june gloom on 17/11/2008 at 03:24
Quote Posted by heywood
I can't see the logic in trying to deliberately recreate the flaws of film and optics that cinematographers have been trying to work around for the last century.
For the same reason a movie like Grindhouse could be successful: to evoke a sense of nostalgia for the old days of film, when the medium was shittier and had to be made up for by quality filmmaking. (What actually defines "quality" is subjective.)
Koki on 17/11/2008 at 06:22
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
so does bloom and hdr if utilized moderately. whoever said that these things were done to make games look "realistic"
Bloom was supposed to represent really bright sun's reflection on white/shiny surfaces. HDR is basically your eye's pupil simulator.
Dario on 17/11/2008 at 06:34
Quote Posted by heywood
But whatever the reason, I'm starting to think that the graphics race is ruining the industry.
Yeah... among other things, it diverts disgusting amounts of money away from important things, and into the art department (and graphics programmers). And it shifts many developers' focus too much over to graphics, sometimes making them think (or act like) if the graphics are good, the game must be good.
But, I can see it slowing down within the next 5 years, now that game studios are starting to reach the limit of how much they can comfortably invest in graphics without becoming Pixars. I think games of the future will switch over to showing more objects/NPC's on screen at once, but not necessarily that much more detail per object (give or take Epic and Id, who will probably eternally fight for the highest levels of detail in all things). Reason is, it's just getting too tedious (and unnecessary) to add more details than we're getting in games like Gears 2, Crysis, COD4, etc...
I do however highly anticipate better lighting and rendering methods.
pdenton on 17/11/2008 at 09:02
Is it a lens? Or a human eye?
I really want to see someone finally make up their mind when designing a game.
If it's a human eye, get rid of the lens flare and and the dirt and blood that gets kicked up on it.
If it's a lens, we must assume there's some sort of aperture involved here, than these "auto iris" features should be more realistic; if you look at something that's bright, overexposed if you will, then iris adjusts, and it should be normally exposed.
I'm not sure if I had it running on full, but HDR in Day of Defeat did this very well. You'd run outside from a dark interior and be blinded for a moment, only to get your complete, normal vision back in a few seconds. Same with any bright surfaces or objects.
Eldron on 17/11/2008 at 09:57
Quote Posted by Dario
Yeah... among other things, it diverts disgusting amounts of money away from important things, and into the art department (and graphics programmers). And it shifts many developers' focus too much over to graphics, sometimes making them think (or act like) if the graphics are good, the game must be good.
But, I can see it slowing down within the next 5 years, now that game studios are starting to reach the limit of how much they can comfortably invest in graphics without becoming Pixars. I think games of the future will switch over to showing more objects/NPC's on screen at once, but not necessarily that much more detail per object (give or take Epic and Id, who will probably eternally fight for the highest levels of detail in all things). Reason is, it's just getting too tedious (and unnecessary) to add more details than we're getting in games like Gears 2, Crysis, COD4, etc...
I do however highly anticipate better lighting and rendering methods.
Actually, most gamecontent is already made at a very high level of detail, normalmaps baked from highpoly models, textures made at a high resolution, then some extra time is taken to scale it all down to appropriate levels.
WingedKagouti on 17/11/2008 at 12:07
Well, the DoF in that picture is fairly accurate...
If you're completely focused on that girls buttocks.
Koki on 17/11/2008 at 12:51
Well, I actually think in 99N it's just a trick to be able to throw in so many models on the screen at once... if you're going to blur them so mercilessly, they can be much less detailed and with worse textures, saving precious processing power which can be used on additional few hundred polygons on heroine's buttocks instead.
Matthew on 17/11/2008 at 13:01
Priorities!
polytourist97 on 17/11/2008 at 19:10
Quote Posted by Muzman
It does exist...
Foggy-goggle syndrome does not exist. Blow out (a bright area being over-intensified after focusing on a dark area) does not exist. Flare exists, but really only on more reflective/shiny objects and surfaces, which brings us to...
Quote Posted by Muzman
I'd say the Stalker guys have cracked how to use it, Stalker's HDR is the best I've seen by a long shot.
Yes, I would agree with this. Stalker is the only game I've seen that gets it right.
I can understand the view that the designers might use the effect in a more extreme manner to create a visual style, but I still would say it looks bad, and the visual style they're going for looks bad. It's just a gimmick most of the time. So when people see it they think "oh, that looks cool", instead of not noticing it at first (which is the sign of a really well done effect).
