[QUOTE=Scot;42929241]I don't get motion sick or anything I just like being able to see more of the game without having to move my mouse around.
Why you would want this (FOV 75, default)
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/zYzfUo.jpg[/t]
Over this (90)
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/6nAyCt.jpg[/t]
is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
I rather go with the first one, it looks more natural.
But speaking about motion sickness and FOV, anyone who has played Bad Company 1 on the 360 or PS3 knows how much of a headache a low FOV can be.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;42929326]I rather go with the first one, it looks more natural.[/QUOTE]
Seeing less than you would IRL looks more natural?
[QUOTE=DMGaina;42929326]I rather go with the first one, it looks more natural.
But speaking about motion sickness and FOV, anyone who has played Bad Company 1 on the 360 or PS3 knows how much of a headache a low FOV can be.[/QUOTE]
It may look more natural in a screenshot but it feels wrong playing.
[QUOTE=Richy19;42928895]Ehh, the whole FOV argument only affects FPS's[/QUOTE]
Das ist joke.
Default FoV is usually fine for me, high Fov looks really weird like the camera is placed behind a persons head or somthing
[QUOTE=Scot;42929400]Seeing less than you would IRL looks more natural?[/QUOTE]
well both are less than you would see IRL, the 'natural' fov in games would totally depend the size / distance of your monitor
[QUOTE=evilweazel;42928832]Never got people who whine about fov being too low for them, the only game where it was even noticeable for me was 2033 and even then it was easy to get used to.[/QUOTE]
you probably have a smaller monitor
if you have something like 30" it becomes a problem
[QUOTE=Richy19;42928895]Ehh, the whole FOV argument only affects FPS's[/QUOTE]
Not true. Third person games have just as much of an issue.
Play a game like Gears of War, then play a game with a larger fov and further back camera like Uncharted.
Personally though, I can play very few console games regardless of genre because a low fov mixed with a low framerate gives me massive headaches.
Wow, never heard this one before.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;42929326]I rather go with the first one, it looks more natural.
But speaking about motion sickness and FOV, anyone who has played Bad Company 1 on the 360 or PS3 knows how much of a headache a low FOV can be.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually writing a whitepaper about the believability of an image and taking photos/rendering/drawing/whatever with the intent of viewing on a specific surface for the best viewing experience
there's no catch-all solution, and you can't really equate your vision to any particular FOV due to how it affects perspective vs how the sensors of your eyes are constructed
you've all seen this thing I'm sure-
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ro0GeFD.gif[/img]
it's a bunch of different FOVs, but at different distances so that you see the block as the same size. Wide FOV needs to be far closer than long, but our eyes see a much wider area whilst technically at the distance perspective of a much closer FOV, roughly akin to a 50mm lens on a (35mm film or full-frame digital) camera, ~47 degrees
what it boils down to is two potential results-
• if you want believability (physically accurate, like an optical illusion in some cases), you may opt for the best FOV [and convergence point if you're using 3D] to match the size of the viewing surface (monitor, projector screen) in relation to the viewer.
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/975e5c2350dfd0f5ac0dc8ca8413c861/tumblr_mqtplq9wfL1rp3ua6o1_1280.jpg[/img]
literally it's the angle from your eyes (centered) to the edges of the screen. This is mostly important in 3D viewing
• if you're looking for ease of use (or are claustrophobic), a far wider FOV than this is fine, but only in 2D. The only downside is that the subject matter in the center of your view shrinks, which if you can watch your view change live will look really weird changing from 65 to 90.
a huge thing with 3D movies is that, like I mentioned, there's no single ideal viewer location within a theater, and likewise you can't accomodate a good theater position AND good livingroom seating with the same setting. This results in skewed or oddly flattened imagery, where the 3D is a gimmick shoehorned into making you see that 'yes, this is physically closer to you than that'.
there's more stuff about safe regions in front of and behind the screen for 3D geometry to exist without strain and some other situations, but I'm really going off on a tangent here
[QUOTE=FunkyDarkKnight;42928706]It wouldn't be the perfect game without a FoV slider.[/QUOTE]
FoV sliders are a must. Some people prefer to see a bit wider than others, some people get sick if the FoV is too low or high. And sometimes the game is just ridiculous with how narrow it is, like Mass Effect 3. It's like looking through a fucking scope
I don't mind what he says about settings usually.
A lot of the time you do hear him say that the settings on the game doesn't matter, if it's a game that's not going to benefit from it. If a game can benefit from it then it's a legitimate thing to criticize.
i might be remembering it wrong, but didn't l4d2 have a really low fov
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;42931135]i might be remembering it wrong, but didn't l4d2 have a really low fov[/QUOTE]
The weapon FOV got shifted so it looked really different.
I like wide FOVs and narrow FOVs.
Like, I tend to play minecraft on Quake Pro, but then I get super close up in the third person camera of Fallout New Vegas.
Then in Planetside2, TF2 and other Source games, I have the sliders set to maximum.
The looking through a window analogy has always worked for me to explain it to people.
Look at a window, both at sofa distance, and then at PC monitor distance, note the difference in viewing area through the window.
Low FOV on a PC is only seeing the viewable range you should get from sofa distance when actually your face is against the pane. Your brain knows it's wrong and the dissonant signals cause nausea.
And no, it wasn't "less noticeable" with older games, they generally just used 90 horizontal fov as a default. If anything, the switch to widescreen monitors should have meant an increase in your fov setting - I find 95 to be comfortable for my combination of monitor size, position, and eye distance.
[QUOTE=draugur;42928836]Except for, you know, all the games that don't have them. Half Life, Half Life 2, System Shock 2, Doom... The original Mario games... Legend of Zelda... Solitaire...[/QUOTE]
lol mario and the likes have a fov like that for good reason. most tend not to render anything that's a specific distance outside of the screenspace, i remember in diablo 2 for example, the game was broken as hell with an FOV hack because ranged chars could shoot as far as the screen, but enemies wouldn't really function outside of the maximum resolution, so you could just melt shit from much further than other players
[QUOTE=PieClock;42930074]I don't mind what he says about settings usually.
A lot of the time you do hear him say that the settings on the game doesn't matter, if it's a game that's not going to benefit from it. If a game can benefit from it then it's a legitimate thing to criticize.[/QUOTE]
He's good at calling out games on their bullshit, like how the new Need for Speed is locked at 30FPS. Plus when he unlocked the framerate he couldn't even get it above 60 on his SLI Titans.
i find lower FoVs more cinematic. in general they frame scenes better and offer better overall composition . the usual default of 75 works fine for me in this respect. 90 feels fisheyed
obviously i can understand why some people prefer it either for medical reasons or simply because it is far more practical from a gameplay point of view
but i like things to look pretty
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
