liliththepale
Banned
It's pretty clear that you're not reading what I'm saying, and you seem to think that I'm not reading what you're saying either, so I'm going to drop this argument for now.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Developers: STOP using Chromatic Aberration
- Thread starter Seanspeed
- Start date
It's pretty clear that you're not reading what I'm saying, and you seem to think that I'm not reading what you're saying either, so I'm going to drop this argument for now.
I'm pretty sure I'm reading it just fine.
liliththepale
Banned
No, you just don't like that I'm making more sense than you.
You're calling the inclusion of realistic aspects into art 'defects'. That is not making sense.
Summer Haze
Banned
Come on now, there's no need to be condescending and immature.
I think you and Seanpseed are simply looking at it completely differently. He is saying (I think) that the inclusion of an effect such as blood on a characters clothing itself is realistic because it would literally happen in real life too, whereas you're saying that it's a defect because it's purposely implemented purely to make a certain part of a game look less sterile and 'gamey'.
At least that's how I'm viewing this argument. I don't think there's a particularly "right" way to look at it.
To be fair, my comment was quite snippy, too. Unnecessarily so(and I edited it, but too late...).
Adding blood might make a game less sterile or gamey, but I don't know in what way that could be called a 'defect'. It is no more a defect than a tree or a shoe.
A defect is something undesirable. Blood on clothing isn't undesirable, necessarily. It is neither here nor there. It is neutral and just a fact of the scene.
Summer Haze
Banned
Because I think liliththepale (and correct me if I'm wrong) is viewing it from a perspective of artistic choice, and why someone would include it into a scene, which would be to purposely 'dirty' an image, so they are seeing whatever it is it that does the 'dirtying' as a defect that is added to a 'clean' image. And like I said, you're viewing it from a reality perspective, as something that literally does happen in real life and therefore is realistic.
Now I'm just repeating myself. Lol. I'm stoned and tired. Forgive me. XD
Crayon
Member
When struck with a sword, the video game character doesnt strictly need to bleed. He bleeds because the man in the movie bleeds. The man in the movie only bleeds because if I eas struck with a sword, i think i would bleed. The videogame character does not bleed to be as accurate and true to life as possible so much as to have maximum emotional impact. "I would bleed, so he should bleed too".
In the case of the ca effect, its simply an imitation of what we see naturally occur in movies. "Film looks like that so games should look like that too."
Doesnt make it right. Just trying to help you understand.
I'm not talking about you specifivally but in most cases, I think it's a case of artist being to far up their own arses when it comes to their "art" rather than focusing on the game and the player experience. Again not talking about you and your game specifically.
I think it can be a decent effect if used to communicate some mechanic or what's happening in the game. Say adding heavy CA when you are entering a radioactive area or something, that would serve a gameplay purpose.
CambriaRising
Member
I hate it. Ruins IQ. May as well be running at a lower resolution with that blurry garbage on.
Just to be clear as I see your point boiled down is that the more you try to actually mimic reality the more it appears to become unrealistic.
Like whats the point. Some people who are legit game developers or game artists have spoken to why the effect is used while other people just want to block their ears and not listen.
Like fuck, I'm a graphic designer, artist, do some photography and shoot videos on the side and the effect of CA has a clear appeal to me. So wtf would I listen to somebody who is half as creative as me in making decisions involving the creation process. Just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think music listeners criticize the radio crackles in good kid maad city as being bad.
Like fuck, I'm a graphic designer, artist, do some photography and shoot videos on the side and the effect of CA has a clear appeal to me. So wtf would I listen to somebody who is half as creative as me in making decisions involving the creation process. Just doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think music listeners criticize the radio crackles in good kid maad city as being bad.
Summer Haze
Banned
Wow, am I reading this right? You think people who dislike CA are not as creative as you? Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
You word it a bit strongly, but yes, these threads are always interesting as people criticize artists without ostensibly having a single clue why artists work the way they do. Approaching it as some kind of engineering feature list instead of a communicated experience.
No it's with everything. Oh I don't like the color filters this game has or some other nonsense. I don't like the noise.
Obviously I'm being as melodramatic as the OP here
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
It's noticeable in Bloodborne, but not as bad as Lords of the Fallen on PS4. IQ was dreadful, even though the game was running at 1080p, simply due to the heavy handed use of chromatic aberration.
Well there's three entirely different interpretations of what she meant. lol
I think it requires too much of an abstract perspective to argue this 'defect' argument(obviously) and I'm not going to waste more time arguing about it. I'm much more concerned with the on-paper realities of what we're actually seeing on screen in real games rather than any hypothetical justifications for its use. Cuz what we're seeing in the vast majority of cases is not replicating film, it is not adding emotional or physical depth, it is not enhancing atmosphere, it is just smacking a poorly moderated layer of shit on the game's graphics presentation because its the popular thing to do and then pretending like they made some artistically merited decision.
If that radio crackle infiltrated every other song you listened to no matter how well it fit, would you still feel the same way about it?
SuperEpicGuy
Banned
I may be blind or something (and I'm a pretty strong graphic enthusiast so I tend to notice graphical detail pretty well), but I literally can't find anything off in the pictures posted. I'm looking for some blue/red discolouration of sorts right?
Summer Haze
Banned
But surely that would be their opinion and their preference. You can't say that someone is half as creative as you because they don't like certain effects that you do like. I mean, how would you explain devs that consciously and purposely don't include CA, film grain, colour filters as part of their artistic choice/vision.
Purposely melodramatic or not, that comes across as terrible ignorant and arrogant to me.
Go to post #42. And you wont see it very well if you're looking at it on a phone or tablet.
Summer Haze
Banned
And this is where I agree with you. At least for the majority of games that use CA. I've already expressed that I think it has it's place and actually can be used positively when used in context, but I don't think that's what we're seeing for the majority of the times it's been implemented.
Most of them do, almost all games have color toning but you don't notice it.
It's not about me saying that I'm more creative because I like or don't like certain effects. I'm saying that you shouldn't be telling devs how to achieve their artistic vision.
If you want games to be an art form, let it fucking be one.
This.
I refuse to believe that all of the art designers in the industry all sat up one morning (the same morning) and decided they were going to use CA on everything. The fact that it's in fucking everything these days tells me it's a boardroom decision. No artist just does what everyone else is doing, and no true artist will sacrifice their personal vision of a game just to do what's popular.
Exactly why it's popular remains a mystery. I don't remember anyone asking for this. And it's not like it's something that's suddenly become possible only on these new consoles... CA is one of the cheapest effects there is, they could have been doing it for decades now.
blame space
Banned
that's exactly what someone involved in the conspiracy would say
Summer Haze
Banned
I really doubt that most devs add CA and film grain to their games. Colour toning/filtering? Sure.
And I'll take your word it, but that's exactly how it came across to me. And it's like OP said earlier in the thread, a dev is free to do whatever he feels is creatively right, but we're also free to criticize it. You can disagree with something and accept it's right to be at the same time.
Don't forget too that when developers are rending the screen the POV you see, even in first person, is supposed to be a camera. So I think what you're seeing is developers start to take that more and more literally when doing things like rendering dynamic range, CA, DOF, contrast curves (to simulate film), distortion from the virtual lens length, color toning, etc.
I would say if you take the screen space as literally being seen through a camera, then it really makes more sense in third person cameras/games than first person, since that usually is trying to simulate actually being that person/being.
I would say if you take the screen space as literally being seen through a camera, then it really makes more sense in third person cameras/games than first person, since that usually is trying to simulate actually being that person/being.
freenudemacusers
Member
put this way, overabundant CA make sense, given how popular it is to take a smartphone selfie and slather it in instagram filters.
Artists are not above criticism. They don't have to listen to it, but we are perfectly entitled to say what we think of an artist's work. I'm sure you've come across plenty of photos or songs or film clips that you took issue with for all manners of various reasons.
And games are not just art, but also business. This stuff has to sell. The games in question tend to be the larger budget games, which are funded by big publishers who expect these games to provide a return on investment. They are still products. So this is all in the realm of consumer industry, where, for better or worse, you cant just ignore what the consumer base thinks of your product. I'm not saying they should completely cater to every whim of what consumers ask for, but I think there's some level of adjusting your own product so that it doesn't put off would-be customers. Besides, I don't feel that CA's inclusion in most games nowadays is coming from some individualized, artistic vision, but because it's become trendy. We've seen trends before with things like lens flare and piss filters that are not necessarily born from artistic inspiration but because its what everybody else is doing. The application of CA in most of what we see in gaming is not achieving these hypothetical goals of the effect that people have described.
This just sounds like an argument from an idealistic standpoint rather than a practical one in the face of what we're actually seeing.
I kind of like that chromatic aberration effect, so no.
It makes the screen looking like an old popcorn movie, it's great.
About the blur or film grain, because it is discussed here, games don't have to be crystal clear to be good looking. Look at KZ2 some years ago (quincux AA zomg) or The Order recently, those games are not sharp and have plenty of "filmic" effects but they are spectacular. In fact, motion blur and film grain enhance fluidity (more than making your screen flashing faster) and detail (yes, grain enhances perceived detail).
So, chromatic aberration is the same as using some sepia filter for your personal pictures, it's art because it conveys some style and taste to the damn cold thing you have in front of your eyes. It's a metaphor. Chromatic aberration is a metaphor.
No one should give a fuck, it's like you examine your music or movies to see if those are superior technically or if some applied effects are aberrantly used.
Just experience your medium as it is, let the artists do their work like they want.
It makes the screen looking like an old popcorn movie, it's great.
About the blur or film grain, because it is discussed here, games don't have to be crystal clear to be good looking. Look at KZ2 some years ago (quincux AA zomg) or The Order recently, those games are not sharp and have plenty of "filmic" effects but they are spectacular. In fact, motion blur and film grain enhance fluidity (more than making your screen flashing faster) and detail (yes, grain enhances perceived detail).
So, chromatic aberration is the same as using some sepia filter for your personal pictures, it's art because it conveys some style and taste to the damn cold thing you have in front of your eyes. It's a metaphor. Chromatic aberration is a metaphor.
No one should give a fuck, it's like you examine your music or movies to see if those are superior technically or if some applied effects are aberrantly used.
Just experience your medium as it is, let the artists do their work like they want.
Summer Haze
Banned
That's completely subjective. I'd be more drawn in and immersed by seeing BB's fantastic art style and level design without CA distorting and blurring it's edges. The same way I'd be more immersed in a game that didn't simulate a floating camera above a character I'm controlling. But that doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge or respect that devs do want that look and are purposely trying to get it. It just simply isn't for me.
And you are perfectly right because this is indeed subjective and you have the right to judge those things from your personal tastes.
You should then accept that some people like it.
Problem arises when some "objective minds" appear to judge those subjective things.
Summer Haze
Banned
What? No. Just because something doesn't bother you much, it doesn't mean other people shouldn't care about it either. I disagree completely with the 'shut up and accept it' sentiment. Criticizing something doesn't mean you're being disrespectful or that you don't still appreciate it. In fact, I've found that the things in life I love most are often things that I criticize the most.
This is a strange comment to read after reading the one I just quoted.
Well... this way of thinking about entertainment dates back to Aristotle. Though you could very well be the 1%er. After all, an experience is indeed always subjective
edit: I'm being too snooty here, obviously CA will always remain divisive, and you're quite right to not like a certain stylistic effect. I just wanted to point out that not 100% realism is likely a good thing.
Summer Haze
Banned
Summer Haze
Banned
I completely agree, and I have said this already before in this thread. Too far on either side of the scale is a bad thing.
Oops, my bad for the DP.
BlastProcessing
Member
Of course artists are not above criticism. But there is a pretty obvious divide in this thread between people who make things and people who don't. Often we are using terms very differently and are arguing from different paradigms. There has been a lot of talking past each other going on because of it.
You talk about realism like it is some sort of easily achievable thing. It's not. To steal from Carl Sagan "If you want to make a videogame apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the Universe."
I am sure he just accidentally left out the "videogame" part
When you make a game everything has to be created. Everything is a decision. Everything is intent. You have thousands of problems to solve and you will get around to half of them, if you are lucky and don't mind working 90 hour weeks. It's all lies and misdirection held together with chewing gum.
So yeah, artists are absolutely free game for your critique, but when you confidently question their artistic integrity when there is no possible way for you to know their motivations, you are going to sound like a dick.
It is funny watching you create these entirely theoretical theories for the reasons for why CA is used whilst simultaneously claiming to be the practical one. I don't see how the people who actually lay hands on development are the idealists here.
Dr. Buni
Member
Me too.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
No. This is a terrible mode of thinking that enables any decision no matter how bad it is and then claims it's great.
This is saying you can't criticize a guy for trying to polish a turd.
So who gets the final say on which effects are a Bad Thing™, turd, etc. and which are acceptable under some circumstances? You? A plurality of people on message boards? Surely there's some way to figure this out objectively.
For the record, I think most examples of CA don't look very good, but that's different from declaring it to be "off limits" because reasons.
Pankratous
Member
Can someone show a screen with and without CA? Because I have no idea what it is and I don't see anything wrong with OPs shots.
Pretty much.
VisceralBowl
Member
Summer Haze
Banned
Vanilla:
CA removed:
I'm pretty sure the bottom pic has some sort of colour filter removed too. But the CA comparison is still valid.
Or is it just a different time of day? *Shrug*
Diablohead
Member
The effect is cool and has it's places but I hate it being on the screen 100% of the time, leave it for when you get hit or do something please devs.
Summer Haze
Banned
Titanfall's inclusion of it as a result of electrical disturbance/interference was perfect.