I've seen it range from a small hit to a large one. It all depends on how many objects are on the screen, what they're doing, and what the game engine is. And the CPU can definitely come into play.
-
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
- Thread starter lazygecko
- Start date
I've seen it range from a small hit to a large one. It all depends on how many objects are on the screen, what they're doing, and what the game engine is. And the CPU can definitely come into play.
It should be an option on all games. Framerate matters to me but it doesn't get me dizzy, a low FOV will absolutely give me a headache after 5-10 mins of playing.
I would have beat Borderlands at 30fps, but I would not have continued to play it if I didn't use a tool for the FOV, because that stuff is disgusting on a monitor.
I would have beat Borderlands at 30fps, but I would not have continued to play it if I didn't use a tool for the FOV, because that stuff is disgusting on a monitor.
hobblygobbly
Member
Every 3D game engine has FoV because it's inherent to the rendering code for the camera so it's just a matter of exposing the variables to be tweaked either outside the game in a settings file or through a GUI element in the game so that the engine can reread the variable and apply it. There is no 3D engine that can't do this.
In terms of its impact on performance it's situational per game. Changing FoV means changing the amount of observable graphics and if your game is very graphically intensive and you make use of technologies such as occlusion culling, the more being observed means the less that is being culled.
Occlusion culling is basically a technique of not rendering what can't be seen by a camera/player, i.e we are not really drawing that 3D model that may be behind the house if the player's camera is not facing in that direction or can't see it because the house is in the way. So say you have 60 FoV in the game and everything has been optimised to run at 60 FoV with occlusion culling etc, pumping up that 60 FoV to 90 FoV as an example will allow you to observe more in the world and that camera has to render more and thus less occlusion culling is happening because you are seeing more which will impact performance. How wildly it is affected again is completely situational to the graphical fidelity of the game and the power of the hardware. Someone on PC with mid range hardware may increase FoV a lot and have a noticeable effect on performance but then maybe to counterbalance that they can reduce some graphical fidelity.
So it really depends but FoV can impact performance it just depends on how you look at it, like I said with occlusion culling, higher FoV == more being observed which naturally means more being rendered and less being culled, lower FoV == less being observed and thus more culling taking place. If you have carefully optimised your game with how much detail/models are seen (and how detailed those assets are themselves in resolution/polygons) and how much is being occluded at a time and maintaining a certain FPS target, increasing FoV can impact that performance. As a developer you would simply make sure and that the game performs optimally at all available FoV options if it means decreasing graphical fidelity a little on console. For PC a user can have more control over their own settings but developers should still ensure that the game runs optimally with all the settings at the different FoV values.
bender
What time is it?
Is there a database that lists the FOV for console games or at least an approximation?
Not something I've tried. Matchmaking in general is a little wonky but the developers do a good job of communication and most issues seem to get resolved quickly.
As an aside, I do think 2v2 is the sweet spot for Rocket League. That's probably because it's the mode I play most and 3v3 and especially 4v4 feel a little too chaotic.
Not something I've tried. Matchmaking in general is a little wonky but the developers do a good job of communication and most issues seem to get resolved quickly.
As an aside, I do think 2v2 is the sweet spot for Rocket League. That's probably because it's the mode I play most and 3v3 and especially 4v4 feel a little too chaotic.
Yeah I'm in favour of FOV for accessibility reasons but there are times a director may want to restrict how much a player is allowed to see on screen at one time. So I stop short of thinking it should always be there. Unless maybe with a big warning to only adjust if you really have to as its not the intended view.
It's a tough one as I'm very much a directors vision kind of guy. For designed by committee AAA games where the players view isn't a consideration then no reason not to have it.
Mr. Nice_Guy
Member
Very interesting read, I don't get motion sickness so I had no idea about this. For those who truly need this to make more games accessible then I think it should absolutely be made easy for them to adjust for their comfort.
From this thread alone though I also see where the stigma you mentioned about people wanting it for "muh stats" comes from. Reading text alone, it can ba hard to differentiate between seine wanting it for a personal preference, and for an advantage. But do the benefit of those who need it this should be something developers put more consideration into.
From this thread alone though I also see where the stigma you mentioned about people wanting it for "muh stats" comes from. Reading text alone, it can ba hard to differentiate between seine wanting it for a personal preference, and for an advantage. But do the benefit of those who need it this should be something developers put more consideration into.
Horror games in general, or anything that relies on your vision being obscured to create atmosphere. I also don't know about non-first person games, where field of view can definitely have an impact (at what distance you can see incoming obstacles for example).
Nausea is a side effect, not the intent, and it doesn't happen for everyone. See above for examples. I think it should be included where it makes sense, ie. where it doesn't affect the game in a major way.
It's only being affected for someone else. Why do you give a crap in that case?
Actually a good horror game would use this to its advantage.
Sword Of Doom
Member
I guess for the same reason I care that the Souls series doesn't have an easy difficulty mode, it creates a uniform experience that other people can experience. I might recommend a horror game to someone, they turn up the FOV slider and completely miss some part of it that I felt made it great. There's joy in seeing people talk about and experience the same thing you did.
If it's an option that's clearly available for everyone, then there is no advantage to be had.
NOT including an option actually creates more room for people to get what could be considered an unfair advantage.
If FOV is locked and defined by the vertical axis, then someone could gain an advantage by using a wider monitor or multiple monitors. If FOV is locked and defined by the horizontal axis, then someone could gain an advantage by using a narrower aspect ratio - there are some games where I play in a pillarboxed 4:3 resolution in order to make the FOV more comfortable.
Lack of FOV option also leaves open the route for more determined players to gain an advantage by changing it with console commands, config files, or outside programs like Widescreen Fixer. Make it an in-game option, and any concerns about cheating with "fov hacks" would disappear.
Without FOV options, you also create accessibility problems for people with non-standard aspect ratios. If a game is designed for 16:9 and the FOV is locked on the vertical, then someone stuck playing on a 4:3 screen will effectively get a much lower horizontal FOV than they should. If the FOV is locked on the horizontal, then your game is essentially unplayable on ultra-wide or multi-monitor setups because the vertical FOV will shrink so much.
The idea of locking FOV to create a uniform experience for everyone is BS, because it's only one factor in an equation that includes screen size, screen distance, and aspect ratio.
In this scenario this other person that needs to adjust their FoV would be feeling sick without it. They aren't getting the same experience as you either way.
Know if it's horizontal or vertical based. Then account for screen aspect ratio. There are sites that help you figure out your FOV but OP is right this should be in a lot of games.
Locking FOV is fucking dumb especially when you consider 4:3, 16:9, 21:9 and variety of multi monitor setups you can use.
The reason FOV is highly contested by developers the more you see the more performance is effected by it.
FoV is a pretty big deal to me. I've dropped more than one game because of ridiculous locked FoVs. The worst offender I can think of is Metro 2033, which was at like 45 or something ridiculous like that. It's like playing through a telescope.
I play a lot of Quake Live, and the FoV I use there is 130. One thing that QL really illustrates is that increasing the FoV makes aiming more difficult. The notion, therefore, that higher fov is universally advantageous is not true. Most players drop out around 100.
I play a lot of Quake Live, and the FoV I use there is 130. One thing that QL really illustrates is that increasing the FoV makes aiming more difficult. The notion, therefore, that higher fov is universally advantageous is not true. Most players drop out around 100.
Great topic, on PC there should definitely be a slider... And on consoles, you see developers chopping FOV in the name of resolution and framerate, and it's sickening... Literally....
Killzone is the most egregious culprit I can think of. Not only does it feel like you are constantly in a tunnel, but turning is nauseating, and being shot by someone you SHOULD be able to see is infuriating...
Killzone is the most egregious culprit I can think of. Not only does it feel like you are constantly in a tunnel, but turning is nauseating, and being shot by someone you SHOULD be able to see is infuriating...
FOV is calculated vertically in 2033, so 45 isn't as bad as it sounds. Can be easily changed through an INI edit. Not as convenient as a slider, but achieves the same result.
http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Metro_2033#Field_of_view_.28FOV.29
RenegadeXV8
Banned
...that doesn't make any sense. Many people can't even play games with a low FoV, and you're arguing against high FoV. Have you ever heard of someone having a worse experience in a game due to a higher FoV?
Finale Fireworker
Member
I've heard some pretty nasty rumors about FoV modification. I would like to set the story straight. Is it true:
1. Every time you manipulate a game's FoV, you lose seven to eleven minutes off your life?
2. Children who grow up in high FoV households are more likely to engage in risky behavior and have trouble learning?
3. FoV adjustments began under the Reagan administration as a way to shift the burden of debt onto the lower class?
4. FoV wants to turn me gay?
5. FoV wants to turn me straight?
6. FoV wants to turn me to stone?
7. Women over age 48 can't see FoV?
These are all real concerns that need to be addressed if we are even going to humor an changeable-FoV future.
1. Every time you manipulate a game's FoV, you lose seven to eleven minutes off your life?
2. Children who grow up in high FoV households are more likely to engage in risky behavior and have trouble learning?
3. FoV adjustments began under the Reagan administration as a way to shift the burden of debt onto the lower class?
4. FoV wants to turn me gay?
5. FoV wants to turn me straight?
6. FoV wants to turn me to stone?
7. Women over age 48 can't see FoV?
These are all real concerns that need to be addressed if we are even going to humor an changeable-FoV future.
The top 10% need to have a lower effective FOV so that they can trickle down their FOV to the lower classes.
Simple.
In Everquest, the "drunk" effect when you drank too much alcohol was really just the FOV being cranked up to absurd levels
PumpkinSpice
Banned
High FOV gives me really bad headaches. Something about the skew on all the objects in the periphery makes it look super awful.
DBreakfast
Member
I think the best way to explain this is to compare the monitor to a window, because functionally, your monitor/TV is acting as a window into the game world. With a real window, if you walk closer to it, you become able to see more things around the edges, but with a game, walking closer to the monitor does nothing (until every game implements head tracking!). Because of this, if your monitor is too large/too small relative to the chosen FOV, then your brain becomes very aware that it's looking at an image and not a window into the game world. With that can frequently come nausea or headaches as you try to force your brain to interpret the image as a 3D space when it clearly isn't. It's kind of baffling that so many people think this is about trying to derive an advantage by seeing more. It's about not feeling sick!
FOV sliders should be in every game, even console games. I keep several consoles hooked up to one of my monitors, and I can't play any first person games on them without feeling sick. It's pretty lame to have to move my system over to the TV because the devs wouldn't include this essential feature.
FOV sliders should be in every game, even console games. I keep several consoles hooked up to one of my monitors, and I can't play any first person games on them without feeling sick. It's pretty lame to have to move my system over to the TV because the devs wouldn't include this essential feature.
This is literally why we can't have nice things.
yep. low FoV is the worst.
Finale Fireworker
Member
8. Is it true FoV sickness can be fatal, even if you don't have any symptoms?
John Kowalski
Banned
90 or bust.
I dont like that all gifs and pics thus far in this thread just show a fisheyed FOV that distorts angles an stuff, THAT is not the proper eay to expand FOV!
Objects in the center should not shrink when FOV is increased!
That said though, 21:9 screens are needed to ensure proper FOV increase...Otherwise black borders would be a must.
Objects in the center should not shrink when FOV is increased!
That said though, 21:9 screens are needed to ensure proper FOV increase...Otherwise black borders would be a must.
This can easily be combated by the developer by recalculating FOV based on aspect ratio and adding the infamous black bars or some other graphic to maintain the look they desire.
Well obviously there are a multitude of things influence the way someone experiences something compared to me. "Game was scary as hell but I couldn't keep playing because the FOV made me nauseous" is better than "Atmosphere was meh, 5/10 my FOV was 110" to me. I feel bad for saying that but it's how I feel.
I'm not arguing against high FOV. I'm arguing against adjustable FOV for games designed around a particular number.
Yes. Headaches and nausea can happen due to FoV being too high as well, and you don't need to go all that high with perspective projection before people start complaining about distortion.
The 360 version of Marathon 2 is a pretty funny case, people get sick from it and immediately claim that the FoV is too low. Actually, the FoV is higher than any other non-split-screen console FPS I've ever measured (~100 degrees).
Not sure about the first 3 Killzones, but if we're talking about KZSF, the FoV is really not that low by console shooter standards. It's around 80 degrees. Of course, how bad it feels will depend on the game.
I mean, you should feel bad for saying that. You're prioritizing your social experience re: the discussion of the game over someone else's actual enjoyment of the game. That's absurdly selfish. Almost comically so.
And your example is just goofy really. What games are totally and utterly ruined by an FoV change? I'll buy a scary moment or two, but not an entire game.
By doing that though, you're essentially just not supporting any resolutions that aren't 16:9 or whatever the target is. It avoids some of the problems with different aspect ratios, but doesn't really solve them. It also does nothing to address the variables of screen size and distance.
RichiRamjag
Member
Everyone getting sick from fov and framerate makes gaming sound like a pretty dangerous hobby. I see nothing wrong with the option though.
On a big enough screen, that might actually be fine!
I'm not sure it's entirely the social experience bit, I'm just not sure how to describe it. An innate desire to want something to be experienced as close to original as possible? I definitely agree that most games don't have this problem and that devs should implement where possible when it doesn't affect the experience in a major way, but like an early poster said, I stop short of saying that all games should have this feature.
How are you feeling about mods?
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Fleshfeast
Member
Yeah, you can definitely take it too far. Maxing out the first person FOV setting on the console version of ESO makes me feel queasy after a while, but I keep it set to max on PC. I used the same size monitor for both, but sit twice as far from the one I use for my Xbox.
You're mapping regions on a sphere to a rectangle. There's not really a way to do wide FoVs without some kind of distortion or another. For high-FoV viewing on a low-FoV display there are projections that don't go crazy like rectilinear perspective projection, although you usually start to get curvy warping.
I wish every fps would come with AN OPTION for me to turn up the fov. It's really weird because I don't have seasick, airsick or carsick but pretty much every game with low fov make me feels like someone spin me around the room. First it make start to sweat a lot, then start to get headache and the final step is barf everything in my stomach out. The first time I got this is after playing half life 2.
The only fps game I can play is Quake (120 or at least 110).
I really don't give a damn about artistic vision if I can't even play the damn game in the first place.
The only fps game I can play is Quake (120 or at least 110).
I really don't give a damn about artistic vision if I can't even play the damn game in the first place.
DBreakfast
Member
Then you should support FOV settings. The whole point of having them is to ensure that the proportion of space your monitor takes up in your field of vision matches how much of the game world is displayed. Without that, the illusion that you're looking at a virtual world is shattered. Developer's original vision for the world goes right in the trash if a bad FOV setting makes your brain reject the very idea that you're looking into a 3D world.
You mentioned games being designed for a particular FOV, but the only one I can even think of is The Evil Within, and it clearly didn't actually matter to the devs that much given that they patched it to make the black bars removable. If your goal is to hide things from the player, wouldn't creative use of fixed camera angles be preferable to rendering the game unplayable to anyone with a setup that differs from the dev's testing environment? Frankly, I'd say that if a dev is relying on a tiny or huge FOV to make their game function, then they should probably scrap the project because doing that in the first place is an awful idea.