The Order: 1886

[dobwal]

But they're not different distances! They're taken the same distance away. The wider angle means more of the environment is squeezed into the same amount of screen space so you see more, but everything's smaller.

This is an example from photography. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g3cu6o2o/understanding-focal-length.html

It shows the same image taken with different lenses. The photography world uses focal length though (with good reason as that's indepedent of aspect...), so a conversion to angular FOV in a 3:2 photograph is:

Length : degrees horizontal FOV
  18   :    90
  24   :    74
  35   :    54
  55   :    36
  85   :    23
  105  :    20

Now for any of those images, if the lens is kept the same but the film/sensor made wider, you'd record more of the detail in a wider picture. The focal length doesn't change, but the aspect would. If you were to take the 35mm lens and take a 16:9 photo with it, you'd get about the same detail horizontally as the 18mm photo. If you used a longer lens like the 85 mm, you'd need to shoot a panoramic shot to record all the buildings along the horizon in the 18 mm photo. However, you'd also lose all the top and bottom area.

So for a given focal length, yes, increasing horizontal size makes for a wider FOV, but focal length and 'sensor size' are completely selectable by the game. It's even used to effect, with wide-angle lenses with a wide FOV being used in games to simulate drunkeness and the like.
Camera settings in game include vertical size of the sensor. In the above photographs, we only see less of the sky and ground because the sensor is a 3:2 aspect. There literally isn't any film or CCD to record the info above and below what's recorded in the image. What we have in the Order is a horizontal FOV chosen by the camera setting, and a cinematic aspect chosen by the sensor or print setting. It's like printing a photo with a 55mm lens and then chopping off the top and bottom to make a super widescreen photo. It's the same horizontal FOV but reduced vertical FOV.

You're right, it should, but guns in FPS are typically drawn on top of the main game. That's why you can walk up to someone's face and have their face fill the screen and your massive assault rifle be only as big as their nose.

I see what you are talking about. But in terms of a game I fail to see the benefit. In your example the change in FOV is accompanied by a change of position and orientation in space of the gun.

If the gun size isn't changing, the aspect ratio hasn't changed or the game isn't distorting imagery to provide a wider or taller view, then the game is practically just moving the position of the player in space.

To mimic your bf3 example with a real camera, I would need gun on a stand. Everytime I changed the focal length I would have to reposition the gun stand to maintain a static size and position within each image. The camera may not be changing its position in space but the gun stand is and that is what helps a player orient his/her position in space not the camera.

 

[DieH@rd]

Just made this from old GI coverage video.
http://a.pomf.se/pmgfwq.gif

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If the gun size isn't changing, the aspect ratio hasn't changed or the game isn't distorting imagery to provide a wider or taller view, then the game is practically just moving the position of the player in space.

That's only because the gun isn't being drawn correctly and the guy's standing in a field. If in a built up area, moving the person back to get the same view on screen would put them behind scenery.

To mimic your bf3 example with a real camera, I would need gun on a stand. Everytime I changed the focal length I would have to reposition the gun stand to maintain a static size and position within each image.

The gun should be positioned just in front and below the camera. It would of course be captured with suitable perspective which the BF3 rendering isn't doing. The camera never moves from the player position - only it's FOV is changed. Wider FOVs increase perceived distance between objects (our frame of reference is our own focal length which is about the same as 50mm on a 35mm camera), so object will appear further away than they are. They'll also appear to travel towards you faster when close. The FOV of The Order isn't anything extreme though. Looks conventional to me. They've just cropped top and bottom for a wider aspect which is 1) an aesthetic that matches the cinema, and 2) shaves 14% off pixel rendering efforts, which might contribute very little.

 

[DieH@rd]

Some spanish journalist, answering a question about how Order looked:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j317/Juanra89/ps_zps06a1ea9c.jpg
Google Translate: "To me it reminded me of The Last of Us in the game modes and Assassin Creed in the atmosphere. The graphics are unparalleled."

 

[Cjail]

I believe "Modos de juego" should be translated as "gamepaly" in this case not "game modes".

 

[L. Scofield]

I hope that when the embargo lifts we get gameplay videos and not just previews and screenshots.

@Cjail: Correct.

 

[Billy Idol]

Some spanish journalist, answering a question about how Order looked:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j317/Juanra89/ps_zps06a1ea9c.jpg
Google Translate: "To me it reminded me of The Last of Us in the game modes and Assassin Creed in the atmosphere. The graphics are unparalleled."

Sounds great! Hope as well we get gameplay vids...

 

[Cjail]

This might be interesting.

 

[DieH@rd]

Interesting. With KZSF adding optional "cap engine at 30fps" option, maybe RAD will add ability for us to pick aspect ratio.

I am personally totally open to 2.40:1. It looked great in Beyond, I almost never noticed the letterboxing.

 

[L. Scofield]

This might be interesting.

Since it's still native resolution of course it's going to look better with AA than without.

 

[DieH@rd]

 

[ultragpu]

I honestly don't see why some people are whinging about black bars, it's not like the game is 576p, it's 1920 x 800p 1:1 pixel ratio with 4xmsaa FFS! And presumably god like graphics to boot. I have a feeling the game would look wondrous on my 65".

 

[loekf]

I honestly don't see why some people are whinging about black bars, it's not like the game is 576p, it's 1920 x 800p 1:1 pixel ratio with 4xmsaa FFS! And presumably god like graphics to boot. I have a feeling the game would look wondrous on my 65".

Damn.. you have a 65" LCD ?

This game is made for this huge bendable 16:10 Samsung (or LG) LCD display from CES ;-)

 

[London Geezer]

I honestly don't see why some people are whinging about black bars, it's not like the game is 576p, it's 1920 x 800p 1:1 pixel ratio with 4xmsaa FFS! And presumably god like graphics to boot. I have a feeling the game would look wondrous on my 65".

Not whinging, but personally I'd prefer full screen, and I have a big one too. Yes, yes it's 'cinematic' but I also don't especially love black bars in movies, especially when they're so big they make the picture look like it's half what it should be.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not whinging, but personally I'd prefer full screen, and I have a big one too. Yes, yes it's 'cinematic' but I also don't especially love black bars in movies, especially when they're so big they make the picture look like it's half what it should be.

I don't see the issue. It's a simple aesthetic and unless one has one of these*, black bars are a given. I suppose one could always restrict movie watching to the cinema, or projectors. But then if using a projector, black bars won't matter any more for this game than a movie.

* and that'd add borders on the sides when viewing 16:9 content... Can't escape them borders!

 

[ultragpu]

Damn.. you have a 65" LCD ?

This game is made for this huge bendable 16:10 Samsung (or LG) LCD display from CES ;-)

Yes and yes.

Not whinging, but personally I'd prefer full screen, and I have a big one too. Yes, yes it's 'cinematic' but I also don't especially love black bars in movies, especially when they're so big they make the picture look like it's half what it should be.

Well, I'm so used to the standard blu-ray ratio it's practically a second nature to me. Of course full screen BD movies can always show more but it's not nearly a serious issue to be dragged out by some. If you ever played Beyond and had no problems then you should be alright too.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I think a Cinescope aspect ratio simply looks really classy if it's being put to good use. Beyond did just that for example, but the tight camera direction obviously helped a lot with that. I see a decidedly smaller benefit if the direction is essentially being put into the player's hands.

That said, the aspect ratio is the least of my worries regarding this game. It's not going to ruin a potentially fresh, new and well crafted experience anymore than it's going to elevate a tired Gears knock-off with a Victorian era paintjob.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Not whinging, but personally I'd prefer full screen, and I have a big one too.

I'm very happy you have a 'big' one but I think everyone else is talking about TVs...

Yes, yes it's 'cinematic' but I also don't especially love black bars in movies, especially when they're so big they make the picture look like it's half what it should be.

I'm not overly fond of black bars either but if the game isn't immersive enough to make you forget about them whilst you are playing then it'll be a bust anyway.

 

[DieH@rd]

Damn.. you have a 65" LCD ?

This game is made for this huge bendable 16:10 Samsung (or LG) LCD display from CES ;-)

Those TVs were 21:9 actually.

 

[London Geezer]

I don't see the issue. It's a simple aesthetic and unless one has one of these*, black bars are a given. I suppose one could always restrict movie watching to the cinema, or projectors. But then if using a projector, black bars won't matter any more for this game than a movie.

* and that'd add borders on the sides when viewing 16:9 content... Can't escape them borders!

I say, it's time for mutant screens. Or brain implants - no screens!