose to go for 2.4:1 aren't missing out on something. But the impression is completely different when it's forced during gameplay, pretty much just screams they weren't able to pull off proper 1920x1080.
They specifically stated in an interview, this is the aspect ratio they will maintain during gameplay. But yes, I do agree about framerate. I wonder how people will receive it if the game runs at 60fps.
AstroNut325
Member
I do not support this in any way, shape, or form. I hate this in regards to movies and I will hate it even more for games.
I'm officially writing off The Order for doing this. I will not buy it.
I'm officially writing off The Order for doing this. I will not buy it.
What would stop them from doing so? They're working with one of Sony's best tech teams and they themselves have proven their own competence on a smaller platform. I made the parallel to the fog in SS earlier. There are tangible performance benefits, but it also works artistically. They could have still scaled up (which from what I understand is less expensive), yet they did not. If anything -- it's convenient -- two birds. The idea that this is an outrage or is a blatant lie is reaching. If such a concession allows them to do something interesting or if they have a very distinct vision in mind -- why not? Is God of War's variable frame rate SSM's inability to lock it down?
dr_rus
Member
1920x800 is ok if that'll give us better graphics. I have no problems with black bars. I've been playing this whole generation on a 16:10 display with black bars.
This thread is fun though. So much whining because of aspect ratio when we actually don't know anything about the game itself.
This thread is fun though. So much whining because of aspect ratio when we actually don't know anything about the game itself.
It was just a question.
I was simply wondering what stylistic choices set some people off.
There's people saying that they won't buy a game if it has black bars.
R3TRODYCE
Member
RibbedHero
Member
That's an excellent point. The developers know full well what type of screen the majority of their audiences have. I don't see any tv shows using a 2.4:1 aspect ratio.
"The slow downs are for dramatic effect!"
Iacobellis
Junior Member
I remember BFBC1 had film grain as well.
I have absolutely no idea what you just said.. It just doesn't compute. I mean, ok maybe you have some sort of personal overlay, some arbitrary nostalgy connecting the aspect ratio of a movie experience to your games? In that case it would be very...subjective. In a game you would for the most part want to utilize all the pixels you have available.
We had discussions on the alt.-boards during the 90's when the DVD took off, some movies in the beginning came with 16:9 on one side of the DVD, and 4:3 on the other because everyone had 4:3 TVs back then. Some releases came on separate discs, one of each aspect ration, and in the worst case; only a 4:3 Pan and scan release. We the old-school movie enthusiasts hated on the 4:3 because it actually deleted an important part of the directors work. But that's a completely different thing from a videogame on, mostly, a 16:9 screen. There's nothing to delete, it's all there, and you are the director so-to-speak. Especially in a 3D geometric game where you are immersed in a game world it wouldn't make sense to compare it to movies.
This. RaD already confirmed the game's release ratio? It could be used only for cinematics/interstitial cutscenes for all we know.
First of all, I'm not saying games should be movies. Again, there are a LOT of people criticizing blurays for this. And this is what I'm saying. Also, my specific post is about how those films change aspect ratio during certain scenes and I imagine it drives the people that don't like black bars crazy.
But in regards to your question, I don't see an issue with it at all.
gutter_trash
Banned
I will for you guys to buy the game first and play it then tell me how much QTE stuff will be in the game
I'd imagine this wouldn't be a problem if the game were multiplatform.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Sure. I'll more than likely still pick this up, I just don't see why you would chop off 20% of the screen real estate for filmic reasons when you're making a video game that won't ever see release in theaters.
In an interview a dev from RaD stated that this is the aspect ratio the game will run at as well. It's not just for cinematics.
Agreed. Such a bloody waste. I'll be genuinely annoyed if they do this.
Why do you hate it in movies? It's what the filmmakers wanted.
TomJoadsGhost
Member
Huh, all those years I thought lazy pal conversions were a bad thing and it turns out they were filmic the whole time.
fancy that.
fancy that.
Thanks. I hope they keep performance pristine then, I won't be lenient on that.
I'm not sure what you mean, "it's all there." If the developers are making the game with a certain aspect in mind, that means to fill a 16:9 frame they would have to show more information then they want.
It doesn't matter that you can swing the camera wherever you want, the amount of visual information you can receive at any given moment (FOV) is determined by the aspect ration chosen by the creators of the game.
You may not think changing the FOV in Bioshock affected the experience, but I'd wager the people who wanted pan and scan felt the same about their movies.
- Status