[kyleb]

Originally Posted by Bludd

There must be a bug with the hack that makes the aspect ratio wrong when it runs and but is not enabled (you have to press * to enable it in game, but the latest version has an auto-enable feature).

The hack just sets the FOV to the default for a 4:3 aspct ratio when it is "dissabled".

And sure, the game wasn't designed to support aspect ratios wider than 16:9, but 16:9 is the intended view and the way it handles narrower aspect ratios is intentional.

[Bludd]

Yes, that is correct, hence the need for the hack. I could make a game where the intended view is 1:1 and then berate everyone who don't have a totally square screen for not playing my game the way I intended it because they had to use a hack like the one Racer_S made for FC2.

[Richard]

I don't have the game but if I'm understanding the issue correctly it seems the devs are taking the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" route. In fact, it seems to be the exact same "problem" as Bioshock (?) which a patch was eventually released for.

I read about people having problems with the game's FOV which tells me this goes beyond the game being Vert+ on 4:3 or whatever.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think people get rightly aggrieved when they are told that the "proper" widescreen view actually shows them less content than the "outdated" 4:3, but that's how its supposed to be. The devs are just taking the piss when they tell you the view with more space is actually intended to show you less.

When you get a widescreen movie and put it on a 4:3 TV, you get the sides cut off, thus showing less content. Why is this somehow reversed for games? The answer is that it's not.

[kyleb]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't have the game but if I'm understanding the issue correctly it seems the devs are taking the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" route. In fact, it seems to be the exact same "problem" as Bioshock (?) which a patch was eventually released for.

Bioshock was patched to add an option for a wider FOV in widescreen. They didn't fix a bug, rather simply provided a toggle for those of us who prefer a wider FOV than what they intended.

Originally Posted by Richard

I read about people having problems with the game's FOV which tells me this goes beyond the game being Vert+ on 4:3 or whatever.

It does, it comes down to console based games generally targeting a lower FOV. The reason behind this is thatpeople playing from their couches in their living rooms tend to sit respectively farther from their given size displays than people sitting at desks in front of their PCs. If you look around, you can read PC gamers complaining about the narrow FOVs of console based games all the way back from when they were designed specificly for 4:3 displays, with no support for widescreen at all.

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

I think people get rightly aggrieved when they are told that the "proper" widescreen view actually shows them less content than the "outdated" 4:3, but that's how its supposed to be. The devs are just taking the piss when they tell you the view with more space is actually intended to show you less.

Where did any devs ever make such a claim?

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

When you get a widescreen movie and put it on a 4:3 TV, you get the sides cut off, thus showing less content. Why is this somehow reversed for games? The answer is that it's not.

Watching a widescreen movie on a 4:3 display doesn't result in the sides getting cut off, rather it adds black bars at the top and the bottom to mantain the fixed aspect ratio of the movie. The same can be done though a config file setting in Far Cry 2, adding black bars to the top and bottom to preserve the intended 16:9 view on narrower aspect ratio outputs. However, since the visuals in a game aren't pre-recorded like a movies are, games can draw more on the top and the bottom of the intended view rather than using letterboxing, as Far Cry 2 does by default.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

I think people get rightly aggrieved when they are told that the "proper" widescreen view actually shows them less content than the "outdated" 4:3, but that's how its supposed to be. The devs are just taking the piss when they tell you the view with more space is actually intended to show you less.

When you get a widescreen movie and put it on a 4:3 TV, you get the sides cut off, thus showing less content. Why is this somehow reversed for games? The answer is that it's not.

You've got it backwards. Is not that your seeing less with the 16:9 view. Your seeing exactly what the developer wants you to see.

The bits they add at the top and bottom for "secondary" 4:3 users detract from the graphical experience, at least in the devs eyes. Hell, haven't you ever noticed how dumb the wrists can look in some of these games when you switch to 4:3? Thats because the primary view of the game (16:9) wasn't designed to accomodate showing so much wrist/arm. Another example is how in 4:3, some of the cutscenes in Bioshock clearly show parts of the scene that are meant to be concealed (relealing the little sisters face during the first cut scene for example).

Just because you see more in 4:3, doesn't make it better. We could mod Doom with a 180 degree FOV if we wanted but that wouldn't make it better. You have to cosnider how the devs came up witht he FOV for the game in the first place. No doubt they have complete control over the camera and how drawn in to the scene it is. Yet knowing that 16:9 will be the primary way in which the game will be played, and having complete freedom over what FOV to give you in 16:9, they chose what they did because in their opinion, it works best for the game. All your doing with the hack is pulling the camera back to a position that would already have been considered by the devs and discounted as sub optimal.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by kyleb

Bioshock was patched to add an option for a wider FOV in widescreen. They didn't fix a bug, rather simply provided a toggle for those of us who prefer a wider FOV than what they intended.

I don't have FC2 so I can't speak intelligently about that but if the end-user effect is the same as Bioshock then I will strongly argue that what they "intended" was a cop-out. I completely agree with WSGF's rating then.

It does, it comes down to console based games generally targeting a lower FOV. The reason behind this is thatpeople playing from their couches in their living rooms tend to sit respectively farther from their given size displays than people sitting at desks in front of their PCs. If you look around, you can read PC gamers complaining about the narrow FOVs of console based games all the way back from when they were designed specificly for 4:3 displays, with no support for widescreen at all.

Dead Space which was released on both consoles and PCs doesn't have such FoV/aspect ratio/resolution problems. Thus my "it's a feature, not a bug" remark.

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Just because you see more in 4:3, doesn't make it better. <snip>

If I play the game on my desktop 4:3 gaming machine I shouldn't have to accept such visual artefacts. A game should work properly on all four mainstream aspect ratios and since the console version can be played on SD tvs even the console version has to properly support two.

[Bludd]

Yes, the end user effect is the same as in Bioshock. It's a zoomed in view and an example of tallscreen gaming. "Want to see more of the sky and ground? Then tallscreen gaming is FOR YOU."

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Bludd

Yes, the end user effect is the same as in Bioshock. It's a zoomed in view and an example of tallscreen gaming. "Want to see more of the sky and ground? Then tallscreen gaming is FOR YOU."

Isn't that exactly what your doing with the hack? You taking the games native 16:9 FOV and expanding it so that you can see more sky and ground

The devs didn't intend you to see that much sky and ground, hence why the games FOV doesn't match the hack in the first place.

As I said above, for better or worse, 4:3 users are the second rate customers to these devs and so if it comes down to a choice of showing more sky and ground than intended to the 4:3 users or showing less sky and ground than intended to the 16:9 users, the 4:3 losers are going to lose out.

Thats why I find it so absurd that 16:9 users are complaining about being screwed over in favour of 4:3 users when in fact, the exact opposite is happening.

Now fair enough, you may prefer the wider FOV regardless, but whether you do or not doesn't change the fact that the devs were handing you the advantage as they percieved it, not the other way around.

[PhilB]

Just to let you all know, they'll be fixing the widescreen issue in the next patch.

We know that a lot of you were really happy to see how quickly we came up with our first patch, but at the same time, some of you were disappointed because many of the major issues you reported to us in your feedback were not in.
As some of you may already know, we have a video Q&A going on with the dev. For us it’s a way to maintain dialog between you and the team that created the game, but it doesn’t mean that we will not provide any information about our upcoming updates.
As we already told you, the 1.01 PC patch was our first step, and thanks to your contributions we can now tell you what kind of improvements you could expect from our upcoming patch.

General
Allow player to select display mode for Widescreen view in the display options
Improve server list with filter options (ping, punkbuster, server name, maps, game mode, dedicated server…)

Multiplayer
Allow match search from the maps leaderboard
Add minimum players setting in host options
Order scoreboard by point
Add an option to set respawn time for the host
Show VIP on scoreboard
Allow PC user to use Clan tag
IP display in the lobby server

Server
Add new functions to dedicated server
Allow the same server to host more than one game at a time

You can expect the next patch to be deployed within the next couple of weeks. We will also update you shortly on what’s coming next for the consoles versions of the game.

Please take note that a lot of different fixes and issues are not mentioned here, it doesn’t mean that we are not working on them. Still it is not likely that all reported issues can and will be fixed. If you have an issue or some feedback you wish to share, please be sure to report it to customer support or on our Far Cry 2 Tech support forum

Thanks!

Source:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...5/m/5451021507

[kyleb]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

All your doing with the hack is pulling the camera back to a position that would already have been considered by the devs and discounted as sub optimal.

Note that you aren't actually changing the position of the camara, but rather zooming it in or out like with a telescopic lens.

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't have FC2 so I can't speak intelligently about that but if the end-user effect is the same as Bioshock then I will strongly argue that what they "intended" was a cop-out. I completely agree with WSGF's rating then.

I'm not ever sure what you mean here. The game does behave the same as Bioshock and many other current generation games that were designed to target 16:9, with the default FOV being what is intended for that aspect ratio. Where are you comming up with a cop-out in that?

Originally Posted by Richard

Dead Space which was released on both consoles and PCs doesn't have such FoV/aspect ratio/resolution problems. Thus my "it's a feature, not a bug" remark.

I haven't got around to Dead Space yet, but I have seen enough media to know it has a rather narrow FOV, and have seen others complain about it as well. Granted, it gives an even lower FOV for narrower aspect ratios, but being a 3rd person game the developers don't have to worry about destroying the presentation of player-view cutscenes and such when cropping out part of the intended view. Also, variation in FOV isn't nearly as unsettling in third person as it is in first person.

Originally Posted by Richard

If I play the game on my desktop 4:3 gaming machine I shouldn't have to accept such visual artefacts. A game should work properly on all four mainstream aspect ratios and since the console version can be played on SD tvs even the console version has to properly support two.

And they do, don't they? Or what visual artifacts are you referring to?

Anyway, good to hear about the patch, I'll likely play more mulitplayer once I can do so with a nice FOV. Now if only they could fix all the no-remappable key commands so I wouldn't have to reach over to E just to get off a turrent and other such nonsense.

[Bludd]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Isn't that exactly what your doing with the hack? You taking the games native 16:9 FOV and expanding it so that you can see more sky and ground

No, more of the sides.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com...ic.php?t=14750

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Bludd

No, more of the sides.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com...ic.php?t=14750

Yeah I realise that, but what I mean is, your getting more of the sides as a side effect of getting more of the sky and ground. You could argue its the other way round but because the hack only exists off the back of the 4:3 view which only gives you more sky and ground, it seems more sensible to think of it that way.

Or to put it another way, if the native 4:3 mode in the game simply cut off the sides of the native 16:9 mode, neither the hack or the commotion around it would likely exist and people would just accept that the FOV is correct for the game.

[swaaye]

Well, the "properness" and "what the designers desired" factors aside, the narrower FoV screws with my eyeballs. It makes the game feel claustrophobic and does cause some extra eye fatigue that starts to feel like nausea after a while. I know that for some folks, it does turn into nausea.

I think the main factor in the discomfort is that, with a PC game, you are sitting much closer to the screen than with a console game. The view feels more like it's "in your head" than a TV that's ~7 ft away. And, since human eyesight w/ peripheral vision is more like 180 degrees, a ~75 degree FoV makes it feel like I'm wearing a helmet with a narrow visor or some such.

Bioshock comes to mind, of course, along with Oblivion and Halo PC. Each of which I did use a hack with to get the wider view. I suppose I'd get the FoV hack for FC2 now as well, if only I could stand the gameplay in general. Heh.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Played this game for a couple of hours and I think it sucks. FarCry used to be a FPS game. You could walk or drive around a bit, and than get to where you needed to be and shoot things up. Which I like because its very not complicated and gets you some action. Now some brilliant mind over at UBI for some reason I cant think of decided that it would be better to turn the game into some openworld FPS. Well, let me put it like this. I've completed the game for 8% now, and about 5 minutes of that are spend on shooting (and the action wasnt even great). Why, why do I need to spend my time driving around? why do I have to find stupid diamonds to buy guns? really, do you think if I had over 200 of those big stones I'd go fight? no I would buy myself a way out and be rich. The game annois me to death. I thought I was in for some awsome jungle action like in the original but instead I get the feeling they made a really short game and made it long by having you do things you dont even want to do in a FPS. Do they think this draws you more into the game than just levels? well its doesnt.

After the not so good CoD4 SP I gave up on already I think FC2 is going to be the second game im not going to finish. I though those games would be nice to play on my new 4870 but apperantly awsome gfx cant beat a game that is actually well made. Oh well, I think it will be on HL2 EP2 than. I saved that game for months as it didnt run well on my old card but it seems that this will be the only somewhat recent FPS game that is kick ass and doesnt have you botherd with things that shouldnt be in a FPS.

[Cheezdoodles]

You gave up on CoD4 SP?

It takes like 4 hours to finish CoD4 sp...

[N00b]

Originally Posted by tongue_of_colicab

The game annois me to death. I thought I was in for some awsome jungle action like in the original but instead I get the feeling they made a really short game and made it long by having you do things you dont even want to do in a FPS. Do they think this draws you more into the game than just levels? well its doesnt.

Just do the main quests for a while. They usually provide more fighting than the side missions. But get some good weapons first. It's not so much fun when you're poorly armed.

[homerdog]

Ugh, why does the AI have X-ray vision? And why must these fools run the nearest vehicle when I am standing 5 meters in front of them? And the respawns, fast forwarded voices... well, this is just beating a dead horse. I am simply amazed at how bad this game is.



Oh yes, what is the point of safehouses in the PC version? Which reminds me, the quicksave system creates a new save every time. Better than overwriting every time, but it's possible to end up with a LOT of saves - even during one sitting - that must be deleted outside of the game lest you spend twenty minutes deleting them one at a time, three clicks per save with the mouse lagging all over the place.

[kyleb]

I can't say I even noticed any x-ray vison AI behavior, but the other points you mention are dissapointing.

[mito]

Originally Posted by tongue_of_colicab

Why, why do I need to spend my time driving around? why do I have to find stupid diamonds to buy guns? really, do you think if I had over 200 of those big stones I'd go fight? no I would buy myself a way out and be rich. The game annois me to death. I thought I was in for some awsome jungle action like in the original but instead I get the feeling they made a really short game and made it long by having you do things you dont even want to do in a FPS. Do they think this draws you more into the game than just levels? well its doesnt.

+1..........

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by kyleb

I can't say I even noticed any x-ray vison AI behavior, but the other points you mention are dissapointing.

That's actually the biggest issue I have with this game; the AI can see through foliage and I can't. This doesn't mesh with my stealth play style very well.

The more games I play these days the more I'm reminded that - and I know it's been said before - Crysis was more than just good to look at.

[Davros]

its probably because the foliage has not collision detection associated with it and (eg as far as the games concerned its a visual effect not a physical object)

[kyleb]

Hum, I just tested and was effectively able to use brush for cover. The enemies would pop off shots at the brush around were they last saw me move to, but wouldn't hit me nearly as much as when I moved out of the brush so they could see me. Playing on Hardcore difficulty.

And the brush obvious has collision detection, it moves people walk though it and when bullets hit it.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by kyleb

Hum, I just tested and was effectively able to use brush for cover. The enemies would pop off shots at the brush around were they last saw me move to, but wouldn't hit me nearly as much as when I moved out of the brush so they could see me. Playing on Hardcore difficulty.

This is the exact opposite of my experience. Heck I've even had them see and kill me through buildings and such as if the building wasn't even there. I don't mean just spraying bullets through the walls, that would make sense. I'm talking about accurate sniper shots. It's like the AI has some sort of % chance to see through alpha blended stuff, like the hole-ridden tin walls of shacks and some of the foliage, although most of the low foliage seems to be opaque...

Also playing on Hardcore.

And yes the foliage has collision detection but it looks rather simple compared to Crytek's implementation.

[Bludd]

Okay, I finished this piece of shit game.

Story is stupid. Buddy system is worthless. Story is stupid, did I mention that? The game is totally unfocused. It's not a good shooter, it's not a good sandbox game. It's only good technically.

The game lets you make decisions, but they don't matter much. You choose which faction you want to help, but that don't matter. I ended up meeting two guys I had never seen before at the end. Two APR guys who were all "sup, long time no see". I have never seen you in the game before no! You end up fighting all your buddies, even the ones that "died". You cannot kill The Jackal. At the end of the game The Jackal gives you a choice. Blow up the pass and die or give the diamonds to the border guards and then off yourself. He puts a gun in the briefcase. You never take it out before you give it to the border guards. Game ends with that stupid journalist guy taking a picture of the poor refugees at the border crossing no matter what you do, and then the game tries to be a documentary by telling you what happened afterwards. The game is so incredibly unfocused and annoying. Where were all these refugees when I drove around their goddamn country for all the game? All the missions I did were basically the same and none of them mattered. AND JUST TO PUT SOME ICING ON THE SHIT-FILLED CAKE THAT IS FAR CRY 2: YOU CANNOT SKIP THE ROLLING CREDITS UNLESS YOU END THE GAME. For me this is the WGOTY.