The Order: 1886 16:9 1080p vs 2.40:1 1920×800 Video and Screenshot Comparison: Pixel Count vs Art

The reveal that The Order: 1886 will most probably be rendered in 1920×800 resolution at a 2.40:1 aspect ratio seem to have bunched quite a few sets of underwear, with people rioting because the game is unlikely to touch the “magical” 1080p, and because of the black bands that many see as a waste of screen estate.

First of all, let’s get a misconception out of the way. Many read “800p” and think that the resolution is lower than the “900p” that lately seems to be very popular between developers. That’s untrue, because 1920×800 renders 1,536,000 pixels. 900p is 1600×900 and renders 1.440,000 pixels.

That said, Ready at Dawn specified that the panoramic 2.40:1 aspect ratio comes due to the artistic vision for the game, and it isn’t a matter of performance. The reason why that aspect ratio is often used in films is because it offers more room for detail on the horizontal plane, that tends to be a lot more relevant than  the vertical plane for the sake of storytelling and spatial awareness.

But how would The Order: 1886 look if it was rendered in 16:9? We ran a comparison to give you a clearer idea of what that means, and let you take your pick. Finding a clear cut solution that works for everyone is impossible, as this kind of choice is strongly colored by personal taste, but seeing both options side by side may help you decide what your pick would be.

Let’s start with screenshots. Of course you can click on each in order to open a full resolution version:

TheOrder_001_800 TheOrder_001_1080

TheOrder_002_800 TheOrder_002_1080

TheOrder_003_800 TheOrder_003_1080

TheOrder_004_800 TheOrder_004_1080

TheOrder_005_800 TheOrder_005_1080

TheOrder_006_800 TheOrder_006_1080

TheOrder_007_800 TheOrder_007_1080

Since it may be hard for you to tell which solution fits your taste better from static screenshots, we also prepared a video comparison. The first two versions of the trailer below are in full resolution 2.40:1 on top and 16:9 below it.

If you prefer a full screen comparison, we also prepared a third video with both versions, that you can find just below.

It’s definitely true that the 2.40:1 aspect ratio sacrifices some screen estate, and it’s not so surprising that many feel turned off by that, but it’s also true that the panoramic view gives a lot more space for content relevant to the scene or to frame the characters in a more dynamic way. It’s doubtless that Ready at Dawn’s choice has at least some merit.

We’ll have to wait for the game’s release, which is rumored to come this fall, for a final verdict on how gamers will welcome The Order: 1886‘s artistic vision.

Join the Discussion

  • TomShoe

    I like it, it really feels like you’re actually watching a movie as while you’re playing an awesome game. The cinematic feel really adds to the dramatic and suspenseful tone Ready at Dawn was aiming for.

  • Lnds500

    Amateurish, misleading and uneducated comparison at best. You cropped the original image to 1,78:1 while the users are asking for an expansion of the original ratio to 1,78:1 (unmatting). Totally different things.

    • Parhelion88

      Actually, if the article is correct, because it’s keeping the same FOV, as the developer wants it.
      A vertical stretch, would show more of the floor and ceiling, and wouldn’t have the impact the developers aimed for

    • kontis

      WRONG. Console games use very low FOV, you would never get the “expansion” you are asking for. The wider aspect ratio “forces” designers to also use a much wider FOV. What dualshockers did is actually a pretty good mockup.

      Check this out:

      • Lnds500

        Keeps the same vertical FOV, it crops your FOV on the sides. The game was clearly meant to have your character nearly to the left of the screen and expand your FOV on the right. The “comparison” loses that effect.

        • Matt Dickinson

          You’re right. The gameplay is hurt in these Dualshocker croppings. Hope the developer doesn’t change their minds

          • Giuseppe Nelva

            Oh, they won’t. You can be sure of that. Development is too much at an advanced stage now.

      • Curtis92

        OR they could just bump up the FOV and fill our screens… I get theatrical widescreen with movies but in games you can control the FOV so it annoys me it may not fill my TV.

        • Mr.Towel

          FOV causes perspective distortion, which personally doesn’t look good on a game that sould be realistic.

          Also, more panoramic space is incredibly good for spatial awareness (if you character move more thorugh the floor than the air that is), something which is deeply related to the core of gaming.

    • Giuseppe Nelva

      I’m afraid you’re the one showing a bit of an amateurish streak. Expanding the image vertically would just show more floor and sky, which is quite irrelevant and in most cases just adds empty space, detracting from the focus of the picture, which is why 2.40:1 is used in film.

      • Lnds500

        “Quite irrelevant and in most cases just adds empty space”.

        Your opinion and not remotely true if we count how many shooters (FPS or TPS) use 1,78:1 instead of 2,40:1 for gameplay purposes.

        Plus, you clearly missed my point.
        If the point of 2,40:1 is to focus on the scene presented, why would you cut the sides of said scene in an effort to create a 1,78:1 image? The game is clearly meant to be played in the form presented above, so the only logical change to make would be to expand on top and bottom, otherwise you destroy the FOV the devs wanted.

        • Giuseppe Nelva

          So your idea to keep focus would be adding a ton of empty space above and below? or worse, just above because you can’t go too low normally?

          That would desmolish any semblance of focus in the picture.

          • Lnds500

            My “idea” is that you can’t crop the developer’s chosen FOV in an comparison like this one.
            As simple as that. I won’t debate which aspect ratio is better for gaming cause that’s personal preference (I didn’t play TLOU though thinking “look at all the empty space the game has on the top and bottom of the frame”)

            Ready at Dawn has clearly composited the framed in a certain manner so your character is fairly on the left side of the screen and your FOV expands on the right. Cropping that destroys the way it was meant to be played.

            It’s exactly why Cameron decided to expand Titanic from 2,35:1 to 1,78:1 for its 3D presentation and not crop it to 1,78:1. It would destroy the composition

          • Giuseppe Nelva

            You say that you can’t crop the developer’s chosen field of view, but you want to expand it vertically, which adds empty space instead of removing it, and mind you, it adds empty space that is normally irrelevant.

            And that’s exactly what destroys the composition.

            The panoramic aspect ratio has been implemented exactly because it allows to keep focus on the characters while still showing more relevant detail. That’s exactly why it’s been selected by the developers for The Order, expanding the picture vertically effectively removes focus from the characters while adding less relevant detail, and collides with that vision.

          • Lnds500

            Not once have I said that they should expand them image or that it would be better that way. What I said is that you can’t crop the original OAR to create a faux 1,78:1 presentation. Since the game was built in this way (2,40:1) and there was a question of going from 800 to 1080, the only way that would make sense is if they expanded the image, not cropped it.

            I get that you wanna tiptoe around the issue all day but I don’t have time for that. I was very specific about what is wrong with the comparison – more than once.

            “You says that you can’t crop the developer’s chosen field of view, but you want to expand it vertically, which adds empty space instead of removing it, and mind you, it adds empty space that is normally irrelevant.

            And that’s exactly what destroys the composition.”

            I take it you haven’t played any of the HD remasters?


            This is your personal opinion, it’s not a fact.

            “The panoramic aspect ratio has been created exactly because it allows to keep focus on the characters while still showing more relevant detail. That’s exactly why it’s been selected by the developers for The Order, expanding the picture vertically effectively removes focus from the characters while adding less relevant detail, and collides with that vision.”

            And cropping the developers’ choice to hell doesn’t collide with their vision?

          • Gamez Rule

            Software gives users more useful options that will allow removal of black bars on ‘ultra wide’ content (2.40, 2.35:1 etc.) without geometric distortion.

            ArcSoft Total Media Theatre 6 has a automatic zoom feature in its
            right-click menu under ‘Aspect Ratio’. With this setting this game would fill the screen completely without geometric distortion.

          • Lnds had you at Amateurish

            Giuseppe Nelva, you are wrong and too stubborn to admit it. Lnds500 is correct. You cut and stretched the original image instead of providing a legitimate 1920×1080 image that would have shown extra on the top and bottom while maintaining the same wider view in comparison to your chop job.

            Your comments on how charming the floor and ceilings look are completely irrelevant. You would see more of the character’s lower body, details on the floor, such as ammo or other items you may need to pick up without needing to turn your whole field of view downward, or at least not as much. You could see more of enemies above, if they happen to be on balconies or at the top of stairs, etc. I’m sure the wood ceilings look the same as the rest of the game. I’m sure they’ve rendered a pretty nice looking sky I wouldn’t mind getting a peak at without losing all of my lower vision.

            Either way, as long as the game is good, it really doesn’t matter. My point simply is that you’re wrong and supposed justification is irrelevant.

            You provided a nice comparison of 1920×800 against 1422×800 (upscaled to 1920×1080).. not 1920×800 vs native 1920×1080.

      • Jecht_Sin

        Hmmm… no. It would have shown the top of the head of the girl on the right (4th picture) for example. The point is that you had to operate a choice on where to cut, like in the 6th picture were you cut out from the right. If the game was 16:9 the developers could choose a different frame.

  • mad games

    I think the deference will be not big or noticeable so ,yah I am very excited about it and I hope there is more then this exclusive at 2014..

  • delsin row

    i dont care about this stuff. i just know that when we get our hands on the game,we will see a great quality

  • Parhelion88

    Giuseppe Nelva I suggest you add something to the article: (with better writing ofc)

    900p also requires a screen upscale, so the image becomes stretched. And as we’ve seen on the x1, it had a strong sharpening filter. Currently the upscaler is softer, but some people find the image too soft. That’s the price of upscaling

    1920×800 on the other had, is pixel-perfect, so it doesn’t have any modification or stretching whatsoever.

    Something to keep in mind

    • Jessie Bristol

      Ryse and Battlefield 4 didn’t use the sharpening filter with the Xbox One’s hardware upscale. The games I have played that used it were; Dead Rising 3, Assassin’s Creed IV, and Call of Duty Ghosts. Titanfall Beta used it for a day until the Dashboard Update released and removed the filter.

      • blessedswine

        no they didnt both used software upscaler, BF4 used thier own not sure what ryse used.

        • albatrosMyster

          Crytec uses their own too, as the one that was built in broke a lot of things… it still has crushed blacks.

  • Salomao Elesbon

    “Ready at Dawn specified that the panoramic 2.40:1 aspect ratio comes due to the artistic vision for the game, and it isn’t a matter of performance”. Isnt it? Look at KZ Shadowfall running at 30fps on single player to boost all its details. These are early generation titles. Compromises are natural.

    • Google+GoToHell.

      I pretty sure Kill zone shadow fall running at 60fps. Keep in mind youtube is only 30fps, so you won’t see any different.

      • Psionicinversion

        KZ shadow fall runs at 30 fps in single player to make it more pretty and lowers detail to get 45-55 in multiplayer.

        • Michael Norris

          Killzone SF SP runs 30-60fps.

          • Simplex

            “Killzone SF SP runs 30-60fps.”

            Nope. Killzone SF SP runs 30-40 FPS, that is why devs added a 30fps lock, to prevent judder. It may achieve 60fps when you are looking at the sky or at a wall, but that is irrelevant – in normal gameplay with enemies, during shootouts the framerate is between 30 and 40 fps.

          • Google+GoToHell.

            Thanks :). But in MP it’s around 60fps right ?

          • Simplex

            Yes, more or less but it is sadly not a rock-solid 60fps


          • Google+GoToHell.

            Yeah I know that, Killzone SF is a very demanding game so of course it’s not gonna have a solid 60fps 🙂 Still pretty awesome thought. Thanks for the info.

          • Psionicinversion

            Yeah and i can get 100fps in BF4 when im looking at a wall, doesnt mean its the average does it

        • Google+GoToHell.

          lol. Source please ? I don’t have a PS4 but my brother in law have and he said that it running on 60 fps :P.

          • Psionicinversion

            umm every review site going. single player is 30-45 fps to increase the details in the levels. Multiplayer is 45-60 cus framerate is more important than visuals in multiplayer FPS so it lowers em to get that framerate plus you dont really notice when your running around concentrating on trying to kill people

    • Michael Norris

      You do know that at this current resolution and 4xMSAA uses more bandwidth then a full 1080p display right?This game would run at 720p no AA at a sub 20fps if it was on Xbox one.

  • Matt Dickinson

    They should keep the widescreen look. It’s unique and looks like it’s composed for it.

  • AlwaysRight

    I hate the screen aspect ratio they are going for, black bars on top and bottom of my screen to create a supposedly cinematic experience? Ugh that’s a cop out. I’m looking forward to the game sure, but with the aspect ratio, 30fps, and no multi or co-op, it’s looking a lot less appealing.

    • blessedswine

      i kinda agree with you here, i dont care about the fps or no multi or co-op but the bars, i hate movies that have them and im going to hate it in the game even more. the fact they feel the need to do this is a joke, TLoU didnt need it, nor did any of the Uncharted and thier story telling imersion was good hell better then most movies. This to me seems like they are doing it cause they can and it will make them stand out.

  • Psionicinversion

    lmao wheres ya 1080p now, they say the PS4 isnt maxed yet cant do 1080p on here. They could of done 1080p and slapped it in the 2.4/1 wide angle view which would of increased detail and the black bars are there because of the aspect ratio,

    Saying theres no point in 1080p cus of the black bars is a bit of a cop out if anyone mentions that!

    • Budgiecat

      Oh my GOD will you SHUT UP! Go back to playing titanfail.

      • Psionicinversion

        hey man the X1’s cloud is so awesome i connect it to the antenna on my roof and it litterally uses the cloud to transfer my data… get patchy signal when there not many clouds in the sky, the more clouds the stronger and faster the signal

        • Mikeherp Derp

          Infinite power of the cloud!!1

        • Boštjan Ivanušič

          Not sure if sarcasm, stupidity, or 8-year old…

          • Budgiecat

            He must be 7 years old, 8 would know better.

        • PCS4-Box U

          Please tell me that was sarcasm. Please.

    • Neil Riley

      dev has already said they had a choice of 1080×1920 with less AA or 800×1920 with 4xMSAA. Either way, XB1 (you sound like a typical XBOT so I’ve assumed you are!) would no doubt be a low res stuttery mess attempting this game, still, enjoy your TV saddo!

      • Psionicinversion

        so does that mean the PS4 is not as powerful as all you die hard SDF members think? think its time to admit your console is just pants

        4x MSAA take a pretty big performance hit and also uses up more RAM so not as strong as you think!

        • Being powerful doesn’t mean you unleash your imagination and do whatever you like. It’s simply powerful compared to the competitions with 400$ price

        • Loledhard

          It is as powerful as people make it out to be, and this is it’s limit, if this game were to run on the Xbox one, it would have a LOWER resolution, 720p, or less LMAO.

          • Psionicinversion

            the cloud makes up for it though, and it will be able to process physics and stuffs to free up the GPU so it could achieve 1080p

          • PCS4-Box U

            “The cloud makes up for it” and “process physics and stufff”
            lolololol…..”..and stuff” HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

          • Gamez Rule
          • Psionicinversion

            yah fast aint it! its the future

          • Gamez Rule

            Is is 720p on Xbone☺

          • Psionicinversion

            Thats where ya wrong i can see the cloud rendering the extra 260 lines to make it 1080, so free performance gains all round!

          • shinitaru

            That gets funnier every time I hear it. MS isn’t even trying to beat that drum anymore but every once in a while in the comments you find a dedicated fanboy living in the past, going on about “The Power of the Cloud”
            Good lolz! thanks for that…

    • aeris bueller

      yeah, when xbox1 has to drop 1080p on a game that looks this next gen, it’ll be a different story. This looks like it’d be a prerendered cutscene on xb1. Meanwhile xb1 is making these same compromises on ugly source engine Titanfall, and last gen plus a tiny upgrade tomb raider.

      • Psionicinversion

        the X1 is so powerful it doesnt need 1080p, 1080p is so last gen, 720p + upscaling is where its at and you cant tell the difference anyway

        • Bankai

          I’m having a hard time figuring this out, so can you tell me if you’re a troll or just plain stupid?

          • aeris bueller

            Troll. Look at all his comments. He thinks he’s funny apparently

          • Psionicinversion

            i am funny haha. its what happens when you get bored and dont care either way

        • Mikeherp Derp

          *golf clap*

          • PCS4-Box U

            *starts slow clap*

    • Ritsujun

      Who the heck let the b-hurt Xkeleton out?

  • Why Oh Why Konami

    Not a fan of quarter of the screen missing.

  • Joshua Griffiths

    I really think the look is artistically better seeing that they are emphasizing the background more using a wider camera aspect. Having a broader view will give every shot more depth and immersion. Cant wait to play it my ps4 is just getting dustier.

  • bigshynepo

    I like the cinematic 2.40:1 look, you can clearly see more of the scene and it creates an perspective that adds alot to the atmosphere in my opinion.
    I hope RaD doesn’t cave to pressure to make it 16:9.

    • Volpejr

      Really? why can’t they keep the same side to side aspect and just fill in the black bars with graphics?

  • Neil Riley

    too many people are saying 800p, rubbish! but they don’t understand its 1920×800 with the borders to give it a cinema feel. It’s clever pure and simple.

    • albatrosMyster

      Well people should stop with using the vertical resolution as a shorthand, it’s 1920*800, there no upscale shenanigans going on.

      and there are a few more pixels at “800p” than at “900p”, it still is more demanding.

  • Gamez Rule

    The resolution is not changing, only the aspect ratio. ( or am i wrong? ) I know it’s true that not all of the screen’s 1080 lines of resolution are being used,( hence why it’s 1920×800 ) but the quality does not suffer surely.

    Or how can a film be 1080p Full HD but have a resolution of 1920×800? I believe it’s just the aspect ratio of the movie that’s actually 2.40:1 rather than 16:9, which is why you’ll get black bars top and bottom.( Is this the same thing for this game? ) OR it’s 1920×800 due to the bars not being counted, but your still 1080p?

    • The game is actually 1080p = 1920 X 1080 but there will be 2 black bars with only 800p being rendered in between, no upscale, no downscale.

      That’s why saying the game is 800p is wrong, because this means the game will be unscaled to fit into 1080p which is NOT.

      Other games such as RYSE runs at 900p, with no black bars = the game will be upscaled to match 1080p. the game will be upscaled both horizontally and vertically and this is why it will run at 1600px (width) rather than 1920px

      • Gamez Rule

        So I was right in thinking it’s 1920×800 due to the bars not being counted, but your still 1080p with 4x MSAA

  • Jack

    This ‘article’ is stupid all hes done is crop the original screenshots to 16;9. If the game where going to be in 16;9 it would be the same as the 2.40:1 except show some extra stuff at the top and bottom the screen.

  • Emir Gacevic

    It looks incredible.

  • Obambush


    • Guest

      Indeed, more $0N¥ PauperStation overhype that will underdeliver. Look how many low IQ paupers fall for it every single time.

      • Ritsujun

        Not hard enough, Xkeleton.

    • You are flat out wrong

      That’s my response when I watch videos of Titanshit.

  • skratchy

    The aspect ratio they’re sticking with better suits the game. People have been complaining about this for decades. Just because the video displayed isn’t the same dimensions as your television, doesn’t mean you’re losing any of the picture.

  • Vadim

    Keep the FOV and render at 1080p. Black bars on 16×9 TV looks bad.

    • kontis

      But those examples have the same DIAGONAL FOV. You just automatically get much wider horizontal FOV when you use wider aspect ratio, despite the identical diagonal FOV.

  • Granison Johnson

    i like the really 2.40 : 1. RD made a good choice for it, I am really feeling it.

  • usrev

    you can’t compare screen shots or videos on your computer to what you will be playing on console, the distance the TV is from where you sit changes it up completely, let alone upscaling (assuming it is upscaled) which people seem to think is just stretching an image when it isn’t.

  • Guest

    Looks like the typical $0N¥ crap!

  • vcarvega

    Looks awesome… all of the 2:40 to 1 screen shots do indeed look better. Still, I wouldn’t want this to become the norm. I do want my games to maximize screen real estate.

  • Georges

    I trust RaD know better than anyone else whats best for their games. When I dont like I dont buy but I m confident on this one

  • Jecht_Sin

    Dragon’s Dogma adopted the same cinematic view and I never heard anyone complaining.

    Still this game looks gorgeous no matter the resolution!

  • Jamal

    just play the f’ing game

  • yo the videos are not showing man! >:/

    • Giuseppe Nelva

      They are on my end?

  • Nicholas Perry

    2:35:1 with good AA vs 16:9 with shitty image quality due to no AA?

    No thanks. It’s not like they are *Scaling* the resolution up. They aren’t. You aren’t losing any fidelity. Only gaining.

    Plus, 2:35:1 fits their artistic vision best. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

    Some games look quite amazing in 2:35:1 resolutions.

    Just look at left 4 Dead 2

    I took these screenshots while playing the game at 3200×1333 with 4xSGSSAA @30FPS downsampled to 1600×667 (Both 2:35:1 resolutions like 1920×800)

  • Nicholas Perry

    I’d also like to keep continue saying how excited for this game I am. I’m glad there are still people out there that care about a strong cohesive story experience.

  • Arnold Stallone

    So here is my opinion.I love Sony, but that won’t detract me from being unbiased and seeing the truth, if there is one. And if is detect some mmmm arguments, I too can find some good counter-arguments.
    SO They want to use 1920*800 for cinematic feel? OK, if that the main reason, do it.
    But why not using those black borders for displaying the HUD,for example, on the bottom, display the ammo count, the weapon being used and the active powers that are selected via the d-pad , and display the subtitles(if it has powers and can be selected via dpad), and on the top black border, just display the health bar(or gauge, call it what you want) and the power bar, etc.

    That way, the main 800p surface will only display the graphics(call it the main movie), and only the graphics, without being cluttered with other elements from the HUD, like ammos, power and health bars, etc. Just a perfect clear picture. And the regular power bars, current weapon, ammo count, etc etc, all that could be displayed on both black borders, without needing 10% of the GPU power, and some crazy AA processing, just to display a few numbers and text.all those things could easily be displayed on those black borders, right, ready at dawn? And the main picture displayed on the 800p surface, would look even better, more cinematic, without power bars, health bars, etc.

    So, you had your arguments. Now, here are mine. And they make perfect sense, I’m sure.
    So, why not doing it the way I say, if your goal is absolutely having a main 800p picture that will look like a movie.
    Who do agree with me?

    • Matt Dickinson

      If they do they ought to push the image up a little higher, like this:
      Looks better to me than evenly placed.

      But they are probably using that to push more effects while keeping up image detail.

    • Jecht_Sin

      What? the HUD and other graphical things in the black bars? that would make the stripes noticeable, ruining the effect. Maybe the subtitles would work but even about that I am not sure.

  • TZuck

    Nothing says cinematic or “movie” more than the 2.40 aspect ratio. Commercials will even use it to separate itself from everything else and to increase the “drama” and storytelling. What most people don’t know about this game is that they are simulating the lenses for their camera. They’re wanting to replicate cinema as much as possible, and what does that more than anything else? Using anamorphic lenses. Most anamorphic lenses are a 1.33. Applying that to your standard 16:9 frame and you get 2.37:1. This results in an 810 x 1920 image. Crop it and you make it the standard 2-4-0 aspect ratio. Fun fact though. There are a few standards in cinema. 2.35, and 2.39 (referred to as 2-4-0). The other tell of anamorphic glass is the flare and oval bokeh.

  • tubers

    I like the one with the black borders.. I think the wider FoV is practical and less nauseating for me.

    GL w/ their project. I wouldn’t mind either way.

  • Krepler

    In the end it doesn’t matter, people will cheer and cry from both camps! Like it or not, it’s the truth.

    It’s also not fair to show comparisons that are cropped because in reality the black areas would normally reveal MORE of a picture. The pictures posted here are misleading.

    Ready at Dawn already stated that they liked this cinematic feel better and it allowes them to add 4xMSAA for the highest quality picture possible as opposed to full 1080p utilizing FXAA and MLAA…

    Either way, I’ll be getting it because it simply looks fantastic to play, regardless of aspect ratio! Though, they’d be smart to use the blank areas for the HUD

  • Zohak Diaz

    Lol. 800.

    • Gamez Rule

      Companies like Gearbox and Valve are indie, so was Double Fine and Telltale at one point, but have since ballooned to 150+ member studios who have worked on licensed games.

      Nothing wrong with Indie games☺

      I welcome the games if the truth is to be told. Indie games like Braid, Minecraft ( has sold over 14 million copies on PC and over 35 million copies across all platforms ) Tetris ( has sold more than 170 million copies ) Limbo, Journey ( That also won Grammy Awards and a 92 Metascore ) Plants vs Zombies, Castle Crashers, Path of Exile, Guacamelee, Dust: An Elysian Tail, The Dark Descent, are all great games which is why I’m hoping for more.

      So for you to come out with “the above picture” shows you knew nothing about gaming whatsoever☺ Remember that Half-Life won 50 PC Game of the Year awards, and was named the “Best PC Game Ever”. Not bad for a “Indie” game is it☺

      • Kevin

        Idk know if I would categorize Valve as an indie. Their budget is bigger then most indie devs but I could see them maybe being indie.

        • Gamez Rule

          Valve are Indie as they remain independent.

          • Kevin

            I don’t think so. Their budget is way bigger then any other indie devs but I see where you are coming from.

          • Kevin

            Nah. They are like EA Ubisoft in that they publish their own games. Actually The Orange Box was Published by EA on Ps3. So even then I don’t co side them I die. They have way too much money IMO to be one. But By difficult action you could say that about most bight Third Parties.

          • Gamez Rule

            Valve is indie by definition. No shareholders, no corporate owner, no publisher who invests money in their games – no hassle.

            EA publishes their games, right?..

            (Electronic Arts announced on July 18, 2005 they would be teaming up with Valve in a multi-year deal to *distribute their games*, replacing Vivendi Universal from then onwards )

            EA distributes Valve games and does not publish them. EA does not give them any money upfront as an investment in to those games, while Valve develops them, and EA don’t own Valve.

            An indie company is a company who can publish games all by themselves, without a publisher OR publishers money too make the game. Valve is indie because they make games and publish them on steam (on PC at least), there is no external publisher. Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams without video game publisher financial support.. EA didn’t support Valve to make games only made a deal for EA to *distributes Valve games* once the game are made.

    • Jecht_Sin

      2.40:1 800p > 16:9 900p.

      Just count the pixels. And best of all it doesn’t get stretched by the upscaling. With the pixel still being a perfect square.

  • PatcherStation

    The graphics will be top notch, but we’ll have to see how it goes with the game play. Ignore vids and reviews, play it for yourself. But somehow, I don’t think this game is going to live up to the hype.

  • Solid Snake

    I hated it in beyond two souls and i’ll hate it in this…
    its especially annoying if you have a 32inch TV or lower.

  • Gamez Rule

    The resolution is confirmed to be 1080p ( Note: It is 1920×800 with 2:40:1 aspect ratio ) and 30fps, although this is old news now.

    “The weapons in The Order: 1886 are all based on the actual weapons from the year 1886, but they are heavily modified” . “Ready at Dawn are also going to add a grain effect in game to create a unique atmosphere” . MORE here

  • Michael Norris

    The fact that this game will use 4xMSAA will make this cleanest console game ever made.

  • Big Ron

    This 21:9-format is totally bullshit at a time, where TVs are standardized at 16:9 or 16:10. Who will this give an advantage? Nobody, they just searched for a reason to save pixel.

  • Christopher

    I absolutely love the anamorphic aspect ratio! I was just thinking the other day why more cinematic games don’t use a wider aspect ratio.

    I do feel bad for people who own plasma screens however as black bars can cause screen burns.

  • the one

    I really need 1080p because if not im not wasting my money on this game, the reason why i say this is because i have an IPS monitor and the black borders will be white and orange in the corners (ips glow and backlight bleed) which ill be able to see all the time whilst playing this game which really pis8es me off especially considerin the monitor costs under £300

    • the one

      But the colors are so nice to look at, the pS VITAS oled screen looks terrible compared to my ips monitor

  • Volpejr

    The game can have the same side to side aspect without the black bars on the top and bottom.. the developers would just need to fill in the black areas with graphics.. this article is really trying to damage control.. or the author is really a tool. The black bars are there to conserve resources.. and other excuse is bullshit

  • Aaron Aquipel Avelino

    The real reason, which i found on kotaku, is that they need this black bars for 4xMSAA. So yeah that artistic reason is partially BS and the truth is it’s due to performance issue. Just read the article.

  • Ali

    The game is great but when im playin it my eyes burning me after 5 mins cz of small screen of the game , should do update for got full screen