Field of View is how much peripheral vision you have. The bigger the FOV, the further
away from your crosshair you can see. Because sometimes, it isn’t enough to see when enemies
are in front of you. Occasionally it can help to be able to see them to the sides. Especially
in an arena shooter like Quake 3, your enemies can come from anywhere, and it helps to be
able to see as much as you can around your character. Take this clip here, for instance!
We’re not seeing what Shrock is seeing, so his deagle-flick shot looks very SUS indeed.
But the chances are he was simply playing on a 16:9 aspect ratio screen, which gives
him a wider FOV, and therefore was able to see that enemy stepping out from behind the
far-side of the pillar. Or maybe he’s cheating. What do I know.
So you’d think that all players would want the highest FOV setting possible, wouldn’t
you! But in Counter-Strike, it’s often the opposite. Many pros would rather have a smaller
view, and then to stretch it out across a wide monitor. So they see less, but everything
they do see appears bigger on-screen. And thus, easier to hit?
Maybe.
Speaking of changing your field of vision: this video is sponsored by NordVPN, which
will let you change your internet location to one of Nordvpn’s 5000+ servers across
the world, which you can trial today thanks to Nordvpn’s 30-day money-back guarantee.
Using a VPN to change your location and IP address grants new opportunities and experiences,
even in a game like CS:GO! Of course, it’s worth noting that gaming
from another location will increase your ping. But there may be instances where a higher
ping might still be worth it. A VPN can be used to distance your location away from a
problem region, or to prioritise games in a country you’ve found to be friendlier,
or EASIER. You could jump to a country where it’s currently 5 in the morning, where servers
are empty to let you more easily grind Operation Riptide missions with a friend against bots.
Always wanted to know what Japan’s like, but can’t afford the flight? Well… Nordvpn
can’t help you with that. …but CAN let you play a match on a Japanese
server with Japanese people! And of course, the usual IP and location anonymity
benefits of a VPN also apply when browsing the internet. Take the 3 kliks or so required
to check out the link in the description to learn more.
So Field of View all starts with knowing about Aspect Ratios, which is how many pixels there
are across, VS how many pixels there are going vertically down the resolution you’re using.
I will be telling you what FOV each aspect ratio is later on, but you won’t care, because
it’s worthless knowledge. A FOV of 42 means nothing. It’s kind of like knowing the answer
to the meaning of life, but without knowing the question! Or in this case, the aspect
ratio you’re using. Take your computer monitor. Chances are, it’s
a 1080p screen since that’s what’s currently most popular. If you use it properly then
you’re using an aspect ratio of 16:9 because the screen is 1920 pixels across. You can
count them if you don’t believe me! And if you get that number, divide it by 16 and
multiply it by 9, it becomes 1080. Which is the number of pixels going down your screen.
Hence, 16:9 aspect ratio. So that’s it. Simple stuff. But just because
your monitor is 1920x1080, you don’t have to stick to that. You can choose another resolution
which may have a different aspect ratio! And most pro players do decide to do that.
So there are two main aspect ratios you should know about: 16:9 is the modern standard. And
4:3 is the old standard that CRTs used to be, and is what most pros still use in Counter-Strike.
4:3 is the same as 16:12. Which sounds like it’s the same as 16:9 but taller, doesn’t
it. But Counter-Strike doesn’t treat it like that- it ends up being like 16:9 but
with the edges cut off. So it’s more like… 12:9.
Then there are less common aspect ratios as well like 16:10, which is somewhere between
the two and is a slightly older widescreen standard which I still really like-less so
for gaming, but more so for desktop applications. And then the black sheep of the aspect ratios
is the low resolution of 1280x1024, which for some inexplicable reason is 5:4, which
makes it even squarer than 4:3 is, despite being listed in the menu as being that. But
it isn’t. It’s a lie. So if you want thicc models, then use 5:4.
But if you want the biggest FOV, then stick to 16:9 or go further still by investing in
an ultra-wide monitor. Now I have my opinions on this matter -which
you’re going to disagree with- so instead of me babbling on and making lots of enemies,
let’s instead look at what the pros are using. Because, while they’re wrong not
to use the same settings as I would, it doesn’t seem to be holding them back too much.
Prosettings.net lists 418 pro players’ setups. And I’ve got to say, I was impressed with
its data. Even the data that looks kind of wrong still manages to hold up scrutiny. This
list probably isn’t perfect or completely up to date, but they receive corrections and
appear to respond to them and honestly, I think it’s about the best all-in-one resource
we can use to get a gist of what pro players are using. So well done to prosettings, and
thank you to everybody who helps them to maintain it.
So by far the most popular aspect ratio used is 4:3. Almost ¾ of all pro players on the
list use it, despite none of them actually being on a 4:3 monitor! At least, I don’t
think they are unless they’re still lugging a 20-year-old CRT to events.
A distant second-place is the aspect ratio of 16:9. Which means that just 14% of pros
are using their monitor to display an image that’s the same shape as that monitor!
Next down the list is 16:10, meaning that an additional 6% of pros still use widescreen
but slightly stretched. And last is 5:4, meaning that 4% of pros use
the most stretched vanilla option. And then there are a few weirdos which I’ll
be naming and shaming later. So isn’t this interesting! There does appear
to be a sweet spot, and one that most players don’t bother going beyond.
There’s nothing stopping you from using any aspect ratio you like! Sure, it’s not
wholly convenient, but you can shape the screen whatever you want it to be. You could make
it square if you wanted. You could literally game at 9:16 if you wanted to. The limiting
factor is how much ridicule you’re willing to endure.
So I think the appeal of 4:3 is that it’s readily available in the options menu without
needing to do any weird tweaks. And also, unlike the even stretchier 5:4 option, 4:3
comes in a number of different resolutions, which I guess caters better for personal preference.
Let’s look at the resolutions the pros are using.
The highest resolution present on the list was 2560x1440, which is the conventional 16:9
aspect ratio, but a resolution above that. This is -apparently- played by a grand total
of… 2 pro players. And they are Shroud and Flom, in case you were wondering. They’re
using 1440p monitors, but it doesn’t mean they’re using that resolution. Maybe they
just like the larger sizes of those monitors. But it does seem weird to specifically go
for a 1440p monitor over a standard 1080p one if you’re then not going to use it for
that purpose. They’re certainly both using PCs capable of running CS:GO well at 1440p.
But yeah, if we pretend those two players don’t exist, the rest of the pros on the
list game at 1080p or lower. 1080p, by PC gaming standards, is already low. (But it
is coming back into fashion as the hardware shortages continue!) Yet in CS:GO, even at
the highest level of play, using full 1080p is still on the high-side! Only 11.5% of pros
chose to use their monitor at its intended resolution.
The most popular resolution, played by 41% of pros, was 1280x960. And 25% still use 1024x768.
Both of these are classic 4:3 aspect ratios, meaning they need to be stretched to fill
a modern display. AND YET, almost ¾ of all pros on this list use a 4:3 aspect ratio,
and ¾ of those use it stretched. So the 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratio players make
up the majority. But 6% of pros play at 16:10, which is somewhere between the two. Kind of
like a modern screen, but slightly taller. Of the weirder resolutions used, DavCost supposedly
uses 1600x1024, which I’ve never heard of before and would be a 25:16 aspect ratio.
Which, if true, would make it a whisker narrower than 16:10, but not by much. I looked up some
streams of his and when measured equated exactly to 16:10, which is a bit less weird.
And the other weird resolution that I saw being used was… 970x800? I thought this
had to be a joke! But I reached out to pro player Harre and sure enough, he says he uses
it, he likes it, and was first shown it by an older pro player back around 2016.
This makes it an aspect ratio of 97:80, which is the squarest of them all. Well done to
you, Harre. May your screen be stretched, and your targets thicc.
You weirdo.
So looking at the overview, it’s not like pros are favouring the most extreme settings.
Instead, most of them fall in the middle somewhere: firstly by using an aspect ratio of 4:3, which
isn’t even the squarest of the supported resolutions. And secondly they favour middling
resolutions, which are neither of which are as high or as low as can be. If it’s about
getting the highest FPS possible then they’d choose 640x480. But clearly, this is too low
for players to want to use. So they want at least some degree of clarity. But then, if
clarity was all that mattered then they’d be running at 1920x1080. Which most are not!
All else being equal, I’m surprised that 1280x1024 isn’t more popular than it is,
since it’s kind of like the one that most pro players use, but slightly clearer AND
slightly more stretched! It’s amusing to me that players seem so against using 5:4
aspect ratio when it seems to stand for everything they seem to want.
And I know I said earlier that you’ll dislike my thoughts on this matter, but this is too
convenient a place NOT to share them with you. All of this, suggests to me that pros
are using the settings they’re using, not because it’s the best in any measurable
way, but simply because it’s what they’re used to using. I think that today’s generation
of pros, when they first started out, looked to see what the previous generation of pros
were using and they copied them. Because why not. And maybe this has been going back decades.
What we’re seeing here could be the product of monitor design-choices that date back 15-20
years, even… maybe even more than that! Which is incredible to think about.
But because today’s monitors are physically wider than they used to be, it gives today’s
players one additional choice they must make: stretched, or black bars?
Because older, squarer aspect ratios, if displayed on today’s screens, SHOULD have black bars
either side of them. And yet, almost 75% of players who use a squarer aspect ratio still
end up stretching it to fill the whole screen any way. WHY?! As in, why go to all this effort
when you could just game at 16:9 instead? The primary reason I can think of is because
it makes everything appear bigger, and fatter. And if an enemy looks fatter then surely that
makes them easier to hit?! But then, if size is all that matters then we’d all be gaming
on 70” screens, or be sat 6 inches away from our monitors.
So the reason people like ‘stretched’ is because it stretches them only in one dimension,
instead of two. But I will just say: if a player appears fatter, they will also move
faster across your screen, which in my opinion negates any advantage to them being ‘bigger’
in the first place. But WHATEVER. Pros use stretched, and they’re pro, so there.
But even somebody as cynical and as miserable as myself can see a real, tangible benefit
to there being stretched displays! Lower resolutions = higher framerates, = more responsive mouse
movements, and thus, better overall ability. And by lopping off the sides and by stretching
the remainder, you ARE viewing fewer pixels, which would cut down on processing requirements.
But I do think this benefit is diminishing as computers get faster. It isn’t as important
as it might have been 5 or 10 years ago, to get the highest framerate possible. And I’ll
acknowledge that even well beyond the refresh rate being used, higher framerates do result
in a smoother, more up-to-date and more consist display of the action that’s going on. And
this, to me, is the most logical reason for why people believe they perform better on
lower, (and stretched) resolutions. The 4:3 aspect ratio is just an unfortunate by-product
of this. So I would urge players to give native resolution another chance, as I DO believe
these days, a modern computer has the power to still deliver a silky smooth experience
at these higher resolutions.
And if framerate is the reason that lower resolutions are used then I’d recommend
720p instead, which would run even faster than the current most popular resolution,
in addition to offering a wider field of view, and making more sense given the shape of modern
monitors. But right now, only one pro uses this resolution, so I’m at a loss as to
why pros use the settings they do because they seem to be a compromise in so many ways.
But stretched isn’t the only option being used. Next most popular after that (And still
more popular than using the aspect ratio your monitor’s designed for) is to use ‘black
bars’, which is the same as stretched, only… not stretched. You’re still gaming on a
lower resolution, you’re still gaming with a narrower aspect ratio. It’s just now,
you’ve got permanent black bars down the sides of your screen. It means you’re wasting
your screen’s real-estate, but I understand players who use this better than I do the
ones stretching their screen. Because at least with black bars, it’s quite clear that the
people gaming like this do so because they find peripheral vision distracting, and would
rather focus on whatever’s right in front of them and to have that in the central region
of their display.
Now the bit you’ve been waiting for. Let’s calculate the field of view! For this I made
a custom map, and thought it would be fun to make using a picture of a protractor. Yet
I can’t shake the feeling that I might have already done this before at some point. At
least once. And then I get all sad thinking about how pathetic it is that I’ve made
SEVERAL protractor-based maps in my life… so far.
But whatever. It works. The key thing to note here is that the vertical FOV does not change.
No matter which resolution or aspect ratio you’re using, you ALWAYS have a vertical
FOV of 74 degrees. It means your choice of aspect ratio will ONLY influence how far around
to the sides you will be able to see. The largest of these is if you use 3 screens-
obviously- which would be an aspect ratio of 16:3, offering a horizontal viewing angle
of 152 degrees! So there you have it, the obvious: the wider
your aspect ratio, the higher your field of view. Like I warned you about at the beginning,
these numbers don’t really mean much on their own. I still think bigger is better,
but then I also use a VPN to grind against bots, so what do I know. Most pros favour
settings which grant them less.
I thought we might as well cover refresh rates as well, given that it’s to do with monitors,
and it’s in the data right here so why not talk about it. And it’s interesting that
almost every pro player on the sheet uses a 240 hz monitor. And we’re beginning to
see the very recent new standard of 360 hz creeping in as well, which I expect will grow
as time goes on. The most surprising thing for me was that only 1 player on this list
is still using a 144 hz monitor, which for a long time was the accepted gaming standard.
Given the diversity with the aspect ratios, and the difficulty in keeping a spreadsheet
of this size updated, I thought there would be more stragglers than this, and more people
with odd preferences. But no! Unlike field of view, pros are almost all gaming on new
monitors and high refresh-rate standards. Of course, I have to point out that players
probably don’t get much of a say about which monitor they use- on a per-team basis they’re
likely kitted out with a certain monitor from a particular brand, as part of a sponsorship
deal. So what’s documented here is less about personal preference, and more about
what’s generally accepted as being the current standard for gaming monitors and refresh rates.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that higher refresh rates are better. There
will be diminishing returns, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a player who would go
out of their way to game on a refresh rate lower than whatever’s available for them
to use… though I bet there’s at least one pro on this list whose PC is still set
to 60 hz. Because there’s always one. Speaking of which, one player seems to be
gaming from the future on 1000 hz! Clearly, this is a mistake in the data because no monitor
can handle that just yet. The player in question in mhL, his monitor only goes up to 240 hz
so I think, in the absence of that information on his profile, the 1000 hz refers to his
mouse’s polling rate. Prosettings, pls fix. Unless mhL has discovered a way to game at
1000 hz, in which case… please teach me your secrets.
The other reason I wanted to talk about refresh rates, and why I’m so surprised about the
unity on …’display’ here, is because refresh rates USED to be dictated by the resolution
that was being used. On CRT displays, the lower your resolution, the higher your refresh
rate could be, which was yet another reason why players would be better at lower resolutions.
This isn’t the case any more with modern monitors using decent connections, but I wondered
if some ancient knowledge about refresh rates would have been passed down the generations
along with the aspect ratios. Apparently not. I’ll move on.
So in conclusion… yeah. I’ve made it pretty clear that I don’t see a benefit to using
4:3 or stretched display, but the truth of the matter is that most pros use these settings,
and it’s not stopping them from being pro. So you’re free to disagree with me, but
I think it’s done out of habit, and believe we could make the game better by introducing
a FOV slider. Many games already have this. Many COMPETITIVE games. And I think the very
fact that pros use such weird aspect ratios and resolutions proves they would benefit
from such a feature in CS:GO. Maybe have a separate vertical and horizontal
slider, so you could have the same stretched image, but still using your monitor’s native
resolution. When the suggestion of a FOV slider was brought up a few years ago, the argument
against it was that players would use the highest possible, when clearly we can see
that this wouldn’t be the case. It might even be that the opposite occurs!
So there are good reasons for adding a FOV slider.
What would the downsides be? It might introduce some more bugs if the slider goes too high
and breaks the vision in some way, and there would need to be some design decisions surrounding
scoped weapons. And… it might confuse spectators if they see or DON’T see the same view as
the player that they’re watching? But I’d argue it’s like that with stretched displays
already. So come on, Valve. Roll out a FOV slider and
let players embrace the beauty of native resolution. At least then, if players continue using weird
resolutions, then we know they’re simply being stubborn.
I mean, what sort of moron would play CS:GO at a strange resolution? One that is, at best,
a placebo, and at worst, detracting from their full potential? Glad I’m not like that.
Time to settle it once and for all, by loading up Quake 3. This is where it all got very
popular, and where many players first decided their FOV and resolution preferences! Ironically,
I had to use 4:3 because this game’s support for widescreen is lacking. But I was still
able to boot up the training level, and to speak with the Mother of FPS players. Over
20 years on, Crash is still there, roaming the tutorial level of Quake 3. She’s there
to train players in the art of fragging, and to answer any burning questions they might
have. And to deliver quick-witted, dank banter. She has a lot to answer for.
And there it is. Thanks, Crash.