-
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.
Ambient Occlusion: The stupidest graphical technique of all time
- Thread starter rjc571
- Start date
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
AO is awesome, I have no idea what you're on about OP.
Chromatic aberration on the other hand...
Chromatic aberration on the other hand...
I hate to say it, but I've even seen CA used well thanks to a Dark Souls 2 mod that applies it mostly to little particles and some spell effects.
Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
Personally, I think well implemented ambient occlusion is the best graphical effect since dynamic shadows. Games without it look a generation apart.
Badly implemented ambient occlusion is absolutely hideous and makes no sense visually.
But your cherry picking was never intended for balance, so each to their own.
Badly implemented ambient occlusion is absolutely hideous and makes no sense visually.
But your cherry picking was never intended for balance, so each to their own.
Dictator93
Member
Well done motionblur should mimic aditional screen information, or help tie FRAMEs together.
You have unfortunately experienced shit motionblur implementations in your life probably.
zephervack
Member
I agree that the performance:gain ratio is pretty low, but stuff like this is there for people that have spare performance and it actually does look better.
People are saying the pics look better (which I agree with), but the real problem with AO is that it frequently looks much worse in motion, with horrendous dancing shadows and similar issues, and that's before adding in stuff like what a performance hog it can be (although that's steadily improving). It's getting better but I especially agree that consoles really aren't ready for it yet outside of very non-demanding games, and would generally look better in motion with it off anyway.
I get the OP's point. The expense of AO (for people with low to mid range PCs) may not be worth the performance hit in newer games like BF4.
In some screens - especially older games there - its effects are quite obvious, in others its more subtle (everything's obvious when circled).
For those of us who can absorb the fps loss and still stay at 60, its an easy choice to keep AO.
In some screens - especially older games there - its effects are quite obvious, in others its more subtle (everything's obvious when circled).
For those of us who can absorb the fps loss and still stay at 60, its an easy choice to keep AO.
Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
Current gen seems perfectly capable of high quality ambient occlusion so far. The implementation is so good in Second Son I had to test to make sure it wasn't baked.
Yep, you're right, it looks a lot better. I think you failed in your argument.
wow, such upgrade
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
Worst thread in ages. Your examples with AO look way better than without
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
Now that's a bit extremely
... hardly noticeable, but I can understand when adding 10 different effect it adds up to a beautiful picture, on it's own if the hit is 20 fps it might as well get disabled if you're not at 60 fps already.
Gangxxter
Member
No, it's not stupid OP.
It may be a subtle effect, but it helps a lot to make the image look realistic. Without AO objects tend to look like they are "floating" in the game world (like the cliffs in your Halo example). The subtle shadow helps a lot to get the impression, that objects are really connected to other objects (mostly floors or walls).
Most of the time the small and subtle effects are those which increase the perceived image quality the most while you can't actually name what exactly makes the image better now.
It's a little bit like the Uncanny Valley effect. Although a CGI face may look very realistic, the tiny differences between CGI and reality make you feel uncomfortable although you can't actually "see" or name those differences.
It may be a subtle effect, but it helps a lot to make the image look realistic. Without AO objects tend to look like they are "floating" in the game world (like the cliffs in your Halo example). The subtle shadow helps a lot to get the impression, that objects are really connected to other objects (mostly floors or walls).
Most of the time the small and subtle effects are those which increase the perceived image quality the most while you can't actually name what exactly makes the image better now.
It's a little bit like the Uncanny Valley effect. Although a CGI face may look very realistic, the tiny differences between CGI and reality make you feel uncomfortable although you can't actually "see" or name those differences.
AuthenticM
Member
Uncle0wnage
Member
AO is great, real life has AO, so you're wrong OP.
Turin Turambar
Member
Agreed, in most cases I don't notice it. In others it looks cheap, and lots of times it's shadows they could have been baked in.
Epsilonart
Neo Member
Here is a little test with one of my 3D model so you can see , ambient occl is really great.
AO in games looks nothing like AO in real life. Real life doesn't have dancing blobby shadows that cause the rest of the world to run at a choppy framerate.
ShinobiFist
Banned
When its used right, it looks great. But from the games I played(and own), it looks like floating black halo's all over the place. Far Cry 3 being the big offender here.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
Pretty much.
Performance and how someone looks are 2 different subjects too.
If your pc can't handle it, I would definately turn it off.
That's not AO, that's SSAO, which is a post-processing technique which uses the depth buffer to cheaply approximate AO, but it's not actually true AO. True ambient occlusion is usually baked into models and world if the models and world are static, and it generally looks great.
Windom Earle
Member
It's great if implemented correcctly!
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Like any effect perception of quality is subjective and even then said quality is relative to implementation. There are several ways for engines to handle ambient occlusions in various degrees of complexity and depth. HBAO+ for example tends to look wonderful.
That being said, I firmly disagree with the op. Ambient occlusions attempt to simulate ambient lighting that would otherwise require true global illumination or ray tracing, both of which are significantly more expensive. While the effect is often over done, I find it adds an essential shaded depth to a single scene by giving the illusion of layered shadows on props and objects where in real life there would likely be some.
It is still subjective, but even in that low quality hallway example I prefer the ambient occlusions. There's little natural, realistic, or believable about the shot on the left, instead to me looking flat lit and heavily limited by dated technology. The ambient occlusions are not realistic, but they do add depth and volume to the 3D environment that for me increase the visual appeal.
That being said, I firmly disagree with the op. Ambient occlusions attempt to simulate ambient lighting that would otherwise require true global illumination or ray tracing, both of which are significantly more expensive. While the effect is often over done, I find it adds an essential shaded depth to a single scene by giving the illusion of layered shadows on props and objects where in real life there would likely be some.
It is still subjective, but even in that low quality hallway example I prefer the ambient occlusions. There's little natural, realistic, or believable about the shot on the left, instead to me looking flat lit and heavily limited by dated technology. The ambient occlusions are not realistic, but they do add depth and volume to the 3D environment that for me increase the visual appeal.
This I'll agree with. HBAO+ actually pulls off a convincing shadowing effect instead of vomiting darkness everywhere in a way that has as little to do with reality as the complete absence of shadow.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Lets see some demonstrated performance hits with it on/off.
Sorry OP, I think you sold me on AO to be honest, it really seems to gel things together in all of those shots that you posted. The before images, all the things in the seem just seem rather basic and raw, the AO makes everything cohesive and seem fit together a bit more realistically.
Sorry OP, I think you sold me on AO to be honest, it really seems to gel things together in all of those shots that you posted. The before images, all the things in the seem just seem rather basic and raw, the AO makes everything cohesive and seem fit together a bit more realistically.
Zombie James
Banned
AO adds a lot of depth to what would otherwise be very flat, boring surfaces.
Insane Metal
Gold Member
I think it looks very good.
Screen-space AO is one of the most important breakthroughs in realistic realtime rendering in the past decade.
Exactly.HBAO+ example. Images don't really do it justice, as in full motion there are no issues compared to many other implementation that flicker around
The second comparison is much much better with AO on imo. Otherwise it just looks like a corridor from the DOOM/N64 era only with better textures. AO gives depth to the whole picture. Same goes for the Halo picture. And the Skyrim picture looks way better with AO, without it the grass looks way out of place.
Sure it is not very realistic (although the AO techniques are constantly improving) but it looks good currently. It is a really cheap but effective way to improve lighting, environmental shadows, depth and atmosphere. I honestly have no clue why you seem to resent it so much.
Sure it is not very realistic (although the AO techniques are constantly improving) but it looks good currently. It is a really cheap but effective way to improve lighting, environmental shadows, depth and atmosphere. I honestly have no clue why you seem to resent it so much.
PlumCantaloupe
Member
Yeah, I have to agree with most here that AO adds a great deal of depth. Also, subtlety is not a bad thing as I feel that the lack of subtlety - in narrative and visual presentation - is one of the issues of the video game industry.
That's not really true at all. Ambient occlusion is a technique which is used to simulate the self-shadowing on objects. A flat planar surface will not self-shadow itself, in fact, AO is only really relevant for complex models and surfaces which do self-shadow.
AO makes a huge difference here. Realistic or not it still looks much better than the screen on the left.
It's looks good in shots but I want to see it in motion without them turning into horrible grainy seizure shadows.
This thread does make me curious about HBAO+ though; sounds like it might finally be a maturation point for it, but I still have to see it in motion to truly judge it.
Similar threads
- Poll