Yes it would.
LAIR Thread - * Rules: post #469
- Thread starter Eagle-Vision
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
Oh since it is so valid and you are so good at it why dont you try to explain to all the people who disagreed with the usage of DoF: why it doesn't look right, how is shallow DoF more realistic than deeper DoF, the relevance between eye and human brain limitations to game screen that doesnt have to deal with the same limitations and how is the player incapable of understanding individual objects from a game screen such as Lair.
And while you are at it, give us a solution on how this can be implemented in Lair just like in real life. As far as I know the PS3 cant connect to your brain and know where you are trying to look at. Perhaps I missed that feature in the technical forum. I tried to find a link. Perhaps you can give me one
Also since you DO know perhaps you should additionally explain why, funnily, actual real life photos dont look right according to you for using deeper DoF, so the viewer will be able to see everything in them as clearly as possible
(edit: oh and why you didnt seem previously to know, mention or agree with the existence of cameras that can take pictures with similar high foreground and background sharpness simultaneously)
Last edited by a moderator:
I second Mr. Nesh's request for Mr. Ostepop's theory on how to make a screen in a flying game be "doable", "resonable", and "not omit essential information/detail" with shallow DoF.
Of course your eyes would never be able to focus on the game in the same way.
Your TV doesn't have a depth of 500 meters. It doesn't even have a depth of 500 millimeters.
Using a shallower DoF is an issue of practice and artistic direction at the cost of losing detail.
And when losing detail isn't an option, there is no solution other than NOT use shallower DoF.
Simple as that.
Of course your eyes would never be able to focus on the game in the same way.
Your TV doesn't have a depth of 500 meters. It doesn't even have a depth of 500 millimeters.
Using a shallower DoF is an issue of practice and artistic direction at the cost of losing detail.
And when losing detail isn't an option, there is no solution other than NOT use shallower DoF.
Simple as that.
@ Nesh - The example pics were two separate photos I found on the web and composited together, just to show object backgrounds on clear vs. fuzzed backgrounds. They weren't trying to illustrate the real depth of field attainable in camera.
The point about everything being in focus or not should be laid to rest now. It's been proven that a camera can show near and far objects in focus at the same time. Thus Lair with either DOF'd out backgrounds, or no blurring in the backgrounds, can be natural as viewed through different optical resolving systems. One could be picky and start talking about light levels and motion blur, but that's just being silly!
Eyes, yes.But its obvious Strange et al are talking about everything in focus at the same time being natural for a camera. It is possible to take a camera out and photograph flying objects against a rocky, barren backdrop, and have it all in focus, due to the laws of nature that govern optical physics - hence they are natural images in the sense they conform to nature. Calling the images natural doesn't mean they have to mimic the eye's behaviour.
The point about everything being in focus or not should be laid to rest now. It's been proven that a camera can show near and far objects in focus at the same time. Thus Lair with either DOF'd out backgrounds, or no blurring in the backgrounds, can be natural as viewed through different optical resolving systems. One could be picky and start talking about light levels and motion blur, but that's just being silly!
COngratulations on bringing this to the most logical conclusion.
I was just trying to point to the focus that can be attained and to the relativity of what can be considered natural irrespectively to what these images were meant and made to demonstrate from the beginning since I thought they can be applied as an example to explain my points as well.
But yeah you did a great job at explaining these other points in this post well.
Lets continue with the on topic discussion.
Is there any mention anywhere about the skin animation featured in the game? It was supposed to be one of the game's unique features when it was shown first as a tech demo of the title. It presented an extremely realistic skin technique with bones and muscles flexing and moving under it.
But it looks like it was taken out in the final game. Or perhaps its hard to spot
and a game about flying fighting dragons is natural to you?
That is a very lame argument. Just because a sci-fi or fantasy movie has creatures that don't exist, it still has to show them in a realistic way to 'sell' the result. When everything else is real, and the fantastic looks as real as possible, then you'll accept that as real too.
For example, Factor 5 couldn't get away with dragonriders surviving falls from heighs of thousands of feet either, despite having dragons in their game.
For example, Factor 5 couldn't get away with dragonriders surviving falls from heighs of thousands of feet either, despite having dragons in their game.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to disagree with you here - it has to be consistent, not realistic. If you survive something unrealistic in one place, it mustn't be deadly in another situation, and comparable situations must lead to similar results.
In a realistic Lair, the rider would freeze to death in the cold levels. He would fall off on fast turns, because his armor is so heavy, or at least black out on a few Gs of acceleration. Or maybe not, because the dragon couldn't lift off with so much mass and such tiny wings. Let alone the gigantic creatures that are bound to be suffocated by their own body weight. And so forth...
Please stop applying our real world rules to games, no matter what category. Realistic DOF sounds nice at first, but how do you controll it ingame? Automatic? Right analog Stick? Bad focus is the new bad camera?
In a realistic Lair, the rider would freeze to death in the cold levels. He would fall off on fast turns, because his armor is so heavy, or at least black out on a few Gs of acceleration. Or maybe not, because the dragon couldn't lift off with so much mass and such tiny wings. Let alone the gigantic creatures that are bound to be suffocated by their own body weight. And so forth...
Please stop applying our real world rules to games, no matter what category. Realistic DOF sounds nice at first, but how do you controll it ingame? Automatic? Right analog Stick? Bad focus is the new bad camera?
Like lighting, water, physics, animation, skin shading, etc?
I think people should stop saying that as I'm yet to see anybody who thinks otherwise and it has been repeated to death already.
Avon_Implosion
Newcomer
graphically, I've never seen such a spasmodic game in my life; it went from "average" to "pretty" to "ugly" to "pretty" to "ugly"...to "pretty" again. Regardless, it looks great. The only major fault I see is the ground combat-but that's a recurring issue with Factor 5, it seems.
Question, though: Are Factor 5 using CG during the cut-scenes, or is everything done using the game's engine? Those character models seem a bit too polished, but a magazine recently claimed (games, tm) that it was done in real-time (arg, that infamous phrase rears its ugly head yet again).
Question, though: Are Factor 5 using CG during the cut-scenes, or is everything done using the game's engine? Those character models seem a bit too polished, but a magazine recently claimed (games, tm) that it was done in real-time (arg, that infamous phrase rears its ugly head yet again).
Yes, like that.Like lighting, water, physics, animation, skin shading, etc?
Who says the color or even the number of the suns in Lair is the same as here? Who says the water in Lair has the same physical properties (e.g. fluidity) as ours? Who says the gravity must be the same as here, surely having an impact on how creatures move (animate)? Who says the dragon's skin must be identical to what we know from lizards?
I know these things are probably supposed to be similar to our world in Lair, but still, the frequent cry for realism doss not necessarily lead to the right direction. Less nitpicking, more playing games i say!
Yes, like that.
Who says the color or even the number of the suns in Lair is the same as here? Who says the water in Lair has the same physical properties (e.g. fluidity) as ours? Who says the gravity must be the same as here, surely having an impact on how creatures move (animate)? Who says the dragon's skin must be identical to what we know from lizards?
I know these things are probably supposed to be similar to our world in Lair, but still, the frequent cry for realism doss not necessarily lead to the right direction. Less nitpicking, more playing games i say!
Oh! Thanks!
Now I understands the 4 Dimension speak for the PS3!
All games on PS3 will be in other dimension than our…
Yes it's explain all, the worst port of multi-support games…
Of course the world of Lair can have other physical laws than our, but at least all games can have it, so now we can't continu to compare games 'cause they have different physical laws, optical laws, etc…
But is Factor 5 tell that Lair' world have other properties than our world?
Oh! Thanks!
Now I understands the 4 Dimension speak for the PS3!
All games on PS3 will be in other dimension than our…
Yes it's explain all, the worst port of multi-support games…
Of course the world of Lair can have other physical laws than our, but at least all games can have it, so now we can't continu to compare games 'cause they have different physical laws, optical laws, etc…
But is Factor 5 tell that Lair' world have other properties than our world?
That was probably one of the most incoherent posts I've ever made my eyes bleed with.
@Planet. All fair points, it's all about the game not how anally retentive you can get about DoF or fluid physics et al.
That's true to a degree, but there will be a need for things to make sense relative to the real world. eg. If you have people falling thousands of feet with no problems, that'll look comedic. You won't be able to create a gritty world if certainly rules are ignored.
So how's about objects get lit on the sides facing away from lightsources? Things fall up? Soldiers crawl around on all fours everywhere? Inverting perspective so things get bigger the further away they are? All these things would make the game look a ridiculous mess, because they're not realistic. Our brains aren't happy with things that aren't natural, like lights working back to front, or perspective being screwy. You have to operate within the users sphere of understanding, which is an understanding of the real world. Deviating from that causes a whole world of hurt.
- Status
Similar threads
