Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Do Videogames Need More Graphical Grit?

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the pixelation-grunge-teakettle dept.

GameCube (Games) 105

Thanks to GamerDad for its editorial discussing whether some recent videogames, such as Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, look "too sterile and perfect" . The author explains: "The animation is fine but the world Snake runs through is too sharp edged. There's no dirt and grime in the graphics because they're perfect versions of what was seen in the original game. Somehow, these better graphics have detracted somewhat from my opinion of the newer game." He continues: "DOOM 3, for as great as it looks, suffers from a lack of grit in still shots. I'm hoping the final game will not have the plastic look of the current pictures. Even the highly polished Quake III Arena didn't come across as being plastic to me." Do other gamers share this perception of graphical sterility in some recent games?

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Games need a dirt filter (3, Interesting)

nadadogg (652178) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614139)

This is true. Too often games are overpolished, and look sterile to me as well. Hell, once they come up with a "dirt" filter for textures, games will feel a good bit more immersive than they currently do.

Re:Games need a dirt filter (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8614898)

I agree.

Notice how it's usually real-time 3D that looks a little too pristine. Pre-rendered stuff tends to look much more realistic (look at Resident Evil and Resident Evil 0 on the GameCube to see what I mean - the backgrounds are gorgeous and realistically dirty where applicable). I'm not saying that it's only 3D games that do this; it's even rare in 2D games where dirt can be represented as easily as swapping the colors on a sprite. It's a matter of developers not paying attention to the same details (by accident, by design, or by force) that some other gamers might.

In my opinion what should be a nice short term goal for game graphic engine developers would be for real-time rendered grime to adhere to character models in a believable fashion. A game character shouldn't look like he just had his outfit dry cleaned if he's just been in the middle of a mudslide.

Re:Games need a dirt filter (5, Interesting)

Trillian_1138 (221423) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615210)

I think we're also reaching what's called the "Uncanny Valley" (good explanation: ).
"Stated simply, the idea is that if one were to plot emotional response against similarity to human appearance and movement, the curve is not a sure, steady upward trend. Instead, there is a peak shortly before one reaches a completely human "look" . . . but then a deep chasm plunges below neutrality into a strongly negative response before rebounding to a second peak where resemblance to humanity is complete."

The website explains it very well, with helpful graphs. Basically, people are willing to accept unrealistic portrayal of a 'live' thing (teddy bears or straight animation). As you approach actual photo-realism people continue to accept the visual as looking 'good'. Take Toy Story or Finding Nemo for examples. But then there is a sudden dropoff where the object looks real enough to be creepy, but not real enough to be convincing. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within arguably suffered from this.

Relating it to videogames, Mario was only the vaguest representation of 'reality' and everyone was fine accepting this jumping 2D. figure. No one was saying the graphics in Mario were disturbing or whatever. Leap forward to Mario 64, and it's still cartoon-ish enough that it doesn't look weird. But games are beginning to reach the Uncanny Valley where they are real enough to be disturbingly lifelike, but where the movement animation and graphics aren't actually realistic enough to jump out of the Uncanny Valley.

This isn't directly related to what the article is talking about, as this is more about movement animation than the environment of the game world, but it's on the same topic. Games are becoming real enough that we're beginning to have problems with the discrepancies between game and reality. No one complained Mario 64 or Sonic or Final Fantasy VII looked 'unrealistic' because they were clearly only attempts to model and emulate specific parts of reality, to give an idea of the world rather than model every single blade of grass. But as graphics attempt to move towards modeling every single blade of grass they suffer the danger of hitting this Uncanny Vally wall.


Re: Uhhhhhhhh that's convoluted (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8627576)

Way to go, convolutiong something simple into a drawn out explanation aklin to rocket science. --Well it's not.

A game like Mario is cartoony. Even Mario Sunshine with its ultra cool water effects and slick graphics is still designed to be a cartoony game, and therefore no one is going to be bothered by how clean it look.

The problem is with games that attempt to mimic reality. 3D artists work hard to re-create real-world environments and objects, but the problem is that artists have to conciously remind themselves that the world isn't brand new. It's become easy to model and render something in 3D and have it look perfect. Like it's just been manufactured. But real life isn't like that. Real-life objects have scratches, dust, dirt, aging, rusting, fading....

Just check out a game like Silent Hill 2 and 3 as examples of graphics where the artists were concious about how to model and texture the world to look like it was aged. (Of course, they aged it beyond "normal", but it's still a great example).

There's no need for "dirt filters". It's up to the texture artists and the art directors that over-see the overall look of a game to remember to include such details as age, dirt, dust, scratches, etc.....

Re:Games need a dirt filter (0, Flamebait)

danila (69889) | more than 10 years ago | (#8628043)

Bullshit. This valley thing is popping up again and again, but I'd really like to see an illustration. Not just some made up graphs, but illustrations that would prove the point. And beyond that, I don't see how it would apply to video games. Can you provide an illustration here? Consider the Doom3 marine, nVidia Dawn or Alyx Vance from Half-Life 2. Are they beyond or before the Valley? If they are already beyond, we don't have a problem and I don't remember scary character in between these and Pacman. If they are still before the uncanny valley, let me just say that I have extreme difficulty visualising their scary and frightening descendants.

I just thought up a competing theory. :) I think the reason we don't like some human-like creatures/objects is either because they are poorly done or because they specifically look similar to sick/dead/mad humans. Zombies look scary not because they are too similar to humans, but not really humans. Zombies look scary, first, because they were artificially selected for that, and second, because they look like humans with leprosy, plague, anfrax, syphilis, cancer, encephalitis, etc. at the same time. Some robots look scary because they look like dissected humans with all the mess of wires, or like a human with some skin problem. :)

I can't name a character in a well done 3D game that would look bad because of the uncanny valley. It is always bad design that is causing my aversion.

Re:Games need a dirt filter (2, Insightful)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 10 years ago | (#8629760)

Your competing theory is, in fact, the same thing. The "uncanny valley" is basically where zombies live - they LOOK incredibly human, but their motion just isn't quite right (the same thing applies to realistic robots).

I agree with you that this thing doesn't apply to video games - everything's either scripted or such basic movement that nobody really cares enough to get freaked out by their closeness to humans (though they can freak us out for other reasons such as jumping out from hiding, etc., but that's all by design).

Re:Games need a dirt filter (1)

Trillian_1138 (221423) | more than 10 years ago | (#8629814)

I actually pretty much agree that we haven't totaly reached the uncanny valley yet, I just think we're getting there. I can see a point in the near future when a game will come out that is unsettling because the main character walks and talks in a way that is amazingly lifelike, but off in some key way. It's very easy (comparatively) to make a Mario-styled 2D game that needs to be only the merest reflection of reality. It's much harder to make a game like Splinter Cell or Doom where the goal is tons of realism. And I think we're reaching a cliff, where it'll be exponentially harder to reach the next graphical goal of photorealistic, true-to-life realtime graphics (or even pregenerated ones).

I'd agree we haven't quite gotten to the cliff yet, as games are still too unrealistic to be quite in the uncanny valley, but I think we're getting there.


Re:Games need a dirt filter (1)

danila (69889) | more than 10 years ago | (#8632139)

Your competing theory is, in fact, the same thing.
I disagree. Probably I was too vague about it, so here are some examples.

As I said, one of the reasons we don't like computer humans is that they are poorly done. But I didn't mean uncanny valley-style disgust or fear, I meant that when you play some extremely poorly done game, you are just disgusted by the game. :)

But the real argument was that some objects/creatures look scary not because they are too similar to humans, but because they are specifically/accidentally made to look similar to sick/mutated/retarded/dead humans.

I also think that this can apply to robots as well. If at every stage you make teh robot aesthetically pleasing, even though it is still not a complete representation of a human, you will be allright. They key is not to make it ugly (by using bad materials, crappy designer, etc.) when you can avoid it.

Re:Games need a dirt filter (2, Interesting)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616956)

Scheck out 'Chronicles of Riddick' - this one looks pretty good, with dirty stuff, rust, etc.

Screenshots []

Realism (3, Interesting)

oO Peeping Tom Oo (750505) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614218)

I belive that as the technology to have "perfect" animations continues, we will be hitting a celing soon. Through adding "grime" to those animations in proper areas, we will be able to further add to that realism by bringing "real world" effects into the games with realism. Even with more advanced engines we will be able to see this. Splashing muddy water on a character, anyone?

Re:Realism (2, Informative)

nadadogg (652178) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614282)

Oooh, I didn't even think of that. Having your character get all dirty after going prone in the dirt or mud would definitely be nice. Maybe occasional water drips from your hair/hat if it's raining. Actually, the new Metroid on the gamecube actually had some nice water effects, with droplets on the visor, and a reflection of your eyes due to glare.

Blame Direct X (5, Insightful)

NickFusion (456530) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615139)

The ability to cheaply do reflection mapping means anything glossy now gets a perfectly focused reflection mapped on it, which looks cool for about 5 minutes, then starts to grate.

Reflections are rarely perfect. What a lot of these new games need to take the edge off is a blurred reflection.

Here's a test render I did a while back comparing hard & soft reflections: Chrome_Soft_test.jpg []

Much like chrome was a craze back in the early days of pre-rendered CGI, these hard reflections in real-time graphics are about to jump the shark.

Re:Blame Direct X (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615428)

That's exactly the kind of little detail that makes the difference between convincing and totally fake. Microsoft! nVidia! Listen up.... Check out this guy's image and make it easier for game developers to use that effect!

Re:Blame Direct X (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616981)

That was an awesome image- photo-realistic, in that everything was as you would expect it to be. Big props to the artist- maybe he can work on some game where the ball rolls around and smashes people. Then the blood and gore attaches to the ball (in some places) and the blood starts to dry, while still being tracked off by the floor.

Re:Blame Direct X (1)

NickFusion (456530) | more than 10 years ago | (#8621416)

I do make games. Unfortunately, it's tricky to do raytraced soft-reflections on the Gameboy advance.

But I'll file "Bloody Gore-Ball" away for another day.

Re:Blame Direct X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8619355)

It already IS easy to do that effect.

If the reflections aren't realtime, you can just blur the map in a pre-porcessing step. If they are realtime, you can easily set up a function which does a hardware blur by blending several copies of the reflection texture together.

The problem isn't that we can't do better effects in games, it is that we don't have the money that Hollywood has to put these effects into the engine and/or make use of them via the artists. If your artists has to paint a refelectivity map in addition to a bump map, a texture map, and a specular map, that adds up.

What the game industry needs is a LOT more inexpensive high quality 3D models, so that they can spend less time reinventing, or remodeling, the wheel, in every game. Hollywood doesn't have to create a new car every time they need a car for a movie. They don't have to create pets, or trees, or houses.... All the content is there. So they can spend time on the important stuff.

Re:Blame Direct X (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8630963)

Yes, you could just blur the reflections of the reflection map. IF you're just using a reflection map for reflections, which look terrible. You want to actually reflect an actual (ie, modelled and textured and in the same scene) environment.

Now, I haven't done any realtime rendering stuffs, but when I want to blur/soften a reflection for pre-rendered animations and stuff, it adds a noticeable to difference to the rendering time.

Re:Blame Direct X (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615587)

I was wondering why your comment sounded so good to me, and then I found this comment [] from 4 years ago.

Sigh. I should have gotten into hardware and graphics instead of operating systems and storage. Any game companies out there want to hire an expert C programmer with a solid math background that has only a tiny bit of graphics programming experience? I adapt quickly!

Half-Life... (4, Funny)

Tickenest (544722) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614234)

I'm one of the few people who didn't like the game, and it was largely because of the sterility of the levels. It felt like work.

Re:Half-Life... (1)

Jorkapp (684095) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614913)

Did you ever make it to Xen? Compared to the rest of the highly polished levels, Xen felt like a puddle of mud.

Re:Half-Life... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8615014)

Don't reply to my sig.

OK, I won't. HAHA tail recursion is the suck!

Re:Half-Life... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8619216)

Sounds like you played Halflife a few years too late. Back in the day it was awesome, but by today's standards it sucks. I have fond memories of the game, but I can't bring myself to play it now.

Some variation would be nice.. (2, Interesting)

CarrionBird (589738) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614238)

But I really don't find myself noticing that much. Possibly I've become used to seeing the same texture repeated n times. I guess you could have every entity have a dirtiness attribute that determind how it was rendered.

True (2, Insightful)

KBV (732207) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614312)

It's true, I think enviroments and characters do look a bit to "perfect". They should learn from Silent Hill, Manhunt and other games like that. They all look dirty and grity using various filters that make up a kind of "dated" look. Which I find extremly nice. The dirtyer the better. ;)

It's not just dirt (4, Interesting)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614336)

If you play a sports game for example, dirt isn't the only thing that makes it feel "real".

1.) Inconsistent lighting
2.) Fog in the air
3.) Dirt everywhere
4.) Fans that look different in the seats

Damn I can go on forever

Just like System Shock 2... (4, Interesting)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614344)

SS2 was an awesome game with an incredible spooky atmosphere, but there was the glaring problem of everything being pristine and clean... even broken stuff. Worse, there were no no bodies, debris and very little damage in the environment. And of course, killed enemies would disappear shortly after being dispatched. I realize this was a technological limitation (the game came out 5 years ago), but I think it's one of the biggest barriers to real immersion in an environment. If I'm walking in a derelict spaceship overrun with zombies and cyborgs, there should be bodies everywhere and lots and lots of busted stuff. Also, if I'm struting around with a plasma rifle, I want to be able to blow stuff up. Descent 3 provided black scorch marks on the walls if you shot at them, but I want to see chunks of metal or masonry flying around and if I spent enough time and ammo, I want to be able to blow my way through walls or doors or really abuse the environment in other ways. When this happens, it will seem like VR compared to today's games.

Re:Just like System Shock 2... (2, Informative)

jcenters (570494) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614565)

Well ConceptJunkie, the future's been here for a while. Both of the Red Faction titles use a system called "geo-mod" which does just what you specify.

Re:Just like System Shock 2... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8615286)

SS2 was an awesome game with an incredible spooky atmosphere, but there was the glaring problem of everything being pristine and clean... even broken stuff. Worse, there were no no bodies, debris and very little damage in the environment.

Your memory differs from mine. I remember a ship littered with bodies, with bloodstains on the walls, steam hissing from broken pipes, parts of certain areas flooded, doors hanging from their hinges...

Re:Just like System Shock 2... (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615836)

I didn't mean to say that there wasn't some of that stuff, but there wasn't nearly enough to be realistic in my mind. The disappearing bodies was the most egregious thing.

Re:Just like System Shock 2... (1)

Allison Geode (598914) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616824)

don't forget the fact that most of the early enemies in SS2 were humans infected with parasites: thats where all the corpses went.

Re:Just like System Shock 2... (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616815)

Yeah, I remember it like that too. Oh, man...I played that game with headphones cranked way up, in a room that was pitch black except for the glow from the monitor, and all in one sitting.

I came out a different person, I tell you.

I agree (4, Funny)

Torgo's Pizza (547926) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614353)

Doom 3 definitely needs more smeared blood on the walls and floors.

BTW, if I'm responsible for getting the most GRIT [] into Doom 3, do I get some cool prizes?

You do those yourself. (1)

AzraelKans (697974) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615103)

Doom 3 definitely needs more smeared blood on the walls and floors.
Wait till the game is out and you wil see what I mean, theres a lot of "redecoration" you can do.

Only if it's hot grits (1)

scheme (19778) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615861)

BTW, if I'm responsible for getting the most GRIT into Doom 3, do I get some cool prizes?

That's only if it's hot grits, preferably down natalie portman's pants.

Re:Only if it's hot grits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8617501)

No, no, you got it wrong. It's "Natalie Portman IN a bowl of hot grits." Not "A bowl of hot grits in Natalie Portman."

Boxes (5, Funny)

J_DarkElf (602111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614388)

Videogame worlds are staffed by really efficient janitors, who store all the dust and grime in boxes. Which is why you see those everywhere.

Re:Boxes (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 10 years ago | (#8617927)

Videogame worlds are staffed by really efficient janitors, who store all the dust and grime in boxes. Which is why you see those everywhere.

Reminds of when I was playing Resident wasn't the zombies, the green leapers or the Tyrant that were creeping me out the most, it was the Janitor, who would silently go in rooms as soon as I exited them and remove all the corpses.

Fast like a freak, with am insatiable apetite for zombie flesh...can't get much more creepy than that! ;-)

Re:Boxes (2)

SageLikeFool (547462) | more than 10 years ago | (#8623396)

Well, that explains what Roger Wilco has been up to for the last few years. He must be too busy cleaning up other games to star in another one of his own.

Rogue Squadron games (2, Interesting)

edwdig (47888) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614414)

The Rogue Squadron games delt with this nicely. The Rebel ships all look beat up. If you walk around the hanger while selecting your ship, you'll see paint chips and other signs of wear with the ships. The Naboo Starfighter looks like it got pulled out of a junkyard.

Re:Rogue Squadron games (1)

Rallion (711805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616857)

The Naboo Starfighter looks like it got pulled out of a junkyard.

It really does, and it also looks like at one point it was one of the most beautiful things you ever did see. They really nailed it with those games, I think. Much more so with the GameCube versions than the N64 one, of course, but I still think the original looks pretty damn good.

Though IIRC, the Naboo fighter in the original was pretty pristine...bah, practically nobody ever knew it was in there anyway.

double edged sword (3, Insightful)

ArmenTanzarian (210418) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614428)

Grit in a real image and fog in a game can become confused if you don't handle it just the right way. You have to worry about which zealots you're offending. Crisp graphics, smoothly rendered edges, and the use of fog/grit for style (not lazy rendering) are all a very delicate balance.

IANAGD (game developer), but I say lay the groundwork, focus on gameplay and come back to throw these details in with some market testing. Time and processor speed permitting.

Re:double edged sword (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8616164)

Eh...that's the problem with game development.

Time and processor speed NEVER permit...

Half-life 2 (2, Insightful)

elrick_the_brave (160509) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614610)

Isn't half-life 2 supposed to fix all this?? Real environment.. real 'water', 'dirt'.. etc?

Re:Half-life 2 (1, Insightful)

Hamled (742266) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616529)

Yes, I have noticed the lack of grit and dirt a lot in games recently. Sometimes it's OK and works for the environment, but most times it's just a bit off. From what I've seen of Half-Life 2, however, a lot of the game has a bit of a gritty feel to it where it should.

Re:Half-life 2 (1)

TheRoachMan (677330) | more than 10 years ago | (#8630066)

Not real water, we won't see physically simulated water anytime soon, today's processors just can't cope. But yes, HL2 has a good emotional 'engine'. It determines the look on someone's face at any given moment in time, depending on what's happening in the surroundings: firefights, a strange noise, getting trapped, seeing someone get killed, etc etc. Just look at the G-man movie, you can download it at fileplanet and the likes. Also the physics engine will provide some very good realism, there's good movie clips about that too (again, use fileplanet).

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (2, Informative)

k-hell (458178) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614611)

Yeah, I agree with the poster. Take Battlefield 1942 for instance. Great multiplayer game, but too sterile with all those sharp edges, imho.

I have hope that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. [] might introduce some much needed dirt and grit! Check out this picture [] for instance, or the gallery in general.

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615325)

That looks terrible. Sure I can't give you an example of something that is signifigantly better, but dirty textures don't fix that plastic feeling. What brick wall have you ever seen with a perfectly straight edge like that? What wall has ever gotten all pixelated when you get close in real life?

I think we have the technology nescicary to handle the data that would be required at the speeds that would be required, but nobody is focusing on things like smoothly increasing the resolution of a texture as it gets closer to the camera, or making it so that the edge of an object isn't a perfectly straight line, or simple curve. We could probably even work it such that an object changes from a large flat texture mapped surface to a complex object when you get close enough to know the difference with todays hardware. That's the kind of stuff that I want to see. Any engine writers out there listening?

Something else that bothers me is intersections of objects. They're all too perfect. Look at those railings in the screenshot you linked? The connections aren't mechanically believable. Sure, it would take the guy creating the scene way longer to have complex intersections, but it would add so much more realism. What I've seen of Doom 3 looks like the people there care about this kind of thing, so there's some hope, but I don't think that many developers have the same patience when it comes to setting release dates.

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (3, Insightful)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615778)

That looks terrible.

Actually, I think it looks pretty good compared to the current crop of games.

- The people throw shadows.
- There's a leaf floating in one of the barrels (look carefully).
- There's random crap lying around down below. (I think this is really important to have).

On the other hand, there are some problems:

- Shadows may be too crisp. Is everything under a spotlight? Either soften the shadows or (preferably) throw multiple shadows. There can't just be one bright light in that scene.
- The people should throw shadows onto themselves.
- The railings, among other things, appear as if they are held together by superglue. How about rivets? Screws?
- The flying debris resulting from the gunshot doesn't appear to have broken off anything. It just magically spawned there. Also the flash of light from that doesn't seem to throw a shadow.
- The pattern of rust on the platform the soldier is kneeling on is duplicated in the platform directly below.
- Do doorframes exist in videogames? Electrical outlets?
- Mortar lines in brick walls are not carried all the way around.
- The background should be just slightly out of focus.
- Et cetera ad nauseum.

I realize it's easy to say these things from the comfort of my non-game-developer chair. But I'd be surprised if I didn't see these things happen as technology catches up. It's the little things (and there are a lot of them) that will make all the difference.

My guess is that this sort of thing will move into the procedural realm. Developers will license libraries that do nothing but generate nice-looking world geometry procedurally, as well as textures, physics, etc., and plug into the rest of the game engine. When you upgrade to the Geforce42, you'll be able to display 2x the screws in metal structures and 3x the litter on the street.

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (1)

Squozen (301710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8618089)

The people throw shadows, but much darker ones than the objects around them.. why?

The real issue I have with that screenshot is that everything is perfectly straight. I don't care about the textures, no fire escape is that straight in real life!

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (2, Informative)

nautical9 (469723) | more than 10 years ago | (#8623360)

I agree with most of your critque, except for "The background should be just slightly out of focus".

The problem here is that you can't know at which part of the screen the player's eyes are focused. In real life, if you were staring at the railing, then everything behind it would be out of focus. But if you were staring at the ground behind the railing, the railing would be out of focus.

Just a standard problem when trying to render a 3D scene to a 2D surface.

If you just assumed everything out a certain distance should be slightly blurry, then it would get quite annoying when aiming at distant objects, and wouldn't really be realistic (at least not to people with 20/20 or better vision).

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (1)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 10 years ago | (#8627539)

The problem here is that you can't know at which part of the screen the player's eyes are focused.

Good point! I didn't think of that.

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8631015)

Why not just have it focus on whatever object the crosshairs are aimed at?

Not a perfect solution, as usually in 3d FPS games I don't always move the crosshairs to exactly where I want to look, instead I move it to generally where I want to look and then use my eyes to actually look at the screen. This could however add an extra element to gameplay that could make it more exciting.

How suitable is hardware these days for doing real time depth of field?

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 10 years ago | (#8617591)

I think we have the technology nescicary to handle the data that would be required at the speeds that would be required, but nobody is focusing on things like smoothly increasing the resolution of a texture as it gets closer to the camera, or making it so that the edge of an object isn't a perfectly straight line, or simple curve. [...] Any engine writers out there listening?

All of that stuff is already done, more or less. It's all variation of the basic level of detail concept, with LOD increasing as you get nearer and decreasing as your framerate drops below a specified minimum value.

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (1)

qoa (704941) | more than 10 years ago | (#8625799)

That was also one of the worst screenshots from that game he could have posted. Check out a few more shots of that game, which is still an alpha.

Re:S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8618511)

Contrary to the other responses, I agree- that picture is pretty nice.

And how can that other guy say the brick wall is too straight? Those are some nice damn bricks.

I especially like the peeling paint in the building.

artifacts are a feature! (5, Funny)

beegle (9689) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614669)

How long before nVidia and ATI fanboys get into wars about which company's "dirt and grit engine" is better?

I predict that nVidia's next driver release actually adds back in some of artifacts that their old drivers used to leave all over the screen. They will claim that this is their new Enhanced Reality Engine and sic lawyers on any site that bitches about the artifacts.

Quake 3 not too polished?? (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614743)

I stopped playing Quake 3 for the reason that everything looked so incredibly fake! They took reflection and threw it on everything! I couldn't stand looking at the game after a week, so I quit and played other games like Tribes 2, which had Matte look, but still had some gloss when needed, for effect.

Blood! (1)

xyu (556711) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614804)

Where did all the blood go? Characters need to explode with blood like water balloons! They need to bleed whenever I'm looking at them! And the blood should stay there.

Doom 3 not... gritty? (2, Interesting)

AzraelKans (697974) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614851)

Im trying to recover from the awe here...
You didnt saw the trailer or the quakecon videos have you? Well just picture this? Zombie, shotgun, "clean background" behind, press trigger BAM, zombie with a large hole, red splattered wall and ceiling with little pieces of meat, get the idea? seriously some scenes from Doom 3 are more than enough to make certain people sick. The bathroom cut where "pinky" is eating a zombie is.. well disgusting, the scene is as gruel as can be I felt physically ill the first time I saw that.

However if grit is what you want, go and play any silent hill game, it has more than you bargained for and it also features a grain filter.

By the way a lot of people prefer to see quality in their images than "grit" not just as a visual preference, is also easier to spot a hidden area or an item that way, thats the reason why almost everyone turns the grainy filter from silent hill 2/3 off.

Good examples (1)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#8614947)

Call of Duty came pretty close to a dirty, gritty feel. The characters have facial stubble, the environment looks like it has suffered the abuse of a war.

Contrast with Halo or Half-Life, which were very sterile, esp. Halo.

Bullet marks and blood splatters are one thing, but the rest is harder to achieve. Lets hope Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 work on that, but I doubt they'll get the full effect to work.

CoD (1)

op51n (544058) | more than 10 years ago | (#8626409)

Indeed, things like the amount or rubble and broken wood lying around in Call of Duty, and the dead animals and shit everywhere.

Runing through shelled buildings, there was phenomenal amount of stuff strewn around, and touches like the glowing embers on the wooden structuring post shell hit were nice touches.
I think Call of Duty was one game that really started to raise the bar for realism in gaming, on all fronts really.
Stalker looks like it could do the same again.

my .02 (2, Insightful)

rabbot (740825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615053)

I think way too much emphasis is put on graphics: Both by the developers and consumers. I buy games for the fun factor and the gameplay. I could care less what a game looks like. Maybe it's because I grew up in the early years of video games, and can remember when games were just games. If I want reality i'll go outside.

Grit? Not REALLY necessary, but D3 has it. (1)

Firehawke (50498) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615105)

If anything, Doom3's bathroom scene showed more grit than anything I've seen in ages. Personally, though, I'm hoping they won't resort to Silent Hill's grainy filtering for such effects-- that just gives me a headache.

I didn't find Twin Snakes to be all that bad graphically; there's not a whole lot of dirt to get around because the ground is most likely all hardpack. If anything, Twin Snakes is a huge improvement because of the vast resolution upgrade it got over the original. There were times you weren't quite sure what you were looking at on the old PSX version.

This sounds like... (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615158)

...something I said almost 4 years ago [] . In fact, that comment was about 3dfx technology that began to address this exact problem right before nVidia bought them and killed it. All most people care about is framerates, polygons per second, and fill rates. When is the blood going to run down the wall when you shoot somebody? when are we going to have soft edges? Texture and bump maps don't help when you get to the intersection of two surfaces, and it's the biggest thing standing in the way of a believable scene in a 3d engine.

A game ahead of its time... ZERO TOLERANCE (2, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8622314)

: When is the blood going to run down
: the wall when you shoot somebody?

Blood running down a wall? Hey, I know a first-person shooter that had this effect - back in 1994! It is Technopop's Zero Tolerance for the Sega Genesis.

Shoot an enemy close to the wall: blood stain. Shoot the wall: damage texture. Animated wall textures. An animated, interactive landscape. Tons of weapons and various items like motion scanners, fire extinguishers, and bulletproof vests. Immense, multi-floor levels. That game - along with Ranger X, Alien Soldier, and Thunder Force 4 - pushed the good old Genny to its limits. If a first-person shooter ever really, REALLY deserved a sequel, Zero Tolerance is the one!

(actually they tried to make one, but it was never completed and Technopop no longer exists. The beta's ROM is out there, though)

Re:This sounds like... (1)

ameoba (173803) | more than 10 years ago | (#8622900)

Well, the features of the current generation (DX9 shaders) card are approaching the programability required to handle this kind of stuff fairly well. You could design a crisp, sharp-edged model and procedurally, with your shaders, dirty up the textures and put dents in the edges.

A really great demo of DX9 procedural textures I once saw was a fractal zoomer, where the fractal was rendered in real-time by the graphics card. With my Radeon 9600, there was no percievable lag and almost no CPU usage to be able to zoom & pan freely. Granted, there was a limit to the precision of the math so it did get blocky after a certain level, but up until that point, it was If you have the hardware, check out what you can really do with it []

It's not about grit (3, Insightful)

laxcat (600727) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615496)

It's all about the artistic style you are going after. Too often gamers assume that the ultimate goal is perfect realism, which would be amazing but limited. The real future of games is in applying artistic styles and sensibility to games. I loved Viewtiful Joe because of its extreame style. The Wind Waker too. These games have styles that were neither grity nor realistic, but thier unique feels did an excellent job creating worlds that was easy to get lost in.

I'm not saying every game should be cell shaded, but developers should more often utilize the limitless possiblities of style in modern games.

Grit is nice but not necessary (3, Insightful)

gothrus (706341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615796)

Grit is what made the Star Wars universe unique in its day. It seemed more realistic because the sets reflected some of the seedier elements that populated them. Personally, sterility or grit doesn't make too much difference for me. I've never seen a game that looked like the real world because 2d/3d graphics haven't replicated the way the human eye works. In a game, everything is always in clear focus no matter how far away or how far into your peripheral vision. In newer games, such as HL2, distant items appear with less detail, but still are in focus. I would be curious to see a graphics engine that can replicate the way a human eye views the world.

Re:Grit is nice but not necessary (2, Insightful)

Rallion (711805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616936)

Unfortunately, it's not really doable. What if you want to look at something else? The game doesn't know where YOUR eyes are. and so it can't put the right objects in focus.

Re:Grit is nice but not necessary (1)

Silvanis (152728) | more than 10 years ago | (#8617479)

The only problem with that is you have to track what the player is looking at. It's all fine and good to blur the background, but what if I'm actually trying to look at what's in the distance?

And if you add eye-tracking...well, you might as well use 3D glasses or implants : )

Re:Grit is nice but not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8619433)

It's a doable thing but you need supa-quick response sensors to detect the changes in your eye's lens. Like the machines that track where your eyes point when watching a video screen, with a depth plug-in...

Speaking of plug-in, I guess a neural link would be the best way to sap the signal. I think the Johnny Mnemonic mini plug looks a wee bit more comfortable then the Neo Matrix link.

Obligatory /. reference (0, Offtopic)

LGagnon (762015) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615865)

I'm surprised no one has yet said "Yes, they need more grit- in their pants." Take a bow Slashdot; you deserve one.

Hot grits, anyone? (1)

scheme (19778) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615884)

I'm surprised that more people have made jokes about grits especially hot grits placed in various people's pants. It's a story about grit for god's sake. This is like having a story about computer clusters and not seeing any jokes about beowulf clusters.

Re:Hot grits, anyone? (0)

You Didn't Spellchec (717959) | more than 10 years ago | (#8617256)

I'm surprised that more people have made jokes about grits especially hot grits placed in various people's pants.

One of the major problems with the realism of KOTOR for me was the lack of hot grits and naked statues of Queen Amidala...

Steel Battalion/Steel Battalion: Line of Contact (1)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8615962)

You want gritty, realistic graphics? Take a peek at Steel Battalion [] . The presentation of the game is very gritty [] and realistic [] . The game's developers really worked hard on the presentation of the game, and it shows [] . The game uses filters to great effect [] , and the results of their labor are amazing [] . You can also check out some of the videos [] of the first and second games in action; you'll be amazed by the use of shaders and filters to create a realistic, true to life scene of futuristic combat (wow, that's an oxymoron).

And of course, I haven't even talked about the fourty button controller. You want realism and grit? SB and SB:LoC have it in spades, along with unblievable gameplay and an awesome community to boot.

Re:Steel Battalion/Steel Battalion: Line of Contac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8616713)

The game didn't too to hot, but check out - This game had hella trash, hella grime.

After playing it, its hard to look at other FPSes environments the same.

Re:Steel Battalion/Steel Battalion: Line of Contac (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616904)

That's an extremely clean world. Where are the oil stains? Where are the scuff marks? Where are the worn edges? Where are the footprints from those mechs?

It's got an interesting "TV interlace" effect, but that's hardly a substitute for dirt.

You don't appreciate... (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616698) complicated the Universe is, until you start trying to simulate it.

Morrowind I felt, was actually the first 3D game, that didn't feel 'bare' to me.

So many FPS have environments that are SO stark. Part of what gives a house so much charm, is all the junk that is in it !

I agree, something as simple as even a "noise" texture overlaid on top of evertyhing helps.

Re:You don't appreciate... (1)

CaseM (746707) | more than 10 years ago | (#8631883)

Get ready for the revolution, then. FarCry [] is coming, and you won't believe the sense of immersion CryTek's engine is capable of generating. This is their first game, folks, and IMHO these guys have just placed themselves in the upper echelon of game developers along with the likes of id, Valve, and Blizzard.

Borrow from the horror genre (2, Interesting)

pat_trick (218868) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616829)

Games such as the Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Fatal Frame series take a good pan on creating a much more realistic--if ultra-realistic--tilt at the world they take place in. Everything is dirty, grimy, and smeared with a sense of being in the real world.

Perhaps it is because these games take a closer stab (pun intended) at getting into the gamer's sense of reality and trying to really get into their mind, versus the seperation between player and story in other games, in a visual sense anyway.

Hmm... (3, Interesting)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616876)

Well this is an interesting topic for 3D rendering in general. The world is 'imperfect'. The moment something is exposed to human interaction, it gets nicks, cuts, scratches, dents, fatigue, etc. The common way to communicate the 'used look' is to make things look beat up and dirty.

Yes, it does look better. Yes, it does look more lived in. Yes, it does take away from the 'perfection' that computers achieve and look more like we expect. Is it the right thing to do? Well, interestingly enough, I'm running into this problem right now. I'm working on a 3D rendering of a futuristic particle cannon. Right now, I'm building a room around the machine. While texturing this bad boy, I realized something. You see, when I originally built the machine, I used Lightwave's more advanced rendering features. This means more time to render, but it looks more realistic. There is radiosity rendering, and subtle blurred reflections (you'd be surprised how much rendering time that eats up..) area lighting, the works. And you know, by the time I've got all these on, it is startlingly good looking. However, it was taking FAR too long to render an animation of, so I had to find ways of dirtying it up. Well, that's what I've started doing. Instead of using reflective chrome like you'd see in the CERN laboratory for its machines, I grittied it up. No more expensive reflection blurring there. Some of the photos I'm using for textures have some of the effects of 'realistic light' baked into them anyway, so I can stop using area lights and go back down to spotlights. Radiosity? Well the dirt on the machine gets so dark that radiosity wouldn't make a huge difference, so bye bye lengthy render times.

Maybe the dirt etc helps reduce the need for fancier renderings? Maybe, though it helps sell the idea that something is used, it's really covering up something that'd be more expensive to render? I say maybe because this may not be true in every artist's experience. I just found it interesting that when it came down to getting the rendering done in time to get an animation done, the grit texturing has saved my rump.

Yes! (4, Insightful)

KurdtX (207196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8616957)

I've been saying this for years to my friends, it's really hard to imagine you're in a real world if you keep seeing the same panel in the wall, or (worse) the same panel representing a wall (think Doom). It does make it easier to spot that one panel that is slightly off, indicating you need to blast it with a rocket or, or find a switch somewhere, but in real life every panel would be slightly different than the next. Even look at your cube walls, there are subtle differences between each one that let you sort of find "cloud pictures" (or try your ceiling tile).

I don't really have a solution, as the advances in lighting and level design, not to mention the increased amount of art that can be packed into a CD nowadays have taken care of all my ideas, apart from having an artist draw every single wall uniquely to start out with (ridiculously time consuming). Well, maybe have something like Diablo's random level generator, where a key is stored that is used to generate consistent (within the game) dungeons, but basically uses the same elements. Use it to modify certain parts of the panel, like maybe a few pixel wide micro-scratches or discolorations that you really only notice on a subconcious level.

Oh, and I'm sure someone's mentioned this already, but stop making everything look like plastic! Even plastic doesn't gleam like that, as there's dirt that settles on it (and settles in an uneven way). Materials might actually have whatever index of refraction your physics engine is set to, but if there's 50% dust, or 25% wear, that part isn't going to gleam like it was just polished yesterday. And I don't think sewers get polished very often.

Now that I'm rolling, do game publishers only work in brand-new office buildings? For those of you who are in a building a few years old, look down at the ground next time you walk around (no, not just to avoid eye contact, but actually pay attention to the ground). Notice how the carpet/tile is more worn in high-traffic areas? How next to the water cooler it's a little bit darker, due to splatter over the years? How the edges of wide hallways look like they were installed yesterday? How there are always marks on the walls in stairwells? And how even door handles start to show wear after a few years? It's the little things that we see but don't process that really make things look real - the wrinkles in people's faces. We just need "wrinkles" in our textures.

Herein lies the problem... (1)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 10 years ago | (#8618802)

the game designer and artists can't possibly be expected to design every model and room down to the last exposed nail and fingerprint. There's a lot of potential detail to notice that must be added but has _no bearing_ on gameplay at all (which is the point, right?)

So somebody needs to come up with a way to automate the randomization of object models, textures, etc. in such a fashion that all that data doesn't have to be stored, but can be generated at run time to within defined limits. The key is making sure it looks realistic but uninteresting so it doesn't interfere nor interact with the scripted gameplay. And it has to do this in realtime...

Check out Resident Evil 4 (1)

m2h (530494) | more than 10 years ago | (#8617544)

One should check you the newly released photographs of Resident Evil 4 for GameCube over on IGN. Now that is grit big time! And it looks amazing.

It's not grit, it's focus... (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8617725)

...And focus is a big problem.

When you're looking at a scene in reality, your eye naturally focuses on the object you are observing, and that object will appear nice and sharp. Objects in the background will appear blurred and darker as hilights are flattened.

When a scene is rendered in a game there's no way the computer can predict what object someone is paying attention to so it must render everything in focus. As a result, the scene seems unnaturally sharp and bright, especially when the scene isn't placed in bright daylight (the human eye has a greater depth of field in bright light).

Until eye-tracking - and eye focusing - technology is incorporated into virtual reality this is unfortunately not going to be resolved.


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8619600)

mod parent up interesting!

MGS: TTS Goals (2, Interesting)

Brother Grifter (16318) | more than 10 years ago | (#8617742)

MGS Twin Snakes goals were basically 1.) the remake of the game with all the high res graphics and higher-poly count models, 2.) the MGS 2 game play and 3.) a complete and honest reproduction of the Metal Gear Solid (PSX) story line.

So yeah, it does look a bit sterile in the sense that things did look perfect. After the first Ninja fight, the room gets messed up bad. It looks fine when you walk in and during your fight, though some glass panes can be shattered. Snake now looks more alive than he did in the original, a Miyamoto signature which was also something found in Eternal Darkness.

All critics of the MGS series say the same things about level design, textures, etc... MGS 2 did a good job making environmental elements apparent, like getting your feet wet, and leaving tracks (there was really no water in Twin Snakes for this to be noticeable). Tracks in the snow was around since the original MGS. But these MGS games take place in bunkers and bases, which don't really allow for much dirt or very creative scenery. Alaska people, come on.

Something introduced into Twin Snakes is the available to shoot at panes of glass, and only pieces of the pane get shot out. You can continue to damage the glass in different spots, and sometimes if its already damaged, a critical shot will break it all up. Diving into a damaged glass pane will also shatter it too.

There's more too, but I can't recall everything. For instance, Snakes face sometimes looked dirty.

Twin Snakes was certainly more gory than MGS 2, and any other game I have on PS2 (I have both GTA's) or GameCube.

We'll definitely see more of what the original author of this thread is asking for, more realism. Look at the upcoming MGS 3 game, since this thread began talking about MGS: TTS. I think that this is pretty much an easy problem solve, but Nintendo and Konami are working on new models for gaming, and working out the kinks on those first and leaving the graphic fine tuning at the end.

It can be argued that this is the wrong approach. Many people have already said that Nintendo is wasting their time trying to continually innovate, and that they use what works, Mario64, Zelda64, GoldenEye, etc... I think this is the Japanese mindset in general when it comes to videogames, and Nintendo found an ally in regards to Konami, one of the biggest entertainment software companies out there.

In any case, MGS Twin Snakes is badass, and I played the original on PSX, its worth the 40 bucks, I've already played through it once, and I'm working on playing through it again this weekend.

No they dont (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8617873)

The cleaner the better

What? (1)

sien (35268) | more than 10 years ago | (#8619184)

Games don't need more grit, they just need hot grits, goddamnit.

Is the hardware here yet? (1)

miyako (632510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8619295)

Dirt, grime, and other "real world effects" would be really nice, and I think that it would add orders of magnitude to the overall percived graphical quality of a game, but do we really have the hardware to support it yet?
I've seen a few games that feaures some of these effects, for example in Metroid Prime rain drops will hit your visor when it's raining, or your visor will steam up and collect condensation if you walk through steam, or in Resident Evil the dust that comes up when you walk and the light shining through it.
These games look wonderful when you see things like this, but I think it might be a couple more years before we can really expect to start seeing things like this in many games.
The Console systems are nearing their end of life, and I think we _might_ have the horsepower in the next gen systems to do some limited, but much more than we have now, "real world effects". It will probably be awhile before most PC games start to do this though.
I don't even pretend to understand in-depth all of the details that go into making a great game engine, but from what I do know I would postulate the following (any game engine programmers wanna back me up here?):
Having all of these "real world effects" might be possible on a top of the line gaming rig of today, but to get decent performance the engine would have to be too machine specific to be able to use in making a distributable game
In the next couple of years the top of the line video cards will probably start supporting effects like these, allowing game designers to impliment these effects in their engines
Given a year to design/customise an engine, at its finish it should be able to run acceptably on video cards at least 18 months old.
Anyway, I estimate that it might be about 18 months before we have cards that could really think about supporting this on some level, 6 months learning curve before people can do really neat stuff with it, and another 12 to 18 months before we start seeing it really implimented in games. Over all that means another 3 to 3.5 years before we can start seening high quality real world effects wowing us in the latest games.

Found this out long ago. (1)

Zugok (17194) | more than 10 years ago | (#8619315)

For a long time I resisted the first person shooter genre onthe PC. In fact I much prefered playing on the Playstation because of the look and feel of the games. I may be talking out of my arse, but I felt edges on first person shooters to be too well defined. I didn't have any problem with any other 3D game or 2D games on the PC or console because objects were smaller and less well defined. I liked that slightly blurred/soft focus on the images. I guess I could also put it down to frame and refresh rates (again I could be talking out of my arse). When I play Counterstrike at 30fps, the definiton of edges on objects is blurrier than at 60fps.

ok people for the trillianth time (1)

cyrax777 (633996) | more than 10 years ago | (#8619424)

GamePlay First, graphics second

Shiny textures. (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 10 years ago | (#8619516)

I think it's due mostly to the shiny or reflective shaders that seem so popular. Also when something is low resolution you actually imagine a lot more detail than they they usually end up drawing in a high resolution version of that same texture. At least I do...

What's for? Where's the real fun? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8619809)

Games need better gameplay.

You want ultra realistic pictures go look out your window whilst your eyes are still good. Go to an art gallery.

Or go download some demos or machinima.

What's with all the 3d shooters - you can hardly tell the difference between them all.

Then again perhaps there really are millions of people who would spend money to buy a new game which has the gameplay of the older version, more realistic graphics that require them to spend yet more money on hardware.

At least pacman was different from loderunner.

OK jedi knight etc is different enough (always wanted to play with a lightsaber :) ).

Unfortunately Aliens v Predator 2 was a bit less than satisfactorily executed/implemented. Maybe they should have used the Quake 3 engine and spent their time with the other bits of the game.

GTA3 was fun.

But what's with the tons of games with ppl going around with m16s/ak47s? Just because counterstrike is successful doesn't mean a similar game would do as well- people play counterstrike not because of graphics, there are also network effects involved.

Games aren't the big problem (0)

sketch7 (586310) | more than 10 years ago | (#8620494)

I think lack of grit is a much bigger problem in movie industry nowadays. A lot of movies look just way to clean and polished and it looks terrible.

Textures versus Palettes versus Sprites How2Fix!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8621810)

Please Mod up as informative

"Sprites" are still quite useful if designed correctly as tile sets however the design of a proper looking tile set is a bitch to top it off you STILL have a smattering of the "canned" feel to the environment however this can be considered "noir"... E.g. Secret of Mana 2

Textures are extermely high on the realism scale but you have to have exteremly large textures in order to be able to get the right feel of the environment a player at FOV with his nose pressed up against the wall should not be able to pick out any seams or patterns however blending the aforementioned textures from a distance still imposes that patterned feel to it...

Palettes might be a better choice... However the tech behind it will be a bit tricky. For one you want to create some entropy with a particular algorithm. (e.g. metal surface and rust, tweaked conway algorithm) (concrete and grime in corners "burn algorithm" with an single threaded "ants" or "worms" algorithm for white fuzz) (painted surfaces with paint flakes with manipulated cycled burn algorithm and conway for the missing paint spots...)

Problems with this is:

1.) the graphics need to be re generated at the start of a level

2.) unless players distribute the "cost" of the computations and combine the results each player will see a slightly different level

3.) I'm probably talking out of my ass and trolling you to DEATH but fuck it aleast I have seeded your thought pattern and might have some kind of idea how this grime objective can be met?

A good example... (0)

Caedar (635764) | more than 10 years ago | (#8622717)

A good example of a 'grit' effect like this is the Silent Hill series. After beating one Silent Hill games (I think it was #2), you can replay it over again without the 'grit filter', which makes the game a COMPLETELY different animal. It's so much better in the grit form, I couldn't imagine playing it in the original form.

true dat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8624372)

i've been saying this for a while to my friends. older systems (ps, n64) didn't have the rez we have today, so there was natural distortion ect. the origional metal gear solid, for as ass ugly as it looks today, had some grit due to the lack of power of the ps. while twin snakes is an amazing game, when i saw the screens i thought that it didn't have the necessary grittyness.

of course i would rather have the nice textures and full effects/mulit texturing than the ps1 version had. heck it had trouble rendering straight lines straight.

nVidia presentation (1)

danila (69889) | more than 10 years ago | (#8627969)

During the presentation of nVidia FX cards, a demo of a truck was shown. The point, made by the president of nVidia, was that it's easy to make shiny things (a stab at ATi and their racing car demo), but difficult to make realistic ones. Thanks to the shaders, the truck was able to age quite realistically, including paint peeling off, metal parts rusting, chrome dimming, etc.

I would certainly say that the lack of grit is not a huge problem that gaming industry faces today. It's just one of the things a professional designer keeps in mind anyway. When you design a texture, you can call it ready after 2 or 3 iterations, or keep working on it. Every step increases the realism and the designers know that already.

Of course, to some extent the problem can be universally solved via a special grit shader, but it's not like the designers and programmers haven't thought of it already. The problem of any particular game is that it was rushed a bit or that one particular designer didn't pay enough attention to a specific aspect of the game, because he didn't care about it as much as you do, not some huge shortcoming of all modern games.

Star Wars (1)

danila (69889) | more than 10 years ago | (#8628084)

BTW, have you heard about the sequel to KOTOR [] ? According to the Blue's News editorial [] it will be based in the Episode II timeframe. There is a chance we will see Natalie Portman (petrified, if you have an old video card), covered in hot graphical grits!!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?