Slashdot Mirror
Do Videogames Need More Graphical Grit?
Thanks to GamerDad for its editorial discussing whether some recent videogames, such as Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, look "too sterile and perfect" . The author explains: "The animation is fine but the world Snake runs through is too sharp edged. There's no dirt and grime in the graphics because they're perfect versions of what was seen in the original game. Somehow, these better graphics have detracted somewhat from my opinion of the newer game." He continues: "DOOM 3, for as great as it looks, suffers from a lack of grit in still shots. I'm hoping the final game will not have the plastic look of the current pictures. Even the highly polished Quake III Arena didn't come across as being plastic to me." Do other gamers share this perception of graphical sterility in some recent games?
This is true. Too often games are overpolished, and look sterile to me as well. Hell, once they come up with a "dirt" filter for textures, games will feel a good bit more immersive than they currently do.
i use linux and windows oh god how can i have an opinion
I belive that as the technology to have "perfect" animations continues, we will be hitting a celing soon. Through adding "grime" to those animations in proper areas, we will be able to further add to that realism by bringing "real world" effects into the games with realism. Even with more advanced engines we will be able to see this. Splashing muddy water on a character, anyone?
I'm one of the few people who didn't like the game, and it was largely because of the sterility of the levels. It felt like work.
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
But I really don't find myself noticing that much. Possibly I've become used to seeing the same texture repeated n times. I guess you could have every entity have a dirtiness attribute that determind how it was rendered.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
It's true, I think enviroments and characters do look a bit to "perfect". They should learn from Silent Hill, Manhunt and other games like that. They all look dirty and grity using various filters that make up a kind of "dated" look. Which I find extremly nice. The dirtyer the better. ;)
Simply retarded
If you play a sports game for example, dirt isn't the only thing that makes it feel "real".
1.) Inconsistent lighting
2.) Fog in the air
3.) Dirt everywhere
4.) Fans that look different in the seats
Damn I can go on forever
SS2 was an awesome game with an incredible spooky atmosphere, but there was the glaring problem of everything being pristine and clean... even broken stuff. Worse, there were no no bodies, debris and very little damage in the environment. And of course, killed enemies would disappear shortly after being dispatched. I realize this was a technological limitation (the game came out 5 years ago), but I think it's one of the biggest barriers to real immersion in an environment. If I'm walking in a derelict spaceship overrun with zombies and cyborgs, there should be bodies everywhere and lots and lots of busted stuff. Also, if I'm struting around with a plasma rifle, I want to be able to blow stuff up. Descent 3 provided black scorch marks on the walls if you shot at them, but I want to see chunks of metal or masonry flying around and if I spent enough time and ammo, I want to be able to blow my way through walls or doors or really abuse the environment in other ways. When this happens, it will seem like VR compared to today's games.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
BTW, if I'm responsible for getting the most GRIT into Doom 3, do I get some cool prizes?
Videogame worlds are staffed by really efficient janitors, who store all the dust and grime in boxes. Which is why you see those everywhere.
The Rogue Squadron games delt with this nicely. The Rebel ships all look beat up. If you walk around the hanger while selecting your ship, you'll see paint chips and other signs of wear with the ships. The Naboo Starfighter looks like it got pulled out of a junkyard.
Grit in a real image and fog in a game can become confused if you don't handle it just the right way. You have to worry about which zealots you're offending. Crisp graphics, smoothly rendered edges, and the use of fog/grit for style (not lazy rendering) are all a very delicate balance.
IANAGD (game developer), but I say lay the groundwork, focus on gameplay and come back to throw these details in with some market testing. Time and processor speed permitting.
Isn't half-life 2 supposed to fix all this?? Real environment.. real 'water', 'dirt'.. etc?
(1st sig) If this were a snappy sig, you'd be reading it right now. (2nd sig) I'm a karma whore. >Insert FUD here
I have hope that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. might introduce some much needed dirt and grit! Check out this picture for instance, or the gallery in general.
How long before nVidia and ATI fanboys get into wars about which company's "dirt and grit engine" is better?
I predict that nVidia's next driver release actually adds back in some of artifacts that their old drivers used to leave all over the screen. They will claim that this is their new Enhanced Reality Engine and sic lawyers on any site that bitches about the artifacts.
--
I stopped playing Quake 3 for the reason that everything looked so incredibly fake! They took reflection and threw it on everything! I couldn't stand looking at the game after a week, so I quit and played other games like Tribes 2, which had Matte look, but still had some gloss when needed, for effect.
Bye!
Where did all the blood go? Characters need to explode with blood like water balloons! They need to bleed whenever I'm looking at them! And the blood should stay there.
Im trying to recover from the awe here...
You didnt saw the trailer or the quakecon videos have you? Well just picture this? Zombie, shotgun, "clean background" behind, press trigger BAM, zombie with a large hole, red splattered wall and ceiling with little pieces of meat, get the idea? seriously some scenes from Doom 3 are more than enough to make certain people sick. The bathroom cut where "pinky" is eating a zombie is.. well disgusting, the scene is as gruel as can be I felt physically ill the first time I saw that.
However if grit is what you want, go and play any silent hill game, it has more than you bargained for and it also features a grain filter.
By the way a lot of people prefer to see quality in their images than "grit" not just as a visual preference, is also easier to spot a hidden area or an item that way, thats the reason why almost everyone turns the grainy filter from silent hill 2/3 off.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
Call of Duty came pretty close to a dirty, gritty feel. The characters have facial stubble, the environment looks like it has suffered the abuse of a war.
Contrast with Halo or Half-Life, which were very sterile, esp. Halo.
Bullet marks and blood splatters are one thing, but the rest is harder to achieve. Lets hope Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 work on that, but I doubt they'll get the full effect to work.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
I think way too much emphasis is put on graphics: Both by the developers and consumers. I buy games for the fun factor and the gameplay. I could care less what a game looks like. Maybe it's because I grew up in the early years of video games, and can remember when games were just games. If I want reality i'll go outside.
Doom 3 definitely needs more smeared blood on the walls and floors.
Wait till the game is out and you wil see what I mean, theres a lot of "redecoration" you can do.
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
If anything, Doom3's bathroom scene showed more grit than anything I've seen in ages. Personally, though, I'm hoping they won't resort to Silent Hill's grainy filtering for such effects-- that just gives me a headache.
I didn't find Twin Snakes to be all that bad graphically; there's not a whole lot of dirt to get around because the ground is most likely all hardpack. If anything, Twin Snakes is a huge improvement because of the vast resolution upgrade it got over the original. There were times you weren't quite sure what you were looking at on the old PSX version.
The ability to cheaply do reflection mapping means anything glossy now gets a perfectly focused reflection mapped on it, which looks cool for about 5 minutes, then starts to grate.
Reflections are rarely perfect. What a lot of these new games need to take the edge off is a blurred reflection.
Here's a test render I did a while back comparing hard & soft reflections: Chrome_Soft_test.jpg
Much like chrome was a craze back in the early days of pre-rendered CGI, these hard reflections in real-time graphics are about to jump the shark.
What were you expecting?
...something I said almost 4 years ago. In fact, that comment was about 3dfx technology that began to address this exact problem right before nVidia bought them and killed it. All most people care about is framerates, polygons per second, and fill rates. When is the blood going to run down the wall when you shoot somebody? when are we going to have soft edges? Texture and bump maps don't help when you get to the intersection of two surfaces, and it's the biggest thing standing in the way of a believable scene in a 3d engine.
It's all about the artistic style you are going after. Too often gamers assume that the ultimate goal is perfect realism, which would be amazing but limited. The real future of games is in applying artistic styles and sensibility to games. I loved Viewtiful Joe because of its extreame style. The Wind Waker too. These games have styles that were neither grity nor realistic, but thier unique feels did an excellent job creating worlds that was easy to get lost in.
I'm not saying every game should be cell shaded, but developers should more often utilize the limitless possiblities of style in modern games.
Grit is what made the Star Wars universe unique in its day. It seemed more realistic because the sets reflected some of the seedier elements that populated them. Personally, sterility or grit doesn't make too much difference for me. I've never seen a game that looked like the real world because 2d/3d graphics haven't replicated the way the human eye works. In a game, everything is always in clear focus no matter how far away or how far into your peripheral vision. In newer games, such as HL2, distant items appear with less detail, but still are in focus. I would be curious to see a graphics engine that can replicate the way a human eye views the world.
That's only if it's hot grits, preferably down natalie portman's pants.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
I'm surprised no one has yet said "Yes, they need more grit- in their pants." Take a bow Slashdot; you deserve one.
I'm surprised that more people have made jokes about grits especially hot grits placed in various people's pants. It's a story about grit for god's sake. This is like having a story about computer clusters and not seeing any jokes about beowulf clusters.
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
And of course, I haven't even talked about the fourty button controller. You want realism and grit? SB and SB:LoC have it in spades, along with unblievable gameplay and an awesome community to boot.
..how complicated the Universe is, until you start trying to simulate it.
Morrowind I felt, was actually the first 3D game, that didn't feel 'bare' to me.
So many FPS have environments that are SO stark. Part of what gives a house so much charm, is all the junk that is in it !
I agree, something as simple as even a "noise" texture overlaid on top of evertyhing helps.
The game didn't too to hot, but check out www.devastationgame.com - This game had hella trash, hella grime.
After playing it, its hard to look at other FPSes environments the same.
Games such as the Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Fatal Frame series take a good pan on creating a much more realistic--if ultra-realistic--tilt at the world they take place in. Everything is dirty, grimy, and smeared with a sense of being in the real world.
Perhaps it is because these games take a closer stab (pun intended) at getting into the gamer's sense of reality and trying to really get into their mind, versus the seperation between player and story in other games, in a visual sense anyway.
Well this is an interesting topic for 3D rendering in general. The world is 'imperfect'. The moment something is exposed to human interaction, it gets nicks, cuts, scratches, dents, fatigue, etc. The common way to communicate the 'used look' is to make things look beat up and dirty.
Yes, it does look better. Yes, it does look more lived in. Yes, it does take away from the 'perfection' that computers achieve and look more like we expect. Is it the right thing to do? Well, interestingly enough, I'm running into this problem right now. I'm working on a 3D rendering of a futuristic particle cannon. Right now, I'm building a room around the machine. While texturing this bad boy, I realized something. You see, when I originally built the machine, I used Lightwave's more advanced rendering features. This means more time to render, but it looks more realistic. There is radiosity rendering, and subtle blurred reflections (you'd be surprised how much rendering time that eats up..) area lighting, the works. And you know, by the time I've got all these on, it is startlingly good looking. However, it was taking FAR too long to render an animation of, so I had to find ways of dirtying it up. Well, that's what I've started doing. Instead of using reflective chrome like you'd see in the CERN laboratory for its machines, I grittied it up. No more expensive reflection blurring there. Some of the photos I'm using for textures have some of the effects of 'realistic light' baked into them anyway, so I can stop using area lights and go back down to spotlights. Radiosity? Well the dirt on the machine gets so dark that radiosity wouldn't make a huge difference, so bye bye lengthy render times.
Maybe the dirt etc helps reduce the need for fancier renderings? Maybe, though it helps sell the idea that something is used, it's really covering up something that'd be more expensive to render? I say maybe because this may not be true in every artist's experience. I just found it interesting that when it came down to getting the rendering done in time to get an animation done, the grit texturing has saved my rump.
"Derp de derp."
That's an extremely clean world. Where are the oil stains? Where are the scuff marks? Where are the worn edges? Where are the footprints from those mechs?
It's got an interesting "TV interlace" effect, but that's hardly a substitute for dirt.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
I've been saying this for years to my friends, it's really hard to imagine you're in a real world if you keep seeing the same panel in the wall, or (worse) the same panel representing a wall (think Doom). It does make it easier to spot that one panel that is slightly off, indicating you need to blast it with a rocket or, or find a switch somewhere, but in real life every panel would be slightly different than the next. Even look at your cube walls, there are subtle differences between each one that let you sort of find "cloud pictures" (or try your ceiling tile).
I don't really have a solution, as the advances in lighting and level design, not to mention the increased amount of art that can be packed into a CD nowadays have taken care of all my ideas, apart from having an artist draw every single wall uniquely to start out with (ridiculously time consuming). Well, maybe have something like Diablo's random level generator, where a key is stored that is used to generate consistent (within the game) dungeons, but basically uses the same elements. Use it to modify certain parts of the panel, like maybe a few pixel wide micro-scratches or discolorations that you really only notice on a subconcious level.
Oh, and I'm sure someone's mentioned this already, but stop making everything look like plastic! Even plastic doesn't gleam like that, as there's dirt that settles on it (and settles in an uneven way). Materials might actually have whatever index of refraction your physics engine is set to, but if there's 50% dust, or 25% wear, that part isn't going to gleam like it was just polished yesterday. And I don't think sewers get polished very often.
Now that I'm rolling, do game publishers only work in brand-new office buildings? For those of you who are in a building a few years old, look down at the ground next time you walk around (no, not just to avoid eye contact, but actually pay attention to the ground). Notice how the carpet/tile is more worn in high-traffic areas? How next to the water cooler it's a little bit darker, due to splatter over the years? How the edges of wide hallways look like they were installed yesterday? How there are always marks on the walls in stairwells? And how even door handles start to show wear after a few years? It's the little things that we see but don't process that really make things look real - the wrinkles in people's faces. We just need "wrinkles" in our textures.
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
One should check you the newly released photographs of Resident Evil 4 for GameCube over on IGN. Now that is grit big time! And it looks amazing.
misundstood by most, hated by some, loved by few.
...And focus is a big problem.
When you're looking at a scene in reality, your eye naturally focuses on the object you are observing, and that object will appear nice and sharp. Objects in the background will appear blurred and darker as hilights are flattened.
When a scene is rendered in a game there's no way the computer can predict what object someone is paying attention to so it must render everything in focus. As a result, the scene seems unnaturally sharp and bright, especially when the scene isn't placed in bright daylight (the human eye has a greater depth of field in bright light).
Until eye-tracking - and eye focusing - technology is incorporated into virtual reality this is unfortunately not going to be resolved.
MGS Twin Snakes goals were basically 1.) the remake of the game with all the high res graphics and higher-poly count models, 2.) the MGS 2 game play and 3.) a complete and honest reproduction of the Metal Gear Solid (PSX) story line.
So yeah, it does look a bit sterile in the sense that things did look perfect. After the first Ninja fight, the room gets messed up bad. It looks fine when you walk in and during your fight, though some glass panes can be shattered. Snake now looks more alive than he did in the original, a Miyamoto signature which was also something found in Eternal Darkness.
All critics of the MGS series say the same things about level design, textures, etc... MGS 2 did a good job making environmental elements apparent, like getting your feet wet, and leaving tracks (there was really no water in Twin Snakes for this to be noticeable). Tracks in the snow was around since the original MGS. But these MGS games take place in bunkers and bases, which don't really allow for much dirt or very creative scenery. Alaska people, come on.
Something introduced into Twin Snakes is the available to shoot at panes of glass, and only pieces of the pane get shot out. You can continue to damage the glass in different spots, and sometimes if its already damaged, a critical shot will break it all up. Diving into a damaged glass pane will also shatter it too.
There's more too, but I can't recall everything. For instance, Snakes face sometimes looked dirty.
Twin Snakes was certainly more gory than MGS 2, and any other game I have on PS2 (I have both GTA's) or GameCube.
We'll definitely see more of what the original author of this thread is asking for, more realism. Look at the upcoming MGS 3 game, since this thread began talking about MGS: TTS. I think that this is pretty much an easy problem solve, but Nintendo and Konami are working on new models for gaming, and working out the kinks on those first and leaving the graphic fine tuning at the end.
It can be argued that this is the wrong approach. Many people have already said that Nintendo is wasting their time trying to continually innovate, and that they use what works, Mario64, Zelda64, GoldenEye, etc... I think this is the Japanese mindset in general when it comes to videogames, and Nintendo found an ally in regards to Konami, one of the biggest entertainment software companies out there.
In any case, MGS Twin Snakes is badass, and I played the original on PSX, its worth the 40 bucks, I've already played through it once, and I'm working on playing through it again this weekend.
The cleaner the better
the game designer and artists can't possibly be expected to design every model and room down to the last exposed nail and fingerprint. There's a lot of potential detail to notice that must be added but has _no bearing_ on gameplay at all (which is the point, right?)
So somebody needs to come up with a way to automate the randomization of object models, textures, etc. in such a fashion that all that data doesn't have to be stored, but can be generated at run time to within defined limits. The key is making sure it looks realistic but uninteresting so it doesn't interfere nor interact with the scripted gameplay. And it has to do this in realtime...
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Games don't need more grit, they just need hot grits, goddamnit.
Dirt, grime, and other "real world effects" would be really nice, and I think that it would add orders of magnitude to the overall percived graphical quality of a game, but do we really have the hardware to support it yet?
I've seen a few games that feaures some of these effects, for example in Metroid Prime rain drops will hit your visor when it's raining, or your visor will steam up and collect condensation if you walk through steam, or in Resident Evil the dust that comes up when you walk and the light shining through it.
These games look wonderful when you see things like this, but I think it might be a couple more years before we can really expect to start seeing things like this in many games.
The Console systems are nearing their end of life, and I think we _might_ have the horsepower in the next gen systems to do some limited, but much more than we have now, "real world effects". It will probably be awhile before most PC games start to do this though.
I don't even pretend to understand in-depth all of the details that go into making a great game engine, but from what I do know I would postulate the following (any game engine programmers wanna back me up here?):
Having all of these "real world effects" might be possible on a top of the line gaming rig of today, but to get decent performance the engine would have to be too machine specific to be able to use in making a distributable game
In the next couple of years the top of the line video cards will probably start supporting effects like these, allowing game designers to impliment these effects in their engines
Given a year to design/customise an engine, at its finish it should be able to run acceptably on video cards at least 18 months old.
Anyway, I estimate that it might be about 18 months before we have cards that could really think about supporting this on some level, 6 months learning curve before people can do really neat stuff with it, and another 12 to 18 months before we start seeing it really implimented in games. Over all that means another 3 to 3.5 years before we can start seening high quality real world effects wowing us in the latest games.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
For a long time I resisted the first person shooter genre onthe PC. In fact I much prefered playing on the Playstation because of the look and feel of the games. I may be talking out of my arse, but I felt edges on first person shooters to be too well defined. I didn't have any problem with any other 3D game or 2D games on the PC or console because objects were smaller and less well defined. I liked that slightly blurred/soft focus on the images. I guess I could also put it down to frame and refresh rates (again I could be talking out of my arse). When I play Counterstrike at 30fps, the definiton of edges on objects is blurrier than at 60fps.
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
GamePlay First, graphics second
I think it's due mostly to the shiny or reflective shaders that seem so popular. Also when something is low resolution you actually imagine a lot more detail than they they usually end up drawing in a high resolution version of that same texture. At least I do...
mod parent up interesting!
Games need better gameplay.
:) ).
You want ultra realistic pictures go look out your window whilst your eyes are still good. Go to an art gallery.
Or go download some demos or machinima.
What's with all the 3d shooters - you can hardly tell the difference between them all.
Then again perhaps there really are millions of people who would spend money to buy a new game which has the gameplay of the older version, more realistic graphics that require them to spend yet more money on hardware.
At least pacman was different from loderunner.
OK jedi knight etc is different enough (always wanted to play with a lightsaber
Unfortunately Aliens v Predator 2 was a bit less than satisfactorily executed/implemented. Maybe they should have used the Quake 3 engine and spent their time with the other bits of the game.
GTA3 was fun.
But what's with the tons of games with ppl going around with m16s/ak47s? Just because counterstrike is successful doesn't mean a similar game would do as well- people play counterstrike not because of graphics, there are also network effects involved.
I think lack of grit is a much bigger problem in movie industry nowadays. A lot of movies look just way to clean and polished and it looks terrible.
Please Mod up as informative
"Sprites" are still quite useful if designed correctly as tile sets however the design of a proper looking tile set is a bitch to top it off you STILL have a smattering of the "canned" feel to the environment however this can be considered "noir"... E.g. Secret of Mana 2
Textures are extermely high on the realism scale but you have to have exteremly large textures in order to be able to get the right feel of the environment a player at FOV with his nose pressed up against the wall should not be able to pick out any seams or patterns however blending the aforementioned textures from a distance still imposes that patterned feel to it...
Palettes might be a better choice... However the tech behind it will be a bit tricky. For one you want to create some entropy with a particular algorithm. (e.g. metal surface and rust, tweaked conway algorithm) (concrete and grime in corners "burn algorithm" with an single threaded "ants" or "worms" algorithm for white fuzz) (painted surfaces with paint flakes with manipulated cycled burn algorithm and conway for the missing paint spots...)
Problems with this is:
1.) the graphics need to be re generated at the start of a level
2.) unless players distribute the "cost" of the computations and combine the results each player will see a slightly different level
3.) I'm probably talking out of my ass and trolling you to DEATH but fuck it aleast I have seeded your thought pattern and might have some kind of idea how this grime objective can be met?
: When is the blood going to run down
: the wall when you shoot somebody?
Blood running down a wall? Hey, I know a first-person shooter that had this effect - back in 1994! It is Technopop's Zero Tolerance for the Sega Genesis.
Shoot an enemy close to the wall: blood stain. Shoot the wall: damage texture. Animated wall textures. An animated, interactive landscape. Tons of weapons and various items like motion scanners, fire extinguishers, and bulletproof vests. Immense, multi-floor levels. That game - along with Ranger X, Alien Soldier, and Thunder Force 4 - pushed the good old Genny to its limits. If a first-person shooter ever really, REALLY deserved a sequel, Zero Tolerance is the one!
(actually they tried to make one, but it was never completed and Technopop no longer exists. The beta's ROM is out there, though)
Circumcision is child abuse.
A good example of a 'grit' effect like this is the Silent Hill series. After beating one Silent Hill games (I think it was #2), you can replay it over again without the 'grit filter', which makes the game a COMPLETELY different animal. It's so much better in the grit form, I couldn't imagine playing it in the original form.
i've been saying this for a while to my friends. older systems (ps, n64) didn't have the rez we have today, so there was natural distortion ect. the origional metal gear solid, for as ass ugly as it looks today, had some grit due to the lack of power of the ps. while twin snakes is an amazing game, when i saw the screens i thought that it didn't have the necessary grittyness.
of course i would rather have the nice textures and full effects/mulit texturing than the ps1 version had. heck it had trouble rendering straight lines straight.
Indeed, things like the amount or rubble and broken wood lying around in Call of Duty, and the dead animals and shit everywhere.
Runing through shelled buildings, there was phenomenal amount of stuff strewn around, and touches like the glowing embers on the wooden structuring post shell hit were nice touches.
I think Call of Duty was one game that really started to raise the bar for realism in gaming, on all fronts really.
Stalker looks like it could do the same again.
Way to go, convolutiong something simple into a drawn out explanation aklin to rocket science. --Well it's not.
A game like Mario is cartoony. Even Mario Sunshine with its ultra cool water effects and slick graphics is still designed to be a cartoony game, and therefore no one is going to be bothered by how clean it look.
The problem is with games that attempt to mimic reality. 3D artists work hard to re-create real-world environments and objects, but the problem is that artists have to conciously remind themselves that the world isn't brand new. It's become easy to model and render something in 3D and have it look perfect. Like it's just been manufactured. But real life isn't like that. Real-life objects have scratches, dust, dirt, aging, rusting, fading....
Just check out a game like Silent Hill 2 and 3 as examples of graphics where the artists were concious about how to model and texture the world to look like it was aged. (Of course, they aged it beyond "normal", but it's still a great example).
There's no need for "dirt filters". It's up to the texture artists and the art directors that over-see the overall look of a game to remember to include such details as age, dirt, dust, scratches, etc.....
RB
During the presentation of nVidia FX cards, a demo of a truck was shown. The point, made by the president of nVidia, was that it's easy to make shiny things (a stab at ATi and their racing car demo), but difficult to make realistic ones. Thanks to the shaders, the truck was able to age quite realistically, including paint peeling off, metal parts rusting, chrome dimming, etc.
I would certainly say that the lack of grit is not a huge problem that gaming industry faces today. It's just one of the things a professional designer keeps in mind anyway. When you design a texture, you can call it ready after 2 or 3 iterations, or keep working on it. Every step increases the realism and the designers know that already.
Of course, to some extent the problem can be universally solved via a special grit shader, but it's not like the designers and programmers haven't thought of it already. The problem of any particular game is that it was rushed a bit or that one particular designer didn't pay enough attention to a specific aspect of the game, because he didn't care about it as much as you do, not some huge shortcoming of all modern games.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
BTW, have you heard about the sequel to KOTOR? According to the Blue's News editorial it will be based in the Episode II timeframe. There is a chance we will see Natalie Portman (petrified, if you have an old video card), covered in hot graphical grits!!!!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
ye si do think that it should have grit. I would like to see the flors get scuffed up and the walls have discoloration from sun light. There should be wind too. if your out side of a building, then dirt should blow with the wind. I mean the shiny is nice, but it not like that in life. Really it should be used in some games, like doom, or Command and Conquer.
talk, writing, poems, journals, news, and more!
hello