It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionLeast Favorite Intentional Graphical Flaws?(59 posts)(59 posts)
(59 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 06, 2020
high rated
There are so many of them:-

- Myopia Simulator (Depth of Field)
- Glaucoma Simulator (Vignetting)
- Giraffe With A Broken Neck Simulator (Head Bob)
- Migraine Simulator (Film Grain)
- Faulty Camera Lens Simulator (Chromatic Aberration)

Merely reading through the video settings menu of modern "ultra realistic" games is like reading through the medical notes of the world's most disabled person, and if you were seeing any of this cr*p in real life, you need to talk to your Opthalmologist for much needed corrective eye surgery....

For me though the dumbest one of all is Faulty Monitor Backlight Simulator - aka "Eye Adaptation" (or "Auto Exposure" as it's called in UE4). This is basically where the game tries too hard to mimic how the iris works by causing the lighting to leap all over the place based on the direction you're looking, but is instead exaggerated by a factor of 1000000:1.

The stupid thing is - you've already got this effect naturally, ie, play a game late at night in a dark room with the lights off, then spend 10 minutes in a dark area (eg, a dark cave in Morrowind or perhaps a darker game like Thief), and your eyes adjust. Then move to a brightly lit area that causes the screen to go much brighter, and your eyes will already be adapting. Why on earth would you want to double up and add a second fake "layer" that's time-compressed by a completely stupid factor on top of what's happening anyway? Instead of being some "clever" and "immersive" effect, it just looks like the devs are trying to mimic a failing TFT backlight for absolutely no reason whatsoever...
Posted February 06, 2020
I've had some time to think more about it, and to sum it up:
- I can be fine with an effect that tries to create a certain "atmosphere".
- I don't like anything related to movement and depth. (=nausea generators)
Post edited February 06, 2020 by teceem
Posted February 06, 2020
Most of them have been said so I would add pixel games that fail to replicate the old games they are trying to ape and look worse in the process.
Posted February 06, 2020
avatar
Spectre: Most of them have been said so I would add pixel games that fail to replicate the old games they are trying to ape and look worse in the process.
I'm not surprised. Many indie developers (talented or not) trying to make a buck by jumping on the trend wagon - while the games they're trying to emulate were AAA games, made by professional designers, trying to make the best of past hardware limitations.

Personally, I can appreciate good pixel art - but I really don't care much for it in modern games.
I'd rather play a good pixel art p&c adventure than some fancy looking online gambling crap. But comparing 2 extremes isn't a good argument.
Post edited February 06, 2020 by teceem
Posted February 06, 2020
avatar
AB2012: - Glaucoma Simulator (Vignetting)
Gosh, I forgot about this effect and how awful it is when noticed.
Posted February 07, 2020
avatar
teceem: When I first played Mass Effect [...] the film grain annoyed me. Many years later [...] I noticed it a lot less, and it added a bit to the atmosphere (imo).
Same here. I even kind of like it in Mass Effect.
avatar
teceem: I always turn off DoF & Motion Blur.
Yep. I'm not going to waste any performance on effects that look absolutely horrible. I never even try them, I just turn them off.

avatar
TentacleMayor: Bloom is supposed to be a flaw, right? Sure looks like it to me. If I spot the setting in the options menu, it gets turned off pronto.
And this is the third thing I turn off immediately without even trying it. I can't stand bloom.

avatar
paladin181: Motion Blur or Chromatic Abberation.
avatar
Sultan451: I second this, they are the first things I look to turn off when booting up a modern game. It's a shame that so many AAA devs are obsessed with CA.
There's one game where I love CA. Alien: Isolation. It helps a lot to create the atmosphere of the old Alien movies, which is what makes this game so great. In most other games CA feels just wrong.
Posted February 07, 2020

Personally, I can appreciate good pixel art - but I really don't care much for it in modern games.
I'd rather play a good pixel art p&c adventure than some fancy looking online gambling crap. But comparing 2 extremes isn't a good argument.
(quoting myself)

I bought a bunch of Wadget Eye games on GOG, because:
- I read a lot of good things about them
- They were cheap
- New point & click adventures are slim pickings

I should play one of them... I don't care that much about the pixels - I just hope they're just anywhere near as good as the old Lucasarts or Sierra games.
Posted February 07, 2020
avatar
AB2012: There are so many of them:-

- Myopia Simulator (Depth of Field)
- Glaucoma Simulator (Vignetting)
- Giraffe With A Broken Neck Simulator (Head Bob)
- Migraine Simulator (Film Grain)
- Faulty Camera Lens Simulator (Chromatic Aberration)

Merely reading through the video settings menu of modern "ultra realistic" games is like reading through the medical notes of the world's most disabled person, and if you were seeing any of this cr*p in real life, you need to talk to your Opthalmologist for much needed corrective eye surgery....

For me though the dumbest one of all is Faulty Monitor Backlight Simulator - aka "Eye Adaptation" (or "Auto Exposure" as it's called in UE4). This is basically where the game tries too hard to mimic how the iris works by causing the lighting to leap all over the place based on the direction you're looking, but is instead exaggerated by a factor of 1000000:1.

The stupid thing is - you've already got this effect naturally, ie, play a game late at night in a dark room with the lights off, then spend 10 minutes in a dark area (eg, a dark cave in Morrowind or perhaps a darker game like Thief), and your eyes adjust. Then move to a brightly lit area that causes the screen to go much brighter, and your eyes will already be adapting. Why on earth would you want to double up and add a second fake "layer" that's time-compressed by a completely stupid factor on top of what's happening anyway? Instead of being some "clever" and "immersive" effect, it just looks like the devs are trying to mimic a failing TFT backlight for absolutely no reason whatsoever...
You can't compare real light situations with the limited color range your game/monitor produces.
Since the eye's dynamic range is way higher than anything a common display can show, you need to mimic it somehow, or else you will only see pitch black pixels in a dark game cave.

Off course it looks ugly if it's too exagerated, which is the case with every mentioned effect here.
Many of these effects are used, because for most of us, a perfectly rendered digital image looks off. You can see that something is not right, since it's devoid of all the little imperfections a real image or photo shows. So a slight grain, a slight chromatic abberation can really help a digital scene to become less distinguishable from a reality.

And btw. bloom is not a "fault", it's a natural effect.
Posted February 07, 2020
The two that bother me most are:

color separation of red / green / blue - this happened a lot in Max Payne 3 and looked terrible.

forced black and white mode - some games have a "special mode" such as slow motion, but while in those modes they ruin it by making everything black and white. They did that in the game "Wet" as well as "Max Payne 2" (although I could turn it off in Max Payne 2 on the PC).
Posted February 07, 2020
avatar
teceem: I bought a bunch of Wadget Eye games on GOG
[...]
I should play one of them... I don't care that much about the pixels - I just hope they're just anywhere near as good as the old Lucasarts or Sierra games.
If you liked Sierra and LucasArts, you'll like Wadjet Eye, too. Ron Gilbert's games feel like an evolution (in a good way) of the old adventures from the "golden era".

I especially recommend the Blackwell games and Technobabylon.
The first game of the Blackwell series is a bit slow (it's basically a game to introduce the characters), but pretty good already. The second one is... a bit of a weird case. It feels older than the first one, which is because the first one was remade in a newer engine (never happened for the second one). And you play with a different character (won't say which one, because I think it's a nice surprise), which means the story doesn't really advance. It can be a bit of a dissapointment after playing the first one. Some people even recommend to skip it (which I don't) since it really feels like it doesn't belong into the series (different character and different engine). When you reach the third one, the series really starts to shine! Blackwell series is pretty high on my list of my absolute favorite games - which means a lot, because I'm not really a fan of retro pixel-stuff.

Technobabylon is playing in a cyberpunk setting and gives you that Blade Runner/Neuromancer feeling. This alone is reason enough to play it (if you like cyberpunk). And it's a good adventure, too ;)
Posted February 07, 2020
avatar
Hikage1983: I would have to go for film grain.
My normal vision is FILM grain and everything a quarter of it's normal size, Always.

think "The Evil Within" horrible style film grain but permanently seeing like that IRL all the time, Never seeing clearly EVER, Even with my spectacles on.
Post edited February 07, 2020 by fr33kSh0w2012
Posted February 07, 2020
low rated
avatar
Darvond: But then you have things like film grain, lens flair, chromatic abberation, and other simulated flaws. Which given the camera and worlds themselves are digital, have no reason to exist. Especially in games that imply that you are a character in first person, rather than a glorified dolly on wheels.
Some(like some uses of HDR) are not meant to simulate camera views of things, but rather how the human eye would view such(such as looking at bright light too long then a lower light area, etc).
avatar
Darvond: So of these fake camera effects, which most affects your total enjoyment the most? Personally, I can't stand head bobbing and color filtration.
I like head bobbing a bit as it simulates people's heads moving around as they walk...as long as it isn't too bad, that is.

As for what bothers me: Motion blur(I dislike it making it harder to see enemies/etc in games).

And also film grain(but I can tolerate and enjoy it in some rare cases)....this one mainly as it looks meh to me and also because human eyes don't see in film grain vision.....of course it it's meant to simulate looking through a camera lens at all times then that's more acceptable.


==========================================
avatar
zenstar: They add it in to make the games feel more "cinematic" (or at least that was the excuse back in the day).

or at least that's what i was told.
I am guessing they added it for the same reason they do add most such effects/things....to cut down on hardware specs needed and also to be able to cut corners when making games AND make such corner cutting less noticeable.

====================================

avatar
Strijkbout: The things that annoy me the most are the "piss filter" and excessive screenshaking.
Screenshaking? How could I forget that crap? o.0

I am playing a game and trying to see everything I can and the screen shakes and I cannot focus on much of anything....it is especially bad if in an area one has to run and/or gun through without stopping.

====================================

avatar
AB2012: For me though the dumbest one of all is Faulty Monitor Backlight Simulator - aka "Eye Adaptation" (or "Auto Exposure" as it's called in UE4). This is basically where the game tries too hard to mimic how the iris works by causing the lighting to leap all over the place based on the direction you're looking, but is instead exaggerated by a factor of 1000000:1.
If done well it actually is quite nice....thing is, not many do it well.
Post edited February 07, 2020 by GameRager
Posted February 07, 2020
avatar
teceem: I should play one of them... I don't care that much about the pixels - I just hope they're just anywhere near as good as the old Lucasarts or Sierra games.
The Blackwell games are(the first 3 I played anyways), imo.
Posted February 07, 2020
Yeah I guess it makes me a cliche PC gamer but I hate all the "LIKE A CAMERA IN A MOVIE!!!" stuff too. Especially in first-person games, where the goal is to feel like you're looking through your eyes. In fact even beyond graphics, I hate when video games try to be movies. The greatest thing about video games is their interactivity and ability to NOT be like a movie.

Though I will say... depth of field CAN be done right and well. When it's used in the distance, to blur like a mountain range or whatever, it can look quite nice and real, and be beneficial to the graphics. Take the Witcher sequels for example... there's depth of field to make the distance look more real, and there's also "cinematic" depth of field which blurs stuff closeup in a horrible way. You can turn one on and one off, which is perfect. It's super annoying when there's only one toggle and it turns both off, then you get these horrid 2D looking distant objects.
Posted February 07, 2020
low rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: Yeah I guess it makes me a cliche PC gamer but I hate all the "LIKE A CAMERA IN A MOVIE!!!" stuff too. Especially in first-person games, where the goal is to feel like you're looking through your eyes. In fact even beyond graphics, I hate when video games try to be movies. The greatest thing about video games is their interactivity and ability to NOT be like a movie.
I don't like all the effects, but I love me some good cinematic games....if done right, that is.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionLeast Favorite Intentional Graphical Flaws?(59 posts)(59 posts)
(59 posts)