#1 Posted by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

So after player Planetside 2 for a bit and then switching back to BF3 for a bit. There is something that I cannot tolerate anymore in AAA games is high contrast lens flare skyboxes in multiplayer. Especially when this has a negative impact on gameplay aka I can't see shit! Look I know the current generation of gamers (both console and PC) like good graphics and don't get me wrong I like super amazing awesomesauce xtreme graphics, but FFS not in multiplayer.

Do you know what all of these have in common?

- Lens Flare

- High Contrast Bloom

- Motion Blur

- SSAO/HBAO

If your answer is that they are super amazing cause they make multiplayer look awesome! You're WRONG and you should be ashamed.

All of these hamper your ability to see your target especially at long ranges, but they also affect your FPS (Frames per Second). In multiplayer, especially in a FPS (First Person Shooter), anything below 60 FPS is unacceptable. There is no arguing on this fact, ask anyone who plays competitively. I used to play Counter Strike in CAL-I (Holy shit! look at my E-Peen *spurt* *spurt*) back in 2002 and Point of Existence in TWL back in 2004 (*spurt* *spurt*). Two equally skilled players on a even playing field, with one at 30 FPS and one at 60 FPS, the person at 60 will generally win.

Also, realism and immersion are dumb counter arguments, especially in the terrible MMS genre.

tl;dr Stop making annoying skyboxes in multiplayer KTHXBAI

#2 Posted by Sackmanjones (4705 posts) -

Idk I think both those games look amazing

#3 Posted by believer258 (11913 posts) -

Never bothered me.

Online
#4 Posted by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

@Sackmanjones said:

Idk I think both those games look amazing

Planetside 2 is so poorly optimized its a joke and Battlefield 3 has so much screen clutter that I feel like I need eye drops.

#5 Posted by Christoffer (1823 posts) -

In case of the blinding lens flare, I think it's part of the game design and not just pretty graphics. Just as in real life, you will be handicapped if you stare directly into the sun.

#6 Posted by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

@Christoffer said:

In case of the blinding lens flare, I think it's part of the game design and not just pretty graphics. Just as in real life, you will be handicapped if you stare directly into the sun.

@Synnosaurus said:

Also, realism and immersion are dumb counter arguments, especially in the terrible MMS genre.

They add it in the same reason people on DeviantArt add it, because they think it makes everything look better.

#7 Posted by mordukai (7150 posts) -
@Synnosaurus said:

@Sackmanjones said:

Idk I think both those games look amazing

Planetside 2 is so poorly optimized its a joke and Battlefield 3 has so much screen clutter that I feel like I need eye drops.

Played PS2 for a few hours. Never felt like those things bothered me, and I ran as Infiltrator so I'll notice things like that. You always have the option to try to modifying the ini files and see if it helps your problem. 
#8 Posted by Little_Socrates (5677 posts) -

I haven't seen any Planetside 2 yet, but Battlefield 3 is a technical masterpiece. I agree that I'm generally a bit underwhelmed by its art design, though, largely due to the lens flare and blown-out contrast. Motion blur's less of a problem for me, but I can't name a first-person game I enjoyed it in besides Portal (and teleporting in Dishonored, I guess.)

I could see fine for what little BF3 I played, but I also didn't enjoy the aesthetic elements you're describing.

#9 Posted by Zapbrader (174 posts) -

I literally gain nothing from being blinded by sunlight, or flashlights and laser beams for that matter. Just because its "realistic" doesn't automatically make it fun. Quite the contrary, actually, its annoying. Bloom especially.

#10 Posted by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

@mordukai: In the open it's okay, but in areas like Biodome, it was awful. Even on medium settings and on a SSD, the game managed about 20-30 fps. Mainly because they built the engine to run on six year old systems, so it rarely uses GPU, has CPU threshold chokes, and doesn't take advantage of newer hardware.

#11 Posted by CornBREDX (5295 posts) -

Lens flare is an annoying design choice of video game developers and film directors. It doesn't add much of anything for me. 
 
That being said I could care less if they add all that stuff or not. For me it really only matters if the game is fun to play. The rest is peripheral cake I guess.  
 
I've never had a problem with it multiplayer or otherwise, playing the game, although I've never been a fan of bloom or motion blur- especially when it's not used well.

Online
#12 Posted by captain_clayman (3321 posts) -

It's an intentional design decision in most cases. Also, if you can't run it at 60, turn it down. This is why PC games are awesome, because if you don't like those graphical features you can turn them off.

#13 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

It won't harm your FPS if you don't use a toaster for computer 
 
But yeah, the postprocessing in BF3 is a bit overdone.

#14 Posted by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

@captain_clayman: Trust me I turn all that crap off mainly because it makes seeing someone at range much more difficult

@Little_Socrates: Not really, Mid development BF3 was switched from PC to Consoles.

#15 Posted by Sackmanjones (4705 posts) -
@Synnosaurus

@Sackmanjones said:

Idk I think both those games look amazing

Planetside 2 is so poorly optimized its a joke and Battlefield 3 has so much screen clutter that I feel like I need eye drops.

Won't disagree in te optimization of planetside 2. It shouldn't be that big of a hog but as it stands, I think battlefield 3 is an incredibly beautiful game (on pc)
#16 Posted by Labman (288 posts) -

Lens flares are one of those things that if you notice them once, you will notice them every friggen annoyingly over-used time after that.

#17 Posted by JohnstonThistle (42 posts) -

Not played Planetside yet but I totally agree with you in general, I'm seeing lens flare and high contrast BS so much these days, sure it looks pretty but when I'm playing a god damn competitive mp match I want to be able to see my enemies clearly and not be put-off by the frickin' sun exploding in my face any time I glance slightly upwards. Playing a lot of Halo 4 atm and it annoys me to no end on several maps and the campaign, and just... ugh... yeah I'm really tired of it.

#18 Posted by Little_Socrates (5677 posts) -

@Synnosaurus said:

@Little_Socrates: Not really, Mid development BF3 was switched from PC to Consoles.

That makes the PC version less impressive how? Games don't really look as technically strong as BF3 on PC, at least not ones that are still fun to play. Could it look better? Probably, but I didn't say it was the graphical singularity, either. It's still pretty freaking impressive, though.

#19 Posted by Humanity (9261 posts) -

Try playing Syndicate - that game has a very unhealthy abundance of all those things to the point where I thought something was wrong with my TV. Really fun game! Special effects overload.

#20 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2775 posts) -

You think you can't see now...the new thing will be Depth of Field effects. Blurry on purpose images as a fake camera pretends to foucs on the foreground and background that doesn't even exist!! It will be madness.

#21 Posted by mordukai (7150 posts) -
@Synnosaurus said:

@mordukai: In the open it's okay, but in areas like Biodome, it was awful. Even on medium settings and on a SSD, the game managed about 20-30 fps. Mainly because they built the engine to run on six year old systems, so it rarely uses GPU, has CPU threshold chokes, and doesn't take advantage of newer hardware.

Huh. My ran ran at pretty smooth at medium settings. I understand that the beta was worse and that they ironed out many problems. It's a work in progress so I'll give a few more months before I pass judgment. My main issues with the game are in other areas but that's not what this discussion is about. 
#22 Posted by AlexW00d (6275 posts) -

Bloom and lens flare are the bane of modern videogames. BF3 especially, and Spec Ops was terrible for it as well.

Dafuk is this?
#23 Posted by Hewitt (63 posts) -

I don't really care if developers keep using these graphical features or take them out. There are many worse tropes in modern video gaming.

#24 Posted by Raven10 (1790 posts) -

@Synnosaurus: I'll give it to you that lots of bloom and lens flare can harm viewing experiences. But motion blur makes the game look smoother if implemented correctly. Often, though, it is poorly done or overdone and then it looks bad. Ambient Occlusion gives objects more realistic shadows. I don't see how that could effect your viewing ability.

#25 Edited by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

Take these two screenshots as an example.

Planetside 2

Planetside 2 like Battlefield 3 uses Bloom, SSAO, and High Contrast Post-Processing. What you get is one big massive glare on the screen, because regardless of the source, the distance, and the intensity, the ranges and luminosity are all the same creating this annoying super glare on the screen.

ARMA 2

ARMA 2 uses HDR and SSAO. Notice how the light has different ranges and luminosity based on the source of the light, the intensity of the light, and the distance of the light. It doesn't affect my vision much because of my distance from it but you can see its impact on the surrounding area.

#26 Posted by ShockD (2401 posts) -

This bothers me a lot too. I always turn off motion blurs, bloom effects and other bullshit before starting a new FPS game.

#27 Edited by ESREVER (2691 posts) -

Motion Blur is blight on FPS gaming. I always disable it. ALWAYS. Should always sacrifice beauty for better gameplay (when playing competive) . That's why CS is the best for me.

#28 Posted by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

Atleast Crytek is giving us the honor of turning Lens Flare off

#29 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Agreed. Partly because it's easy to shift blame on this stuff, when things go sideways. By now, I hate that high contrast and color desaturation and lens flare and god knows what more of BF3's effects overkill with a passion of a thousand fiery suns.

How much more would I like Battlefield 3, if it was looking something like this? Hell - I might even have loved it, as I've expected to.

#30 Edited by Synnosaurus (13 posts) -

@Seppli: They dumped so many crappy effects onto the game that it literally becomes impossible to see people. And all the arguments that it is "realistic" is stupid. Considering how unrealistic BF3 and all those other MMS games are. Oh well I still have ARMA 3 whenever the Greeks decide to drop the bullshit espionage charges.

#31 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@captain_clayman said:

It's an intentional design decision in most cases. Also, if you can't run it at 60, turn it down. This is why PC games are awesome, because if you don't like those graphical features you can turn them off.

You can't turn these things off in Battlefield 3. You would be at an insane advantage, if you could.

#32 Posted by Hamst3r (4484 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

Bloom and lens flare are the bane of modern videogames. BF3 especially, and Spec Ops was terrible for it as well.

Dafuk is this?

It's...

And stuff.

#34 Posted by W1ck3d (28 posts) -

Motion blur and bloom are the bane of my existence? Don't realy mind lens flare though...