Very major concern on consoles though!!! I know some people use wheels and fightsticks, but generally everyone has to use the same view to create an equal playing field. I remember now how the FOV was in Quake, you could sort of see around corners etc right, if you adjusted FOV and stood at an angle?
rp2000
Only if you set it stupidly high which warranted PB bans on most servers back in the day, and still does I believe. FOV 90-110 is generally accepted as being the right range without giving an unfair advantage like you describe. It more effectively mimics human eyesight so you dont feel like you are playing on 2x magnification all the time. It would not be difficult to lock FOV to maximum of, say, 100 and have settings templates as part of the options menu that reduced/increased graphics settings to maintain 60FPS depending on what FOV was selected.
I think just because people think of these consoles now as PC's without windows are forgetting that they aren't actually PC's. If you want that level of customisation then get a flipping PC in the first place not a games console.
I have both, and would like to see
basic config changes available on both. I imagine many other gamers feel the same way and I imagine you would also probably admit a higher FOV in CoD would not be a bad idea if you were honest about it.
The "cuz it's not a PC" argument is a little short sighted. Online multiplayer is something consoles have inhereted from PC, along with many other aspects that consoles never used to have. Were you telling people back in the PS1 / early PS2 days to stop complaining about no or limited online functionality "cuz it's not a PC"? Or did you accept it is a basic function that should be there?
What about HD functionality? Were you saying "if you want hi res graphics buy a flipping PC"? Or did you feel it was something consoles should have?
This isn't some massive burden to the dev teams, it is some basic config tweaks that the game can be set to do automatically depending on which option you select. It is no different from a gamma/brightness slider or changing stick sensitivity.
They want to give the illusion of customisation in game with loadout options and weapon/perk choices - even down to the clothes you wear and the way you look, but when it comes to the preference of the player over things like FOV, controls and graphics details they give nothing so it kind of makes the whole situation a bit daft.
Likewise they dont force you to use the same stick sensitivity do they? Or brightness? Or even pad layout? Or paintball effects? So even the idea that a one size fits all policy is necessary to maintain a level playing field is not really true is it? I am sure we could all get used to 3 sensitivity eventually but for those who use 6 it is likely to always tarnish their play experience to be forced to use 3.
Sensitivity of 6 is a clear advantage over anyone using 2 or 3 simply in terms of reaction speeds and target acquisition. But sensitivity isn't locked, the player has the choice. Scuff pads are also an advantage, but they are sold freely and many players use them. Sitting 2 feet away from a nice 24'' gaming monitor is better than 8 feet away from a 32'' TV.
So please if the only argument is balance and a level playing field, I am afraid it falls flat on it's face.
Players should have the choice over such basic settings because they have advantages and disadvantages. Higher sens means faster aiming and reaction speeds but it is harder to be as accurate. Lower sense is easier to be accurate but you cant react as fast so are vulnerable. Higher FOV means better peripheral vision overall but at the cost of mid-long range visibility making targets appear smaller at distance and so harder to hit.
Swings and roundabouts
And why do they insist on putting invisibility into MP games?! 