Actually I'd say head bobbing is a no-no. I don't see head bobbing when I run irl because my mind compensates. I can't compensate for shakycam in some game.
And matching FOV to the screen size is a terrible idea. You don't notice anything except the fact you can't see shit.
Can anyone else here see through their nose?
-snip-
Wrong thread
Your brain automatically removes the nose with the image from the other eye.
[QUOTE=BmB;21590822]Actually I'd say head bobbing is a no-no. I don't see head bobbing when I run irl because my mind compensates. I can't compensate for shakycam in some game.
[/QUOTE]
Head bobbing works if it's not overdone, at least for me.
i want to play a game with real time first person blinking. every 30 seconds or so the screen with flash for a split second.
if you aren't careful your character will get something stuck in his eye and then the screen will blur up.
there is also a mission where one of your contacts falls out of ur eye and you have to look for it for like 30 minutes
dont steal my ideas though thanks
-cgamer
Head bobbing would work fine with good mocap and the camera attached to the head because you really don't spaz your head around while running like that horrible shake you get in games like HL2.
[QUOTE=BmB;21590703]Wide field of views. Narrow FOV is for cameras. Wide is what you see.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2999/fov.png[/img]
And how can you guarantee how much of a persons field of view their display will be filling? You can't. Movies have had different field of views from the final display for a hundred years and nobody complained that it didn't look right. Heck, nobody complained of cuts from one wildly differing fov to another. I even tried it myself thinking "maybe it will look more realistic if I match the FOV to my display", as I said, you don't notice a thing except that you can't see shit. It's like wearing binoculars for goggles and trying to walk around. Your eyes knows FOV better than your imagination and can easily see exactly what is supposed to be on the image and flawlessly integrate it with a different FOV background.
The real kicker is that a too wide FOV will make everything front and center look too far away to make out - tunnel vision can only go so far - and irrecoverably distort the sides. You want to find a good compromise between providing central detail and giving peripheral awareness while avoiding too much distortion.
That's not to say distortion is bad. Some distortion is even expected - required - for the image to look right. A too narrow, distortionless FOV will be almost isometric, and we all know how weird that looks.
[editline]09:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=rosthouse;21583348]If you really want to make those effects bigger, go to an IMAX, hook your PC to the projector and play it on the big screen (before you guys start yelling at me, I know that this is not really possible).[/QUOTE]
Actually I believe Microsoft had an Xbox 360 hooked up to an IMAX system for a Halo 3 promo event. It's not going to be through a film projector, but it could be done.
The jump from 4:3 to 16:10 or 16:9 made the "realistic" (or whatever it is to you) feeling worse. You see more on the left and right, but it disorted (as you said) the sides. So it would be better to turn down the FoV a bit to match the old 4:3 setting. With that, you could focus more on the things you actually have on your screen because they're bigger and more detailed.
Basically the thing is, when going from UT2k4 and Halo to HL2 and Halo 2 respectively, everything went from comfortable and nice to "holy shit wtf is going on around me I can't see a thing????????!!!"
Games these days all try be be cinematic or whatever and are even worse than that. I can't see shit in any of them, I just want to be able to see things naturally and comfortably.
All you accomplish with a narrow FOV is the "binocular goggles" effect and not really anything in terms of immersion. In fact you are ruining immersion because in real life, people can see a whole lot, they are not movie cameras.
Heck, screw that, only shitty movies use narrow FOV's too. There was a time when movies where all about wide angle lenses and overwhelming vistas. A living room could become an untraversable canyon of depth. Then came the "TV editing" and the filter rape they call colour correction and ruined all that. So allow me to correct:
People are not TV cameras.
You forget that this shouldn't be a picture, it actually should feel like you're in there. Realistic, you know? Like you're looking through a window. But it's your problem though how big that window is.
Hence the "realistic" in the thread title.
Proportions are more important to realism and the feeling of realism than the amount of stuff you can see.
Are you even paying attention? I already told you from personal experience it makes fuck all difference. Your eyes can work out the proportions just fine as long as they are not extreme. The real issue is how much central detail you actually offer compared to peripheral awareness.
It will always be a picture, if you want a feeling of realism get 3D glasses.
[QUOTE=BmB;21591256]Actually I believe Microsoft had an Xbox 360 hooked up to an IMAX system for a Halo 3 promo event. It's not going to be through a film projector, but it could be done.[/QUOTE]
We're gonna play on 3D projector over night (again) at our local cinema with our IGDA volunteers group. :)
Last time was a bash, we had the whole floor with 5 full size theaters to our gaming needs and spent the whole night there gaming and watching movies. :P We had PS3 and 360 in their own cinemas and a NES in the small VIP theater with recliners.
^ God damn you. :biggrin:
[QUOTE=WeltEnSTurm;21590789]First of all, I want to say that the screen should not give you the pictures the in-game eyes take. Rather should it add all the effects you don't produce yourself. So, head bobbing when walking.
If there are weapons, they should (under no circumstances) look like they're tied to the screen. That sucks. They rather should look like your playermodel is holding them. And according to your strength and everything, you shouldn't be able to turn it 180 degrees in 0.01 seconds.
[b]I think the field of view should be realistic (not over 60)[/b], according to your screen size. Also, the view should not always be on the same height, more on the actual height of your playermodel's head. You should be able to see your feet. If you look downwards, the head should move a bit forward, so you don't look through your neck.
I think Dark Messiah does this pretty well already.[/QUOTE]
That's less then half of average human vision FOV.
[editline]01:10PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=WeltEnSTurm;21591035][img]http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2999/fov.png[/img][/QUOTE]
lol
[QUOTE=Shadaez;21592555]That's less then half of average human vision FOV.
[/QUOTE]
Your screen doesn't fill more than half of your view
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;21582083]That would be fucking horrible for business, No one would want to get shot. Unless it was like a tingle where you where getting hit from, Then maybe, But if it hurt, Fuck that.[/QUOTE]
No, not being able to feel anything. Just be able to move in game like you would move in real life. Basically have complete control over your character.
[QUOTE=Duxfever;21581878]Mirror's Edge[/QUOTE]
yeah that's the best thing you're going to get. You can see your body, and your real body creates the first person effects (whether you like it or not)
oh and Crysis, an epic game, and it has a lot of the same characteristics as said above.
[QUOTE=WeltEnSTurm;21592599]Your screen doesn't fill more than half of your view[/QUOTE]
And? So we should have a games FOV based on how much area the screen takes up in our vision? To me, It's supposed to be a portal to what the person you're playing as is seeing. It shouldn't be a realistic FOV, I'm just saying that 60 isn't human FOV. 75-90 works for me.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw[/media]
Just implement head tracking and immersion will jump to the next level instantly.
Not gonna go into how it might be horrible gameplay wise though.
(And yes, video is old but it serves its purpose in showing what I mean)
Arma 2 with TrackIR is amaaaaazing.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXx3vMy_AQ[/media]
[QUOTE=Snuffy;21594779]Arma 2 with TrackIR is amaaaaazing.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXx3vMy_AQ[/media][/QUOTE]
Holy shit, that looks amazing. I'll have to pick one up when I get the chance :aaa:
[QUOTE=CHRISTIAN_GAMER;21590979]i want to play a game with real time first person blinking. every 30 seconds or so the screen with flash for a split second.
if you aren't careful your character will get something stuck in his eye and then the screen will blur up.
there is also a mission where one of your contacts falls out of ur eye and you have to look for it for like 30 minutes
dont steal my ideas though thanks
-cgamer[/QUOTE]
:downs:
I think the reason why console games use low FOV is because it looks more natural. Think about it, the monitor should be like a window into the video game, so why not act like a window? The reason why PC gamers complain much about low FOV is because they are up at the monitor, which takes up more of their view then the TV far back. Look at a small window in your bedroom from far back, now look at it closer, you'll realize that you see more of the outside. What they should do with head tracking is increase the FOV when you go closer to the monitor and decrease the FOV when you move back, now maybe this wouldn't be practical in a multiplayer game, but in a single-player game, this may greatly increase the immersion.
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw[/media]
This for example.
[QUOTE=Chunk3ym4n;21602567]I think the reason why console games use low FOV is because it looks more natural. Think about it, the monitor should be like a window into the video game, so why not act like a window? The reason why PC gamers complain much about low FOV is because they are up at the monitor, which takes up more of their view then the TV far back. Look at a small window in your bedroom from far back, now look at it closer, you'll realize that you see more of the outside. What they should do with head tracking is increase the FOV when you go closer to the monitor and decrease the FOV when you move back, now maybe this wouldn't be practical in a multiplayer game, but in a single-player game, this may greatly increase the immersion.[/QUOTE]
Low fov could be an unintentional side effect of calculating fov horizontally and applied to a wide resolution.
Also I disagree completely with the window thing. A monitor is not a window, it's an unfortunate technical limitation and a way of displaying the image that the character is seeing. Adding in a window effect would bring the monitor into the game (not sure how to explain that better), and that's just backwards and it doesn't make sense anyway.
Mass effect HASNT got realistic first person-ness (it's thirdpersonlolo)
But I find how the scope zooms and takes a second to focus is incredibly badass.
Mirror's Edge and/or ArmA II.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;21582031]
I don't see the point in not doing legs now, Frame-rate you say? Bullshit it's called optimization. Sure it's a huge big deal but it's a nice touch of immersion which I always aim for. It's not very hard either, a very simple way is to put the camera on the 3rd person model's eyes like ARMA or FPS GTA4 did.[/QUOTE]
I don't get why that isn't just what they do all the time. And it would also stop that horrible thing where you can run right up to a wall and touch it with your gun still sticking out, it just is so damn flat. Half Life 2 was horrible for that since the bullet holes became the size of your relative fist if you were up close.
Trespasser
[img]http://www.battleteam.net/tech/fis/docs/images/trespasser_ui.png[/img]
[editline]01:19PM[/editline]
yep that's boobs
the heart tatoo is your HP
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
