There's also the issue that game FOVs are significantly lower than the standard human FOV (about 135° IIRC). To decrease the FOV even further would probably be a disservice to players.
At least until we all have eye trackers with our computers. There's a significant difference between simulated DOF and peripheral vision: We can observe the blur on a screen; we can look directly at it. Additionally, as Miserable mentioned, the crosshair defines where we want to shoot, not just look. In real life, you're free to independently look and shoot in entirely different directions.
That said, I expect it'll be "the new lens flare" eventually, so we'll get to play a whole bunch of games and decide whether it works or not.
Why is there no focus system in games
Author
I didn't want to apply this new technology on exsisting games... just on some of the new ones...
The idea was to make the mouse-movement more important to vision...
and add a new factor to the diffecaultness :-/
it should still be possible to see whats going on, on the sides of the screen, and in the blury out-of-focus parts....
The idea was to make the mouse-movement more important to vision...
and add a new factor to the diffecaultness :-/
it should still be possible to see whats going on, on the sides of the screen, and in the blury out-of-focus parts....
Quote:To make games more realistic, i think that a DOF system should be invented, or at least included... where the Crosshair defines the Focus point...
Or you could just get a pair of shutter glasses. They work great with UT2004.
I think you can do this with an accumulation buffer... you'd render the frame several times from slightly different angles, with the camera focused on the same thing each time. That's kinda the problem with it, though... to get a good effect you'd probably have to render at least 5 times, and that would cut your eventual frame rate by 5. Same idea with motion blur... it makes rendered CG look much better, but you'd have to re-calculate the position of all objects several times per frame and draw them that many times, effectively dropping your frame-rate.
For the reasons mentioned above, though, I'd look for motion blur in games before you see depth of field. Except maybe for in-engine cinimatics where you know where you want the player to look, it would be hard to make it not annoying while keeping it noticeable enough that it would contribute positively to the overall look of the game.
For the reasons mentioned above, though, I'd look for motion blur in games before you see depth of field. Except maybe for in-engine cinimatics where you know where you want the player to look, it would be hard to make it not annoying while keeping it noticeable enough that it would contribute positively to the overall look of the game.
Just my opinion but I dont think this would work very well in games. I mean if I look around the room now I dont notice any blurring at all, but if you implemented it as you described it would be noticable and I think it would look silly/unrealistic.
Myst IV does something like this.
I haven't played it so I can't say much more. The screenshots look wonderful.
That's how Myst has always been.
Quote:IGN
The game uses an intriguing "depth of field" effect where the game tracks where the mouse pointer is, focusing what it's hovering over and blurring everything else slightly. You can turn this off, as well as toggling water and "immersive" effects.
I haven't played it so I can't say much more. The screenshots look wonderful.
That's how Myst has always been.
Quote:Original post by Montago
Like i said... the crosshair defines focus
and maybe some buttons to lock it... i donno...
Remember ... its not total blur... just a removal of the standard infinite view...
So what if I want to look at something away from the crosshair? :P
Or to put it another way, whatever I'm looking at should be in focus, yes? Everything I'm not looking at should be out of focus and blurry. But who cares about how stuff I'm not looking at looks? It shouldn't make a difference, because whenever I look at something, it should be in focus. And when I'm not looking at it, I wont notice if it's blurry or not. ;)
Unless the system is flawed, and just applies the blur to anything away from the crosshair, like you suggested. But the crosshair doesn't determine what I'm looking at.
I know photographs aren't that adaptable, but our eyes are, and I don't see any purpose in adding artifical blurriness. ;)
Quote:Original post by MontagoImagine you're playing quake 3. You run around a LOT and you're crosshair is constnatly moving, right? Now imagine that everything not at the same depth as the thing your crosshair is pointing at is blurry. You'd get a headache instantly I think, because as you're running around things are pretty much randomly blurring and unblurring and your eyes just arent' used to that. The crosshair only indicates focus the single frame you pull the trigger, because other times it controls the direction you move in.
I didn't want to apply this new technology on exsisting games... just on some of the new ones...
The idea was to make the mouse-movement more important to vision...
and add a new factor to the diffecaultness :-/
it should still be possible to see whats going on, on the sides of the screen, and in the blury out-of-focus parts....
It MIGHT work for some games, but they'd have to be extremely slow paced and truly you'd need to add in some kind of system to control moment, gun aiming, and eye focus seperately, which comes out to 3 control systems for 2 hands which IMO wouldn't work. Maybe if you made one of those 'choose your own adventure' video-style games it could work, since you don't control the camera at all and the focus would be developer-defined.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
