The Old Camera Angle (closer) VS The New Camera Angle (farther and higher)

[wavebend]

i have exactly the opposite opinion than the OP and @ub3rprogmr ...... the more i see, the more ""immersed"" and ""attatched to the world"" i feel, because irl, you dont see life through a small window.... you got nearly 180 degree vision...... i dont want "fishbowl" vision in games, but looking through a small window is worse... (for me)

It has nothing to do with looking through a small window

The reason why the comparison shots I've made look like you're losing a lot on the FOV side is because I'm simply zooming on the picture, and not actually moving the camera closer to Geralt. Even with a zoom, the camera is still way too far, which makes it unrealistic. Make thje camera closer and it should look much better (as in TW2)

 

[ONLY_ONCE]

TW2 cam was too close, but I would use it as an option in TW3 if we had it.
The cam did zoom out a bit in TW2 when Geralt has his swords in hand if people remember
As for the distance of Gerat and the vast open world view
I'll say it again, RDR did the cam distance/view right.
The open world looks big and real, it's better than any open world game I've ever seen.
Mixed with the sounds and lighting, that game is the first and last game to make me as a player, feel like it was a real place.
It created such moods in me, that it reminded me of such environments that I have been to in real life.
I expect TW3 to be even more realistic than RDR since it's next gen, it should be really amazing.
I can only hope TW3 is the fantasy rpg I dreamed about the very first time I played RDR, and then some.
May 19th is almost here, and the only things I can see left for devs to do from what little I have seen and read...
is, fix the pop in/pop ups. Whatever you want to call it and make sure that all animations of Geralt, Roche, NPC's, Monsters look cool and move smooth.. blah.. blah.. blah.. and fix little annoying bugs and floating textures if they can, like grass clipping through the rocks and other small details. e.g Things that should NOT be floating in mid-air, but whatever man lol...

 

[wavebend]

 

[wichat]

That's remind me when the films on CinemaScope were projected without the anmorphic lens... massive mutilation.

 

[Vixraine]

Well, ok. But console gamers are not able to use mods.

So let's all put this on the feature-wishlist for the dev team, alright ?!

I cannot, do not, and will not speak for the Devs.

But given that they are tailoring each version of the game to shine as much as possible, I would expect the Console versions to have a slightly narrower FOV and (possibly) a slightly closer camera angle than the PC. This is simply due to the nature of how much of your (the players) actual field of vision will be taken up by the game when being played from across the room, as opposed to right in front of your face.

Several games where the camera is designed to be able to sit at different distances make use of this to present the best possible experience to the people who are playing the game. Using a PC field of view on a tv screen would look almost as bad as using a TV field of view on a pc monitor.

 

[ub3rprogmr]

well personally I sit relatively close to my tv so I would like a large fov.

 

[ann.ltd]

I got motion sick in TW2 so in was happy when mods where available and installed FOV slider. Give PC gamers the option. Motion sickness is a real thing and a decent FOV slider should be in every game!

 

[shawn_kh]

I personally think the Witcher 2's camera was too close, and the Witcher 3's is a bit too far and too high.
I like the WItcher 3's camera, but I would bring it a bit closer to Geralt.
I hate a camera that is tilted to the side such as Witcher 1's camera.

 

[wavebend]

In any case, if CDPR ever decides to add a camera slider, make sure Geralt gets a bit of privacy

---------- Updated at 11:10 PM ----------

 

[Psykosonikninja]

Yeah, I agree. I definitely prefer Geralt to be closer to the camera...the way it was in some of the earlier footage. It was also much closer in The Witcher 2, which I liked. When the camera is pulled back too far it loses a bit of immersion for me and it makes the game look worse because you can't see any nearby detail as well. I hope they will give us the option to choose from several (at least two) distances for the camera.

---------- Post merged on 04-04-2015 at 12:23 AM ----------

I'm surprised that some people seem to act like the game would be unplayable with a closer camera, although both previous games had a camera angle similar to the one shown in the first trailers/screens
I definitely prefer the old (close) camera angle outside of combat. I don't see a reason while Geralt has to be so far away while exploring and in my opinion the immersion suffers from it.

Edit: Besides I also believe most of the downgrade talk comes from the change of artstyle (removal of the sharpening) and the new camera angle.

Yeah I definitely agree with that. I think it makes sense to move the camera further out during combat, but when just walking around, exploring the environments I much prefer the closer camera. It just feels more intimate and immersive, whereas the withdrawn camera feels less immersive and more gamey.

I hope they give us a FOV slider in the settings, as well as a setting that controls the distance of the camera from Geralt. That way we can all be happy.

 

[jjensson]

Thanks OP for bringing up this interesting topic!

I think it boils down to being a delicate balancing act between immersion and natural feel of the field of view.
So, in the following I will elaborate further upon screenshots posted.

A 21:9 monitor would change the game here.. great immersion and natural (ie. not too small) field of view:
View attachment 12075

But most gamers are restricted to a 16:9 ratio. So the task is to find the best balance between field of view and immersion.
-> In my opinion CDPR in the current build favour field of view a bit too much.
I adjusted the image only slighty but I think it makes the experience more immersive without sacrificing the natural feeling field of view:
View attachment 12076

And before (current build) - makes me feel more detached of the game world:
View attachment 12077

The image adjustments by the OP on the other hand make the field of view feel too constrained imo:
View attachment 12078

Also, I don't like people often saying "Aye, just use mods mate".. there are also console gamers inhabiting this planet.

Actually your proposition (2nd pic) is a really good compromise. I could vote for that.

 

[shawn_kh]

This is perfect, and it is not extreme.
You get the positives from both ends of the spectrum without the negatives.

 

[Giovanni1983]

This is perfect, and it is not extreme.
You get the positives from both ends of the spectrum without the negatives.

I could go for that, that's not too close as posted in some other pictures. You can still see Geralt's whole body in this.

 

[ONLY_ONCE]

Yeah, that would be a good preset camera option.

 

[Stiler]

In this day and age I don't get why more games don't offer all the camera options you'd want when it comes to third person.

All we really need are:

1. Zoom feature, like almost any mmorpg/rpg game these days offers, a simple zoom in/out with your mouse wheel so you can be as up close or zoomed out as you want.

2. Camera Orientation - Centered, Over the Shoulder left, Over the Shoulder right. These three options are the most common in third person ogames, you have your traditional "centered" view where your character is in tihe middle of the screen, then you have your over the shoulder options like many "action" games have these days and the ability to toggle it to be over the left or right shoulder.


It is very possible to offer all of these as "options" and then let the player choose how they want to play

Personally I am a fan of the centered camera but more level (IE not detatched and 3 feet above Geralts head) and closer in.

I just hope they offer as many options as they can and allow everyone to play how they want with the view.

 

[Salulu]

I feel it's worth pointing out at this juncture that 'zoom' (where the camera is positioned close/far to the character) and 'field of vision' (how wide the aperture on the camera is and what it allows you to see left and right) are two separate things, and should be identified correctly when trying to discuss preferences.

Exactly.
I was about to bring this up reading through the thread because A LOT of people seem to have the idea that zoom and FOV are the exact same thing.
They're not, you can have a zoomed out camera yet still a flat view of the environment because the FOV is too low, which is what people get nausea from, a low FOV, NOT a close zoomed camera.
FOV is basically an imitation of our eyeballs to project to a 2D space, since we view them on monitors, and also how cameras take images to show 3-dimensional space on a 2D photo.
A high FOV would mean a sharper curvature of the camera lens, it's done this way because our eyes are also curved, and everything we do to imitate 3D to a 2-dimenional space is because of this.

This is why stuff like this

Accurate comparison:

Is NOT an accurate representation of what you want to convey about zoomed cameras and FOV.
Yes, a zoomed camera option would be nice, but showing it this way, as you can see, makes people confused in what exactly you want, and shows a lot of opposition in the form of saying it would feel clostrophobic or induce nausea.

TL; DR Zoom isn't directly linked to FOV, and FOV isn't directly linked to zoom.

 

[wavebend]

Exactly.
I was about to bring this up reading through the thread because A LOT of people seem to have the idea that zoom and FOV are the exact same thing.
They're not, you can have a zoomed out camera yet still a flat view of the environment because the FOV is too low, which is what people get nausea from, a low FOV, NOT a close zoomed camera.
FOV is basically an imitation of our eyeballs to project to a 2D space, since we view them on monitors, and also how cameras take images to show 3-dimensional space on a 2D photo.
A high FOV would mean a sharper curvature of the camera, it's done this way because our eyes are also curved, and everything we do to imitate 3D to a 2-dimenional space is because of this.

This is why stuff like this

Is NOT an accurate representation of what you want to convey about zoomed cameras and FOV.
Yes, a zoomed camera option would be nice, but showing it this way, as you can see, makes people confused in what exactly you want, and shows a lot of opposition in the form of saying it would feel clostrophobic or induce nausea.

TL; DR Zoom isn't directly linked to FOV, and FOV isn't directly linked to zoom.

Yeah. Zooming isn't the same as bringing the camera closer, so this isn't 'accurate'. The only reason why I put 'accurate' was to compare using the HUD

 

[Giovanni1983]

Yea they are different things. The post in the previous page by @shawn_kh is a good solution. Still good FoV and zoom

 

[TheMorbidAtheist]

I like a closer camera angle for walking around
I like a slightly broader camera angle for fighting
and I like a broad camera for when I am running/riding

 

[HeelPower]

Man oh man the camera is sooo disappointing in the lastest video.I understand that they they player to have a good view over everything ,but we're inching on League of Legends territory here.

How is this supposed to be a visceral action game ? We're almost playing league of legends here.You'll never be able to see details on monsters in TW3 because of how fart this is.