• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FoV and why it should be expected as a baseline option

lazygecko

Member
The purpose of this thread grew out of seeing the FoV side debate in the 30 FPS topic, and how bothered I am by the general ignorance, or at the very worst, lack of empathy on display.

It seems to me that since FoV is still a relatively obscure setting you see in options for 3D games, which all too often is only configurable via more arcane console commands or .ini editing (or not at all in some cases), there's this general attitude that this is some ultimately inconsequential aesthetic feature only the most tech-savy snobs care about. That's the impression I get anyway, since over and over again you see people belittling complaints about lack of FoV options.

The fact is simply that FoV is a massively important element which can be detrimental to the point of making certain games unplayable for more than short spurts of time for a lot of people if the FoV is not properly calibrated for the individual. The human senses are delicate and mysterious things. A lot of people experience motion sickness or get seasick. And the same applies to 3D video games.

I am not really so cynical as to believe that people ridicule FoV complaints out of deliberate malicious intent though. I think the core problem is just a general lack of awareness resulting in very aloof attitudes which others with these problems end up taking offense from. There really ough to be some kind of information campaign to help spread awareness about FoV and motion sickness to make developers and players alike take the issue seriously as it deserves to be. It's not like it's even a problem at all to implement in most cases. Since it's often already configurable via aforementioned .ini edits or console commands, but merely lacks a pre-defined interface setting to make it more tangible for the layman.

It's not like this is some binary thing where you either end up vomiting or not either. I'd probably hazard a guess that there are plenty of people out there who also end up feeling vague or dull discomfort/dizziness from playing games, but because FoV is such an unfamiliar concept their problems are very difficult for them to quantify. People feeling sick from Half-Life was a very common complaint I heard from casual players over the years, and that's often how they were introduced by others to the whole concept of FoV and how they can modify it to alleviate their issue.
 
On console games, it is locked to get the desired performance.

I'm going to guess it can lead to cheating or breaking the experience as other reasons.

Though I agree, it should be an option on most pc games.
 
I'm actually glad you made this thread, because I was just thinking about this.

I'll admit I am one of the people who rolled their eyes at people who wanted to manipulate field of view. I thought it had to do with gameplay - the ability to see more on screen - and thought it was players wanting to override the decisions of the developer in favor of their own vision of how the game should be played.

Like, if the FOV is bigger you can see more stuff sooner and shoot more stuff at once and, because you are 2pro MLG master race, you want to hack a huge FOV because small FOVs are stupid.

But if this is not true, and people hack FOV for actual accessibility reasons, then I humbly admit I was wrong. And I'm glad you made this thread, because you have reached at least one person who didn't know what they were talking about.
 

THEaaron

Member
FoV sliders are important because devs only implement console FoVs these days(not all of them) where it is immensely narrow because of the distance to the regular TV. Looks like playing through binoculars sometimes.
 

Drencrom

Member
Was greatly surprised when I first saw the FOV settings in the Rocket League PS4 beta (they're in the full game too). More games should definitely have FOV settings, really no excuse when we're talking PC at least.
 

Ingram

Member
On console games, it is locked to get the desired performance.

I've always thought this but could never see any performance hit when I've toyed around with it.

I'd say not having fov control is one of my main reasons for wanting to stick to PC as my preferred platform.
 

Tain

Member
A low FoV in first person games can sometimes give me discomfort, and I prefer a higher FoV when possible.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about wanting a high or customizable FoV, though I haven't run into any games that I would consider "ruined" by their FoV alone.
 

THEaaron

Member
I've always thought this but could never see any performance hit when I've toyed around with it.

I'd say not having fov control is one of my main reasons for wanting to stick to PC as my preferred platform.

The scene has to render more objects with a higher FoV.
 
I never understood FOV until the day I cranked it up on a whim in Half-Life 2 and the queasy feeling I'd always had when playing Valve's games instantly disappeared. I understand why they lock it in console games, but a slider should be mandatory on PC.
 

ricki42

Member
FoV sliders are important because devs only implement console FoVs these days(not all of them) where it is immensely narrow because of the distance to the regular TV. Looks like playing through binoculars sometimes.

I would prefer having a FoV option on console as well. At least some kind of toggle: better image quality or larger FoV. I'd rather play a less good looking game than not be able to play a great looking game. Not to mention that sometimes the default FoV is so narrow, it feels almost claustrophobic, especially after playing on PC.
 

jotun?

Member
FoV sliders are important because devs only implement console FoVs these days(not all of them) where it is immensely narrow because of the distance to the regular TV. Looks like playing through binoculars sometimes.

Yeah, the angular width of screens at different distances varies greatly. My monitor takes up more than twice as much width in my vision as my TVs.

27" monitor at 2ft: 52.2 degrees
24" monitor at 2ft: 47.1 degrees
20" monitor at 2ft: 39.9 degrees
55" TV at 10ft: 22.6 degrees
55" TV at 8ft: 28.0 degrees
40" TV at 6ft: 27.2 degrees

If a screen takes up more space in your vision, it makes sense to use a wider in-game FOV.
 

Zemm

Member
There are a lot of console shooters I'd like to play but then you see the fov they're running at and it's like 'nah I'm OK actually', it's a shame, being able to increase that fov by 20 or so would make a much more playable game for me.

So yes, all PC games that would benefit from a fov slider should have one, so should the console games, I don't care if you have to lower some settings if I make it higher.
 

Grief.exe

Member
i dont know about this stuff, since iam a console gamer, but care to show some examples?

3RwPXXx.gif
 

THEaaron

Member
i dont know about this stuff, since iam a console gamer, but care to show some examples?


post-9286-1267875568.gif


As you can see, changing FoV comes at a cost. You will have more trouble shooting enemies on greater distances, where you will have the lead in narrow corridors.
 

Corpekata

Banned
No thanks, I believe it is the developer's artistic vision for you to get eye strain and feel nauseous. People just don't respect developers these days.
 
I just finished up Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel on PS4 and the FoV in that game is narrow as hell. I still enjoyed it, obviously, but damn if that wasn't a constant bother the entire time. I have noticed that more and more console games are recieveing FoV options now, though, so hopefully it starts becoming the norm.
 
Totally agree. 95% of my gaming is console gaming at a desk about 40-50cm from a 32" screen. The FOV however is set in stone assuming I'm 250cm from a 40" screen.
 
I remember trying to play Killzone 3 with the PS Move, and it was god awful because it felt like I had this teeny tiny box that I could see, and could never see anything except what was directly under my crosshair at times.
 

geordiemp

Member
On console games, it is locked to get the desired performance.

I'm going to guess it can lead to cheating or breaking the experience as other reasons.

Though I agree, it should be an option on most pc games.

Higher FOV is an advantage in multiplayer games.

As is running at a high FPS.

Especially games like COD - it should be equal for all players.

For single player, anything goes.

One of the many config reasons that PC online gaming for some games is not a level playing field.
 
How difficult is it to put in an FOV slider and how much does it impact performance?

Not very, and not very much.

FOV is basically just done by the GPU, to my knowledge there's really not much that could make it "difficult" (I mean RE6 just sorta added it in its first patch), aside from if your game runs some VERY heavy occluding.


Higher FOV is an advantage in multiplayer games.

As is running at a high FPS.

Especially games like COD - it should be equal for all players.

For single player, anything goes.

Having your own favorite control scheme could also be an advantage, but some people get that and some don't. Is being nauseous considered a good thing?
Most people don't want FOV because "But mah stats!" Most of us want it because playing at 40 or 50 FOV at a computer monitor is sickening, ESPECIALLY in first person shooters.
 

Sakujou

Banned
i wonder if we really need these kind of options.

as a console gamer iam against graphical options in games. i want a game which should be complete as fuck, with no graphic "options" to fiddle around.

i dont want to deal with z-buffer shader, anti aliasing 16x or what ever to have 1fps more than usual.

is field of view a thing?
as i can see in the shown options, narrow means normal, the higher the number, the more i get the feeling that it looks like the fish-eye-view known from racing game-cheats from the 90ies.

i also have the feeling that this is only a problem in shooting games in general.
does a narrow- fov cause nauseatic sickness?

the only game i ever felt bad was f-zero gx and super mario galaxy. but only for 15 minutes before i got adjusted to the "new feeling".
 

Corpekata

Banned
i wonder if we really need these kind of options.

as a console gamer iam against graphical options in games. i want a game which should be complete as fuck, with no graphic "options" to fiddle around.

i dont want to deal with z-buffer shader, anti aliasing 16x or what ever to have 1fps more than usual.

is field of view a thing?
as i can see in the shown options, narrow means normal, the higher the number, the more i get the feeling that it looks like the fish-eye-view known from racing game-cheats from the 90ies.

i also have the feeling that this is only a problem in shooting games in general.
does a narrow- fov cause nauseatic sickness?

the only game i ever felt bad was f-zero gx and super mario galaxy. but only for 15 minutes before i got adjusted to the "new feeling".
Half your questions are answered in the OP.
 
i wonder if we really need these kind of options.

as a console gamer iam against graphical options in games. i want a game which should be complete as fuck, with no graphic "options" to fiddle around.

i dont want to deal with z-buffer shader, anti aliasing 16x or what ever to have 1fps more than usual.

is field of view a thing?
as i can see in the shown options, narrow means normal, the higher the number, the more i get the feeling that it looks like the fish-eye-view known from racing game-cheats from the 90ies.

i also have the feeling that this is only a problem in shooting games in general.
does a narrow- fov cause nauseatic sickness?

the only game i ever felt bad was f-zero gx and super mario galaxy. but only for 15 minutes before i got adjusted to the "new feeling".

I don't get why you think including options makes something less complete. The whole point of including options is so everyone can have their own version of what complete is. I'm a console gamer too and I'm all for options. The more the better. If you want to play the game the way the devs shipped it you still can, having options to tweak doesn't change that.
 
i wonder if we really need these kind of options.

as a console gamer iam against graphical options in games. i want a game which should be complete as fuck, with no graphic "options" to fiddle around.

i dont want to deal with z-buffer shader, anti aliasing 16x or what ever to have 1fps more than usual.

is field of view a thing?
as i can see in the shown options, narrow means normal, the higher the number, the more i get the feeling that it looks like the fish-eye-view known from racing game-cheats from the 90ies.

i also have the feeling that this is only a problem in shooting games in general.
does a narrow- fov cause nauseatic sickness?

the only game i ever felt bad was f-zero gx and super mario galaxy. but only for 15 minutes before i got adjusted to the "new feeling".

Having a FOV slider would make a game MORE complete, not less. It's not a "graphical" setting any more than adjusting your brightness is. It's a calibration, not a epeen jerk off setting. Playing at a monitor (especially a large one) with a tiny FOV does cause sickness, and it's not *limited* to FPS's, though it is more pronounced.
 
Is there a way to tell when FOV is at a good setting? I assume there's a point where it gets way too high.

Edit: aside from obvious performance issues.
 

Kyuur

Member
Games can definitely be designed for a particular FOV, so I don't agree that it should be baseline or mandatory. I do feel bad for you if you can't enjoy certain games because of it but ultimately that's a sacrifice for a particular vision in some cases.
 

jotun?

Member
is field of view a thing?
as i can see in the shown options, narrow means normal, the higher the number, the more i get the feeling that it looks like the fish-eye-view known from racing game-cheats from the 90ies.

i also have the feeling that this is only a problem in shooting games in general.
does a narrow- fov cause nauseatic sickness?

I recommend watching the Design Cinema videos I posted above.

In shrunk-down screenshots, the fisheye effect is very noticeable. But if you're playing on a large monitor at a short distance, those stretched parts are mostly in peripheral vision. The part that's actually in your focus is the same as if you were playing on a smaller/farther screen with a narrower FOV.


Is there a way to tell when FOV is at a good setting? I assume there's a point where it gets way too high.

Edit: aside from obvious performance issues.

IMO the ideal setting is right before it starts to feel like the world is bending when you look around. Exactly where that point is depends on your screen size and distance.

Can't give exact numbers either, because implementation varies from game to game. Sometimes it's defined on the horizontal axis, sometimes on the vertical. I think there are other schemes and variables involved as well. In the last two games I played, one of them felt good at 85 and the other maxed out at 110 and still felt too narrow.
 

SerTapTap

Member
Right before the fisheye kicks in!

I kind of try for this (though, best I can tell, any FOV in 3x1 eyefinity will give you fisheye out the wazoo on the outer monitors) but I'm still never sure WTF to use. I try to stick to defaults because of this though sometimes it's too narrow. Is there a list of recommendations by screen size/distance?
 
FoV is one of the main disadvantages of consoles; absurdly narrow FoV coupled with 30 fps and framerate fluctuation (or low framerate) makes it very difficult to adjust to once you become accustomed to pc gaming.

Still, we're blessed to have great devs who can get the best out of consoles and offer a great experience nonetheless.

Too bad you can count them on one hand.
 
Is there a way to tell when FOV is at a good setting? I assume there's a point where it gets way too high.

Edit: aside from obvious performance issues.

It's just personal preference I guess. I've seen gameplay of games such as BF4 and CoD on YouTube that have the FoV set so high that it looks like everything is being sucked into the center of the screen. That's way too high for me. I'd say around 95-100 is perfect.
 
Games can definitely be designed for a particular FOV, so I don't agree that it should be baseline or mandatory. I do feel bad for you if you can't enjoy certain games because of it but ultimately that's a sacrifice for a particular vision in some cases.

While there are cases like the Evil Within, most games are not Evil Within.
 

Ullus

Member
Is there a way to tell when FOV is at a good setting? I assume there's a point where it gets way too high.

Edit: aside from obvious performance issues.
I usually Go until the animations start clipping, or you can see the beginning of the arms.
Best to just go with what feels comfortable for you.
 

bj00rn_

Banned
Om a conventional display it's hard to find a balance between good scale and good fov. That's why it should always be somewhat optional. With VR it's pretty much a non-issue, thank God. 1:1 scale and wide fov, can't be wrong that..
 

Corpekata

Banned
I kind of try for this (though, best I can tell, any FOV in 3x1 eyefinity will give you fisheye out the wazoo on the outer monitors) but I'm still never sure WTF to use. I try to stick to defaults because of this though sometimes it's too narrow. Is there a list of recommendations by screen size/distance?

Depends on the game but 90 is the generally recommended FOV for 1080p games. But really your resolution matters too (its' size and how far you are from it). Good baseline is to just google your res + FoV. 90 seems to be the catch-all.
 
On console games, it is locked to get the desired performance.

I'm going to guess it can lead to cheating or breaking the experience as other reasons.

Though I agree, it should be an option on most pc games.

Exactly. This is something that we probably won't see until next-gen when performance can be more flexible due to more powerful hardware.

I agree it'd be nice, but right now, adjusting FOV is kind of a "tighten up the graphics on level 3" thing - it just ain't that simple.
 

Vitor711

Member
post-9286-1267875568.gif


As you can see, changing FoV comes at a cost. You will have more trouble shooting enemies on greater distances, where you will have the lead in narrow corridors.

That's not quite how it works - you also get substantially improved peripheral awareness which more than makes up for that.

The original Dead Island on PC was one of those rare games that gave me massive motion sickness because of the FOV. As soon as that was edited, I felt completely fine.
 

Grief.exe

Member
Is there a way to tell when FOV is at a good setting? I assume there's a point where it gets way too high.

Edit: aside from obvious performance issues.

It gets kind of confusing.
There are multiple ways to calculate an FOV value (vertical and horizontal), couple that with different viewing distances, resolutions, and screen sizes and you have a convoluted mess.

I generally just go off of feel, 90-110 works fore if the FOV value is vertical. There are online calculators that will spit out an optimal value however.

It's ridiculously fun and I can't recommend it enough.


How are the private match servers at this point? I'd like to play with a 2v2 lobby with a couple friends.
 
Games can definitely be designed for a particular FOV, so I don't agree that it should be baseline or mandatory. I do feel bad for you if you can't enjoy certain games because of it but ultimately that's a sacrifice for a particular vision in some cases.

Ah yes the artistic vision to cause nausea is very welcomed.
 
Top Bottom