HIGH DEF ULTRA EDITION EXTREME

[Canadamus Prime]

Funny, this pretty much sums up my opinion of all HD re-releases.

 

[Joccaren]

lol. i always deactivate motion blur. absolutely annoying.

I was just away to say this. I hate motion blur.

Already ninja'd twice in the first few posts

I will admit that motion blur, done properly, in the right circumstances, and with a high quality effect can actually look alright. Its almost never done well though.

FOV, IMO, is the bigger issue, but dependent on the game that can be just some toying around in some settings files the game conveniently saves as .txt or .ini.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I never get why motion blur is a thing. Just... why? Why the hell does it exist?

In some ways, it exists to cover up fps hitches. I won't go into it in detail, but it's to do with with the way rendering frames work on a game compared to actual filmed footage.

It is, however, completely superfluous if you're running the game smoothly anyway.

 

[BX3]

Like in minecraft on the 360, where as you move the screen lurches up and down in time with your movement. Its supposed to simulate how the vast majority of humans walk like chickens.
When I went to play that game at a friends house, it made me sick within about 2 minutes. (fortunately you can turn it off) FOV does too, on the PC I play with mine set at 'quake pro' cause any other makes me sick.

When you walk the camera moves up and down. Supposed to simulate how people move. The most extreme offender is the Syndicate re-make. It's also the biggest offender of over-using bloom.

Head-bobbing is supposed to be more "realistic" since humans bob up and down. But humans also have brains which compensate for this so we don't get nauseous every time we move.

Oh, the "walking" thing. That clears it up, thanks.

Yeah, totally, I get why that would be a problem, especially for those more prone to motion sickness. I completely get why they do it, but abusing it's a no-no.... Although... One thing kinda bothers me though and, well... *sucks in air through teeth and squints*

Now you argue immersion, or the lack thereof I guess. I'm not gonna disagree with you, because I've come to find that immersion is 50/50 - one half being the developers' design choices and one half being the player's leniency - However, one could also argue that bobbing isn't any more or less immersive than, say, sliding across places, y'know unless you can glide or are in a really big wheelchair all the time. In that respect, until developers implement bobbing without it being so obnoxious (and perhaps mimic the eyes' tendency to dart), I personally can't in good conscience put 'immersion' and 'First person' in the same sentence, at least not when it comes to the point of view alone.

Now why they do limited FOV is anyone's guess. That seems to be defeating dozens of purposes all at once.

 

[Irridium]

Like in minecraft on the 360, where as you move the screen lurches up and down in time with your movement. Its supposed to simulate how the vast majority of humans walk like chickens.
When I went to play that game at a friends house, it made me sick within about 2 minutes. (fortunately you can turn it off) FOV does too, on the PC I play with mine set at 'quake pro' cause any other makes me sick.

When you walk the camera moves up and down. Supposed to simulate how people move. The most extreme offender is the Syndicate re-make. It's also the biggest offender of over-using bloom.

Head-bobbing is supposed to be more "realistic" since humans bob up and down. But humans also have brains which compensate for this so we don't get nauseous every time we move.

Oh, the "walking" thing. That clears it up, thanks.

Yeah, totally, I get why that would be a problem, especially for those more prone to motion sickness. I completely get why they do it, but abusing it's a no-no.... Although... One thing kinda bothers me though and, well... *sucks in air through teeth and squints*

Now you argue immersion, or the lack thereof I guess. I'm not gonna disagree with you, because I've come to find that immersion is 50/50 - one half being the developers' design choices and one half being the player's leniency - However, one could also argue that bobbing isn't any more or less immersive than, say, sliding across places, y'know unless you can glide or are in a really big wheelchair all the time. In that respect, until developers implement bobbing without it being so obnoxious (and perhaps mimic the eyes' tendency to dart), I personally can't in good conscience put 'immersion' and 'First person' in the same sentence, at least not when it comes to the point of view alone.

Now why they do limited FOV is anyone's guess. That seems to be defeating dozens of purposes all at once.

True. Though for me immersion in (most) first-person games ends when I look down and see I don't have legs and am just a floating camera with arms and a gun. But immersion is different for everyone and all that fun stuff.

To be honest, all I want is an option to turn it off. That's it really. Just the option to turn all this stuff off if I want. And a FOV slider.

 

[weirdee]

motion blur is like simulated scope wobble: you're trying to imitate something that is already there, but from the perspective of somebody with severely impaired perception

 

[Twilight_guy]

lol. i always deactivate motion blur. absolutely annoying.

Motion blur always bogs my computer down way more then any other feature, so I disable it to prevent slide shows.

OT: I only support re-release of games I like. I'm not gambling on the even riskier proposition of a potentially bad old game. Oddly enough I already own the games I like (what a coincidence). That makes me unlikely to pick the game up again, since I already own it. Thus re-releases are rather self-defeating for me. (Unless its a game that was on a system I don't own I suppose.)

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Funny thing about overdone bloom/lens-flares is that they're not specific to console ports, BF3 being a prime example:

http://www.thejayzone.com/pics/bf3/bf3_puking.jpg
http://www.sliceofthe.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bf3-2011-09-29-01-14-32-75.jpg

 

[Dfskelleton]

Though I had forgotten just how hilariously awful the shotgun in Doom 3 was.
So much of that game takes place in extreme close-quarters that they had to adjust its accuracy, just so that it wouldn't dominate everything.

Still, they have the tech to traverse between Earth and Mars, yet their shotgun is about as accurate as a blunderbuss.

Weird, the shotgun in Doom 3 was probably my mot used weapon. With how close quarters the game was I found it extremely efficient. It was loads better than the machine gun anyways.
Also am I the only one who actually enjoyed Doom 3?

I quite like Doom 3. I don't think it's a Doom game in the sense that it seems completely separate to Dooms 1, 2, 64 and Final Doom, but on its own it's pretty good I think. Besides, id have a habit of a franchise going in several separate directions at once (how many different universes are there in the Quake series?)

I too liked Doom 3. Being a big fan of the original Doom titles, it was interesting seeing the new takes on some classic weapons, enemies, and setpieces. Sure, some of the weapons felt flimsy and some of the monsters had some strange design choices (Lost Souls in particular), but it wasn't a bad game at all. It just had a lot to live up to.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Yes it matters, Andy.

I... uhh... why are you talking to me...? I was just going to comment that it doesn't matter because they're implicitly designed as console releases for 360 and PS3 and in that sense they're perfectly acceptable! I... stop! Get out of my heeeaad!

...yeah, no. As PC releases they're godawful. Technical abominations, I'd go so far as to say. And even from its inception Doom 3 shouldn't have been a numbered sequel, so the whole idea of releasing a definitive DOOM collection around it is wildly confusing. Painkiller as a series has been crap for a loooong time, though, so returning to "barely decent" is actually a step forward for the series. Even the second Painkiller didn't manage to be that good - and there are, what, five sequels? Each one worse than the last? So, looking at it from the console FPS angle, it doesn't really matter-

GET OUT OF MY HEAD!
YES I KNOW I'M NOT THE ANDY OF WHICH YOU SPEAK BUT IT'S STILL CREEPY

 

[Simskiller]

GOD DAMN IT GREY YOUR COMIC TITLES MAKE THE BEST THREAD TITLES.

No one can beat you, you are the the title master.

 

[The Lugz]

ok.. when you have a super hd screen you tend to want 'some' blur, some. not lots.
because otherwise the pixels tear the resolution of the textures and no, aa will not fix this it is not a polygon edge

custom 8k texture packs, or blurring is the only way to stop textures looking like digital camo on super high def screens

that is the only justification for it, below 1080p or when you're zoomed way out there's no need for it at all, ever.


now, fov is completely dependent on where your screen physically sits as the slice of vision you have changes with distance

for pc's it should be wide, for consoles it should be restricted

as a developer if you don't give me a slider to adjust it i will slap you.

 

[munx13]

and if you choose not to include a FOV option as a "design choice", because people getting headaches and nausea is just so much more hilarious (yes Treyarch, I'm looking at you)

Funny - Treyarch ARE the guys, which give CoD the FoV-Slider. Only up to 80 in BO1 and BO2, but they give it one.
Now Infinity Wards on the other hands...

yeah, up to 80 - as a design choice, because they felt people getting a higher field of view would be an "unfair advantage"... players puking themselves because of motion sickness, on the other hand, is fun for the whole family.
by this thread of logic, they should have simply disabled 5.1 sound in multiplayer (because it's an unfair advantage over players who only have stereo sound systems), and shot anyone using a gaming mouse. it's a bullshit argument, that's what I'm saying.

if your fov slider doesn't go up to at least 110-120, don't even bother (khmm, Dishonored). 80 is only barely acceptable on 4:3 monitors and nausea inducing on anything else, but even on a 16:10 display, I rarely (if ever) go under 100°.

Personally I find 80° FOV the best option for most games and I only use 100°+ FOV for twitch shooters.
TF2 and other Source games have 70-90 and I didn't see any complaints.

 

[TwiZtah]

Yeah, if a game doesn't let me choose a FOV of at least 85-90, I'm not buying it. Which means I don't fucking buy games anymore because everything is made for consoles who use a FOV of 60 tops.

 

[Woodsey]

HIGH DEF ULTRA EDITION EXTREME

Yes it matters, Andy.

I must admit I was rather spooked when I saw that, but I'm going to guess this is Andy Chalk, you're referring to? Or are you just trying to mess with all the Andys in the world.

They were having a debate on Twitter. Andy was talking out of his bum hole.

 

[BX3]

True. Though for me immersion in (most) first-person games ends when I look down and see I don't have legs and am just a floating camera with arms and a gun. But immersion is different for everyone and all that fun stuff.

To be honest, all I want is an option to turn it off. That's it really. Just the option to turn all this stuff off if I want. And a FOV slider.

Oh goodness, yes. That is off-putting. Like, I get that it probably takes work that some developers might deem unnecessary ("Who's gonna be looking at their feet?"), but it's a necessary touch no matter how tiny it is. Heck sometimes it even effects gameplay; If Mirror's Edge didn't animate first person legs, I don't think I could've beaten it.

And yes, options. Cutscene options, subtitle options, bloom and blur options, etc. Developers should implement them more. I don't buy/play games as often as I'd like these days, so for all I know they do, but still, can't be repeated enough how convenient it is.

 

[Rad Party God]

Painkiller and Doom 3 are games that really don't deserve or need an "HD remake", IMO they already run and look fine as they are, sure, the textures are getting blurry and Doom 3 was already ugly when it came out (it's only saving grace was the lights and shadows), but they don't look that bad yet, you can already cram them with antialiasing and all that nilly willy with HD resolution and proper FOV, not to mention the huge pantheon of mods Doom 3 already has.

Shameless cash-in is shameless.

 

[Triality]

This reminded me that researchers are working on Ultra High Definition for the next generation of HDTVs, which will sport 8000 by 6000 pixel dimensions. Off the chain. Not even next gen consoles will be able to handle those graphical demands.

I shudder.

 

[Bindal]

and if you choose not to include a FOV option as a "design choice", because people getting headaches and nausea is just so much more hilarious (yes Treyarch, I'm looking at you)

Funny - Treyarch ARE the guys, which give CoD the FoV-Slider. Only up to 80 in BO1 and BO2, but they give it one.
Now Infinity Wards on the other hands...

yeah, up to 80 - as a design choice, because they felt people getting a higher field of view would be an "unfair advantage"... players puking themselves because of motion sickness, on the other hand, is fun for the whole family.

"Designchoice" was, once again, the excuse IW used. Treyarch said that they capped it at 80 because higher could result into graphical issues. There were no details given on what kind of issues (probably that you could see parts of animations you were not supposed to see, look into your arms, ect.), but it was defenitly NOT "designchoice" or "unfair advantage".
Do a bit research first before you claim people stated something so you don't look like an idiot, will ya?

 

[JJShaw]

and if you choose not to include a FOV option as a "design choice", because people getting headaches and nausea is just so much more hilarious (yes Treyarch, I'm looking at you)

Funny - Treyarch ARE the guys, which give CoD the FoV-Slider. Only up to 80 in BO1 and BO2, but they give it one.
Now Infinity Wards on the other hands...

yeah, up to 80 - as a design choice, because they felt people getting a higher field of view would be an "unfair advantage"... players puking themselves because of motion sickness, on the other hand, is fun for the whole family.

"Designchoice" was, once again, the excuse IW used. Treyarch said that they capped it at 80 because higher could result into graphical issues. There were no details given on what kind of issues (probably that you could see parts of animations you were not supposed to see, look into your arms, ect.), but it was defenitly NOT "designchoice" or "unfair advantage".
Do a bit research first before you claim people stated something so you don't look like an idiot, will ya?

wow, calling the other guy an idiot, that's a sure way to win an argument.
I read the "unfair advantage" thing in an interview a few years back iirc, and also played the single player with a nice, fat FOV of 100 - no problems, no weird animations, no cutscene glitches. none whatsoever. and the whole option was already in the game, requiring only a few console commands, and being classified as a cheat for some fucking reason...
so, as I said previously: bullshit.

however, I WAS wrong to single Treyarc out, and I actually never even meant to do that in the first place - they were just the first guys who popped to mind from a long, long, holy fucking shit how goddamn long list of developers who want to force bullshit like this down their customers (yeah right) throats, or just simply don't give a shit. at least I should have mentioned Raven Software with their very own puke geyser, Singulary, because holy shit... a FOV of about 40°, without any option to change it? [imagine thinly veiled sarcastic remark about the developers being fucking retarded here, I can't think of anything with sufficient scope]