Proper widescreen for Far Cry 2 PC News

Nice that they've finally added but seeing as everyone complained about the same thing in BioShock, why on earth do developers not just add *proper* widescreen support from the off? Why wait until people complain about it? Widescreen games are not a recent thing, they've been around for years now. :?

The fake wide screen made the game feel uncomfortable, especially the driving sections.

This is hilarious, like it was with Bioshock. If you "chop" from bottom and top it's still perfectly in widescreen format. Only difference is that if instead of "chopping" you add to sides it changes the angle of view; zooming out. Nobody can say that one or the other is the right way, it's matter of presentation, how game's director feel it's better. Atleast in theory, in practise "chopping" is propably is easier and maybe selected beacuse of that.

If the game's director has the game framed as desired for 4:3, it would be madness for him/her to decide that the proper framing for a widescreen view is to chop significant parts of the top and bottom off that view.

That is why it is recognised as not proper widescreen, and I'm sure if you took the game's director aside he would admit as much. I'm sure that your view that chopping off the picture is easier and the real reason it was done is correct.

Nabokov, it is not so much about the screen format as the way they do it.

'Proper' widescreen should display more of the picture, not less of it.

So do the console versions have the same widescreen problem? And if so, are they getting fixed too?

@redstanza - You've hit the nail on the head right there... if people play games in widescreen then, quite rightly, they expect to see more of the game than 4:3 screen users do but with pre-patched BioShock and Far Cry 2 they didn't; it was 4:3 monitor owners who actually had saw more of the game (at the top and bottom of the screen). Why bother playing games in widescreen if you have less visibility that a 4:3 screen?!?!? :?

I've actually done a bit of reading up about this and it seems that developers use it because they think console gamers prefer the more zoomed in look when playing games on large widescreen TVs from across the room. For PC owners though, playing games at a desk with widescreen monitors it can be annoying. I really don't see why developers can't just include both as options in the graphics settings, all it is is a switch that changes the Field of View, it doesn't require any extra coding or anything.

I thought it looked weird and zoomed, despite the options screen saying otherwise.

Still, better visuals won't make up for constantly being ambushed by spawning enemies, leaving you with no health and only a constantly jamming pistol for company.

/hates tough games

Darren:"@redstanza - You've hit the nail on the head right there... if people play games in widescreen then, quite rightly, they expect to see more of the game than 4:3 screen users do but with pre-patched BioShock and Far Cry 2 they didn't; it was 4:3 monitor owners who actually had saw more of the game (at the top and bottom of the screen). Why bother playing games in widescreen if you have less visibility that a 4:3 screen?!?!? :? "
I agree, that's what people expect. But it's just an illusion. In both cases you have as many pixels in monitor. If the view is narrower you get more detail.

Do you really think that the wider the angle the better it is, always, every case?

Lets say that somebody makes a strange game where in 4:3 resolution horizontal viewing angle is 360 degree (full circle). Then in 16:9 version they chop from top and bottom, obviously. Widescreen fanboys get furious: "We want real widescreen, 480 degree!!".

What I'm trying to say is that the right angle is what looks and plays best, not the widest possible.

Nabokov is correct, the widescreen mode of these games are "as intended" by the games' creators. All games are designed in widescreen these days, it's the 4:3 mode that is the quick hack.

Whenever you widen a field of view the graphics card has to render more details. In most games widening the vertical field of view just means drawing a bit more sky and floor which is not very taxing. But widening the horizontal field of view can mean drawing more in-game characters, more vehicles, buildings, etc. So in order to do a 4:3 mode the developers just draw a bit more floor/ceiling as it's much easier and doesn't require any optimisation. It's a perfectly valid way of doing things and doesn't mean the 16:9 mode is broken.

The best example to prove this is the cut-scene in Bioshock after taking the first gene tonic. In 4:3 mode when the Splicer leans over your prone body you can clearly see his mouth doesn't move when he speaks (because it was off the edge in 16:9 mode). A few moments later you can see the Little Sister's glowing eyes, which are meant to be revealed later in the level. It's clear the 4:3 mode was just a hack and isn't how the game is meant to be played. If anything 4:3 players should be asking for a cropped version of 16:9...

@Nabokov - As the name suggests, widescreen should offer you more visibility at the edges of the screen but Far Cry 2 and BioShock didn't originally, it just gave 4:3 monitor owners more to see at the top and bottom.

Yes, it is still widescreen in the technical sense but it is restrictive in that it gives you LESS visible screen area than if you played the same game at 4:3. And that is just plain wrong IMO.

This has nothing to do with the number of pixels by the way, it's just about Field of View (FOV). Most PC games that support widescreen properly have a FOV that gives a more panaromic view of the surroundings and not the zoomed in one that Far Cry 2 and BioShock used pre-patch.

As I said earlier, seeing as people complain about this setting, it wouldn't hurt developers to include a setting as they do in the patches to switch between FOVs... all it is is a setting and it doesn't require any extra coding at all!!! It seems to me that this issue has only cropped up because developers are putting the consoles versions before the PC ones because prior to that nearly every PC game that supported widescreen displayed it as expected, i.e. with a wider view of the surroundings than 4:3.

"If the game's director has the game framed as desired for 4:3, it would be madness for him/her to decide that the proper framing for a widescreen view is to chop significant parts of the top and bottom off that view."

The game's director has the game framed for 720p which is the default resolution for the main platforms, 360 and PS3.

Any news on a patch for the practicallyimpossibletocompletebecausethegamesavefilecorrupt
snear60% XBox 360 version?

I should add that I know a few people who find this zoomed in version of widescreen gives them motion-sickness whereas they don't experience it if the FOV is correct. Fortunately I'm not one of them.

OK, I've thought about it and I think it's true that actually it's a FOV problem rather than a cropping problem.

Far Cry 2 seems to have a low field of view in 4:3 anyway, but when you use a widescreen resolution the vertical FoV gets even lower.

A low vertical FoV makes it feel like your head is actually a couple of feet further forward than your body and looking from side to side just makes it feel unnatural (and can therefore cause nausea, like Darren says).

Again, as Darren pointed out (definitely winning this thread so far), this isn't so much an issue (and can even feel better) when you are sitting further back from the screen as is usually the case on a console, but is much worse when setting a foot or two from the screen.

This seems to be the a hangover from the fact that it was designed as a console game, with the worse hangover being that you can't adjust the FoV, like you have been able to in most PC FPS for the last 15 years. That way if the game comes still designed for the console, at least we can fix it ourselves.

I can't believe people still moan about this issue. As Nabokov and photoboy point out, the framing for the existing widescreen mode was exactly as the game was intended. Who cares if folk on 4:3 ratio see a little more? They are still getting the lesser option due to it not being the ideal framing. The only result of these 'proper widescreen' patches is that we get a widescreen framing which was never intended, creating some of the issues mentioned by other posts here.

@Darren
"@Nabokov - As the name suggests, widescreen should offer you more visibility at the edges of the screen but Far Cry 2 and BioShock didn't originally, it just gave 4:3 monitor owners more to see at the top and bottom. "

Darren nominated for Thread President! Landslide victory predicted! :)

"I can't believe people still moan about this issue. As Nabokov and photoboy point out, the framing for the existing widescreen mode was exactly as the game was intended. Who cares if folk on 4:3 ratio see a little more? They are still getting the lesser option due to it not being the ideal framing. The only result of these 'proper widescreen' patches is that we get a widescreen framing which was never intended, creating some of the issues mentioned by other posts here."

Because you're wasting processing power rendering information that you end up hiding behind a "black bar" whereas if you rendered the game at 16:9 then you'd get all the detail in a frame that actually fits the standard modern screen layout.

But just you get back to playing games via composite and the wrong aspect ratio since it doesn't bother you.

Well it all boils down to preference at the end of the day and personally I found BioShock a more enjoyable and immersive experience with a proper widescreen FOV, particularly as I could see more at the edges of the screen because it wasn't so zoomed in. It just felt more natural and made better use of my widescreen.

There really is no reason though to not include an option in the game to select between the two... choice is always a good thing in my book. It's ridiculous really that we had to wait until enough people have complained about it before the developers decided to patch it in. It should have been obvious that PC owners prefer proper widescreen FOVs after the complaints about the same thing in BioShock last year.

Of course, people wouldn't have complained about it if they could have changed it easily but the game required a hack to make it work properly on the PC instead of just being able to set it from the commandline or tweak the options file manually as you could with 99.99% of other PC FPSs released in the past decade!!! Better still just make it an option in the game so people can choose which they prefer.

I've never thought about it, but I played most of it at a friends house during vacation on a 4:3 screen. I do however agree with Darren, it's such a small thing and I'm quite sure it would be a very quick to add from the start. If someone doesn't like the way it is by default they can then change, there is no need to fight about it really.

Nabokov and co. are completely right. It's about what the devs intended, not that 16:9 should automatically let you see more. If 4:3 adds stuff to the top and bottom, so be it.

You might just as well argue that 4:3 is a "highscreen", which is why people with 4:3 monitors have the "right" to see more on the top and bottom than people with widescreen monitors. If that sounds retarded to you, rest assured, so does the argument the other way round. :p

All a matter of perspective.

Well you can finally see where you're going when you're walking around with the map and GPS out now, I don't care what the developers intended when they launched the game but not having the map a half inch from your nose is so much better than it was originally.

Look at it from this perspective: The distance at which you view your monitor is pretty much fixed at arm's length. Thus the monitor bezel limits the horizontal angle which the monitor occupies in your field of view. Now changing the width of the monitor (be it going from 4:3 to 16:9 or vice-versa, doesn't matter) definitely should change the horizontal field of view of the game, not the vertical one!

It's the only way to get a consistent experience which doesn't impose an arbitrary zoom setting which is determined by the monitor's aspect ratio. Instead, you add or subtract peripheral vision as needed to produce the same "standard" zoom. It's just logical.

Besides, for people with three or more screens, the game is unplayable when keeping the horizontal fov fixed. With a fixed vertical fov, however, they get not only a correct display, but also an incredibly immersive experience.

@Unclelou

What did the devs intend though, seeing as it was "zoomed in" on 16:9 displays, while it wasn't on 4:3? Which one did they opt for?

Regardless of which one that was, the other one could've been seen as "wrong". With both formats having adjusted FoV for their respective aspect ratio though, it should look look as "zoomed in" on both of them.

Whatever the devs intended, I can't see how anyone would think the previous FoV on Far Cry 2 was okay. Distance for example is harder to estimate with a warped FoV, which it obviously was on 16:9 - only intended that way.

"Nobody can say that one or the other is the right way"

Err, yes you can. Cropping 4:3 down to 16:9 is not the same as rendering in 16:9; the first one loses a great deal of vertical resolution. It is therefore wrong way, whilst maintaining vertical resolution is the right way.

Very glad that this is finally fixed, I've been holding off playing it until it was done. Thank you!

Now, when does it hit the Steam version?

Err, yes you can. Cropping 4:3 down to 16:9 is not the same as rendering in 16:9

Who says that's what they did?

What did the devs intend though, seeing as it was "zoomed in" on 16:9 displays, while it wasn't on 4:3?

The horizontal field of view was the same in 16:9 and 4:3. That's the whole point.

I guess the Xbox version wont be fixed. >:|

At last. This patch introduces lots of things that completely ruined FarCry 2 multiplayer for me. Everything except a proper server browser.

Next time, just include these basic things in the actual fucking game!

@N@ - Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with XBOX version, you have it like it was meant to be. PC owners have now screwed up version.

I's 3D model, image on your screen is rendered while you play it, nothing is cropped in any situation. You can set FOV, screen resolution, ascpect however you want, nothing is ever cropped. You don't calculate full circle image and crop from it. You calculate for the resoution of you monitor with selected FOV.

1. You create game in 16:9 mode, selecting FOV which you think works best
2. For 4:3 resolutions you keep horiztontal FOV same, therefore adding vertical FOV. In my opinion this is the best way because in gameplay wise horizontal view is usually much more important.
3. You have to change your original 16:9 FOV becuase masterminds in the internet think they are getting less with their 16:9 monitors, screwing the original tested FOV.

If you think that horizontal FOV is bad in original version, you should also patch 4:3 modes so that FOV is increased it those too. But then 16:9 owners are GETTING CROPPED VERSION AGAIN! So you make new patch, increasing 16:9 FOV second time...

@UncleLou: see picture here, http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170866 red area is what is cropped in old 16:9 version.

The reason they had to fix this for multi-screen too was that for players with three monitors the crop became so severe that all that was visible was the top of the gun and a thing strip in the middle.

It appears that for aspect ratio the developers kept the horizontal resolution the same, and changed the vertical resolution; what they should do (and now do) is keep the vertical resolution the same and expand the horizontal resolution ... the clue is in the _W_I_D_E_ of widescreen.

Nabokov, UncleLou - I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. The screen aspect ratio mostly changes the screen width, right? All monitors have more or less the same height, some just are wider (16:9, 16:10) than others (4:3, 5:4). So keeping a fixed horizontal field of view when the width of the monitor varies just doesn't make sense. As I said above, the correct way to do it is to add or subtract the right amount of peripheral vision at the sides of the screen to compensate for varying monitor width. That way, the "experience" stays consistent between different monitors and doesn't add a zoom based on aspect ratio.

Besides, it doesn't make sense to say that the game was "created in 16:9". It's not a movie. I'm sure the devs have all sorts of monitors. Since it's originally a console game, I'd go as far as saying that the primarily targeted screen is a 4:3 SD television set, because that's probably what most consoles get plugged into, even today.