On November 17 2011 08:35 Badred wrote: Wouldn't it only make sense to have a FOV of 200 degrees on your monitor if your monitor was taking up your entire FOV? Otherwise you've got 200 degrees of game vision taking up 60 degrees of your RL vision, and it looks like you're playing through a fish-eye lens.
I think Badred is right, it would look to weird unless you had a monitor that took up your entire field of vision or at least close to it. If you did have a monitor that size though, it would be sooo sweet!
Used to play some semi-pro Q3 back in the day and my fov was mostly around 110-120, and that was back on a 4:3 screen. Now with the 16: 9 and 16:10 screen, those FoV wouldn't look as weird as it looked back then. I wish games would lock the option out or limit it to a super low value such as 90.
Unfortunately for us, when the industry starts to adopt a default value, they often try to lock the other options out (FoV, Aspect ratio, resolution...). I don't know why the companies always try to force everyone to play the same, I find it really annoying and limits innovation. For example, if you unlock FoV for all games, screen makers might feel the need to exploit that as much as possible and offer wider screens so the screen coverage = our vision. If you always lock the FoV, then you basically give screen makers an excuse to never make something new and just give us the same stuff year after year.
Wewps, I got sidetracked a bit. Customizable FoV (specially for single player games where it can't be exploited as much) would be something I would welcome back with open arms... and pants down o.O
id rather move my mouse around more and have better vision of the things in my view (as they are larger) than have everything on the screen be even more tiny.
also, we may have 200 degree vision fields, but a large portion of that is peripheral, so having 200 degree vision with perfect clarity wouldn't make sense at all.
I think lower FOV works on consoles because a lot of people are sitting further away from their screen, but on PC people are sitting right in front of their monitor, which is why annoying console ported FOVs just simply don't work on PC, because it creates motion sickness/headaches much more easily. A lot of developers don't seem to understand that and make the FOV unchangeable (like in the PC version of MW3), or changeable only through console commands or editing files (like Skyrim).
Some people are alright with low FOVs, but when the FOV is low and you can't change it it can completely put people off a game because they feel sick or get headaches when playing it.
I like when games are beein realisitic and expanding the degree of vision seems like a good idea to me. But extending it more and pushing the limits always make me come up with the question of wehre are the limits? make it realistic and such but don t try to FULLY make it like real life because weak minds won t be able to sepperate or (sry to sound like the simpons referend guys wife) who thinks about the kids? givin them such strong media can realy hurt there mind bc they wont be able to sepperate real/virtuall life!
This video should explain a lot of things But the only way you're going to be "immersed" is when your peripheral vision is also involved I don't see why they would expand it any further than you actually are from the monitor or screen you're looking at
On November 17 2011 11:10 WaZuP wrote: I like when games are beein realisitic and expanding the degree of vision seems like a good idea to me. But extending it more and pushing the limits always make me come up with the question of wehre are the limits? make it realistic and such but don t try to FULLY make it like real life because weak minds won t be able to sepperate or (sry to sound like the simpons referend guys wife) who thinks about the kids? givin them such strong media can realy hurt there mind bc they wont be able to sepperate real/virtuall life!
Is there actually any evidence to support the idea that a child is unable to separate the two worlds?
Most FOVs in first person games are between 70 and 90.
Have you ever played a game with a FOV higher? I've tried with games on like 120 etc... it actually gets really dizzying and awful because while yes, technically the FOV is truer to your eyes, you are viewing it scrunched up on a screen that only takes up probably ~45 degrees of your vision. If monitors stretched all the way around to the top, bottom, and sides of our vision, you would be right. Without monitors like this (or perhaps like helmets with VR to surround our eyes closer to have a smaller screen? would prolly cause eye strain) it just isn't feasible to have such a large FOV.
On November 17 2011 11:39 -orb- wrote: Most FOVs in first person games are between 70 and 90.
Have you ever played a game with a FOV higher? I've tried with games on like 120 etc... it actually gets really dizzying and awful because while yes, technically the FOV is truer to your eyes, you are viewing it scrunched up on a screen that only takes up probably ~45 degrees of your vision. If monitors stretched all the way around to the top, bottom, and sides of our vision, you would be right. Without monitors like this (or perhaps like helmets with VR to surround our eyes closer to have a smaller screen? would prolly cause eye strain) it just isn't feasible to have such a large FOV.
Damn, ninja'd. You said basically what I wanted to say just much better lol. Oh well here is what I had anyway:
They probably won't do 200 because you lose visibility of things in the environment and it is harder to make things look symmetrical on normal desktop monitors. Some games do support it with additional monitors.
This video should explain a lot of things But the only way you're going to be "immersed" is when your peripheral vision is also involved I don't see why they would expand it any further than you actually are from the monitor or screen you're looking at
Ah, I was about to post it. He explains it the best.
The only way that I would want something around 200 degrees for my FOV is if I had like four monitors. Other than that I'll stick to my 90 that I'm used to.
i would imaging it'd be pretty sweet if there were monitors at widths wide enough to reach all the way to each point of you 180 degree view. when you walk forward you would really feel immersed into the game since your peripherals would be seeing everything that was just in front of you pass you by the very next second.
Would it be unsafe for many hours at a time however? I think so.
The reason consoles have a low default FOV is not because of shitty hardware, it's because the FOV is set based on your position relative to what you are viewing. IE, consoles expect you to be on the couch, further away from the TV, so your window you have to look through into the game world will show a smaller section (FOV). A PC should have a higher FOV, because you are normally closer to the monitor, thus it makes more sense to see more through your window into the game.
the whole 45° to 60° fov-thing really sucks and for the most part it is concole-based, bcause games like bf3 and mw3 are converted from console to pc w/out changing a damn thing... really sad...i'd rather stick to the good ol' shooters from ye days when i was grewin' up, but change is imminent.... everyone has its one preferences and principles!
On November 17 2011 12:02 CatNzHat wrote: You want your FoV in an FPS game to match the portion of your FoV that your monitor fills,
For example, my monitor fills 90* of my FoV, so when I play Quake, I set the FoV to 90*
i have this huge ass monitor, so i'd rather just sit really close to my monitor so the monitor takes up 100 degrees of my field of vision or something, and set fov to 100.
but preferably, i'd have 3 monitors that wrap around my head, and i'll set it to 180.
EPT
