What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
536 Comments
- naevity, on 10/10/2007, -18/+259and one more thing, it's not a bug if it's by design.
- spinaltap87, on 10/10/2007, -7/+164yup, not cool in battlefield and not cool here either
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -5/+158"Well what is the other option? Show more of the sides giving an unfair advantage to the 16:9ers?"
-----
Unfair advantage? That's like saying that players with better video cards have an "unfair advantage" because they can play at higher resolutions. Plus, it's a single-player game, so it's not like unfair advantages are even possible. - djcmurphy, on 10/10/2007, -16/+127I have tested this myself and it's true. Unacceptable in this day and age.
- Elliuotatar, on 10/10/2007, -82/+172I don't think this is a bug.
Let's say you're filming a movie which you also want to show on television. Like say, Back to the Future.
If you want to film the movie in a way which looks good in widescreen, then you need to use the whole of the width. But if you do that, and you then chop off the sides on 4:3 then you will be chopping off important stuff, and the scene composition will look horrible.
But if you do the same thing, setting up the scene to work in widescreen, but film in 4:3, then instead of having to chop off important stuff on the sides in 4:3, you chop off unimportant stuff off the top and bottom that were only there to make the movie fill sthe sceen in 4:3.
So you're really not losing anything important, as far as movies and ingame cinematics go. The only thing at issue here is that the game might be a little more difficult because you can't see an enemy directly above you as easily. But that's what being able to look up is for.
In short, stop being a bunch of whiny bitches. - bogd555, on 10/10/2007, -6/+91THIS IS WHY I CAN'T SEE THE GUY'S SLEEVE, ONLY THE HAND?!?!?!?!? WHY, MOTHA#%$#@^#$^
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+92Gears of War does the same thing, btw.
- pro5, on 10/10/2007, -11/+78gwolf - you gotta understand this isn't anything to do with drivers/settings (its on 360 too for a start). Basically a normal screen user is getting more picture (top and bottom) while a WS user is getting a zoomed in view which negates the wide screen and gives the 'benefit' to the std screen user which is ridiculous.
A chopped up 4:3 image is very poor by today's standards for a 'wide screen' supporting game, if we can adjust the FOV we may be able to get around it.. maybe
And as for you having ' no issues ' its not something the average person would even notice, they would just notice how they had been 'cheated' out of field of view if it was pointed out to them (if they are on widescreen compared to someone on standard). - salmonmoose, on 10/10/2007, -13/+67Try reading the article. The game is cropping the image to run at 16:9 not showing more to the sides.
It's not widescreen so much as short screen. - nimski, on 10/10/2007, -3/+55JayD16... I think if Counter Strike, a much higher accuracy and speed based game, allows wide screen then so should tactical titles such as the BF series.
- NnyCW, on 10/10/2007, -7/+49Yes, an unfair advantage in a single player game...
Also, even if this was a multiplayer game, if you have a widescreen display you should have this "advantage". No different then someone having a better internet connection or better hardware to render the game. If they have it, they should be allowed to use it. This coming from someone with a 4 year old PC. - AndrewJC, on 10/10/2007, -3/+45Um... The entirety of HD broadcast is in 16:9.
- GunsGermsSteel, on 10/10/2007, -11/+44This would never have happened on a PlayStation 3!
(JOKE) - NeoCortex, on 10/10/2007, -10/+41It's a feature.
- smedrick, on 10/10/2007, -4/+34They're free demos, super guy.
- CaptMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31Did you seriously just ask if there were there any 16:9 broadcasts? Have you heard of HDTV? I'm truly speechless.
- WoollyMittens, on 10/10/2007, -6/+33What the heck is a fixed width game? Did you invent that?
- r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27Yes there are 16:9 (16:10 in the US) broadcasts. In fact all modern broadcasts in the UK are 16:9.
- theMcPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+30Dude, that is total bull.
- DJetson, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31Two things.
First, widescreen should be supported properly, but this game kicks the balls off of everything else in so many areas. Second, to everyone who says that what basically amounts to an annoying glitch ruins the game, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's happened before, and it's bound to happen again. From what I've heard, Madden 08 has the exact opposite problem, in that it cuts off the edges when played on a standard display. That's EA, and like them or not, they've been doing this long enough to know better. So I think that the guys who made Bioshock deserve to be cut some slack. I've got Bioshock, and I can say without any reservation that anyone who would rather bitch about FOV issues rather than enjoying what is arguably one of the most engrossing games I've ever played, is just missing out. - iceperson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Terrible analogy. When you're filming a movie you have to choose an aspect, games can in essence "film" in every aspect giving the audience the best possible experience regardless of their equipment.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Literally, we're outside your house right now, torches, pitchforks, and everything.
- Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -8/+29thats like saying whos the bastard who invented such things like cable and DSL internet rather then sticking to good old dial-up. Widescreen is a much nicer display and for years everything has been shot in widescreen and cropped to 4:3 so people bought widescreens because they hate their ***** being cropped. So now you are getting screwed for buying an expensive widescreen monitor so that you would have a better display
- iceperson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+254:3 is the perfect format... if you're a cyclops. Unfortunately humans have TWO eyes spread horizontally, so a widescreen TV makes more sense as our natural POV is widescreen.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22"Don't wide screen displays have options to stretch standard TV to make it look wide screen."
-----
Yeah, and it's fugly as hell. Seriously. I'd rather lose part of the image than stretch it like that. - evillawngnome, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21"your not seeing less with 16:9, your seeing more with 4:3"
Thats like saying "2 isn't less than 3 ... 3 is MORE than 2!!"
2 < 3
3 > 2
We like widescreen for the same reason hollywood likes widescreen: You can see more. Chopping off the top and bottom of the field of view is unacceptable. - xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20MAYBE IF YOU SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL GIVE A DAMN!
- iceperson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18naevity has a future in government I see.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20That's not good. This might lead us to stepping accidentally on a little girl and risk being chased by big daddy.
- evillawngnome, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24Are you kidding me? The only things filmed in 4:3 are made for tv movies. No movie released on the big screen is filmed with 4:3 in mind. The movie is "reformatted" after the fact if they want to show it on TV. "This film has been modified from it's original version". Ever wonder what thats about? "Pan and scan" and cropping are used to make scenes look passable where they previously were too wide for 4:3.
Please, be informed before you start throwing around the flames. You just failed, hard. - carnecerro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16So, you're complaining that the latest graphic intensive game won't run well on your video card that was designed for mobile workstations?
- GibZilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Drank the EA cool-aid I see. Care to compare 1280x1024 to 800x600 and tell me there is equal chance to see an enemy? Care to compare 20-30 fps to 100 and tell me smooth graphics don't make a difference?
Unfair advantage? You're kidding me. Every component in your computer contributes to your ass kicking ability. EA either doesn't want to spend 20 minutes adding variables that console players are less likely to use, or the person making decisions doesn't play games. I'm leading towards the latter given their most recent history of quality products. - sirber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15sony ;)
- vileS, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18It's a valid complaint. That being said, it's not horrible. I've played through a significant chunk of the game, and am loving it.
- Coaleh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17lol
- EvolvedAnt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Dude, your 3d card is not even designed for gaming. FireGL is for graphic design and modeling programs like Maya, Softimage XSI, AutoCAD, etc. Further, it is a mobility version which is a less powerful version of that workstation card.
Odds are you are trying to play the latest games on a laptop your job got for you for the purpose of doing work at home, not playing video games. - Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18What if you just brought an expensive new quad core to play this game but they capped the speed at which it runs to a 2GHz celeron?
- AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -12/+25Why is this unacceptable? Resolution matters far more than FOV. Perhaps it was an intelligent decision by the game makers because it is important that you see things coming from the sides as soon as possible, but more rarely need to see stuff coming from the top or bottom. Now if you can find something significant that is missing from the game because of the clipping then we can discuss an issue, or if they use the same pixel resolution as 4:3 and just scale it directly to 16:9 instead of increasing the pixel count (ie, maintaining pixel density) then there is an issue. Otherwise it is just a decision and isn't right or wrong.
- logicalnoise, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14he says right in the description that he's referring to the demos of both versions.
- lordsandwich, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15I can't believe people dugg you up. Dynamically-generated 3D visuals do NOT have a "fixed width"--you can alter the aspect ratio and FOV at any time to give any screen size an advantage.
Comparing this to an open-matte transfer in film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_%28filmmaking%29) is insane. - GBladeCL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13A ton of SciFi Channel's are displayed in a 16:9 format, not even HD.
- RoroCo, on 10/10/2007, -16/+29Really, does this really effect the game? So they modify the image instead of providing you with a larger field of vision. I played the demo on the 360, and I would have never known if not for this article. I don't need to see a couple inches more of Rapture to love this game.
- DTJunkie07, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13You do realize there are 16:9 widescreen CRT televisions right?
Common Sense=1
nakp88d=0 - Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19the more problem is the principle, weve shelled out thousands of dollars for the 360, an HD display and everything then we get this hugely hyped games that cheaps out when it comes to the HD part, which is what next gen gaming is supposed to be all about.
- Sithlrd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Where the ***** is the ignore user button?
Note to Digg: FIX THIS ***** COMMENT SYSTEM - jwcelement, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Uh, yes...anything in HD is 16:9
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16a) There is no "cinematographic industry"
b) yes, lets hate all innovation and change. widescreen better mirrors how you actually see and better covers your field of vision.
c) thomas edison is an idiot douche who stole other people's work and surpressed anybody who had a better idea. Anybody who knows why Hollywood was founded in California or anything about Tesla knows what a douche Edison was. - MalDON, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11lol noob
- houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19*cough* Apple.
- ferggo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11TV stretching doesn't help either, it just makes everything look fatter.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 537 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is