So,
After reading some good defenses on either side of the argument (I still know where I stay on the issue, sorry, I'm an old D1 fan), I decided to post up a compromise thread. Obviously the developers will get the last word, as they have to try and arrive at a solution that pleases the largest fanbase.
My question is, why not just have graphics option sliders for hue, gamma, and contrast?
Perhaps not something so robust as the old Farcry engine, but at least something that could let you get the "feel" you want out of the given palette. For those of you who don't recall, the Farcry engine allowed selectable rendering paths - that meant negative, oversaturated, undersaturated, sepia, basically all those options on your digital camera were possible.
I have mentioned this before, IDK how well it was taken or even if it CAN be implemented in the game. If it really lengthens the production time, I could live without it. If it isn't much trouble, then that would be awesome.
I have mentioned this before, IDK how well it was taken or even if it CAN be implemented in the game. If it really lengthens the production time, I could live without it. If it isn't much trouble, then that would be awesome.
no, lets jsut make rash generalizations!
like what the fallout kids are doing about fallout 3 w/o playing it
like what the tfc kids did about tf2, until they played it
like what these 14 year olds who haven't gotten passed nightmare mode are doing, until their moms say "no, I will not buy you a M game"
Just to make sure of the idea; graphics engines can select and send parameters on paths - not quite like adjusting the knobs on your monitor.
We can do that regardless.
It just depends on how configurable (and accessible) the options are. In theory, you could have selectable options to include or remove API features, like selectable HDR in Half-life 2, or, showing my age here, Quake engines had very hackable parameters open to the interested - prompting countless config files shared across the net.
its pretty funny that my screen OSD has full control of RGB and i can even create profiles on it, i can create a specific profile to make diablo darker if i want to with just the touch of a button in the screen
but i dont mind the way the game looks anyway so i most probably wont use it.
That is true, though - good point! How many whiners would be perfectly happy if they'd just use the OSD...
Ok,
So I'm geeking out a bit - hopefully i don't sound like I'm bucking for a job at Blizzard.
But, also how about an adjustable global value of light. Not quite the same as changing overall gamma; making shadows seem grayer instead of blacker. If you have increased the actual value of light in Maya or 3DS, you get shadows that are more or less contrasting, more or less sharp, and contributes to a more or less hazy feel to the image.
All of this is done without changing a single model or texture. I'm just saying it would be a resource cheap way to provide options.
Gears of War had 4 presets: Default, Soft, Vibrant, and Lucid. It was a nice touch and actually had a bit of an impact on my mood. More games should use it IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Walk tall, kick ass, learn to speak Arabic, love music and never forget you come from a long line of truth seekers, lovers and warriors.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Like everyone knows wow is a glowy and shiny game. Reduce gamma click full screen glow effect off and tada.. suddenly it turned into a rough darker enviroment. Todays games tend to have somewhat a lot options to configure how it looks.
After reading some good defenses on either side of the argument (I still know where I stay on the issue, sorry, I'm an old D1 fan), I decided to post up a compromise thread. Obviously the developers will get the last word, as they have to try and arrive at a solution that pleases the largest fanbase.
My question is, why not just have graphics option sliders for hue, gamma, and contrast?
Perhaps not something so robust as the old Farcry engine, but at least something that could let you get the "feel" you want out of the given palette. For those of you who don't recall, the Farcry engine allowed selectable rendering paths - that meant negative, oversaturated, undersaturated, sepia, basically all those options on your digital camera were possible.
no, lets jsut make rash generalizations!
like what the fallout kids are doing about fallout 3 w/o playing it
like what the tfc kids did about tf2, until they played it
like what these 14 year olds who haven't gotten passed nightmare mode are doing, until their moms say "no, I will not buy you a M game"
We can do that regardless.
It just depends on how configurable (and accessible) the options are. In theory, you could have selectable options to include or remove API features, like selectable HDR in Half-life 2, or, showing my age here, Quake engines had very hackable parameters open to the interested - prompting countless config files shared across the net.
That is true, though - good point! How many whiners would be perfectly happy if they'd just use the OSD...
Over confidence is the rot.
So I'm geeking out a bit - hopefully i don't sound like I'm bucking for a job at Blizzard.
But, also how about an adjustable global value of light. Not quite the same as changing overall gamma; making shadows seem grayer instead of blacker. If you have increased the actual value of light in Maya or 3DS, you get shadows that are more or less contrasting, more or less sharp, and contributes to a more or less hazy feel to the image.
All of this is done without changing a single model or texture. I'm just saying it would be a resource cheap way to provide options.
-Hunter S. Thompson
TED . LEAP . Woot . MF
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
And D2 and WoW have gamma and contrast sliders built-in.