Field of View Should Be An Accessibility Option, Not A Perk
Title.
It's infuriating to me that someone thought it'd be a good idea to tie what makes half of the game even playable for some people to a perk slot. The abysmal base field of view for killer instills motion sickness, dizziness, and headaches in me as well as other people I've talked to and seen online.
Shadowborn shouldn't be a perk. It should be a slider in every killer's options.
That's my rant on the forums for the month I guess.
Comments
-
If this FOV is this game doesn't mesh with you, maybe this isn't your game. Or maybe killer is not your role.
FOV should not be an "option"...a bigger FOV is an advantage for the Killer and everyone would use it. Wider FOV would just become basekit.
2 -
Not gonna lie, I agree. But since the game seems to be balanced around, "How can we assault the killers' senses?" it won't happen.
But yeah, FoV is a perk. So are a ton of information perks, but survivors get those for free. What can ya do.
3 -
If it's such an advantage then why isn't everyone using shadow born. Oh yeah IT ISNT
1 -
Because it takes up a perk slot that could be used by a better perk. If it didn't take a perk slot, I believe yes, everybody would use it.
2 -
There have been a lot of times where an increased FoV has actually HURT me and not been beneficial. And I use Monitor and Abuse on quite a few killers, so I have comparisons in every game I play with it. That extra 8 degrees does actually squash a lot of things together, making some things look unnatural. I'm not playing on a small TV either, so there's no arguing that point.
One thing to also consider is that half the killers wear MASKS. This would obscure a lot more vision than the game lets on, and while that is more of a game mechanics vs. lore issue, it's still something to think about.
Ummm, no it isn't. If it WAS then firecrackers would be the most common item in the game.
And all survivors have is information. They are literally playing an INFORMATION GAME and they're not for free. Bond is a teachable, Spine Chill is short range, Premonition is pretty meh and on a cooldown, Object of Obsession is (again) a teachable AND gives the killer info too. Yes, running is an important skill, but outside of that there is nothing to the survivor game except the information you have and how you use it.
The hated "second chance" meta build also uses zero information perks. In general though, outside of OoO the information given by survivor perks is limited at best. Even something like Empathy tells me "Oh, great. This INJURED SURVIVOR is getting chased on the opposite side of the map. Not much I can do there except expect them to go down soon."
2 -
I was referring to all the information perks that you get by playing SWF.
Killers just get to deal with straining their senses constantly in a game that's based heavily on assailing those senses, and people say, "But you can run a perk for that, lol!"
1 -
It would be a big advantage if it were an adjustable option.
Since its not and instead a perk, it takes up a perk slot, therefore leaving it up to the player if they feel confident enough that they want to use up 1/4 of their perk slots on wider FOV or an actual perk that could help in chase, slow down gens, provide any sort of pressure on the survivors, etc.
I don't even completely agree with the person ya replied to due to motion sickness being a very real thing I don't think the devs accounted for but cmon man.
1 -
They could make Shadowborn a general perk instead though, right?
Although I guess the Wraith is a free killer, and just like a perk like self-care, you could unlock Shadowborn first and put it on everyone...assuming you could survive the motion sickness (or play survivor enough to earn that amount of bloodpoints).
0 -
Yeah, I've been playing solo for the past 6 months so I don't count SWF.
As for the "There's a perk for that!" argument, all I'm going to say is everyone says the same thing for NoED. And tunnelling. And camping.
I agree that saying just use perk is a terrible justification, but in a sense that's the game we play. Perks modify the game to adapt to a player's preferences.
0 -
Dude, I'm a rank 1 survivor and rank 7 killer, and honestly the only reason I'm not higher is because I can't play killer for more than a few minutes without feeling like I've got a serious eyestrain and headache.
Of course bigger FOV is an advantage. It's an advantage in every game, but it's still a basic accessibility option that's present in pretty much every first person game without penalty to the rest of the player's options. This wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the base FOV was serviceable.
0 -
And that's fine. If increased field of view messes with you, then my suggestion to make it and option doesn't change anything about it. You'll be able to change it to whatever you're comfortable with.
0 -
"Most of the survivors' hiding a juking options" would only include hiding in corners next to you and directly under you. Survivors can still hide in lockers, dark corners, bushes, etc. Shadowborn isn't THAT powerful and even so not everyone will use it. It would be an option, like 90% of other first person games.
0 -
Then that just leaves the issue that you'd be playing with three perks and no motion sickness. Still at a disadvantage by not using all four perks slots. Shadowborn is definitely not a powerful enough effect to warrant a perk slot.
0 -
Imagine if there was a perk to increase sensitivity of the camera.
That'd be an option, I'm sure. The devs fixed it.
FOV should definitely be next.
0 -
FOV is literally accessibility, not meant to be an advantage
but this game doesnt even have a real video settings menu, you expect something as advanced and modern as FOV?
and no, shadowborn doesnt count
1 -
Behaviour has a really alien relationship with game settings. They seem to think that basic things like FOV and brightness -- options that are basic comfort-level things -- should be in-game mechanics. It's really dumb.
1 -
Maybe it's because I've played a ton of Fallout 4, but I don't find the Killer's FOV to be much of an issue for me. That said, I can understand why some people might have motion sickness with the jank FOV that DBD has for both Survivor & Killer (For me it's especially uncomfortable with Survivor because you always feel like you're too close to your character).
I don't think adjustable FOV sliders is the way to go though, even though accessibility options are nice, it would remove a ton of the techs and jukes that Survivors have at their disposal completely if Killers were to be able to freely change their FOV. One of the most coveted perks for Nurse is Shadowborn, and for good reason. And I wouldn't want to think about the Nurse having a free perk slot open because she maxed out her FOV settings rather than using Shadowborn.
0 -
Im so surprised you are shooting down something that would benefit killers or slightly hurt survivors no wait im not because thsts all you do.
0 -
I mean...what?
You do realise the perk itself has gameplay implications over and above your motion sickness, right? That's why it's a thing. And yes, I've used the perk myself and had a waaay easier time targeting survivors.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
I'm just trying to figure out whether you realise that or not.
1 -
Field of view has gameplay implications in literally every first person game, and there's nothing wrong with that. If the argument is that survivors will lose just a few of their juking options and techs even with the 800 pallets, vaults, and strong loops and perks, that's honestly a pretty weak argument.
0 -
Exactly my point. There should be a line between atmospheric and fair and "I literally cannot play the game because I can't see."
0 -
Not really, when you're playing "hide and seek with death, the game".
Field of view is critically important in such a game where hiding is core gameplay.
Honestly that's just arguing in bad faith, you didn't even try.
1 -
I would say you are proving the argument that it should just be a setting that the user can control. This is a normal, accepted thing in video games in 2020. I know people who cannot play games with certain FOV settings because it makes them nauseous. Broad player accessibility should always take priority over some edge-cases tryhards.
Post edited by Rydog on1 -
Hmm...I'm not sure you just saying I'm proving the argument makes that a valid statement in any way, shape, or form. Especially since the entire reason the field of view is locked is as a function of the core gameplay. I mean the killer literally plays in first person instead of third for gameplay functionality.
Should the game be made in such a way so that it's accessible to as many people as it can be? Absolutely. But at the same time the same person who said that Motion Sickness is a terrible thing and should completely be able to be countered through any means necessary, also said they didn't want to give up a perk slot for it.
Does that not strike you as arguing in bad faith?
If FOV could be rebalanced in a way that would make it customisable to individual needs while also not affecting gameplay, I'd be absolutely behind that. However, arguing that FOV has no gameplay impact in a game where it clearly forms a crux of the gameplay - i.e. visibility - is arguing in bad faith.
0 -
100% agree. People shouldn't be required to use a whole perk slot just to not be sickened by the FOV.
1 -
EXACTLYEXACTLY
1 -
@Ikalx FOV has gameplay implications in many multiplayer games, but that doesn't keep developers from including it as an option. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate reality that not everyone can enjoy it in the same way. But player comfort and accessibility should come first.
Imagine what the reception would be if they finally added colorblind options, but in the form of equippable perks for each type of colorblindness. Wouldn't that seem a little stupid to ask some players to sacrifice a huge part of their core build options (an entire perk slot) just to be able to experience the game comfortably?
1 -
Totally agreed. We shouldn't be forced to use shadowborn or monitor and abuse all the time to get these quality of life benefits.
1 -
@Rydog I mean yeah, it definitely does, but most not to the same degree. Not even close to the same degree. I mean I'm fine with changes if the gameplay is rebalanced to accomodate them, but let's not just pretend that these things have no real gameplay impact when they do, that's all.
0 -
You seem like you're implying that DBD is some kind of special-as-heck outlier when it comes to field of vision. It's no more or less critical to the gameplay mechanics than it is in every multiplayer first-person shooter dating back to the dawn of time.
1 -
"But at the same time the same person who said that Motion Sickness is a terrible thing and should completely be able to be countered through any means necessary, also said they didn't want to give up a perk slot for it."
When exactly did I say "any means necessary?" I recall saying that it should 100% be an option and NOT require a perk slot to alleviate. Basic accessibility should take priority, as the gameplay implications are pretty small in comparison to the many people who can't physically play killer because of how eye-graining and nauseating it is.
0
