trrll's justification of Bioshocks bad FOV

Post by **Ryom** » 12 Sep 2007, 05:54

It is strange the effort he puts into this when he would be quite unaffected if we get our way (or even if we didn't). He is literally arguing against someone gaining something while nobody else loses anything... and he already has what he wants, so where does the motivation to rally against others stem from? It seems a bit self-centered and selfish to me.

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 12 Sep 2007, 06:35

Paddy showed you this one before I got time to answer. :) Take a note about his explaination about peripheral vision...

What he didn't explain is why it would not be better to see an undistorted image in your peripheral vision than a distorted one.

May I interpete this that you are reluctant to give a spesific angle and which part of the eyesight you base this upon?

If you talk about the angle occupied by the screen in your visual field and speak of our stereo vision, we are talking about a 180 degrees angle when the screen covers the whole visual field. Now, I ask you again, what angle do you refer to?

Calculating the angle is such basic trig that it didn't occur to me to give the formula. The angle is 2 * arctan(w/2d) where w is the width of the screen and d is the distance from your eyes to the center of the screen. What part of the visual field this occupies depends upon w and d. Regardless of what proportion of the visual field this occupies, perspective will be correct when the FOV equals this angle.

Your should read this before you answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

The article is correct but fairly basic. What is your point?

If your brain actually made such an assumption, you would find it terribly disorienting to look out a window. You would be expecting to see more to the sides when looking out a window two feet wide and two feet high than you see when looking out a window two feet wide and one foot high. Since perspective doesn't actually work that way, looking out windows of different shapes would be horribly confusing. But your brain understands perspective. It knows that looking through a two foot wide window from one foot away will show you the same horizontal FOV no matter what the window's aspect ratio is.

Our brains makes such assumption. So does widescreen users. We EXPECT to see more horizontal (hor+).

If your brain actually made such an assumption, objects would look smaller if viewed through a short window than through a tall window. I can't speak for you, but I don't experience this, and I don't know anybody who does.

When the perspective is correct in a first person game, you're brain and your wishes are to interpete the 3d world as if you are a part of it, not looking at it through a window. This is also one of the good parts with tripplehead, since it adds to the peripheral vision so to increase that effect. Increasing the horizontal FOV does just that. It makes it easier for the gamer to feel a part of the 3d world.

When you are looking out a window or doorway, you are looking at the world that you are part of. And your brain, with a lifetime of experience looking through windows and other types of holes, has a clear understanding of how perspective works in the world that you are part of, and especially the geometric fact that the horizontal FOV through a window does not depend at all upon how tall the window is, but only upon its width and how far you are away from it. If the FOV does not match the width of the screen, it signals the brain that what you are viewing is a picture, not a view of the world that you are part of.

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 12 Sep 2007, 06:42

the thing is in a game i dont want to be looking out a window
i want to be in the head of the guy/girl im playing

and in that case you would see more the sides playing in 4:3 would be like having blinders on

also have you seen how Quake wars does widescreen?
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/8124
that is how it should be done wide screen is WIDE and for 5:4 TALLER
then 4:3 seems to me id can write a better engine then EPIC could ever hope to

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 12 Sep 2007, 06:48

The more he posts, the more I'm convinced he works for them.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6627&page=78

If not, I wonder why he puts so much effort into arguing about this...?

For the record, I am a scientist, with no affiliation with any videogame company. But I like videogames, and I'm also interested in the brain, perception, and geometric principles of 3D graphics. And I'm particularly enjoying Bioshock, and I think that the choice of FOV is one thing that makes it so much more realistic and immersive than any of the other FPS games that I've played.

As I've said before, I'm not dismissing the validity of your personal preferences regarding FOV, and it's fine with me if you choose to hack the game to your own specifications. Tastes differ. The only point that I am making is that it is a matter of taste, and the FOV chosen for Bioshock is consistent with valid principles of perspective, geometry, and perception--which probably has something to do with why it is receiving rave reviews everywhere and has already sold over 1.5 million copies. One thing that I've found is that after playing Bioshock, I find it unpleasant to look at games such as Doom3 or F.E.A.R. that use extremely wide FOVs. I suspect that the strong sales of Bioshock may start a trend toward more realistic choices of FOV in videogames.

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 12 Sep 2007, 06:57

and you still havent told us why every other game uses hor+

and i think we can all say id wrote the book on FPS games and if they thing hor+ is the way to do it THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY

JohnnyWakko · Post by **JohnnyWakko** » 12 Sep 2007, 07:07

Then if you really are a scientist, then you should have access to online journals and the like. Here is one for you to read and one that 2K should have read.

Future directions in visual display systems:

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=271301&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=28560830&CFTOKEN=56166811

Arrayed display systems are already providing a leap in simultaneous wide field of view and high resolution. These advances are fundamentally changing the way in which information can be represented by increasing information bandwidth and enabling a deeper engagement of our visual senses.

If you read that paper you will realise that by restricting fov to vert+/- a developer is being totally digressive to the direction of where the visual human interface industry has headed, and is heading.

It is not a design decision, artisitc design, scientific desciosn, that is all a complete farse to me. The reason I say that is:

UnrealEngine3 games are now vert+
UnrealEngine3 is the first major console porting engine
The previous UnrealEngine games have always designed for hor+
The previous UnrealEngine games have not been major console porting games

So to say 2K deisgned it like this is a farse. To say this was thier artistic decision is also a farse. On the scientific front, why would they go designing new procedures, new FOV's, new angles from thier previous data that now conflicts with previous engines, and previous game developers. The plausible answer is consoles to me. Its the only major difference.

Conspiracy, perhaps, who can tell. Still smells.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 12 Sep 2007, 07:51

[quote]The more he posts, the more I'm convinced he works for them.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6627&page=78

If not, I wonder why he puts so much effort into arguing about this...?

For the record, I am a scientist, with no affiliation with any videogame company. But I like videogames, and I'm also interested in the brain, perception, and geometric principles of 3D graphics. And I'm particularly enjoying Bioshock, and I think that the choice of FOV is one thing that makes it so much more realistic and immersive than any of the other FPS games that I've played.And everybody else clearly (it seems) perceives things in these video games differently to you ... as Bioshock's FOV to most people is wrong ...
As a "scientist" wouldn't you be better spending your time looking at why your brain and it's perception is so odd compared to everyone else's ...
Trying to justify Bioshocks poorly implemented FOV over and over again with such poor arguments (it seems in most peoples opinion) isn't going to help you or change their minds.
This repeated justification (with all its twists) to those that and disagree with you is also why people think you have an "interest" so to speak in your justification.

[quote]Paddy showed you this one before I got time to answer. :) Take a note about his explaination about peripheral vision...

What he didn't explain is why it would not be better to see an undistorted image in your peripheral vision than a distorted one.I don't need to as TripleHead gaming works fine as it is ... as I explained.
I didn't say an undistorted image across the three screens wouldn't be more or less desirable ... I have never seen it in a FPS game how can I know.
You haven't played a game in Triplehead but you poo poo it ... very scientific.
You would have more credibility if you didn't keep unscientifically twisting things as you did with that question ... you are making yourself look a fool not a scientist.

All of this just convinces me more that you are arguing for the sake of it ... and it is uncanny how you twist things to suit your point of view just as 2K did with ... it was an artistic or design decision ...
They got it wrong and they are changing it ... they even thanked us for pointing it out and said what an awesome forum we have here ... a forum that believes in Horz+ ... :wink:

Post by **Tamlin** » 12 Sep 2007, 08:06

What he didn't explain is why it would not be better to see an undistorted image in your peripheral vision than a distorted one.

Any distortion in the image is a limitation in either the game or the technology itself. Paddy was explaining how the extra content for the peripheral vision which you get with tripplehead increases the game experience. With a locked horizontal FOV as with Bioshock, you can't get this.

Calculating the angle is such basic trig that it didn't occur to me to give the formula. The angle is 2 * arctan(w/2d) where w is the width of the screen and d is the distance from your eyes to the center of the screen. What part of the visual field this occupies depends upon w and d. Regardless of what proportion of the visual field this occupies, perspective will be correct when the FOV equals this angle.

This is the same formula as the other one you have referred to earlier, just put in another way. I wasn't asking for the formula on how to calculate the FOV based upon the distance you are sitting. Bioshock have a locked horizontal FOV and its not adjustable to where you are sitting. As I have mentioned earlier, 75 degrees are too narrow for desktop widescreen gaming. Since we are talking about a locked FOV which you defend with this formula saying its optimal, I am asking you once again: Whats the relevance of the given "optimal" angle compared to human eyesight?

The article is correct but fairly basic. What is your point?

To give you some insight upon human vision, since you, despite calling yourself teacher, are operating with a 75 degrees optimal angle despite how the human vision functions.

If your brain actually made such an assumption, objects would look smaller if viewed through a short window than through a tall window. I can't speak for you, but I don't experience this, and I don't know anybody who does.

I think you misunderstand. We EXPECT to see more horizontal [hor+). The size of the objects registered with our brains are based upon our depth perception as mentioned earlier.

When you are looking out a window or doorway, you are looking at the world that you are part of. And your brain, with a lifetime of experience looking through windows and other types of holes, has a clear understanding of how perspective works in the world that you are part of, and especially the geometric fact that the horizontal FOV through a window does not depend at all upon how tall the window is, but only upon its width and how far you are away from it. If the FOV does not match the width of the screen, it signals the brain that what you are viewing is a picture, not a view of the world that you are part of.

This is where you don't understand the mission for first person shooters and people. We don't want to look through a window or stand at a doorstep. We want to be in the world. Our lifetime experience differ from yours. we are not looking at the world through a window or AT a window if to use Bioshocks FOV.

Osuperman · Post by **Osuperman** » 12 Sep 2007, 13:41

[quote]The more he posts, the more I'm convinced he works for them.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6627&page=78

If not, I wonder why he puts so much effort into arguing about this...?

For the record, I am a scientist, with no affiliation with any videogame company. But I like videogames, and I'm also interested in the brain, perception, and geometric principles of 3D graphics. And I'm particularly enjoying Bioshock, and I think that the choice of FOV is one thing that makes it so much more realistic and immersive than any of the other FPS games that I've played.

As I've said before, I'm not dismissing the validity of your personal preferences regarding FOV, and it's fine with me if you choose to hack the game to your own specifications. Tastes differ. The only point that I am making is that it is a matter of taste, and the FOV chosen for Bioshock is consistent with valid principles of perspective, geometry, and perception--which probably has something to do with why it is receiving rave reviews everywhere and has already sold over 1.5 million copies. One thing that I've found is that after playing Bioshock, I find it unpleasant to look at games such as Doom3 or F.E.A.R. that use extremely wide FOVs. I suspect that the strong sales of Bioshock may start a trend toward more realistic choices of FOV in videogames.

Now I doubt I can put it better than the gentlemen who have already replied trrll, but...

I undertsand that you enjoy the FOV found in BioShock, I'm happy for you. I agree it's a matter of taste, you prefer the default FOV and I don't. However, the method in which they have implemented your favoured FOV, basically ruins the experience for users on wider monitors, such as triple head (and those of us who sit close to the screen)... That's hardly fair is it?

In its current state, BioShock also prevents the game from ever being run on superwide monitors, wouldn't you rather it were flexible and could cater for future technologies?

As BioShock is LOCKED into a 4:3 aspect ratio... the wider you go, the less you see... and the more restricted the view (or window, as you like to call it) becomes... Now I understand that the developers will have created the game with a certain view (or window) in mind, and didn't want to cater for wider setups, but that in my opinion, is stupid and short sighted.

But if you head read Paddy's thread detailing the fact that almost every recent U3 engine game uses exactly the same FOV/widescreen implementation method as BioShock, then you would know that your arguments on the side of 2K with regards to the "artistic" aesthetics was nonsense. Any man can see that, why you can't, a scientist, is beyond me.

URL: (I suggest you read it) [url]http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/8056]

EDIT: Also, when you call us a "very small minority of malcontents." it only serves to validate DestructoBots comments earlier that you come across self centered and selfish.

He is literally arguing against someone gaining something while nobody else loses anything... and he already has what he wants, so where does the motivation to rally against others stem from? It seems a bit self-centered and selfish to me.

Tanuki · Post by **Tanuki** » 12 Sep 2007, 15:47

I suspect that the strong sales of Bioshock may start a trend toward more realistic choices of FOV in videogames.

So that is why everyone bought Bioshock! 8)

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 12 Sep 2007, 16:10

And everybody else clearly (it seems) perceives things in these video games differently to you ... as Bioshock's FOV to most people is wrong ...
As a "scientist" wouldn't you be better spending your time looking at why your brain and it's perception is so odd compared to everyone else's ...
Trying to justify Bioshocks poorly implemented FOV over and over again with such poor arguments (it seems in most peoples opinion) isn't going to help you or change their minds.
This repeated justification (with all its twists) to those that and disagree with you is also why people think you have an "interest" so to speak in your justification.

Considering that the game has already sold over 1.5 million copies, and has received rave reviews in every professional review that I've seen, you are on pretty shaky grounds in insisting that "everyone" sees problems with Bioshock's FOV. I've already posted multiple references from sources on 3D graphics explaining how the preferred FOV is the one for which the FOV equals the number of degrees occupied by the screen in the visual field (wanna see 'em again?), so my view is in line with that of experts in the fields of 3D graphics, simulation, and virtual reality. I think, rather, that a few people have spent so much time looking at distorted images in FPS games with an overwide FOV that now a natural FOV looks funny to them.

What he didn't explain is why it would not be better to see an I didn't say an undistorted image across the three screens wouldn't be more or less desirable ... I have never seen it in a FPS game how can I know.
You haven't played a game in Triplehead but you poo poo it ... very scientific. You would have more credibility if you didn't keep unscientifically twisting things as you did with that question ... you are making yourself look a fool not a scientist.

It is, however, an unavoidable fact of geometry that wrapping an image that is calculated for projection on a plane around angled monitors will produce severe distortion. Scientifically speaking, this is not rocket science. There has been considerable research into the best way to use multiple monitors to produce a perfect perspective view. Look up the "CAVE" virtual reality environment, for example.

All of this just convinces me more that you are arguing for the sake of it ... and it is uncanny how you twist things to suit your point of view just as 2K did with ... it was an artistic or design decision ...
They got it wrong and they are changing it ... they even thanked us for pointing it out and said what an awesome forum we have here ... a forum that believes in Horz+ ... :wink:

So a minute ago I was somehow in cahoots with 2K, and now you are pointing out that I am out of step with their corporate policy. I have no complaint with 2K's decision to accommodate those who find that the FOV is not to their personal taste. That doesn't mean that they have acknowledged that they got it "wrong" (and Bioshock's huge sales and strong reviews certainly argue that they didn't), but simply that they have sensibly decided to smooth the issue over rather than argue about it. If I had a financial interest in Bioshock, I'd certainly be saying the same thing that they are. In business a good policy is "the customer is always right, even when he is wrong." We'll see what they actually do. If they really believe that they got it wrong, then the patch will change the default FOV. If they are just accommodating some disgruntled customers, then they'll keep the same default, but provide an option to modify it.

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 12 Sep 2007, 16:14

and yet you still wont comment on why other major games do it right?

what about Quake wars or HL2
id and Valve did it right and pretty much defined the FPS
dont you think they would know this too?

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 12 Sep 2007, 17:03

[quote]And everybody else clearly (it seems) perceives things in these video games differently to you ... as Bioshock's FOV to most people is wrong ...
As a "scientist" wouldn't you be better spending your time looking at why your brain and it's perception is so odd compared to everyone else's ...
Trying to justify Bioshocks poorly implemented FOV over and over again with such poor arguments (it seems in most peoples opinion) isn't going to help you or change their minds.
This repeated justification (with all its twists) to those that and disagree with you is also why people think you have an "interest" so to speak in your justification.

Considering that the game has already sold over 1.5 million copies, and has received rave reviews in every professional review that I've seen, you are on pretty shaky grounds in insisting that "everyone" sees problems with Bioshock's FOV. You know what I meant ... stop twisting things and splitting hairs ... :wink:

What he didn't explain is why it would not be better to see an I didn't say an undistorted image across the three screens wouldn't be more or less desirable ...
[quote] I have never seen it in a FPS game how can I know.
You haven't played a game in Triplehead but you poo poo it ... very scientific. You would have more credibility if you didn't keep unscientifically twisting things as you did with that question ... you are making yourself look a fool not a scientist.

It is, however, an unavoidable fact of geometry that wrapping an image that is calculated for projection on a plane around angled monitors will produce severe distortion. Scientifically speaking, this is not rocket science. There has been considerable research into the best way to use multiple monitors to produce a perfect perspective view. Look up the "CAVE" virtual reality environment, for example.

You said that already and I didn't particularly disagree with you I just said TripleHead is ok as it is now and gave you my reasons why.
It also doesn't change what I said in that quote you quoted ... :wink:

All of this just convinces me more that you are arguing for the sake of it ... and it is uncanny how you twist things to suit your point of view just as 2K did with ... it was an artistic or design decision ...
They got it wrong and they are changing it ... they even thanked us for pointing it out and said what an awesome forum we have here ... a forum that believes in Horz+ ... :wink:

So a minute ago I was somehow in cahoots with 2K, and now you are pointing out that I am out of step with their corporate policy.

Where did I say you are in cahoots with 2K ? ... I said ... "people think you have an "interest" so to speak in your justification." ... stop twisting things.
Re the "corporate policy" bit of what you said ... read what I said again ... this time without twisting things ... :wink:

I have no complaint with 2K's decision to accommodate those who find that the FOV is not to their personal taste. That doesn't mean that they have acknowledged that they got it "wrong" (and Bioshock's huge sales and strong reviews certainly argue that they didn't), ...

Getting huge sales doesn't mean they got the FOV right either ... :wink: ... stop twisting things ... :wink:

If they really believe that they got it wrong, then the patch will change the default FOV. If they are just accommodating some disgruntled customers, then they'll keep the same default, but provide an option to modify it.

There you go twisting to your own ends/justification before they have even happened ... :lol:
It won't necessarily mean that at all ... maybe they will construct it the way Racer_S did it as they seem to be happy with that ... :wink:

Osuperman · Post by **Osuperman** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:23

and yet you still wont comment on why other major games do it right?

what about Quake wars or HL2
id and Valve did it right and pretty much defined the FPS
dont you think they would know this too?

Probably because he has no way to put a spin on it (other than to say they are all wrong(-rediculous!) and BioShock is right?) for it to make any sense according to his stupid claims. Scientist be damned (he sucks if he is one; aren't they supposed to listen to reason?), he should be a politician...

Post by **MobsterOO7** » 12 Sep 2007, 20:04

Since when have you ever heard of a scientist listening to reason? They're so self inflated that they can't see past their own opinions. It's the reason there is still debates about creationism, evolution, and the big bang.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 12 Sep 2007, 20:30

Since when have you ever heard of a scientist listening to reason? They're so self inflated that they can't see past their own opinions. It's the reason there is still debates about creationism, evolution, and the big bang.

Religion vs. Science has no place in this thread.

Everyone is opinionated. You're a perfect example with that post.

BlueMak · Post by **BlueMak** » 12 Sep 2007, 21:11

[quote]Since when have you ever heard of a scientist listening to reason? They're so self inflated that they can't see past their own opinions. It's the reason there is still debates about creationism, evolution, and the big bang.

Religion vs. Science has no place in this thread.

Everyone is opinionated. You're a perfect example with that post.

pwned lol

Post by **Tamlin** » 12 Sep 2007, 21:22

Considering that the game has already sold over 1.5 million copies, and has received rave reviews in every professional review that I've seen, you are on pretty shaky grounds in insisting that "everyone" sees problems with Bioshock's FOV. I've already posted multiple references from sources on 3D graphics explaining how the preferred FOV is the one for which the FOV equals the number of degrees occupied by the screen in the visual field (wanna see 'em again?), so my view is in line with that of experts in the fields of 3D graphics, simulation, and virtual reality. I think, rather, that a few people have spent so much time looking at distorted images in FPS games with an overwide FOV that now a natural FOV looks funny to them.

The half life series have over 15 million copies sold.
http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=news&id=648

If anything Bioshock got MORE sales due to bad FOV implentation and all the publicity it received around it.

There is probably a lot of 4:3 users within the 1.5 million copies sold too, don't you think? ;) And they are not complaining about FOV being too wide....

Talking about the sales of Bioshock is a waste of time, unless for publicity reasons. It does not reflect whether or not the FOV was bad and if you really were a scientist, you'd dismiss that as evidence. People are not complaining about the game being bad, but that the FOV implentation of it was bad, the choice of securerom protection didn't please the users, and also the limited activation. Many games have a lot of bugs and errors after first launch, and even though they have sold much, it doesn't mean the bugs doesn't excist. Take a look at Windows Vista. In may there were 50 million copies sold. By your arguments, it should be bug free. Its not.
http://news.com.com/Gates+40+million+Vista+copies+sold/2100-1016_3-6183890.html

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 12 Sep 2007, 23:17

I undertsand that you enjoy the FOV found in BioShock, I'm happy for you. I agree it's a matter of taste, you prefer the default FOV and I don't. However, the method in which they have implemented your favoured FOV, basically ruins the experience for users on wider monitors, such as triple head (and those of us who sit close to the screen)... That's hardly fair is it?

It certainly would not be fair if 2K had advertised the game as providing optimized support for nonstandard ultrawide display configurations. But so far as I know they have not made any such claim. I don't personally own a triple head configuration, but am I correct in presuming that it is possible to simply turn off the two side monitors? In that case, Bioshock provides triple head owners with exactly the same experience that it provides owners of standard configurations, which hardly seems unfair.

In its current state, BioShock also prevents the game from ever being run on superwide monitors, wouldn't you rather it were flexible and could cater for future technologies?

I certainly think that it is reasonable to request such support, although I am astonished by the sense of entitlement that I'm hearing from people who own such configurations. Do you believe that they are obligated to invest in providing an enhanced gaming experience to an unusual, nonstandard configuration that probably constitutes less than 1% of their customer base and that the game is not advertised as supporting?

But if you head read Paddy's thread detailing the fact that almost every recent U3 engine game uses exactly the same FOV/widescreen implementation method as BioShock, then you would know that your arguments on the side of 2K with regards to the "artistic" aesthetics was nonsense. Any man can see that, why you can't, a scientist, is beyond me.

I read the thread. I don't think his argument makes sense. I think that there are very good reasons why the vert+ approach to supporting 4:3 monitors is becoming more common; I predict that it will become the rule rather than the exception. With more and more people owning 16:9 and 16:10 displays, and with games being developed specifically for that aspect ratio, developers are going to be less and less inclined to invest large amounts of money in optimizing the game to support 4:3 displays. When a game was developed and optimized initially for 4:3, expanding the view a bit for widescreen was not a huge risk--it might make the game too easy, but it wouldn't make it too hard. But now that games are being developed initially for wide aspect ratios, a developer is likely to worry that chopping off the sides for 4:3 will chop off key parts of in-game videos, and perhaps even make the game unplayably hard. So keeping the same FOV for 4:3 is cheaper, and effectively the path of least resistance. And since nobody likes letterboxing, they just open up the game vertically. From Levine's comments, it is clear that this is what happened with Bioshock. They went through "dozens" of possible FOVs for 16:9, but he wasn't even involved in deciding what to do for 4:3; it sounds like somebody showed him the game running in 4:3 and he said, "fine."

Although the people complaining are mainly widescreen owners, this is actually more of a problem for 4:3 owners. For many games, a horiz- solution might well provide a better 4:3 gaming experience. A wider FOV makes everything smaller and less dramatic on the screen, and 4:3 screens often (although not always) are physically narrower. This means that 4:3 players may have to sit uncomfortably close to get a perspective-correct playing experience. In addition, smaller images also suffer more from the frequently lower resolution of 4:3 displays, a well known problem with letterboxed display of widescreen movies.

He is literally arguing against someone gaining something while nobody else loses anything... and he already has what he wants, so where does the motivation to rally against others stem from? It seems a bit self-centered and selfish to me.

As I've said many times, I have never argued against the use of the wide-FOV hack (although I do recommend that people give the original FOV a fair trial), nor against the release of an official 2K approved patch. My only argument has been that the FOV of Bioshock is a valid and reasonable artistic decision, that actually provides most players with more correct perspective than conventional ultrawide FOV displays. It is perfectly reasonable for players who prefer a wider FOV to request this; however, they should recognize that they are asking the developer to accommodate a personal preference, and that there are no reasonable grounds to insist that the original display is in any sense incorrect or buggy.

It is certainly true that just like many people around here I am self-centered to the extent that I would like more games to cater to my own personal taste, and for me I find that a perspective-correct FOV such as that of Bioshock provides a superior playing experience. However, I have never objected to developers providing options for players to customize the FOV of a noncompetitive game such as Bioshock.

Most people around here already have what they want, too--a working patch, and the promise of an official one. Yet quite a few are still interested in debating the issue with me. Nobody is in danger of losing anything, so we are arguing not about what should be done about Bioshock (a settled issue) but about general matters of perspective, geometry, and game design.

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 12 Sep 2007, 23:38

and yet you still wont comment on why other major games do it right?

what about Quake wars or HL2
id and Valve did it right and pretty much defined the FPS
dont you think they would know this too?

I have commented on it many times, but I'm happy to repeat it.

Different games, different solutions. There is no one "right" choice for FOV. It is a design choice that depends upon a developer's artistic and gameplay goals. There are inherent tradeoffs. A very wide FOV provides a substitute for peripheral vision, at the price of visible distortion that (at typical viewing distances) expands objects at the edge of the screen and miniaturizes them in the center. A narrower FOV provides a more natural, perspective correct display in which objects appear actual size, but loses peripheral vision.

So a developer of a game that is primarily about shooting may well find that a wide FOV best serves his gameplay goals. A developer who is more concerned about atmosphere and immersion may choose a narrower, perspective-correct default FOV. The former approach is certainly easier in terms of game design. A developer using a narrow FOV needs to carefully design levels so that players are not blindsided so often that it becomes annoying, or needs to find other ways of compensating for the absence of peripheral vision, such as using audio cues. The increasing popularity of surround sound makes this more practical than it used to be. The developers of Bioshock clearly went to great trouble to achieve this. Everything has an audio cue associated with it. The splicers are always raving, the Little Sisters are constantly talking, the Big Daddies are stomping around, and the multichannel sound provides clear directional cues so that you are almost never blindsided. There is currently a Bioshock review thread going on Slashdock. There are plenty of complaints about the game being aired, but I notice two things: last time I looked, nobody was complaining about the FOV being too narrow (although that may change now that I've posted this), and nobody was complaining that the game is too hard, or that they are constantly getting blindsided by enemies.

Widescreen Gaming Forum