Stuart Black, the creative director of Bodycount, is a guy who speaks his mind; if he's passionate about something, you're going to hear about it. While extolling the virtues of Bodycount at a demo on Tuesday, he mentioned the game's field of vision -- the actual "viewing area" that the game renders on the screen -- as something that goes a long way toward making it a better shooter. Obviously, if a game is in widescreen, it should show you more on the sides, but some games don't; Black brought up the original BioShock and its sequel, noting that both games launched with faux-widescreen FOVs.
This eventually led him to Killzone 2, a game that he lambasted for having a "particularly poor" FOV: "They had a very tight field of view, [and] the environments were scaled very tightly to you -- you had to spend a lot of time looking around." A reduced FOV is an issue because when you see less of the battlefield, you have to move the right stick farther to keep track of your enemies.
But Black didn't stop at calling out Guerrilla Games -- he disparaged the DualShock 3/Sixaxis controller as well, bad-mouthing the analog sticks' precision (or lack thereof):
And particularly on the PS3, where that right stick is very loose, you have to work really hard to [get] a good feel on that. You don't want to have to spend a lot of time looking around, and they didn't do a good job with that right stick in Killzone 2. That's one [game] where I'll say, 'That was a bit poo, really.'
Ouch. And Black didn't even bring up the whole Sev-is-a-midget thing. Sounds like somebody's going to be hearing from the Sony Defense Force pretty soon...
There are plenty more juicy tidbits from my interview with Black, so keep reading Destructoid.
Contest:
12:20 PM on 06.04.2010 | 
THe controls took time to get used to as I hated the Poop out of them as well but they felt fluid after an hour or so of playing.
I also agree that the PS3s stick are hard to use. I always find myself aiming badly when playing shooters on PS3
gentlemen, prepare your pitchforks
He's just trying to sell his game, fine... talk about the FOV and how it works with his game, but I think he's wrong about Killzone. It has a narrower FOV for a valid reason and it works. The game feels better and plays better for it.
Also what is Bodycount?
Oh, it's a game by the makers of Black? You mean the worst FPS game I've ever played, including Daikatana, where the supporting casts consists of "guy, guy with a shotgun, guy with a rocketlauncher?"
Why is this guy allowed to talk? That's like MacDonalds calling Red Robin shit.
Still can't get over the fact that I recall everyone considering Black being "meh" at best when it was released, though.
Playing these games with giant weapons on screen and narrow FOVs is a pain in the ass, and reason enough for me to keep an eye on Killzone 2.
Ideal FOV for a standard "square" monitor is 90. Ideal for a widescreen is a bit bigger than that. Halo and ODST were alright at their settings. Not great, but alright. Halo 2 Vista required me going in and changing the hex codes to make it playable, though.
I'm really annoyed by this "shrink the screen!" trend. I mean, it makes games WORSE. I enjoy Left 4 Dead more than its sequel because I don't get a headache playing it. Why implement a feature that gives me a headache? I do not understand.
Everyone should just stick with 90 or more. I can't stand Bad Company's Default of 55. That's just crazy.
i really dont agree with you there, i dont find "surprise" as a valid reason for a smaller FOV, specially during online matches
and hearing a creator of black call another fps a bit poo........ yeah irony doesnt begin to describe that situation.
As for FOV, when playing PC games I quite often change the FOV to fit what I'm doing, in Fallout 3 for example, when Sniping I use a smaller FOV than when I'm using a close-quarters character. The ability to change it is awesome and all games should include it on campaign mode.
That said, Killzone 2 has some pretty strange view-related problems and the sticks ARE twiddly. These are reasonable criticisms of the game even if they come from some four year old girl's imaginary giraffe friend.
Will Body Count do better? I have no idea. I'm not a huge fan of Black.
But the guy is generally right. KZ2 had a narrow field of view in mostly corridor sized areas where you got attacked when you passed a corner. It had a weird chest-height camera and the controls DID feel sluggish and a little jumpy. I'm not sure that made it "poo" but that is a bit of a judgement call based on how much the flaws bothered him.
Obviously I'm referring to the fact that he's calling a clearly superior product shit, when he made what many consider the worst, and most generic FPS of all time.
It's just out of line. If this came from someone who made a respectable product, I see no problems. And yes, Daikatana was ten times more fun than that pile of crap.
It simply lends itself to different game styles. Personally I enjoy games based more on immediate reactions, but it really depends on the gamer. Again, my only point is that FOV is a key part of the game's design (or should be), because it creates a different feel within the game.
@Magnalon
who is this "many" you are talkin about?
black was generic but it was far from the worst FPS ever, the game wasnt even bad to begin with
Also, PC has superior controls..... just saying. I can't imagine playing L4D2 on XBox 360. Looking up and down with a controller just doesn't work as well as with a mouse.
here's whats gonna happen, his game comes out, has no story, okay shooting, crap multiplayer and problems that have to be fixed via patches.
The problem is that too many fanboys are afraid of change, even if that change is an obvious improvement. Some games have good enough calibration to get around it, but in general, this is yet another factor that makes me keep buying multi-platform shooters for my 360 instead of my PS3.
I'll second that. As someone else said above he's just trying to promote his game by claiming his looks better than Killzone 2 because it has a larger field of view. In reality there aren't very many games that look as good or better than Killzone 2.
As for the controllers.... talk about people being brainwashed. Loose sticks on the PS controller???? WTF. If anything I've always found them tighter. As for the positioning....do people really believe that the half a centimter difference between the dpad and the stick is that huge. Lay a PS controller over a 360 controller and you'll see they're practically the same. Both controllers are laid out about as perfectly as anyone could make them. The only differences I've ever noticed are that the dpad and buttons on the 360 controller are less responsive than a PS controller.
He still makes a good point though. I'd love to see more FPS games make better use of the widescreen.
I thought KZ2 was a lot of fun but not without its faults. Really short main character, kinda sluggish/heavy controls, and running through enemies when you're trying to melee them were among the few.
Aiming with a stick is no way to treat shooters like serious business.
I normally prefer third-person shooters (though maybe because I can see what my dude looks like and where he's standing) but I don't have problems with Borderlands' narrow FOV either. It doesn't diminish size with distance as much, so you can spot guys farther away.
We'll see how Bodycount turns out. For all Black's talk about getting the guns to feel right I bet it ends up a trainwreck of floaty movement and aiming and muzzleflashes that totally blind you whenever you're shooting... that way it's hilarious if I'm right and still a pleasant surprise if I'm wrong.
I can tell you right now, as a veteran joystick and controller user who has used analog controls for shooters for more than a decade, the PS3 controller has some of the best feeling, most precise and smooth analog sticks I've used on a controller. They have a greater sense of precision and range, are smoother because of less resistance, and have less preceptible deadzone area, than the 360's analog sticks, and that extra range of motion and precision, that smoothness and lower resistance, really makes them feel great for precision aiming and long-range sniping in shooters. In an FPS, making subtle aiming adjustments on the fly is key for hitting long-range targets off in the distance, and the PS3 controller's smoothness, range, and lower resistance helps a lot in this regard.
The infamous Kontrol Freek (FPS Freek) add-on works so well by utilizing the same principles and characteristics that are already somewhat inherent and built-in to the PS3 controller's analog sticks, such as increasing range of motion (PS3's sticks have more range than the 360's), increasing the height (PS3's sticks are taller than those on the 360), and decreasing the resistance required to push it around (PS3's sticks have less resistance than the 360's).
I guess since the PS3 controller and analog sticks are so "terribad" or "awful," at least according to Xbox fanboys who want to propagate certain negative myths about the PS3, the Kontrol Freek's FPS Freek add-on should fail monumentally and be completely worthless and useless and not be popular at all (especially in pro gamer circuits) right? Quick Xbox fanboys, send your emails to Kontrol Freek to explain to them how their product is totally flawed!
How sad is it when users have to vastly modify the Dualshock controller to just make it COMFORTABLE, much less actually FUNCTIONAL?
LOL SONY (seriously though, these seem pretty cool, cheap way to improve the DualShock. /buys them)
As far as the whole controller issue goes I find the Xbox 360 controller to fit my long bony hands better than the PS3/PS2 controller does/did, but I think I prefer the layout of the joysticks on the dualshock in certain circumstances.
Also, I've always had a difficult time using the DS3 controller. Not only do I find the sticks loose, but their layout hurts my hands after more than an hour or so.
Just my preference, of course, but I think the 360 controller is far superior (minus the d-pad, but I don't play fighting games).
It appears as if you missed the tab in the menu called "options".
In which case which of those burger joints represents Killzone? Surely not Red Robin, house of the overrated sawdust sandwich.
The thing is, the PS3 controller really is harder to master. People play one and then the other, they'll usually pick the 360 controller because it feels easier to aim on the fly. However, I do agree with you, because if you can master the PS3 controller, then you'll have a more powerful tool at your disposal. This is really a situation where people feel more comfortable with controls that are easier to master, and a smaller option range. I never argue with people who tell me the 360 controller is superior, I just give them a smile and wish them well.