just buy a crappy LCD... instant motion blur at no cost to framerate! 

Depth of field. Or... let's entirely forget how the eye works. 

Guess who's custom map reviews made me install the game in the first place. 

That's nice to know they encouraged you to do that. If you do plan to play custom maps, you'll need something like DarkLoader/GarretLoader (no unzipping the FM files) if you don't already know. TTLG forums should have all the info you need to run FMs - I plan to type up simple guides on my site one day.

I've been neglecting my site lately though... plan to get back to it. Have more Thief/Quake reviews to do afterall. 

What a disappointment! I expected something like Stalker, but it's actually just another stupid and ugly console game.

Thematically, it feels like the Fallout 3 subway tunnels + DC ruins but without the freedom. Hardly any game I've played exhibits MSD better than this one, as nothing about it stands out in any way - it felt pointless and uninteresting with mostly unspectacular and confined levels, linear and boring scripted gameplay, average graphics, and few light quicktime events. I couldn't care less about the story - a nuclear apocalypse with four types of mutants vs. communists vs. Nazis vs. bandits, and in the end everything blows up... or something. Often there aren't even smooth level transitions.
Gameplay allows for brute or stealth approaches, but it doesn't really matter in the end. Did someone say it was to have RPG elements? Sure.. if the ability to buy weapons and ammo constitutes an RPG already.
A couple of nice gimmicks, like the watch (gasmask timer) showing the actual system time :P, or a section where you have to carry a child on your shoulders which slows down your view/movement.
Apparently it's based on a novel? Lots of wasted potential then.

Bottom line: a fairly bad game and a waste of time in my view. Not recommended. 

The SDK needs to come out.

Unless all the excuses we've been seeing so far are just that, excuses and the real reason for not releasing the SDK is that the publisher would likely no longer be capable to charge stupid amounts of money for DLC. 

"Is motion blur. 'It's more realistic' they cry. 'It's a fucking game' the rest of us say.

Engine programmers drunk on how awesome they are."

"Depth of field. Or... let's entirely forget how the eye works."


Seriously, why work on graphics technology at all? You guys are fucking retarded. :) If you don't want that stuff you have an option - keep playing Quake. 

I felt the motion blur in Crysis was awesome, its the best ive seen in a game to date.

Mass Effect 2 uses DoF to its advantage also, it really enhances the presentation of the story cutscenes and the dialogue camera angles.

Honestly, I think DoF in games is mimicking the DoF of camera lenses rather than the human eye.

Its quite exciting really, graphics technology is getting to the point where if you squint it does look real. Its things like animation and floating objects that give it away, rather than the graphics themselves being nowhere near realistic.

I remember watching a video of some game on youtube a few months ago, and as the video quality was 480 maximum, it hid some of the giveaway details and it really did look real, it was some racing game I forget which one. I think that was the first time I genuinely thought to myself "that looks totally real" when looking at game footage.

Err, this kind of meandered off topic :P 

And as an aid to those who want to go off on these ridiculous rants in the future ... it's the artists who ask for all of that stuff, not the engine programmers. Blame them. :) 

yeah, motion blur and DoF and other stuff of that nature is more about simulating a real camera as opposed to an eyeball which isn't a bad thing by any means. besides, motion blur goes a long way towards hiding lower framerates.

i really liked the DoF effects in crysis and farcry 2. 

It's the coders who introduce it. The artists work constantly to marginalise the effects since the coders don't want to remove them.

Spose it depends on the quality of the effect. Or maybe I'm just retarded. 

I like motion blur on tf2, don't know why. Sometimes I'll just zig the camera around as fast as I can to look at it. Seriously.

DoF is ... okay I guess because it's supposed to make the game feel more cinematic, but yeah doesn't really mimic the human eye.

I like a lot of graphical innovations in games, but it's really how the stuff is used. Some examples of just rampant over-use of features ... well, nm. 

I think DOF is ok when used sparingly. It can be quite useful to simulate somekind of atmospheric haziness in the distance, or coupled with distance fog to get some nice silhouettes against the sky. 

I feel the DoF in Dead Space worked really well, especially during cutscenes. 

Mass Effect 2 uses DoF to its advantage also, it really enhances the presentation of the story cutscenes and the dialogue camera angles.

Honestly, I think DoF in games is mimicking the DoF of camera lenses rather than the human eye.

And when it's used in cutscenes, it works brilliantly, because that's exactly where we're used to seeing such effects. When there's a barrel of a gun stuck in the middle of your screen and your eyes wander around, it feels wrong and distracting.


Seriously, why work on graphics technology at all? You guys are fucking retarded. :) If you don't want that stuff you have an option - keep playing Quake.

Oh I forgot, criticism is bad. All that time and money could've been spent on improving better aspects of the game. For example. 

When there's a barrel of a gun stuck in the middle of your screen and your eyes wander around, it feels wrong and distracting.

100% agree, it certainly has its place. I assume your talking about Crysis & to an extent Stalker : Clear sky, which are both at fault here. At the end of the day its down to common fucking sense, which is seems some developers leave behind.

All that time and money could've been spent on improving better aspects of the game. For example.

I don't agree with this, I think that having cutting edge visuals is a very important part of the game. It helps with immersion, characterisation, and stops the player thinking "lol this looks like ass" when they start it up for the first time (always a plus!).

Stalker : SOC for example would have been a much worse game if they had not pushed the visuals as much as they did. The experience of exploring through all those ruined buildings with the lightning flashing in from outside, and rain pouring through holes is simply unmatched in anything that has come after it (including its sequels). 

Graphics that support it are great, but most of the time the player doesn't know the difference between graphical feature X or Y - unless they've spent a lot of cash on a fancy new graphics card and need to justify the expense.

I'm not making any friends here am I? 

"It's the coders who introduce it. The artists work constantly to marginalise the effects since the coders don't want to remove them. "

Doesn't that seem counter productive? Are you trying to make ugly looking games? 

"All that time and money could've been spent on improving better aspects of the game. For example."

Graphics programmers don't work on AI or gameplay code ... what else do you think they're going to be spending time on if not visual effects and better frame rate? 

"I Play Games For Gameplay"

Yes, yes, we all do. However, good gameplay doesn't have to look like a game from 1997 does it? 

shit slinging and point scoring going on here there is a valid argument on both sides.
I personally am up for all of the eyecandy in the world times a million and I am prepared to pay for a system to actually be able to run it.
But a game which uses all of these things to succesfully assimilate a good style has to incorporate these technologies in a balanced fashion. They have to run optimally as well as be present and deliver a visually pleasing/functional effect.
STALKER CS/CoP both use DoF a lot, but it doesnt look realistic, it just looks fuzzy and blurry. I personally would prefer a more subtle realistic effect. However running such an effect at an opptimal speed would probably require a rediculous amount of horsepower.
So what do the developers do? Do they remove the effect altogether? or do they leave it in and try and find the balance the best they can?

Worrying about who is more responsible from within the ranks and departments of a development studio is just silly and a completely unrealistic perspective to talk about from the average consumer's point of view. 

Often times these effects aren't used in the pursuit of realism (which is a mistake that many people make) but instead they are used to achieve a look that the art director is looking for. Most games are highly stylized and very few are actually going for "real world realism". 

100% agree, it certainly has its place. I assume your talking about Crysis & to an extent Stalker : Clear sky, which are both at fault here. At the end of the day its down to common fucking sense, which is seems some developers leave behind.

Modern Warfares, really. Never played Stalker, only seen Crysis in action, and only for about five minutes. There are options to turn off most of the extra visual effects, so everybody's happy, I suppose.

I don't agree with this, I think that having cutting edge visuals is a very important part of the game. It helps with immersion, characterisation, and stops the player thinking "lol this looks like ass" when they start it up for the first time (always a plus!).

Cutting edge visual effects does not equal distracting and annoying visual effects. See also Willem's point about bad art direction.

Graphics programmers don't work on AI or gameplay code ... what else do you think they're going to be spending time on if not visual effects and better frame rate?

What else can the money be spent on if not graphics programmers?

Yes, yes, we all do. However, good gameplay doesn't have to look like a game from 1997 does it?

I'll get me coat. 

Im not questioning your correctness in any way when I say that the average consumer's opinion of what style looks good is entirely their own opinion, and cannot be argued as right or wrong because it is a reflection as much of themself as it is of the art they are critiquing.

If someone on a forum starts critiscising a visual effect which they see in games and then broadly critiscising a whole sector of a whole industry then I guess it is safe to assume that they didnt like the styles that they saw in place.

Should an artist give a fuck about one person's opinion? Fuck NO! That's what art is all about.
The person doesnt get to have any influence over future creations but in turn simply has the choice to not play the game, or avoid the studio, or even avoid the publisher or whatever.

I think that depth of field is good in cutscenes but it must be carried out with diligance in an in-game situation so as not to mess with the player's ability to perform well in the game (can see the enemies which are far away/close because they are too blurry for example).

I mean if on a turret or something, with enemies appearing an a certain place, at a certain range then fine. If the effect works when the player chooses to look down the barrel of their weapon, but can lower the weapon and shoot with no depth of field - also fine..... etc 

"What else can the money be spent on if not graphics programmers? "

Companies not investing in keeping up with current technology are really shooting long odds at being successful.

People can talk about Quake all they want (in relation to the "gameplay over graphics" dribble) but that game was absolutely cutting edge when it came out. The graphics were off the chart amazing and the graphics technology was beyond what anyone had ever seen.

"I'll get me coat."

Hey, you may like games from 1997 and, honestly, you're in luck because there are tons of them! Knock yourself out.

But to expect modern day companies to still produce games at that graphical level is ludicrous.