I have just seen the halo 4 first look, and my first thoughts were looking great, but having the same mistakes as halo 3 and reach had being (to zoomed in). I know this game is still in production but having fps games where field of view is 65-70 turns alot of people away from the games because of getting annoyed for having tunnel vision. why cant 343 break the trend and make the field of view say 80-85 like the old halos were. i believe that a simple change like this could make a competitive multi player or break it because it would make the game quicker.
other than this, looking great battle rifle looks great (not too keen on the scope and hopefully this game won’t be influenced by call of duty again.
I have always thought that 100 is the best field of view. It makes movement seem fluid and fast, makes the game generally feel faster and makes you be more aware of your surroundings without looking ridiculously wide. But the current field of view modern Halo games have is definitely too low, it feels slow.
Halo CE split screen had 120 degree fov… it was breathtaking. Best fov I have ever played with in a shooter. Personally I am hoping for 90 degrees, but I am realistic that Halo 4 will follow in its predecessors and wont improve it.
Some older games, like goldeneye & counter strike, actually gave fov control to the player, and fov could be adjusted as the player desired. Depending on your display device, the image would simply become either squished, stretched, or letterboxed.
And somewhat on topic, it boggles my mind why 343i is keeping the reticle located below center. Halo CE was centered, but for some ridiculous reason Halo 2/3/Reach all have it below center. Out of all the things to keep from Bungie, the reticle location was a bad decision. Man i hope they decide to center it.
> Halo CE split screen had 120 degree fov… it was breathtaking. Best fov I have ever played with in a shooter. Personally I am hoping for 90 degrees, but I am realistic that Halo 4 will follow in its predecessors and wont improve it.
>
> And somewhat on topic, it boggles my mind why 343i is keeping the reticle located below center. Halo CE was centered, but for some ridiculous reason Halo 2/3/Reach all have it below center. Out of all the things to keep from Bungie, the reticle location was a bad decision. Man i hope they decide to center it.
I agree on the first part. A little wider FoV would be nice. I don’t know if that would cause the game to consume more computing power however.
On the other part I tend to disagree. Having the reticule below the center of the screen will make you look more to the sky and be more aware of things happening above you. Because there is probably a bigger chanse someone will be on the 2:nd floor in a building then buried down in the ground like a mole. If you on the other hand look down from a building you also have a better view of the area below you even if you look straight down the wall. The reason why PC-games doesn’t have the reticule like this is probably because it’s so damn easy to turn your camera around in a 1/10 of a second anyway.
> why cant 343 break the trend and make the field of view say 80-85 like the old halos were.
The old Halos had a FoV of 70 (in Halo 1’s case, but this isn’t too shabby considering that it was 4:3) and ~78 (in Halo 2’s case for widescreen; Halo 2’s fullscreen was ~63 degrees). The only Halo title which has a 1-player FoV of greater than 80 is Halo Anniversary, which has an FoV of ~86 (it’s so big because they wanted to extend to widescreen without sacrificing much vertical angle from Halo 1’s large fullscreen FoV).
> Halo CE split screen had 120 degree fov…
I think it’s just under 110 (but I haven’t made a particularly precise measurement). But yeah, it looks amazing.
> I want to be a detached flying monstrosity with miniature weapons like back in Halo 2 and CE.
>
> Those were the good old days.
>
> I rather dislike Halo 3’s and Reach’s FoVs.
If you dislike Reach’s FoV, you probably dislike Halo 2’s as well, since they’re about the same. Halo 3’s is the only one that stands out from the others in problematicness, since its widescreen FoV is only 70 degrees!
> On the other part I tend to disagree. Having the reticule below the center of the screen will make you look more to the sky and be more aware of things happening above you. Because there is probably a bigger chanse someone will be on the 2:nd floor in a building then buried down in the ground like a mole. If you on the other hand look down from a building you also have a better view of the area below you even if you look straight down the wall. The reason why PC-games doesn’t have the reticule like this is probably because it’s so damn easy to turn your camera around in a 1/10 of a second anyway.
I hear where you are coming from. But I deeply disagree with you. If I want to look upward, then I will look upward, I don’t need/want the game’s default camera pitched upward. I find the default angle extremely awkward and disorienting. No other FPS does this…
There is actually a very common playing behavior in FPS games, when navigating a map, players will lower their reticle toward the ground, and look at the upper 1/3rd of the screen. Having the reticle placed below center makes the aiming correction needed to return the reticle to head level exacerbated.
If reticle location on screen where an in-game option – I would not even put it center, I would put it a little above center since that is my natural viewing angle.
Though I must add that from the beginning I also moved my reticule towards the ground when running around. I have now trained that away. If that’s a good or bad thing I don’t know…
Put the damn thing in the middle. I feel like I constantly need to look up to put my reticle higher then cannot see what’s going on near my feet. Why defy all FPS convention?
What is natural FOV? Also, it’s a flat screen so not entirely realistic. Should games start making the characters Peripheral vision black and white, too? lol jk
I’ve had no problems with any halo game imo. Pretty sure Halo CE had 75. The only game I didn’t like the FOV was Halo 2 and I’m pretty sure it had the highest.
Small FoV = less things for your 360 to render at the same time = saves resources, simple as that. Not to mention watching games at such big distance ( a few meters) as people play consoles, FoV is made to give the best experience. Close = big FoV, far away = small FoV.
I would prefer a larger FoV but I can understand why the choose a narrow one.
> Small FoV = less things for your 360 to render at the same time = saves resources, simple as that. Not to mention watching games at such big distance ( a few meters) as people play consoles, FoV is made to give the best experience. Close = big FoV, far away = small FoV.
> I would prefer a larger FoV but I can understand why the choose a narrow one.
I agree with the rest of your post, but I think you got this part backwards. Larger FoV means you see more, so everything looks smaller like it’s further away. And visa versa.
> > Small FoV = less things for your 360 to render at the same time = saves resources, simple as that. Not to mention watching games at such big distance ( a few meters) as people play consoles, FoV is made to give the best experience. Close = big FoV, far away = small FoV.
> > I would prefer a larger FoV but I can understand why the choose a narrow one.
>
> I agree with the rest of your post, but I think you got this part backwards. Larger FoV means you see more, so everything looks smaller like it’s further away. And visa versa.
Sure, I might have phrased that part badly. I meant that when you’re close to the screen (aka PC) you want a big FoV, you’ll benefit from it, while when you’re far away from the screen (consoles) a smaller FoV will be better, otherwise you’ll end up missing things or worse ^^
thanks for letting me know
