Is there such a thing as unnecessary post-processing?

[Blacksite]

Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter, for example. You can tell it's a Frostbite 2-powered title since it has that weathered camera lens effect but the more I think about it, the more I feel like asking what's the point of even adding it? Whatever happened to cleaner visuals (i.e. Gran Turismo)?

Maybe you can argue that little things like that can give the game its own unique look but it's just as easy being able to point out a movie by director J.J. Abrams for its constant use of the lens flare effect. I liked Star Trek but I don't think I would light up the Enterprise like a Christmas tree.

Personally, I would like to see more games that look like The Last of Us. If you want to show off a title with seemingly next-generation visuals then don't obscure it with all of these unnecessary post-processing effects, as if to imply that you're literally controlling a camera within that universe.

[Fijiandoce]

yes

that new Far-cry trailer has a guy vanish into obscurity behind a DOF effect literally meters from the person in focus...as if to say the player is blind as a bat.

however, FPS's need to do as much as possible to "differentiate" themselves. So its little surprise there when you compare it to the Last of Us.

heck, the depth of field in U2 is kick-ass

Edit:
its actually GT's preview of farcry not a trailer

[keefy]

I don't like all the blur bloom and the silliest is lens flare on human eyes.

Not a great deal between ultra and low on BF3 yet usign low doubles the frame rate.

Take the whole colour grading situation in BF3 its always has a blue tint.

[Blacksite]

This is what I'm talking about:



It's not a first-person thing either. Need for Speed: The Run has the same effect, although it doesn't take up the entire screen.

[keefy]

You mean a specific thing It hought yu meant ingeneral.

[Fijiandoce]

This is what I'm talking about:



It's not a first-person thing either. Need for Speed: The Run has the same effect, although it doesn't take up the entire screen.

stuff like that annoys me

part of a reason im not that big into FPS's.
i don't know how that passes for "immersion". personally, i'd blink and get that crap out of my eyes in an instant. having it linger is a pain and breaks immersion for me.....not that i ever get immersed in FPS's to begin with
but i definitely know what you mean.

[Blacksite]

You mean a specific thing It hought yu meant ingeneral.

In general, yeah. I was just using Frostbite 2 as an example.

Sorry if that sounds confusing.

[Kauldron]

Most of it doesn't really bother me. The only one that does bother me is bloom. I really hate bloom.

[Cyn]

I agree in general, especially with the examples you give. BF3 would look a much better game without most of the post processing going on so you wonder what's the point in the first place. But I do think some level of post processing can really help with immersion. Killzone certainly achieved the gritty, war torn look it goes for mainly because of the significant amount of post processing. Another good example is the Witcher 2 where the devs clearly wanted it to look cinematic, with the blur, DOF, lightning and vignette it looks pretty good.

Good way to test how effective it can be is take vanilla skyrim and compare it to what it looks like with some of the default effects turned on then try out some mods that take the post processing further and you can get it looking like a movie.

I think some devs get themselves into a rut, where they'll overuse, for example, blur effects. Then have to overuse AA to compensate, on top of which they'll use a cinematic filter, often sepia coloured and the resulting image is far messier and uglier than the original they started with.

Bloom isn't my cup of tea either. It's such an annoying effect I wish even on consoles you could just turn it off

[DarkVincent07]

Every game has its distinct visual style , and for some games like Cyn said, it works for some these effects just don't do it for me. Ie Battlefield 3, I hate all the blue lighting/hue and blur, depth of field changes. I hate it. For a game that is more stylish and not first person, maybe I'd like it

[MBS D@v!d]

Games with too much annoying effects? I hated some of the post-processing in the last two Killzone games. Although it was a little better in Killzone 3. They overdid it in KZ2. Probably to make it as much pre-rendered-looking as possible. But it's ridiculous like people said, that there would be these lense-effects on a human eye. Of course you get blinded by light and when you go from a dark into a well lit place you have to adapt a few seconds (I like that effect - few games actually do it - mostly racing games), but in FPS it's absolutely riduculous as you're meant to look through the character's eyes. I have no problem with lense effects in third person games or racing games, because it IS a camera you're controlling with the right stick (in TPS's). Not a physical one, but you know what I mean.

I have to agree that Frostbite 2 overdoes all the post-processing effects. And I always feel like there's some kind of grey-blue-ish filter over the entire screen that makes the picture look... well, a little gritty. I can't describe it properly. I instantly know when a FPS is made with Frostbite 2 - well, we all do - but I can tell just because of this wicked filter.

[Cybertox]

Couldnt give a damn about post-processing. The main problem in current consoles and pc games is the frame rate.Which is a lot more important than some post-processing.