why bother with camera len reflection in first person shooter gaming?

[UaVaj]

is it only me or is the camera len reflection in first person shooter game reallie annoying.

you know the reflection that happens when a camera lens is pointed toward a light source.

of course this type of reflection happens to the naked eye minimally, but why exaggerate it like an oversized camera len during game play.

like the first 16sec of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87xqyGlkRd4



what a waste of gpu rendering plus loss of visibility during game play.

 

[Cerb]

It's called lens flare.

Yes, it's annoying, pointless, and implausible.

There's also soft focus, bloom, depth of field (blur out to the sides and far away), and bad motion blur to bitch about.

 

[BrightCandle]

Depth of view and motion blur are two of the ones I really dislike. So many modern graphical features detract from a games graphics.

 

[Zenoth]

I really don't like lens flare either. It sometimes forces you to move the camera away to avoid getting that big round "light texture" overlay moving as you face the light source, it's very annoying, indeed.

But, I dislike any blurring effect from Depth of Field the most. When everything in front of you is crisp and clear, but a few meters away it fades into a blurry vision (shapes, and textures, along with anything text-based blurred and washed-out), culminating in unrecognizable forms at the greatest distance (in extreme cases).

 

[waggy]

lens flare is the newest thing. its nuts and people are using it one everything.

 

[BrightCandle]

At least back in the day when lens flare was new and exciting the developers were doing it on space combat games and other places were there was glass in front of the view. It wasn't great then but now on the average FPS it looks dreadful.

Go outside, look towards the sun and you'll notice the rest of the world does darken, but you'll also cover the tops of your eyes with a hand or a cap instinctively. A quick reangle of the head and the sun is no longer in view but you are looking in that direction. But you can aim a gun flat while still angling your head down. The issue is that the gun direction, head facing and eye facing are not all independent. Of course it would be crazy having to set all three with our current interfaces, so instead I think they should stop making us suffer these awful effects!

 

[gorcorps]

Lens flair ruined Super 8

 

[runzwithsizorz]

lens flare is the newest thing. its nuts and people are using it one everything.

Newest thing??? Wing Commander Prophecy('97) had it. I kinda liked it,
at least in space.:awe:

 

[Geosurface]

I seem to recall Unreal ('98) used it pretty damned heavily.

I have mixed feelings about it. I think it can be cool when used sparingly... but it's being abused.

 

[reallyscrued]

Same with DOF, motion blur, etc.

To distract you from how bad the rest of the game looks.

No, seriously.

At some point in this console generation, devs realized they could no longer keep squeezing polygon pushing performance from these consoles so they started to mask bad textures and pointed characters models by implementing all those nifty effects the new graphics APIs came with but were underutilized from the start (and for good reason).

Everytime someone comes along and says "you know, they're only really using like 60% of the PS3 as of now" I just laugh. Then vomit. On their PS3.

 

[UaVaj]

behind a glass inside a vehicle. it is a good idea. to portray more realism.
however with the naked eye (like in the video). it get old quick. reallie quick.

the small consesus here suggests the majority hates it. if so, why does developer continue with such stupidity. it is not like these effects are ez to render. these type of lighting effects take lots of gpu power to render.

seeking answer from those who do like these effects with the naked eye point of view and ultimately why?

 

[Stringjam]

I don't mind post-processing effects, as long as the dev gives you the ability to adjust the values or shut them off.

Crytek lets you shut off lens flare, motion blur, and DoF effects, and adjust their values. I think it would be nice is other devs followed suit.


I actually like some of these effects when done tastefully. Using DoF does have a place in realism, especially when aiming weapons.....when you pull up a gun to sight, the part of the weapon closest to your face actually blurs, and the sights come into perfect focus. I've seen a few games do this correctly and I think it's a very nice touch.

 

[RedRooster]

Its alright in some games. If its done well, it doesn't bother you from a technical standpoint while you're playing, it makes you squint or look away like in real life. Like looking uphill on the Alborz map in BF3, that is pretty cool and gives the people on higher ground with the sun behind them the advantage, how it should be.

 

[shortylickens]

lens flare is the newest thing. its nuts and people are using it one everything.

Not that new, but it is annoying, and used a little more each year.

And it makes no damn sense. Thanks to modern optics you should NEVER have lens flare. The fact they keep including in so-called "modern" shooters makes me nuts.

 

[Zodiark1593]

I don't mind post-processing effects, as long as the dev gives you the ability to adjust the values or shut them off.

Crytek lets you shut off lens flare, motion blur, and DoF effects, and adjust their values. I think it would be nice is other devs followed suit.


I actually like some of these effects when done tastefully. Using DoF does have a place in realism, especially when aiming weapons.....when you pull up a gun to sight, the part of the weapon closest to your face actually blurs, and the sights come into perfect focus. I've seen a few games do this correctly and I think it's a very nice touch.

Mild motion blur also helps give a smoother impression when your framerates are less-than-desireable. Similar to how 24 fps videos are blurred. A heavy-handed blurring really detracts from a game though.

 

[Dankk]

It's called lens flare.

Yes, it's annoying, pointless, and implausible.

I'll play devil's advocate here: Lens flare is not used for realism. In most games (where you're not looking through a pane of glass), it's purely a stylistic choice. That's all.

BF3, for example, has no intention of being realistic; the lens flair is not in place to make the game more "real". Rather, it exists to give the game a stylized, cinematic "J.J. Abrams" type of look. The idea is that "well, this doesn't actually happen in real life, but it certainly does look cool."

Lots of people can't distinguish the difference between "realism" and design choices.

 

[Ferzerp]

And some people don't understand that bad choices are bad choices even if they are "design choices".

 

[Markbnj]

And it makes no damn sense. Thanks to modern optics you should NEVER have lens flare. The fact they keep including in so-called "modern" shooters makes me nuts.

Well, call it what you want, but you can't look at the sun and see very well. I guess that's what they're trying to simulate.

 

[CA19100]

You're on another planet fighting aliens with plasma weapons, but it's the lens flare that you find unrealistic?

 

[Cerb]

Lots of people can't distinguish the difference between "realism" and design choices.

Sure we can. If it's not a camera, scope, remote robot view, etc., it's idiocy.

Well, call it what you want, but you can't look at the sun and see very well. I guess that's what they're trying to simulate.

And we so have never seen games that can dynamically adjust contrast, or apply pixel shaders that affect a region of the screen. In that case, it's laziness, too.

 

[UaVaj]

Sure we can. If it's not a camera, scope, remote robot view, etc., it's idiocy.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Doppel]

A silly gimmick.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Everyone that works on these things wears thick glasses. They think that is how the world really works.
Soon programmers and video game art designers will start to get Lasik and lens flare will go away in our games (probably to be replaced by rainbow halo effects).