Don't get me wrong, it all looks great and I definitely appreciate the tech behind it all... but does anyone else feel, like me, that most of these visual improvements are rather unnecessary and...
Don't get me wrong, it all looks great and I definitely appreciate the tech behind it all... but does anyone else feel, like me, that most of these visual improvements are rather unnecessary and maybe even counterproductive in most games?
It seem like they all add so much more visual clutter and movement to the scenes that it will potentially make the actual gameplay relevant elements in them (e.g. enemies) harder to track with your eyes. This is especially detrimental in fast paced games, like shooters, which is the reason that the first thing I do in most of them is to turn off shit like Bokeh, Bloom, etc. and lower the Particle Density, Shadow detail, etc. (if there is an option to do so), despite the fact I have relatively top of the line hardware that can handle it all.
I don't think that's a problem. I like to distinguish between "effects", i.e. stuff thrown at the screen for flash/decoration and rendering techniques that increase "accuracy". Raytracing is...
I don't think that's a problem. I like to distinguish between "effects", i.e. stuff thrown at the screen for flash/decoration and rendering techniques that increase "accuracy". Raytracing is simply a slightly more accurate way of representing light. It's the same with HDR lighting, which long was lumped in with overdone bloom effects when, in fact, correctly done HDR it's simply a more accurate representation of how the eye perceives great contrast in light intensity. Nobody finds it "distracting" to simply see surfaces do what they'd do in real life.
I disagree. Just look at this side-by-side RTX on/off comparison footage from BF5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDTMQXr0afY I guarantee you that, with all else being equal, players with...
Nobody finds it "distracting" to simply see surfaces do what they'd do in real life.
I guarantee you that, with all else being equal, players with raytracing enabled will perform markedly worse overall in competitive play than with it off. The more accurate to real life reflections may look amazing, but with so much extra visual clutter being added to every scene, it can also unfortunately make it significantly harder to spot enemies and track their movement.
I do not think it is fair to judge the tech based on its implementation in a game that tacked it on as a tech demo rather than one built from the ground up as an integral part of their art style.
I do not think it is fair to judge the tech based on its implementation in a game that tacked it on as a tech demo rather than one built from the ground up as an integral part of their art style.
Ironically, the one complaint about raytracing I get is that it's barely distinguishable from the hacks we had before and in the video you posted I had to squint to even see the parts where it...
Ironically, the one complaint about raytracing I get is that it's barely distinguishable from the hacks we had before and in the video you posted I had to squint to even see the parts where it makes a difference. I would get things like generic blinding effects from bright light sources but you get those without raytracing, just less accurately. I just don't believe the gameplay argument. Imagine someone playing paintball (in real life) and complaining about puddles on the ground being distracting because of the reflection.
And aren't there cases where you could potentially see an enemy behind a corner when seeing his reflection?
I can understand the complaint, because often this is what ends up happening! However, I really just take these extra light (and reflection) effects as being another tool in the artists toolbox....
It seem like they all add so much more visual clutter and movement to the scenes, which can make the actual gameplay relevant elements in them harder to track with your eyes.
I can understand the complaint, because often this is what ends up happening! However, I really just take these extra light (and reflection) effects as being another tool in the artists toolbox. In essence, these effects are based off phenomena that we witness in real life, especially when it comes to film. To which, it has been up to the cinematographer to balance these effects such that they do not overwhelm the viewer. (Just as an example, JJ Abrams often gets criticized for an over-usage of lens flares!)
We have arrived at a point where graphics capabilities in games are demanding that same level of care given from a director of photography in film. For me, as someone who makes video game levels as a hobby, that's pretty exciting!
Also worth noting, the developers are retro-actively applying these effects where they did not exist originally. The designers of these levels made the game without it being blasted with ray-traced reflections/refractions, and it was their intention to make it look visually appealing without them applied. By ham-fistedly shoving these effects in, it easily becomes a distraction. It would be reasonable to assume that if these effects were available at the time that the game was originally being built, that they would be integrated into the visuals more naturally.
Don't get me wrong, it all looks great and I definitely appreciate the tech behind it all... but does anyone else feel, like me, that most of these visual improvements are rather unnecessary and maybe even counterproductive in most games?
It seem like they all add so much more visual clutter and movement to the scenes that it will potentially make the actual gameplay relevant elements in them (e.g. enemies) harder to track with your eyes. This is especially detrimental in fast paced games, like shooters, which is the reason that the first thing I do in most of them is to turn off shit like Bokeh, Bloom, etc. and lower the Particle Density, Shadow detail, etc. (if there is an option to do so), despite the fact I have relatively top of the line hardware that can handle it all.
I don't think that's a problem. I like to distinguish between "effects", i.e. stuff thrown at the screen for flash/decoration and rendering techniques that increase "accuracy". Raytracing is simply a slightly more accurate way of representing light. It's the same with HDR lighting, which long was lumped in with overdone bloom effects when, in fact, correctly done HDR it's simply a more accurate representation of how the eye perceives great contrast in light intensity. Nobody finds it "distracting" to simply see surfaces do what they'd do in real life.
I disagree. Just look at this side-by-side RTX on/off comparison footage from BF5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDTMQXr0afY
I guarantee you that, with all else being equal, players with raytracing enabled will perform markedly worse overall in competitive play than with it off. The more accurate to real life reflections may look amazing, but with so much extra visual clutter being added to every scene, it can also unfortunately make it significantly harder to spot enemies and track their movement.
I do not think it is fair to judge the tech based on its implementation in a game that tacked it on as a tech demo rather than one built from the ground up as an integral part of their art style.
Ironically, the one complaint about raytracing I get is that it's barely distinguishable from the hacks we had before and in the video you posted I had to squint to even see the parts where it makes a difference. I would get things like generic blinding effects from bright light sources but you get those without raytracing, just less accurately. I just don't believe the gameplay argument. Imagine someone playing paintball (in real life) and complaining about puddles on the ground being distracting because of the reflection.
And aren't there cases where you could potentially see an enemy behind a corner when seeing his reflection?
I can understand the complaint, because often this is what ends up happening! However, I really just take these extra light (and reflection) effects as being another tool in the artists toolbox. In essence, these effects are based off phenomena that we witness in real life, especially when it comes to film. To which, it has been up to the cinematographer to balance these effects such that they do not overwhelm the viewer. (Just as an example, JJ Abrams often gets criticized for an over-usage of lens flares!)
We have arrived at a point where graphics capabilities in games are demanding that same level of care given from a director of photography in film. For me, as someone who makes video game levels as a hobby, that's pretty exciting!
Also worth noting, the developers are retro-actively applying these effects where they did not exist originally. The designers of these levels made the game without it being blasted with ray-traced reflections/refractions, and it was their intention to make it look visually appealing without them applied. By ham-fistedly shoving these effects in, it easily becomes a distraction. It would be reasonable to assume that if these effects were available at the time that the game was originally being built, that they would be integrated into the visuals more naturally.
That's more of an artistic issue than a technical one.
I think proper ray-traced reflections will look less cluttered and distracting than the current mess of screen space reflections most games use.