Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Arlong said:

I don’t like I’m actually serious.

It’s cool bro, it’s all water under the fridge.

  • Simms (+1) 1
  • Heavy Breathing (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I always hear that the reason consoles games don’t add a FOV Slider is because it causes performance problems, but does a higher FOV really effect that much of the game? 

Share this post


Link to post

Wider FoV causes the game to render more, which puts more strain on the game.  So technically yes.

In actual practice I've never noticed a major difference in performance any time I've tweaked FoV in any game, maybe gain or lose a few frames per second at most if anything at all.  Unless the console hardware is being pushed to it's absolute limit (kind of was with the 360 in 2012 to be fair) I don't see it really being an issue at all.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ramirez77 said:

Wider FoV causes the game to render more, which puts more strain on the game.  So technically yes.

In actual practice I've never noticed a major difference in performance any time I've tweaked FoV in any game, maybe gain or lose a few frames per second at most if anything at all.  Unless the console hardware is being pushed to it's absolute limit (kind of was with the 360 in 2012 to be fair) I don't see it really being an issue at all.

Ok that was 360, this is the Xbox one. 

Share this post


Link to post

I do wish more modern console games had FoV sliders. Going from Apex back to Halo, especially if it's H3, sometimes feels really claustrophobic. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Hully said:

I do wish more modern console games had FoV sliders. Going from Apex back to Halo, especially if it's H3, sometimes feels really claustrophobic. 

Agreed. I’ve played tons of games and the FPS difference is hardly there when I change fov.  At the very least 90 fov should happen.

Share this post


Link to post

Titanfall 2 had a FoV slider on Xbox as well

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Shekkles said:

Titanfall 2 had a FoV slider on Xbox as well

Oh yeah. Doesn’t that game use UE4? 

Share this post


Link to post

On the note of the Mantis - imagine you were creating an FPS title and wanted to add sandbox elements. The whole purpose of adding vehicles like the warthog, banshee, tank. Etc BEFORE any mechanical need for them, is probably just because they look cool and it sounds like a fun idea. Driving a car around in an FPS sounds fun, right. 

 

Who would take that idea and say "ya know what we need - a giant mech".  It's basically nothing fun about piloting a vehicle, you're the same character you already were only bigger now. And clunkier. A big stupid biped. At least the tank controls differently and has this big heavy hitting single shot and tread movement.  That on its own is a fun a experience. But the Mantis is just this spammy clunky biped, it wouldn't even matter if it was perfectly balanced or insanely weak or required two pilots. It's never going to feel like a vehicle. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Arlong said:

Oh yeah. Doesn’t that game use UE4? 

It uses a variant of source engine. 

 

Also the primary reason for FoV lock on console games has nothing to do with performance but retaining a distinct visual look. I used to be in the "every game should be at least 90 fov and have full FoV slider control" camp but not anymore honestly. Maybe it's just because I've been in the industry long enough that ridiculous developer reasoning is getting to me but 

1: I don't like the idea of one player being able to cover more angles than you because they chose a higher FoV.

2: High FoV ruins the visual character of the game imo. Things that should look very close suddenly look very far and things that are far away are more difficult to perceive depth between one another. Watch some Reach gameplay where people are bouncing between the fov's - it makes the game look ridiculous. Kinda throws all the work your artists do out the window when the edges start warping it just looks silly.

 

3: Smaller fov makes objects larger on screen and makes targets easier to aim at, BIG plus for controllers. 

 

4: Repositioning in a fight is infinitely more possible with small fov when it comes to out manoeuvring people, jumping over them, etc. I imagine the reason ninja backsmacks were so successful in H3 is because the fov is so low that jumping out of frame is trivial. There's obviously a point this becomes ridiculous in both directions, I can't stand Destiny 2's console fov because you're being attacked from angles you can't possibly check, but 120 fov starts to become a little too forgiving I think.

 

5: some performance benefits, but not a lot. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post

110 FoV is for sweats I swear. It looks absolutely hideous with all the warping.

Share this post


Link to post

94 is where it's at. Good visibility but doesn't look atrocious. Just a tad bit sweaty, like a little pre workout cardio. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MultiLockOn said:

It uses a variant of source engine. 

 

Also the primary reason for FoV lock on console games has nothing to do with performance but retaining a distinct visual look. I used to be in the "every game should be at least 90 fov and have full FoV slider control" camp but not anymore honestly. Maybe it's just because I've been in the industry long enough that ridiculous developer reasoning is getting to me but 

1: I don't like the idea of one player being able to cover more angles than you because they chose a higher FoV.

2: High FoV ruins the visual character of the game imo. Things that should look very close suddenly look very far and things that are far away are more difficult to perceive depth between one another. Watch some Reach gameplay where people are bouncing between the fov's - it makes the game look ridiculous. Kinda throws all the work your artists do out the window when the edges start warping it just looks silly.

 

3: Smaller fov makes objects larger on screen and makes targets easier to aim at, BIG plus for controllers. 

 

4: Repositioning in a fight is infinitely more possible with small fov when it comes to out manoeuvring people, jumping over them, etc. I imagine the reason ninja backsmacks were so successful in H3 is because the fov is so low that jumping out of frame is trivial. There's obviously a point this becomes ridiculous in both directions, I can't stand Destiny 2's console fov because you're being attacked from angles you can't possibly check, but 120 fov starts to become a little too forgiving I think.

 

5: some performance benefits, but not a lot. 

1. It’s just personal preference, and it was your choice to use a lower fov, the human eyes can see 180 degrees. 
2. I as a gamer don’t give a damn if the artist feels their work isn’t appreciated I play the game to have fun(I know such a ridiculous thought how dare I not care about the art) 

3. This isn’t a bad thing, if low fov causes people to miss shots, that’s literally the game preventing me or anyone else to get better because god forbid we play another game with a higher fov, hells most gamers don’t use a fov above 120 because it’s harder to aim now. Most of us would at the very least want 90.

4. This is not a positive, you being able to reposition because Of low fov is not a positive. 

5. Most of these points irk me because it seems to only benefit basically no one. Low fov does 3 things. 1, cause motion sickness, 2, irks me because of option 4 because now I can’t kill this guy because he moved a sleight inch off my screen so now he gets to live.  And 3rd it causes sensitivities to feel slow or faster than needed.

forgiving fov is not a bad thing, if it helps someone improve that’s a good thing, but restricting that player or players from playing on a fov of their preference is telling that player adapt or gtfo. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hully said:

94 is where it's at. Good visibility but doesn't look atrocious. Just a tad bit sweaty, like a little pre workout cardio. 

90 is the highest I'd go. I just really dislike visual warping. But I'll give 94 a go.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Shekkles said:

90 is the highest I'd go. I just really dislike visual warping. But I'll give 94 a go.

For me depends on the game. Apex legends I play 95, halo reach id switch between 105-110 it felt good. Pubg max 103. 

Share this post


Link to post

A FOV of 90 should be the STANDARD across any FPS game. If a game designer doesn’t want to add fov slider because they feel their art work is under appreciated then make sure the default fov is 90+ 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Arlong said:

A FOV of 90 should be the STANDARD across any FPS game. If a game designer doesn’t want to add fov slider because they feel their art work is under appreciated then make sure the default fov is 90+ 

Its not as big of a thing these days but many devs for consoles sort of "cheated" a bit and some of the physics or interactions within the game were locked to frame rate. That's why ladders broke in the original dark souls with PC mods that unlocked the frame rate so, if they're doing that (bad practice these days imo but understandable), adding a fov slider or anything else that could disrupt frame rates could be a really bad idea in extreme cases. The reason that was used is because in a console environment before you could've always depended on the same performance and hardware in the same areas. The tl;dr though is that depending on how the game was created and what the devs expected you can really fuck up how a game works by significantly changing frame rates and that's one reason you aren't typically given a ton of graphical options with console games. Edge cases of huge frame rate dips or suddenly unlocking them could cause some super unintended side effects

Can look up fixed time steps if you want a more technical reason for when and why its used. Its potentially not even relevant to Halo especially because the Xbox has multiple versions now and will be coming to PC where the hardware is so variable I would expect them to have accounted for these things especially on PC where they can expect really high frame rates from some setups 

Share this post


Link to post

I actually agree that 90 should be the standard, especially with Project Scarlett.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Shekkles said:

I actually agree that 90 should be the standard, especially with Project Scarlett.

This has actually always been reasonable and not really super relevant to the console its on because when they're making these games they adjust the graphics and everything to hit target frame rates. The big thing that a lot of AAA devs miss in the FPS space is that the feel of the game is more important than the game looking slightly better. Things like high frame rates, big enough fovs, and input delay being as minimal as possible have a FAR larger impact on the enjoyment and feel of the game than a couple of lighting effects. We've given a lot away over the years so the artists involved feel better and the people standing on stages can read off some stats about their new games. That's kind of a different discussion but there is no mistake that the most successful games that people actually play put a big emphasis on feel but definitely lag behind a step or two graphically. Imo its the most underrated trait that a lot of the really successful devs have like Blizzard, bungie, almost anything Nintendo has ever released etc. Its not all just fov or FPS either. Its in the animations and how when you press a button things happen instantly without that almost undetectable bit of lag or latency between when you press buttons and things happen. Its so hard to compete with some of those devs on that level

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Another reason why console FOV sucks is that their target audience isn't sitting in front of a gaming monitor, they're playing on a plasma TV sitting on a couch across the living room. Low FOV works better if you're super far away from the monitor. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MultiLockOn said:

1: I don't like the idea of one player being able to cover more angles than you because they chose a higher FoV. 

2: High FoV ruins the visual character of the game imo. Things that should look very close suddenly look very far and things that are far away are more difficult to perceive depth between one another. Watch some Reach gameplay where people are bouncing between the fov's - it makes the game look ridiculous. Kinda throws all the work your artists do out the window when the edges start warping it just looks silly.

1) Wouldn't that logic imply that any changeable controlls (bottum layout, sensitivity, Elite Controller, etc) should be axed in favor of an even playing field?

2) I can get behind that idea but still, why not desing a game with a fixed but slightly higher FOV in mind?

Share this post


Link to post

Also, expanding on what @MultiLockOn said, 99% of shooting games do not design environments to scale. Buildings are small, rooms are smaller, hallways are thinner. Everything is smaller. This is for multiple reasons, the main one being player movement and expediency.

On a lower FOV, things in the mid-background appear larger. This allows artists to 'cheat' a bit when it comes to scale. They can make things in the distance appear larger and more epic in a locked, low FOV.

At higher FOV's, they appear smaller and less epic. Additionally the foreground elements start looking weird as they're not scaled. Small, narrow and unrealistically scaled rooms start looking very strange whereas in lower FOV's they look normal and take longer for the player to look around.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The day Envy started making custom controllers was the day even playing fields died in console gaming, and scuf basically put the icing on the cake in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post

I play from 90 - 105 depending on the game. Some games seem to handle higher FoV better than others in terms of warping but really there is no reason to go below 90 unless you have some serious visual impairment and need to make things huge. 90 should be the default and on console options to change it should be available within certain performance metrics. 90% of people will never touch it, so artists can design shit with a non-claustrophobic-but-still-not-huge 90.  The people that are going to change it to something higher are not the same people that care about the looks.  Its a pretty simple calculus imo.

On 10/6/2019 at 7:11 AM, Basu said:

Dude I remember after the Reach beta when people where still in honeymoon phase and complained about every shot in H3 "wow in Reach that would've registered" and people unironically said "moving to bigger and bettter things". Then the game came out and within a month killed at least half my friends list (H4 killed the rest).

The game was only enjoyable once it way heavily modded and half the game mechanics got removed (Anniversary settings, NBNS and GoldPro). I'll never forgive Bungie for completely shitting on this franchise on their way out.

Reach was clearly some sort of experiment.  "Lets take this beloved franchise with a killer gameplay formula that is getting more popular and fuck with it in very core ways just for funsies."  Fuck you bungie.  Its not hard to fix though.  Playing the MLG v7 settings back to back with the 85% TU settings is a real wake up call.  Bloom and abilities fucks that game over so badly.

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.