Is it time to be honest and critical about ac?

Sorry, I just realized its in German.... My neural processing might be not at 100% at all.

 

Drink more beer then you get motion blurr and if you are lucky, or persist drinking, a stereoscopic view.

 

Google translate is my friend.

I don't see anything in that article that says human eyes don't have motion blur or retinal presistance.

I don't know if you're calling me out on the wording of motion blur or whether you're saying that objects in motion don't blur for you or the rest of the human race, maybe it's just me that see's blur on fast moving objects. If you look at the wheel of a car passing by is it blurred?

 

What resolution are u using? didnt find it on your signature.

 

Then it all comes down to the definition of "blur"
To me a moving object at lateral sight is out of focus.
A moving object in those PC games that use motion blur is accelerated and washed up...quite a difference to me.

 

I can see your point but an object in motion is "out of focus" because it is in motion and your eye can't read the light fast enough to form a picture. To me that's different than simply being out of focus.

It is technically a focus issue because your eye simply can't focus on the object.

 

your brain actually is capable of processing at light speed. But it slows down the output. Your eyes are just fast enough...

 

Just throwing this into the lions den: http://www.pcgamer.com/six-terrible-graphical-effects-that-need-to-stop/

 

focus has to do with depth, that when your eyes are looking into point, they intersect in there, making the object in focus, and everything from certain distnace ( which for eyes is quite big) starts to be out of focus,

but that's nothing to do with motion blur, motion blurred object can be even if you are focusing on it , ... if there is car passing by and you are looking at it's wheen - therefore the wheel is focal point, it's still motion blurred, it has nothing to do with focus

eyes/brain is of course more advanced and you can see things better then through camera, which is why with camera/photos you see these effects much more , but eye is lens, as well as camera, so they react to light rays in same/similar way

 

all these effects add to the immersion, but they need to be used witht he right amount, not overcranking them
even motion blur makes sense , and as proven with the last shot, if all these effect are well balanced, they are just fine

even AC uses most of these effects, and nobody complained too much

 

Deslider: http://deslide.clusterfake.net/?o=h...terrible-graphical-effects-that-need-to-stop/

 

yeah, what a pure rubbish looking game,
motion blur, defocus, light blooms etc.



games should look like this , right?

no dof, no blur, not glows/blooms, no aberration , .. what a treat


btw. the problem with motion blur - imo - is that it needs to "match" your FPS, in real camera world/movies, motion blur matches your playback, and that makes it work

if you look at most movies, they run at 24 fps, so they have lot of motion blur, however if you ever saw 48fps movie or 60fps movie, the blur in them is much less, therefore when you see it, it still looks realistic ( even weird/ too realistic actually)

so that's imo the problem, if you game is able to keep game steady at 60fps, the motion blur should match what it would be like at 60fps shot, .. not using the "cinematic" 24 fps

that's imo what makes it look wrong

 

there is no place for chromatic abberation in any game except in simulate crap camera lens simulator 2015, especially to the degree it is applied in games like AC and GTA 5... baaaaaaaddd

 

Motion blur, bloom, etc are great tools for making replays look like the broadcast on TV but its not the way you would see it on track.

 

not bad on screenshots, in game I agree

 

yeah, taken an eye out of it's anatomical context, this argument would work..
Taken into RL this is a whole a lot of horse ****

 

its still too much in screenshots though, in real photos you have to zoom in so far to see the defect, whereas in gta and ac you can see it from miles away (obviously can be toned down in pp set but i still dont see the point of simulating bad lens other than to give it some vintage feel)

 

that's why you have art director, to balance it to a degree that he likes and wants.

it's deifnitely "artistic" effect,rather then something that makes it look real. But what's wrong about that? games can be art as well, some more then others. Yes racing games usually try to simulate real life look ( some better then others) , but in the end the game is still a product that is offered to people, and if there is one that's artisticly more pleasing then something that looks real but boring, people will go for the art ( if the art style is what they like of course)

it's like movies, movies are also shot in a way that you want to get certain artistic feel.etc , documentaries are shot more realistic , and you can see how meny people watch those compared to blockbusters

you guys might not like block busters and prefer documentaries, but it's the block busters that make money to the moives studies .. just saying

IF ONLY YOU COULD TURN THESE OFF ... oh wait, you can? so what is the problem exactly ?

 

if you must know, chromatic aberation hides imperfections a bit, it also makes the image slightly less sharp - which can be problem sometimes with CG that it's too sharp

this forexample also has chromatic abberation , way more then what you would get with real camera,
of course if game would look like this all the time, it will probably get annoying eventually, but as I said before, I see no issues of having these effects for screenshots


and again, some people like it to have some effects some people don't , just because you guys don't want these, it doens't mean that nobody does

it's all a prefference, so yes, don't like it - turn it off, but don't complain about it ,how it doesn't add anything , because for some people it does