You know, i would really like to see a benchmark done regarding this, im almost positive it doesnt really affect framerates at all, if it does, its probably negligible. I know its rendering more on screen, but the difference is so little.
To the people that say they dont notice low FOVs, I recommend you never try to do your own experiments about FOV on PC, once you realize the effects, you wont be able to go back, playing games in the correct FOV is like night and day.
A tighter/narrower field of view can give the impression of being more cinematic and immersive. In film, 63 degrees is already considered "wide angle." The FOVs you've been talking about are much wider, which, at least in my opinion, makes them seem a little bit more flat and fake looking (which could just be due to my conditioning from film.) In my own experience, narrowing the field of view can help you feel like you're really "there." Obviously there's a trade off: a narrower FOV can prevent you from seeing game-critical information: that's why you're more likely to see a narrow FOV in a survival horror game (where the player character is supposed to have limited abilities.)
Third person games create unique difficulties because you have to deal with camera collision. You can make a third person game look really cool by narrowing the FOV and dollying the camera back to compensate. This helps to create a sense of immediacy, and still lets you see a lot of what you need to see. The problem is now the camera's location in physical space is very far back from your character, which starts creating huge problems when you are in a tight interior and the camera needs to avoid clipping through walls.
Something to think about with FOV's is that it isn't just about the field of view, it's about the sense of depth. Obviously if you're playing a fast paced, competitive FPS, being able to see as much critical information as possible may be your top priority, but in other types of games the developer may have other concerns.
I like it when the guns look big onscreen. Makes them feel more menacing.It's a shame 1/4 of the screen is taken up by the weapon.
I like it when the guns look big onscreen. Makes them feel more menacing.
Methinks that looks badass.
Methinks that looks horribly distracting and unnecessary.I like it when the guns look big onscreen. Makes them feel more menacing.
Methinks that looks badass.
The Youtube videos really helped but Ive been confused on this issue for a while and was wondering if somebody could help.
Basically, whats the difference in FOVs from 4:3 to 16:9 (and other widescreen ARs). For example, when I got BioShock 2 for PC, the widescreen option in that was simply the 4:3 image cropped, but by increasing the FOV, I was able to get more on screen in the same ratio than before. My question is, when something is cropped to look wide, what is the difference in FOV?
Now for the really n00by sounding question, just what does resolution actually do. =P I mean yeah, it makes things look sharper when I increase it but cant that be handled by ingame options (besides just filtering, for example texture quality), but at the same time, doesnt it increase the amount you can see which is in escence FOV? We are hearing from some pros here that reducing the FOV does little to increase performance yet resolution seems to be capped or even sub-HD on many games this gen?