What a twist - DICE cancels color grading deactivation - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;38154066]Imo it fits Metro 2033 very very fucking well.[/QUOTE] metro does it better than any game i've seen but i still would prefer it without or to a lesser degree.

[QUOTE=Chrille;38150937]Do people still play it?[/QUOTE] I wish I could play it :(

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38154088]uh wow what a fucking strawman if i've ever seen one. well my favorite artstyle in a game is banjo kazooie: nuts and bolts. i don't like realism as much in games.[/QUOTE] What strawman? I get the impression you hate games with 'realistic' objects but 'stylized' colors or lighting, and was asking a harmless question because I was curious to see if you actually liked ANY games or films with that style. What about the movie Inception, many scenes have green-tinted shadows and some have blue tint as well. Do you find that visually horrendous?

[QUOTE=Jaehead;38154106]who cares if it's lazy as long as it ends up looking nice in motion yeah it's true some games overdo it for no apparent reason but I thought it complemented killzone and deus ex's setting nicely.[/QUOTE] If it's done for a reason, like how metro 2033 used it to convey a post apocalyptic, dark atmosphere then it's okay. However when something like battlefield 3 does it, where it's just there for the sake of it, then it generally looks bad.

Seriously regret purchasing BF3 & Premium now. I feel the MP is just weak, somethings off with it, it just doesn't click with me. I thought Armoured Kill & (hey, maybe still) End Game would revive my hopes of BF being good, but it still feels eh... the maps in Armored Kill are brilliant though, I'll give them that This colour correction thing is just another little thing that pisses me off, among many other things. Again, this is my opinion, I'm sure a lot of you guys enjoy BF3. I'd admit that, personally BFBC2 was a far better game

[QUOTE=Jaehead;38154106]who cares if it's lazy as long as it ends up looking nice in motion yeah it's true some games overdo it for no apparent reason but I thought it complemented killzone and deus ex's setting nicely.[/QUOTE] deus ex human revolution is the worst offender, it looks terrible. i didn't buy it because it only because it was so ugly to watch.

[QUOTE=Frankiscool!;38151009]I'd love a new 2142. Titan assaults were the pizaz[/QUOTE] Fuckin' ay. Spent countless hours on Titan servers and would love to go back to that.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38154039]then base your art assets in that aesthetic instead of lazily slapping on postprocess effects. the thing about games is that we can tailor art assets to the aesthetic feel of the game without the need to do any post work. with film there is not normally this option. i assure you, you will not ever find a case in which postprocess work would bring a better result than actually making your art assets to fit your aesthetic intentions in the first place. color grading in games is a lazy cop out to give it a certain feel.[/QUOTE] A million times this. Team fortress 2 is probably the most well known example around these parts. It's stupidly stylized. The color pallet is very limited, but it looks great because it's built that way. Doing this with filters would look like absolute filth.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38154148]If it's done for a reason, like how metro 2033 used it to convey a post apocalyptic, dark atmosphere then it's okay. However when something like battlefield 3 does it, where it's just there for the sake of it, then it generally looks bad.[/QUOTE] Who says it's there 'just for the sake of it' and not to create a certain mood and atmosphere?

[QUOTE=TonyP;38154144]What strawman? I get the impression you hate games with 'realistic' objects but 'stylized' colors or lighting, and was asking a harmless question because I was curious to see if you actually liked ANY games or films with that style.[/QUOTE] films, yes. games, no. [QUOTE=TonyP;38154144]What about the movie Inception, many scenes have green-tinted shadows and some have blue tint as well. Do you find that visually horrendous?[/QUOTE] Inception did it well, my favorite example of color grading in films is Attack the Block live action film does not have the option to dictate color or style in camera as much as games do. most movies do it bad, but some do it well. in games, i see no reason for it to exist at all when it can be done without post.

Are you kidding me? Bunch of fucking assholes. Clearly us fans know nothing about how fans want the game to look. Fuck you DICE, way to sell BF4 to people - 'You think we're assholes now? Wait till you see the next one. Now with more bloom!'

[QUOTE=TonyP;38153891]I don't even go to ANY BF3 forums. Off the top of my head, games I can think of that have a 'natural' color palette -games Games with a mild - moderate amount, disregarding cartoony games - games Games with heavy film effects and color correction, again not including cartoonish games -games[/QUOTE] I didn't think Battlefield 3 looked bad until I saw it without the colour correction. With a few modifications and little to no colour correction it could look so much better that it does now that it's not even funny.

[QUOTE=TonyP;38154199]Who says it's there 'just for the sake of it' and not to create a certain mood and atmosphere?[/QUOTE] What mood and atmosphere? It's been shown to look better without the filter so I really don't see what the filter does, beyond make everything look blue for no reason.

[QUOTE=TonyP;38153891]I don't even go to ANY BF3 forums. Off the top of my head, games I can think of that have a 'natural' color palette - Gran Turismo, MS Flight Sim, Live for Speed/ETC games where that's the point - Half Life games, except for some specific levels. - Call of Duty games? They have a very small amount of it but not enough for me to consider stylized. Games with a mild - moderate amount, disregarding cartoony games - Assassins Creed series - GTA IV - Uncharted series - Mirrors Edge - Silent Hill games - Skyrim - Fallout - Many Final Fantasy games - Crysis 2 Games with heavy film effects and color correction, again not including cartoonish games - Battlefield 3 - Killzone 2 and 3 - Metro 2033 - I Am Alive - Silent Hill games - Spec Ops: the line - Deus Ex: human Revolution - Lost Planet games[/QUOTE] I really don't know, but maybe people are more pissed off about BF3's filter than other games' because it runs on an amazing engine and it's a shame to ruin the photorealism by adding a filter. And I don't know about the other games but I remember quite a bunch of people were complaining about Deus Ex being all yellow.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38154204]films, yes. games, no. Inception did it well, my favorite example of color grading in films is Attack the Block live action film does not have the option to dictate color or style in camera as much as games do. most movies do it bad, but some do it well. in games, i see no reason for it to exist at all when it can be done without post.[/QUOTE] How could they do it by actually changed the textures in a way that wouldn't be more expensive and time consuming? Not only the textures but the lighting as well. Think about it this way: why waste all the money and time painting everything in your house a warm tint when you could just replace your neutral light bulbs with warm ones?

[QUOTE=Jaehead;38154029]um is that a fact[/QUOTE] there is a degree of objectivity and a degree of subjectivity. if you notice i used unintelligible. the reason i used that word specifically is because postprocess effects tend to flatten out forms and reduce the overall clarity of the game. in that case it looks objectively worse. i would have no problems with a game having an overall tint if it was done with assets and lighting rather than slapping a color filter over it.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38154263]there is a degree of objectivity and a degree of subjectivity. if you notice i used unintelligible. the reason i used that word specifically is because postprocess effects tend to flatten out forms and reduce the overall clarity of the game. in that case it looks objectively worse. i would have no problems with a game having an overall tint if it was done with assets and lighting rather than slapping a color filter over it.[/QUOTE] Objectively according to whom? Because to me, and a lot of gamers and reviewers, that doesn't seem to be the case. Either you're right and everybody else is wrong, or it's actually not objective and actually subjective instead.

[QUOTE=TonyP;38154240]How could they do it by fucking with the actual textures in a way that wouldn't be absurdly more expensive and time consuming? Not only textures but lighting as well.[/QUOTE] because you work that way from square one, not after you're already done with the assets. you're supposed to consider everything about a design when you develop it, not wait until it's done and then go back and fuck about. it would take just as much time. [QUOTE=TonyP;38154240]Why waste all the money and time painting everything in your house a warm tint when you could just replace your neutral light bulbs with warm ones?[/QUOTE] the accurate comparison would be to say "why spend the time painting or lighting your house when you can wear ski goggles all the time?" also another reason why this example doesn't work because you are suggesting changing existing content, rather than making content a certain way from the start.

Well considering the whole point is to give it a cinematic feel, I think using the same techniques used in the cinema is fine. And I'm pretty sure ski goggles can't selectively modify shadows, midtones, and highlights differently, and also the contrast and exposure. Maybe a better analogy would be wearing LCD headgear with a high quality camera and and small computer adding cinematic post processing effects in real time.

"Unique"? By having the color grading in the game you're doing the complete opposite by assimilating and doing what every game is doing.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38154263]there is a degree of objectivity and a degree of subjectivity. if you notice i used unintelligible. the reason i used that word specifically is because postprocess effects tend to flatten out forms and reduce the overall clarity of the game. in that case it looks objectively worse. i would have no problems with a game having an overall tint if it was done with assets and lighting rather than slapping a color filter over it.[/QUOTE] or you can see it as hiding visual defects like low res textures wouldn't that be objectively better in a way that colorgrading doesn't let you see how bland or flat an asset is i guess you can argue that all games should have perfectly clear stuff but that can't be the case, primarily due to accessibility because games have to run on consoles and a range of hardware

[QUOTE=TonyP;38154290]Objectively according to whom? Because to me, and a lot of gamers and reviewers, that doesn't seem to be the case. Either you're right and everybody else is wrong, or it's actually not objective and actually subjective instead.[/QUOTE] read my post dude. [B]"if you notice i used unintelligible. the reason i used that word specifically is because postprocess effects tend to flatten out forms and reduce the overall clarity of the game. in that case it looks objectively worse."[/B] this is supported by data (pixels) consider these two examples: 1) you develop your content from the start so the end result looks how you want. you texture and light everything in such a way that it produces the desired result. 2) you develop your content to have neutral colors with neutral/slightly tinted lighting. you then use post work to recolor and change the values. in example 1, what you see is what you get in example 2, data is being crush and modified to produce a result. this results in less readable forms, making example 2 objectively worse. when I said it is subjective to a degree, that means that the objectivity may be irrelevant to someone who likes the end result anyways. I don't. [editline]23rd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jaehead;38154392]or you can see it as hiding visual defects like low res textures wouldn't that be objectively better in a way that colorgrading doesn't let you see how bland or flat an asset is i guess you can argue that all games should have perfectly clear stuff but that can't be the case, primarily due to accessibility because games have to run on consoles and a range of hardware[/QUOTE] if you're having to crush the data to hide content, then it shouldn't be there in the first place. that is a failure on the whole team's part. the fact of hardware limitations is irrelevant; you develop your game for your hardware. if you have to hide things then you're doing it wrong.

i don't understand why hardware limitations are irrelevant

"you develop your game for your hardware" if you are trying to do something that is not attainable without sacrificing visual quality, then you probably shouldn't be doing it. we've had games looking overall low res for ages, but we never covered that up in the past. E: [quote]how bland or flat an asset[/quote] to reply specifically to this bit, if you're making bad assets on a game then you should not be working for that company.

isn't that because it wasn't as effective back then as it is today [editline]wef[/editline] anyhow this is about BF3's colorgrading i agree that in BF3's case it doesn't make sense to make everything blue because without it the game still looks fine, but i can't agree all games would be better off with better assets than postprocess

post-processing is fine if you want to replicate some kind of visual effect like tone-mapping or light refraction but in the case of BF3 it simply makes everything more blue, a visual trick to make the game seem more cold. it's lazy because a game should do more to make you feel cold and isolated besides just making things more blue.

[QUOTE=yjhghtfh;38150701]Welp there goes any chance of me buying it[/QUOTE] DICE and EA probably made the majority of their profits from the game right on launch. I don't think that they really care actually about sales much longer after that.

what is there to be proud of, its just 0 0 255

I hope no pc players buy bf4.

[QUOTE=thisispain;38154841]post-processing is fine if you want to replicate some kind of visual effect like tone-mapping or light refraction but in the case of BF3 it simply makes everything more blue, a visual trick to make the game seem more cold. it's lazy because a game should do more to make you feel cold and isolated besides just making things more blue.[/QUOTE] A game like Battlefield 3 shouldn't even aim to try and make things feel cold or desolate though (with a couple exceptions among the maps). If it absolutely [B]had[/B] to have any colour correction it should generally have warmer, more aggressive tones if anything.