Lense Flare and Other Effects In Third-Person Games

[Something Amyss]

Been a while since I actually noticed this, but I decided to try the demo for "The Crew," despite low expectations. So I'm cruising around, when I get water effects splashed on the screen, and I actually crashed because I wasn't expecting it. Then I got it with mud. And my thought was "that's actually kind of irritating."

I don't seem to mind this so much in first-person games, though it's silly unless stuff is actually getting in your eyes (unless I'm wrong about human anatomy and you actually do see red when you stub your toe). Third-Person games, it tends to pull me out more. Maybe that's just me, which is part of why I'm making a thread.

I used to think lens flare and such were pretty cool. Maybe it has soemthing to do with the way games were still evolving in my eyes, or maybe I've just worn out on the whole "cinematic" thing. I think I can sort of justify it with first person because the eye and the camera are essentially the same thing (and possibly because glasses make these visuals somewhat more plausible, save for blood). With third-person, not so much.

I don't know. Is there a place for such effects in gaming? Do you folks like them?

 

[Strazdas]

I think your reaction was right. "thats kind of irriatation" is exactly how i react to camera effects like those. water and mud is rather rare, but A LOT of games use these effects for blood to indicate you've been hit. the last thing i want when i got damage is to not be able to see shit on my screen.

If i can, i always turn these things off along with motion blur and DoF. anything that lowers visibility is a BAD thing.

Also you do realize that human eyes dont actually see lens flares, they are entirely camera-specific thing that was initially created because cameras sucked but is now used as some kind of artistic merit by some directors? so its no realism here for FPSes.

Whats more or less realistic but still annoying is ambient oclusion. its the effect where light "bleeds" around objects. this is something you see in real life too due to how light bends and your eyes see it, but games tend to overuse it to the point where the result is "Everything is shimmering". that gets annoying real fast.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Depends on the game (Very original, I know).

One of the first camera effects I can remember was in Metal Gear Solid 2, where the the rain would hit the screen in the tanker level. And it gave the impression of an overwhelming storm. And that's usually how I see it. It's less about making you feel there's a camera, and more about a substitute for having something hitting your face, like water, or blood, or dust particles. Eventhough it's third-person, and therefor wouldn't make any sense to have bloodsplatter hit an invisible field 3 feet behind them, it can still help in providing sort of a subsidiary disoriantation... or something.

A 2D platformer, on the other hand, I think would have very little use for it.

I think just like bloom lighting there's a right way and a wrong way to use it. Unlike bloom lighting I don't think camera effects have ever really bothered me.

 

[DoPo]

I'm wrong about human anatomy and you actually do see red when you stub your toe

Wait do you not see red when you stub your toe? Or do you just not stub your toes?

the last thing i want when i got damage is to not be able to see shit on my screen.

Precisely. It's supposed to indicate if you're close to dying but it often makes you die just because you can't see. Sure, one can claim it's mechanics reflecting reality (badly injured are not as good at fighting) but there are way better ways to do that.

If i can, i always turn these things off along with motion blur and DoF. anything that lowers visibility is a BAD thing.

Oh yeah, me, too. Motion blur is atrocious - I've never liked it. Never understood why it came into being, either - it doesn't do anything. As in, doesn't simulate anything that you'd expect, doesn't help with the immersion in any way, it's not really a some metaphor for anything, it's not even a gaming thing that we should just expect because games (insta hear medkits, for example). At the very least, it might not be noticeable. In a lot of cases, it's actively distracting and annoying.

Depth of field just doesn't really work in games. Sure, it is there in real life, however, the game does not behave like real life eyes. I can move my eyes on focus on differnt parats of the screen, I don't need to move the screen. DoF could only possibly work with Occulus rift or similar where moving your screen is tied to moving your gaze. Even then, at best, it would probably feel awkward at times, as you need to move your entire head.

Also you do realize that human eyes dont actually see lens flares, they are entirely camera-specific thing

As, I believe, is motion blur. Perhaps adding it to games (specifically when turning and such) is an attempt to make it literally "more cinematic" by adding camera stuff in.

 

[Strazdas]

Also you do realize that human eyes dont actually see lens flares, they are entirely camera-specific thing

As, I believe, is motion blur. Perhaps adding it to games (specifically when turning and such) is an attempt to make it literally "more cinematic" by adding camera stuff in.

When you use a car, look out of the window at something close to you and see it fly by you at high speed. It will look blurred. This is what motion blur is supposed to simulate. however, games constantly fail at doing this because actual angular motion calculation of every object would be extremely intensive calculation and they couldnt cut corners like they do for most things.

Though the motion blur most people know is just cameras being set to too long exposure so they end up catching motion and blurring the frame filmed.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

For third person games, changes in the camera, like it shaking or being forced to move, is the most I can tolerate.

Anything like you mentioned can go turn itself off in the options menu.

For FPS games, I can tolerate anything, but I generally dont like water effects that look more like they belong on a windshield than your face.

 

[Zenja]

I like that stuff myself. For example, if you just got hit in the face... or worse shot, you are probably disoriented and don't have your bearings to instantly shake it off. So when you can't see on a game because you took damage - so long as it is trying to be cinematic, then it makes sense that it is harder to get your bearings. IN a fighting game or something, I understand. If you drive through water or mud, that stuff actually does get on your windshield and make it hard to see. Whether first or third person, the point is your view is obstructed.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

For me it depends how it's done. It doesn't make much sense in a third person game, but like Casual Shinji mentioned, it can add to the atmosphere as long as it's not intrusive or blocks out half the screen.

For screen splatter effects in first person games, I actually kind of like them as long as they're done right. Even effects that block out the screen, so long as they have a reason to.
Left4Dead is an example. In it, there's a zombie that vomits bile on the survivors, and if you get hit as a survivor your whole screen gets blurred out in this green liquidy effect and your HUD disappears. It's bloody annoying, but it serves an intended effect, to purposely disorient the player rather than impose a mechanical disadvantage to the character.

Granted, if the screen goes all wonky everytime you dip your toe in a puddle or someone manages to scratch your arm with a stray bullet, it'll get old really fast. It's about finding a good balance I'd say

 

[DoPo]

Also you do realize that human eyes dont actually see lens flares, they are entirely camera-specific thing

As, I believe, is motion blur. Perhaps adding it to games (specifically when turning and such) is an attempt to make it literally "more cinematic" by adding camera stuff in.

When you use a car, look out of the window at something close to you and see it fly by you at high speed. It will look blurred. This is what motion blur is supposed to simulate. however, games constantly fail at doing this because actual angular motion calculation of every object would be extremely intensive calculation and they couldnt cut corners like they do for most things.

Though the motion blur most people know is just cameras being set to too long exposure so they end up catching motion and blurring the frame filmed.

Yeah, my problem is mainly with everything blurring when you turn around. That's not how eyes work. If you turn around quickly, you don't see a blur but snapshots of the the view changing as your eyes literally stop working for milliseconds at a time. In order to avoid motion blur.

 

[Barbas]

I don't like that a lot in 1st-person or 3rd-person games, but 1st-person tends to be worse. Motion blur seems a ridiculous concept as well. Bloom has thankfully been tuned down in most games now. I don't want those things when I'm supposed to be able to see what I'm looking at. If they're included, I'd better be able to turn them off in the options menu.

You know what I don't hate, though? I don't hate grass.[footnote]Unless I drop something.[/footnote]

Spoiler

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

You know what I don't hate, though? I don't hate grass.

Spoiler

Ahh, one of the most boring things in real life (unless you have someone to frolic and romance about in it with), yet one of the most amazing things in video-games. God speed, digi-grass...god speed!

I kind of like the distractions, lens flare, mud, blood, the imaginary faeries that fly into my hover camera because they they were highly unaware of curiosity's deadly toxin of high speed impact. Bring it all on, i say! I'm not even going to defend my position, just going to leave it hanging. Like the alien blood that refuses to wipe off your visor! Byeee!

 

[Scarim Coral]

I see the lens flare the oldest troupe to used in video games these days.

Likewise with the OP, it was cool when they start using it at first but now I'm sick of it.

 

[IceForce]

I guess it's an unpopular opinion, but I personally love lens flares. I know people rage on about how they're not 'realistic' or whatnot, but from a purely stylistic perspective I love them.
Though I'll agree that screen-sticky effects such as blood or whatever, is annoying.

 

[Cryselle]

It's like any tool really. Used well, it can add visual quality to a game. But a lot of games throw it in there because it's one of those things that games have thrown in there, and that's usually crap.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Personally, I hate most screen effects in most games, and turn them off whenever possible. That includes motion blur, lens flare, and 'splashes.'

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I don't mind most of these effects as long as i can turn them off. Though the one that i always turn off is motion blur.
I have yet to play a game where it didn't a)look unrealistic b)hog my precious frames.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I love lens flares. Mass Effect just wouldn't be the same without 'em. I like most screen effects with the exception of motion blur, but even that can look nice in some games, though rarely.

 

[Something Amyss]

Wait do you not see red when you stub your toe? Or do you just not stub your toes?

I'm not human I don't stub my toes.

As, I believe, is motion blur.

He seems to be addressing my mention of seeing it. Call it what you want, but I can reproduce a similar optical effect right here and now with my glasses and a flashlight, which is what I was referencing.

Of course, now I'm typing through spots....

Anything like you mentioned can go turn itself off in the options menu.

I wish that was always an option.

 

[Battenberg]

As a rule I rather like effects like that. There was one game (think it was RDR) where if you looked up while it was raining you'd start getting drips on the screen and I spent a good 5-10 minutes testing it out when I found it. Little details like that just really endear a game to me,like back in the early ps3 era and devs started having characters' feet actually line up with individual steps when you go up stairs instead of just hovering over or even inside the staircase. Yes I know that's a weird thing to find interesting in a game.

The only exception with visual effects like lens flare is when it obstructs the screen to the point of stopping you seeing other, more important things.

 

[votemarvel]

I hate anything that blocks my view of the screen. The reddening of the screen edge when you are taking damage, Mass Effect 2 is the worst I've encountered for this, just blocks my view of what is going on when I need it the most.