Also, the camera in our game does quite a lot of clever things. It’s simulating your eyes rather than your head. I think what a lot of people have done in the past is they’ve stuck a camera in the person’s head and they move around like robots….The field of view is very important. A lot of first-person games have a very claustrophobic point of view, usually to create tension or scares. We’ve got a very wide field of view which gives you much more peripheral view of the city. And you get much less disoriented.
Au contraire! In the days of Quake, 90 degrees was the default and standard field of view (and in id Software's games, you could change the field of view yourself by typing "fov 60" or "fov 120" etc into the console). But later on as games got more "advanced", developers used smaller fields of view because by constraining the amount of visual information on the screen they could relieve some of the processing work load of the computer. In other words, they "cheated" in order to achieve more stunning 3-d graphic quality. They gipped us on visual field not to create tension, but instead to try to cover-up for over-ambitious graphics programming.
DICE's (who are developing Mirror's Edge) own game Battlefield: Bad Company (Xbox 360) seemed to use a constrained field of vision of about 60 or 75 degrees when I played the demo. And since the part of the game I played took place in an open outdoor environment I assume they weren't trying to create tension or claustrophobia. And unfortunately to my senses, a field of view that's less than 90 degrees is disorienting and uncomfortable.
I'll let bygones be bygones. Because finally somebody is booting that HEAD-BOB (or view-bob, or head sway) elephant out of the room, or at least this is the first time I've ever heard a developer mention it or give any explicit attention to it. First-person games have traditionally included something called "head bob", which means that your perspective bobs around while you walk around in the game world. In other words, developers were simulating head movement rather than simulating an actual perceived visual field. Which was a terrible idea because no human being actually experiences any peculiar visual consequences of their head bobbing around while running. Our visual field remains stable, even while we walk or run, despite the fact that our body undergoes a fair amount of jarring. Our visual sense knows how to do it's job even when we're moving wildly all over the place. Only a sudden knock to the head will destabilize our perception of the world. Try it yourself: jump around, flail your arms wildly, run, be crazy. You won't feel your field of view bobbing. If you hit yourself in the head you will-- don't hurt yourself.
Our real sense of vision is stable (except when we get whacked), and it's wide open. The sooner these facts are recognized and incorporated within applicable game designs, the sooner we'll have a more wholesome psychological experience while gaming. Let's face it, the visuals presented by first-person games are abominable simulacra of our cognitive functioning and of the real world, so their camerawork should be crafted with all of the methodical deliberation of cinematorgraphers and continuity editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment