How Much Detail Is Too Much For Games?

As ususal, the answer is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 09:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

...it depends.

Re:As ususal, the answer is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:26 · Score: 1

I thought the answer was supposed to be "no", now i'm confused ;-)
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by Pseudonym · 2012-08-01 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Precisely.
As Steve Hollasch famously noted, computer graphics is the only area of science where if it looks right, it is right. The correct amount of detail is whatever the tradeoff between artistry and gameplay demands. Your goal as a game designer is to have the audience say "what a great game", not "what great detail". Unfortunately, it's sometimes easier to optimise for high detail than it is to optimise for great gameplay.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by wisty · 2012-08-01 14:07 · Score: 1

Yes, but for the first 35 years of computer games, more detail was better. It was a challenge on some platforms to draw more than one bad guy. It's in the DNA of game people to try to push for better graphics, even if it's actually deleterious.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by MacGyver2210 · 2012-08-01 14:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't think it depends at all. I think that there is no such thing as too much detail. That said, don't equate detail to 'more stuff'. Just because you have extremely realistic vegetation doesn't mean you should place a hundred branches of a bush in front of the path the player is supposed to take.
You can make everything extremely detailed without any issues, however, it is up to the level editor and layout artists to make sure that extremely detailed art doesn't interfere with gameplay. Maybe your tree needs shorter vines or branches so you can see the path through the woods, or the extremely detailed grass should be trampled in a certain area to delineate the way you should go, or that waterfall needs a little less glare so you can see the hidden entrance behind it. Those aren't matters of detail, but matters of design.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by Smauler · 2012-08-01 15:43 · Score: 1

Realistic detail would be catastrophic in any game. Literally any game would collapse under overwhelming micromanagement if realistic detail were involved.
Every single game there has ever been has not come anywhere near close to representing one small town. All the brilliant stories you get from games revolve about a maximum of 100 people or so, and there's a reason for that. 10,000 people is not worth it, and it's a nightmare for gamers too.
I've though about this for a while, and have come to the conclusion that games simple cannot be realistic in this sense - Managing possible interactions between 7 billion characters does not work, it'll never work, and making the gamer manage that many people is counterproductive. 1,000 is too many people in a game, really. If it were possible to create the realistic billions, it would not be desirable.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-08-01 16:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

True. Unfortunately, 'looks right' lands you straight on the tender mercy of the whiny bastards who play your games...
As one such, something I've found myself running into is that sometimes more detail makes me more aware of the remaining missing details.
I've been bitten hard a couple of times by this while playing Skyrim lately. A couple of examples: Unlike Oblivion and earlier where all water was still, water now has a 'current' associated with it, so you behave more realistically if you try to cross a swift-flowing river or the like, or drop an object into one. Unfortunately, the 'current' value assignment isn't very granular, so you are constantly running into situations where your intuition expects the flow to change in response to an obstacle or bit of terrain and it just... doesn't. Having no current at all was even less realistic; but you got over it quickly. Now that you have current, every deviation from your intuitions about fluid dynamics just smacks you in the face.
The improved weapon animation detail seems to have suffered a similar fate. They are much more visceral and kinetic this time around; but that makes the fact that the animations for a given weapon type(eg. all one-handed swords, all warhammers, etc.) are the same, despite the in-game weights of items within a given type varying 50-300%. They are markedly less stiff and anemic than prior animations; but that just makes watching a character handle a weight '9' sword and a weight '16' sword exactly identically weirder(and let's not even start on how different sorts of targets should probably result in more and less elastic collisions...)
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by noh8rz6 · 2012-08-01 16:08 · Score: 1

computer graphics is the only area of science where if it looks right, it is right.

umm... computer graphics science.

--
Don't be a h8r.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by noh8rz6 · 2012-08-01 16:10 · Score: 1

I think a better way of putting it would be, for 35 years, the detail in computer graphics was limited by technology constraints, not gameplay constraints. The RTFS author proposes that the technology has improved to the point where the limiting factor is gameplay quality. remember that game LIMBO? that was a cool game. But also, Arkham City? That was a cool game.

--
Don't be a h8r.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by fatphil · 2012-08-01 18:51 · Score: 1

There's more than one "looks right". If a static image looks stunning - photographic quality - then that's a wonderful feature to have. However, your immersion can be blown out of the water immediately if the NPCs look like beautifully rendered arthritic marionettes when they move. Or if objects don't obey simple laws of physics like conservation of momentum.

(Yes, I hate superman movies, as when a lorry hits him, he should be moved backwards, unless he's of enormous mass, in which case he should collapse any floor he walks upon, etc. etc.)

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by Canazza · 2012-08-01 21:09 · Score: 1

It gets even worse if you install the handyman mod and wield a wooden spoon in the same manner you would a 1 handed sword

--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by ciderbrew · 2012-08-01 21:11 · Score: 1

Skyrim is a good example for this. In much the same way the lack of sounds in games gets me. Just two insects types in the game bugs me too. The ground should be teaming with ants. I think the team needs a zoologist.
It isn't important for game play and of course I don't expect it to be in the game. But I do expect it to be in the world. The stage they've set really calls for a lunatic amount of things to be added. The next next generation of games will need this level of detail for immersion.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by billyswong · 2012-08-01 21:21 · Score: 1

(Yes, I hate superman movies, as when a lorry hits him, he should be moved backwards, unless he's of enormous mass, in which case he should collapse any floor he walks upon, etc. etc.)
Superman can fly with no air pushed backward. So he is using his mystical flying power, not his mass, to stop the lorry.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by ciderbrew · 2012-08-01 21:36 · Score: 1

Completely. The animation system / rag doll system have years of development to go before you wouldn't notice it in 99.9% of all situations. Motion capture doesn't really do it either. They need to capture detail for every joint. The hands always look odd to me.
Plus they can add simulating of everything else to, organs, skin, clothes hair. Never too sure why organs, but it gives the weight to the fat over the body I guess.
Then the interactions between those systems next. There is a lot...
Batman Arch city did a good job for fights, until the rag doll system took over.
For war games, I don't think I want "real". Shooting people needs to be cartoon violence. During an ethics class (I was 14 I think) they showed us WWII film of Jews being bulldozed into mass grave. The way those bodies moved still haunts me. I don't want the horrific aspect of what I saw being made trivial by a game. War games are already too "realistic" for me to allow my son to play. I'm sure that will only get worse.

Superman movies - he can fly, so can push himself about a bit within space. He doesn't need to move backwards. Also if that bothers you the lasers from the eyes must really grate.
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by DeathToBill · 2012-08-01 22:08 · Score: 1

Hmmm, I dunno. Assassins Creed manages to do this relatively well. There are thousands of people you can interact with - guards, civilians etc. Interactions between them are trivial unless they're interacting with you or it's part of scripted play, but you can walk up and smack them and they do about the right thing. You get to choose how important they are. If you want to ignore them, they'll ignore you. If you feel like picking a fight, you can pick a fight. And, when it comes to guards, the notoriety system does a fairly good job of giving varied but overall-consistent interactions.

--
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-08-02 00:31 · Score: 1

True enough. On the plus side, I've found that my tolerance for niggling unrealism goes way up when my character is suitably ridiculous. And the 'iron chef' build with all iron armor(except for chef's hat) and dual combat spoons arguably qualifies(if it doesn't, try using fire breath and 'if you can't stand the heat...' based cliches more, or playing while intoxicated). The 'peasants are revolting' build (nothing but the starting rags and a 2-handed agricultural implement) is more challenging; but similarly unconstrained by petty realism...
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by RoboJ1M · 2012-08-02 01:09 · Score: 1

Any time one of the following occurs, downgrade your GPU immediately and set the screen res to VGA 16bpp.
...when you can see back in time
...when the game looks back at you
...when the game looks back at you in soviet russia
...when you see the back of your own head
...42
...???
...profit!
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by MikeBabcock · 2012-08-02 02:47 · Score: 1

Agreed -- I've argued this point with a few people before -- as your detail level goes up, all the surrounding information must go up at the same rate. That is to say, if you're going to have detailed trees, my face shouldn't just pass through leaves. If you can't render leaves that brush out of my way, then don't make realistic trees with leaves.
Suspension of disbelief is all about a certain even level of reality. For an excellent example, play Limbo ... it has fairly low quality graphics if comparing to full colour 3D shooters of late, but they're very well animated and the physics is also very well done. The actual graphic detail indicates exactly what you expect at any time -- a ledge is where it is, and boxes are where they are, and the edge falls where you think it should ... and so on.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:As ususal, the answer is... by UnknownSoldier · 2012-08-02 04:17 · Score: 2

You're beautiful examples succinctly summarize the problem! The two phrases you are looking for are:
* The Red Herring of Realism
* Suspension of Disbelief, or Immersion
Sadly, too many gamers and game designers cry for more realism not understanding the tradeoffs associated with it. As soon as players start noticing "the physics are not 'quite' right" you've broken the first rule of game design: immersion.
This was less of an issue with 2D because players "knew" it was only a game; the move to 3D now has a lot of gamers-armchair-designers crying "that's not realistic" -- Um, buddy, when was the last time you saw a dragon flying to go whining about how its not moving realistic?" Why do players do that?
The most important issue in 3D worlds are:
* consistency
* expectations
Players "import" into the meta-game the rules and behavior of the Real World into the virtual one. It is OK to have a different set of physics as long as you follow the above 2 guidelines. i.e. If everyone can fly in your game players will "buy into" it as long as you introduce the concept, and are consistent with it in the game design. The indie games "Braid", or "Shift" are good example of "alternative" physics.
Similar to how we have an "Uncanny Valley" for graphics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley ) we also have an "Unexpected Physics" as we better approximate the real-world physics in computer games.

It's not detail, it's contrast by narcc · 2012-08-01 09:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

I tried to play that "New Super Mario Brothers" game not long ago. I couldn't see a damn thing.

Contrast, people. Contrast is important. The challenge should be playing the game, not seeing the game.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics

Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by PhrostyMcByte · 2012-08-01 10:05 · Score: 3, Informative

I'd prefer monitors that can work without a hugely contrasting image.
Take a game like Quake. It plays perfectly, in all its dark, murky, brown palette, on CRTs. Throw it on an LCD without boosting the game's brightness and it can be quite difficult to pick out the details. Reacting to this, mappers seemed to go between one of two paths
The first option, they'll make a game nearly fullbright, then add shadows in for contrast. Dark colors other than shadows are delegated for things you shouldn't be paying attention to -- mainly extraneous paths.
The second option is that the mapper significantly increases the brightness setting in the game, designing a level that is actually quite dark and very difficult to see at a normal brightness level on a calibrated monitor.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-08-01 10:33 · Score: 1

Same with Need For Speed Undercover. Go look at some screenshots on google images. The entire game has a blue/cyan color scheem, including the fucking HUD. This means that even on a 1080p display, the map is damn near impossible to see at ALL. Contrast this with earlier games like Underground 2 where they not only got contrast right, but you could actually CUSTOMIZE the color of some of the HUD elements (mostly speedo) to make them even more visible.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Sir_Sri · 2012-08-01 10:34 · Score: 1

The challenge should be playing the game, not seeing the game.

That's a good mantra, but it depends very much on what 'playing the game' is supposed to involve. To use the summaries dense jungle example, making it intentionally hard to find your way around can be part of the game. For a more mundane example Left 4 dead 2 has a corn field and a field to a gas station, both of which are intentionally there to disorient you.
Now in that case, of intentionally disorienting the player, you need to give them a way out so they can try again.
How subtle is too subtle in storytelling is a chronic question. Was it clear if dumbledore was gay? Was it even supposed to be (i.e. were there enough hints that you should have been able to pick that out)? These sorts of questions have kept literature teachers in business, and literature in students pulling out their hair for centuries, that we now expand that to real time rendered art isn't all that shocking.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by butalearner · 2012-08-01 10:40 · Score: 2

I've never had trouble with that, but I tried playing split-screen multiplayer Modern Warfare or one of its ilk at a party last year on a 55" Plasma. Now it's not exactly my bailiwick but back in the Halo 2 days I used to be a fairly decent console FPS player even with split-screen limitations. But with MW I seriously could barely see anything, and most often I died without ever seeing any of the people I was fighting. I even tried the old "watch the other guy's screen" cheat and it didn't help at all.
Before this article I couldn't put my finger on it, but I think this was exactly the problem. There may have been plenty of detail, but I couldn't make out the actual enemies. I guess the other players were just used to it.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:02 · Score: 1

The funny thing is that there was a study a while back that got posted on /. about how playing CoD trained people to be better at detecting subtle changes in contrast. So having poor contrast can actually be a useful thing and part of what makes a game challenging. Not sure it should be for NSMB but I don't recall contrast being an issue in that game
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Darkness404 · 2012-08-01 11:02 · Score: 2

Really? I've found that less realistic games tend to have much better contrast than "ultra-realistic" games, NSMB has posed no problem, on the other hand, I've played several FPS and even first adventure games that were nearly impossible to see due to the color selection only being steel grey, gun grey, dirt grey, camo grey, and muzzle flash orange.

Call of Duty has always been the worst offender for me.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:05 · Score: 1

"Subtlety is good, especially when you beat them over the head with it." - Billy Wilder
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:06 · Score: 0

I agree! I tried Epic Mickey recently and it also had this problem - it was so detailed that it was hard to see what you could interact with. The "beautiful" landscape was actually quite annoying.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:18 · Score: 0

He's on to something here. I've found myself revisiting 8 & 16 bit console and DOS games in the last few years and have found that I am enjoying them more the second time around than a first go at many new titles. I don't know if it is really my own sentiment or just better games but the "fun factor" seems much higher on many older titles of the same genres. (There are stinkers, too,)
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:26 · Score: 0

Epic Mickey had more serious problems than detail, the control scheme was easily the worst I've ever encountered in over 2 decades of gaming. Fortunately, it was a rental so I was spared having to convince somebody else to buy that turd. I never did make it out of that first room even after spending a large amount of time on that one particularly nasty jump where the controller wouldn't properly work.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 12:38 · Score: 0

Battlefield: Bad Company was really bad for a lack of contrast between enemies and their surroundings.
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by nedlohs · 2012-08-01 13:32 · Score: 1

Because you would expect soldiers to try and stand out from their surroundings. That's what camouflage is for, right?
Of course sometimes high contrast works as camouflage by breaking up outlines or giving up hiding entirely and going for making it hard to tell direction, speed, and distance (such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_West_Mahomet)
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by flappinbooger · 2012-08-01 13:42 · Score: 1

What went wrong with doom3? shudder

--
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-08-01 17:07 · Score: 1

That's an art design problem, not a realism problem.

--
Not a sentence!
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:37 · Score: 1

Now in that case, of intentionally disorienting the player, you need to give them a way out so they can try again.
In this case, we're talking about technical specs doing it, not gameplay choices.

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:39 · Score: 1

Fucking Crysis II and its camouflaged enemies were nigh impossible to see at times.

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by MikeBabcock · 2012-08-02 02:50 · Score: 1

Despite the people who don't believe you, yes this is a problem for LCD (and Plasma) with dark scenes. Modern SLCD and AMOLED screens on phones and tablets are much more advanced than what you get on a desktop mostly. Dynamic backlighting makes a huge difference as well.
This is why I play games with a DLP projector in fact -- the lighting is excellent and the visibility of detail is very high even in low contrast situations, so long as my wife doesn't crank all the livingroom lights on full (then I lose a lot of contrast).

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast by GoatCheez · 2012-08-02 10:43 · Score: 1

Take a game like Quake. It plays perfectly, in all its dark, murky, brown palette, on CRTs. Throw it on an LCD without boosting the game's brightness and it can be quite difficult to pick out the details.
I think what you're seeing are the differences between the hardware accelerated and software renderer. I made a level for Quake 2 that had a forest. In the software renderer, you could pretty easily navigate the dark forest. When you switched to hardware accelerated it was more or less pitch black. Link to the level: http://www.fileaholic.com/cgi-sql/file-info.sql/12799

Depends on the Game by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 09:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

For FPS, most benefit from the additional graphics making the game look more 'real' vs. in the past when the levels could be memorized effectively (SOCOM comes to mind) and people instantly killed for stepping out into the open. For games like Raiden Project or DYAD, graphics are designed to overwhelm the player, hiding enemies or incoming fire. Limbo takes the other end of the spectrum, where graphics are nearly nonexistent, but places more emphasis on what is there. It just depends on what the designers decide to emphasize.

Re:Depends on the Game by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:33 · Score: 0

a FOSS game like sauerbraten has the /texreduce option that let you play with blurred textures, down to monochrome textures. The game looks bad that way but your score gets better. Same when disabling motion blur. Less info for the eye to pick and the brain to filter, more reflexes.
OTOH more and more games are not about reflex and aim anymore, those are better off with more effects.
Knowing which particulars to emphasize and blurring the background is a serious issue with 3d animation, notably with tv cartoon shows.

uncanny valley? by technosaurus · 2012-08-01 09:50 · Score: 2

Similar to robots, I would assume. Anything more than the necessary data and you get diminishing or negative returns up until it begins to be indistinguishable from reality.

Re:uncanny valley? by grumbel · 2012-08-01 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem isn't in the looks, but in the interaction. In highly detailed games you often have tons of stuff that looks like you should be able to interact with it, but you cannot. So while the graphics have gotten more detailed, the interactivity has not. It drives me nuts when I run into doors I can not open, "walls" I can not jump over, holes I can not duck through, items I cannot pickup and all that stuff. With simpler graphics there was a much clearer communication as what is interactive and was is not, as there simply wasn't the computing power available to little the rooms with tons of uninteractive decal.
Re:uncanny valley? by blahplusplus · 2012-08-01 12:11 · Score: 1

"It drives me nuts when I run into doors I can not open, "walls" I can not jump over, holes I can not duck through, items I cannot pickup and all that stuff."
I understand but that has always been there because having absolute open levels DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Now for items I can understand. One of the things GTA and other open world games got wrong is that you screw up the pacing of the game when you give the player too much freedom and players end up getting seriously bored because the space between activities is long and usually tedious. Even Saints row the third despite it being a fun game has serious issues with travel time. There is enormous amounts of 'dead time' in modern games that shouldn't be there and ways to avoid that is to constrain the player to get a move on.
Re:uncanny valley? by Haoie · 2012-08-01 12:43 · Score: 2

If I see a toilet, I should be able to use it!
Now that's interaction!

--
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Re:uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 13:04 · Score: 1

If I see a toilet, I should be able to use it!
Now that's interaction!
"Ahhhh, much better!"
(That better not be obscure around here!)
Re:uncanny valley? by grumbel · 2012-08-01 13:52 · Score: 2

I understand but that has always been there because having absolute open levels DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
It am not arguing about the actual level design, just about it's presentation. When you had a door in Doom, you could walk into it. If you see a door in a modern game, there is like a 80% chance that you can't walk into it. The reason for that is simply that when Doom needed a wall, the designers used a wall. In modern games that try to present realistic locations however the developers don't use walls, as that would look unrealistic, instead they use houses, cars, trashcans or any other object they can think of. Houses however have doors that I expect to open and cars and trashcans are small enough that I expect to be able to jump onto them, yet when I try I bounce off. With using real world objects come real world expectations on how those objects should behave.
Games of course try to work around that. SciFi games always have green lights above doors that can open, real world games often remove the doorknobs or make the windows of a house opaque to signal that it's a non-interactive location. Sometimes that works reasonably well, but oftentimes you still end up with a something that looks like you should be able to crawl under or jump over, but simply can't. One get used to it, but it's still annoying.
Re:uncanny valley? by 0123456 · 2012-08-01 15:54 · Score: 1

One of the things GTA and other open world games got wrong is that you screw up the pacing of the game when you give the player too much freedom and players end up getting seriously bored because the space between activities is long and usually tedious.
Uh, what?
The biggest problem with the GTA games is that they force you to do boring missions to unlocks the fun open world stuff. They need less boring missions that require you to fail six times before you pass and drive right across the map each time, and more fun stuff.
Re:uncanny valley? by fredgiblet · 2012-08-01 16:20 · Score: 1

Did you play the new one? Did you get the Turd Burglar achievement?
Re:uncanny valley? by Boscrossos · 2012-08-01 20:28 · Score: 1

I'm not sure it doesn't make sense, especially not capitalized. Take a game like the original Deus Ex, for example. Sure, it wasn't a fully interactive world, but within a level, you could go to hundreds of places, some of them useful, some of them less so. I spent hours on each level, going everywhere, just checking everything out. But I didn't have to. I could also have just gone to the objectives and done the mission. Add the extra interactivity, and some detail to make it interesting, but non-essential, to explore around a bit.

--
Jesus saves... the rest takes full damage.
Re:uncanny valley? by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:41 · Score: 1

You don't really compare Deus Ex to GTA, dude.

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:uncanny valley? by Hatta · 2012-08-02 01:52 · Score: 1

So while the graphics have gotten more detailed, the interactivity has not.
Perhaps ironically, or perhaps not, the games with the richest interactivity often don't have the best graphics. e.g. Nethack. It's all just ascii characters, but you can interact with each and every one of them, in all sorts of combinations.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:uncanny valley? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 06:09 · Score: 0

Then don't use GTA as the be-all-end-all title of open gameplay. It's a sandbox, but not necessarily the most open game there is.

Betteridge's Law of Headlines by Antipater · 2012-08-01 09:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

No.

Wait, shit.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.

I agree by oakgrove · 2012-08-01 09:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I used to play a lot of games when I was younger and cut my teeth on titles like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, on up to Far Cry and Half-Life 2 where I kind of got away from the whole thing. Recently I made a Windows install and decided to see what state the industry was in these days. My God was I blown away by the lighting and effects in Crysis Warhead. But equally I came away puzzled that it just didn't seem like I could "see" anything. It all just looked the same to me. Enemies blended into the background and everything just seemed to be running together. I thought maybe I was getting old so its nice to see somebody else agrees with my sentiments.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

Re:I agree by X0563511 · 2012-08-01 10:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Modern games, especially when camouflaging of some form is involved (which usually is in shooters) it's motion that will give them away, if your eyes are not adapted to spotting things.
So:
1. Pattern and antipattern detection/recognition (hey that grass looks diff... oh that's an enemy!)
2. Fine motion detection/recognition (something just moved in those trees)
These very same "skills" are trainable - the more you play, the better you get. This has actual real-world impact, especially in the realm of soldiers, hunters etc. Likewise if you've done a lot of that kind of thing, you'll find you pick up these games a bit easier since there's something to build on.
Here's another study, though this one's some news report with no links.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:I agree by SoupGuru · 2012-08-01 10:38 · Score: 1

I've always felt a little guilty in a lot of those older FPSs where the only things moving were enemies (or other interesting things).
With some of the games now, it's a lot more realistic with a lot of detail and a lot of motion and the enemies blend into the background, as you point out. I just see it as an improvement rather than a problem.

--
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Re:I agree by Hentes · 2012-08-01 10:47 · Score: 1

Not all games are like that, hide and seek shooters are their own genre. It's not even a new thing, CoD2 also played like that.
Re:I agree by gman003 · 2012-08-01 10:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Crysis does that deliberately, trying to make camouflage an important gameplay element. It somewhat succeeds - the AI gets confused by camouflage sometimes, and that's not including your magic invisibility thing. So if you play it right, you can turn it into a weapon for you, instead of against you.
Other games do it simply to look "cinematic". Doesn't work well.
If you read some of the developer's papers on Team Fortress 2, you'll note that they were obsessed with visual identification. Every class was identifiable by silhouette alone, they used special lighting algorithms to emphasis object edges, and they maintained consistent color schemes, with players and important items being both high-saturation and high-contrast compared to backgrounds.
That all went out the window somewhere around the time the first promo items were released, but it's still something more developers should learn from.
Re:I agree by Darkness404 · 2012-08-01 11:06 · Score: 1

Yep, Team Fortress 2 is a good benchmark for detail. While it is an older title and therefore has less detail than a game released yesterday, it has enough detail to prevent it from being bland, but has great contrast and lighting to where you can actually see what's happening. There are too many FPS games today that you can't see what's happening.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:57 · Score: 0

If you read some of the developer's papers on Team Fortress 2, you'll note that they were obsessed with visual identification.
It's too bad they weren't obsessed with making a fun game. Or even mildly interested.
Re:I agree by Cederic · 2012-08-01 12:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Millitary training in the 80s taught me that static camouflage is hard to see, but movement leaps out at you.
It _should_ be hard to see the stationary sniper.
Re:I agree by Cederic · 2012-08-01 12:46 · Score: 1

It's not even a new thing, CoD2 also played like that.
In what tangential universe is CoD2 not a new thing?
Fucking kids, get off my internet :(
Re:I agree by gman003 · 2012-08-01 13:08 · Score: 1

Did you ever play it at launch? Or perhaps after the initial patches?
Up to the Sniper vs Spy Update, it was amazing. It started going downhill after that (I quit after the War! Update, and never returned). And all the things I see from a now-outsider's perspective only reinforce that decision.
If I ever run out of games to play, I might go back to it, see if there's mods to bring it back to the way it was back in '09.
Re:I agree by mjwx · 2012-08-01 13:14 · Score: 2

I used to play a lot of games when I was younger and cut my teeth on titles like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, on up to Far Cry and Half-Life 2 where I kind of got away from the whole thing. Recently I made a Windows install and decided to see what state the industry was in these days. My God was I blown away by the lighting and effects in Crysis Warhead. But equally I came away puzzled that it just didn't seem like I could "see" anything. It all just looked the same to me. Enemies blended into the background and everything just seemed to be running together. I thought maybe I was getting old so its nice to see somebody else agrees with my sentiments.
Crysis Warhead would not be a good example, it was designed to be visually disorienting and that was used very well in its gameplay (same with FarCry and Crysis). I understand what you're saying, a lot of modern games are like that unintentionally.

However graphics have not improved since Crysis (Crysis and Warhead had the same engine, it just ran a hell of a lot better in Warhead) and that was 2008 IIRC. I played Deus Ex:HR recently and couldn't notice a single improvement, in fact they covered up a lot with bloom. I found a lot of textures in DX:HR to be too low resolution for most monitors (I run a 24" 1920x1200, considering a lot of PC's now run 1920x1080 it's not that far off from the average) and it became extremely obvious they were not designed to be veiwed on PC monitors. Most notably the posters which had the titles in letters but the actual text was scribblings.

But DX:HR's problem was not the textures, rather the bloom which is why a lot of games tend to have to highlight objects the player can interact with. Rather than creating proper detail, they use the graphical equivalent of cheap parlor tricks (like trying to kill the player with bloom). Reading the article they point out the level of detail in older games like System Shock 2 or the original Deus Ex where there was a lot of detail in the background but it did not overwhelm what the player was doing in the foreground. A lot of little things in DX I didn't notice until the 2nd or 3rd play through and I thought this was a nice touch.

I dont think games have too much detail, in fact I don't think they have enough detail but modern games have too much of the wrong detail, bloom, dirt/dust effects and so on used too much or incorrectly so developers have to compensate by coating interact-able objects in bright yellow highlight so the player knows they are there.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 14:48 · Score: 0

Crysis does that deliberately, trying to make camouflage an important gameplay element. It somewhat succeeds - the AI gets confused by camouflage sometimes, and that's not including your magic invisibility thing.
I assume the AI's detection range is gimped by your camouflage or the probability of the AI is spotting you is reduced. It will be interesting when the AI is actually a non-privileged process looking for movement between buffered frames to locate you as the effectiveness of your camouflage won't be a simulation then.
Re:I agree by tsotha · 2012-08-01 15:22 · Score: 1

That's why the advice you always used to hear from expert Counterstrike players was "turn your resolution way down so enemies stick out".
Personally I think what makes it frustrating is the lack of a tool you use without thinking in the real world - depth perception. With my poor vision games have pretty much the same resolution as real life, but I still can't pick out patters as well because it's all flat.
Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 21:53 · Score: 0

What makes a good military tactic good may not make for fun and exciting gameplay, especially in mutliplayer games.
Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 23:42 · Score: 0

Stationary snipers are extremely fun in multiplayer. Few things are quite so satisfying as coming up behind some stupid bush wookiees sitting on top of a hill paying absolutely no attention to anything besides peering through their scopes and proceeding to knife and teabag every last one of their dumb asses before they realize they done goofed.
Re:I agree by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:45 · Score: 1

Actually, algorythm's aside, it acts like it should. They don't see you unless you move or make some noise. Crysis had a very advanced AI for the enemies, but it didn't mean they were these awesome soldiers. They were just realistic.

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:I agree by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:47 · Score: 1

That's a problem of games downgraded to play on consoles, either technically, or because console players want simple games to have fun, not necesarily ridiculously complex games like PC gamers. Bioshock II was still a great game, but it was strictly inferior to the first, and vastly less complicated and confusing. Your mileage will vary according to this though.

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:I agree by mjwx · 2012-08-02 13:24 · Score: 1

That's a problem of games downgraded to play on consoles, either technically, or because console players want simple games to have fun, not necessarily ridiculously complex games like PC gamers.

I dont think there is anything wrong with simple games. The problem is when they try to create more complex games and dumb them down for the console by having the computer take over functions handled by the computer. Every FPS on consoles has a shocking amount of auto-aim, all a player needs to do is point in the general direction and press the "go" button

Bioshock II was still a great game, but it was strictly inferior to the first, and vastly less complicated and confusing. Your mileage will vary according to this though.
Bioshock 1 was terrible disappointment. Dumbed down user interface, no inventory management, the players hand held (highlighting of usable objects, no way to really die). It was so disappointing I never bothered with any of the successors.

This is a serious problem but I was referring to graphics, the PS3 is a 8 year old PC and the Xbox360 is a 10 year old PC hardware wise. They aren't capable of supporting graphics that my 2008 PC could do, no FSAA but developers want to try to make graphics look better without newer hardware. So you end up with a lot of cheap looking bloom and dust effects (or other particle effects) and more of them as you cant use more modern effects. So many of these effects are used inproperly with consoles, Mass Effect is a big offender on the bloom/lens flare front whilst CoD overuses the dust effects like they're going out of fashion.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Not sure Graphical Detail is the Problem exactly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 09:53 · Score: 0

I think scripted activity is more of a problem than graphical detail it just happens that games with more stuff to look at usually tend to guide you through the happy path so things keep looking amazing.

The trouble is there is sometimes some dissonance between where the happy path is and where I want to go to get things done.

This has been an issue for a long time in video games, I mean was it even possible to guess what you were supposed to do in Simon's Quest to proceed? What would people have done without Nintendo Power?

Re:Betteridge's Law by oakgrove · 2012-08-01 09:54 · Score: 1

No.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

Haven't reached that point yet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 09:55 · Score: 0

Haven't reached that point yet. Until I actually feel gore and blood splashing all over me when I'm playing a FPS, I really can't say I have enough details.

Although I would probably appreciate it if I could turn off smell, just like I can turn off sounds in today's games.

Re:Haven't reached that point yet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:34 · Score: 0

It will be great when we can finally fire a real bullet and kill over tcp/ip

can't tell where I am by themushroom · 2012-08-01 09:55 · Score: 3, Funny

I used to play this adventure game by Scott Adams on a VIC=20. All text, no detail, and I could never tell if I was making progress either.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.

obviously!!! (and also no) by zlives · 2012-08-01 09:57 · Score: 1

like really detailed character and npc backgrounds as well as a thoroughly detailed detailed setting... so no detail is enough
PS since all games are now ports of content originally designed for 3-5inch screen... can i get my pong back

Skyrim by AlienIntelligence · 2012-08-01 09:57 · Score: 1, Funny

Is there more detail than "reality"?

-AI

--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion

Re:Skyrim by CanHasDIY · 2012-08-01 10:03 · Score: 4, Funny

Is there more detail than "reality"?
-AI
I was thinking that, too...

That is, until I took an arrow to the knee...

*ducks*

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Skyrim by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:27 · Score: 0

That is, until I took an arrow to the knee...
*ducks*
BOOM! HEADSHOT!
Re:Skyrim by zlives · 2012-08-01 10:48 · Score: 1

+1 funny lol
Re:Skyrim by DeathToBill · 2012-08-01 20:31 · Score: 1

Ducking was the wrong response if the arrows are coming at knee-height.

--
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Re:Skyrim by marsu_k · 2012-08-01 21:02 · Score: 1

Probably not, but I don't think Skyrim succeeds in it. Now, this might contain some spoilers - but really, I don't think there are anyone here interested in playing it who already haven't done so, so here goes.
Bethesda excel at the sandbox-thingy they do, and it's really fun just to explore the vast outdoor environment. Quite often I found myself when going to a new location just walking there, even though I could just "jump" to a nearby location I had visited before and get there faster. But the world kind of falls flat with the characters. Apart from the main quest, one of the major quests is the civil war, which you can take part in and make it go either way. But after you do, pretty much nothing happens. Very many NPCs still refer to the war as ongoing, some people in some locations are replaced with other generic characters. It seems the world doesn't really change, although one would assume such event would have a major impact on the setting. Even more ridiculous is the option to marry someone. There's a person who asks as her "companion quest" to test a spell on you. It goes wrong, so you have to wait a bit, after which she tests it again and it's a success. After that, she's willing to follow you indefinitely and even marry you. And should you choose the latter option, you can ask "hun, what's for supper?" or "how's our finances?" - and that's pretty much it. You don't get any more conversation options, no more depth out of the NPC.
Now I do realize the above describes quite a few marriages, but I play RPGs to escape reality, not to be reminded of it. For all their flaws (and as of late there certainly has been those, see DA2 and ME3) Bioware does characters much better. Then again, it's easier for them to do so, as their games are much more limited in terms of what one can do. I'm not saying Skyrim is a bad game, I find it very enjoyable. I'm just saying that characters have never been Bethesdas forté, and given the vast size of Skyrim, I don't see how that could be improved, the game is buggy enough as it is. That's why I'm hoping for their next game (which hopefully will be Fallout 4) they'll tone down the size and focus more on the characters and interactions with them, as that would increase realism.

NES vs. Sega Genesis by bigjarom · 2012-08-01 09:57 · Score: 5, Funny

I used to use this exact same argument to tell my friend why his 16-bit Sega Genesis was worse than my 8-bit NES. Really I was just jealous.

sorry for this one by santax · 2012-08-01 09:58 · Score: 1

But 640 details ought to be enough for everyone.

Re:sorry for this one by zlives · 2012-08-01 10:53 · Score: 1

well its better than
there can be only one... detail

More! by iONiUM · 2012-08-01 10:00 · Score: 1

I play a lot of battlefield 3, on PC, and the graphics are some of the best I've seen in-game. Things like this:

screen shot 1

screen shot 2

I don't have a problem distinguishing enemies, so far, though sometimes the lens flairs and such do get in the way. Still, I'll take this level of detail any day. Going back to World of Warcraft after is actually kind of a sick joke....

Re:More! by chriso11 · 2012-08-01 10:27 · Score: 1

Lens Flare is such a stupid gimick. It is something 'cool' the game designers can introduce but it destroys the immersion.

--
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Re:More! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:07 · Score: 0

I don't see any lens flare in either of those images. There's some water on the "lens" in the first image, but that's consistent with wearing goggles or glasses in real life, and soldiers in combat probably have some kind of eye protection.
Re:More! by Imrik · 2012-08-01 12:30 · Score: 1

Water doesn't line up in perfectly straight lines like that. It is lens flare, which is consistent with wearing goggles or glasses in real life as well.
Re:More! by Mashiki · 2012-08-01 12:45 · Score: 1

If you're impressed by that you should go play Skyrim, with a few texture mods.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:More! by Cederic · 2012-08-01 12:49 · Score: 1

You need new glasses. I don't get lens flare in mine.
I particularly don't get lens flare in a multi-aperture-blade shaped bokeh, as in one of those screenshots.

cursory analysis by Sebastopol · 2012-08-01 10:01 · Score: 2

Heh, reminds me of playing tomb raider back in 1997 on a voodoo/3dfx and not being able to find all the secrets because the texture maps all looked the same.

I didn't find enough depth in the article to really understand his point. Sounds like he's saying: the more detail in-game, the more hand-holding for the player to make the game 'fun'. Sure, color palettes, collaterals, space, and the actual path to follow vary, but I expected him to go back at least more than 5 years to talk about level design.

Personally, I LOVE all the eye candy on high end games: shadows, grass blades, dust, wind, lots of material shaders, cloth physics, but I think too much of the budget goes into collaterals and shaders, and not enough goes into actual plot and motivation. BioShock looked effing gorgeous, but holy cats did I find it boring.

I haven't really played a game yet where the detail was too distracting, but I have played many games where it was so boring and repetitive I just didn't care enough to finish, regardless of how pretty it was.

Anyone who's ever planed Monkey Island or Grim Fandango and then plays any of the modern first-person games knows what I mean about opportunity cost and reward for working hard at solving a game.

Heh, and I didn't mention Infocom once. /pats self on back/

--
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested

Re:Betteridge's Law by X0563511 · 2012-08-01 10:01 · Score: 1

Only for questions with binary answers.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Why am I playing the game? by Narrowband · 2012-08-01 10:02 · Score: 1

Type of game makes a big difference. Is it a strategy/tactics game where I need to be able to discern the overall situation from the screen, and see past the individual pixels? Or is it an eye candy RPG where part of the fun is reveling in the cinematography? Or a casual game like Angry Birds where the visuals reinforce some basic fun/humor element?

It's up to a game developer to figure out what the customers will care about and build appropriately; part of the trick to a blockbuster game is making those decisions correctly.

Re:Why am I playing the game? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 15:20 · Score: 0

One of my favorite tricks from my Westwood RTS gaming days: If playing on grass:team color green; desert:tan or orange; snow:white or blue.
Another was custom sprite packs you could find online so that instead of being colored, units were solid colored and contrasted.

Re:Betteridge's Law by i_ate_god · 2012-08-01 10:02 · Score: 2

No, the point is to spark discussion, not make a point.

--
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...

Old Adage by CanHasDIY · 2012-08-01 10:02 · Score: 1

"It is a poor craftsman, who blames his tools."

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Worserridge's Law of Headlines by istartedi · 2012-08-01 10:03 · Score: 1

The more the Betteridge meme spreads, the more effort headline authors will make to confound it.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Re:Worserridge's Law of Headlines by Antipater · 2012-08-01 10:11 · Score: 1

So they'll stop trying to pass off speculation as news? Or they'll start actually asking pertinent questions, such as in TFA above? The horror!

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:Worserridge's Law of Headlines by I(rispee_I(reme · 2012-08-01 13:22 · Score: 1

This week in Time: "Is Betteridge's Law of Headlines Still Valid?"

There's a reason... by julesh · 2012-08-01 10:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

...why there's a trend to retro gaming. Indie developers are putting out more and more titles with retro-styled graphics, and games such as Fantasy Online (an orthographic projection 16x16 tile-based MMORPG with graphics that would have looked old-hat in 1990) draw in millions of players.

Re:There's a reason... by burnttoy · 2012-08-01 10:15 · Score: 1

Much cheaper to make too...

--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Re:There's a reason... by Hentes · 2012-08-01 10:50 · Score: 2

They have their own reasons. Indie developers can't hire enough artists for more detailed graphics, and MMO games have to be able to run on cheap old computers if they want to get into the Asian market.
Re:There's a reason... by zlives · 2012-08-01 10:56 · Score: 1

a well made game gets the draw, good graphics add to it. bad graphics can be had on a super bad game as well.
Re:There's a reason... by Nimey · 2012-08-01 10:58 · Score: 1

I suspect that another reason is people who were kids back in the day now have the ability to buy such games again. Same reason things like Transformers and My Little Pony are popular again.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:There's a reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:52 · Score: 0

The reason is to be lazy and cash in on nostalgia at the same time.

Visual details vs. "other" details... by Elminster+Aumar · 2012-08-01 10:05 · Score: 1

I'm not so sure you can have a limit with detail right now, however, it seems as if the other details surrounding game design have been overshadowed by these visual intricacies. After all, if you come to a point where you begin to question the level of visual details, you will likely come to the conclusion that it's probably because you can't select certain things in the world due to poorly designed selection vectors or because the game is using antiquated controllers, etc. For example, there have been many times in Skyrim where you'll come to a point of trying to pick something up only to realize that you need to position the mouse or pointer in a specific spot just to be ensured of clicking on the right thing (i.e. - a bunch of weapons on some table but having a hard time picking up the one you really want; it's not the graphics' fault, right?) I think we're coming close to reaching a point in all this where the keyboards, mice, and various controllers just won't cut it anymore. We need VR headsets and some gloves! I'd never gripe about Skyrim's graphics. They're beautiful. The thing that's missing is full immersion and you just can't get that with the controllers we have now...

level design by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:05 · Score: 0

thats all hes talking about.

too much shit everywhere? poor level design. graphics affect gameplay; gameplay affects the reception of graphics

stuck with poor level design and shit looks cluttered? grab a better monitor. seriously. a higher resolution makes it much easier to differentiate fine(er) objects, and a mild familiarity with the game coupled with a very high resolution allows the user to readily pick out important game world objects.

If More Detail = More Difficulty by CanHasDIY · 2012-08-01 10:05 · Score: 2

Then Eric Schwarz must find reality damn-near impossible to navigate.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:If More Detail = More Difficulty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:27 · Score: 0

Except he has a lot more experience in reality, and presumably things aren't trying to kill him anywhere near as often. Also, he experiences reality directly, has more senses available to him, and has better controls in reality.
Re:If More Detail = More Difficulty by Twinbee · 2012-08-01 10:44 · Score: 1

It's not just more detail, but 'noisy' detail with little contrast and ugly colour schemes. Modern games tend to have this 'bitty' noisy look which I think not only detracts from the gameplay as Eric points out, but also makes the graphics look *worse*.

I've sometimes moaned how textures are 'planted' on polygons. It's always looked like a hack, as you get this high level shape which is flat, and this grainy mess pasted on top (yes even bump mapping is hack). In a big way, I'd rather have more polygons and no textures, or at least textures which are more subtle. This is compounded by the lack of global illumination / raytracing which makes current games feel a bit cheap.

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc

What about the details presented w/o graphics? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:09 · Score: 0

In an Austin Powers-knockoff, another secret agent makes passionate virtual love to a virtual femme fatale, then brags to you about it in excruciating detail.

Unless it's a porn game, I'd call that too much information.

CAPTCHA: mandates, or is that man dates, I'm not sure which

Can't have enough detail by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-08-01 10:11 · Score: 1

I'm an immersive gamer and like good graphics. For me, there cannot be enough graphical detail and variation -- but it has to look realistic. Unfortunately, practically no game nowadays fullfils the last criterion, except perhaps Arma 2 at extremely high graphics settings. If it's just console-style graphics with lots of effects, colored clouds and wrong exaggerated colors in general, or "ray of good" sunrays, then I don't give the slightest damn about detail.

Oh yeah, and don't bother with detail or realism if you afterward smear over it with crappy postprocessing effects like "depth of field" or "motion blur."

Re:Can't have enough detail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:18 · Score: 0

Arma II really doesn't look that great. Having played Crysis 2 (and Crysis Warhead) at full graphics, I can tell you that it looks much better than Arma II. BF3 looks a little better than Arma II, and Skyrim is about the same. It's clear to me that you've only played console games if Arma II is what you consider to be a high graphics game. What the hell are "ray of good" sunrays? Do you mean "ray of god" sunrays? If you do, then you're retarded. It's not like they don't exist in real life... I've seen them many times. The same goes for colored clouds.
Depth of field is not a postprocessing effect. It's a property of the virtual camera (i.e.: how wide is the virtual lens?). All (3D) games have depth of field, it's just that in some games it's hardcoded in, while in others you can set it in the menu.
Ever stuck your head out of a car window on the highway? It's blurry. Representing graphics realistically requires motion blur.
Re:Can't have enough detail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:41 · Score: 0

If you're really an immersive gamer then you shouldn't be needing all that extra detail. The extra detail is for people who are analyzing what they're seeing and who can't suspend their disbelief. Wolf 3d is shockingly immersive if you're playing as intended, even without sound or music.
Re:Can't have enough detail by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-08-01 17:20 · Score: 1

Look out the car window. Stare at the ground near the car at a fixed angle. Everything is blurry! Now follow successive road markers with your eyes. They're not blurry!
Motion blur occurs when objects move through your field of view and aren't tracked by your eyes. It often seems unrealistic in games because things you ARE tracking with your eyes will be blurred. Without good eye tracking systems realistic motion blur will be impossible.

The same goes for depth of field. Your eyes do have a depth of field, everything outside a very narrow range is in fact quite blurry. We just don't notice it because the brain is good at interpolating and the eyes constantly move a bit. Depth of field in games doesn't track what your eyes are focusing on, so things that shouldn't be blurred are blurred.

--
Not a sentence!
Re:Can't have enough detail by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-08-01 20:23 · Score: 1

Sorry, you're wrong about basically everything you say. I've never owned a console and would never buy one. Skyrim looks fine with extremely high-detail texture enhancements and a number of other mods, but even then doesn't look realistic. (For a start, even with additional tree mods it has by far not enough vegetation.) Crysis 2 does look good, but is easily spotted as fake/game graphics. BF3 looks in no way more realistic than maxed out Arma 2 -- assuming, of course, that all postprocessing is turned off in Arma 2.
Yes, I meant ray of good. No, I'm not retarded, I have a Ph.D. degree. Of course, rays of god exist in reality, but they do not look like in video games in reality and occur very rarely. Same for colored clouds.
Depth of field is a postprocessing effect in video games, and this effect has virtually nothing to do with depth of field in cameras and optical devices. It just blurs objects farther apart from the viewer, which is ridiculous. In reality, you can see sharply for many miles on a clear day, you don't see a blurry blob if the object is hundred meters away. If you turn the postprocessing effect off, the game looks realistic; with the effect on, every game looks like shit. Perhaps there is a PC game with a "hard-coded" depth of field effect, but I have never seen one and I've played hundreds of games since the early 90ies.
When I stuck my head out of the car, what I see is not blurry, except for a very narrow range where I'm looking at. When I turn my head, nothing blurrs either. Artificial motion blur is already annoying in CGI effects in the Cinema---yes, I spot these easily, they came to cinema during the last decade like the plague and are not realistic at all. In PC games the same effect is much more crappy and the first thing to turn off if you like good graphics.
Sorry AC, but are you sure you are not just a console gamer? Because you sound a lot like one.

Render unto Graphics what belongs to Graphics... by SomePoorSchmuck · 2012-08-01 10:13 · Score: 1

What I find common in ability/attack panel MMORPGs is the difficulty in distinguishing attack icons from each other. Take the Sith Inquisitor class on Star Wars TOR. Most of the damage attacks are some variation of shooting evil Darkside force energy at your enemies. The icons on the action panel accordingly all feature some kind of hands or body outline either shooting lightning or having lighting swirl around them or something similar. I find that while the icons individually may be sorta cool looking, they are MORE confusing than if you were to replace icons by words like "Shock" "Melee" "Paralyze", or even just "Attack1, Attack2, Attack3, Heal1, Heal2, Heal3...." In the heat of battle, if you are looking to visually process and recognize pictograms before clicking an attack, you are losing valuable fractions of a second you need to activate those powers. It seems to me in these situations most people once they learn the battle mechanics either fall into muscle-memory of keyboard Alt+# Ctrl+# toggles, or the positional memory of "use the attacks in slots 1 and 2 for quick damage, slots 4 and 5 are for immobilize/confuse effects, tray 2 slots 1 and 2 are self-heals, slots 3 and 4 are team heals, tray 3 slots are team buffs" and so on. Does having a designed glyph there really add anything to the game, and might it actually be LESS desirable and less efficient than just accepting the numeric/positional memory and going with a plainer tile set.

--

Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine

Pointless detail is satan's dandruff. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:18 · Score: 1

It irritates the hell out of me.

There are many games where the room textures are covered in buttons, screens and interesting things. However, the only thing on the entire level that you actually interact with will be a single lever.

I remember playing 3d games on my spectrum 48K where each visible object actually did something, or could be destroyed. Like 'Mercenary'. In most modern games there is the illusion of complexity, but really your interaction is incredibly limited.

Re:Pointless detail is satan's dandruff. by techno-vampire · 2012-08-01 10:41 · Score: 1

There are many games where the room textures are covered in buttons, screens and interesting things. However, the only thing on the entire level that you actually interact with will be a single lever.

Yes! I used to love that weird old game Redneck Rampage. There were a surprising number of objects that you could damage as you went past. Of course, if you hit a sign with your tire iron, you'd see buckshot holes in it, but that just added to the oddball charm of the game. I'm also fond of Joint Operations, and on some of the maps you can use satchel charges to blow up trees and underbrush, making it harder for your enemies to hide.

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Re:Pointless detail is satan's dandruff. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 11:34 · Score: 0

I would love to play a game where everything visible was always more than blocks of indestructible inanimate scenery.
At the moment, the player ignores virtually everything they see on the screen, out of habit. Seeing a light switch on a wall doesn't make the player think 'oh I can turn the lights out'. In every other room they were in, the light switch was just part of a texture, so why should it be different now? By filling the world with objects that don't work, the game designer restricts the depth of simple interactivity that the player can be expected to recognise.
Game designers have tried to solve this problem by highlighting interactive objects in a 'mouse-over' way, or having all interactive objects glow or be visibly tagged. This is quite successful, but less immersive, and is prone to making objects a thing you click to get to the next game state, rather than something the player can 'use'.
The classics are the button you hit to open a door, or call a lift, or raise/lower the water level so you can swim across, or the wheel/control panel you use to do the same, the suit you collect to cross the toxic waste, the radio you pick up which triggers a cutscene. Objects effectively become keys to open doors.
I don't think realism is important. I.e, from a gaming point of view, a lightswitch can be on, off, or destroyed. You can read a book or destroy it. It doesn't require subtlty to make objects something the player can use, just that it does something recognisable, or at least discoverable.
Making a game in this way would mean vastly simplifying the graphics and it would look unrealistic. But the player's understanding of, and connection with, the game world would be much stronger.

Use a colour palette with actual colours by Leo+Sasquatch · 2012-08-01 10:19 · Score: 1

I'm sick of games using a colour palette muted to the point where a state-of-the-art game contains black, grey and 18 shades of brown.

Spec Ops: The LIne balances stunning opulence against desert ruins, but even the desert has more colours than Rage managed in the entire game.

Too many devs seem to think that colourful=cartoony, so you only get Ratchet and Clank games that actually remember your TV can actually do red, green and blue as themselves. And too many devs would rather put all the effort into extra textures and lighting, rather than using it to handle more realistic environments. I want more cars in GTA V, not just higher-res versions of the earlier ones. I want to be able to shoot out the tyres and every window, not have it be a hyper-detailed texture applied to a rolling brick.

Do many of these devs not do beta-testing? If a level is incomprehensible within the canon of the game - you designed it wrong..

Re:Use a colour palette with actual colours by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-08-01 10:46 · Score: 1

Ummm, you've been able to shoot out GTA tires since at LEAST vice city (don't remember much of the earlier ones). I do this *constantly* in San Andreas. Just make sure you're using a PC, not a console if you want to do that.
Side not on mouse accuracy: I was playing San Andreas with a friend that had only ever played it on a console. He was talking about how much more control you get over the vehicles with a controller (which I agreed with) and was basically saying how the PC version sucked. Then about 5 minutes later I saw a nice car I wanted and he told me to run after it (it had just passed us), I gave him a funny look and head-shotted the driver THROUGH the back window with the pistol and the car came to a stop (making my "running after" much shorter). He didn't even know the game would let you do that!

It does matter by Tridus · 2012-08-01 10:21 · Score: 1

Getting older now, and I find that its more important that I can understand what's going on then that the game is pretty. Ran into this problem with Blazblue, where some of the backgrounds were so contrasting and busy that they were downright distracting from the actual game. I ended up having serious problems even playing the game due to that.

Your vision mileage may vary of course, but for my dollar a game with simple, clear graphics is a lot better then a game with fancy graphics that obscure the action. Frozen Synapse is an example on the extreme end of clarity that works really well.

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates

Give me Detail or Give me Death by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:30 · Score: 0

I play driving simulators mainly and more detail has only made them better over the decades

OK for me by PopeRatzo · 2012-08-01 10:33 · Score: 1

I kind of like "too much detail". Some of my favorite games are ones where there's too much to take in immediately.

Far Cry 1 and 2 come to mind, where jungles actually feel like jungles and the lighting changes make it difficult to see at times.

Immersion is a good thing, as long as the world I'm being immersed in is a little bit interesting.

Less appealing is the kind of emotional immersion that so many current games are reaching for. So depressing. I know that anti-heroes are cool and all, but some of the recent games are taking it way too far. Max Payne 3 was really pretty surprising in the unyielding sense of misery that pervades the game. Seriously, why do I want to play a game where I get to be a middle-aged, fat bald guy who's thrown away his life in drink and pills, has anger management issues and starts out depressed and goes downhill for 8 hours of gameplay. I mean, Jesus. It's like playing a game where you get to pretend to be a loser who spends his free time sitting at a computer and playing overpriced games while his teeth fall out from sugary caffeinated soft drinks. Who needs that kind of tsuris? The only thing that could make it more depressing is if in Act 2 Max gets prostate cancer and has trouble urinating.

Or Prototype 2, where you start the game by getting infected with a horrible disfiguring virus after your wife and daughter are murdered. Yah-fucking-hoo. The classical anti-heroes at least had a sense of humor and there was some underlying wink at the audience that it was all a joke. No such relief in Max Payne 3 or Prototype 2.

I don't mind a little reality mixed in with my games, but for chrissake, put a little fun in it. The closest thing to a light moment is when Max plays three notes on the piano and then says something depressing. If there had been an option early in the game to just take a handful of painkillers and a fifth of vodka and blow my brains out, I almost certainly would have done so.

Thank god I was able to buy Saints Row the Third for under $10 so I can dress in women's clothing, steal cars and blow up guys dressed as furry animals for a little comic relief.

I'm not looking for Sonic the Hedgehog, but c'mon.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:OK for me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 11:05 · Score: 0

This reminds me of movies, too. Extremely powerful movies like Schindler's List are great and achieve their goals of evoking strong emotion, but it is not something I want to watch for fun (and I think I've seen it only once). Similarly, there are movies like The Big Lebowski where you can't help but laugh at The Dude's misfortune and I would not mind watching it once a week (and I'm sure that I surpassed that, at times).

I think the problem may be that we split video game genres only by gameplay type and not by the story content, but at the same time I do not think this means there is not room for multiple types of video-game storytelling genres.

QUAKE WAS THE FUNNEST GAME !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 10:39 · Score: 0

Used to play it in OS/2 DOS box. Hair-stand-on-back-of-next fun !! Or maybe that was OS/2 !! Quake II raised the resolution but the fun went way down. Don't even mention III. That sort of genre, the arcade life, is for pimply-faced pre-teen moms !! Doom was good, but second to Quake !! Now, all I have is PTS !! But that's from the wife's Aunt Flo mostly !!

Depends entirely on the genre and game specifics.. by trims · 2012-08-01 10:48 · Score: 1

As the VFA (Very Fine Article) points out, detail is nice, up until it interferes with gameplay. Naturally, where that line is depends entirely on the the style of gameplay and the actual mechanics of the game in question. Therefore, there can be no general answer to this question. However, the intelligent answer is "Detail level should be part of the Requirements Process"; that is, the level of detail should be explicitly set to not interfere with gameplay, and it should be a QA requirement to make sure it doesn't (and appropriate feedback should go to the development team to dial detail back when it does).

Personally, I play mostly 4X and RTS games these days (my 40-year-old reflexes doom (no pun intended) me in any FPS, and I hate RPGs). I've noticed that 4X/RTS games are now very much at (or over) the line where detail interferes with gameplay. Take Civ5 for example: the ability to zoom down and see in great model-like rendering your units and cities "feels" really cool, but (a) it's completely orthogonal to playing the game, and (b) it places serious limits on the size and scope of the game itself. Frankly, I'm much happier with non-infinitely-zoomable 4X/RTS games, since the point isn't to watch the equivalent of a FPS happening, it's too conquer the universe/world, and micromanaging (or viewing) individual units is actually anathema to something that is supposed to be Strategic in viewpoint. For these genres, bitmapped icons are effectively the minimum necessary detail, and everything else is Eye Candy. Eye Candy should never interfere with the point of the whole game.

Detail for detail's sake is stupid. Frankly, game mechanics matter far more than detail; game reviewers also need to adjust their reviews to penalize game developers when detail interferes with gameplay.

--
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.

Distance by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-08-01 10:49 · Score: 1

I'd rather they trade off some of the close up I-can-count-the-rocks-on-the-ground detail for at least mediocre detail at a distance. I'm sick of having to wait until a blob is 100m in front of me to tell if it's a "ricochet off the car" obstacle or a freaking semi-truck.

the logic is... by zlives · 2012-08-01 10:52 · Score: 1

until the shiny new xbit X-Station comes out and PC's are already way ahead again.... and the publisher wants to establish one development platform (to rule them all) for your cell to PC... and justify it by saying
hey look this turd doesn't need any more polish.... also windows 8

Re:the logic is... by Smauler · 2012-08-01 16:03 · Score: 1

PC's are always ahead - it's just a smaller market. Bear in mind the standard resolution for consoles for next generation will be lower than the resolution on my PC prior to the launch of current consoles. They're years behind, in some ways.
Re:the logic is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 23:49 · Score: 0

PC's are always ahead - it's just a smaller market. Bear in mind the standard resolution for consoles for next generation will be lower than the resolution on my PC prior to the launch of current consoles. They're years behind, in some ways.
Consoles are years ahead when it comes to support for dual analog controls and in-game voice chat.
I'm not joking, unless you're piloting a gun all of the time, a mouse and keyboard suck ass. PCs _used_ to be the platform to go to for simulator type games. For voice chat, console games have been able to do team and squad based chat for years now and you don't have to dick with volume levels, move your PtT key around, per player volume adjustments, etc.
PC gaming systems will always be pigs in dresses wearing lipstick, sorry, it's the _reason_ the market is/was/will always be smaller.
Re:the logic is... by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:50 · Score: 1

Dual analog controls aren't really a necesity, you know? And there *are* single player games. Until a console gives me interesting and original games like The Void, for example, they will still be the inferior experience.

--
Oblivion Awaits

Depends on what you want by mwfischer · 2012-08-01 11:02 · Score: 1

I'm a graphics whore.

I get a hilariously good gaming system every 4 years. I did that a month ago.

Like I just bought Skyrim during the $30 steam sale. Since it's Bethesda I immediately went over to the local modding site (nexus) and looked for the community highest end texture and additional sound pack.

If you're going to dump hundreds of hours into a game, might as well look at something nice. Fallout 3 / NV anyone?

Just for fun I uninstalled the packs and played the first hour with vanilla. It was an entirely different (worse) experience.

The game is really boring, repetitive, BUT it's pretty. That's what I like.

Can make for more fun games too by Sycraft-fu · 2012-08-01 11:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

A problem in games has always been one of stealth. When you talk low rez stuff, characters stand out from the environment real well. So stealth is always done through artificial means. Characters become invisible or the like.

Well, with detailed graphics that isn't necessary. Battlefield 3 does a great job of using visual camouflage. There's no "invisible button", no way to make your character magically disappear. However you can hide in shadows, crawl through the foliage, cove in debris. You can visually hide yourself from your opponents, because the engine has sufficient detail to make that a realistic possibility.

Now I'm not saying that is the only way to do things. I don't mind games that want to go for bright cartoony graphics (I loved TF2). However it is a cool thing that we can achieve now with better graphics. We can have a setting where you can hide in ways we do in real life.

Re:Can make for more fun games too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 13:04 · Score: 0

Can you turn the settings off though? The age old trick of disabling grass so you could spot people crawling through it still works in some games.
Re:Can make for more fun games too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 14:37 · Score: 0

For multiplayer games, certainly, the more realistic the better. It is fun using camouflage and shadows to hide from humans, and it is fun for humans to attempt to outsmart this camouflage.
However, in single player games, higher detail can be incredibly problematic for stealth. What kind of shadow is dark enough to evade the AI? How immersed must I be in this shadow to appear invisible to them? Maybe the guards move in a pattern, and I can see a path to evade them--but how wide is that path? How far can I stray from it without being caught? There are frustrating and arbitrary lines between what the AI can see and what it can't.
In games with simpler graphics, especially in 2D games, stealth mechanics become much easier to operate. A shadow is a shadow. You can (unrealistically) see in all directions around your character, meaning you won't be caught by AIs that you didn't see. An AI's field of vision can be more easily predicted based on the direction it faces.
So yes, while a realistic stealth experience works well in multiplayer, a less-realistic, rules-based stealth experience is preferable in single-player games.
Re:Can make for more fun games too by fredgiblet · 2012-08-01 16:23 · Score: 1

That's been true from the beginning though. Even in low-detil games you have trial and error to figure out how smart the AI is in this particular game. The enemies in Morrowind behave VERY differently from the enemies in Thief, same between Skyrim and Crysis
Re:Can make for more fun games too by X0563511 · 2012-08-02 03:23 · Score: 1

This here actually has a neat fix, at least as far as ARMA2 goes...
When grass fades out, the terrain "raises" a bit. While I initially thought it was a z-buffer problem (enemies laying down and falling under the ground) it's actually the game simulating grass cover without having to draw the grass.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

not a crt vs lcd thing by Chirs · 2012-08-01 11:12 · Score: 1, Informative

A properly-calibrated LCD image is very close to a properly-calibrated CRT image. If you're seeing significant differences, one or the other is miscalibrated.

Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by Stormwatch · 2012-08-01 12:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Consider this: early LCDs had horrible picture quality, and even now it takes a pretty high end LCD to compare to a good CRT.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 15:34 · Score: 1

The Retina display on my MacBook Pro (2880x1800 IPS) bests any CRT I have ever seen (such as a 1080p model). What you say may have been true 8 years ago, but it's not true any more.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by aztracker1 · 2012-08-01 15:43 · Score: 1

I was a relatively late adopter of LCDs (2004), Before that I had calibrated 22" flat screen CRTs, beautiful picture, but 3 moves one season, and I decided lugging around 75# each wasn't so great... at least good IPS panel lcds aren't too expensive today... still more, but decent pricing... far less than the $1200 each for those crt beasts back in the day.

--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by Smauler · 2012-08-01 15:48 · Score: 2

So it takes a good LCD to compare to a good CRT?
Some early LCDs were crap, and I didn't convert until they surpassed my CRT in most ways - that happened more than 5 years ago though.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by jones_supa · 2012-08-01 16:07 · Score: 1

That still counts as something unusual. Most LCDs are TN panels and especially laptops typically have horrible black levels.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by antdude · 2012-08-01 16:49 · Score: 1

Which high end LCD monitors are good to CRTs these days?

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by gl4ss · 2012-08-01 19:02 · Score: 1

The Retina display on my MacBook Pro (2880x1800 IPS) bests any CRT I have ever seen (such as a 1080p model). What you say may have been true 8 years ago, but it's not true any more.
..are you suggesting that mbp retina is not " a pretty high end" lcd?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by Waccoon · 2012-08-01 21:41 · Score: 1

I blame all those people who spent $600 on a video card, but insisted on getting a 27" monitor for $150... but only after it went on sale.
I think I'm the only one in my entire family who spent more on my monitor than on my video card. e-IPS is beautiful, and it's a crime that it took so long to get to market when the technology was ready many years ago.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by ciderbrew · 2012-08-01 22:15 · Score: 1

Interesting. I just had a look and came up with the HP DreamColor LP2480zx. At that price I'll never have one; but it does look the business.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by ciderbrew · 2012-08-01 22:18 · Score: 1

A gaming broadcast reference monitor may be a daft idea so I'll stop here :)
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-BVMF170/
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by antdude · 2012-08-02 00:18 · Score: 1

Ouch, no way I can afford those. I still prefer CRTs. Too bad new ones are very rare these days. :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:35 · Score: 1

"pretty high end LCD"

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 01:43 · Score: 0

yeah, the CRT on my old laptop was much better than the LCD on my new one...
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by MikeBabcock · 2012-08-02 03:18 · Score: 1

Very true. I spent a long time (until last summer) with a 30" CRT HDTV because the contrast and colour quality was so much better than anything under $6000 in a flat panel TV.
I upgraded to a DLP projector to keep my contrast and brightness levels ... very few LCDs can match it, and for the size, nothing can.
(Projecting 103" screen at 10 feet away)

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by UnknownSoldier · 2012-08-02 04:24 · Score: 1

Resolution, yes.
Gamut, not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 05:05 · Score: 0

If it's LED backlit then gamut, yes.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 05:09 · Score: 0

LCD (pronounced "licked") is a superior display technology to CRT (pronounced "crate"). OLED (pronounced "old") is even better than LCD. CRT doesn't even support HDMI (pronounced "hud me").

I hope this was informative for you.
Re:not a crt vs lcd thing by PhrostyMcByte · 2012-08-03 10:40 · Score: 1

A properly calibrated LCD may be able to match the colors of a properly calibrated CRT, but not the black level. High end LCDs can get quite acceptably close, but most aren't that great.

Keep it simple by kaur · 2012-08-01 11:17 · Score: 1

@ for human, # for path is enough.

Re:Keep it simple by Cederic · 2012-08-01 12:56 · Score: 1

Gameplay is king, as those games easily prove.
Re:Keep it simple by fatphil · 2012-08-01 18:53 · Score: 1

. for path, # for wall, surely?

Not that I remember clearly, it's at least 2 weeks since I played a roguelike.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863

I offer this by kenp2002 · 2012-08-01 11:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

(Shameless plug of sorts, apologies)

I DM'ed (Dungeon Mastered) RPGs for many (like 20) years and I learned a very important lesson I mention in some youtube vids I am throwing out there (not a full timer, I'm just documenting some stuff for posterity so-to-speak http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL42823901F978F00D&feature=mh_lolz) but I'll give you a specific relevant quote:

"Every detail you give a player, is one less detail they can imagine for themselves." Part of limiting graphics is, it allows a viewer or player's imagination more flexability. This is why I preferred Batman TAS' art direction more then say Fist of the North Star or Robot in the Shell anime (not that I disliked either of those). The more minimal art allowed me, mentally, to focus more on the movement, the framing, the scene as a whole, and gave me enough flexibility to flesh out the world without having every rat and piece of eye candy thrown at me.

--
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-

Re:I offer this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 16:54 · Score: 0

Well said. Roguelikes have always been my favorite games, since the original game. SImple graphics, enjoyable gameplay.
And a good book will beat the heck out of any movie, despite billion dollar budgets.
I used to play rpgs too younger.

That would be the goal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 12:42 · Score: 0

Ever tried finding something in real life? it is difficult, it takes time. You have to be able to perform searches and do things right. If I need a pen, I might have to take half an hour to find one in my apartment, same goes for a document or other relevant item. It is going to take time and effort and presence of mind, if you want something you can beat mindlessly, go play a game of tetris.

Re:That would be the goal by PlusFiveTroll · 2012-08-01 15:30 · Score: 1

Ever tried finding something in real life? it is difficult, it takes time. You have to be able to perform searches and do things right. If I need a pen, I might have to take half an hour to find one in my apartment, same goes for a document or other relevant item. It is going to take time and effort and presence of mind, if you want something you can beat mindlessly, go play a game of tetris.
A really good game is an effective version of this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel
A good game will take away focus from all the things that are unimportant around it. Life is so full of stuff and events that your brain develops very effective algorithms on what to forget. Most of the events that people call fun or games are about focusing on the details of just a few items, like cards and their numbers, dice, little multicolored blocks, or a ball full of air being tossed back and forth. Most pre-computer games should be noted for their lack of detail in everything but the subject the game is focusing on. Even most peoples jobs don't focus on the entire world around them, we focus on what our profession is, making burgers, compiling code, studying law, and the rest of the details we just don't notice. I tend to notice what kind of computers are in an office. I have friends that would remember the artwork, others that would remember the furniture.
There is a profession based studying the details to decipher events, investigators. The people who are investigators enjoy it, but it's not something the average person enjoys. In most games there has to be some kind of guiding so you don't get lost looking for a fucking pen for 30 minutes (which is unexcusable in your own place, just organize your shit if that's the case?). A game has to do this in a generic way so a playerbase can figure out whats going on before most people would give up.

Pooping by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 13:12 · Score: 0

When I have to make guy take a poop, the game has officially got too much detail.

Taken to extremes by safetyinnumbers · 2012-08-01 13:27 · Score: 1

Unfinished Swan shows that there's no single good answer to this.

It's too much when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 13:50 · Score: 0

It's too much when the developers start compensating for gameplay with fancy visuals.

Borderlands got it right by PJ6 · 2012-08-01 14:01 · Score: 1

I thought the edge enhancement was innovative, artsy, and useful. I could actually see what I needed to shoot.

Also, everything's made for consoles first now... level of detail has actually been sliding backwards. I mean, look at how the ruined Diablo III.

Re:Borderlands got it right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 00:36 · Score: 0

I thought the edge enhancement was innovative, artsy, and useful. I could actually see what I needed to shoot.
Also, everything's made for consoles first now... level of detail has actually been sliding backwards. I mean, look at how the ruined Diablo III.
Oh right, because if anything, hack & slash dungeon crawlers were in need of moar shiny crap to look at, not something like mold-breaking gameplay, level editors and modding.
D3 is needlessly heavy on effects for the gameplay it delivers, it has all the signs of graphical featuritus and totally reused gameplay elements that almost any other AAA title has. You can't lay the blame for that on "consoles"' it is a cross platform problem.
Re:Borderlands got it right by PJ6 · 2012-08-02 05:26 · Score: 1

Oh right, because if anything, hack & slash dungeon crawlers were in need of moar shiny crap to look at, not something like mold-breaking gameplay, level editors and modding.
D3 is needlessly heavy on effects for the gameplay it delivers, it has all the signs of graphical featuritus and totally reused gameplay elements that almost any other AAA title has. You can't lay the blame for that on "consoles"' it is a cross platform problem.
Modding? Level editors? On an also-on-console game? LOL!

This is kind of the whole the point of my lament. Conole-also games trash or completely drop features that don't lend themselves to use with a controller.

Same goes for any kind of graphics innovation, which is not necessarily limited to higher detail.

That being said, I agree that D3 problems go beyond that. Dev was done by the WoW team, which was a mistake.

A timely topic by tryptogryphic · 2012-08-01 14:04 · Score: 1

I've always thought about this issue, but in a different way I guess.

I was born in the early 80's, grew up on games like Doom, Doom 2 etc. As things began to progress in the gaming world, particularly the FPS arena, I found this element of perceiving the realism of the environment, that was left to the imagination to a certain extent, being slowly wiped away

Let me see if I can say it better...it's like, when I play a game...I know it's not real, it's all virtual reality therefore I don't have expectations of things to try and fool me into thinking overtly so, that's what made a larger part of gaming fun, for me at least. What I see happening now, is the developers trying so hard to make everything look so incredibly real, to make it so you can't tell the difference, which in my opinion won't ever happen. There is a quality to reality that can not be captured and emulated by technological advances in graphics.

To me, this takes away from the game play a great deal. Maybe I'm just a fool or a...what do you call those people who don't like new things? Anyways...this story reminded me of / articulated this thought that has been bouncing around in my head for the last few years.

When design patents get in the way by tepples · 2012-08-01 14:16 · Score: 1

I want to be able to shoot out the tyres and every window, not have it be a hyper-detailed texture applied to a rolling brick.

How much of this is the fault of automakers who don't want their patented, trademarked cars to appear damaged on the screen?

Easier to target a large pixel by Prof.Phreak · 2012-08-01 14:39 · Score: 1

A friend of mine used to set screen resolution to minimum (like 320x240) in Quake2 and 3 when playing deathmatch---rationale: it's easier to see and aim at a large pixel than to see and aim at a player model from across the map (sped up railgun instagib thing).

--

"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

the actual correct answer by slashmydots · 2012-08-01 14:52 · Score: 1

When my computer runs it as 60FPS. That is the correct answer lol.

Re:the actual correct answer by slashmydots · 2012-08-01 15:17 · Score: 1

Slight left carret issue there. Should be a "less than" sign in there and the 's' is a 't.'

Re:Not sure Graphical Detail is the Problem exactl by lennier1 · 2012-08-01 16:51 · Score: 1

Look at Crysis 2. What's the use of high-quality graphics if you just end up with a half-assed rail shooter whose foundation has been crippled beyond recognition so the console kiddies can make it past the first handful of enemies?

How much detail is too much for games? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 17:42 · Score: 0

When my framerate drops below 30.

No! by CheesyMoo · 2012-08-01 18:25 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines Did I do it right?

Nope, it doesn't depend by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-08-01 19:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Half-Life showed the way, it was the first big game I recall where being told to go to the Boiler room, meant you looked at the wall and followed the arrows marked Boiler room. No more red card for red door or wondering why this room identical to all the others had special significance.

A mod for Morrowind replaced the default non-sense roadsigns that only had tooltip on mouse over, to readable signs. Made the world a LOT more immersive. So the answer is simple:

MORE DETAIL == MORE IMMERSION

Well, unless you are very dimwitted/American and need a HUGE sign to be told a box with a redcross sign on it that looks just like a real word first aid box could be used as a first aid box and restore your health. I suppose some people prefer it to be a blue bottle because everyone knows blue bottles restore magic.... oops wait. Red potions then? Obviously the color for danger heals.

When they stopped using these non-obvious icons and medpacks looked like first aid boxes instead that people could stop reading the manual.

For first person shooters, being able to shoot through wooden doors, have realistic collision detection so that an obvious line of fire in the 3D world also is a line of fire in the collesion detection world, just makes these games easier and more fun to play as you are playing the game not an arbitrary set of rules that are never explained.

Some people claim that Tomb Raider was merely popular for its lead characters assets. They forget that it was the first "platform" game, especially on the PC where pixel perfect precession was not needed. Close enough was good enough meaning you could focus on playing the game and not on finding the exact pixel to jump from.

Not that everything has to be realistic. For instance the new MMO The Secret World does away with fall damage, you can jump from any height with no effect. Makes going around the world a lot more fun. In Lord of the Rings Online, a simple glitch going down a slope might cause fall damage to occur, slowing you to a crawl for far to long to be fun.

I am personally convinced that a lot of the failure of SWTOR was due to the ingame graphics not being detailed or realistic enough. A cartoon style can work, I am an anime fan but NOT if the source material is live action movies. And all the trailers give big budget cgi movies a run for their money.

Make it look "real". Not necessarily realistic but if people go "oh right, so that is what that is supposed to be, who would have thought", you failed.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Nope, it doesn't depend by DeathToBill · 2012-08-01 22:12 · Score: 1

MORE DETAIL == MORE IMMERSION
True, so long as you don't assume that DETAIL == GRAPHICAL DETAIL. The level of graphical detail needs to match the level of gameplay detail in some way that is not immediately obvious. Gameplay detail need to mean fidelity to the real world. So long as the game world is consistent in its detail, it need not bear any resemblance at all to how the real world works.
Tetris is a great example of this. You can keep adding resolution and shiny graphics to tetris until it looks absolutely beautiful. The gameplay is simple but absolutely consistent with no detail out of place. And it's one of the more successful games in a long, long time.

--
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Re:Nope, it doesn't depend by icebrain · 2012-08-02 00:15 · Score: 1

I tend to stick to high-end PC flight simulators (X-Plane, Orbiter, Falcon, etc.). Detail is crucial in these, not as much just visually as in physics and systems modeling. Being a pilot and aerospace engineer makes errors, omissions, or shortcuts even more glaring.
In Falcon's case, the flight model is numerically accurate, but has some limitations, the aircraft systems are fairly accurate too, but the terrain modeling and large-scale AI engine are very outdated. They've been dressed-up significantly, but it still has the feel of a 1998-vintage program--which it is. I hardly ever mess with it any more because it seems too game-like--I can spot the limitations of the 3D sim engine and where it switches over to the 2D theater-wide engine, I know exactly where the AI's blind spots are and how it reacts to things, etc. Suspension of disbelief is removed.
Unfortunately, I don't know if we'll ever see a military sim with that level of detail again. Getting data on modern equipment is too hard due to classification, developing a believable environment with ground and sea units takes a long time, and a dynamic campaign engine (instead of sets of scripted missions) hasn't been attempted since.
I've realized I don't much care anyway. I've got enough going on in my life that I don't have time for sims any more.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:Nope, it doesn't depend by dskzero · 2012-08-02 01:33 · Score: 1

Half-Life showed the way, it was the first big game I recall where being told to go to the Boiler room, meant you looked at the wall and followed the arrows marked Boiler room. No more red card for red door or wondering why this room identical to all the others had special significance.
Actually, that was probably first found on Duke Nukem 3D or any of the build engine games... or any good FPS after Doom. Doom was a carnage based game, where level design was abstract and unrealistic because 22 years ago optimization was much more important than "detail". Detail isn't really arrows marking the boiler room. Detail is figuring out something works because it should work. Nowadays that's fairly easy: the point is that detail apparently can't go hand in hand with mainstream releases for much more of the same reason why Doom's cities looked like lego remains of a kid's creation: they focus on the extremely streamlined gameplay, probably because they know most gamers won't stop and marvel like a jackass as we did when you first played Crysis and watched the dawn.

--
Oblivion Awaits
Re:Nope, it doesn't depend by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 02:20 · Score: 0

new MMO The Secret World does away with fall damage
That's probably a lot mroe to do with the hilarious past failing sof fall damage in FC games. See Age of conan and Anarchy online.

As ever, there are bigger problems in game design by DeathToBill · 2012-08-01 20:30 · Score: 1

Often the problem is not just detail, but obsessive detail in one area combined with wildly unrealistic limits in others. I find jungle combat games extremely frustrating for this reason - even CoD World at War - because there's all this highly detailed jungle around and you have to guess which bit of it doesn't function as an invisible barrier. The people writing the game spent much too long figuring out how to present realistic-looking jungle and not nearly long enough on how to construct a game that lets you roam over the whole reachable area.

IMO the Assassins Creed games get this absolutely right. They are also obsessed with graphical detail, and some of the cities look wonderful, but they've also put a lot of effort into letting you roam endlessly through it.

It's the classic problem of game design - studios spend all their money on visuals and none on gameplay, producing a beautiful-looking game that is boring to play.

--
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant

He sounds old. by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-08-01 21:11 · Score: 1

There's too much happening. What was that? A turtle stole my teeth!

If he doesn't want so much detail, he's free to turn down the resolution and quality settings until it looks like he's back on the NES.

My first console was a 2600. (A friend's parents had Pong.) I've had many consoles since and played games on my computers since the Z80 days. I've never played a game and said, "Gosh, I wish the environment wasn't so detailed." Even IF needs room descriptions. I'm building a 7680x1440 rig right now and I want those pixels to sparkle. If I want to imagine everything in my head, I'll read a book.

It's simple really by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 21:22 · Score: 0

As a game coder, specifically a graphics programmer that has developed cutting edge graphics engines from scratch for both Direct3D and OpenGL. Too much detail is reached when the game mechanics either fall behind the detail or are hindered by it.

When the game mechanics fall behind detail, you introduce confusion and sometimes even frustration when the player finds something they want to play with that looks cool but is merely cosmetic. Instead of inserting a huge landscape with an invisible wall preventing the player from going there, build natural obstructions or use those huge landscapes for a fly-over during the loading stage.

When detail hinders game mechanics, it only turns away players. Lens flares are cool, but it's annoying when it's just some massive sprite obscuring a huge chunk of the screen during a firefight. Atmospheric scattering is really awesome, but it's just aggravating when your average view distance through the game is shorter than my small house.

Don't even get me start on sound detail, it's so poor and for no good reason with all the processing power we have at hand now.

Re:Not sure Graphical Detail is the Problem exactl by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 23:02 · Score: 0

That's because PC is always an after-thought because as someone said, we are the smaller and probably less profitable market

Story details by sproketboy · 2012-08-01 23:22 · Score: 1

Game designers should spend their time on *story* details. Deus Ex: HR was a great example of that.

Re:Story details by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-08-02 00:31 · Score: 1

Eh, if you want a story read a book. I enjoy good cinematic sequences in any game, but the problem is that games that fixate on story end up being short and lack any interest in replay, while games that involve relatively mindless action and puzzle features can be extended far longer. Every moment of a game does not have to be scripted, and ultimately, if you play a game for the story you probably really want to watch a movie.
Probably the worst example of story in a game was Metal Gear Solid 4, absolutely the worst game ever due to the near hour long "non-skippable" cinematic MULTIPLE sequences.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Re:Story details by sproketboy · 2012-08-02 01:08 · Score: 1

I agree. That's why I pointed out Deus Ex: HR as the example on how to do it right.

Tetris and columns are fun by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-01 23:27 · Score: 0

and there was a complete lack of detail about those games...

God of War III by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 01:54 · Score: 0

God of War III has some very nice eyecandy. Too nice. Gives me a headache after 30 minutes of gameplay.

Re:the logic is... trolling a little by zlives · 2012-08-02 04:39 · Score: 1

interesting and original....

"unless you're piloting a gun all of the time" a guick wiki search will reveal that for X-Station other than kinect adventures, the other top games are all gun piloting... just goes to show you the best selling X-Station games would be better played on PC using mouse and keyboard.
consoles sell because they are dumb to use... caters to the intellectually challenged, thus no need to make the games interesting and original :)

Noticeability by Millennium · 2012-08-02 05:24 · Score: 1

Any detail that your average person wouldn't notice while actually playing the game is too much: wasted effort when people not only won't care, but won't know there's anything there to care about. Putting more in "for the trailers and screenshots" is pure marketing, incapable of improving the actual game.

Reminds me of movie theory as well by redizhot · 2012-08-02 05:41 · Score: 1

Learn why the rules exist then break em!

Slashdot Mirror

How Much Detail Is Too Much For Games?

201 comments