• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Your most hated graphical effect?

Forgot one! "Realistic sun". Where you can't see in most directions because of sun glare... I know it's an attempt at "realism"... But still when I go outside I am not blinded by the sun ever in that way...even on a sunny day. I don't find it hard to find people around me. (e.g. BF3. Especially as some people in the game wear eyeprotection :D). Also overdone HDR (Valve).
 
Lens Flares, Bloom and DoF.


I actually find Depth of Field effects less realistic in games because they suppose that my eye is focused on the very specific part of the screen where the effect is centered, and that may not be the case at all, it would be like if our eyes could only focus when looking exactly forward, and if you tried to look around without moving your head then everything would look blurred.
 
Revdarian said:
I actually find Depth of Field effects less realistic in games because they suppose that my eye is focused on the very specific part of the screen where the effect is centered, and that may not be the case at all, it would be like if our eyes could only focus when looking exactly forward, and if you tried to look around without moving your head then everything would look blurred.
Click to expand...

Unless you're using some kind of scope, then there is a forced kind of DoF. Or if something is veeery close to the lens, then if it wasn't blurry it would be kind of odd.

I think some of the problem was that DX11 came with more advanced DoF, so it became the latest "thing", so they tried to add it into DX9 games poorly, or just overdid a little (lot)...
 
Motion blur and depth of field and HDR done to the point where it feels like I'm looking directly into the Sun.. All of those will lead to migraines while playing for me.
 
It depends on the game on most things. Some do it ok (when done in moderation), others seem to go WAY overboard and think it adds to the cinematics.

Lens flare, bloom, motion blur, DoF blur, texture pop-in. They can be good, but it's very rare to see them used properly and in small amounts. Texture pop-in is hard, though. Is it due to bad programming, lack of resources, slow video card/CPU, or just a way to increase frame rate at the expense of graphics? The others are just for cinematic, which is fine if it's a cut scene and not in gameplay. I'm not watching the game, I'm playing it. It's supposed to be immersive, not look like you're watching a movie.
 
not a common one but...

Capture075.jpg
 
Ur_Mom said:
Texture pop-in is hard, though. Is it due to bad programming, lack of resources, slow video card/CPU, or just a way to increase frame rate at the expense of graphics?
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's done to cut down on load screens. The level skips being fully loaded so play can start earlier rather than wait. The designer could leave the loading screen up for a few more seconds but that would add to the "loading". :D
 
I agree on the Motion Blur effect in most cases, but the Motion Blur in Planetside 2 is incredible. It just works and looks awesome in motion.

I'm not sure what they are doing different but it's one of the few I leave motion blur on
 
motion blur for sure. haven't played PS2 so no experience with that one, but i have hated it in every other iteration.
 
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. said:
I agree on the Motion Blur effect in most cases, but the Motion Blur in Planetside 2 is incredible. It just works and looks awesome in motion.

I'm not sure what they are doing different but it's one of the few I leave motion blur on
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've heard one other person say PS2 was somehow different/better at executing the motion blur effect. I haven't play it (nor any games in awhile). I'd be interested to see how they implemented it.
 
believe it or not ....SHADOWS ..way overrated and -for me -an cosmetic adjustment.i can live and enjoy a game without them shadows (no i dont have a shitty rig).
Be honest when you on the streets AFK /RL do you see and recognize all shadows around you?
Well since its a standart for years now ...they should make em less resource demanding
Lens Flare , Blur utterly BS effects
 
notsure said:
believe it or not ....SHADOWS ..way overrated and -for me -an cosmetic adjustment.i can live and enjoy a game without them shadows (no i dont have a shitty rig).
Be honest when you on the streets AFK /RL do you see and recognize all shadows around you?
Well since its a standart for years now ...they should make em less resource demanding
Lens Flare , Blur utterly BS effects
Click to expand...

Good point. Shadows are the first graphical option I dial back when trying to raise FPS.
 
Ehren8879 said:
Good point. Shadows are the first graphical option I dial back when trying to raise FPS.
Click to expand...

thanks Ehren ...now its 2013 and on 80% of the games shadows cause problems and mostly look shitty.
Lens flare !?!?!?! the guy /gal who invented it for games should be tortured with fart effects
 
John721 said:
Same here. First thing that came to mind, in fact. A number of LCD displays tend to give us motion blur "for free" anyways. No point spending processing power on it. :cool:
Click to expand...

If you're using a CRT, motion blur can be called "LCD Simulation" effect. :)
 
Motion Blur. First game I played that utilized it was NFS:MW. I turned MB off and the gaming experience increased exponentially. Now I disable it in every game.
 
I just want better graphics.

IMO, Ambient Occlusion is still very lacking in quality in video games. So far, Far Cry 3 has come the closest to the best, with HDAO. However, it is still not perfect. I think it just doesn't look that realistic, edges are aliased/dithered, it seems to over powering in some areas, and not enough in others, it seems spotty and un-uniformed, it has level of detail so you notice it appearing or popping in as it changes in quality, it just isn't perfect yet. I really want this affect to to evolve and take care of these issues.

That brings me to level of detail in of itself, I, like you all, hate texture/object/detail load in in distance. It is rightly annoying and removes oneself from the experience of the game. Far Cry 3 has this dithering fade in, it's at least a little less annoying. I wish to see this improved in games.

Texture quality, we are at a point now where textures on PC games should always have high resolution versions. You'll see some games come out with a high rez texture pack, I think those textures should be the default, and then some. The texture slider or drop box in games can determine the quality, if your video card doesn't have enough VRAM, but at its max, games should have much better texture quality than what they are shipping with today. I want to see this evolve. (i think a big problem there IMO is consolitis)

Sprites, no more sprites. Aren't we beyond sprites? I want grass and trees that react to my movement, react to the environment, have depth, have feeling. I really really dislike grass in games, it needs to improve big time.

Ground textures are another thing. It's really annoying to look down at the ground, below the grass, and all you see is a texture of dirt and rock. Come on, give us parallaxed mapped grounds, or tessellated ground already. I want to see this improve.

Sky, OMG, un-realistic sky's really bother me. Take BF3, no animation, static clouds, the clouds look painted on the sky. I want real, volumetric clouds, global illumination through clouds, day-to-night cycles, a sky that looks 3D. Far Cry 3 is a good example of sky and day-to-night. Now we just need realistic weather. I want this to improve.

I'm sure I'll think up more in a bit
 
Wow, I didn't even think of sprites. Speaking of which, Unigine Valley uses blatant sprites in the distance, and even in the not-so-distant distance :D.

I totally agree with everything you said though. Consolitis is probably the biggest culprit at work here. In a sense though, it's both a blessing and a curse (depending on your spending power and subsequent rig). You don't need a behemoth computer to run at full settings anymore. But at the same time, the only things that really seem to be taxing our rigs are huge resolutions and multidisplay.
 
KazeoHin said:
Epic games' Screen-space-ambient-occlusion. Its developed for consoles that can't run crytek's original implementation. Its murky, its history-based and it's downsampled to half-res. Can't stand it.
Click to expand...

Nearly every single SSAO implementation in the universe is half res, including Crytek's. It's not uncommon for post effects to be done at half or quarter resolution. Half res is 1/4th the pixels to crunch.

The way it accumulates looks strange but it's not the worst I've seen. That goes to Far Cry 3, which is hideously obnoxious in how badly it causes a black fucking halo around shit.
 
Bloom definitely takes the cake

Especially since its mostly used to cover up how shitty something looks
 
I don't hate any effects. I hate how a lot are implemented.
Crushing SSAO (looking at you FC3/hdao was good)
Non bokeh blur. That UE3 bs(Love bokeh though)
Bad motion blur. (good motion blur does exist, fellas)
Low quality bloom
 
Brent_Justice said:
Sprites, no more sprites. Aren't we beyond sprites? I want grass and trees that react to my movement, react to the environment, have depth, have feeling. I really really dislike grass in games, it needs to improve big time.
Click to expand...

Grass, trees, bushes, etc. are all flat when viewed at certain angles (or they turn to show the same view regardless of what side you view it at). I've seen a couple decent implementations of foliage. The new Uniengine Valley did a good job with vegetation movement and textures. I was impressed.

Some games do some things perfect, but lack on others. If they could build an engine that took the best of multiple engines to create a bad ass, killer engine, I'd buy the games built on it. I am a huge fan of eye candy. I'll give up a few FPS for better graphics.
 
Definitely HDR.

This actually LOWERS the dynamic range of the image, artificially making the image look like it was recorded through a low quality digital camera. In video games HDR effectively makes the latitude LESS dynamic.


I actually like a small amount of motion blur. If done moderately, it smooths out character animation and makes the image look more "filmic".

Also, I don't understand people hating the color grading in games like BF3. Every other video game/movie/television show you see is color graded for dramatic effect too. It's an artistic liberty game designers choose to make, and usually for a good reason.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Personally, my most hated graphical "effect" is motion blur. I can't stand it, and I probably won't ever like it.
Click to expand...
Definitely motion blur.
Usually, that's the worst effect for me, unless used *only* artistically (e.g. temporary special effect, which I *do* like).
Secondarily, any settings that gobble 50% of framerate.
I like to run my framerates at least fps=Hz.

I like eliminating all the weak links to (perceived) motion blur -- GPU-based and display-based -- A lot of motion blur is also contributed by an LCD display sample-and-hold effect. Using LightBoost eliminates LCD motion blur, and makes motion as sharp as CRT. (Since this is the graphics forum and not everyone may be aware: LightBoost is a strobe backlight that bypasses pixel persistence as motion blur limiting factor; it turns off the backlight while waiting for pixels to change color values, and strobes quickly on refreshed frames. The strobes can be shorter than the pixel persistence.). Plain LCD 120Hz is only 50% clearer than LCD 60Hz, but LightBoost 120Hz is 92% less motion blur than 60Hz, and has more than 70% less motion blur than 144Hz. Turn off GPU blur + GTX680 + 120Hz LightBoost + 120fps@120Hz(Source Engine) + zero judder = zero perceivable motion blur for me!

____________________

As for HDR.... Interestingly, I actually like HDR for artistic purposes during *solo* gameplay -- as long as it's done very well (certain Source Engine titles). It adds an extra layer of realism. Turning off HDR, you're comperssing the dynamic range into the monitor's displayable colors (so you can see everything), or turning on HDR to expanding the internal dynamic range and only being able to see a subset (visible dynamic range), with on-the-fly adjustments. I like well-made HDR when it accurately adjusts the dynamic range properly, as if I'm exiting or entering a dark/bright space (like in real life). So to my eyes, it feels like the dynamic range has expanded -- even though for a second or two between switching environments, the dynamic range is bad "while it adjusts" (but that's the same way in real life -- running from a sunny outdoors into a dark basement, you can't see anything!! And running from a totally dark room (e.g. basement bedroom) directly to a winter outdoors cause a whiteout effect (ow, my eyes). It has the similiar annoying but real effect. But it adds to the suspense and hyper-realism of some games, walking towards the bloomy end of a tunnel and being surprised at what's beyond, or walking into a very dark cave and then having my eyes adjust. As long as the games don't do a terrible job of on-the-fly HDR adjustments (and takes only a couple of seconds to do so), I really like the HDR effect -- it feels extremely realistic and definitely gives the proper illusion of "expanded dynamic range" effect, but ONLY if it is done properly; some of the Half Life 2 games did a great job on that. Albiet...it can interfere with online competition play (when it can be a hindrance, especially if you run into unwanted darkout/whiteout/bloom effects too often). Scenery that utilizes HDR -- staring at a cave in the distance during bright outdoors -- it looks inky black like real life (cave too dark because your eyes are adjusted to bright environment, approach it suspensefully), rather than dull-grey (seeing stuff inside easily; good for network gaming). It also can depend on the color gamut of your monitor, too -- and sometimes you want a slight wideband HDR (doesn't clip too much) rather than an aggressive narrowband HDR (lots of black/white clipping). For an example of better-than-average HDR, try the demo program, "Half Life: Lost Coast" (not a game, but a playable tech demo) Scenes utilizing proper HDR often looks more photographically accurate, as long as it clips black/whites judiciously (emulating like a good digital SLR, rather than a cheap cameraphone.) And HDR choice can depend on whether you're just soloing (need true realism) or doing network gaming (need to see everything). So, there is good HDR, and there is bad HDR.
 
Last edited:
My most hated effect is without a doubt motion blur.
I spent all this money on a low response 120hz monitor. Why would I use a setting to go back to early lcd's?!
:D
 
Dark12 said:
My most hated effect is without a doubt motion blur.
I spent all this money on a low response 120hz monitor. Why would I use a setting to go back to early lcd's?!
:D
Click to expand...

This. All of this.

Motion Blur sucks.
 
Good motion blur can actually add a lot of detail to a game by showing motion between frames. If you watch a super high-quality blu-ray movie that seems so damn crisp and clear in motion, pause it and see how blurry it is. The problem is that most developers implement a half-assed post effect and call it 'motion blur'.

In short: I agree with the hatred of the current implementation of motion blur in games, but I don't hate the idea of it done right.
 
Crysis 2 and 3 have good motionblur when you max out postprocessing. imo
Same with Dof.

Brent_Justice said:
day-to-night cycles, ... Far Cry 3 is a good example of sky and day-to-night.
Click to expand...

Much too quick and a little weirdly lit. Or does my game just bug out?

Brent_Justice said:
IMO, Ambient Occlusion is still very lacking in quality in video games. So far, Far Cry 3 has come the closest to the best, with HDAO.
Click to expand...

HDAO was great. The standard SSAO that a lot of people used for performance(even on fairly high end rigs) was terrible. I'd rather no ao than that SSAO. I managed to squeeze in HDAO by turning some much less necessary settings down.
 
Motion blur is a HORRIBLE idea when it has anything to do with player-controlled movement. Panning in a cutscene? Fine. Blurring my vision when I'm moving the mouse? BIG NO.
 
Mark Rejhon said:
Definitely motion blur.
Usually, that's the worst effect for me, unless used *only* artistically (e.g. temporary special effect, which I *do* like).
Secondarily, any settings that gobble 50% of framerate.
I like to run my framerates at least fps=Hz.

I like eliminating all the weak links to (perceived) motion blur -- GPU-based and display-based -- A lot of motion blur is also contributed by an LCD display sample-and-hold effect. Using LightBoost eliminates LCD motion blur, and makes motion as sharp as CRT. (Since this is the graphics forum and not everyone may be aware: LightBoost is a strobe backlight that bypasses pixel persistence as motion blur limiting factor; it turns off the backlight while waiting for pixels to change color values, and strobes quickly on refreshed frames. The strobes can be shorter than the pixel persistence.). Plain LCD 120Hz is only 50% clearer than LCD 60Hz, but LightBoost 120Hz is 92% less motion blur than 60Hz, and has more than 70% less motion blur than 144Hz. Turn off GPU blur + GTX680 + 120Hz LightBoost + 120fps@120Hz(Source Engine) + zero judder = zero perceivable motion blur for me!

____________________

As for HDR.... Interestingly, I actually like HDR for artistic purposes during *solo* gameplay -- as long as it's done very well (certain Source Engine titles). It adds an extra layer of realism. Turning off HDR, you're comperssing the dynamic range into the monitor's displayable colors (so you can see everything), or turning on HDR to expanding the internal dynamic range and only being able to see a subset (visible dynamic range), with on-the-fly adjustments. I like well-made HDR when it accurately adjusts the dynamic range properly, as if I'm exiting..... So, there is good HDR, and there is bad HDR.
Click to expand...


How does turning HDR off compress the dynamic range? In photography, sure, but in video games it's quite the opposite. HDR lowers the dynamic range of what you are allowed to see at one time (It's actually Lower Dynamic Range as far as video games are concerned). Fewer stops are adequately exposed at one time, thus you are given a lower dynamic range.


For example, if you are in a dark cave in Skyrim or something, you can only see whats inside the cave (the outside world is bright and blown out). Thusly, less of the environment is visibly exposed at one time (and you have less dynamic range). Less stops of light visibly exposed at once = a low dynamic range.


Also it's worth noting that most games emulate the lens a camera more than the human eye as far as exposure goes. Video games tend to try to look like real events caught through the lens of a camera rather than how our eye would see it (shaky cam, lowering the dynamic range i.e. HDR, lens flare, color grading, film grain). Since we look at video games through a screen, they look more "realistic" when they emulate other media we consume through a screen (TV and film). This is why HDR in video games is often exaggerated, as it's meant to emulate auto exposure setting on a low-latitude video camera.
 
I like all graphical effects as long as they are used toward the game maker's artistic vision im completely fine with it.

Never mind just thought of tessellation is probably the worst effect ever. The effect has only one purpose and is to sell video cards. For so long we have been working on making bump maps and normal maps that allow you to render environments and models with fewer polygons but then we just throw all that to the wind and make a system that renders billions of polygons with little gain other than minor smoothness or roughness on certain objects for huge performance loss.

Motionblur you get on your monitor is completely different from the kind you get rendered in a game. Personally i like object motion blur as say a object is flying across my screen it should obtain some motion blur however blurring everything when i turn around is a bit much.
 
Last edited:
Colored lighting. Will always be colored lighting. I don't mean warm/cool lighting matching incandescent/fluorescent/flame I mean green/blue/red lights for no evident reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top