Why is Motion Blur so prevalent in games when it looks nothing like normal human vision? |
- Why is Motion Blur so prevalent in games when it looks nothing like normal human vision?
- Clustertruck and Committed Jump-Arcs
- Thoughts on Early Access games
- [Meta] Truegaming Spreads Misinformation?
- Game Series: Do you play games in series back-to-back? Do you space it in between games with a filler or an epic-length game?
- What does it mean to say, that a game is too ambitious?
- When someone says your watch is on the wrong arm.
- Mass media wars (game concept, need advice)
- Two Bros One Game: The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess
- MYTH BUSTED: ‘super widescreen is super immersive because it (better) matches your peripheral vision!’
| Why is Motion Blur so prevalent in games when it looks nothing like normal human vision? Posted: 29 Sep 2016 02:19 AM PDT Maybe this is a dumb question, I dunno. Does it look normal and my eyes are just fucked up? Motion Blur is the first thing I deactivate in any game I play and recently I came by a few that didn't even give me the option or only let me tweak the Motion Blur quality instead of turning it off entirely. This always puzzled me. Is no one bothered by the fact that your entire view is blurred by the slightest camera movements? Why would I want to intentionally see less at any time? Are other people getting any negative effects that I don't when they turn it off, like headaches? [link] [comments]  |
| Clustertruck and Committed Jump-Arcs Posted: 28 Sep 2016 05:33 PM PDT The game Clustertruck was released on steam yesterday. If you somewhat regularly check in on r/gaming you have probably seen the gifs before. The gameplay consists of jumping from one truck to another as part of a convoy making their way crazily through an abstract course. This game isn't really trying to simulate anything - these aren't realistic trucks or drivers or roads and you aren't really a person obeying realistic physics. It's platforming with an interesting aesthetic and quite a bit of challenge. However, what I want to talk about are committed jump arcs and how they are executed in the game. Most of the trailer footage for Clustertrucks shows a skilled player jumping in smooth, graceful mostly unbroken arcs from one truck to the next. It does look like they have some air control - you can see them making minor adjustments mid-air, but not so much that the jump loses any momentum. The person playing this makes jumping look precise and elegant. The jump arcs in this game are far from committed. When you jump you have an extremely high degree of control over your speed and direction mid-air. You can come to a dead stop, instantly, mid-air. You can change directions completely, instantly, mid-air. You can stop mid-air, then return back to full speed instantly, mid-air. Double jump has been a staple of platformers for a long time and having some degree over mid-air control of your jumps has similarly been around forever. Many games use many different settings for how much control you have in the air. Some, like Mario 64, use a middle ground where you do have some control, but it's sluggish. It doesn't let you turn a massive failure into success but you can do minor course corrections. There are games with high, low, and everything in-between. Why I'm bringing this up in regards to Clustertruck, is that the amount of air-control feels . . . dissonant. Excessive. Your character moves very fast. Going from max speed to stopped, back to max speed again, mid-air, feels janky as fuck. Its jarring. It's uncomfortable. It feels . . . robotic in that it makes movement jerky and sudden and conforming to exact positions. Its not fluid, it's not someone making bounding leaps, it's more like a nervous hummingbird flittering about. It just seems like a really odd choice. Maybe that level of control is necessary for high-level plays but . . . it just does not look or feel good to me. I also feel like they would not have missed much by putting stricter limits on air control. No game I know has this much freedom in the air. Not even games that have jet-packs. I'm certainly not saying its a bad game. What do you guys think? [link] [comments]  |
| Thoughts on Early Access games Posted: 29 Sep 2016 09:36 AM PDT It dawned on me just how prevalent early access is in gaming when I looked at the Steam top sellers today and saw four of the games on their were early access, including the top two. I have my own mixed feelings on whether or not this is a good thing for the gaming community. For the most part, I'm against the idea of early access. I was interested in H1Z1, but I don't think I'll ever buy it due to overall negative reception it has received, with claims of developers abandoning the major bugs in the game in favor of working on the crate system, where you can use real-life currency to buy an airdrop with weapons and supplies, but you have to fight to get the contents to avoid it being too pay 2 win. ARK: Survival Evolved received a lot of flak recently for releasing paid DLC..paid DLC in an early access game. Why would a developer sink resources into making a DLC on an unfinished game? Early Access makes it too easy to make a promise of what a game will be, collect the money, and cash out without delivering what the game should have been. At the same time, I've had a lot of fun with early access games. I bought The Forest when it first came out over two years ago. It's a little disappointing to see a game in early access for so long. I feel it's fairly priced for the amount of content I was able to play around with. I put almost 30 hours into it. It's also pretty fun to pop in every couple of months and see what's changed, what bugs have been fixed etc. Killing Floor 2 is by far my favorite early access game, and one of my favorite multiplayer games of all time. It's very polished, and even though the game had some controversy around it when it released the skins system, I feel like it's a complete game as is, although a lot more maps would be nice. The developer was really good about releasing free maps periodically for the first Killing Floor. Overall, I've had some fun with early access games, but I'm worried about developers not finishing their games and seeing the Steam market flooded with half-games, or scumbag developers going along the ARK method of doing early access. What do you think about early access, is it worth having shit games that can be ignored to get the next gem from a dedicated developer who just needs the funding, or will enough people buy into unfinished games that never get finished that this becomes the new industry standard? I'm worried this will become the next pre-ordering, or day one DLC. [link] [comments]  |
| [Meta] Truegaming Spreads Misinformation? Posted: 29 Sep 2016 10:24 AM PDT Often, I'll start to read a post in r/truegaming and the original post or top response shares facts that are absolutely incorrect - which would be fine if they were corrected, but often the responses all agree. It would also be fine if the person posting shared the information with qualifiers like, "I suspect that X" or "I am not sure, but I think Y"; however, these incorrect comments are made without qualifiers as if they are facts. I have several examples to share, but I am choosing not to do so because my intention is not to single out these posters or make anyone feel badly. However, I would like to suggest that we add a rule that people use qualifiers when sharing speculation so that it is understood to be speculation and that misinformation not be allowed. We could then report false facts to moderators (with links to developer sources) and have those posts that share misinformation either removed or edited to have tags that show that they are speculation - with a link to the actual correct information. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 28 Sep 2016 04:15 PM PDT |
| What does it mean to say, that a game is too ambitious? Posted: 29 Sep 2016 12:46 AM PDT You would think that ambition is good and that we want developers to consistently push the limits on what gaming can do, but it seems that we only praise it when it succeeds and we demonize it when it fails. MGS5 is a game that is hailed to be too ambitious - that it tried to do too many things at once and that it should have completed the core story first and then work on all the little details - from all the quirky game mechanics to the side-missions, secrets etc. How to determine, when a game tries to do too much and how to appropriately set the scope in order to avoid a massive overreach? Do you also have any other examples, where you feel that the developers were overstretching with their capabilities and should have gone for a more modest scope? [link] [comments]  |
| When someone says your watch is on the wrong arm. Posted: 29 Sep 2016 11:31 AM PDT |
| Mass media wars (game concept, need advice) Posted: 28 Sep 2016 11:02 PM PDT So I want to make a game (mass media wars). Here's the concept. You are the main censor of either Russia or the USA. Whatever your country's president does, you have to sugarcoat it, and if you don't, your president's opposition wins and you're fired (meaning game's over). You start with Earth's map (think of defcon or plague Inc at this point). And you start with 3 choices; each will provide some boost in relationships with some certain countries. Then, according to the overall country relationship increase, you get a point (1 per every 10% of the country's citizens that support you) and then you can spend those points on organizing a hacking, spying etc. on the opposite country to promote your agenda. Also, random events happen (you're still on the same earth map), where you also have to decide how to present it to the public, and according to your choice you get a certain amount of points in certain countries or lose some in others. The goal is to either make your opponent lose to opposition or take over all the countries on the planet influence-wise (think cold war) What do you think of the gameplay? It may sound interesting, but would you actually buy such a game? Also, in which year should the events take place? I could make it 2010 and make real events speak for themselves according to how it was all actually presented Or I could make it year 2018 and fantasize from there Or just make my own world and start from scratch (for example Russia wouldn't have Crimea) The game would also not contain any revelations, of course (like, who is the liar, who is the good and who is the bad, there's simply no way of knowing all the details) - I'd try to make it as neutral as I can, but I guess it would be fun to read stuff about other countries and their attitude towards USA/Russia (you'd have to, in order to efficiently think out strategies of getting the countries on your side) and just generally learn ways of how media manipulates people (or might manipulate, in some cases) Anyway, what do you think? [link] [comments]  |
| Two Bros One Game: The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess Posted: 29 Sep 2016 06:21 AM PDT |
| Posted: 29 Sep 2016 12:45 AM PDT Yep. Super widescreen, ladies & gentlemen. AKA: the newest marketing ploy to sell new screens to the gullible. Because nature, right? The human visual field just so happens to be super-wide, right? It's a biological, physiological fact, right? So of course having a super-wide screen is the logical progress of technology, right? Right? ... Wait for it... ( ?? ? ?? ) ... WRONG.Here's the kicker:
And for good reason: it's that very overlap that enables our stereoscopic 3D vision! No overlap? No 3D! And it is due to that overlap that, contrary to popular belief, the human visual field is not really that wide. No, Sir. No refunds. In fact, it sits between 4:3 and 16:9. So even 16:9 is actually wider than needed to fully cover the entire human visual field. And yes: that includes the complete peripheral vision! Okay, you don't believe me. And you won't. Because you just simply don't want to, and that's okay. But here's the facts:
As shown and expected, the peripheral vision approaches 180�, and there's a massive left-right overlap in the middle, where the visual 3D perception occurs. 'Near 180� peripheral vision?? Wow, that seems pretty darn wide, does it not?' -- you inquire foxishly. Well, for any screen to fully accommodate the visual field without wasting screen space, it needs to form a bounding box around the entire visual field. So let's take a look at the aspect ratio of this elusive, quasi-magical screen that would indeed precisely cover the entire human visual field, the full peripheral vision included! It's
'AW FUKC! >,< 'So... VERDICT/tl;dr: Both 16:9 and super-wide screens such as 21:9 (LOL srsly?) are actually SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER than the natural human visual field, peripheral vision included. Thus they FAIL their basic premise of matching the supposedly 'wide'/'super-wide' human visual field. You may commence your hissy fits and mouth-frothing personal attacks now. (Or actually discuss the points raised, as you're supposed to.) (�?�) [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from For those who like talking about games as much as playing them.. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Emoticon