Widescreen Gaming Forum

that's unfortunate, It's not going to lose a sale from me or anything though. It's just times like this when i regret having my 16:9 :(

is there an official release date announced yet?

The good news is that since it's a port from the 360 version, it's designed for 16:9. ;)

4:3 would be Vert+
16:10 would be Vert+
16:9 is native
anything higher is Vert-

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie

The good news is that since it's a port from the 360 version, it's designed for 16:9. ;)

4:3 would be Vert+
16:10 would be Vert+
16:9 is native
anything higher is Vert-

I hope you're right, because the demo has 4:3 as native; both 16:10 and 16:9 are vert-.

[quote]The good news is that since it's a port from the 360 version, it's designed for 16:9. ;)

4:3 would be Vert+
16:10 would be Vert+
16:9 is native
anything higher is Vert-

I hope you're right, because the demo has 4:3 as native; both 16:10 and 16:9 are vert-.

Given the following

1. The 2D nature of the viewing angle and/or perspective
2. The requirement for an equal horizontal "boundary" for both players even if they have different screen shapes
3. The extreme likelyhood that the game was designed with 16:9 in mind

... I think the argument could be made that SF4 is one of the rare cases in which Vert- is not bad, for traditional single-display playing. Do you have any thoughts on this?

If it was designed for 16:9, why would 4:3 be "native"? Wouldn't 16:9 be "native" then? Or is that word being used in some specialized manner of which I'm unaware?

Once again (aside from the whole complicated TripleHead situation, which I am not referring to in any way this post) how would you suggest they handle screens that are less wide than 16:9? Given how the game is set up, they can't make 4:3 less wide horizontally than 16:9 because that's where the characters are standing on someone else's screen, things would get cut off, etc. -- however it's phrased.

I suppose they could just letterbox. But then again I'm not sure what, if any, functional or gameplay difference it would even make to "open up the frame," so to speak. In that case, I'm having trouble finding a negative. I mean, the "boundaries" are still the same--it's not like the 4:3 screen player can jump higher or something.

If it was designed for 16:9, why would 4:3 be "native"? Wouldn't 16:9 be "native" then? Or is that word being used in some specialized manner of which I'm unaware?

"Native", in this context, means the aspect ratio at which nothing is cropped.

The demo of SF4 has 4:3 set up as native. It crops off the top and bottom of the image to make it 16:10 or 16:9.



They took the easy way out; simply making the image shorter rather than figuring out some sort of solution to allow for hor+

Okay, everyone knows that the demo is wonky. It's not even a real demo - only slapped together for benchmarking purposes. Not even audio options to kill that horrific music.

Maybe we should just shut up and wait for the full game, hm? True, it's not a good sign, but it's still not proof that the full game will be vert-.

Amen.

You guys know the full game is going to be the same. 8) The 16:9 pics look the same as the console version.

They took the easy way out; simply making the image shorter rather than figuring out some sort of solution to allow for hor+

I imagine they didn't give it that much thought. And it really can't be Hor + in the traditional sense. It needed to differentiate between primary and secondary displays.

A TH hack might work if the horizontal fov is not used to determine the ends of the character boundaries, but I imagine it is. You would also need use the vertical fov that the game is already using for the single, primary display.




I am thinking Diablo III may also have this kind of quandary when it is released assuming the gameplay if close to that of D2. If it behaves like D2 in that you can target characters that are visible on screen only it cannot really be Hor + without breaking the online game. Otherwise someone with a wide aspect ratio could hammer a 5:4 user while they have to travel multiple screens before they can see and target their attacker.

It would be fun as hell to see the reactions on the messageboards however.

[quote]If it was designed for 16:9, why would 4:3 be "native"? Wouldn't 16:9 be "native" then? Or is that word being used in some specialized manner of which I'm unaware?

"Native", in this context, means the aspect ratio at which nothing is cropped.

The demo of SF4 has 4:3 set up as native. It crops off the top and bottom of the image to make it 16:10 or 16:9.



They took the easy way out; simply making the image shorter rather than figuring out some sort of solution to allow for hor+

I understand what you're saying, but I'm sorry, I'm going to have to partially disagree with you. I also think you are avoiding discussing the point I'm making.

What reason do you have to believe that 4:3 is the native shape, and that 16:9 is not? I have not seen anything supporting that claim yet. I got news for you, 4:3 is NOT the aspect ratio at which nothing is cropped. 4:3 has the top and bottom cropped off compared to a 5:4 screen.

By your logic, a 5:4 screen is more "native" than the 4:3, because SF4 cuts a little bit of the top and bottom on 5:4 to get to the slightly wider 4:3. 5:4 screenshots of this benchmark show more on the top and bottom than a 4:3 screen, does that end up making 5:4 the so-called "native" aspect ratio? By your logic it would.

Unlike many other 3D games, this game has a very valid reason for needing to make the horizontal space the same (for single screen setups).

Furthermore, we have every reason to believe that 16:9 is the default shape and how the game was "intended" to be viewed.

From these pieces of evidence, we can conclude that there is no reason to think that 4:3 is the "intended" viewing aspect ratio.

We have to keep in mind that this is not a standard 3D action game. It is viewed strictly from the side, and there are gameplay reasons why players need to be able to back up against the "physical" edge of the screen. Vert- does not necessarily carry the same negative connotations in this set of very specialized circumstances.

You are correct about them taking "the easy way" out, but I have reason to believe that this is one of the rare cases in which it genuinely doesn't matter, due to how the "playable area" in the game is set up. This is not a standard 3D game. It is against all available evidence to say that 4:3 is the "native" and intended view.

Obviously the Vert- behaviour causes problems when you get into aspect ratios wider than 16:9. But like we've read before, there are often cases in fighting games where you need to be able to appear or back up against the literal "edge" of the screen. (And since they can't count on both players having the same screen shape, and 16:9 is so far the widest ratio typically used... and so on, it makes sense to design it around that, to avoid an invisible wall effect.)

Here's 4:3 and 16:9 shots of the 360 version:






The 4:3 shot has squished HUD elements, and is definitely vert+ compared to the 16:9 shot. The 16:9 shot looks and feels much, much better, which makes sense because that was their intention. ;)

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie

I noticed the squished HUD elements too when my roommate was playing the game. He owns a regular CRT TV, and I own a widescreen LCD; sometimes we switch the Xbox over to it.

On the vert+ note: has anybody thought to try tallscreen on this demo yet?

_________________
EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 3.5GB | 3 X LG Flatron 24EA53VQ in Nvidia Surround | Optoma HD20