Re: Dark Sector
Trimble Bracegirdle
Out since late March for PS3 & Xbox Toy things & PC ..A quote
"...if you like simple nonstop-action, combined with cool boss-fights, you're
in the right place in Dark Sector."
Then again :
".Predictable from the get-go, wrapped in a blanket of tired clich�s,
without an ounce of adrenaline in its blood, Dark Sector has finally
surfaced after eight years of oblivion, yet nobody seems to care."
Definitely one for Mr Rob .
Prod description & links to many of not V. good reviews.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/darksector?q=Dark%20Sector
NOW! the really important thing for me ...Is there a (decent) Demo ?
So I can play just about as much as its worthy of for free.
...(goes Goggling, Gamershell etc.) .......(& now returns..... )
Hmmm ...lots of trailers & teasers all the way back to 2005.
A demo for XBOX toy thing but not for the PC (little Sob!).
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse(the longer they take to make the worse they are to Play)
Andrew
<no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>Oooo ! really need a game like that ...no nonsense Shooter ..thanks Legion .
>
>Out since late March for PS3 & Xbox Toy things & PC
So why do you want to play a game that is the same on a Toy thing as
your precious PC?
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Nonymous
"Legion" <Leg...@Invalid.com> wrote in message
news:r1op05lv3jlm5blte...@4ax.com...
>
> Just 45 mins. into this 3rd person shooter and find it to be quite
> interesting.
> Everything is a bit different including the graphics and gun play.
> So far I have a good looking pistol,acquired a neat submachine gun,
> shot down a helicopter with a five round rpg, been "transformed" and
> can use a curved three bladed glaive and pistol at the same time.
> Find myself passing up the 2 handed machine gun for the pistol and
> glaive combo....fun launching it and cutting the heads off the enemy;
> comes back to you fast..no reload required!
> Game starts off in black and white but soon changes to color after
> you become "infected".
> So far i would recomend this game..looks like a winner.
Unfortuntely, it has aspect ratio problems on widescreen monitors.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15794
Not only is the image stretched vertically (like what happened when Gears of
War was first released on the PC), but the top and bottom of the screen is
also cut off, like Bioshock was pre-patch. I bought it on Steam a few weeks
ago and noticed the stretching issue right a way after the intro cutscene
finished. Now that I think of it, I think Far Cry 2 had both problems, too,
so it's sorta like that, but more pronounced, imo.
Played through the first level and gameplay looks promising but have shelved
it waiting for a patch for the aspect ratio (which I have heard a rumor is
in the works). But who knows how long that will take; they already released
an early patch to fix a few minor things and that patch has yet to make it
to Steam.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4063 (20090508) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
cyg
"Nonymous" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:-_ednYLSS5BpapDX...@giganews.com...
> Not only is the image stretched vertically (like what happened when Gears
> of War was first released on the PC), but the top and bottom of the screen
> is also cut off, like Bioshock was pre-patch.
BioShock didn't cut anything off. The game was designed with a particular
horizontal field of view, which was preserved for both 4:3 and widescreen.
There was nothing actually wrong with the decision or implementation of
doing this, except for the fact that widescreen users have become accustomed
to getting their way with "more fov than 4:3". That was the basis of
contention, "I want mine to be bigger than his." (I'm sure this is a common
thought for such people.) In reality it was a non-issue, the top and bottom
padding would not have been an issue at all if it wasn't for it being there
in 4:3. And this got the headlines among all the serious flaws that the
gameplay actually had... just goes to show you can't really trust the
mainstream to tell the difference between a good game and a good movie. If
people are more worried about a few degrees of fov than they are about the
fact that, uh, plasmids are useless, I don't know what a hardcore gamer
really is anymore.
Shawk
It didn't actually bother me at the time but I had sympathy with those
that complained that widescreen wasn't exactly new. This design
decision was not a good one...
Shawk
> Just 45 mins. into this 3rd person shooter and find it to be quite
> interesting.
> Everything is a bit different including the graphics and gun play.
> So far I have a good looking pistol,acquired a neat submachine gun,
> shot down a helicopter with a five round rpg, been "transformed" and
> can use a curved three bladed glaive and pistol at the same time.
> Find myself passing up the 2 handed machine gun for the pistol and
> glaive combo....fun launching it and cutting the heads off the enemy;
> comes back to you fast..no reload required!
> Game starts off in black and white but soon changes to color after
> you become "infected".
> So far i would recomend this game..looks like a winner.
>
I'm around an hour or so into it and finding the inability to jump over
the smallest obstacles *really* frustrating. Even small bags will stop
progress.
Also, I will peek around the corner of a door to a new room, be spotted
and withdraw ready to pick the enemy off but they will just keep firing
at the door not attempting to come. They'll stay in that room and keep
firing at the door even if I wander off (to explore/find ammmo etc).
That's pretty lame.
Other than those two annoyances I'm having some small measure of fun
with this one so far... loving the glaive
Shawk
> Legion wrote:
>> Just 45 mins. into this 3rd person shooter and find it to be quite
>> interesting.
>> Everything is a bit different including the graphics and gun play.
>> So far I have a good looking pistol,acquired a neat submachine gun,
>> shot down a helicopter with a five round rpg, been "transformed" and
>> can use a curved three bladed glaive and pistol at the same time.
>> Find myself passing up the 2 handed machine gun for the pistol and
>> glaive combo....fun launching it and cutting the heads off the enemy;
>> comes back to you fast..no reload required!
>> Game starts off in black and white but soon changes to color after
>> you become "infected".
>> So far i would recomend this game..looks like a winner.
>>
>> Legion
>
>
> I'm around an hour or so into it and finding the inability to jump over
> the smallest obstacles *really* frustrating. Even small bags will stop
> progress.
>
> Also, I will peek around the corner of a door to a new room, be spotted
> and withdraw ready to pick the enemy off but they will just keep firing
> at the door not attempting to come.
"come after me" is what I'd have typed if sober...
Memnoch
>Legion wrote:
>> Just 45 mins. into this 3rd person shooter and find it to be quite
>> interesting.
>> Everything is a bit different including the graphics and gun play.
>> So far I have a good looking pistol,acquired a neat submachine gun,
>> shot down a helicopter with a five round rpg, been "transformed" and
>> can use a curved three bladed glaive and pistol at the same time.
>> Find myself passing up the 2 handed machine gun for the pistol and
>> glaive combo....fun launching it and cutting the heads off the enemy;
>> comes back to you fast..no reload required!
>> Game starts off in black and white but soon changes to color after
>> you become "infected".
>> So far i would recomend this game..looks like a winner.
>>
>> Legion
>
>
>I'm around an hour or so into it and finding the inability to jump over
>the smallest obstacles *really* frustrating. Even small bags will stop
>progress.
Its either a bug or an eventuality that the game designers didn't allow for.
Either way that kind of thing breaks immersion, just like invisible
walls/boundaries, which are an example of lack of imagination on the
designers.
>Also, I will peek around the corner of a door to a new room, be spotted
>and withdraw ready to pick the enemy off but they will just keep firing
>at the door not attempting to come. They'll stay in that room and keep
>firing at the door even if I wander off (to explore/find ammmo etc).
>That's pretty lame.
Poorly programmed AI. This doesn't sound good. I was kind of interested in
this game myself but I am having second thoughts now.
>Other than those two annoyances I'm having some small measure of fun
>with this one so far... loving the glaive
I saw a video that explained when you level it up you can steer it in mid
flight. That sounds a bit like the sniper in Jericho where you could fly the
bullet around. I'm sure there is another game that uses that mechanic but
can't think of it, besides UT and the Redeemer.
Shawk
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:56:15 +0100, Shawk <sh...@gmx.co.uk.3guesses> wrote:
>
>> Legion wrote:
>>> Just 45 mins. into this 3rd person shooter and find it to be quite
>>> interesting.
>>> Everything is a bit different including the graphics and gun play.
>>> So far I have a good looking pistol,acquired a neat submachine gun,
>>> shot down a helicopter with a five round rpg, been "transformed" and
>>> can use a curved three bladed glaive and pistol at the same time.
>>> Find myself passing up the 2 handed machine gun for the pistol and
>>> glaive combo....fun launching it and cutting the heads off the enemy;
>>> comes back to you fast..no reload required!
>>> Game starts off in black and white but soon changes to color after
>>> you become "infected".
>>> So far i would recomend this game..looks like a winner.
>>>
>>> Legion
>>
>> I'm around an hour or so into it and finding the inability to jump over
>> the smallest obstacles *really* frustrating. Even small bags will stop
>> progress.
>
> Its either a bug or an eventuality that the game designers didn't allow for.
> Either way that kind of thing breaks immersion, just like invisible
> walls/boundaries, which are an example of lack of imagination on the
> designers.
Nope, not a bug or something the designers didn't allow for. Its a
deliberate means for making you go in one way only, just one step above
an invisible wall
>> Also, I will peek around the corner of a door to a new room, be spotted
>> and withdraw ready to pick the enemy off but they will just keep firing
>> at the door not attempting to come. They'll stay in that room and keep
>> firing at the door even if I wander off (to explore/find ammmo etc).
>> That's pretty lame.
>
> Poorly programmed AI. This doesn't sound good. I was kind of interested in
> this game myself but I am having second thoughts now.
I'll let you know if it changes but besides ducking with the speed,
reflexes and foresight of an uber-soldier on meth and with ESP whenever
I throw the glaive there aren't many other AI tricks on show so far
>> Other than those two annoyances I'm having some small measure of fun
>> with this one so far... loving the glaive
>
> I saw a video that explained when you level it up you can steer it in mid
> flight. That sounds a bit like the sniper in Jericho where you could fly the
> bullet around. I'm sure there is another game that uses that mechanic but
> can't think of it, besides UT and the Redeemer.
When I first read this my thought was 'Christ! I'm tying my fingers in
knots already"! But this morning I did re-map some of the keys
(particularly putting the glaive on the middle mouse button) so it might
not be so bad...
Shawk
> Just 45 mins. into this 3rd person shooter and find it to be quite
> interesting.
> Everything is a bit different including the graphics and gun play.
> So far I have a good looking pistol,acquired a neat submachine gun,
> shot down a helicopter with a five round rpg, been "transformed" and
> can use a curved three bladed glaive and pistol at the same time.
> Find myself passing up the 2 handed machine gun for the pistol and
> glaive combo....fun launching it and cutting the heads off the enemy;
> comes back to you fast..no reload required!
> Game starts off in black and white but soon changes to color after
> you become "infected".
> So far i would recomend this game..looks like a winner.
Hmm.. I seem to have developed a bug. I keep moving left continually
without holding the direction key. To stand still I have to hold down
the right (d). Anyone else seen this? Nowt in the Steam forums.
Sleepy
"cyg" <nom...@example.com> wrote in message
news:JPsPl.30140$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I don't know what a hardcore gamer really is anymore.
a 'hardcore' gamer is someone who spends an unreasonable amount of money,
time and effort on 'games'
to the detriment of doing anything actually productive with their life.
(something that's very easy to do and I have been guilty of at times)
Morgan
> "Nonymous" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:-_ednYLSS5BpapDX...@giganews.com...
>> Not only is the image stretched vertically (like what happened when
>> Gears of War was first released on the PC), but the top and bottom
>> of the screen is also cut off, like Bioshock was pre-patch.
>
> BioShock didn't cut anything off. The game was designed with a
> particular horizontal field of view, which was preserved for both 4:3
> and widescreen. There was nothing actually wrong with the decision or
> implementation of doing this, except for the fact that widescreen
> users have become accustomed to getting their way with "more fov than
> 4:3". That was the basis of contention, "I want mine to be bigger
> than his." (I'm sure this is a common thought for such people.)
I simply expect a modern game to take advantage of common features of a
modern gaming platform. Utilising a common feature of a modern monitor
should be no difference to utilising a common feature of modern graphics
card. It's not a question of "I want mine to be bigger than his." It's "I
want my hardware to be used to the fulest of it's abiliy."
The only viable excuse really should be for online games where a greater FoV
gives that player an unfair advantage.
cyg
"Morgan" <Nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sACQl.46643$qP7....@newsfe04.ams2...
> I simply expect a modern game to take advantage of common features of a
> modern gaming platform. Utilising a common feature of a modern monitor
> should be no difference to utilising a common feature of modern graphics
> card. It's not a question of "I want mine to be bigger than his." It's "I
> want my hardware to be used to the fulest of it's abiliy."
What "feature" are you speaking of? BioShock used every pixel of a
widescreen monitor and maintained proper aspect ratio. Fov is not a feature
of hardware. Put another way, assume that they had started with the
widescreen design. How would they translate it to 4:3? They could keep the
same horizontal fov and add more stuff to the top and bottom (which puts us
in the same boat). Or they could letterbox the top and bottom, wasting the
4:3 screen space. Or they could cut off the sides, in which case you'd be
actively constraining the view of 4:3 users. It doesn't matter which way you
make the translation. A widescreen is by definition proportionally wider
(and therefore shorter) than a 4:3 screen. By saying your horizontal
fov -must be- wider than a 4:3 screen, you are making the "I want mine to be
bigger than his" argument. The 4:3 user can say the same thing: "I want my
screen used to its fullest potential." You do realize that any fov can be
displayed on any screen, right? A 4:3 screen can display any horizontal fov
that a widescreen can, but with more stuff on top and bottom. The converse
is true for vertical fov.
Heck, 2K could do that with BioShock right now, release another patch that
gives 4:3 the same fov as widescreen, with even more stuff on the top and
bottom, only they'd end up in the same boat with certain peoples' issues of
monitor envy.
> The only viable excuse really should be for online games where a greater
> FoV gives that player an unfair advantage.
Yet even so, nearly every multiplayer shooter -does- give greater fov and an
unfair advantage to widescreens, but widescreen users don't seem too
reserved about exploiting it... but is that surprising? The only real effect
of the BioShock widescreen patch was to make the game a little bit easier
(was it coincidence that the patch also included new, free plasmids?).
Morgan
> "Morgan" <Nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:sACQl.46643$qP7....@newsfe04.ams2...
>> I simply expect a modern game to take advantage of common features
>> of a modern gaming platform. Utilising a common feature of a modern
>> monitor should be no difference to utilising a common feature of
>> modern graphics card. It's not a question of "I want mine to be
>> bigger than his." It's "I want my hardware to be used to the fulest
>> of it's abiliy."
>
> What "feature" are you speaking of?
Er, the aspect ratio of the monitor.
> Fov is not a
> feature of hardware.
I never suggested that it was. I'm saying that Bioshock didn't correctly
alter the FoV to take advantage of a widescreen monitor.
> Put another way, assume that they had started
> with the widescreen design. How would they translate it to 4:3? They
> could keep the same horizontal fov and add more stuff to the top and
> bottom (which puts us in the same boat). Or they could letterbox the
> top and bottom, wasting the 4:3 screen space. Or they could cut off
> the sides, in which case you'd be actively constraining the view of
> 4:3 users.
You mean sort of like moder TV programs do.
> It doesn't matter which way you make the translation. A
> widescreen is by definition proportionally wider (and therefore
> shorter) than a 4:3 screen. By saying your horizontal fov -must be- wider
> than a 4:3 screen, you are making the "I want
> mine to be bigger than his"
No, you don't seem to be able to get away from this mine and his idea like
it's some sort of weird one-upmanship.
The bottom line is that the 4:3 aspect ratio is quickly becoming obsolete
for both gaming and non-gaming PC use. I upped to a large widescreen monitor
for when I do webdesign, I also like it for games. A 16:10 aspect ratio has
become standard for new gaming rigs, I expect a new game to be targeted at
new technology.
> argument. The 4:3 user can say the same
> thing: "I want my screen used to its fullest potential." You do
> realize that any fov can be displayed on any screen, right?
Yes I do.
> Yet even so, nearly every multiplayer shooter -does- give greater fov
> and an unfair advantage to widescreens, but widescreen users don't
> seem too reserved about exploiting it... but is that surprising?
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about widescreen monitors. I'm
sorry but they're the current standard on a new Desktop PC.
Antonio Huerta
> Just 45 mins. into this 3rd person shooter and find it to be quite
> interesting.
I am confused with all those game which have the word "dark" in their
title (dark space, dark void, dark sector... gee, dark messiah as
well :-) ).
I forgot which one is to avoid, and which one to look forward to
playing. So that I had to make a search to refresh my memory.
As far as I remember from reading the reviews over the past half a
year, the game with the "glaive" is to avoid. And this happens to be
Dark Sector. Then there is another "dark" game to look forward to; the
protagonist have a new gameplay mechanics where he could fly. Oh yeah
-- that game is called "Dark Void".
So, I am ignoring Dark Sector, and waiting for Dark Void.
Dre
news:r1op05lv3jlm5blte...@4ax.com...
>
> interesting.
> So far I have a good looking pistol,acquired a neat submachine gun,
> shot down a helicopter with a five round rpg, been "transformed" and
> can use a curved three bladed glaive and pistol at the same time.
> Find myself passing up the 2 handed machine gun for the pistol and
> glaive combo....fun launching it and cutting the heads off the enemy;
> comes back to you fast..no reload required!
> Game starts off in black and white but soon changes to color after
> you become "infected".
> So far i would recomend this game..looks like a winner.
>
Thanks heaps for this headsup!
I went out and got it for my PS3 and I'm absolutely loving it, having a
blast!
Cheers Dre
Shawk
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:42:09 +0100, Shawk <sh...@gmx.co.uk.3guesses>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm.. I seem to have developed a bug. I keep moving left continually
>> without holding the direction key. To stand still I have to hold down
>> the right (d). Anyone else seen this? Nowt in the Steam forums.
>
> Nope
Putting the controls back to default cures it. How annoying.
Sheldon England
> Legion wrote:
>> Shawk wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hmm.. I seem to have developed a bug. I keep moving left
>>> continually without holding the direction key. To stand still I
>>> have to hold down the right (d). Anyone else seen this? Nowt in
>>> the Steam forums.
>>
>> Nope
>
>
> Putting the controls back to default cures it. How annoying.
>
I had a similar problem with Dead Space -- my default view was to look
up, this made it challenging to see where I was going.
After a web search I learned that the game defaults included settings
for a gamepad controller. As I was using mouse and keyboard I could
simply change the z setting to gibberish and it cleared the problem up.
Maybe it's something like this?
- Sheldon
Shawk
Cheers for that. I'll take a look tomorrow. Wish it was as good a game
as Dead Space... wouldn't mind fiddling with it so much
cyg
> Er, the aspect ratio of the monitor.
What was wrong with the aspect ratio? Though you claim otherwise, I
think it's pretty clear that you don't have an understanding of what aspect
ratio or fov are, or how they relate to each other and the physical
dimensions of the monitor. If BioShock displayed an incorrect aspect ratio,
your image would look distorted like a funhouse mirror. That never happened.
So I must repeat the question, what feature of your monitor did BioShock not
implement correctly? Of course, it's easy to ask, since anyone who
understands the question knows that there is no answer.
> I never suggested that it was. I'm saying that Bioshock didn't correctly
> alter the FoV to take advantage of a widescreen monitor.
No, because it correctly maintained the fov to represent the human range of
vision. Extending the fov means that the character has somehow grown eyes
towards the side and/or back of his head. Again, has nothing to do with the
hardware length/width. What it does have to do with is depth -- namely, that
a 2D image has none. The software must represent a 3D image using only a
2D display. A widescreen has the same two dimensions that a 4:3 monitor
does.
> No, you don't seem to be able to get away from this mine and his idea like
> it's some sort of weird one-upmanship.
Since you claim otherwise, then name one thing that was actually
wrong with the BioShock image without using a comparison to 4:3.
Go ahead, please tell me what is wrong in this image.
http://www.shacknews.com/images/generated/46cb3702a11b1_featured_without_text_bioshock.jpg
> The bottom line is that the 4:3 aspect ratio is quickly becoming obsolete
> for both gaming and non-gaming PC use. I upped to a large widescreen
> monitor for when I do webdesign, I also like it for games. A 16:10 aspect
> ratio has become standard for new gaming rigs, I expect a new game to be
> targeted at new technology.
And that's fine. So I'm going to take that 16:10 image, and add stuff to the
top and bottom so that my obsolete 4:3 is using the full screen. You're ok
with that, right, since you claim this isn't about having a better image
than me with your shiny new monitor.
So now, assume that the image you got in BioShock was the designed 16:10
image. And the 4:3 image is just the 16:10 image with stuff added to the top
and bottom so that the image is full screen on 4:3 monitors. If that were
the case, would you have a problem with it? Because that would end up
being the exact same thing that BioShock actually did.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/814/814960p1.html
So given that BioShock *was* targeted at the new technology, and simply took
advantage of the additional vertical space that 4:3 monitors were able to
provide, your argument seems to fall apart, as this argument always does,
since it never has any real basis.
> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about widescreen monitors. I'm
> sorry but they're the current standard on a new Desktop PC.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the age of the
technology, which is exactly my point. Newer does not mean better.
If an older technology is, in fact, capable of delivering more
trivial screen space, why not let it? Why does there seem to be an
insistence on ensuring, through deliberate manipulation of the game
engine, that the screen space of an older monitor is less than that of a
newer one? It makes no sense, unless the purpose is to stroke one's
ego.
The mathematical fact of the matter is that a 4:3 image is always taller
than the equivalent widescreen image. Programmers go out of their
way, not to ensure that a game displays correctly on a widescreen, but
to ensure that a 4:3 image does not have greater range than a widescreen,
in any dimension, or they end up with the whiners like BioShock did.
Since you're still having trouble with the concepts, let me try one final
approach. Assume I have a monitor that is very wide. Wide enough that in
proportion to your monitor (using the same scale you seem to be applying to
your monitor vs a 4:3), mine could have 360 degrees (or more) of view. Does
that sound like a correct use of hardware to you? If I can assume you are
reasonable enough to say no, that isn't right, then you must agree that a
designed limit must exist. The question therefore is, as per the sample
image,
what was wrong with the designed limit in BioShock?
I think I've made my point and backed it up with facts quite succinctly.
You've yet to provide any actual reasoning for the claim that BioShock's
rendering was incorrect, but that's only because it wasn't. Repeating your
opinions and using terminology incorrectly does not consitute reasoned
arguments, I'm afraid.
Morgan
> "Morgan" <Nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:X4XQl.159609$IC1....@newsfe06.ams2...
>> Er, the aspect ratio of the monitor.
>
> What was wrong with the aspect ratio?
Nothing the aspect ratio is fine, the problem is that the game is not taking
advantage of it properly. i..e it's cropping a 4:3 image. This regardless
of what you think is not wide screen gaming and not taking advantage of the
screen ratio.
> Though you claim otherwise, I
> think it's pretty clear that you don't have an understanding of what
> aspect ratio or fov are,
Thinking doesn't appear to be your strong point though.
> If BioShock displayed an
> incorrect aspect ratio, your image would look distorted like a
> funhouse mirror.
At no point have I said that the aspect ration of the game is wrong, I'm
saying that the aspect ratio of the *hardware* isn't being fully taken
advantage of. For the record I don't consider zooming the image and
cropping the horizontal FoV to be satisfactory.
> That never happened. So I must repeat the question,
> what feature of your monitor did BioShock not implement correctly?
As I've already said it didn't take full advantage of a 16:10 aspect ratio.
I know it's hard for you, but please try to understand this fundamental
concept.
> Of course, it's easy to ask, since anyone who understands the question
> knows that there is no answer.
Well seeing as there was a "Widescreen Fix" released not long after the game
came out I'd say that I'm not the only one that considers Bioshock's
implementation of 16:10 to be poor.
>> I never suggested that it was. I'm saying that Bioshock didn't
>> correctly alter the FoV to take advantage of a widescreen monitor.
>
> No, because it correctly maintained the fov to represent the human
> range of vision. Extending the fov means that the character has
> somehow grown eyes towards the side and/or back of his head.
4:3 isn't representative of the human filed of vision. Out physiology is
binocular, we have two eyes located horizontally from each other, this gives
us substantially greater horizontal filed of vision than vertical. This is
why the film industry developed widescreen cinema over 70 years ago.
> Again,
> has nothing to do with the hardware length/width. What it does have
> to do with is depth -- namely, that a 2D image has none. The software
> must represent a 3D image using only a 2D display. A widescreen has
> the same two dimensions that a 4:3 monitor does.
What? A wide screen has the same two dimensions as a 4:3 monitor?
Seriously? The aspect ratio is the ratio of the width against the height of
the monitor and thus is the ratio of the screen's dimensions. 4:3 != 16:10.
I'm not sure why anyone would say that they have the same dimensions.
>> No, you don't seem to be able to get away from this mine and his
>> idea like it's some sort of weird one-upmanship.
>
> Since you claim otherwise, then name one thing that was actually
> wrong with the BioShock image without using a comparison to 4:3.
> Go ahead, please tell me what is wrong in this image.
>
> http://www.shacknews.com/images/generated/46cb3702a11b1_featured_without_text_bioshock.jpg
The top and bottom of the image has been cropped.
Next
> So now, assume that the image you got in BioShock was the designed
> 16:10 image. And the 4:3 image is just the 16:10 image with stuff
> added to the top and bottom so that the image is full screen on 4:3
> monitors. If that were the case, would you have a problem with it?
> Because that would end up being the exact same thing that BioShock
> actually did.
>
> http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/814/814960p1.html
A game gets some bad press and the publisher release a statement to explain
it away. Good unbiased source there.
> So given that BioShock *was* targeted at the new technology, and
> simply took advantage of the additional vertical space that 4:3
> monitors were able to provide, your argument seems to fall apart, as
> this argument always does, since it never has any real basis.
You must be incredibly naive if you really believe the above. Either that
or you're clutching at straws. If the extra vertical image is redundant
then why bother adding it and taking up CPU/GPU time to render it.
>> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about widescreen monitors. I'm
>> sorry but they're the current standard on a new Desktop PC.
>
> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the age of the
> technology, which is exactly my point. Newer does not mean better.
No, but in computer terms it more often than not does, Moore's Law for a
start. Plus a 16:10 ratio screen is an upgrade from a 4:3 one. Simple
fact.
> If an older technology is, in fact, capable of delivering more
> trivial screen space, why not let it? Why does there seem to be an
> insistence on ensuring, through deliberate manipulation of the game
> engine, that the screen space of an older monitor is less than that
> of a newer one? It makes no sense, unless the purpose is to stroke
> one's ego.
See above.
> The mathematical fact of the matter is that a 4:3 image is always
> taller than the equivalent widescreen image. Programmers go out of
> their way, not to ensure that a game displays correctly on a widescreen,
> but
> to ensure that a 4:3 image does not have greater range than a
> widescreen, in any dimension, or they end up with the whiners like
> BioShock did.
> Since you're still having trouble with the concepts, let me try one
> final approach. Assume I have a monitor that is very wide. Wide
> enough that in proportion to your monitor (using the same scale you
> seem to be applying to your monitor vs a 4:3), mine could have 360
> degrees (or more) of view. Does that sound like a correct use of
> hardware to you?
Er, no, becasiue it's erganomicaly unsound unless there's a need to have the
user turn their head (i.e. some sort of simpulation) this is not the case
for 4:3 vs 16:9
> If I can assume you are reasonable enough to say no,
> that isn't right, then you must agree that a designed limit must
> exist. The question therefore is, as per the sample image,
> what was wrong with the designed limit in BioShock?
I've gone over this.
> I think I've made my point and backed it up with facts quite
> succinctly.
Like I said thinking aint your strong point.
> You've yet to provide any actual reasoning for the claim
> that BioShock's rendering was incorrect, but that's only because it
> wasn't. Repeating your opinions and using terminology incorrectly
> does not consitute reasoned arguments, I'm afraid.
Out of the two of us. You seem to be the one who struggles with basic
terminology. Also an understanding of physiology and
Scatter
> What was wrong with the aspect ratio?
It'd be better if the game allowed the user to set things like aspect
ratio and FOV to their own preferences rather than forcing something
on them.
cyg
"Scatter" <us...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid> wrote in message
news:2GtSl.13534$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I can agree with that, but it's easier said than done. If you allow any fov,
then inevitably some users will choose 360 degrees, the useful maximum. In a
game like BioShock, which relies a lot on having guys sneak up behind you,
this pretty much kills the atmosphere. Plus it's difficult to explain the
ability to see all around you at once, never mind the effect on a
multiplayer deathmatch. For most game designs, some limit on fov must exist,
even if it is 360 degrees. When the 4:3 user reaches that maximum, he'll see
more on the top and bottom than the widescreen user. It's unavoidable. And
as long as that is true, the whiners will complain and expect the 4:3 users
to be artificially limited by the constraints of the widescreen ratios. They
won't even notice the fov until someone shows them a comparison to another
monitor, and then what they care about is that their fov isn't wider. If a
game engine supports custom fovs (and technically, the Unreal engine does,
just not supported in BioShock), the whiners will have the same "problem" --
namely that a 4:3 user can set an fov just as wide, and taller, than the
equivalent widescreen and therefore able to see "more" in a given still. As
long as the 4:3 image is showing more, they consider it a problem because
widescreens are newer and they paid more for it and therefore they must have
the advantage, mathematics be damned. If not for the 4:3 comparison, the
widescreen users would simply have played BioShock with nary a glance
towards the phantom scanlines -- with the same, perfectly suitable
horizontal fov -- and enjoyed it as much as they would have otherwise. But
what stuck out for them was not whether or not the game was perfectly
playable, but that there were additional scanlines on the other guy's
monitor. That didn't just bother them, it made them mad. Angry. This is not
in any way a realistic response over a few missing scanlines that don't
impact gameplay. It is, however, a very realistic response for someone who
places their ego in their computer parts, and when those parts are
demonstrated as inferior. Notice when I point out the math, the response is
not "hmm, maybe I should get a 4:3 monitor to improve my gaming experience"
but instead "my new monitor is better than the other guy's, it has to be,
and if it's not, then you're measuring it wrong." I'm not making the
analogy; it presents itself quite clearly and shows what this issue is
really about.
Well, in any case I've spent as much time on this topic as I care to.
Observers can decide for themselves what the facts are.
Morgan
> "Scatter" <us...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2GtSl.13534$y61....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Notice when I point out the math, the response is not "hmm, maybe I
> should get a 4:3 monitor to improve my gaming experience"
Four points:
1) A16:10 ratio is more suited to the natural filed of vision of the human
eyes and thus creates a better gaming experience.
2) A lot of people, myself included use their computers for more than just
games.
3) Most modern games will expand to a 16:10 ratio correctly.
4) Only a moron would spend money on a new 4:3 ratio display when it's
obvious that this aspect ratio is quickly becoming obsolete.
> Well, in any case I've spent as much time on this topic as I care to.
> Observers can decide for themselves what the facts are.
Or more to the point you made yourself look a bit of a fool in your last
post to me. Tip for you, if you're going to tell people that they don't
understand what they're talking about then you need to make damn sure that
you have your own facts and technical terminology correct. You obviusly
feel passionatly about the subject but you need to think about how you're
comming across to people.
Scatter
> I can agree with that, but it's easier said than done. If you allow any fov,
> then inevitably some users will choose 360 degrees, the useful maximum. In a
> game like BioShock, which relies a lot on having guys sneak up behind you,
> this pretty much kills the atmosphere. Plus it's difficult to explain the
> ability to see all around you at once, never mind the effect on a
> multiplayer deathmatch.
Other games in the past have settings for FOV and it hasn't really
been a problem. If someone uses extreme FOV's then they'll find that
the game will become very disorienting and their performance will
drop - 360 degrees is hardly a useful FPS gaming view.