Overwatch will spend it's entire existance trying to justify itself.

[Flammablezeus]

I usually just lurk around here but this time I might have something to add! I actually am one of these people who gets severely sick without the FOV properly adjusted. You start to feel like vomiting. It doesn't come instantly, often it takes an hour to kick in. It also takes about an hour and some fresh air to pass. I imagine it varries per person.

Minecraft somehow is the WORST, possibly because I keep pushing myself to keep playing. Anyway, I tried to find what is causing it, but no one knows. The best explanation (which is just a theory mind you) is that its a defensive measure your brain takes because it thinks you've been poisoned and are hallucinating. It starts to make you throw up to get the poison out.

So yeah, I'm pretty dissapointed a dev would restrict there game in such a way...

Minecraft has an adjustable FoV of up to 110°, so you can try adjusting that. Assuming you have a widescreen monitor you'll probably want somewhere between 85° and 100° to feel the most comfortable. I think I have mine set to 85° or 90°.

At least it's not as bad as The Darkness 2 was at launch. Try playing with a 45° FoV. It was like permanently looking down a scope. I had to install a mod to be able to play it.

 

[Ishal]

That's really low... but I don't think I'll be getting this anyway.

Much as it seems fun, if it's going to be as team based as they say it, like less TF2 and more DOTA... no thanks.

That would mean focusing on heavy team play to the extreme. Fuck that. Fuck team play games. I'm too old for this shit.

 

[Vigormortis]

So....I take it, with the FOV cappad at 65°, Blizzard is intending for everyone to play the game on one of these in portrait mode:

That, or they're expecting players to play with their monitors at least 5 feet away from them.

 

[Mutant1988]

So are we to assume that Overwatch takes place in a futuristic universe where every single individual lost their peripheral vision?

Because that's the only way this makes any sense.

I don't like having tunnel vision and the reason why I play on PC is partly to get away from it. I want a FOV at about 90 to 100 degrees. More or less depending on what kind of game it is and how important peripheral vision is.

I don't get motion sickness from most games (If you want to induce that, intermix things you're supposed to focus on, like text, with camera shake or counter-movement camera movement). However, I get very annoyed at the sensation of wearing a box on my head that cuts off any and all peripheral vision.

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

...So we're not going to get a link or anything to where it says that it's going to be 65 FoV? Just your word? Alright...

Man, I'm getting sick of these threads where people don't really have a source link or something in the OP, I mean, yeah, i can look it up myself but it just irks me.
It makes it hard to tell from a glance if the topic being discussed in the OP is actually true, like in that Supergirl thread for instance where the OP was going "Lol, it sucked, take my word for it."
Debating in threads like this is a LOT easier when you have a single source everyone can view and talk about.

As for the game, well it's still in Alpha at the moment so who knows if that's final or not, I know from following Heroes of the Storm coverage that the game is MASSIVELY different to how it looked back in Alpha.
Besides, with the recent trends of companies actually reacting to negative feedback like with Valve backing off on paid modding, it might change.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Dude, it's a Blizzard game. It'll do fine.

Let me use my magnificent powers of pattern recognition to tell you exactly how this will go:

The mighty minds of the internet will wear their pale, chubby fingers down to bleeding stubs as they bemoan each and every facet of the game as a travesty and a grievous affront to all True Gamers.

Then the game will come out and it will be bought and played by a metric fuckton of people. Many of the aforementioned mighty minds likely among them.

Thanks. I just had a bit-too-sensitive person misinterpret a casual comment of mine on social media and take me to the woodshed for about a two-page rant. Spent 90 minutes painstakingly crafting a reply.....which will no doubt ALSO be misinterpreted and shit on, because that's how people with fanatical opinions operate. Or maybe it's just my superpower to say that one thing.

Long story short, I needed a good laugh. Thanks again.

OT: Dude pretty much nailed it. Blizzard is really, really good at selling games. That's what's going to happen here, regardless of complaints. People think Ubisoft is the devil but they still buy Assassin's Creed every year.

 

[CrystalShadow]

65 degrees...

Eh. That's low even for a normal monitor seen at a reasonable distance. (a 16:9 24" monitor can occupy as much as 90 degrees seen from about 1 metre away. That means a game forced to run at 65 degrees is showing less on your screen than the section of your field of view the screen takes up - 65-70 is about correct for the distances you're supposed to be from a TV though... XD)

I don't really know though. Field-of-view settings are kinda a personal preference kind of thing. 65 is tunnel vision though.
The tiny FOV is actually what makes first person games in some ways less realistic than third person ones.
Because, while, obviously, you can't see your own body from outside yourself, the field of view you have as a person is far closer to what you can see in a 3rd person game than what you can see in a first-person one.

 

[Atmos Duality]

What, is everyone meant to play with blinders? Are we going to introduce "Fisheye Syndrome" ala Hot Shots?
I normally play at 105-110 degrees (have since Quake 2) on PC precisely because I get queasy if it's noticeably lower than 90.

EDIT: So, it's 65 degrees VERTICAL? That would translate to about 90 degrees at most common aspect ratios; which is much better.

 

[dangoball]

Why are there only like three people in this thread that know what FOV is and don't get their panties in a twist?

Anyway, this is the source, as found on reddit. Very reputable, for sure.

I would put some emphasis on "currently" and "Aiming preferences, viewmodels, dizziness, nausea - these are all factors we considered when designing the current FOV and will remain sensitive and very open to as testing continues."

So to clarify - the FOV of Overwatch is under development and subject to change based on feedback. So stop yer doomsaying and go complain about something else. I'm sure EA or Ubisoft have done something stupid recently.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

So stop yer doomsaying and go complain about something else. I'm sure EA or Ubisoft have done something stupid recently.

Have you been living under a rock? The ONLY way to get the developers to listen to the feedback is if you rage about it on the internet like you have no life. I wish I wasn't being serious. That's what it takes. It's sad, but it's true.

 

[Aeshi]

So not only is there a good chance the FoV will be different in the finished version anyway, but people decided to take the "60/65 FoV" thing out of context?

Not sure why that surprises me, this game could come with a free Cancer cure in every box and people would still find an excuse to demonize it.

 

[Mutant1988]

Why are there only like three people in this thread that know what FOV is and don't get their panties in a twist?

Anyway, this is the source, as found on reddit. Very reputable, for sure.

I would put some emphasis on "currently" and "Aiming preferences, viewmodels, dizziness, nausea - these are all factors we considered when designing the current FOV and will remain sensitive and very open to as testing continues."

So to clarify - the FOV of Overwatch is under development and subject to change based on feedback. So stop yer doomsaying and go complain about something else. I'm sure EA or Ubisoft have done something stupid recently.

The issue here is that this (supposed) developer seem to be under the impression that people choose to play on PC to not be able to tailor the experience to their liking.

No. The exact opposite actually.

I play on PC in part to get away from the forced tunnel vision (And poorly done FoV/motion blur) in console games.

If people can't figure out what FoV is - Put it in the tutorial. A lot better than removing adjusting it as an option.

But if I read that right... Isn't 92 "horizontal" FoV actually a reasonable setting?

 

[Lightspeaker]

But if I read that right... Isn't 92 "horizontal" FoV actually a reasonable setting?

Yup, far as I know most people don't have a problem with ~90 FOV. Problem was it didn't specify in the OP and in general its assumed that FOV is horizontal measurements when its mentioned.

Nothing to see here anymore I guess. Sadly Adam Jensen is right, about the only way to get these companies to listen is for there to be an absolutely gigantic public outcry (in a Blizzard specific example see what happened with Heroes of the Storm when they added artifacts, huge outcry and they removed it because "rune" systems are terrible).

 

[Cowabungaa]

Why are there only like three people in this thread that know what FOV is and don't get their panties in a twist?

Anyway, this is the source, as found on reddit. Very reputable, for sure.

I would put some emphasis on "currently" and "Aiming preferences, viewmodels, dizziness, nausea - these are all factors we considered when designing the current FOV and will remain sensitive and very open to as testing continues."

So to clarify - the FOV of Overwatch is under development and subject to change based on feedback. So stop yer doomsaying and go complain about something else. I'm sure EA or Ubisoft have done something stupid recently.

Ahhh, that 65 is vertical FOV. Well that's just fine then. 92 Horizontal is reasonable.

 

[laggyteabag]

I'd imagine next that Pharah will be showcased and she won't be able to rocketjump

Pharah wont need to rocket jump, because she already has jump jets that do pretty much the same thing, as well as hover.

I would argue that whilst Team Fortress 2 is more weapon based (ie, the Heavy has a minigun, this Soldier has a rocket launcher, this Demoman has sticky bombs, etc), Overwatch is more ability based (ie, Tracer can blink forward, and rewind to retrace her steps, and plant sticky grenades, Zenyatta can use a heal over time, a damage increase debuff, and an AoE heal, Zarya can shoot grenades, shield friends, and create singularities), and it actually looks like they might actually update the roster with new classes every now and again.

People tend to give Overwatch a lot of flack because "OH NO, BLIZZARD IS MAKING A CARTOONY CLASS BASED, OBJECTIVE FOCUSED FPS GAME, IT MUST BE LIKE TF2 *writes angry comments on the internet*", but they seem to completely miss and overlook all of the things that actually makes it a different game in a meaningful way. Whether or not Overwatch actually turns out to be a good game remains to be seen, but I feel that Overwatch is certainly different enough to justify its existence.

Besides, it is Blizzard: They take a pre-existing concept, and then make is more approachable, and in many ways, better. I would put good money on the fact that Blizzard is the only developer that could give Valve a run for their money in terms of quality.

 

[Aeshi]

I'd imagine next that Pharah will be showcased and she won't be able to rocketjump

Pharah wont need to rocket jump, because she already has jump jets that do pretty much the same thing, as well as hover.

I would argue that whilst Team Fortress 2 is more weapon based (ie, the Heavy has a minigun, this Soldier has a rocket launcher, this Demoman has sticky bombs, etc), Overwatch is more ability based (ie, Tracer can blink forward, and rewind to retrace her steps, and plant sticky grenades, Zenyatta can use a heal over time, a damage increase debuff, and an AoE heal, Zarya can shoot grenades, shield friends, and create singularities), and it actually looks like they might actually update the roster with new classes every now and again.

People tend to give Overwatch a lot of flack because "OH NO, BLIZZARD IS MAKING A CARTOONY CLASS BASED, OBJECTIVE FOCUSED FPS GAME, IT MUST BE LIKE TF2 *writes angry comments on the internet*", but they seem to completely miss and overlook all of the things that actually makes it a different game in a meaningful way. Whether or not Overwatch actually turns out to be a good game remains to be seen, but I feel that Overwatch is certainly different enough to justify its existence.

Honestly I feel that if anyone should be crying "Copycat!" at Overwatch it should be the Firefall fanbase[footnote]Maybe the Warframe fanbase as well, though I haven't played Warframe is a long time so I'm not sure if that comparison is still valid (if indeed, it ever was.)[/footnote], Overwatch seems to have far more in common with that game than it does with TF2.

 

[the_dramatica]

But if I read that right... Isn't 92 "horizontal" FoV actually a reasonable setting?

90 fov is the bare minimum that's acceptable for FPS. CS:GO is the most competitive game that runs it, under criticism and with no response from the developers(as far as I know).

Now we have to play at a certain aspect ratio to get an advantage

 

[SweetShark]

Why is this important?
Just curious really.

 

[DoPo]

Why is this important?
Just curious really.

Few different reasons:

- Health reason: it can look wrong for the players. A too low FoV can give some people headaches or nausea, since what they see isn't what they should be able to see. I don't know the exact reason that happens but it happens to some.

- Aesthetic reason: OK, I don't think "aesthetic" is the right word, but essentially you may be fine and not get anything health related from low FoV, yet it may still look wrong. At the very least, it would mean you need to turn around a lot more, since you can't actually see a lot in front of you.

- Competitive/balance reason: what Blizzard are concerned with. It's pretty simple - the people with a higher FoV can, by definition, see more in front of themselves. Which means, they have an advantage over the rest.

 

[SweetShark]

Why is this important?
Just curious really.

Few different reasons:

- Health reason: it can look wrong for the players. A too low FoV can give some people headaches or nausea, since what they see isn't what they should be able to see. I don't know the exact reason that happens but it happens to some.

- Aesthetic reason: OK, I don't think "aesthetic" is the right word, but essentially you may be fine and not get anything health related from low FoV, yet it may still look wrong. At the very least, it would mean you need to turn around a lot more, since you can't actually see a lot in front of you.

- Competitive/balance reason: what Blizzard are concerned with. It's pretty simple - the people with a higher FoV can, by definition, see more in front of themselves. Which means, they have an advantage over the rest.

With this logic, doesn't mean the player with the best computer, will be better?
Because FOV isn't the only benefit. If you have a sh*tty card, it is logical to not play better than others.