The most controversial Assassin's Creed Mirage graphical setting is being removed for all players
The most controversial Assassin's Creed Mirage graphical setting is being removed for all players
www.pcgamesn.com
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
35 comments
-
-
Glad there isn't even one picture to show what the effect is. Are they talking about lens flare or something similar but different?
-
It is more or less a color halo outlining everything. It was supposed to simulate the subtle visual distortion of older lenses i.e cameras but... who the hell even wants that?
-
I will never understand what asshole thought adding chromatic aberration into EVERY GAME EVER was a good idea.
Probably someone that also likes CBT and the show Big Brother.
-
As an amateur astronomer with a strong eyeglass prescription, chromatic aberration is the bane of my existence. I get why they try to simulate a camera, but the more I can avoid the pitfalls of cheap low quality lenses, the better–I already have two of them on my face all the time
-
Like Bloom in the 7th gen it was the style at the time. Someone at the time had a shitty idea that the "camera" in games should mimic cameras (bad ones) and I guess some exec liked it and was spread along all AAA games.
I guess now we're going back on that like we did with "brown and grey = realism" fad.
-
I don't understand this need to make games look like they're filmed on a camera, it kills the immersion for me. I'm playing a fantasy game, I don't want it to look like I'm watching a shitty video. Some games also do this thing where going from dark to light makes the screen super white so you can barely see for a second, cameras do that very noticably but eyeballs don't
-
The correct way of implementing chromatic aberration would be like the one on the "corrected" side. There is still some, but it really is subtle.
Anyway, I don't think games are a good target for chromatic aberration. It's really meant for photorealistic scenes, mainly photorealistic renders, that give a sort of uncanny valley effect without it.
But once again - it looks stupid if your scene is not photo-realistic in the first place.
-
Is it supposed to highlight the “mirage-ness” of it all or something?
-
It took me way too long to spot the difference.
-
-
-
Clickbait title doesn't say what the feature is and says it's being removed for all players, not just disabled by default.
35 comments
Why add back problems caused by the physical limitations of optical cameras FFS?
Lens flare? We'll just digitally add it back in.
Chromatic aberration? Add it to make it look like you're looking though a cheap lens.
Vignette, check.
Urgh. I'm supposed to be there literally in the game, experiencing things through my own eyes.
My eyes are not cameras. Well they are but not like that.
I think the idea is that it is meant to simulate a camera, when you aren't in first person view. You don't see the world front few feet above your shoulders after all–you're probably used to seeing views like that through a real camera where these things actually occur
Oh, I get that aspect. It's just an objectively better experience without the artifacts of the technical limitls of a physical camera and lens.
It's as if it's driven by an idiot that thinks if it looks like there are lens flares, abberation, vignette, etc. that it was look cinematographic, completely ignoring the actual art of composition, framing, lighting, depth of field, etc... the actual arts of cinematography.
Though, given that I'm the one controlling the vital camera with my mouse or controller, apparently it should suck as much as a real camera.
I think introducing imperfections can in some cases enhance immersion. Our eyes do function like cameras, and have their limitations, but we don't notice them so much. So, I think these "flaws" in games can make them more convincing in a way. I guess it's a personal preference, I like it, but I see why it can be annoying.
I'm still using my eyes!
But I have... Special eyes!
Just like a movie theater, people are used to 24fps in a movie and anything else makes it seem weird and less dreamlike to transport them into the world. (But games aren't 24fps movies, I know. Not the point)
When you clean up all of the visual post processing, the game will look extremely clean. Which makes it feel like it's missing some kinda extra polish. People are so used to all of these elements added for a grounded and dirtier experience that without them it looks, and more importantly, feels too game-y for Ubisoft. (Counter-Strike is super clean, for example)
Look at Resident Evil 2 Remake and you see every single cinematic option in the book, down to lens distortion, being used and being able to be turned off in the settings. It's the look and feel the studio wants to go for.