-
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
vpance
Member
That's why I thought maybe they've increased the FOV or zoomed out a bit more than compared to a typical game.
Exactly, trying to cram more FOV into the same aspect ratio.
cripterion
Member
Definitely not in favor of this. Hope it doesn't become a trend. Didn't like it in RE4.
(Even worse, they still continue to do this shit in split screen mode for RE6, even on the pc...)
(Even worse, they still continue to do this shit in split screen mode for RE6, even on the pc...)
That's only because it goes way beyond what you'd ever choose to have.
It makes no difference, and it has no relation at all, and the screenshots in the OP don't show a wide FoV at all.
Graphics Horse
Member
I'm aware that in motion it looks even weirder, but if you pause the Skyrim 200fov video it still looks super weird when still.
Edit: ah ok the BC 2 setting is not based on degrees, at least not at the high end. Or it's measured diagonally maybe?
Aspect ratio goes hand in hand with fov...
Take the 200fov Skyrim vid I posted - If you had a circular 300'' monitor with a 20:1 (wild guess) aspect ratio this fov would appear natural whereas at 16:9 it looks really off...
I know that this is an extreme example but it can be applied to smaller differences in aspect ratio as well.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Have just noticed that the official reveal trailer for The Order is actually in 2.40:1 ratio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FK8dgzW0o8
It certainly looks good. Perhaps this may turn out to be fine when they show actual game footage. To counter act the black bars, they really need to show a wider FOV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FK8dgzW0o8
It certainly looks good. Perhaps this may turn out to be fine when they show actual game footage. To counter act the black bars, they really need to show a wider FOV.
Well this is pretty easy to find out, here are two pictures of Skyrim, the same FoV, a different aspect ratio, and you can tell me if you think one is less stupid than the other.
For me the answer is certainly no, they look equally stupid, it makes no difference whatsoever. If anything, 16:9 is nicer, more vertical room to balance out the image.
vpance
Member
I'm just speculating on what the camera positioning might be like during gameplay.
Edit: Those pics both look weird. Can you make the 2.4 one more "normal" and then do a 16:9 version? The 2.4 version should be like any current 16:9 game, but with more viewable area on the left and right. Then up the FOV in the 16:9 version to match the 2.4's horizontal viewing area.
Marty Chinn
Member
Newsflash! Movies don't have a standard aspect ratio.
SniperHunter
Banned
those black borders will be a huge headache for those of us with a Plasma tv
You just cut off top and bottom when in reality the 16:9 pic would needed to be stretched...
16:9
16:9 stretched to 2.4:1
I get it, people are assuming because it's scope, if you imagine a normal guy with his back against a piece of cover, this game will have it much wider at the sides essentially. I think that's probably the case too, but being in scope isn't required for that, it doesn't serve as an advantage for the FoV.
It reminds me of the debate about BioShock's widescreen mode. People were pissed that widescreen cropped the vertical axis, not widened the horizontal axis, but that's when thinking of the image as relating to a film camera. The FoV of a game isn't related to the resolution of the framebuffer.
No, it wouldn't. That's retaining the vertical FoV, which you wouldn't do when changing the aspect ratio.
crazygambit
Member
Exactly, so developers should determine it on a game by game basis. For most games the standard 16:9 ratio should be fine, but there's no reason some developers can't experiment with other aspect ratios. I think the comment that it's to create a more "filmic" experience could be the truth, it may very well work in the game's favor (and the performance benefit doesn't hurt I'm sure),
Not really, if you change the FOV, it changes in all directions. So it affects both horzontal and vertical in the same way.
For example, if you just change the FOV from 75 to 90 you will see more on all edghes of the screen, not just the sides.
Hazelhurst
Member
I want your contrast ratio.
BRocknRolla
Member
I'm unbothered. For the first 20 or so minutes of playing Dragon's Dogma I thought it was weird, and then totally forgot that's the way it was. I guess it isn't ideal, but I know I'll adjust in moments.
Is this a trend though? I highly doubt it. Whether it's a stylistic choice, technical decision, or otherwise, it doesn't seem like something other games would pick up unless it proves to be essential for some reason (And I see no reason to believe it is given very few games use this style).
Is this a trend though? I highly doubt it. Whether it's a stylistic choice, technical decision, or otherwise, it doesn't seem like something other games would pick up unless it proves to be essential for some reason (And I see no reason to believe it is given very few games use this style).
You mean pretty much all the time?
Honestly I can't say I have too many good or bad feelings towards this.
Used to really hate black bars on movies, but then you realise how nicer a wider aspect ratio can be in the hands of a good cinematographer.
That said, tons of films seem to only use it so their film looks like a "movie"(for the lak of a better explanation), poor framing, tons of closeups and whatnot.
Not too worried about The Order, with Santa Monica Studios being part of the project, the gameatography(I hate myself for typing that) should be pretty good.
Played AC2 and Botherhood at a 2.35:1 AR on PC a while back, looked fantastic(except when in the tombs).
But I guess they could give you the option to play at 1920x1080 with a lower framerate, since it's an SP-only game(unless that's changed?).
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
danielcw said:
Yep. What I find interesting in the dev comments is the claims of simulating optical lens effects, suggesting they may be attempting to replicate the anamorphic process.
Either way I strongly suspect that they'll be doing a lot more than the basic projection matrix tweaking that most lay-people consider FOV adjustment.
That's my basic idea about their intentions - you'll simply see more left and right and the same top and bottom...
I was talking about horizontal fov the whole time - maybe I should have been clearer...
like this (didn't find a better gif):
edit:
It should be possible to change horizontal and vertical fov independently in any engine afaik...
So you hate what the vast majority of movies do?
This can be a complicated thing to talk about, it's always best to use pictures, so I've made these.
80 FoV, 16:9
80 FoV, Scope
90 FoV, 16:9
90 FoV, Scope
100 FoV, 16:9
100 FoV, Scope
I hope that makes it clearer.
The field of vision decision is independent of the aspect ratio, at least technologically. They could decide to have a wider FoV because it's more in keeping with their aspect ratio selection, and I imagine they will, but it's not a functional advantage to be in scope.
Do you mean for the player, or the programmer?
I am pretty sure any programmer can either set it, or tweak the original code, as in changing the values of the projection matrix
RibbedHero
Member
Fantastic post mate.
So in all those cases it is the horizontal FoV?This can be a complicated thing to talk about, it's always best to use pictures, so I've made these.
80 FoV, 16:9
...SNIP...
100 FoV, Scope
And then you cropped the image to get a different aspect ratio?
I believe what flexi had in mind was the difference between your last and first picture (the 2 pictures i quoted). more visual information on the sides, without loosing any information on top and bottom.
To be perfectly honest - no it doesn't - but if it helps I am not sure if you or I are in the right or if we just don't understand each others point :-D
What do you mean by that?
May I suggest to stop talking about technical things, and stop using technical terms, and just say what we really want to talk about.
How it is achieved/explained technologically should not matter here, though I find it interesting.
I honestly don't know if the numbers relate to the horizontal FoV, I would imagine it does, as games tend to have adjustable FoV scale based on the horizontal axis only, and the numbers would be much smaller if it was vertical.
And yes, I cropped them.
Yeah, I get what he means, I'm just trying to convey that the two things aren't connected. The 100 FoV/Scope is better than the 80 FoV/16:9, of course, but it's not as good as the 100 FoV/16:9 in terms of visual data. Aesthetically, it's in the eye of the beholder though.
I mean that if every decision being made is about being the most cinematic, and reproducing the nature of camera lenses etc, then gameplay would be wide-angle, probably 85, which is pretty wide for a console game (this generation at least).
drugstore_cowboy
Member
I get more horizontal information at the same fov.
Both 50 degrees.
Both 50 degrees.
Can't it be both? Like a chicken and egg scenario:
The design team are responsible for drawing up the cutscenes and they say that they would prefer a wider ratio for their shots in cutscenes or for world building (wider ratio can emphasise different aspects of height and scale) and the development team obliges figuring they can now work on other visual effects now they have X percent less pixels to render.
Perhaps sometime during development it became clear that 1080 vertical pixels was a drain on performance, so the development team put it to the design team that maybe they should consider designing the game around 800 vertical pixels. The design team obliges figuring they can take advantage of the wider ratio.
Or perhaps both things happened right at the very beginning, at the most formative stage of planning this game when dev kits were new and the game was little more than drawings on paper and some wireframe models. One team says they're drawing inspiration from classic 2.40 ratio films and love the effect it gives to certain eras of film that they would like to recreate. The other team suggests that the performance gain on not rendering X amount of pixels means they can now do some other effects with greater results. Both teams agree this is something they should do for the obvious advantages.
Whatever. I'm all for it. Even without the proper equipment to view 2.40 in all its glory, it's a fun experience. But if you're lucky enough to have either an enormous 16:9/16:10 ratio screen (say, 65" or bigger) where the black bars are neither here nor there, or better yet a proper 2.40 projector, it's an amazing experience.
HoodWinked
Gold Member
the feel of cinnamon
RAD are pretty great, ill give them the benefit of the doubt on their artistic vision stuff til we see the actual game.
I don't see why people are saying they're cutting corners for performance when the current method of upscaling a sub HD res goes unnoticed by 99% of players. Black bars will be noticed by everyone.
I don't see why people are saying they're cutting corners for performance when the current method of upscaling a sub HD res goes unnoticed by 99% of players. Black bars will be noticed by everyone.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Here's a thought, take the time to make a game that is 1920x1080 at a steady 30fps or more. If it takes longer to figure out the hardware then it takes longer. There's no reason to rush a game, say they pushed the hardware, only to find out their next game runs better and looks better.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
It's the best aspect ratio for movies, I'd like to see how that translates to a game.
That's the vertical FoV.I get more horizontal information at the same fov.
Both 50 degrees.
The precedent, used in virtually all video games, is to retain the same vertical view in every single aspect ratio. The vertical field of vision never, ever, changes in modern games. Never. Thus the wider the aspect ratio, the more your field of view. Eyefinity users on PC see more horizontally than anyone. And they suffer no penalty to what they can see vertically.
Yes, FOV and AR are independent. But the precedent is quite clear and has been for a long time: a wider AR inherently means a wider FOV. Some games went against this grain (Bioshock on PC before it was patched) but they are the exception. I challenge anyone to list a modern PC game that let's you see more vertically in 4:3 than 16:9. Forget about it.
But really, this only works for comparing a game that even lets you choose multiple aspect ratios. The Order 1886 will not do this, so it really doesn't matter. This view is purely to mimic a film feeling.
Yes, FOV and AR are independent. But the precedent is quite clear and has been for a long time: a wider AR inherently means a wider FOV. Some games went against this grain (Bioshock on PC before it was patched) but they are the exception. I challenge anyone to list a modern PC game that let's you see more vertically in 4:3 than 16:9. Forget about it.
But really, this only works for comparing a game that even lets you choose multiple aspect ratios. The Order 1886 will not do this, so it really doesn't matter. This view is purely to mimic a film feeling.
Yeah i agree. I love it in films, so it will certainly be interesting to see it in a game. The fact that it is a TPS makes me believe that the presumed wide camera angle will work, as opposed to a FPS game in 21:9, which i have a hard time picturing. Probably because there is no frame of reference.
This game better not dip below 30fps though...
I think that's the crux - The widescreen shot provides more horizontal information this way.
That's the point I was trying to make.
Yeah cool, you believe that.
When a new console with "next-Gen" hardware has a game being made by a first party that is renowned for their ability to exploit hardware making concessions like this, its not good.
The difference is purely academic.
If someone chooses 45 degrees of vertical field of vision at 16:9, then decide to go to 2.40:1 while retaining the vertical field, they get a 'wider' image.
If someone chooses 90 degrees of horizontal field of vision at 16:9, then decide to go to 2.40:1 while retaining the horizontal field, they get a 'thinner' image.
boredandlazy
Member
You are assuming it's a concession though. I don't particular like the idea either way but if it's being done for artistic purposes it'll at least be interesting to see how it pans out.
grosvenor_92
Member
Certainly looks weird don't know if I could get used to it
- Status