So i was watching some E3 footage of Dishonored and noticed that alot of people were unhappy about the narrow field of view. I play both console and PC games and i've never found the FOV to be a problem and don't really understand the big concerns from many PC gamers who want an adjustable option. Can someone please explain the big problem with it, without disregarding me as a 'noob'?

I also don't see a problem with it... but the only (valid) excuse I've heard is some people get motion sick with narrow FoV.

I never thought of it like that, thanks. It was just one of those things in which i saw alot of complaints but not alot of reasons for them but if people genuinly feel ill from playing on narrow FOV then i guess they have a point.

The FoV problem is most occurring in PC gaming. So here's the thing: The normal human visual field extends to approximately 60 degrees nasally (toward the nose, or inward) from the vertical meridian in each eye, to 100 degrees temporally (away from the nose, or outwards) from the vertical meridian, and approximately 60 degrees above and 75 below the horizontal meridian.

Most games however go for a 65 field of view AT ALL TIMES. That is bad for the eyes because you have a wider degree view. Most doctors actually recommend a wide screen TV because it doesn't messes with your eyes' peripheral vision. From a gameplay perspective you see less than you are supposed to which is a huge crutch. Since the gaming community has seen an increase in gamers, some already with eye problems, the issue has become more apparent.

Some people don't even notice this issue. I used to play my games mostly on my PS3 and I didn't notice the issue because I was sitting a little away from my screen. With my laptop however I cannot do that seeing as it's screen is attached to the keyboard and you need a keyboard and mouse for most games. Fortunately, my favorite games don't have a low FoV (Darksiders, Thief, Deus Ex) or have FoV options (Team Fortress 2, Deus Ex:Human Revolution and so on).

I don't know if this made it clearer or not so please excuse me if it hasn't. It's a huge problem for some people and it should be clear to the developers as well. Modern Warfare 3 actually has a lower FoV than MW2 if I remember that right. Which is definitely not a step in the right direction. I want to personally thank Arkane for being such a great group of people and recognizing obvious issues with first person PC gaming. You guys are amazing!

Thank you strifecross for that detailed and informative explanation and yes, it has made it alot clearer but if what you say is true, about wider screens, wouldn't it still be a problem that even if the game has a larger FoV, parts of background outside of the screen will still be inside the peripherals?


Even though i won't use the FoV slider, i still believe the more options the better. Dishonored is looking great

Well, the background isn't the major issue. If you have a decent 16:10 monitor or even a 16:9 one and playing on a good FoV (preferably around 75 and up) then you won't any issues. I know people who have large wide screen TVs and when I watch something with them I hardly notice the wall behind it. Maybe that's more of a personal thing too.

One reason FOV is also important is that if it's too narrow, then it can cause problems for some people ranging from general discomfort, to eye strain, headaches, or nausea. I find a narrow FOV incredibly uncomfortable to play with.

Oh goddammit, narrow FOV. Gonna get all the motion sickness.

Aside from the motion sickness, you can't see as much on the screen. How is that not a valid complaint?

because sometimes the developer doesn't want you to see it.

poor example, but imagine if they increased teh FoV in DotA. It would completely change how the game is played. I realize that was an engine limitation, but changing it now would be disastrous.

When people complain about FOV, they are literally only ever talking about first-person games.

Not true, as a beta test for HoN I head many people complain the FoV was too small, purely because they wanted to see more of the map at once.

Because it was small compared to DotA.

Wouldn't the height of the camera, and not the FOV, determine how much of an ismoetric game you can see?

Yes, exactly. That's why FoV is a first person game argument exclusively.

yes.. but the height of the camera affects the field of view... as does the angle (the camera isn't 90 degrees to the ground) You do get a cone of vision, not a prism or rectangle.It's just that the narrowest parts are above the map.

Yes but in third person games it can only be changed by adjusting the camera's angle. In first person games the camera is at one place all the time so it becomes an adjustment of weight and height and your cone of vision increases that way.

you can change a cameras height and with in any view, not just first person...

That's true but it isn't what FoV is all about. And I was referring to the fact that the camera's position indicates a third person game's FoV, whether as the camera in a first person game is always at the same position and things like draw distance are what matter there as opposed to the third person games. Third person games generally have a wider FoV because players depend on the information of their surroundings. Third person games rarely have this issue because it's pretty easy to make the camera in the right angle. Well, some games have awful cameras but still have a wider FoV. Rarely do you see designers screw up the FoV on a third person game.

But it doesn't. If you adjusted the field of view in an isometric game, it would stay at the exact same height and angle, but you would just be able to see more in that screen, with distortion near the edges to fit everything on screen. That's how field of view works. It's literally an widening of the view, not a zooming out.

Actually yes you're right. I wanted to say the same thing but kinda goofed. viziroth, you tried to confuse me! ARGH!

when I said height for a second time, I was refering to the y axis, not the z axis... the way you would adjust it in a first person game...

If I didn't post height a second time (because my internet went screwy and it didn't post my other post) then I meant to post saying how every way you can change a camera in a first person game you can change it in a isometric game. The angle of the cone's vertex can change from 45degrees to 100 degrees or the circular base can change to an ellipses for more x than y....

field of view may be a more "natural" term for first person games, but it isn't only for first person games.

Also, even without all this explanation, how isn't the amount you see not related to field of view?!?!

Technically it's the same thing but FoV options in a game do not move the camera. Basically that's it.

True but in this case though there's no reason for the developer to want to limit your FOV. It's not a competitive multiplayer FPS game where the person with the higher FOV has a slight advantage, it's a single player game. A stealth game, too, so situational awareness is actually very important, and you get more of that with a higher FOV.

There are two fundamental reasons why the FOV needs to be limited in a 1st person game:
- Because of picture distortion: we have architects who spend a crazy amount of time finding the exact right scale of buildings, streets, and all volumes used to build the world. Set a too wide or too narrow FOV, and you totally destroy the work they did at building a nice and edible picture. Unless you're a fly, you can't see 120° around yourself.
- Because of the player model proximity to the camera: when player arms are displayed on screen, increasing the FOV value often results in visual glitches, most commonly camera coliding with the arms model, allowing the player to see "inside" them. Believe me, you don't want to buy a game with such a bad polish!