[quote]The dev team explored potentially going wider after seeing feedback from the demo, but going wider introduces issues where certain objects, textures, etc. are then not fully rendered out for performance considerations. It will also have performance implications since going wider will introduce more objects into the scenery.[/quote]
This doesn't seem like a hugely valid excuse on PC. This isn't the console version where they need to ensure a framerate with everything enabled and impossible to turn off. It's already a pretty good port, too. I'd say the real argument they're using is the "designed for scares" one and honestly I don't consider that valid. It took me years to play Dead Space because it took me that long to find a way to play it at an increased FOV.
[QUOTE=gk99;51768864]This doesn't seem like a hugely valid excuse on PC. This isn't the console version where they need to ensure a framerate with everything enabled and impossible to turn off. It's already a pretty good port, too. I'd say the real argument they're using is the "designed for scares" one and honestly I don't consider that valid. It took me years to play Dead Space because it took me that long to find a way to play it at an increased FOV.[/QUOTE]
I think what they meant is that the game is coded to not render objects you can't see at 90 FOV, similar to how if you widescreen psx / n64 games you will get objects not rendering inside the extra screen space, not that they can't up the FOV solely because of performance.
I don't know how easy that would be to change so eh.
[QUOTE=Dr.Scrake;51768887]I think what they meant is that the game is coded to not render objects you can't see at 90 FOV, similar to how if you widescreen psx / n64 games you will get objects not rendering inside the extra screen space, not that they can't up the FOV solely because of performance.
I don't know how easy that would be to change so eh.[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, I misread. I thought their argument was that it [I]wouldn't[/I] cut out the objects and would thus lower performance.
Honestly though, 90's high enough for a singleplayer horror game that isn't based around running around running and gunning. 70 or 80 and I'd be pissed, but I play most games at 90 FOV anyway.
[editline]a[/editline]
Not that this applies to me because I continued my tradition of buying RE games on console.
I'm alright with RE7 being capped at 90. It's high enough that I can actually see, and the game doesn't have that much shooting anyway
I do feel a bit nauseous when playing RE7, but I am okay with it, just because this is a horror game, and gameplay wise this is a good decision
Isn't 90 pretty much the sweet spot for FOV where it isn't a cramped cube but not a fish-eye view either
[QUOTE=Fox Powers;51768991]Isn't 90 pretty much the sweet spot for FOV where it isn't a cramped cube but not a fish-eye view either[/QUOTE]
Depends on the size of your monitor.
Most the time it's perfect on mine, but sometimes depending on where you're hand/sword/gun/dildo is at it can give me motion sickness so I need to bump it up some more.
[QUOTE=Fox Powers;51768991]Isn't 90 pretty much the sweet spot for FOV where it isn't a cramped cube but not a fish-eye view either[/QUOTE]
Definitely depends on monitor size as Flak said. I went from a 23" monitor to a 27" and suddenly 90 seemed cramped
Around 85~110 is the nice spot depending on monitor scale, personally I tend to use 95 or 100.
Anything below 70 or so is unplayable
90 seems like a reasonable compromise for the situation.
Tbh 110 is best for me
it starts to run pretty badly at 90 at higher resolutions so fair enough
There is a problem with handling of LOD's and occlusion when your FOV is too wide (too many objects end up clumped in the middle of the screen, a large amount of space is still visible off to the sides beyond 90 deg)
[QUOTE=Dr.Scrake;51768887]I think what they meant is that the game is coded to not render objects you can't see at 90 FOV. I don't know how easy that would be to change so eh.[/QUOTE]
Very easy to change, "view frustum culling" as it is known is a fundamental optimization in 3D rendering, and dynamically adapts to the camera's FOV, which, thanks to the wonders of matrices, can be theoretically set to any value between 0 and 180. Obviously at either extreme the visual is too orthographic or distorted to be useful, but it is possible none the less.
Any time a developer says it is locked or impossible to change they are outright lying because this is a calculation that must be made for literally [B][U]EVERY[/U][/B] 3D game. This is usually to cover up concessions they made based off the FOV they decided to lock it to, as it is one less variable they need to worry about when they are developing the game.
It makes sense that a wider view caused performance to decrease, but on an open ended platform like PC the devs should allow a reasonable wiggle room and leave it up to the user to make their own decision when it comes to the FOV to performance trade off. Obviously we don't need 0 to 180, but some adjustment should be allowed without compromising the artistic direction.
90 is what I'd consider the minimum so it's fine tbh. It's like complaining that a game only runs at 60fps. Like yeah more is better but come on, 60 is objectively the minimum.
I feel like I'm forgiving with the FOV because RE7 is a well made game, so I don't really notice it
90 is perfectly fine for a horror game. It's wide enough to not be annoying, but it's small enough to where it still feels cramped in tight spaces.
I mean, it's not like every game has to be tuned for 110+ Quake Live settings.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51769413]Anything below 70 or so is unplayable
90 seems like a reasonable compromise for the situation.[/QUOTE]
Games like Halo and Destiny are guilty of this. I swear, playing those games after playing a game at 90 feels like I've shoved my head into the monitor.
[QUOTE=Hogie bear;51771435]Games like Halo and Destiny are guilty of this. I swear, playing those games after playing a game at 90 feels like I've shoved my head into the monitor.[/QUOTE]
Destiny's FOV is 60 degrees, for reference.
[QUOTE=Hogie bear;51771435]Games like Halo and Destiny are guilty of this. I swear, playing those games after playing a game at 90 feels like I've shoved my head into the monitor.[/QUOTE]
With that low FOV it makes me feel like I'm holding the zoom/aim down sight button all the time.
[QUOTE=Hogie bear;51771435]Games like Halo and Destiny are guilty of this. I swear, playing those games after playing a game at 90 feels like I've shoved my head into the monitor.[/QUOTE]
The portions of Halo 3 when the FOV shot up to something like 140 pissed me off because when it was coming back down to 70 I had to watch it go past a decent FOV every time.
I like sort of large FOVs so I don't have to move to look around so much, my eyes can handle it since in reality, it's the very center of our vision that sees clearly. What I dislike is when you aim down the sights and everything gets blurred. I don't need the game to do that, my eyes do that on their own.
It doesn't help that depending on the size of view models, the way animations and camera motion work, and so forth, 90 FOV on one game is a completely different story on another. I played through the entirety of RE7 at 1080p with 90FOV with only a handful of visual distancing problems, though, so it was good enough for me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.