Removed 21:9 topic

General Discussion
07/26/2016 01:48 PMPosted by Majora
07/26/2016 01:37 PMPosted by Deadheat
Wouldn't increased FOV give black bars to non 21:9 monitors? Wouldn't that just give the problem to someone else?


No. Increasing FOV just makes the image look more distored. You can see more, but it looks zoomed out.


So again, you want to screw over 99% of players so you can justify your cutting-edge purchase.

This thread is against the CoC and will be deleted. If you guys don't decide to grow up and stop spamming, then the mods will stop it for you.
07/26/2016 01:12 PMPosted by Floridaman
If the advantage of extra fov is unfair, why are players allowed to play at different frame rate, different fov, different resolutions and many more. All of these are also hardware limited settings where people with potatoes will have a disadvantage, so why isn't blizzard limiting fps to 30 and resolution to 720p?

It is because the 21:9 community is still small and they are willing to piss of this group of people. Whereas the number of people playing at 1080p or 60fps or higher is a lot bigger and shunning this group of audience would cause a greater impact.
LOL you are claiming different framerate is unfair? Wow. You are winy elitist children pitching a fit that a uncommon screen type isnt supported. A screen that can run resolutions that allow you to see more of the game. Not to mention break some ults.
07/26/2016 01:58 PMPosted by Transistor
<span class="truncated">...</span>

No. Increasing FOV just makes the image look more distored. You can see more, but it looks zoomed out.


So again, you want to screw over 99% of players so you can justify your cutting-edge purchase.

This thread is against the CoC and will be deleted. If you guys don't decide to grow up and stop spamming, then the mods will stop it for you.


How is that screwing over other players? Don't play at that field of view if it bothers you that much.
07/26/2016 01:58 PMPosted by Transistor
07/26/2016 01:48 PMPosted by Majora
...

No. Increasing FOV just makes the image look more distored. You can see more, but it looks zoomed out.


So again, you want to screw over 99% of players so you can justify your cutting-edge purchase.

This thread is against the CoC and will be deleted. If you guys don't decide to grow up and stop spamming, then the mods will stop it for you.


If I would want an advantage I would buy a 165Hz TN pannel. 21:9 gives better immersion in the first place. Play and see yourself!
...

So again, you want to screw over 99% of players so you can justify your cutting-edge purchase.

This thread is against the CoC and will be deleted. If you guys don't decide to grow up and stop spamming, then the mods will stop it for you.


How is that screwing over other players? Don't play at that field of view if it bothers you that much.


Because the highest FoV will always be the mandatory competitive one. Thereby just dumping the problem onto the vast majority of players.

Play at 16:9 if the current support bothers YOU so much.
07/26/2016 02:17 PMPosted by Transistor
...

How is that screwing over other players? Don't play at that field of view if it bothers you that much.


Because the highest FoV will always be the mandatory competitive one. Thereby just dumping the problem onto the vast majority of players.

Play at 16:9 if the current support bothers YOU so much.


Your point being...?
Just because you don't play comp like that doesn't mean there aren't people that do. I like my FOV high anyway, even at 16:9.
07/26/2016 01:46 PMPosted by Cooly568
I actually agree with a lot of this, while I would still correct some facts, like FPS's that support 21:9 are a lot of them, including TF2, CS:GO, Battlefield 1, etc.
And that they wouldn't have to dedicate resources because it already supported it in the Beta but they chose to spend extra time getting rid of it and then implementing an improper solution.

But this is actually well written and I hope it doesn't get downvoted hard, it's a well written post from someone who isn't neutral on the issue.


Thank you, I did try to be fair about it. I do understand that it does suck for 21:9 users, and I do see your side of it to some degree. However, if people have never started hex editing the game to enable that mode before... I do wonder how many complaints you would be seeing currently.

I think the problem is that people have this idea of how it could have been enabled based on that, and because some users managed to mod the game to enable it people think that it was removed from the game when it was never really supported to begin with. Blizzard has commented that there are technical, as well as competitive, reason for not implementing that mode that relate to objects being rendered off screen. More to that point, it seems like a lot of their design is predictive both netcode and rendering, and so by limiting the FOV in the way that they have done it makes it easier for the developers to place objects in the world around the players viewpoint. I don't know if there were issues with graphical glitches in 21:9 mode in beta due to the fact that all I have seen of it is screen shots and not actual gameplay. Regardless though, that does make sense given how Overwatch's engine handles rendering; as it seems to be heavily reliant on up/downscaling and some of that functionality I imagine is optimized around a preset aspect ratio.

For example if you have a system that struggles to keep your FPS high enough to play the game smoothly in most games you would drop the resolution to reduce the number of pixels your system is required to render. That is how this has worked in games for as long as I can remember, and I go back to running Quake 2 on dual Voodoo 2s in true SLI. However, in Overwatch this is not how you do things. Instead you set your resolution and then the “Render Scale” and it renders the graphics and then interpolates them relative to your display. I have never seen a game that does this kind of thing before. Instead of rendering at a preset resolution it seems to be able to dynamically upscale and downscale what it is rendering on the fly based on the system load. Then you get into the whole predictive netcode and the idea of “favoring the shooter” and what the shooter sees on screen being what the server determines happened in game… and clearly Overwatch’s engine is just different in some ways from how other games do things.

This is also why it may be more difficult for them to implement what they consider a fair FOV a way that 21:9 users want. Since the game renders then scales everything, a lot of that scaling is probably optimized around a set aspect ratio and so changing it might be harder than you think just based on how the system is designed. Furthermore because of some of the predictive elements of the code, there may be concerns about the accuracy of what you see on screen if you change that FOV too much. This may also relate to some of the competitive advantage concerns; as part of the reason they can get away with such a low tick rate on servers is because the game is predicting movement, and the frequency at which it checks updates may be in part determined by what is viewable to players between updates.

For example if the game predicts that you are going to run across a players FOV in the next update it may go ahead and place your character model just out of sight in anticipation of that. However if you broaden that FOV that may place you in view of that player, letting them know you were there, even if you change course before you would have reached their sight line had they been using a normal FOV. Same goes for projectiles and atmospheric effects. Some of this may just cause general glitchines or warping, but it also may give players that use ultrawide screen monitors and unfair advantage because they may see things that the developers did not intend to be in their field of view. Does that kind of make sense?

I know to some that might sound overly convoluted, but I used to be a programmer and I have a lot of friends that are programmers, and I could see how this design could have been chosen since it allows for dynamic changes in render scaling to boost performance in consoles, reduces some of the system load on their servers, and it is a very progressive approach to engine design. However, the downside to it may be that it is all built around a presumed 16:9 aspect ratio and therefore does not scale well to other formats.

Regardless, I think you are overstating how well supported 21:9 is. In CS:GO. The menus get cut off for example, which means buying items in game becomes really difficult, and there are problems with the FOV and monitor detection there as well. To me Valve's implementation of 21:9, based on the forum posts I have seen and read, is very much beta at best and the issues with it have been going on for 2-3 years with no fix in sight.

That said, you are right in that it seems like most of EA's games (anything that uses DICE's newer Frostbite iterations) does seem to excellent support for 21:9 monitors. However, that is not the engine that Overwatch uses and EA is a different company than Blizzard (a much more maligned one I might add). So just because one game engine can do something it doesn’t mean every game can or should be able to do that. Developers build games with certain parameters in mind, and to me clearly the Overwatch Team, both for good and bad, focused on a 16:9 aspect ratio whereas DICE’s team clearly put more of an emphasis on supporting multiple aspect ratios. However there may be some things that Overwatch’s engine does better than DICE’s engine, so it is probably a design choice that has tradeoffs.

Furthermore it is worth noting that this is Blizzard’s first FPS game and use of this engine, whereas DICE has been developing around FPS games for a long time and gone through several iterations of the Frostbite engine during that time period. So maybe part of the reason that some aspect of DICE’s game are better implemented is because they release a new shooter (and generate revenue from it) every 1-2 years, the platform they are working from is more mature, and so they have had time to build in that kind of support. Then again many people have accused the BF series of being incredibly pretty but not that fun to play, whereas people seem to really like Overwatch. So maybe Overwatch’s development team put more of an emphasis on gameplay than graphics when they were designing it, and so again that may be another one of those tradeoffs.
It looks like every other previous is still deleted.
Hemm each monitor in OW is designed 21 : 9 why ? : D
maybe because the idea of the future ? :D
we are a minority ? yes, but we are many, enough to do our part to keep this game alive,but in these conditions certainly none will remain long.
what sense does it optimize the game to include low end pc and and lose the high end?an online game like this needs to include many people as possible,not to reject them for silly reasons.
I think we can move conversation back to the other topic, bump that instead of this.
07/26/2016 03:53 PMPosted by Ximus
Hemm each monitor in OW is designed 21 : 9 why ? : D
maybe because the idea of the future ? :D
we are a minority ? yes, but we are many, enough to do our part to keep this game alive,but in these conditions certainly none will remain long.
what sense does it optimize the game to include low end pc and and lose the high end?an online game like this needs to include many people as possible,not to reject them for silly reasons.


I get what you are saying, but we could debate about 21:9 being the future. In the past 3D parallax screens were hyped as being the future, and now 21:9, VR, and augmented reality are being sold "as the future". We will not know what the future is until we get there.

Additionally, there are a lot of things that hold back 21:9 and that keep it from being adopted. It doesn't seem to work particularly well for laptops, phones, or tablets for example; as only Toshiba has experimented with those in the past. The fact that phones, laptops, and televisions all use 16:9 aspect ratios means that a lot of companies, developers, and content creators are going to design their software and media around that form factor; as that is what the vast majority of the market uses.

Even if let's say the next iPhone decided to go to 21:9, then you have issues with media playback and other functionality that depends on a set resolution standard. Apps have to be redesigned with that in mind, and outputting to external 16:9 displays may be problematic. For example if you go buy a car that has an Android Auto or Apple Car Play, that screen they put in your car most likely uses a 16:9 aspect ratio. You could maybe somehow scale it, but given how the software works currently (which basically does screen casting) that is not an option.

Furthermore it would be really hard to fit a 21:9 screen in its place because that is somewhat predicated by dimensions of the Double-Din housing used for car radios. You would probably have to redesign cars to make a 21:9 screen fit and look correct, or make the screen really narrow.

Basically just don't assume that because someone or the company selling you your monitor tells you that "21:9 will become the new standard"... that it actually will. It may remain a niche market, or it may see mass adoption. We are not sure at this point, and only time will tell.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum