Jesus Christ
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Next gen FPS FOV's
- Thread starter Portugeezer
- Start date
The Tofunator
Member
OldAsUrSock
Banned
I can handle FOV from 75-100. My sweet spot is 85 and 90, but any FOV out of those is just painful. I play on TV and Monitor. The TV is 32" and my monitor is 21". If I am playing on TV I could go 5 FOV down from my areas where I am comfortable on my 21" monitor.
It's not bullshit. Imagine a wall with a hole in it. The closer you get, the more you can see out the other side.
I hate the FOVs where everything feels so zoomed in and all you see is your gun an like 1 enemy on screen at a time.
It's like holding a small frame around in real life and you see nothing outside the frame, and having to move it around like a madman to see your surroundings, it's such a weird design choice.
It's like holding a small frame around in real life and you see nothing outside the frame, and having to move it around like a madman to see your surroundings, it's such a weird design choice.
Portugeezer
Member
Shut your whore mouth. Consoles have done FPS's well for many years now.
What?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Having an FOV option would make them better. Killzone 2/3 would be infinitely more playable for me if I didn't feel like a midget with horse blinders. I just gave up on a recent replay of the game because I got tired of it.
mullet2000
Member
Am I the only one who thinks 85 and over in OP's gif looks pretty bad? 55 is super bad too, for the record.
But anyway, I don't think much will change. They're designing with a TV that is a good distance away from you in mind. I'd like to see a FOV boost but I don't think it's going to happen. 75 seems like the sweet spot to me.
But anyway, I don't think much will change. They're designing with a TV that is a good distance away from you in mind. I'd like to see a FOV boost but I don't think it's going to happen. 75 seems like the sweet spot to me.
Risk Breaker
Member
I SO want FoV sliders in games, almost any game. A lot of FPS or simply FP games are nigh unplayable (Skyrim on consoles, ewww) because of the low FoV.
That wouldn't work on consoles. Bigger FOV == more visibility == more stuff to render. Thus if a game was made to run 30fps on a default FOV, for example 60, then on 80 FOV the fps would be significantly lower and possibly even unplayable.
Of course the developers could adjust the quality of the graphics depending on what FOV the player has chosen but that just adds a ton of complexity to the development process.
I hate high FOV games. Having fisheye vision where everything bows out as it enters your periphery while scrunching down to smaller size in the center of your screen looks incredibly unrealistic. My eyes don't work like that so my character's first person view shouldn't either.
But I'd be ok with the options.
But I'd be ok with the options.
The easiest approach to understand is to just check how many rotations it takes to do a full 360 when your camera is oriented at the horizon. If you have a good sense for the stretching in perspective projection and you know what you're doing (and you have a TV with no overscan), this method can allow you to make estimates to within a couple percent in a few minutes.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Because locked high FOV games are really common.
nhlducks35
Member
Not KZ2 FoV ever again please. That game makes me feel so cramped when I first boot it up after a while.
There is the occasional case of something being done oddly.
Here's a big question: for console games where you can play at multiple aspect ratios (4:3, 16:9, 2-player split-screen 8:3, 2-player split-screen 32:9, etc), how should the FOV be handled for the different aspect ratios? Locking the horizontal FOV so that it's the same for all views and changing the vertical FOV is an option. But if a game supports both 4:3 and 32:9, you're going to have to use a massive FOV, or else the 32:9 is going to feel like looking through a slit.
Some games actually go with the opposite approach: lock the vertical FOV to be the same for all views, and let the horizontal FOV differ between them. Personally, I think splitting the difference might be the most reasonable approach in most cases, but whatever.
The guy has a problem with the legitmacy of certain commands. If valve didn't want the trouble they would've removed things related to fov or restricted it usage.
But I don't stare at the center of the screen all the time. Noticing how skewed the screen looks can really take me out of the immersion. Also, depending on the game the UI is on the left and right so you're going to look over there regularly.
Portugeezer
Member
Doesn't bother me it looking fish eyes or whatever, but I don't care about single player FOV as much as multiplayer.
Yeah it can look a bit weird when it's too high, but the benefits in competitive play outweigh the "it looking weird" part.
Wow, it's amazing how standards change. This screenshot would have blown me away in 2008.Not KZ2 FoV ever again please. That game makes me feel so cramped when I first boot it up after a while.
I don't know of any FPS that has released with an FoV above 90. 90 is not high.
Not sure about console games where something that could be called the "typical" view has >90 FOV, but there are plenty of with reasonably standard views that do.
For instance, I know from measuring them that most Halo games have an FOV greater than 90 when using 2-player split-screen. Halo's 2 and Anniversary are the exceptions. Even Halo 3, notorious for poor FOV, manages 92; Halo's 1 and ODST enjoy ~109.
dgrdsv
Member
That's a popular believe but real world tests don't show any noticeable difference in performance with different FoV values.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
90 FOV would be a nice standard for FPS on consoles imo. Its really not as bad as people think. I play 90fov sometimes on my PC connected to a TV and I'm okay at a distance from it.
Low FOV has bothered me since Halo 2, this generation hasn´t made it any better. Bungie did the right thing with Halo Reach when they increased the FOV back to an acceptable level.
I consider a horizontal FOV of 90 a must for 16:9 games, which is not that much compared to older PC games running in 4:3. They usually had 90 horizontally and 67.5 vertically which meant that you could still see more compared to 90 in 16:9 were you only have ~50 vertically.
Its a shame really, in Halo 2 and 3 i feelt like looking through some kind of pipe :-/
I consider a horizontal FOV of 90 a must for 16:9 games, which is not that much compared to older PC games running in 4:3. They usually had 90 horizontally and 67.5 vertically which meant that you could still see more compared to 90 in 16:9 were you only have ~50 vertically.
Its a shame really, in Halo 2 and 3 i feelt like looking through some kind of pipe :-/
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Fov, like FPS and Resolution will always be a design choice, power of the consoles is irrelevant.
If a Dev wants to push the Max flashy effects at 75fov, 720p, and 30fps, they will.
If they want less graphical fidelity and better iq at 90fov, 1080p, and 60 FPS they will.
Or any combination of those.
Nothing to do with hardware.
If a Dev wants to push the Max flashy effects at 75fov, 720p, and 30fps, they will.
If they want less graphical fidelity and better iq at 90fov, 1080p, and 60 FPS they will.
Or any combination of those.
Nothing to do with hardware.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I get claustrophobic if the FOV is too small.
Such a feeling of unease. :/
Such a feeling of unease. :/
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Like the taxman cometh!
I agree with this.
Higher FOV means you will render more, so it's a very linear increase in performance impact. Of course it depends a whole lot on what is in the game. For example in a Total War game, the difference between 60 FOV and 110 FOV could mean the game would have to render twice as many units, which obviously has a huge performance impact.
Just so you know how this works:
The first culling step of each frame render is excluding all objects that are either outside the field of view, too far away or too close.
FOV in FPS:s have a bigger impact on performance if it's a game with many enemies and allies, instead of fewer, bigger enemies. For example in a game like Killzone 2 FOV have a big impact on performance. In, lets say 1v1 Unreal multiplayer, not very much at all.
dgrdsv
Member
Let me repeat myself: tests don't show any noticeable difference in performance. It is there, sure, but it's quite negligible. Although I agree that this depends on a game.
Portugeezer
Member
When I put on anti aliasing it doesn't show a noticeable performance hit until certain areas of a game. Like any graphics setting putting it up affects performance, same with FOV. Could be enough to make the difference between sub 30fps dips and a constant 30fps on consoles.
That said if a developer just makes the game with a higher FOV in mind then it wouldn't be a problem switching between higher and lower FOV's.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I think an FOV of around 70 is fine.
What are these "tests"? I am a developer myself, been a 3d applications programmer for 6 years. I develop what is called "serious games" these days but I know exactly how these things work. I optimize 3d applications all the time, and trust me when I tell you that FOV makes a difference.
I don't like the FOV to be like that, either, but I think the point here is why not let us have the choice to play like that if we want to?
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
To be fair that's one of if not THE worst screenshot of Killzone I have ever seen. Game looks much better overall.
Stop it Nibs, between those screens and Killzone Mercs I am going to have an urge to go through the trilogy again!
Toothless Spoon
Member
I would love for them to have OPTIONS - fov, gun/weapon size maybe. I think now the consoles are getting more PC alike, if they have options that aren't hard to do to implement then I don't see why can't.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Because changing the FoV would change the framerate, and many uninformed would freak out.
Still, it could work, with proper warnings. Like Vsync on and off in Bioshock.
Not KZ2 FoV ever again please. That game makes me feel so cramped when I first boot it up after a while.
Killzone have the "scaling parameter" linked to the field of view more natural to real life, but at the same time the limited FOV really shows the problem we have when it comes to two dimensional flat panels: The sweet spot simply does not exist.. either the scaling is good and the fov bad, or the opposite..
The only thing that can be done is to provide all games with adjustable FOV so people can find their own preferred compromise - or wait for VR gaming.. The Oculus Rift have more or less solved the FOV issue (not perfect in the dev kit, but oh so close).
eot
Banned
Last I checked you could be VAC banned for altering the FOV in the L4D games. It's the biggest reason I don't play L4D2 anymore as the FOV in that game is like 65 by default.
