I don't see any black bars, do you? 1680x1050
http://tinyurl.com/2856dk

Single player game = no competitive advantage. So who cares?

Personally, I'm miffed that a number of FPS games give an unfair advantage to those with widescreens. I've got a higher resolution on my 4:3 screens than most WS players, yet I'm still disadvantaged? Bugger that for a joke. :P

Look at the bright side. You can always switch to black bars on the sides and get the WHOLE experience. *yawn*

LOL!

Not really...It doesn't really change the game at all. Your not missing anything.

if they allowed editing of the files could do like UT2k4 where you set display to standard 1280x1024 res and tell the game to increase the field of view to compensate. old trick to get UT2k4 to span multiple monitors.

made it "interresting" when you set it to 180 deg viewable on a single monitor. :p

Not that big of a deal. I would have never noticed if someone hadn't pointed it out to me.

What exactly is the problem here?

so you see a little extra on the top and bottom in 4:3 and people care why?

it's an fps.. if you want to see that little bit extra just *GASP* LOOK UP AND DOWN!

ps. I got bioshock last night.. killed my first big daddy.. and so far this game is unbelievable.

somehow i fail to see the problem. it does work on wide screen... so what the big deal?

LOL... thats all i gotta say...

Full review of the game:

http://arstechnica.com/r...-review-of-bioshock.ars

Rated a 10, best I've seen from Ars in like, ever.

According to a poster there:

the shots in the game were framed for widescreen monitors and then more material was added for 4:3 monitors.

So it's a non-issue. With a widescreen you get exactly what the developers intended, with 4:3 you get a little more on the top and bottom.

I suppose in WS resolutions, they could have stretched the existing picture to fill the top and bottom, but... people would have b1tched about that as well.

Here's a novel idea: If you don't like that"issue", don't buy the game. If you already bought it, deal with it. Wait for the reviews before spending your next $50.

I am not buying it.

Of course not.

*yawn*

Honestly until I read this article I didn't even notice it...it doesn't bother me at all...the game really is amazing.

Of course your not. It is not out on the Wii or POS3.

What a shock the MS hater not buying a game for the 360. I'm shocked, not.

Don't be upset the Wii now has the largest installed base, despite the 360 having a year+ headstart.

The Wii is a better system....more fun to play. If it was not, it would not be winning this generation.

Keep an eye out for the XBox 720. you should start hearing about it soon...

Shut up already. Who cares about the Wii I don't see it mentioned in this article. You really only know two topics MS sucks and the Wii is in first place.

I'm not upset that the Wii is the largest installed base.

"The Wii is a better system....more fun to play. If it was not, it would not be winning this generation."

Not really. The Wii is winning because of Price and it appeals to a wider audience.

"Keep an eye out for the XBox 720. you should start hearing about it soon..."

Still spouting this retarded and baseless statement?

Well no sh!t. You don't have a 360 to play it on. Your Pentium Pro isn't powerful enough to play it either.

to create a game in 4:3 format in 2007 is crazy. this is unacceptable and should be fixed in a patch.

But on these forums it is okay because it is a xBox 360 title. If this was a PS3 exclusive, all the M$ fanbois would be wetting themselves posting how the PS3 sux and all such nonsense.

Problem is a game of this caliber will never hit the PS3 so I guess we'll never know huh?:)

Nah...I can think of too many good reasons of why the POS3 sucks without bashing on something that has nothing to do with hardware. The only people at fault for this is Bioshock. Griping about it being coded like this is nothing more than nit picking. The game got a perfect 10, so now people are running in circles trying to find something wrong with it. Nobody would have ever even noticed if someone wasn't comparing both side by side.

I feel that it boils down to the fun factor is it fun to play? Well the reviews speak for themselves, excellent, must buy.

I bet it will look better on the Wii.

Yeah which is a shame, with all the space Blu-ray offers and the extra horsepower the PS3 has, it would be interesting to see what the developers could have done with a PS3 exclusive version.

Except...it would have cost the devs many millions more not to mention much much longer to develop for the overly complex PS3 system, and for a very small install base...so why bother? I talready look AMAZING on the 360, I haven't seen it on the PC, but I'm sure it looks even better although on a much smaller screen.

Not to mention, the PS3 "horsepower" is only marginally better then the 360, if it's even better. I'm sure I don't need to do another comparison that has been done countless times already...but about the only thing the PS3 has over the 360 is raw CPU performance...but i guess in your anti MS head that's pretty much all that matters right? :)

"PS3 "horsepower" is only marginally better then the 360"....that is one of the funniest things i have heard in a long time.

How do you arrive at: "Except...it would have cost the devs many millions more not to mention much much longer to develop"?

I love the typical XBot/M$ drone response. Technically the PS3 is superior to the 360. That is a fact. The real questions are:

1) How much does that power cost? PS3=$$$$$$$
2) What do you do with that power? PS3=Not much yet

"I love the typical XBot/M$ drone response."

It's funny, I grow exceptionally tired of hearing all the "PS3 is sooososoososoosoooooo much better" BS from you guys. If the PS3 is so much better, then were are all the kick a** games for it?

Last I heard XBOX 360 has this game, will have Halo 3, and has a host of others that I'm not even going to go into. From what I've heard, about the only thing the PS3 has over the XBOX 360 is that it has raw power. Woopdie doo dong s**t. If you've got the power, you should pony up and use it. The only problem is that they've made their "powerful system" so unbelievably expensive that nobody wants to buy the piece of junk.

On one hand you have great looking games on a system that is a VERY small amount inferior, or you could buy a system with nearly no good games and the only thing you can say for yourself is, "Well they wouldn't bring the PS3 out and never make a game that would test its abilities!" That's like buying one of those 21MP $8,000 camera's and hoping to God the best darned picture jumps in front of your freaking face at the instant you click the shutter button.

Life doesn't work like this.

"How do you arrive at: "Except...it would have cost the devs many millions more not to mention much much longer to develop"?"

Every system has their own OS, but many companies have shied away from the PS3 because they made it so horribly difficult to code (from a technical standpoint). It costs a ton more to produce the same game with marginal benefits over the other systems. If you can shave off $$ by using a system that is coded more intuitively, you'd come across the XBox or the Wii ... although from what I hear the Wii has the graphics of the original XBox, which if this is the case I'll not be buying one. Have an XBox. Love it. Don't need another, thanks.

P.S.- I can't wait to play this game. I'm in dire need of buying an XBox, now *adds to the list right after the "buy big screen tv"

Why don't you go do some research on the tech in the PS3 and the 360? PS3 has some complex cell processors that have a RAW speed advantage over the 360's cpu's (if the devs decide they want to spend the time and money in learning a new architecture for a small market)...but, the PS3 has less and SLOW memory then the 360...not to mention an inferior GPU. But...you only look at sony marketing so I wouldnt expect you to know that. :)

I supposed you can send some of that gpu processing to the cell processors to make up the difference...but again, devs will have a nightmarish time with it (and they have already complained about the complexity of the system!)...not much anybody can do about slower and lesser memory though.

Very good.

I think you scared off Pitdingo again. I don't see him anywhere.

The Sony Cheerleaders tend to do that when presented with a real argument.

Yes, i always love to play my graphics intensive games with no anti-aliasing and every edge jaggy. Think of the extra PFS that the system can render without all that graphics overhead. makes me miss the good old 8-bit days of gaming.

But the PS3 can do folding when its not in use playing games. I guess it is folding all the time at this point.

On a not entirely unrelated subject ... why do display manufacturers build widescreen
displays with an aspect ratio of 16:10, when the standard w/s aspect ratio is 16:9?

I can't remember if it was HL2 or FarCry that had a 16:10 display option.

It's coming. They're catching on to it, anyway.

umm most my games have that option, tombraider:annivesery, bf2142, monstermadness, shadow run, etc.

Cool. Even better. (I don't have a single one of the games you listed, hence why I didn't include them)

16:9, 16:10
and these are to replace 16:12

16:10 is more of a compromise between 16:9 and standard 4:3

I could understand dealing with the limitions of the XBox 360 and TVs, however why they did this on the PC is beyond me.

Has anyone heard of any other recent PC games doing this sort of thing? Is this what we can expect of "Games for Windows" or is it just a one off kind of thing.

Dear MAD user:

This has nothing to do with Windows.

Perhaps you missed this in the article: "The issue affects both the PC and Xbox 360 versions of the game."

I did read the article. Why is this has anything to do with MS. Isn't this is developer's problem?

Is this what we can expect of "Games for Windows" or is it just a one off kind of thing.

This has nothing to do with the "Games for Windows" titles, as this is not one of them, you ignorant troll.

lol. i ask a question and get called a troll? Come now, PC_Tool, you can do better than that.

My question is...do you have to dumb down the PC version because of limitations the 360 puts on things.

It is just a question....i am not saying M$ suxors or the 360 blows, etc...

And how on Earth does the question you asked have *anything* to do with the article in question *other* than to troll MS?

The game is not part of the "Games For Windows" lineup. The developer doesn't even have any games in that lineup. The lineup, nor any of it's titles were mentioned anywhere in the article. Hell, MS and Windows weren't even mentioned anywhere int he article.

It's all you, man. You see an article and immediately jump on the Bas MS bandwagon.

That's why you get called a troll.

It still has nothing to do with Windows, its a problem with the game not the hardware.

Maybe I should have been more clear since this is made for Windows on a PC and last time I checked a PC would be hardware and since the article mentions PC and xbox360 (which would be hardware) and NO mention of Windows whatsoever.

So the #1 PC Game to come out for some time is NOT part of the "Games for Windows" lineup? What genius made that's decision. Highly anticipated...#1 seller on Amazon...could promote new PC sales and video cards..."Sure, let's not include that game"

Pointing out facts is not bashing...but being defensive is always being defensive.

it is "games for windows".

PC_Tool It is a "games for windows" title just watch the commercial on tv it says it at the end of it trust me the commercial is on like every 10 minutes

edit: here is a link to the commercial on you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTyntbnSC_0

Has anyone heard of any other recent PC games doing this sort of thing?
Battlefield 2? Battlefield 2142? Yeah they'll support widescreen but only by hacking the shortcut, not from any of the selectable resolutions in the in game settings.

It's nothing to do with the limitations of the 360 or the PC - merely that the developer did a half a** job.

Not in his/her universe. But in this one it is.

The packaging and marketing sure do say something different.

Do you have source for that?

I know there are other games coming out for 360 and PC and i am concerned as to how dumbed-down the PC titles are going to have to be to cater to the 360's limitations.

God, I hate agreeing with the troll but for ONCE he is right about it being a gamesforwindows, everything else in his post is wrong.

http://www.gamesforwindo...mes/Pages/Bioshock.aspx

Windows is software not hardware

I stand corrected.

Hadn't seen that in any of the material I've seen. Just hit the homepage for it to verify.

Wasn't mentioned in the ARS review, or any of the other promotional material I've seen.

Makes one wonder is they're trying to tone that down a bit?

Packaging, probably. Haven't seen any.

Marketing? Never seen it in any of the material I've seen.

But, you're right.

I'm as shocked as you are. ;)

Sorry, man. My bad.

I've been corrected. That's what I get for looking at the review and not hitting their homepage.

I usually do, but I was planning on buying this one through Steam so I could avoid the apparently horrible protection they've got built into it.

lol.

ouch.

Well, yes it is. I have the game and the "Games for Windows" logo is prominently displayed on the box.

BTW, great game!

Actually, the protection is twofold. A one-time activation, like Windows, and SecurRom. No problems here with the protection... Don't think it's any more horrible than most games.

Don't think it's any more horrible than most games.

Which can all be avoided by using steam. :p

I hate having drivers and crap I don't need or want on my system, and SecurRom is one of the worst.

Steam has its problems too. It runs by all the time by default (although betanews readers are all knowledgable enough to stop that). Worse, when I do start up Steam, since I don't use it often, there is frequently a large update download that must be endured before playing a Steam game, which makes popping in to a Steam game for a quick few minutes a bad idea.
Most of us who play many games already have SecurRom installed. Of course, the service may be disabled, and a cracked executable installed if you find it offensive.
I do agree that protection is a royal pain, but it is understandable why it exists. At least it's not StarForce :-)

UPDATE: Boy, was I wrong! Read this:
http://www.gamingbob.com...-rootkit-including-demo/

Earth to pitdingo games from the PC are always dumbed down to any console. The number of inputs that PC has along makes this kind of required. You hate MS and everything that they stand for why do you keep trolling your hate. Focus your hate on something possitve and maybe you'll have some pleasure in your life.

Limitations of the 360 whatever. I have a better idea why don't they make the game for the Wii. No that would not work as it is a door stop in the technology department. If you want to start that the Wii is a joke in all aspects of technology except game play. That is what it is all about anyway. If the game is fun which it is what is the big deal. I also would like to think that a game with everything turned on makes a $3000 computer crawl would have to be dumbed down for the 360 or any other console. Move along troll boy.

they prob didnt run it thru MS for testing to get the "games for windows" certification. it costs money to get it certified.

I was going to try the demo but dam 1.8gigs just for a demo.

"It's 2007 for crying out loud, not 1998,"

demo still has the SecureROM anti-copying rootkit in it too. god forbid i copy a DEMO

that's unfortunate. maybe if the 360 had standards for each system it would be better.

as for the pc, kinda odd.