Viewmodel FOV

[Alex]

Good explanation VVV
http://i.imgur.com/Di2xxjt.jpg
Why is it that viewmodel FOV in games are highly un-customizable and often un-realistic. I mean come on devs why can't we change it? You give us really good FOV ranges but the viewmodel fov stays the same as if it were a console game, even though this is pc only?

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

I don't think console or PC has anything to do with it.

Though why they allowed this super close up view in RS2 is beyond me. Something that wasn't in RO2 and RS1. In RS2 you only see your wrists. In RS1 it was up to your elbows at least. It's almost like the artist wanted people to look at his pretty guns or something. As the FOV increase from the previous game but this zoomed in view model makes no sense lol.

[PeepeePounder]

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

I don't think console or PC has anything to do with it.

Though why they allowed this super close up view in RS2 is beyond me. Something that wasn't in RO2 and RS1. In RS2 you only see your wrists. In RS1 it was up to your elbows at least. It's almost like the artist wanted people to look at his pretty guns or something. As the FOV increase from the previous game but this zoomed in view model makes no sense lol.

Yeah i miss that old fov stlye, it was in wave 1 and 2 aswell of this game. As of right now the guns are way to close. I wish there was an option to choose.

[Alex]

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

I don't think console or PC has anything to do with it.

Though why they allowed this super close up view in RS2 is beyond me. Something that wasn't in RO2 and RS1. In RS2 you only see your wrists. In RS1 it was up to your elbows at least. It's almost like the artist wanted people to look at his pretty guns or something. As the FOV increase from the previous game but this zoomed in view model makes no sense lol.

What i meant about the PC only thing was that most pc games have loads of options in .ini files for this kind of stuff, but this doesnt seem to be the case. Think you could tell some higher up devs or something? But hey, at least you responded so thats more than good enough for me i guess.

[Casual Sun]

The origins are bad, I agree. Not to mention free aim makes everyone prone to having their weapon just going across the screen.

[AdayDr1en]

because the details on weapons are modeled small and realistically in gaming now, and scaling the viewmodels actually makes it harder to then use things like ironsights.

1. games that in fact scale the VM's are, from a design standpoint, actually lazily programmed

it was more common then because coding to have a seperate fov, so models weren't tied to the main(camera) fov, wasn't actually necessary. in some engines, there is literally one fov for everything by default. batman arkham games for example, changing fov also affects cutscenes and menus.

2. regarding necessity, most games use 3D scopes now instead of the flat overlays we remember from older COD games like MW.

the reticles for these, as well as the window of the scope, would all shrink and be hard to use or unplayable

same goes for any game that has regular open sight optics. the window gets smaller, the reticles become microscopic. it's one reason cod games still have the ironsight zoom; the zeroing and 3d elements were made for one fov, and scaling them would mess the assets up. very lazy they haven't bothered to code a VM fov after all these years. battlefield has actually been doing it since Bad Company or earlier. fallout 4 does it now.

you have to look at it from a polish standpoint. tripwire is what you could call indie-aaa in that they account for these things. this is a very high quality production for such a niche game from a non aaa company.

and actually, viewmodels scaling is one reason we get pc games without fov sliders. because fov wasn't considered, no one coded so the assets wouldn't scale. this actually doesn't mess up too much in some games, but designers can sometimes get too egotistical with their art and refuse to implement a slider.

can't remember what game this was, but one dev was like "oh, the textures and levels will look stretched". no regard for the user who paid for the game. fish eye should be the user's choice. my complaint is max fov is 106 instead of 120. it's stupid.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

That ain't the reason. Sorry to sum up your well thought out post like that lol. But RO2 when it comes to ADSing is pretty much the same as RS2. FOV changes and your character moves the weapon closer to the face. Only in RS2 the weapon is already in your face covering half the screen when not aiming down sights.

The Maximum FOV has actually drastically increased as well. From a maximum of 90 in RO2. In fact in RO2 you could barely change your FOV at all. The amount of room it gave you was tiny.

What I think happened was two different developers did two different things. I mean why the FOV increase if you are only going to shove the gun closer to the camera? That decision makes no sense for a single person make. So I'm thinking two different people got their way.

[PeepeePounder]

Its a shame really... It blocks the majority of your view and in my opinon makes it alot more casual. One of my favourite things about Ro2/Rs1 was the realstic no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ aspects to it. The fov looked alot more realistic. I wish there was just an option in the settings to change it back to its old look.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Originally posted by Coffee GS 1-3:

Its a shame really... It blocks the majority of your view and in my opinon makes it alot more casual. One of my favourite things about Ro2/Rs1 was the realstic no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ aspects to it. The fov looked alot more realistic. I wish there was just an option in the settings to change it back to its old look.

Don't exactly know how you can use the casual argument.

Makes the game more annoying. Which is the opposite of casual.

[PeepeePounder]

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

Originally posted by Coffee GS 1-3:

Its a shame really... It blocks the majority of your view and in my opinon makes it alot more casual. One of my favourite things about Ro2/Rs1 was the realstic no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ aspects to it. The fov looked alot more realistic. I wish there was just an option in the settings to change it back to its old look.

Don't exactly know how you can use the casual argument.

Makes the game more annoying. Which is the opposite of casual.

What i mean is you can clearly see the aspects of the game that have been made to appeal to a wider audiance.

The closer up gun models are more like battlefield, cod, and other mass market shooters. This game seems to be trying to target more people and in turn have made it look alot more like popular shooters which are more or less considered 'casual'. its what most people are usto.

The alure of the older games such as ro2 (atleast for me) was the aspect of the game that did things different, and considered an alternative to the same triple A crap developers push out every year. It was a hardcore, realistic shooter and i believe the fov model compliments that. It is yet another feature most game developers dont do and made it alot better and more realistic, and this is because it was not what the majority of the shooter auidance is usto.

Maybe the word casual shouldent of been used, but rather dumbed down.

As for the the weapon models making the game more annoying, i agree, but that is completely on the technical side of things, it dosent exactly make the game more 'hardcore', its more just a nuisance ethier way.

Who knows, maybe thats just how i feel. Asmuch as i love the new installment of rising storm i keep finding myself going back to ro2.

[AdayDr1en]

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

I mean why the FOV increase if you are only going to shove the gun closer to the camera? That decision makes no sense for a single person make. So I'm thinking two different people got their way.

have you actually used an engine before ?

there is a separate setting for bringing the gun closer to the screen as if the model is zoomed in. this is an offset. it has nothing to do with FOV.

the max only increased because rising storm 2 uses hor+ scaling instead of the default vert scaling RO2 and killing floor 2 used. 90 fov was in vert. 106 is in hor+. the reason you don't want too much in vert is because it's already a wide angle and values over 90 create severe fish eye and can actually be headache inducing. you only want wide fov in proper hor+. 90 in vert > 120 in hor+.

AAA trope is partially to blame. bigger looks more attractive, but i actually thought it was actually to compensate for console gaming since the average console gamer sits 10 feet away from their screens. if you look at the first Battlefield games on consoles(modern warfare and bad company), they had big viewmodels compared to the older battlefield games on PC. and we've had them since. every battlefield game is made with consoles in mind first.

[AdayDr1en]

Originally posted by Allie:

Can't we just have the option to change it? It's not like a new map, gameplay change, balance change or vehicle is being asked for here, all we want is a simple slider, we don't care if it makes scopes "harder to use" or that it might look funny as you might see mags dissapear into thin air when they drop down, we just want our guns to not cover the entire screen and look insanely out of proportion, and like the head of the character is glued to their wrist, and that when you ADS, the stock of the gun phases through you chest/shoulder. I would rather have funny animations that something that makes a 5.56 M16 look like its big enough to shoot a .50 BMG round. It really grinds my gears when i see a game do this and i really wish one of my favorite games didnt follow this trend.

we will never have viewmodel sliders.

= D

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Originally posted by AdayDr1en | Git Gud:

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

I mean why the FOV increase if you are only going to shove the gun closer to the camera? That decision makes no sense for a single person to make. So I'm thinking two different people got their way.

have you actually used an engine before ?

there is a separate setting for bringing the gun closer to the screen as if the model is zoomed in. this is an offset. it has nothing to do with FOV.

the max only increased because rising storm 2 uses hor+ scaling instead of the default vert scaling RO2 and killing floor 2 used. 90 fov was in vert. 106 is in hor+. the reason you don't want too much in vert is because it's already a wide angle and values over 90 create severe fish eye and can actually be headache inducing. you only want wide fov in proper hor+. 90 in vert > 120 in hor+.

AAA trope is partially to blame. bigger looks more attractive, but i actually thought it was actually to compensate for console gaming since the average console gamer sits 10 feet away from their screens. if you look at the first Battlefield games on consoles(modern warfare and bad company), they had big viewmodels compared to the older battlefield games on PC. and we've had them since. every battlefield game is made with consoles in mind first.

That's your assumption. I also base mine on past AMG behaviour. It's not the only thing that makes zero sense if more than one person was involved in that particular decision lol. Hell. Maybe the artist wanted the gun closer so people could look at his pretty guns or something lol.

[AdayDr1en]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2WmD9CI4xWg/maxresdefault.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-4iiTAmlcE4/maxresdefault.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/5a/ab/5a5aab50539249cabbecfffbcd7ed1be.jpg

BF2(PC) > BF:MC(consoles only) > BF:BC 1 and 2(PC and consoles)

http://www.gamingcypher.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/battlefield-3-m1911-2.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LvuS2H9QADY/maxresdefault.jpg

BF4 and BF1

In my opinion, though, it feels more like the arms are sticking out of your chest rather than your eyes being on the arm. there's a funny pic showing this difference on the web.