Syndicate

[o'dium]

Halo 1 actually rendered at a much lower resolution in multiplayer split screen, and also lacked a lot of the effects and features, such as accurate physics on obejcts/monsters to match the single player. The colision detection was also way off there. In short, they did what they could to render the game on one screen. the FOV increase/decrease was pre-made, which means that the devs added it and then designed the experience around it.

I gotta agree with GKA here. Theres simply too many factors involved here that most people don't see. The first and most obvious is that the game was designed with a set FOV in mind. That means all on screen animations, ingaem cinematics etc, were designed around that FOV. Changing it will change the game, and in some cases, break it. Silent Hill 2 is a prime example, where if you change the FOV or aspect ratio, then you will see people offscreen in a none animated state waiting to walk on. Of course... If you pre-plan the game before hand with multiple FOV options then you will catch this. But that takes more time and effort (read: money) to do.

Then theres frame rate. Thats a huge issue. A more wide FOV means more on screen being rendered. That means less you can actuall do. making the FOV narrow is why some games can get away with what seems like murder in a scene, because they are drawing a lot less. If you let a player increae this on a console, it would reduce frame rate and thus, a whole host of people would cry about it being so slow. Catch 22. Of course, on PC, you don't need to worry there.

Then theres the competitive edge. In gaming online you want to have as even a playing field as possible. having one guy with fov 65 (the default COD value) and one with 120 (the max it should EVER be set to imo without cheating) means that one player will see pretty much double around him compared to the other... You don't want that. Of course, it stands to reason that you should give every player the same choice, i.e. if you dont like the fact some guy has the edge, then you can always switch to the same settings... But you shouldn't have to.

OverDose will allow FO from 65 to 120 I believe, but we are a PC game, and a multiplayer one to boot. We dont worry about cinematics or frame rates to the same extent. We will also have an option in the UI/console to change this. The default is 75, because we feel thats pretty much become the new standard, but 90 will work. I guess its just important to offer "choice" to people, rather than force them into somehing. But I totally see why people get so up in arms about it. I can't stand playing certain PC games because they force FOV on us. In fact, BLOPS was fantastic because they let you change the FOV, and then boom, back to square 1 in MW3, they locked it... but then everything in MW3 was a huge step backwards IMO...

tldr - Its just the way it is. Deal with it.

[brisk]

Oh I deal with it. I simply don't buy the games if the FOV is going to make me sick.

Shit excuses for the most part. When even the console FOV is so narrow that it produces nausea on a TV, then there are serious fundamental issues with the design in the first place.

I can't be the only one who plays PC games hooked up via HDMI to my TV. I always use a FOV of around 80/90+, usually only slightly less than what I find comfortable on the monitor. It just feels more natural than a shitty 60 FOV that feels like i'm viewing the whole world with binoculars.

L4D2 doesn't have a FOV slider, but looks perfect. It scales to the exact comfortable value depending on your monitor resolution and ratio. There is a colour blind option too. There is a reason why Valve get's such high praise and it's simply because they spend a little extra time, making the game as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible.

[o'dium]

Sheep boy...? I fixed it in my own game. Same as native pad support. Same as developer console and lots of advanced options.

Trouble is shit takes time... But we had time. Simples.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Shit excuses for the most part.

You'll live. It's just a video game.

L4D2 doesn't have a FOV slider, but looks perfect. It scales to the exact comfortable value depending on your monitor resolution and ratio.

Like I said, someone has to do the work to make it look good at different resolutions and ratios. Add an FOV slider to the mix and you've exponentially increased the workload.

There is a reason why Valve get's such high praise and it's simply because they spend a little extra time, making the game as comfortable as possible for as many people as possible.

Why do I get the feeling that if Valve took too much "extra time" that you'd bitch that Valve takes too long to release games? Seriously...if you think the games industry has the ability to please every single gamer then you don't understand the amount of work involved nor do you understand basic economics.

Stop being so petulant and man up.

[brisk]

Like I said, I just refuse to pay for games that don't take the issue of FOV seriously. If developers choose to release a game for the PC market, then they need to understand why FOV adjustment is so critical. It's literally stopping people from playing their game.

I'm not sure why you have such a blasé attitude about it. I can only assume you've either had to bend over for publisher's so much in the past that you've become apathetic to everything, or you simply don't think it's a big deal that people are being made physically sick attempting to play games. Both are pretty discouraging.

You were the one who said that players should make their voices heard if they don't want buggy/shitty games on the market. I'd much rather have developers take the extra time to make their games perfect. Not once have I moaned about Valve or any other studio for taking too long with their games.

Now stop being petulant and man up to your publisher/lead devs and tell them FOV is important. Thx.

[shaft]

I'm sure you can find any reason to justify not paying for a game.

[MKJ]

got em

[Eraser]

I'm guessing only a fraction of the people who buy games actually have a problem with the FOV in games, and of those people only a small amount do openly complain about it.

The thing is: the problem probably isn't big enough for developers to spend a lot of time on.

I don't know how hard it is to support different FOV levels, but I do know that even for 2D games it can be challenging to support various resolutions and, more importantly, different aspect ratios. I can imagine that adding different FOVs to that mix, you get some complex stuff that's hard to QA well.

[brisk]

ouch

[Dark Metal]

Pretty sure everyone is calling Brisk a bitch.

[brisk]

irc going CRAYZEE again? i'll pop along shortly and lay down some mac hate, just to really make your week.

[Dark Metal]

I'm not in irc right now, so there's really no point in making an appearance.

[brisk]

OK, thanks for your input Dark Metal.

[Dark Metal]

You're welcome brisk, I'm always willing to help out an e-bro.

[GONNAFISTYA]

If developers choose to release a game for the PC market, then they need to understand why FOV adjustment is so critical. It's literally stopping people from playing their game.

I'm not sure why you have such a blasé attitude about it. I can only assume you've either had to bend over for publisher's so much in the past that you've become apathetic to everything, or you simply don't think it's a big deal that people are being made physically sick attempting to play games. Both are pretty discouraging.

FFS man video games can cause people epileptic seizures and there's nothing the games industry can do to help those people, either....which is why I have a blasé attitude about it. Appliance manufacturers can't do anything about people who stick forks in toasters, so they don't try.

If video games make you sick, then don't play them. I don't feel sorry for anyone who is fully cognizant of how something affects them and partakes in it anyway.

[brisk]

That's a terrible, terrible response and you know it GKY.

It's a design-related problem that is easily fixed, yet they choose to ignore it. Simple as that really.

[GONNAFISTYA]

My brother is left handed and he simply refuses to play FPS that have the weapon on the wrong side, because he can't change it to suit his desire.

[Dark Metal]

You sure told GFY, brisk.

[MKJ]

oh no he plays them, he just refuses to pay for them.

[GONNAFISTYA]

That's a terrible, terrible response and you know it GKY.

It's a design-related problem that is easily fixed, yet they choose to ignore it. Simple as that really.

You're a moron. I just explained in detail as to why it's NOT easily fixed. I didn't ignore it...I answered your question.
Take a fucking vacation to a beach somewhere.

[brisk]

Honestly, i'm fully aware that a lot of shit people moan about (myself included) is pedantic and unnecessary, but FOV is something that can be fixed, but they choose not to. Epilepsy is something completely different and is caused by the lights on the TV itself, not the developers making games to be seen on them.

If it wasn't such a big deal, then why does that video I posted have a quarter of a million hits, with the developer responding personally promising to fix it? Just look on the steam forums for any new FPS that has been released and I guarantee there will be a thread with someone moaning about FOV, followed by a shitload of responses/workarounds.

[Dark Metal]

You sure are excited about this, brisk. Maybe you should enjoy a chillax pill, and grove to some 8 bit video game music while you remember what it was like to game before worrying about FOV.

[Eraser]

Honestly, i'm fully aware that a lot of shit people moan about (myself included) is pedantic and unnecessary

Yeah, like texture quality in Rage

[brisk]

You sure are excited about this, brisk. Maybe you should enjoy a chillax pill, and grove to some 8 bit video game music while you remember what it was like to game before worrying about FOV.

You're a rubbish troll and an even worse admin. Just sayin'

[Dark Metal]

Muffin, don't get all upset.