What's the rationale for very low FOV on console FPS? Things are slowly starting to change thanks to user-configurable FOV but I still remember lots of dev last gen setting their FOV as low as 30 on their game. Surely they have a good reason for that?
What's the rationale for very low FOV on console FPS...
>What's the rationale for very low FOV on console FPS?
couch viewing distance
you need low fov as the further you sit from a screen your angle of vision narrows
This, games were developed with the idea that players would be around 5 or 6 feet away from their television sets, although it would have been nice for them to include FOV sliders. Having options is always nice.
>30
Show me.
The absolute lowest i've seen is Metro 2033 with a 45 FOV, and the only way to change it was editing the ini file and it breaks your weapon viewmodels with it. Literal fucking cancer.
Weapon viewmodels stay fine all the way up to about 60, it's only beyond that where they derp out.
Also Metro uses VERTICAL FOV.
Vertical 45 is about 75 horizontal.
For comparison, 59 vertical is 90 horizontal aka optimal.
It's just a lot of Sup Forumsermin don't understand difference between Vertical and Horizontal FOV.
OP doesn't even understand the difference between viewmodel fov and fov.
it also saves 3-5% of performance
wow rude
90 is about what I shoot for MINIMUM, Or 105 horizontal if its anything faster paced than Stalker. Didn't realize Metro used vertical, still what a pain in the ass.
All based on the fact that the game runs low-res and you're sitting far away.
B-but it's immershun, it's like you're really wearing a gas-mask.
Default unmodded FOV in Metro (45 Vertical) is exactly the same as default unmodded FOV in Stalker games (75 horizontal, aka about 45 vertical), just fyi.
Why the hell do people even set the viewmodel fov that high? I royally fucks depth perception up.
>75 horizontal, aka about 45 vertical
Performance increase and more likely because perspective. The closer you are to the screen, the wider the fov needs to be. Most people get motion sickness sitting far away with a large fov and vice versa. It's why PC players get so angry when fov is low and locked, typically with ports. Shit's unplayable unless you have abarf bag.
And ~50 FOV doesn't?
You ever tried looking at your feet through binoculars?
Performances, mostly. You save some frames with a very narrow FOV.
Also viewing distance.
>I'm too stupid and know nothing about math.
I said viewmodel fov, not basic fov.
>16:9
Oh, you're one of those.
>only the most popular and definitive aspect ratio
>act like an elitist retard because you have some failed experiment bullshit
I bet you also still use HD-DVDs instead of Bluray.
Look man its okay, 16:10 are affordable just like everything else. If you don't mind losing a bit off to tops i'm sure you can still play cawadooty where there's no vertical information to be lost since everything is in a hallway.
Too bad you're retarded and don't realize every single game works of Hor+ and as such 16:9 has more image than 16:10.
It's not 16:9 that loses image from the top and bottom.
It's your failed experiment workstation garbage 16:10 that loses image on the sides.
But do keep defending a failed format that is being phased out.
>Surely they have a good reason for that?
Less stuff on the screen = less stuff to render = the poor underpowered consoles could at least try to keep up a playable performance.