|
Both Bioshocks crash all the drat time for me in both the standard and remastered editions on PC. It's been this way since 2010 across every computer I've owned and I think I'm just cursed by some kind of monkey's paw where any modern game that's right up my alley will run like dogshit
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
CJacobs posted:Both Bioshocks crash all the drat time for me in both the standard and remastered editions on PC. It's been this way since 2010 across every computer I've owned and I think I'm just cursed by some kind of monkey's paw where any modern game that's right up my alley will run like dogshit The original bioshocks run like poo poo unless you force pre-rendered frames to 1. (or was it 0?) Could try that if you haven't already?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
The Bioshock games might not be technically old enough for this thread, but they perform like games from 1999. Bioshock has been nearly unplayable on every setup I've owned since just a couple years after its release. I was forced to revert drivers on my HD 6800 series card circa 2010 just to play it without stuttering, rubberbanding movement, and extreme graphical artifacts. I can't even begin to understand why those games were so incompatible with even contemporary hardware, but these definitely aren't uncommon problems nor were they 8 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 08:34
|
|
|
I remember Bioshock 1 not having real 16:9 support before it was patched in. The game would simply cut a 4:3 viewport at the top and the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 08:37
|
|
|
treat posted:The Bioshock games might not be technically old enough for this thread, but they perform like games from 1999. See my comment above, you have to force pre-rendered frames to either 0 or 1, I can't remember which, but on modern hardware that's what you have to do. As soon as I did that I got perfect buttery 60fps with zero issues for the entire game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:See my comment above, you have to force pre-rendered frames to either 0 or 1, I can't remember which, but on modern hardware that's what you have to do. Would you kindly set pre-rendered frames to either 0 or 1?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 09:00
|
|
|
Fun fact: Bioshock 2's last patch broke vendor machine sounds so that they never play and it was never fixed. Both of them are awful PC ports and broken as gently caress but I'd still play original BS1 over its remaster because those issues in original are fixable with enough effort but the sound quality in remaster isn't. Not sure about BS2, haven't heard much about the issues in remaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
Lambert posted:I remember Bioshock 1 not having real 16:9 support before it was patched in. The game would simply cut a 4:3 viewport at the top and the bottom. For some reason a lot of people simply could not wrap their minds around this because their new fancy widescreen monitors must display more stuff than old 4:3 CRTs; it was a law of nature. The movie equivalent to what BioShock did is something like Super 35 which was heavily used by James Cameron. If you watch the VHS copy of (for example) Terminator 2, you are seeing “more” of the movie in a lot of shots because it’s showing roughly the same stuff horizontally but more of the top and bottom of the frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
david_a posted:The game was designed for 16:9 screens - if you play it on that, you’re getting exactly what they intended. Unless the console version handles widescreen differently? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
The Kins posted:Wasn't Bioshock developed with the Xbox 360 in mind? That platform mandated 16:9 support, and the game was released long enough after that system launched that I'd be very surprised that they'd take such a weird "legacy" route to handling things. Most PC games at the time were designed for CRTs so to support widescreen they increased the horizontal field of view which led PC Master Race gamers to think that a widescreen monitor should always show more of the scene than a CRT. If you designed things for a particular horizontal view though, it’s just as valid to render more vertically on a 4:3. Seeing a bit more of the floor and ceiling is far more preferable than not being able to fit things on screen at once, like that banner at the beginning of BioShock with the Andrew Ryan statue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
The Kins posted:Wasn't Bioshock developed with the Xbox 360 in mind? That platform mandated 16:9 support, and the game was released long enough after that system launched that I'd be very surprised that they'd take such a weird "legacy" route to handling things. Consoles were a little weird about 16:9 resolutions, from what I remember. I remember Far Cry 2 did the same fake-widescreen by chopping the top and bottom off a 4:3 image. They only patched in a proper 16:9 view for the PC version because it apparently didn't work well with people playing the game in ultra-widescreen on multiple monitors (where I'm guessing the black bars still took up just as much space as if you played on a single monitor); on consoles the fake widescreen is still the only option for widescreen. Granted, this was seventh-generation-era Ubisoft, so it could have just been them being loving stupid and not understanding how to work with the consoles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
It's not a weird thing to want a decent FOV that doesn't induce nausea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
The Kins posted:Wasn't Bioshock developed with the Xbox 360 in mind? That platform mandated 16:9 support, and the game was released long enough after that system launched that I'd be very surprised that they'd take such a weird "legacy" route to handling things. Convex posted:It's not a weird thing to want a decent FOV that doesn't induce nausea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
For another film example look toward The Shining. Kubrick wanted his films to be viewable on any medium and still give the viewer the same experience, so he filmed in hella wide-rear end wide screen so that the sides OR top and bottom could be cropped off and the shot would essentially still be composed the same. edit: Seen here:  The top is cropped in the old-school game method by bringing the whole scene forward to fit the aspect ratio, while the bottom is the 'intended' widescreen as it was filmed. But what's cool about it is that the shot loses nothing, it's essentially the same, because it was filmed with both aspect ratios in mind.  However, occasionally this does have the knock-on effect of making rooms really really tall with the characters situated way at the bottom but some people think that helps give the movie a more open and empty feel or something like that. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Sep 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:Yeah it's weird because I heard similar complaints about the remaster of Bioshock 1, but I played both back to back and had very few issues with it. It was only with Bioshock 2 Remastered that I seemed to experience frequent crashes and instability. Same, I played the Bioshock 1 remaster on PC when it came out in 2016 and didn't have any problems with it. Zaphod42 posted:Dude play bioshock on a PC. I did play it on PC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
david_a posted:You can question their design decision to pick such a narrow FOV, but what triggers me is when people think they did it “wrong” at a technical level because they can’t wrap their heads around aspect ratios. This was always a hilarious debate back in the transition days — people who insisted that they should see more at their piddly 1920×1080 resolution than I would on my obviously superior 1920×1440. They never managed to satisfactorily answer why a lower resolution should yield a higher FoV. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
this is why games should just have the option to change fov
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
I feel that if they really wanted people to see their stuff in a certain way they should have just kept the aspect ratio with black bars on the side. Nobody likes it when they cut poo poo off to make it fit, that's why widescreen became a thing in the first place. Besides, games aren't movies and aren't subject to the same limitations that film is. Applying cinematic techniques directly to games is a mistake, they need to be properly adapted to fit the new medium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
I never increase FoV because of all those "pro strats" videos for team fortress 2 back in the day where their fovs were turned way up so their guns showed up as looong arms going into the distance and it always looked terrible so I was like "nope this fov is fine for me"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
I am the opposite way. The first time I got a 16:9 monitor I played Half-Life 2 as my first game with it, because I'd just been playing it on a 5:4 (1280x1024), and seeing Gordon's arm be 3/4ths of the way to the edge of the screen instead of just barely poking out of the corner was mindblowing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
I put the FOV slider to nearly max on any game that has that option, and make config file changes for games that don’t have it. I find a low FOV disorienting and unpleasant, it feels like you are wearing blinders. I had to play MGSV: Ground Zeroes on my TV instead of my monitor because a low FOV is more tolerable that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
catlord posted:I feel that if they really wanted people to see their stuff in a certain way they should have just kept the aspect ratio with black bars on the side. Nobody likes it when they cut poo poo off to make it fit, that's why widescreen became a thing in the first place. Besides, games aren't movies and aren't subject to the same limitations that film is. Applying cinematic techniques directly to games is a mistake, they need to be properly adapted to fit the new medium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
catlord posted:I feel that if they really wanted people to see their stuff in a certain way they should have just kept the aspect ratio with black bars on the side. Nobody likes it when they cut poo poo off to make it fit, that's why widescreen became a thing in the first place. Besides, games aren't movies and aren't subject to the same limitations that film is. Applying cinematic techniques directly to games is a mistake, they need to be properly adapted to fit the new medium. Nobody would like black bars. And I feel like you're misunderstanding what the others were saying, nobody was saying the devs were like "you have to see just *this* part of the screen" They designed the game for 16:9 and for the 4:3 view they render a wider vertical FOV. That's... fine and no big deal, except unless you hold it side by side with 16:9 and flip a poo poo because you think the 4:3 is getting some kind of competitive advantage for having more vertical view in what is a single player non-competitive game. Another person was saying the opposite earlier, that 4:3 was a cropped 16:9, but its actually more like the opposite. Gloomy Rube posted:I never increase FoV because of all those "pro strats" videos for team fortress 2 back in the day where their fovs were turned way up so their guns showed up as looong arms going into the distance and it always looked terrible so I was like "nope this fov is fine for me" You *should* adjust FOV based on how close to the screen you are and how big the screen is. A proper FOV just "feels" better inherently. Its something you can't really put your finger on but it just feels better. If you're close to the monitor, desktop style, you want a pretty high FOV. But if you're on a couch playing on a TV you want a pretty low FOV. All games should let you change it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Lork posted:I don't understand, why would arbitrarily making the experience worse for 4:3 players help anything? I loving hated those black bars squeezing the picture on my already tiny 4:3 TV into an indecipherable mass during that transitional period. There's no good reason to do that in a video game that can output any resolution you want. Why would I support adding pillarboxing to an already 4:3 screen. There is no good reason why they should do that, I was talking explicitly about playing on a widescreen monitor. In this case, the 4:3 image should fill the 4:3 screen without the need for the mattes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
The Evil Within caught a lot of flak because its cinematic black bars converted the image to ultra widescreen on any display, including turning 4:3 into 16:9. It looks fine, imo it does a lot to make the game feel more like a grindhouse flick and they were right to include it, but the implementation caused problems. The game isn't actually displaying at that resolution, the black bars are just a screen overlay you can turn off in the options menu. This means that the FOV isn't affected by the bars, so you can't see your character's feet unless you physically look down, and in a game that frequently features bear traps as a trap for you to fall into that's not great!  The Evil Within 2 makes fun of this choice by having the exact same cinematic black bars with the same implementation be one of your rewards for completing the game. edit: For reference, here is the game displayed at the proper FOV for the ratio that the black bars are squishing the screen down to. It'd be a bit harder to play this way but it does look pretty. 
CJacobs fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Sep 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
The Evil Within came out in 2014. Anyone insisting on plugging the 360/PS3 versions into an old CRT to play it should have spent the 60 bucks on a used HDTV instead, and you basically can't hook up the PS4/Xbone version to one of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Funnily enough, playing in 5:4 or 4:3 actually fixes the problem with the black bars obscuring your vision because of the additional vertical headroom putting them higher and lower on the screen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
catlord posted:Why would I support adding pillarboxing to an already 4:3 screen. There is no good reason why they should do that, I was talking explicitly about playing on a widescreen monitor. In this case, the 4:3 image should fill the 4:3 screen without the need for the mattes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Lork posted:So you're saying they should've pillarboxed the 16:9 image to turn it into 4:3? That makes even less sense. Re-read my post but replace both instances of 4:3 with 16:9 in that case. No, I'm saying they should have pillarboxed the 4:3 image when playing on a 16:9 image. Like when you watch a 4:3 movie on widescreen TV. Zaphod42 posted:Nobody would like black bars. And I feel like you're misunderstanding what the others were saying, nobody was saying the devs were like "you have to see just *this* part of the screen" Maybe I am.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:The Evil Within caught a lot of flak because its cinematic black bars converted the image to ultra widescreen on any display, including turning 4:3 into 16:9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
the letterbox joke in the evil within 2 actually made me laugh. it helped that it was a cool game on top of all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
david_a posted:Clive Barker's Undying did this whenever you talked to someone, which I thought was a neat way to tell the player "hey, you can't move right now." It would look pretty ridiculous on some of the ultra-wide monitors that exist nowadays, though. Some films have fun with this as well. The Hunger Games is letterboxed with black bars until the main character actually enters the titular hunger games- the bars slowly slide out of the way in one concurrent shot and it stays that way for the rest of the film. It's really neat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYQEJXez_E edit: The Grand Budapest Hotel also changes aspect ratio vaguely in accordance with the time period of the scene but everyone knows about that one. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Hey, guys, excited for a fully polygonal (old)Doom?   
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
The PBR material textures look good in that last shot at least. That floor glistens just as I'd imagine it would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Mordja posted:Hey, guys, excited for a fully polygonal (old)Doom? It looks like Doom running in Doomsday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
It's odd how so many of those insist on overusing lighting effects to the point of looking like a bad game from 1998.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Mill Village posted:It looks like Doom running in Doomsday. Yeah i thought it was just doomsday too lol E: watching that youtube vid linked on the moddb page, the contrast bewteen the world textures, overdone lighting and the enemy models really shines a light on how absurdly ugly those models are site fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Mordja posted:Hey, guys, excited for a fully polygonal (old)Doom? When a late 90s game doesn't know how to make use of the extra power of a newly released GPU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Actually, are those still the models that Doomsday used? I think Psychophobia used, if not the same models, similar ones. But that'd mean that there's been no advances in 3D modelling Doom monster for a decade either way...
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Mordja posted:Hey, guys, excited for a fully polygonal (old)Doom? This is a playable version of the photoshopped covers to doom wad packs
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 04:59
|
|