how to fix the order 1886

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#52 Posted by WitIsWisdom (3786 posts) -

How to fix the order? Give an option to use classic third person instead of crappy OTS. Fixed.

#53 Edited by ConanTheStoner (5437 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@ConanTheStoner said:

So a joke topic actually goes on to expose a number of "slow" users.

Was this your intention CKA?

yip

Well played sir, well played indeed.

#54 Edited by TheFadeForever (1787 posts) -

TC got you good cows

"bu but tc owned himself ah what not"

#55 Edited by treedoor (7648 posts) -

That's actually how I do it on my PC.

I've modified my PC monitor to have a very thick black border around it. Makes me feel like I'm playing games at a resolution higher than 1080p.

#56 Edited by Mr-Kutaragi (1962 posts) -

@PinkieWinkie said:

I guess RE4 needed to be fixed too then. Wait, no it didn't.

TLHBO.

This happen when xbox brand have no AAA average exclusive for 3 year, bro getting bored and make poor attempt to be "clever." DC for 720p and poor performance this gen by comparing to design decision of other dev.

#57 Edited by EducatingU_PCMR (723 posts) -
@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

so, what's happening in the third picture in my opening post?

using identical logic, the ps4 now renders the order 1886 in 2560x1080, is that correct?

the truth is a 1920x800 scene was rendered in all three instances. an interesting fact about this resolution - it is below full hd.

I'm using the definition of 1080P

i never talked about reduction. the simple facts:

1. the scene render is done at 1920x800

2. this is vertically centered on a 1920x1080 display

3. the rest is populated by what i'll crudely describe as 'free black'.

i'm sorry. but full hd is 2 073 000 pixels. the order 1886's 1 536 000 pixels does not achieve this technical definition of 1080P. Earlier today you earned a victory, even if I wanted to - I cannot grant this one.

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

It's not a Full HD game.

"Full HD" is a commercial term meaning 1920 lines vertical, and 1080 lines horizontal. So "Full HD" is indeed related to the 16:9 aspect ratio.

The order is 1920x800, it is not Full HD.

Don't you have any movies in 1920x800? If you open them you'll see the player adds two horizontal lines in the top and bottom, this is done because the screen needs to be filled with something, because 280 horizontal lines are missing.

The other way is to force another aspect ratio, 16:9, if you force it the image will look stretched because the only way to fill the screen is to stretch the pixels up and down.

TL:DR The Order is not Full HD.

#58 Edited by lglz1337 (3778 posts) -

@PinkieWinkie: so good ! TC debunked

#59 Edited by ronvalencia (15114 posts) -

@locopatho:

@happyduds77 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

A wikipedia link? Seriously? Lawl.

It's a full hd game. Blocking off the top and bottom with black bars doesn't change the quality of the rest of the screen.

yes that's correct. a wikipedia link. 'Lawl' does not refute my argument.

with my argument unrefuted, i further strengthen my position with more evidence. heard of the bbc? here is a technical document.

section 7.3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf

they clearly talk about 1080P and the resolution for 1080P is defined as 1920x1080.

you still claim it is full hd. why do you do this? how is it a full hd game if only (1920x800) 1 536 000 pixels were rendered?

full hd is 2 076 000 pixels. no free black allowed.

yes that's right the 1920 width of the scene allows this scene to slot into a full hd display pixel for pixel. oh and the unrendered areas top and bottom are then populated by 'free black'.

So image quality is the same, but ratio is different. Is that what you're saying?

In terms of pixel count, it not "Full HD" i.e. 1920 x 1080 pixels.

The devs has stated 1920x800 was due to MSAA 4X bandwidth consumption i.e. 32 ROPS's MSAA processors wasn't able to operating at full speed due to memory bandwidth limits.

PS4's 32 ROPS is just a paper tiger when compare to the real 32 ROPS with higher memory bandwidth from 7950 Boost Edition.

The top 32 ROPS equipped Radeon HD is the R9-280X a.k.a. 7970 GE a.k.a. 8970.

#60 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2555 posts) -

So cows are now defining their own terminology for Full HD. Never saw that coming. I guess when you can't have games at 1080p on 900pStation the desperation force you to do just that.

#61 Edited by getyeryayasout (7535 posts) -

Just got done using electrical tape to tape 3" wide strips at the top and bottom of my TV set. Everything is so much more cinematic and HD now, I wish I would've thought of this years ago. Thanks CKA!

#62 Posted by Warlord_Irochi (1269 posts) -

Man, it is so easy to fire up fanboys... almost as easy as pointing a bored graphic-obessed PC user.

#63 Posted by hippiesanta (9868 posts) -

people with big TV at home won't complaint the black bars

#64 Posted by jake44 (2021 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Nothing is broken. They wanted to go with an unusual aspect ratio for games. That's not broken, that's their decision.

As usual, Wasdie is right.

#65 Posted by Snugenz (11888 posts) -

I love this thread, i hope it never dies.

#66 Posted by ShoTTyMcNaDeS (2088 posts) -

How about we just play games and not worry about aspect ratios, rendering and graphical resolutions! Man you guys all need to get laid. You sound like a bunch of 300 lb. nerds that sit at a desk chair shoving Cheetos and Mountain Dew in your face!

#67 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (7167 posts) -

Lol at Gears of Order: 1886 and the "cinematic" experience.

#68 Edited by jake44 (2021 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

Needing to be fixed would mean something's broken or doesn't work. Which isn't the case

#69 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16614 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

Whaaaaaaaaa ?

Full HD is 1920x1080... so yeah the RULE is that it needs to be 1920x1080 and that is a 16:9 aspect ratio :/

#70 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16614 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

I'm planning on getting a 21:9 monitor(2560x1080p) anyway. It looks amazing for PC games. Someone should make a bendable 21:9 monitor.

I have a 21:9 monitor from LG and I can tell you it's great.

+Higher aspect ratio allows you to see more than 16:9 monitors

+You don't need multiple monitors for the wider view, meaning no bezels, which is great

+The increase from 1920x1080 to 2560x1080 doesn't take a huge hit on performance

-Not all games support it. Most games can be fixed to support it (check WSGF) but in like 0.01% of the cases there is no fix

Anyway, in the case of The Order: making a 21:9 game on a system which everyon has hooked up to a 16:9 TV is pretty dumb.

#71 Edited by tymeservesfate (1854 posts) -

@Vecna said:

stealing this pic XD

but yea, awesome thread LOL...and...yes, yes, i agree TC. very well put.

#72 Posted by Vatusus (4617 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

Lol at Gears of Order: 1886 and the "cinematic" experience.

And yet, watch lems hyping the next Gears

#73 Posted by Joedgabe (5112 posts) -

the bars are for the cinematic experience i believe. Not really anything to do with the 1080p i think.

#74 Posted by IamAdorable (402 posts) -

Last picture made me chuckle :p
The only way to play it!

#75 Posted by Tlgersuperman (87 posts) -

But if you use 256 colors....

#76 Posted by locopatho (20282 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

Full HD is 1920x1080

Says who?

#77 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2555 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

Full HD is 1920x1080

Says who?

Prove that any thing below 1920x1080 is FullHD.

#78 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16614 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

Full HD is 1920x1080

Says who?

The people that coined up the "Full HD" term

What are you trying to say here: that Full HD is not 1920x1080?

Because let me tell you: Full HD is 1080p is 1920x1080 or in other words it's a 16:9 aspect ratio.

From Wikipedia:

High-definition television (HDTV) provides a resolution that is substantially higher than that of standard-definition television.

HDTV may be transmitted in various formats:

  • 1080p - 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels (~2.1 megapixels [Mpx]) per frame
  • 1080i - typically either:
    • 1920×1080i: 1,036,800 pixels (~1 Mpx) per field or 2,073,600 pixels (~2.1 Mpx) per frame
    • 1440×1080i: 777,600 pixels (~0.8 Mpx) per field or 1,555,200 pixels (~1.6 Mpx) per frame
  • 720p - 1280×720p: 921,600 pixels (~0.9 Mpx) per frame

The letter "p" here stands for progressive scan while "i" indicates interlaced.

1080p (aka Full HD/ FHD and BT.709) is a set of HDTV high-definition video modes characterized by 1080 horizontal lines of vertical resolution[1] and progressive scan, as opposed to interlaced, as is the case with the 1080i display standard. The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a resolution of 1920x1080 (2.1 megapixel) often marketed as Full HD.

#79 Posted by charizard1605 (57752 posts) -

It seems so many people missed the point...

#80 Posted by always_explicit (2906 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

OP, when you make a "joke" thread and you're the only one laughing at your joke it's probably time to hang the towel.

I laughed at his thread. My favourite bit was when you commented and got schooled by TC.

#81 Posted by handssss (1836 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@locopatho said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@locopatho said:

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

Drawing black bars along the top and bottom doesn't reduce the resolution of the remaining screen, which is the same res as a 1920 * 1080 game would be. It's full HD at a different aspect ratio. There is no rule that says full HD must be a 16:9 ratio.

Full HD is 1920x1080

Says who?

The people that coined up the "Full HD" term

What are you trying to say here: that Full HD is not 1920x1080?

Because let me tell you: Full HD is 1080p is 1920x1080 or in other words it's a 16:9 aspect ratio.

From Wikipedia:

High-definition television (HDTV) provides a resolution that is substantially higher than that of standard-definition television.

HDTV may be transmitted in various formats:

  • 1080p - 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels (~2.1 megapixels [Mpx]) per frame
  • 1080i - typically either:
    • 1920×1080i: 1,036,800 pixels (~1 Mpx) per field or 2,073,600 pixels (~2.1 Mpx) per frame
    • 1440×1080i: 777,600 pixels (~0.8 Mpx) per field or 1,555,200 pixels (~1.6 Mpx) per frame
  • 720p - 1280×720p: 921,600 pixels (~0.9 Mpx) per frame

The letter "p" here stands for progressive scan while "i" indicates interlaced.

1080p (aka Full HD/ FHD and BT.709) is a set of HDTV high-definition video modes characterized by 1080 horizontal lines of vertical resolution[1] and progressive scan, as opposed to interlaced, as is the case with the 1080i display standard. The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a resolution of 1920x1080 (2.1 megapixel) often marketed as Full HD.

so then why are blu-ray movies all considered full 1080p when most of them use the same aspect ratio as the order?

#82 Edited by FoxbatAlpha (7167 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@FoxbatAlpha said:

Lol at Gears of Order: 1886 and the "cinematic" experience.

And yet, watch lems hyping the next Gears

That's because Gears is Gears. The original. Not some League of Extraordinary Gentlemen crap.

#83 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16614 posts) -

@handssss said:

so then why are blu-ray movies all considered full 1080p when most of them use the same aspect ratio as the order?

That is a very good question. But the term Full HD means 1080p or 1920x1080

Seeing as how the Blu-ray video fills all horizontal pixels (1920 horizontally) but not all vertical pixels, as it's in a 21:9 aspect ratio I would say they are not Full HD, they are in fact 1920x800.

#84 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7280 posts) -

@treedoor said:

That's actually how I do it on my PC.

I've modified my PC monitor to have a very thick black border around it. Makes me feel like I'm playing games at a resolution higher than 1080p.

I usually just upgrade my PC when I want to game at a higher resolution/settings, but this black border concept has me intrigued.

#85 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4812 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:

@handssss said:

so then why are blu-ray movies all considered full 1080p when most of them use the same aspect ratio as the order?

That is a very good question. But the term Full HD means 1080p or 1920x1080

Seeing as how the Blu-ray video fills all horizontal pixels (1920 horizontally) but not all vertical pixels, as it's in a 21:9 aspect ratio I would say they are not Full HD, they are in fact 1920x800.

correct.

in common parlance i don't talk about 'full hd' movies anyway, i talk about 'blu ray quality' - when i'm talking about the top tier quality films. this is reflected in the marketing materials of major retailers, such as amazon.

also, i wouldn't make the comparison from movies to games. there are already so many full hd games, i'd suggest its more appropriate to compare those to the order - and in the order's case there difference is a loss of pixel data from the top and bottom replaced with black bars. furthermore games are a dynamic content whereas movies are static. just a few reasons why the movies to games comparison is flawed.

there are tv shows which are filmed and broadcast in 16:9 full hd 1920x1080. that's full hd. a blu ray film in 1920x800 is not full hd, but it's blu ray quality.

#86 Posted by shawn30 (4367 posts) -

I like the borders, myself. Adds a bit of style to their game display. I just hope the game is good as this could get me to buy a PS4. I have hi hopes for this one.

#87 Edited by Mozelleple112 (6665 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Shielder7 said:

@I_can_haz said:

It's full HD already, it doesn't need fixing. The black bars don't take away anything from the resolution.

He's trying to be clever but is coming off as a moron as usual.

The Order 1886 is not full HD.

Full HD is 1920x1080. The Order 1886's render is 1920x800 which is too low to be Full HD.

This is correct, but people who say "its 800p" are clearly stupid and don't know a thing or two about resolution.

1920x800p will look every bit as sharp as high-res as 1920x1080p with the exception of 280 vertical pixels per horizontal line, however this will just appear as two black bars on the top and bottom of the picture, without ruining the smoothness or sharpness of regular 1920x1080p resolution. They could have gone for 2560x1080p which would give us the sharpness of 2560x1600p, but with black bars, but so few TVs support that resolution and it would require significantly more graphical power from the PS4, it isn't worth it.

Would go perfect with Philips' 21:9 cine screens, those are 2560x1080p and already 21:9 aspect ratio, so you would be able to play without any black bars.

#88 Posted by misterpmedia (3387 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

Needing to be fixed would mean something's broken or doesn't work. Which isn't the case

Also worked well for Resident Evil 4. A very highly praised game, and one of my favourites. To be honest I didn't even notice them until the comparisons with The Order were made.

#89 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16614 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

@handssss said:

so then why are blu-ray movies all considered full 1080p when most of them use the same aspect ratio as the order?

That is a very good question. But the term Full HD means 1080p or 1920x1080

Seeing as how the Blu-ray video fills all horizontal pixels (1920 horizontally) but not all vertical pixels, as it's in a 21:9 aspect ratio I would say they are not Full HD, they are in fact 1920x800.

correct.

in common parlance i don't talk about 'full hd' movies anyway, i talk about 'blu ray quality' - when i'm talking about the top tier quality films. this is reflected in the marketing materials of major retailers, such as amazon.

also, i wouldn't make the comparison from movies to games. there are already so many full hd games, i'd suggest its more appropriate to compare those to the order - and in the order's case there difference is a loss of pixel data from the top and bottom replaced with black bars. furthermore games are a dynamic content whereas movies are static. just a few reasons why the movies to games comparison is flawed.

there are tv shows which are filmed and broadcast in 16:9 full hd 1920x1080. that's full hd. a blu ray film in 1920x800 is not full hd, but it's blu ray quality.

There is a lot of misconception it seems. A lot of people say a blu-ray movie is full HD, hell, I think I have called it that too. But thinking about it, and what full HD implies, it can't be. It can be the best possible resolution, but it can't be full HD in its aspect ratio.

Totally, Movies and games should be totally necessary. Movies are in 21:9 because that is the aspect ratio of a Cinema screen and projector. The order is in 21:9 because they want this game to be more cinematic. BS, they know everyone will play it on a 16:9 screen and they are cutting off what people see for a bullshit reason.

#90 Edited by locopatho (20282 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@handssss said:

so then why are blu-ray movies all considered full 1080p when most of them use the same aspect ratio as the order?

That is a very good question. But the term Full HD means 1080p or 1920x1080

Seeing as how the Blu-ray video fills all horizontal pixels (1920 horizontally) but not all vertical pixels, as it's in a 21:9 aspect ratio I would say they are not Full HD, they are in fact 1920x800.

See, this is why I'm arguing the point. It's utterly ridiculous to me that we are now saying Blu Ray movies aren't Full HD. The quality of their picture is exactly the same as a 1920*1080 image. Just at a different aspect ratio. Saying "They aren't Full HD" is at best overly pedantic, at worst trying to mislead people. The image quality IS Full HD. Just with black bars.

Hell, if we are being THIS technical and pedantic about it, couldn't we say that the black bars need to be drawn in as black pixels and thus they are rendering 1080 vertical pixels?

Btw, is there a source besides WIkipedia that says what exactly "FULL HD" means?

#91 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16614 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@handssss said:

so then why are blu-ray movies all considered full 1080p when most of them use the same aspect ratio as the order?

That is a very good question. But the term Full HD means 1080p or 1920x1080

Seeing as how the Blu-ray video fills all horizontal pixels (1920 horizontally) but not all vertical pixels, as it's in a 21:9 aspect ratio I would say they are not Full HD, they are in fact 1920x800.

See, this is why I'm arguing the point. It's utterly ridiculous to me that we are now saying Blu Ray movies aren't Full HD. The quality of their picture is exactly the same as a 1920*1080 image. Just at a different aspect ratio. Saying "They aren't Full HD" is at best overly pedantic, at worst trying to mislead people. The image quality IS Full HD. Just with black bars.

Hell, if we are being THIS technical and pedantic about it, couldn't we say that the black bars need to be drawn in as black pixels and thus they are rendering 1080 vertical pixels?

Btw, is there a source besides WIkipedia that says what exactly "FULL HD" means?

Go look it up yourself. I've provided enough evidence as to what Full HD exactly means. Google "What is Full HD", it's not hard to look it up yourself.

If you want to go ahead and believe that 1920x800 is Full HD or that 1920x800 with black bars is Full HD or that a 21:9 aspect ratio can be Full HD than please do so.

There are many people on this site that make up their own reality and I don't want to spend any of my time further into convincing you, because I seem to be getting nowhere.

#92 Edited by locopatho (20282 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@locopatho said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@handssss said:

so then why are blu-ray movies all considered full 1080p when most of them use the same aspect ratio as the order?

That is a very good question. But the term Full HD means 1080p or 1920x1080

Seeing as how the Blu-ray video fills all horizontal pixels (1920 horizontally) but not all vertical pixels, as it's in a 21:9 aspect ratio I would say they are not Full HD, they are in fact 1920x800.

See, this is why I'm arguing the point. It's utterly ridiculous to me that we are now saying Blu Ray movies aren't Full HD. The quality of their picture is exactly the same as a 1920*1080 image. Just at a different aspect ratio. Saying "They aren't Full HD" is at best overly pedantic, at worst trying to mislead people. The image quality IS Full HD. Just with black bars.

Hell, if we are being THIS technical and pedantic about it, couldn't we say that the black bars need to be drawn in as black pixels and thus they are rendering 1080 vertical pixels?

Btw, is there a source besides WIkipedia that says what exactly "FULL HD" means?

Go look it up yourself. I've provided enough evidence as to what Full HD exactly means. Google "What is Full HD", it's not hard to look it up yourself.

If you want to go ahead and believe that 1920x800 is Full HD or that 1920x800 with black bars is Full HD or that a 21:9 aspect ratio can be Full HD than please do so.

There are many people on this site that make up their own reality and I don't want to spend any of my time further into convincing you, because I seem to be getting nowhere.

No, you provided Wikipedia. That isn't evidence.

I think I'll live in the reality where Blu Ray movies are Full HD and people don't argue that covering one portion of the screen damages the rest of the screens quality.

No need to get nasty about it, it's not my fault you guys refuse to provide evidence. I'm just using the evidence of my eyes: regardless of the aspect ratio, The Order and Blu Ray movies have identical image quality to TV and other video games. What is so crazy about that?

#93 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16614 posts) -

@locopatho said:

No, you provided Wikipedia. That isn't evidence.

I think I'll live in the reality where Blu Ray movies are Full HD and people don't argue that covering one portion of the screen damages the rest of the screens quality.

No need to get nasty about it, it's not my fault you guys refuse to provide evidence.

I'm just using the evidence of my eyes: regardless of the aspect ratio, The Order and Blu Ray movies have identical image quality to TV and other video games. What is so crazy about that?

What is so hard about googling "What is full HD" ?

edit: also, you do know that Wikipedia has sources do you ? Again, something you couldn't be bothered to look up yourself.

#94 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

@I_can_haz said:

OP, when you make a "joke" thread and you're the only one laughing at your joke it's probably time to hang the towel.

I laughed at his thread. My favourite bit was when you commented and got schooled by TC.

You laughing at his thread is about as valuable is like a guaranteed epic fail seal of approval. OP should be on suicide watch knowing that you found his thread funny.

#95 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4812 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

.

it's not my fault you guys refuse to provide evidence

actually that's you who's failed to provide any evidence.

here is my fourth piece of evidence.

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

section 2.4, notice how it says MAXIMUM? the maximum resolution for a blu ray film is 1920x1080. which you accept is 1080P.

a fifth piece of evidence

sony wouldn't want to be guilty of false advertising, now would they? here we see all their 1080P tv's are marketed as full hd. meaning full hd and 1080p are interchangeable terms.

http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/tv/t/televisions

i hope that this finally resolves this issue for you.

#96 Posted by cainetao11 (17601 posts) -

I can see what I need to just fine, even in the first pic. No fix needed

#97 Posted by Heil68 (44658 posts) -

@xboxdone74 said:

I imagine the best way to fix The Order jelly, is to get a ps4.

#98 Edited by Vatusus (4617 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

@Vatusus said:

@FoxbatAlpha said:

Lol at Gears of Order: 1886 and the "cinematic" experience.

And yet, watch lems hyping the next Gears

That's because Gears is Gears. The original. Not some League of Extraordinary Gentlemen crap.

Original? Gears? Lol

Hint: Killswitch meets RE4

Gears wasnt original for shit. It just popularized TPS cover shooter mechanics, it didnt invented it

#99 Posted by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

Full HD is a bit of a grey area... I mean plenty of Bluray films are 1920 x 800 because of the aspect ratio, are they not full HD?

But anyway the reason given is that they wanted 4x MSAA... agree with it or not that's where it's at. It's a valid reason respect it. They could have done 1080p (1920 x 1080) without 4x MSAA with another technique but they didn't. My bigger concern is the frame rate to be honest.

#100 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4812 posts) -
@edwardecl said:

Full HD is a bit of a grey area... I mean plenty of Bluray films are 1920 x 800 because of the aspect ratio, are they not full HD?

But anyway the reason given is that they wanted 4x MSAA... agree with it or not that's where it's at. It's a valid reason respect it. They could have done 1080p (1920 x 1080) without 4x MSAA with another technique but they didn't. My bigger concern is the frame rate to be honest.

that's correct a blu ray quality film may not achieve 1080P (1080P is the technical term, essentially synonymous with the marketing term 'full HD', proven already in this thread). If you are looking for 'Full HD' content, then you'd be looking for something filmed in 16:9, like some modern TV shows. post 89 I talk about this with Ragnarok.

Respect the devs decision? Is that a command or something? If yes, what authority do you have over me? none. Instead I suggest to you to consider the following alternative angle in terms of "respect".

Here's what I respect: the already decided unchanging technical definitions of 1080P, and unfortunately The Order 1886 fails to meet the specifications. Therefore I simply call it as I see it - The Order 1886 is not Full HD. I can't see why this would be a problem for anyone unless they were a member of the Congregation of the Church of Sony Playstation.

Another way I pay respect to the dev's is to represent their product accurately. It renders at 1920x800 (fact) which is not full hd (fact). The denialists of this pay massive disrespect to every 1080P video game which came before the order 1886 which had to a 35% larger scene to render!