Razorback
Member
So when movie directors do it it makes sense contextually. But game devs can't be trusted to decide what their own games should look like.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Graphical effects that make a game look WORSE
- Thread starter shark sandwich
- Start date
So when movie directors do it it makes sense contextually. But game devs can't be trusted to decide what their own games should look like.
BenTheLazyGamer
Member
Oversaturation, too much bloom, motion blur, badly implemented DOF.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
As a pro photographer, it makes me happy to see Chromatic Abrasion actually used correctly.
Though it bothers me when people are confusing depth of field, since bokeh is more appropriate for some posts.
Though it bothers me when people are confusing depth of field, since bokeh is more appropriate for some posts.
paragonpro
Banned
Film grain on mass effect 1, I liked it at first but now I shut it off every time I play.
Sometimes movie directors do it poorly. Sometimes game developers do it poorly. The difference is when a game does it poorly its typically trivial to change.
Most of them, yes. Go look back at the Syndicate video someone posted on page 4. Clearly those devs could not be trusted with the effects they slathered their game in. Most games do not have the same strong vision to guide how everything looks.
The problem with the movie comparisons is that very few making these games gives near the same amount of care a film director would. EVERY moment has to have the same slathering of effects that maybe one scene of the movie had.
Not to mention a film controls where your camera is, and games do not usually. If your effect does not make a lot of sense depending on camera relativity (like some heavy DoF effects), it ends up looking bad.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I would rather have circle shadows than ugly, aliased, popping shadow maps.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
Here is the thing. There shouldn't be low framerates thus no motion blur needed.
Didn't realize there was that big of a difference, though I feel as though color styles are more with art than effect.
realism
+ chromatic aberration
+ muted colors
+ noise
+ lens flares
+ piss filter
+ black bars
+ motion blur
=
2015 video game
Post of the year.
King Gilga
Member
Wow, I couldn't stand how fallout 3 looked, with that mod I might give it a second chance.
Trusay.
Not really?
Maintenance
Member
SunBroDave
Member
Chromatic fucking aberration.
Just why.
Just why.
I don't like lens flare. Sorry Kojima/David Cage.
Stop trying to remind me I'm looking through a camera, I want to feel that I'm actually there and eyes don't get lens flare!
Edit: just remembered vignettes and blood splatter on the screen. Ugh. I get it, it's artistic but... -_-
Stop trying to remind me I'm looking through a camera, I want to feel that I'm actually there and eyes don't get lens flare!
Edit: just remembered vignettes and blood splatter on the screen. Ugh. I get it, it's artistic but... -_-
Dictator93
Member
It improves motion consistency (when done correctly) at any framerate. Check back 2 pages for my post showing the effect of motionblur at 30, 60, and 120 fps.
FrontalMonk
Banned
You know, it's not so much an effect as it is a byproduct of running in UE3, but I just don't really understand how anyone was able to aim in UT3 with how everything was normal mapped and wet looking and just overly detailed. Like, at least in UT2k4 you could SEE your opponents, in UT3 everything kinda blended together. It was the reason why I could never get into it, and I LOVE UT.
HoodWinked
Member
i feel like you have half of the people that understand visuals effects and the other half that are just scrounging together the few words that they managed to learn from osmosis.
motion blur in most cases look fine unless its excessive camera blur. also most of these complaints about color tone/filters are simply judging it based on what looks better in a static screenshot side by side rather than how it effects visual tone.
its weird that yesterday i was actually talking to some people in chat about color seperation in games namely bloodborne and cuphead so its quite nice that people bring up Chromatic Abrasion. i think it actually goes a long way to make things look less computer generated.
motion blur in most cases look fine unless its excessive camera blur. also most of these complaints about color tone/filters are simply judging it based on what looks better in a static screenshot side by side rather than how it effects visual tone.
its weird that yesterday i was actually talking to some people in chat about color seperation in games namely bloodborne and cuphead so its quite nice that people bring up Chromatic Abrasion. i think it actually goes a long way to make things look less computer generated.
I generally prefer having motion blur on but good lord the blur in Type-0 is horrific. It's at the point where I refuse to touch the right stick because it gives me a headache. I have no idea what they were thinking.
Edit: I refresh and there's still only one page. I post, and I'm 5 pages in. Alright.
Ahahahaha this is amazing.
Masterbrew
Member
Why don't we also start altering movies while we're at it?
Look at this shit, real life isn't green.
Wow, so much bloom. Disgusting.
That's not bloom, that is an impossibly wide dynamic range being captured by a real life camera without darkening the faces too much.
Kubrick must have known nothing about lenses. Didn't he notice the chromatic aberration?
Chromatic aberration is the lens and aperture he used's fault. We can't know if it intentional.
As pretty as Driveclub is, it has some effects that just irritate me.
- The HDR lighting when entering and leaving tunnels is REALLY overdone
- Water droplets on the screen when it rains make it hard to see the track
- Camera shaking when driving really fast
In general I don't like it when games are pretending you're looking at the world through a camera instead of with your own eyes.
- The HDR lighting when entering and leaving tunnels is REALLY overdone
- Water droplets on the screen when it rains make it hard to see the track
- Camera shaking when driving really fast
In general I don't like it when games are pretending you're looking at the world through a camera instead of with your own eyes.
We're talking about Stanley Kubrick here. Everything that man did in his movies was intentional.
Perhaps it's better described as having shit smeared all over your screen than as a filter. Whatever you call it, it's super-obvious between Blighttown and The Depths/Valley of the Drakes. You can walk around and rotate the camera to see the difference that filter makes when active/inactive in the transitional areas.
xenorevlis
Member
I like how people think motion blur is simply to "cover up" 30 fps. I play lots of games at 60fps with motion blur, usually dialed down a notch. It is an effect that happens in real life and doesn't happen within a game unless through a process.Now, many games handle it poorly, as in it being really strong or have a very low threshold before suddenly things start to smear. However, it is part of making a realistic game match real life so if done right, it can look great. Driveclub is an example of this.
Color filtering like Fallout 3 is pretty lame. I like the "corrected" version but I also think an in-between setup in the post-processing is nicer, as the artists intended to give the game the look it has. Battlefield 3 is an impressive looking game that also looks terrible at times in vanilla coloring. Yet, going with the "natural colors" looks interesting, but I like the style they have so again, would find a middle ground. That and get rid of the scattered "lens dust" etc. for that game.
Older post processing things that are still around today, like bloom in Wind Waker U, is gross and unfitting of that game's style to begin with. Finally, chromatic aberration is cool if done right, but this is almost never the case. GTA V does a decent job of it, and does channel separation in neat ways during certain moments (as well as weird filtering for being drunk or stoned).
Color filtering like Fallout 3 is pretty lame. I like the "corrected" version but I also think an in-between setup in the post-processing is nicer, as the artists intended to give the game the look it has. Battlefield 3 is an impressive looking game that also looks terrible at times in vanilla coloring. Yet, going with the "natural colors" looks interesting, but I like the style they have so again, would find a middle ground. That and get rid of the scattered "lens dust" etc. for that game.
Older post processing things that are still around today, like bloom in Wind Waker U, is gross and unfitting of that game's style to begin with. Finally, chromatic aberration is cool if done right, but this is almost never the case. GTA V does a decent job of it, and does channel separation in neat ways during certain moments (as well as weird filtering for being drunk or stoned).
megatronium
Member
I remember Perfect Dark 0 getting a lot of flak for some overused graphical effect. Maybe bump-mapping.
And if it wasn't intentional, he would have done another 200 takes until he had it the way he wanted it.
I don't mind CA or lens flares in a game that is not an FPS, kind of got used to it by now.
On the other hand I hate this dirty screen shit along with raindrops on the camera.
GTA V Does CA and Lens Flares a lot too with some cloud-like (volumetric?) lights at night along with heavy DoF (iirc that one has a toggle) that obscures vision but I still love how good it looks.
On the other hand I hate this dirty screen shit along with raindrops on the camera.
GTA V Does CA and Lens Flares a lot too with some cloud-like (volumetric?) lights at night along with heavy DoF (iirc that one has a toggle) that obscures vision but I still love how good it looks.
VARIA
Member
Came here to say this.
Also, the Fallout filter was an artistic choice, which as someone pointed out, helps the oppressive mood of the game. The bright sunny Fallout does not look as menacing.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
60fps may need motionblur depending on the game, but 120fps doesn't ever need it.
There's no such thing as an inherently bad graphical effect. Just one that's used poorly. Motion blur seems to be one of those ones developers have trouble with. It's actually making Type-0 much more difficult to play. You can't tell what you're looking at if the camera is moving.
You're terrible. Cuphead looks fantastic.
Like that? Even worse images in the Console Emulation thread, it's like half of the posters played their old games with their nose touching the TV. So many overdone scanlines :/
You're terrible. Cuphead looks fantastic.
Nearly all post processing effects, especially those simulating a camera's flaws in the case of the game portraying the world through the character's eyes. DOF is annoying in that the character I'm playing as is the least important thing I need to see clearly compared to the enemies and environment a few feet from me.
xenorevlis
Member
Do you have a 120 panel? Or variable sync screen? Try out the example at 120. We can see movement far beyond 120fps depending on lighting in your immediate environment, content you're viewing, and age / health of eyes.
One thing I almost forgot was terribly implemented ambient occlusion. While generally a nice effect, some games like The Witcher 2 vanilla can look really awkward when his foot has a gigantic drop shadow look in front of a bed. Turning it off improves performance but makes things pop less. Uncharted 2 looked pretty good with AO, however many games today that use it tend to have bloom-like fringing or halos around characters and environments. Looks awful!
Apoleptica
Banned
Chromatic abberation makes me feel like I should be wearing 3d glasses.
Cizeta-Moroder
Banned
xenorevlis
Member
Read my post above. If done right, it simulates how we see things in real life. Applies to games with realistic depiction.
Exactly.
I never thought it'd be possible that N64 textures would look better
Motion blur is trying to make up for the lack of temporal information the game is able to present to you. The main issue is that in real life every time you turn your head your eye glass prescription doesn't turn on and off.
If it were done right the occasions where it was noticeable would be extraordinarily limited. How many time in your life has something blurred in your vision due to it's speed? Even when it does blur, it looks nothing like the terrible nastiness we get in most games just for turning the camera.
martino
Member
realism
+ chromatic aberration
+ muted colors
+ noise
+ lens flares
+ piss filter
+ black bars
+ motion blur
=
2015 video game
What a cinematic feel !!!
or a cheap to hide you can't try realism or good framerate.
NaDannMaGoGo
Member
I'd like a source on this. There's a constant sensory input from the eyes and thus I can hardly imagine that the kind of blur we do see is similar to the ones cameras produce due to length of exposure etc.
edit: Here a good reddit thread on this topic.
This, object-based motion blur is a great looking effect. One of the many reasons Crysis was so impressive back in 2007.
xenorevlis
Member
I never said it has to be smearing like the poorly done motion blur and agree when handled badly it looks ass.
Here is my source: Wave your hand in front of your face. It's not motion blur like a camera, but the visual impulses received by your brain are spread out enough that its practically the same effect. This is also why when you spin in place the whole room blur (not to mention if you keep spinning you lose balance).
EDIT - If you ever play Guitar Hero for an extended period of time, then look at something else, your eyes will still be trying to correct for the movement. This is also how many of those little optical illusions work.
60EffPeeEss
Member
On Unity, I totally agree. The game looks like dogshit. I don't care how much people try to chat it up as if it looks good.
Full of horrible jaggies and crap post-processing.