Astronomica
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 755
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All the more weight to Kyle's editorial. Their loss.I was the one that brought up the initial eyefinity concerns in beta and after release to HiRez. However, the issue goes far beyond eyefinity and triple monitor setups. The repercussions of Vert- apply to any widescreen display (the wider the resolution, the less you will see). The corollary to this is that the narrower your resolution, the more you will see. In fact, with current hardware, the best standard monitor to game on is the old 5:4 ones. You can push your advantage a little further by taking a widescreen monitor and running it in portrait mode (9:16 or 10:16). And you can actually take advantage of your eyefinity setup by running a 3 monitor high setup.
Now, this is absolutely silly and counter-intuitive. The current system is flawed and players can already take advantage of it. They might as well have it make sense.
Here is a report on the Widescreen Gaming forums that illustrates the issue:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=18370&start=0
I don't often post on non-hardware discussions, but this Eyefinity issue has gotten absurdly out of hand. First, the tone and stance of Kyle's editorial is extremely, and almost offensively, unprofessional. There are far, far worse transgressions game developers have made than simply not supporting a new fangled technology...
I don't often post on non-hardware discussions, but this Eyefinity issue has gotten absurdly out of hand. First, the tone and stance of Kyle's editorial is extremely, and almost offensively, unprofessional. There are far, far worse transgressions game developers have made than simply not supporting a new fangled technology. I didn't see a boycott of BioShock 2 despite the Eyefinity and mouse issues. Nor do I see boycotts for excessive use of DRM or broken release.
Ah, you might say the difference is that Global Agenda is actively refusing the use of Eyefinity, claiming that it gives an unfair advantage. Well... IT DOES! Users with Eyefinity setups can see significantly more of the active game world, allowing such users a definite advantage over competitors. Now, as Global Agenda is an inherently multiplayer, competitive experience, HiRez studios certainly has a point in noting the unfair advantage Eyefinity creates, and in disabling it's use. If the game were not inherently competitive and online, this logic would be somewhat absurd, but HiRez studio absolutely has a valid point -- that said, the way they're implementing Vert really undermines this point. Doesn't make the lack of Eyefinity support any less logical, but it does make HiRez's whole stance a bit hypocritical. That said, either 16:9 or 4:3 would need to have their FOV cut down, so it seems the widescreen gamers are getting hit with the penalty (I suppose they ought to adjust FOV to make it widescreen a littler wider, but shorter, and 4:3 a little narrower but taller -- resulting in the same 'net POV').
You may not like HiRez's decision, but their is sound logic in it. Further, this is hardly analogous to supporting higher resolutions, as these do not expand the field of view. Further, Eyefinity is still a limited use technology, and out of the means and budget of the vast majority of gamers. I absolutely agree that this whole thing is a slippery slope, and as Eyefinity grows in popularity and use, HiRez may wish to revisit the issue. As it stands now, however, I don't have a problem with HiRez's decision.
I am, however, shocked and appalled that HardOCP has taken such a heavy handed approach to this issue, and calling for a complete boycott on the game is unprofessional and petty at best. Rather than attempting to convince HiRez studios that the decision is unwise, or simply informing gamers that Eyefinity support is a no-go within the contecxt of a review this is simply a disgruntled rant.
Just to make it clear, I have no intention whatsoever of playing Global Agenda, and have every intention of moving to Eyefinity setup on my i7, 5870 system as soon as funds allow.
The case is very simple. And i'm sure it's been said, but i'm not going to read 20 pages of comments... so my 2 pesos:
They are developing for the greatest common denominator the console.
Developing for anything else, like for instance the porting to PC, costs more money.
Supporting something that will be further limited to only a small percentage of gamers of that already smaller group that's already costing them more money is not likely to happen.
That developers think gamers are too stupid to handle them telling simple truth is the real problem.
We all know they are in it for the buck and that's just not the pc market. We all know that it's not popular to come out and say that. I for one, though, would be able to respect them if they'd be honest about it rather than try and say it's cheating. When in reality it's a feature they don't want to waste development dollars that in turn affect their wallets and their publisher's bonuses.
The day of game developers creating something awesome because of passion/desire are over. It's a greed culture right now, not an artisan one.
Kyle is right in his article to be unhappy. However, neither he nor the developer are talking about the real issue. Just the issues at the fringe.
People need to stop blaming consoles for everything. This is a PC only game and has nothing to do with the consoles.
Since you either didn't read my previous posts or didn't understand them, I'm going to ask you a question.
What aspect ratio (since that is what affects field of view) is the correct aspect ratio so someone won't have to worry about having an unfair advantage? Unless that question can be answered and backed up by logic and facts, the argument about unfair advantages is a false premise.
Not one person in this thread has yet to answer that question even though that is the crux of the argument for those defending the developer and by extension those who also think multi-monitor setups with proper field of view scaling are gaining an unfair advantage.
Since you either didn't read my previous posts or didn't understand them, I'm going to ask you a question.
What aspect ratio (since that is what affects field of view) is the correct aspect ratio so someone won't have to worry about having an unfair advantage? Unless that question can be answered and backed up by logic and facts, the argument about unfair advantages is a false premise.
Not one person in this thread has yet to answer that question even though that is the crux of the argument for those defending the developer and by extension those who also think multi-monitor setups with proper field of view scaling are gaining an unfair advantage.
You've understood it wrong. Eyefinity is simply a driver trick in that it tells the game that you have a one large resolution monitor and the game renders a frame at that resolution. The drivers then get the frame, chop it up and send it out to the respective monitors.
Game creators do not have to do anything special to support Multimonitors with such technology. Period.
What they do need is proper aspect ratio handling; and that carry's over to 4:3, 5:4, 16:10, 16:9 etc. Basically it just comes down to one simple math formula, is 16:9 wider than 4:3? Technically yes, so the correct way would be to give a 16:9 resolution more information on the side.
Now the method that the Global Agenda engine uses is everyone sees the same amount horizontally, but the wider your screen gets the more the top and bottom gets chopped off, which basically ruins eyefinity, gives you headaches etc.
Shooters are usually about who sees who first, and the person with a wider FOV has a better chance of seeing someone first. Like waving a flashlight around in the dark trying to find something, one is more likely to find it quicker with a wider beam. Being able to see someone at +/-60°, while they can't see you at +/-45° is an advantage.
Either way, I think choosing to enforce/limit a fixed FOV is purely a design choice, and well within the rights of the designers to enforce or allow. You don't like their choice? You don't have to - but please don't try to act like a wider FOV isn't an advantage.
This might blow your mind, but perhaps there is a certain range of commonly used aspect ratios that are fairly equivalent with tiny advantages, and then outside that range are extreme multi-monitor aspect ratios that provide a much larger advantage. Hilarious that you would whine about "faulty premises" when your entire argument here hinges on pingeonholing a gray area judgment call as a black and white issue.
my thoughts exactly.
if me and you were holding a sniper rifle and camping in this spot, having someone telling you “hey someone is coming from the left/right door” is fair? better mouse, video card or bigger screen gives an advantage but it’s a different not stupid comparisons.
it’s an amazing tech, it’s helps in NFS Shift like Kyle said, and that kind of “help” is ok, but some (very few) games shouldn’t support it, and from the video,maybe Global Agenda is NOT one of them.
The issue of an unfair advantage is moot. The developer decided it was, so the burden of proof is on those who want to use Eyefinity. They have to demonstrate why it isn't an advantage. I don't care one way or the other. Just making an observation.
The issue of unfair advantage or not is muddled by the context in which the issue is addressed, namely a rant. I don't care one way or the other, but the way the issue was addressed immediately makes me lean toward siding with the developer just due to the "unprofessional" way the situation was addressed. It's one thing to say, in the forum, I don't agree with the decision of Hi-Rez to not allow Eyefinity as it is a great way to enjoy a game. It's another to say, "Don't buy this game" on the front page of a fairly well-known PC website.
Sophistry at its best.
This might blow your mind, but perhaps there is a certain range of commonly used aspect ratios that are fairly equivalent with tiny advantages, and then outside that range are extreme multi-monitor aspect ratios that provide a much larger advantage. Hilarious that you would whine about "faulty premises" when your entire argument here hinges on pingeonholing a gray area judgment call as a black and white issue.
Sophistry at its best.
This might blow your mind, but perhaps there is a certain range of commonly used aspect ratios that are fairly equivalent with tiny advantages, and then outside that range are extreme multi-monitor aspect ratios that provide a much larger advantage. Hilarious that you would whine about "faulty premises" when your entire argument here hinges on pingeonholing a gray area judgment call as a black and white issue.
Step back from the monitor. Now you can see the details on the the side screens. Oh wait while your eyes were adjusting I popped out and awped you from behind a pillar in the center screen. This has been proven time and again your eye's do not work like that. Stare at your computer screen without looking away can u not read off a letterboard to your left or right. if you detected action in the below or side hall it would be a blur from a fps perspective and if I had an awp you'd already be dead. even if you had magic contacts making you capable of auto adjusting constantly the advantage is minimal.
Seriously, that is one embarrassing rant.
It has nothing to do with pixel count.
There's a reason non-standard FOV/AR are not allowed in most competitive game matches, and if the game maker decides such setups are undesirable and chooses to limit it, so be it.
Don't like it, don't buy it.
Maybe lay off the jack daniels before hitting the 'ole keyboard next time?
It's the developer's game, their rules. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't buy the game."
Bullshit, pure and simple. Your logic would get you laughed out of just about any debate or gathering of logical minds. To say something is arbitrarily "unfair" and force others to prove it is unfair is a crock of shit and you know it. As the person making the statement that it's unfair, it is up to that person to prove that it is unfair; not the other way around.
I notice you completely ducked the question. I also noticed that your point of contention seems to be based on your feelings about how the subject matter was presented and not the content. That is illogical as is your reply to my post.
Fairly equivalent is not the same as equivalent. Just because you're accustomed to something -- standard aspect ratios in this case -- doesn't mean they are the same. What makes your argument even worse is that standard widescreen aspect ratios were considered unfair not long ago and yet you are holding them up as an excuse to block multi-monitor setups as unfair. It's not my reasoning which is built on faulty premises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goronmon View Post
It's the developer's game, their rules. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't buy the game."
Kyle_Bennet:
I thought that was exactly the message we had..... You confuse me.
snip
You're not paying attention and missing the point. The developer can do whatever they want. IT'S THEIR GAME. If you don't like it, YOU are the one who has to prove to them that it is in fact fair or else don't buy the game or play by their rules. Whether or not it is or is not fair in some objective way is irrelevant. This isn't an issue of logic...this is an issue of practicality. The only opinion that matters is the developer. If they reconsider and add Eyefinity support, it will be based on perceived pressure from sites like this and sales figures, and maybe if you present a good argument for why they should change their game. It doesn't seem like you are going to convince them that it is in fact fair, so you must resort to influencing the sales figures. That is the point I'm making. I'm not trying to wax eloquent about some esoteric bullshit. If you really wanted to impress me, you'd draw up a logical diagram so I could follow your argument because it is pretty obvious you are trying to impress us all using the term "logic" without applying it.
Plus, I didn't duck the question, I detailed below that post the fact that a high end Eyefinity setup has a 48:10 aspect ratio in landscape mode. There is significantly more peripheral vision, and while the eye might not be able to focus on what is going on, it can see the motion. Honestly, this is pretty obvious. It isn't hard to see why the developer would say that it is an unfair advantage. Just like back when widescreens first became popular and the people with 16:10 screens could see more on the periphery than the 4:3 crowd it was considered "unfair" by some people. This is just the next iteration. In this case the developer stepped in and made a decision limiting the use.
The developer can do whatever they want.
Well, my 2 cents:
If you want a fair, level and even competitive playing field, play Halo 3 on your console.
The PC should be constantly pushing the envelope and pushing people to get more and better technology. If you are restricting people from new technology, people won't buy it and there'll be no point for manufacturer's to make better, stopping progress altogether. If you allow for new things like this, you'll want to get it for advantage, cool factor, etc. If we disallowed pings <200ms back in the day so that dialup people had a fair shake at people with high speed, where would we be now?
While I'm all for fair play and sport, I believe that you should be striving for more and better so that new innovations are produced to compete for your dollar. I personally don't want to play new games for the NES and text my girlfriend on my Motorola StarTAC.