about FOV (field of view) in computer games

[God, owner of the Universe]

1. More people need to know how it works (especially developers). 2. Why is it that often, people say things aiming to prevent FOV options in games when we're talking about options?




1) In 3D games, the FOV defines how far to the sides (and top/bottom) you can see the surrounding world. At first glance, this seems like an artistic choice or one of gameplay balancing (think e.g. SUPERHOT where seeing more would empower the player; or think competitive multiplayer). But since we're talking about applications (however useless games may be) and not movies or photos, the FOV is also an interface issue. The interface between the user and the game world is generally very narrow: INPUT - keyboard/mouse (or other controller); OUTPUT - audio, 2D video. You can't feel around, don't experience whether you're upright and/or in motion, can't smell, taste, etc.; you can use "your" body only as far as the severely limited avatar simulation allows. Therefore, the few interface channels we do have need to be utilized intelligently, efficiently.

"So, increase the FOV as much as bearable to make the player aware as much as possible?" Some do this, but in general the choice of FOV from the perspective of "optimal interface" depends on the perceived screen size (Actual screen size and viewing distance.), because our viewing apparatus (eyes, brain) evolved over millions of years, expecting a certain relationship between visual geometry and physical reality.

To get a rough idea of correct FOV settings for 1st person 3D graphics: Imagine the room you sit in has been recorded as 3D data in a computer, and a rendering of this is projected on a screen that you carry in front of you. Like almost all other screens in your life, it does not cover your entire field of view (which is almost 180°), but you see a good bit of real world around it. Some clever hardware and software makes sure that the screen always shows exactly the same bit of room rendering that is occluded by the screen you're carrying, and (This is the juicy bit.) in a way that it exactly aligns with the real world you see around the screen. If the screen were half transparent, you'd see reality and computer graphics perfectly on top of each other.

Now here's the big FOV lesson that everybody should please understand: If you pull the screen closer, you need to change the FOV value of the rendering. Change how? It needs to be increased. You need to see more of the computer world, because now you see less of the real world around the screen. So, the same is true if the screen magically grows instead of coming closer. And of course if it shrinks / moves further away, the FOV needs to be lowered so that you eventually see through binoculars regarding the little rectangle in the middle of your view - which will not feel like binoculars at all since the screen with that narrow FOV is really far away / small.

If it were close at low FOV, you'd feel imprisoned, would constantly have to look around to sample where you are in the world, you'd have to assemble a model of the world in your head instead of just seeing the world - something many players probably do without noticing that their actual experience is lessened.

If it were far away at high FOV, you'd see fisheye-like distortions, which people commonly mistake to mean that the FOV is objectively too high while the truth is that they are just too far away from the screen (or the screen is too small). But why distortions? Because the graphics depict a world that is around you, but they are rendered for a flat surface. If you look at the surface in the right way (namely mostly at the center and from the right distance), the distortions aren't hidden in your peripheral vision - they exactly match what your peripheral vision needs to see. By the way, the flat-surface-projection fact means that it's highly questionable when people with triple screens set their outer screens at an angle.

In the below FOV° examples, I'm referring to 16:9 screens (e.g. 1920x1080 resolution), and I'm referring to the horizontal view, because even though it's a worse choice from a mere practical perspective (If someone wants a wider view, they could buy a screen with wider aspect ratio (e.g. 27:9) and would immediately see more, as long as the game's FOV was defined vertically.), it's the way we've historically talked about FOV in gaming, so it will hopefully communicate the most.

Game developers can not know the setup their customers are using, they can only roughly estimate, which is easier for console games, because console players generally play on a TV, and TVs are generally perceived as smaller (meters away, and generally further away the bigger they are). A "binocular"-ish FOV is the right choice here. Remember, we have almost 180° FOV, while console games have roughly 50-70° FOV, and because the screen occupies only a small portion of your eyes' field of view, this is just right.

On PCs, things are more complicated: The screens are perceived as bigger. Even a 27" 16:9 screen at 20" distance would be equivalent to a huge TV at a few meters distance. We'd probably need a FOV of about 90° for this one. But what if someone wants to visually immerse themselves and, for the duration of a few hours of gaming, gets really close to the 27" screen? (Not recommended, because it puts quite a strain on the eyes.) I've done that when playing Deus Ex: Invisible War and set a FOV of 120° or something like that. Mind that my nose almost touched the screen. :P

How do you determine the right FOV for you? There are formulas out there, but eventually you'll just learn what feels right. E.g. I draw circles with the mouse on my desk, making the 1st person 3D avatar look around in circles. If I get the feeling that there's some kind of spherical geometry, the FOV is too high, and if I instead feel as if I'm looking through binoculars (however weak), then the FOV is too low.

Anyway, alternatively, we could buy a big screen. I have seen a good 4K 49" TV with PC mode (Low latency.) for less than €300 on Amazon (Full price, not used, not just one sale but a general price for the product!) in August 2016. What's wrong about getting a big screen and setting a high FOV? Nothing. Happy immersion, player! Except many games don't allow to set high enough FOVs, and the GraphicalUserInterface of the games rarely have options to adapt them, e.g. to shrink their size and to concentrate at least the temporarily visible GUI parts at the screen's center.

By the way, in case you want to adjust a game's FOV even though the game doesn't allow this, Google for the game's name and add the word "PCGW". The high quality PCGamingWiki has pages for many games and is the go-to place for people who feel the need to remove the forced binoculars.

On PCs, the setups players will use will 1) generally require a higher FOV and 2) could have extremely varying perceived screen sizes. Therefore, if developers would care about making intelligent and effective use of the narrow interface we have, they would implement a FOV slider allowing to go from values as low as 50° to values as high as 130°. Superficially, this requires an effort of mere minutes: Every 3D engine's camera class has a FOV parameter that can be set arbitrarily, and the GUI toolkits game developers have at their disposal sure come with a slider-like component.

So why don't they do it? Well, there's for example the fact that the more you see, the more the computer needs to work to make it happen. The amount of screen pixels stays the same, but the amount of surfaces and individual textures/shaders you see increases with a higher FOV. If they release a game, which will sure be reviewed by magazines/websites, preventing a possible higher FOV decreases probability of negative points cause by too low framerate.

Also, if you "hack" a game's FOV to a wide value and then stand close to a wall on your right or left, you might be able to see through it, because the wall's surface is now effectively a lot closer to the camera (which would usually not happen, partly because the developers decided that you can't walk this closely to objects), the "nearplane" setting of the engine would have to be decreased, and I guess that this slows rendering a bit, but that's really just a guess.

Finally, with a high FOV value, you might get the impression that parts of your body (hands, or the weapon you're holding) seem awkwardly stretched and reach into the depth of the screen. As I said higher above, distortions are a matter of proper usage of the given setup, but it's more complicated here: I suspect that positioning, angle, etc. of these parts of the graphics are designed not based on reality but based on the intended FOV, e.g. designed to work well with low FOVs. So, I suspect that if we'd have a realistic avatar body model, there would be no problematic distortions at all with higher FOVs.

Anyway, obviously the FOV is a bit more complex for a developer than just allowing a higher max value. But what should also be obvious is that most developers don't give a crap about players with high immersion setups. So, PC gaming is still a somewhat rudimentary work in progress.

Things have gotten a bit better: We do get FOV sliders every once in a while now. But often their maximum value is too low. So, when earlier you could say "Game won't have / doesn't have FOV slider? No buy.", now you might purchase something that sounds sufficient but isn't. Again, check PCGamingWiki, it can often help you. But what really needs to happen is that developers wake up to the increasingly normal reality of high FOV PC gaming.




2) In FOV discussions, e.g. posts in a specific game's forum expressing the need for a FOV slider or a higher max value, there are very often posts by people who do not personally require a higher field of view, but whose interest seems to be that others will not get a higher FOV. Why is that?

There's of course the possibility for trolling or, similarly, just reckless use of words/communication. But often, the problem comes down to a missing understanding of how FOV works (see above), which is somewhat complicated but also, once you got it, blindingly clear.

Some people seem to think that the FOV value depends on their screen's resolution, their aspect ratio (both of which is slightly true), or that third person games never need higher FOV (which is blatantly false, you just need a less high value because the focal point from which you see the world is the avatar's head in front of you instead of the avatar's head located right where your own head is).

Problem is, if someone thinks they have sufficient information, they will act upon it. They speak out, they try to educate people etc., and if that information happens to be wrong, they're making a mistake, but an honest one. They tried - they failed. Big deal. Well, if many people have the same misconception, they'll not have a wake-up moment, because even if someone were to explain to them what the actual facts are, the massive amount of datapoints they have (Namely the other people making the same mistake.) suggests that the person trying to convince them otherwise is not to be taken seriously.

And in light of the fact that most PC games still have lacking FOV options, that is what I believe our situation is: We're just imprisoned in some kind of "dark age" effect where the necessary change can't happen because there's not enough light yet.

But we could certainly help by trying to be more careful with our language. Instead of calling people who ask for higher FOV wrong, we could express that we don't believe that a higher FOV is needed. The former intrudes on their territory, while the latter just defends our own. If we'd do that, the required global wake-up would be less hindered. I mean, who wants to be wrong and fight for it, right? Nobody. So, let's express our viewpoints more rationally instead of throwing things at people. That way, we'll also be taken more seriously, our words will have more weight. It's not the loudest one who wins, in the end it's the most truthful one. At least, that's the world we should fight for, even at the cost of losing. Because "might makes right" must not be the governing principle, else we're missing out on Paradise for no good reason.

[shoopy]

Here's the thing. Being able to set FOV to nearly any value you want used to be pretty much standard for the defining PC shooters of the genre. When there isn't an option for FOV, we feel like something has been taken away.

[Café de Joey]

What about FOV in 3ds games?
Just curious

[God, owner of the Universe]

Originally posted by ardiel:

Here's the thing. Being able to set FOV to nearly any value you want used to be pretty much standard for the defining PC shooters of the genre. When there isn't an option for FOV, we feel like something has been taken away.

I think Quake 4 had FOV controls, but I'm not so sure about Doom, Quake 1-3, Duke Nukem, System Shock, Half-Life (1), etc.

I know most of them have a built-in console (Somewhat ironic that the term for this is "console".) where we could set arbitrary FOV values (among other things). I think that those who did have FOV controls had a higher max value than half of today's games with FOV-controls.

But I also think that the max FOV values required today have increased and that some of those old FOV-slider games would now turn out to have insufficient max value. Simultaneously, games nowadays come with lower FOV / lesser max FOV value because consoles play a much bigger role today for PC game development because of the cross-platform tools that exist by now.

Anyway, the demand comes not from a habitual desire but from objective necessity.

Originally posted by That Joey:

What about FOV in 3ds games?

Behaves just the same. The closer you get, the lower the experienced FOV. I have no idea if there's an official developer guideline based on average player distance. I would think so since the 3D screen doesn't work if a certain distance is exceeded or undershot. But maybe devs can ignore it without being somehow prohibited from releasing their 3DS game.

[water]

Oh man, do you have to write a whole book?
However here's my opinion to FOV in games:

In recent games the FOV is too close.
Look how the FOV has been in old games like Max Payne 2. Max Payne is very far away from the camera. I think that was super good for third person shooters.
I think game developers should give us the option to select the FOV (camera distance) in single player mode.
In multi player there's the problem that a far camera distance gives you an advantage in gaming.
I think the best games are those, where you can change the FOV in-game by mouse wheel. From the nearest FOV there's the option to switch to first person view.
Like in Fallout 4.
However in multi player all players should have the same FOV.



@ Funearl:

"hate how nowdays game have such low fov and no sliders ect anything under 100 makes me ♥♥♥♥ing puke"

Agree.

[God, owner of the Universe]

Originally posted by rowdycat:

However in multi player all players should have the same FOV.

That's impossible as a strict rule. Except if the aspect ratio of the screen is ignored and if someone uses a 27:9 screen, they get a super distorted image instead of seeing more on the sides. I think screens with different aspect ratios should get their respective correct graphics. But ok, as a general rule that applies to the majority, it works.

But what about different machine power? The one with the highest framerate wins. And about about best mouse/keyboard? Mouse/keyboard macros? Ok, we could say that just because we can't equalize these factors, there needn't be yet another factor like different FOV.

But what if someone's setup requires a higher FOV? Some tolerances can be expected in a player, but on more extreme setups the FOV looks like binoculars and makes you dizzy. Well, those players can't participate then. <---- This ruling would seem acceptable in the console world, but in the PC world where the setups are so vastly different, I can't say that I agree the rule you posed.

And what if PC and console players play together? In those cases, the FOV absolutely needs to be adjustable because the FOV the average console player needs is radically different from the PC side.

[Washell]

This might work better as a guide, rather than a forum post that will be buried in 12 hours.

[God, owner of the Universe]

Originally posted by Washell:

This might work better as a guide, rather than a forum post that will be buried in 12 hours.

Good idea. (Noted for later.) Originally, I just wanted to start a rational discussion about FOV that doesn't descend (as much) into aggressive stances and expressions on both sides. I just felt that this is possible and overdue (or underrepresented). Then I ended up describing all relevant facts about FOV I could think of.

After posting here, I also posted the text on Reddit and also mailed it home for later use (e.g. on my website), so it's not quite wasted. The Steam Guide idea is a good one, I wanted to eventually create a Guide of some type, anyway.

So, doesn't matter if the post sinks into oblivion.

....

EDIT:

This doesn't work as a guide. Because you can only make Steam Guides based on a game/software, so a general topic like this doesn't fly. I would have to make it specifically about a game, so I guess I won't make a guide out of this post.

[water]

hm... then the aspect ratio should be the same in MP.
For me it's important that the games offer adjustable FOV in single player. I play almost only SP.

"But what about different machine power? The one with the highest framerate wins."
no i think that's not a problem. Even if someone plays with 100 or 200 FPS makes no more difference for the human eye.
Everybody is free to max out the framerate.

FOV and binoculars... do you mean the fisheye effect? (fish and round glass) That has nothing to do with fov.
Apart of that:
A very close or a very far FOV: The view is turning at the position of the character, or not?
Nothing changes except that in one case you have a small character and much of the scenery and in the other case close and big character and less of the scenery.
Right?

Edit: If I dislike a FOV in a game I write it in the review of the game. See my Resident Evil Revelations review.

[God, owner of the Universe]

Originally posted by rowdycat:

no i think that's not a problem. Even if someone plays with 100 or 200 FPS makes no more difference for the human eye.
Everybody is free to max out the framerate.

Of course, but I meant something like 20 vs 30 vs 60 FPS.

Originally posted by rowdycat:

FOV and binoculars... do you mean the fisheye effect? (fish and round glass) That has nothing to do with fov.

When I say "binoculars", I mean the very opposite of fisheye (or fishbowl) effect. When you play a game whose FOV you find too narrow (e.g. like in Resident Evil Revelations; read the review, marked it as "helpful" because it is; I also write about the games' FOVs in my reviews), that is what I call looking through "binoculars". And if the FOV is too wide so that you see distortions, that's what I call "fisheye".

I don't know why you'd say that this has nothing to do with FOV, because it absolutely has. You must be using an angle I'm not getting.

Originally posted by rowdycat:

Apart of that:
A very close or a very far FOV: The view is turning at the position of the character, or not?
Nothing changes except that in one case you have a small character and much of the scenery and in the other case close and big character and less of the scenery.
Right?

Yes, you can describe it like that (for third person games, e.g. RER), but the geometry of the graphics (especially when in motion, which they are all the time) changes, too, and we need a certain geometry for optimal experience because our vision system has evolved like this. So, it's not just a tactical/taste decision, it's also one of feeling fine with the view as experienced on one's screen (depending on screen size and distance).

[shoopy]

Originally posted by God, owner of the universe:

Originally posted by ardiel:

Here's the thing. Being able to set FOV to nearly any value you want used to be pretty much standard for the defining PC shooters of the genre. When there isn't an option for FOV, we feel like something has been taken away.

I think Quake 4 had FOV controls, but I'm not so sure about Doom, Quake 1-3, Duke Nukem, System Shock, Half-Life (1), etc.

I know most of them have a built-in console (Somewhat ironic that the term for this is "console".) where we could set arbitrary FOV values (among other things). I think that those who did have FOV controls had a higher max value than half of today's games with FOV-controls.

But I also think that the max FOV values required today have increased and that some of those old FOV-slider games would now turn out to have insufficient max value. Simultaneously, games nowadays come with lower FOV / lesser max FOV value because consoles play a much bigger role today for PC game development because of the cross-platform tools that exist by now.

Anyway, the demand comes not from a habitual desire but from objective necessity.

I'm not talking about sliders, just the ability to change FOV, even with console commands. cfg tweaking used to be pretty normal IMO.

When I think of changing FOV I don't even think about sliders. I think about opening the console and typing it in.

[God, owner of the Universe]

Originally posted by Washell:

This might work better as a guide, rather than a forum post that will be buried in 12 hours.

Ok, I turned it into a guide:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=763936460

There is no official way to create general guides or guides for Steam, but some nice forum folk suggested to just use the URL directly:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/editguide/?appid=753

Just start making a guide for any game, then replace the number in the URL with this one. The number can also be found via https://steamdb.info/

[76561198329369535]

tl:dr

[God, owner of the Universe]

Originally posted by Vani:

tl:dr

Well, it's simple: If you already know enough about FOV (e.g. why the correct FOV is not arbitrary), then you don't need to waste your time reading that.

And if you don't, then you shouldn't waste your breath in a FOV-discussion that may pop up elsewhere (e.g. about a game), because then you don't know enough and are unwilling to learn it.

I'm just saying, not a problem either way if you don't digest this, but be wise about how you deal with the topic out there.

In case you didn't try the guide instead of this post, maybe you find it more easily digestible.

[Jodeth]

This was incredibly informative and deep at the same time. Thanks for explain this. I thought for the longest time that higher FOV (seeing more of the 3D world around you) is objectively better. It's really not. Matching the screen space of the game to your reality space is what you need to aim for when adjusting the FOV. Unfortunately, most devs don't give a ♥♥♥♥ about those who want to play with their noses touching the screen. As someone who's interested in getting an ultrawide monitor, I give lots of respect to the devs that listen to us nose-screeners (pc gamers), by adding an FOV slider.