Joystick and Multi-Monitor Support

[Zulthus]

Well, too bad for them. Your eyes don't wrap around your head so you shouldn't be able to have more than a 70 degree FOV at most. You shouldn't be able to see everything around you at once. Play it normal on one monitor or live with having paid more money for a skewed image.

[VioletZero]

Playing with such a field of view on one monitor is not fun.

Putting it on multiple monitors gives an advantage to people who have better technology that isn't widely adopted.

[Kaotc]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Well, too bad for them. Your eyes don't wrap around your head so you shouldn't be able to have more than a 70 degree FOV at most. You shouldn't be able to see everything around you at once. Play it normal on one monitor or live with having paid more money for a skewed image.

but you can see more than 70deg out of your eyes..... unless you have some crazy tunnel vision.
from the very edge of the left to the very edge of the right your looking through 100deg of vision, if not more. why not allow us to have a realistic FOV

The reason games are set to a narrow field of view is because we play them on 1 monitor, and if they had a standard FOV, it would look all shit and compressed, just like running 70FOV on a triple monitor setup looks all shit and stretched

having 3 monitors doesn't allow you to see everything at once, as you like to keep trying to point out.... it just enhances immersion, and allows your peripheral vision to be part of the game


ps. i dont have a triple monitor setup

[VioletZero]

Yes, because being able to see more people out of the corner of your eye than others is TOTALLY not an advantage.

[Kaotc]

did i say it was not an advantage? no, I said it does not let you see everything at once, as you portray.

think about 3D quality sound. games support 7.1 surround sound these days, that is a DISTINCT advantage over those using their monitor's speakers. Allowing users to pin point exactly where those footsteps came from, just using the sound available? i think that is the same advantage as using a triple monitor setup to utilise the users peripheral vision.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Kaotc

did i say it was not an advantage? no, I said it does not let you see everything at once, as you portray.

think about 3D quality sound. games support 7.1 surround sound these days, that is a DISTINCT advantage over those using their monitor's speakers. Allowing users to pin point exactly where those footsteps came from, just using the sound available? i think that is the same advantage as using a triple monitor setup to utilise the users peripheral vision.

Yet it's still an advantage. The default FOV in most FPS nowadays is 60, and even then you can see plenty. The thing about sound is, it isn't a DISTINCT advantage like you say it is. Being able to see much more than the next person because you have three monitors is a much, much more obvious advantage, and even more still since some games don't even have footstep sounds. PS1 didn't. Not even in the same ballpark kind of advantage.

There's nothing wrong with playing at 70 degrees. It's a game, not real life, therefore it doesn't have to make sense. It's balance. You can play it on one of your monitors and have a perfect, crystal clear image or you can play it skewed on three monitors because you so choose.

[TheBladeRoden]

90 is the standard FOV I use on a single monitor

[Yetiee]

Higby tweeted a pic of a joystick and some pedals saying he was looking forward to trying them on a reaver.

[stordito]

i'd love to have joystick support (i've a Saitek x52).

[Chaff]

whatever
boohooohooo

....someone has something I can't afford.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....sniffle....

I doubt I'll ever wonder if I died to someone else because they ran more monitors than I was willing or able to. It sure sounds like ENVY.

Guys can deny it, but their crying gives them away. The game is not even running yet.

When we had our satellites running during Desert Storm - it was pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel. Our technological superiority was due to us being a more advanced country in that regard. What ? Was the US Army supposed to be limited to blindfolded homing pidgeons in order to "make it fair" ? War - even a FPS game - is all about finding and exploiting a strength or weakness. Too many perceived advantages are us as players simply being unwilling or unable to accept someone got the better of us.

3-monitors is NOT cheating in my book.

I don't cry when I'm passed by an Escalade or Bentley on the freeway. I assume the person is making more money than me. It's a capitalistic country here in the good ol USA.

The number of triple-monitor rigs in PS2 is likely to be insignificant percentage-wise.

People get powned. Facing a more-skilled player, aimbots, triple-monitors ? ......

I don't know that it's been unequivically proven to be an advantage. Even if it is, it's not like 90% of the player base has it and I don't.

If I'm in a game where 90% can afford a better platform than me - than I should go into Windows and play Solitaire.

If I can't afford it, or if I'm "too smart" to spend my money on it ..... EVERYONE else must dumbdown their system to match mine ? ....... same mouse, same everything......of course, opposing players are allowed to have systems WORSE than mine. I'd be "okay" with that.

"IT"S ONLY A GAME"....therefore, it's undestandable and justifiable that I come unglued over anyone else having something different ..... or God-Forbid even .00021% better than me.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa !

Whiners suck
.

[Chaff]

.
My opinion is that if Zulthus (or anyone else here) won a new PC system with good specs/components and came with a nice triple-monitor setup that:

1) They'd probably dig it and learn to LOVE it
2) They'd feel lucky to have it
3) 98% of their kills would STILL be because the BETTER player won - NOT due to the FOV of 3-monitors.
4) The increased IMMERSION would be what they notice and appreciate the most

How many "AVOIDED DEATH"S a wider FOV might yield a player - that's the only real question I have. I'm curious how that could accurately be measured.

I'd like to play such a system for 2 or 3 months to find out what I really thought of it. I'd have to play such a setup to have any chance at learning how it affected my survival, death, and kill percentages.

My gut tells me that IMMERSION into the Auraxian World would be 98% of my appreciation of a triple-monitor setup. It looks to be a beautiful game. Seeing more of it would be where any increased enjoyment would come from. I doubt my K/D would change much.

I'd probably die MORE while staring at sunsets and all the new special effects and better game mechanics and eye candy.

[DviddLeff]

7.1 surround sound would be far more of an advantage as you can hear what's going on behind you; it's certainly helped me a lot over the years.

I really want a triple monitor setup as well in the future, purely for the immersion.

Obviously it costs more intially but you also have to consider that not all games will support it and if you want to keep playing with them in the future you will have to upgrade your pc sooner than you would otherwise. This extra future cost is what is putting me off the idea at the moment (not that I can afford three new monitors,or the pc I would need to run them!).

[FastAndFree]

Also, I guess triple monitors are not as useful as we expect them to be.
How much space can one watch at the same time, really?
When I was rewatching my recorded PS sessions I was surprised just how much one can miss even on a single 24" screen

But hey if people want to turn their heads instead of their mouse when they want to look slightly left or right, who am I to stop them


Excited about the joystick news, Higby delivers again!