43
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
43 points (80.3% liked)
Games
16741 readers
477 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why add back problems caused by the physical limitations of optical cameras FFS?
Lens flare? We'll just digitally add it back in.
Chromatic aberration? Add it to make it look like you're looking though a cheap lens.
Vignette, check.
Urgh. I'm supposed to be there literally in the game, experiencing things through my own eyes.
My eyes are not cameras. Well they are but not like that.
I think the idea is that it is meant to simulate a camera, when you aren't in first person view. You don't see the world front few feet above your shoulders after all–you're probably used to seeing views like that through a real camera where these things actually occur
Oh, I get that aspect. It's just an objectively better experience without the artifacts of the technical limitls of a physical camera and lens.
It's as if it's driven by an idiot that thinks if it looks like there are lens flares, abberation, vignette, etc. that it was look cinematographic, completely ignoring the actual art of composition, framing, lighting, depth of field, etc... the actual arts of cinematography.
Though, given that I'm the one controlling the vital camera with my mouse or controller, apparently it should suck as much as a real camera.
Objectively is becoming the new literally
I used objectively literally.
Avoiding flares, aberration etc makes an image objectively better. You might subjectively prefer either the objectively better or objectively worse image.
Lol it's literally an "objectively better experience" and if your experience was different then you're literally objectively wrong.
Look sorry about the sass, I know know I'm being a pedantic ass right now. But experience is by definition subjective. If you specified that the image clarity was objectively better, well then you'd be totally right. But that's not what you said.
I'm sorry you're being a pedantic ass too.
I think introducing imperfections can in some cases enhance immersion. Our eyes do function like cameras, and have their limitations, but we don't notice them so much. So, I think these "flaws" in games can make them more convincing in a way. I guess it's a personal preference, I like it, but I see why it can be annoying.
I'm still using my eyes!
But I have... Special eyes!
Just like a movie theater, people are used to 24fps in a movie and anything else makes it seem weird and less dreamlike to transport them into the world. (But games aren't 24fps movies, I know. Not the point)
When you clean up all of the visual post processing, the game will look extremely clean. Which makes it feel like it's missing some kinda extra polish. People are so used to all of these elements added for a grounded and dirtier experience that without them it looks, and more importantly, feels too game-y for Ubisoft. (Counter-Strike is super clean, for example)
Look at Resident Evil 2 Remake and you see every single cinematic option in the book, down to lens distortion, being used and being able to be turned off in the settings. It's the look and feel the studio wants to go for.