I think that at this point it's safe to assume that the initial theory as to why cut-scenes would be forced to 4:3 aspect ratio was wrong. Meaning that it had little to nothing to do with keeping true to an artistic/creative choice (wasn't a choice though, 4:3 was a standard at the time and they had to make do). Also there is no detrimental effect to the story, quite the opposite in fact, by keeping a widescreen view throughout the game you maintain the cinematic feeling and immersion, which has been a standard in recent gaming history, without breaking any story-telling component whatsoever, that is until something like this happens:
And taking the above into consideration, I suspect that that was the main reason why the decision was made to lock cut-scenes to 4:3, otherwise d3t would probably have had to restructure a lot of cut-scenes and animations to avoid this kind of behavior. Of course I'm also speculating, mainly because I haven't had the chance to play the game enough at 16:9 ratio to actually know if more of these bugs happen and how often.
I don't want this to sound like I'm bashing, I am not, but ever since it was disclosed that the game would run at 16:9, yet cut-scenes would be limited to 4:3, I wondered why the decision and the explanation, or theory, about keeping a creative vision intact was less compelling of an argument than purely technical restrictions or time-consuming fixes.
Those playing the game from end to end with cut-scenes in 16:9 could chime-in and relate your experiences.
Have you met much more bugs like the one in the sample above? Has it made the cut-scene less immersive or distracting?
Share your thoughts.