Field of view

[Xuvial]

Thanks!

But that's an extremely "scenic" screenshot and really gives no idea of perspective since literally everything in view is twisted/broken and set at odd angles, I can't tell how far anything is in relation to the character. It's also not a camera angle anyone would use while actually playing the game. Also Charr are naturally huge. Definitely not the camera example I'm looking for

I found this, would it be correct for max zoom distance?



I'll look for a gameplay video meanwhile where the player is adjusting the camera.

[iCandy]

Thanks!

That's an extremely "scenic" screenshot and Charr are naturally huge, so probably not the one I'm looking for

I found this, would it be correct?

Kinda looks like it's still zoomed in a little, or even colliding with a wall or something behind the camera.

I could be wrong though, it looks close to max zoom.

[Dazzy]

They probably don't add it because it's basically useless in mmo's.

If you switched your FOV (the command to change it in most FPS games) to even half what it is on a 3 monitor setup it is unplayable.

If you don't believe me fire up your favorite fps game (most with a standard fov of 90-100) and switch it to fov_175 (about what a 3 screen setup is).
On a single screen everything is so blurred it's not nearly playable.

Max camera zoom out is nowhere near the same fov as a 3 screen setup, when you zoom out far enough to get that kind of view on the side your character moves about 100 miles away and you can barely see it.

I used a 3 monitor setup in the Quake series games for the slight added advantage, and have tried it with other games but it's just such a burden to run it's not worth it imo.

[Deleted]

They probably don't add it because it's basically useless in mmo's.

Did you read the thread before posting? It's not useless.

[iCandy]

Did you read the thread before posting? It's not useless.

While it's not useless, it's also not needed.

Look at GW1...that game has the same amount of zoom and millions played it just fine.

Don't get me wrong, I would love more zoom..I want to see more of the words at a single moment than I can now, but at the same time I don't see it hindering my gameplay to the point where I go on a "GW2 Strike". Look at it this way, if enough people complain, it will get updated. ArenaNet isn't Blizzard, but they're also not idiots, they will want to appease their customers.

[Deleted]

While it's not useless, it's also not needed.

Look at GW1...that game has the same amount of zoom and millions played it just fine.

Don't get me wrong, I would love more zoom..I want to see more of the words at a single moment than I can now, but at the same time I don't see it hindering my gameplay to the point where I go on a "GW2 Strike". Look at it this way, if enough people complain, it will get updated. ArenaNet isn't Blizzard, but they're also not idiots, they will want to appease their customers.

But it's not always about zoom, it's about FoV. Like I say, zoom does not equal FoV.

Millions play tonnes of games just fine, that's because millions don't suffer from FoV sickness. It IS needed. They add crap that updates the models to be ever so slightly sharper for graphics elitists. Is that more important than making a small bunch of people actually able to play the game? No it isn't, yet it's still there.

Sorry but if you're catering for people who want to make texture details look more realistic than real life then as far as I'm concerned you MUST be catering to people who can't even play your game because of FoV issues that trigger medical reactions.

[iCandy]

But it's not always about zoom, it's about FoV. Like I say, zoom does not equal FoV.

Millions play tonnes of games just fine, that's because millions don't suffer from FoV sickness. It IS needed. They add crap that updates the models to be ever so slightly sharper for graphics elitists. Is that more important than making a small bunch of people actually able to play the game? No it isn't, yet it's still there.

Sorry but if you're catering for people who want to make texture details look more realistic than real life then as far as I'm concerned you MUST be catering to people who can't even play your game because of FoV issues that trigger medical reactions.

I get FOV sickness in any FPS with 60 FOV as default(and doesn't offer FOV options) but I've never once had it in any MMO or SP-RPG.

I've never heard of anyone getting it from an MMO. Unless they just stare at their character 100% of the time which means they're almost crossing their eyes, then yes, that would cause headaches.

[Deleted]

I get FOV sickness in any FPS with 60 FOV as default(and doesn't offer FOV options) but I've never once had it in any MMO or SP-RPG.

I've never heard of anyone getting it from an MMO. Unless they just stare at their character 100% of the time which means they're almost crossing their eyes, then yes, that would cause headaches.

Many people get it for tonnes of different things. It's not much of an effort adding an FoV slider, it's not like they have to change their engine.

[Nexrex]

They probably don't add it because it's basically useless in mmo's.

If you switched your FOV (the command to change it in most FPS games) to even half what it is on a 3 monitor setup it is unplayable.

If you don't believe me fire up your favorite fps game (most with a standard fov of 90-100) and switch it to fov_175 (about what a 3 screen setup is).
On a single screen everything is so blurred it's not nearly playable.

Max camera zoom out is nowhere near the same fov as a 3 screen setup, when you zoom out far enough to get that kind of view on the side your character moves about 100 miles away and you can barely see it.

I used a 3 monitor setup in the Quake series games for the slight added advantage, and have tried it with other games but it's just such a burden to run it's not worth it imo.

You seem to be confusing fov with zoom. They arent the same thing

---------- Post added 2012-08-16 at 12:27 AM ----------

While it's not useless, it's also not needed.

Look at GW1...that game has the same amount of zoom and millions played it just fine.

Don't get me wrong, I would love more zoom..I want to see more of the words at a single moment than I can now, but at the same time I don't see it hindering my gameplay to the point where I go on a "GW2 Strike". Look at it this way, if enough people complain, it will get updated. ArenaNet isn't Blizzard, but they're also not idiots, they will want to appease their customers.

AS mentioned its not about zoom. FoV and zoom isnt the same.
However since you mention GW1, I do believe the FoV was set higher there than it is in GW2 at prsent. The camera angle relative to the cheracter was also different which gave less of a feeling of looking up at your character from the ground, camera was set at a more head level hight which gives a more natural feel than looking at it from a snake on the ground looking up kind of view.

Thats slightly off topic though. If you are unclear on what FoV actually is, and why its different than Zoom, theres plenty of good resources in this thread to be educated by

[Makovorn]

-snip - I found this, would it be correct for max zoom distance? -snip-

Yep, that pretty much looks like max distance for GW2. It used to be a lot closer, believe it or not. Your best bet is to look out for recent YouTube videos - preferably ones posted after the 3rd Beta Weekend Event. There are plenty of fan videos to choose from if you want to see how the camera works.

In terms of how GW2's camera (and the view you get) works compared to GW1 - GW1's camera had a lot of shortcomings i.e. not being able to look upwards, unless you stood on angled terrain or if you went into first-person mode (which GW2 doesn't have). However, it did have some advantages - the height of the camera bubble was placed in such a way, that when you looked directly forward, you could see the ground, the horison and the sky in one view, very comfortably.

I'm not sure if GW1's native FoV was actually bigger than GW2, but in GW2 it certainly feels more constricted - and this can be attributed to things like the scale of buildings and other objects in GW2 vs. GW1 and the height of the camera rig. At the moment, it's not easy getting a good forwards and slightly upwards view with GW2, because when you look straight ahead, as in dead-level, or slightly upwards (not much), the camera goes down very low. I call it the "snakey cam", because it feels like the camera is sailing on the ground behind your character.

The only option is to have the camera in a more top-down position. Look at any YouTube vid out there, and you'll find that probably 60 to 70% and more of the view you see during normal playtime, is of the ground - tiles, turf, grass ... whatever. But, when you look at screenshots, things tend to look very nice, because people will, more often than not, find that perfect piece of terrain and wangle the camera in such a way as to capture that perfect moment.

This is (unfortunately) not how the environment is perceived during normal play, but it's not all bad either. Guild Wars 2 is a gorgeous game - all it needs, is a touch more FoV to allow us to appreciate the beautiful environments even more, while simultaneously helping those players who experience very real, very legitimate discomfort with GW2's constricted FoV.

EDIT: Just a general reminder - even though the majority of MMO's are played with a 3rd person view, your view as the player will always be "in the first person". If you position your avatar in GW2 at i.e. location A, and you zoom all the way out, and then move your character a few feet backwards to i.e. location B and zoom in, the amount you see from edge-to-edge will be approximately the same. The FoV of the game from your point-of-view as a player, remains constant, regardless of zoom.

[Nexrex]

Yep, that pretty much looks like max distance for GW2. It used to be a lot closer, believe it or not. Your best bet is to look out for recent YouTube videos - preferably ones posted after the 3rd Beta Weekend Event. There are plenty of fan videos to choose from if you want to see how the camera works.

In terms of how GW2's camera (and the view you get) works compared to GW1 - GW1's camera had a lot of shortcomings i.e. not being able to look upwards, unless you stood on angled terrain or if you went into first-person mode (which GW2 doesn't have). However, it did have some advantages - the height of the camera bubble was placed in such a way, that when you looked directly forward, you could see the ground, the horison and the sky in one view, very comfortably.

I'm not sure if GW1's native FoV was actually bigger than GW2, but in GW2 it certainly feels more constricted - and this can be attributed to things like the scale of buildings and other objects in GW2 vs. GW1 and the height of the camera rig. At the moment, it's not easy getting a good forwards and slightly upwards view with GW2, because when you look straight ahead, as in dead-level, or slightly upwards (not much), the camera goes down very low. I call it the "snakey cam", because it feels like the camera is sailing on the ground behind your character.

The only option is to have the camera in a more top-down position. Look at any YouTube vid out there, and you'll find that probably 60 to 70% and more of the view you see during normal playtime, is of the ground - tiles, turf, grass ... whatever. But, when you look at screenshots, things tend to look very nice, because people will, more often than not, find that perfect piece of terrain and wangle the camera in such a way as to capture that perfect moment.

This is (unfortunately) not how the environment is perceived during normal play, but it's not all bad either. Guild Wars 2 is a gorgeous game - all it needs, is a touch more FoV to allow us to appreciate the beautiful environments even more, while simultaneously helping those players who experience very real, very legitimate discomfort with GW2's constricted FoV.

EDIT: Just a general reminder - even though the majority of MMO's are played with a 3rd person view, your view as the player will always be "in the first person". If you position your avatar in GW2 at i.e. location A, and you zoom all the way out, and then move your character a few feet backwards to i.e. location B and zoom in, the amount you see from edge-to-edge will be approximately the same. The FoV of the game from your point-of-view as a player, remains constant, regardless of zoom.

I simply love your way of explaining things ;-)
I was able to get online for a very short while yesterday before the servers went down and wrote a ticket regarding fov. Your way of wording it was a big help in making my case in that report. So I just hope they actually read it now and do something about the FoV.
Did also notice a few changes with the camera yesterday in settings, like moving the camera (your point of view) slightly off center in relevance to your character, for a over the shoulder like feel. Didn't do much to alleviate my issues while playing, but it was nice to see that certain camera options are being looked at at least. Kinda makes me hopeful that they are looking into things, and hopefully fov is in fact on the list ^_^

[Xuvial]

The only option is to have the camera in a more top-down position. Look at any YouTube vid out there, and you'll find that probably 60 to 70% and more of the view you see during normal playtime, is of the ground - tiles, turf, grass ... whatever. But, when you look at screenshots, things tend to look very nice, because people will, more often than not, find that perfect piece of terrain and wangle the camera in such a way as to capture that perfect moment.
\

Lol this is exactly why I scoffed at the rather "scenic" screenshot someone linked earlier to show me the max FoV/zoom :P

[Nexrex]

Lol this is exactly why I scoffed at the rather "scenic" screenshot someone linked earlier to show me the max FoV/zoom :P

Well now that they have included a slider for moving the position of the camera left and right, wouldn't be too much to hope they can add a similar slider for up and down as well. And ofc any camera options they add makes me hope a FoV slider is coming soon as well.

[Hockeyhacker]

He doesn't have a higher field of view than you do. Everyone has the same field of view (aside from 4:3 aspect ratio users). His resolution is just larger, with the same view across 3 screens.

Anyway, many (online) games don't enable FoV changes due to the unfair advantage it gives to people maxing it out. Especially in FPS games, it lets people see things (and enemies) that other people wouldn't be able to see unless they were using the same FoV.

Further, increasing FoV -DRAMTICALLY- reduces performance. The more you increase it, the larger amount of stuff from the current scene is shown on screen.

How does allowing people to make a game feel comfortable for them buit into the game give them an "unfair advantage?", It would only be an "unfair advantage" if the game did NOT allow a FoV slider and said person was using third party game modifiers that others would not have default access to to modify the FoV... building it into the game does not give advantages or disadvantages since anyone playing on a competitive level fixing their FoV would be one of the first things they do before a match. Infact contrary to what you think, I think having a FoV slidder in competitive games would make the game MORE fair not less due to the nature of 60FoV may be great for some people but nauseatingly unplayable for other people and thus a disadvantage to the person who can not look at the screen for more then a few minutes at a time without getting sick. If everyone has a FoV slidder if person A finds 75 FoV to be the best controls for them and person B finds 110 FoV the best for them then that is how they will play, but if person A finds 75 to be the most playable and anything larger then that to be "to much to process at a time" thus reducing reaction times while person B finds anything under 90 to be unplayable due to sickness, then competitively letting person A play at 75 and person B play at 90 would be the most neutral option despite person B seeing more it could hinder persons A reaction times.

FPS games is a great example against your reasoning to not have FoV despite what you may think... seeing to much can be just as much of a disadvantage on a competitive playing field as that of not seeing enough, for the same reason many people can not play a game locked at 60 FoV sitting within chair to computer monitor distance as a pose to couch from TV distance most people can not play a game locked at 360 FoV which as the way you see it would give you an advantage because you could see full circle around you... but as I said seeing more does not equate to having an advantage depending on how nauseating the camera makes you feel.

[enzi]

+1 for changing the field of view via config or ingame slider to a maximal value of 90

Honestly, this topic makes me really sad. This shouldn't be a topic for a PC game that goes on for oh so long with no reaction from ANET other than, they are taking FoV really serious. /sigh

Every PC game had a default FoV of 90! And then developers started to find out that when you decrease the FoV you could get more performance. Or, in the case of the current console generation, your game runs with 30fps and a FoV of 55. /golfclap

How did we come to this point? Why are developers even creating this huge and highly detailed worlds when you can only see a very small window of it all, never getting the full picture?

It's a shame and I'm HIGHLY disappointed when ANET doesn't change this.

[Deleted]

+1 for changing the field of view via config or ingame slider to a maximal value of 90

Honestly, this topic makes me really sad. This shouldn't be a topic for a PC game that goes on for oh so long with no reaction from ANET other than, they are taking FoV really serious. /sigh

Every PC game had a default FoV of 90! And then developers started to find out that when you decrease the FoV you could get more performance. Or, in the case of the current console generation, your game runs with 30fps and a FoV of 55. /golfclap

How did we come to this point? Why are developers even creating this huge and highly detailed worlds when you can only see a very small window of it all, never getting the full picture?

It's a shame and I'm HIGHLY disappointed when ANET doesn't change this.

It's a sacrifice they find necessary, I'm afraid. The only logical reason they wouldn't do it is that it would decrease performance, then again you would choose if you want to increase FoV, so people who don't want to increase their FoV don't have to and they can run it at the same speed.

Makes no sense companies don't take it seriously anymore. I remember games that went up to 120 fov, and there are still games like that. Nowadays it's hard to find a decent game with 95, which is what I usually play at.

[DrakeWurrum]

It's not like Arena Net stalks these forums. If it's still an issue at launch, everybody who wants to make a big deal out of this can go onto the official forums and start a huge movement.

[Xuvial]

At 1080p I actually prefer an FoV of 100-110 because if you think about it, 16:9 is pretty squashed already. 90 FoV makes more sense for 4:3 resolutions.

It's not like Arena Net stalks these forums. If it's still an issue at launch, everybody who wants to make a big deal out of this can go onto the official forums and start a huge movement.

Actually since the official GW2 forum stays closed most of the time, the issue has pretty much spread over to the next-most popular one (guildwars2guru.com) which I hope ANet reads.
Also I hope beta feedback has had tons and tons of people reporting this issue, ANet couldn't possibly ignore all that and release the game at this restricted FoV.

Every game reviewer/critic and their mother knows that camera is possibly the most crucial part of ANY game...for me, if a game has terrible camera issues the experience pretty much ends for me right there.

[Nexrex]

At 1080p I actually prefer an FoV of 100-110 because if you think about it, 16:9 is pretty squashed already. 90 FoV makes more sense for 4:3 resolutions.


Actually since the official GW2 forum stays closed most of the time, the issue has pretty much spread over to the next-most popular one (guildwars2guru.com) which I hope ANet reads.
Also I hope beta feedback has had tons and tons of people reporting this issue, ANet couldn't possibly ignore all that and release the game at this restricted FoV.

Every game reviewer/critic and their mother knows that camera is possibly the most crucial part of ANY game...for me, if a game has terrible camera issues the experience pretty much ends for me right there.

And that just makes the fact that one has to argue for it in order to convince people a tad unbelievable...

[Lucky_]

At 1080p I actually prefer an FoV of 100-110 because if you think about it, 16:9 is pretty squashed already. 90 FoV makes more sense for 4:3 resolutions.

Resolution is irrelevant to FoV argument. There are only two factors that matter in calculating a proper FoV: Size of the monitor and distance from watcher's eyes to the monitor.