On the Subject of Graphics

Kelly Brook

I was unfortunate enough to stumble across this painful example of "journalism" on the otherwise quite respectable bit-tech.net. It's (thankfully) short, but in order to save you from wasting even the smallest amount of time reading what is in reality a bunch of ignorant, idiotic wank, let me distill some of the "best" bits.

"Crysis with all the sauce turned on looks just as good as Left 4 Dead"

What a dick. Define "good". L4D has graphics which are appropriate given what it's trying to achieve. Heaving hordes of zombies are more important than rich environments. Indeed, the sparsity and starkness of L4D lends to it's post-apocalyptic feel. Crysis, on the other hand, attempts to render a rich, lush tropical environment with a much smaller density of NPCs. Similarly, WoW is quite openly designed to run on as many machines as possible, and looks very basic as a result. Do the X million WoW players care? Do they fuck. L4D would arguably not benefit much from running on CryEngine 2. Crysis, on the other hand, would be impossible to build on Source. The fact that someone compares the two demonstrates a tragic ignorance of graphical effects.

"how good a game looks isn’t about how technical the graphics are"

This is really the same point, and again relies on the tiresomely ambiguous use of the word "good". How "realistic" a game looks IS dependent on the lighting pipeline supported by the engine. How "good" it looks is a meaningless, subjective metric. This is just another example of people not understanding the difference between graphical complexity and art design, or at the very least not appreciating that a more sophisticated engine can only increase the options available to designers, while no amount of clever design will achieve realism beyond the capabilities of the engine technology, even if it can disguise its shortcomings.

"I really hope that graphics advancements slow down some and gives the hardware a chance to catch up"

What a fucking retard. How about hardware advancements speed up to enable better graphical effects? Let's put the brakes on progress just so you fucking morons who can't afford a decent machine can run "high end" games on your piece of shit PCs. These are the same sort of people who still claim Crysis is "poorly coded" to this day, despite a) having no experience of graphics programming, and b) the fact that nothing has been released since Crysis that is anywhere near as visually complex.
Anyone with a clue knows that video card technology has been sadly stagnant for the last couple of years, while nvidia sat on their thumbs waiting for amd to catch up. The 9x00 series in particular didn't deserve to see the light of day, and nvidia are still reguritating three year-old tech in the form of the GTX250. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and blame the global economic fiasco. The fact is still that a combination of weak tech and the increasing trend towards porting games from aging console hardware to the PC are holding back much-needed advances in graphics.

If Crysis is indeed the pinnacle of PC graphics then in a few years or maybe less than that, we’ll be able play our games at the native resolution of a 30in display with all settings on max using mid-range hardware

This is such a meaningless statement. There are plenty of games right now which will run perfectly well at 2560x1600. Some of them even look good. This quote borders dangerously on a "we will have photorealism in X years" prediction. Crysis is a triumph of graphics programming on current hardware, but it is a long way from photoreal. And it's not just about being able to push enough pixels to be able to run it at a high resolution. I'm sure even Crytek's own developers would be happy to point out the many approximations and cheats they had to employ in order to squeeze every last frame-per-second out of the engine, at the expense of realism. Did you really mistake the Koreans in Crysis for real people? Or even one of the trees and bushes for real trees and bushes? The graphics might be "sufficient", they might be "impressive", but they're by no means photoreal, in the same way that you would never in a million years confuse that Final Fantasy film with live action. This quote is just more whining from someone who can't afford a decent PC and who thinks the whole games industry should just spin it's wheels churning out second-rate, 5 year-old visuals just so that they run well on his shit PC.

Of course the author is simply trying to align his own worthless opinion with that of industry luminary Doug Lombardi in order to look cool and connected. Unfortunately he's also misunderstanding the issue. There are other factors involved when it comes to game graphics, most importantly cost. Let's say Crysis is 80% realistic. I just made that up, but the point is that the last 20% of realism would cost a disproportionate amount to achieve, even ignoring the fact that it would be nowhere near possible on existing hardware. The sheer amount of data that would be required would demand so many modellers, texture painters, animators and level designers that it's simply not realistic to expect genuinely photoreal games. Consider the enormous budgets consumed by current AAA titles, and then look at what they achieve technically. Yes, there are the constraints of the hardware to consider, but bear in mind that modern games also seem to be shrinking in terms of hours of game play.

Another issue that sometimes pops up during discussions of game graphics is that of ray tracing. It is currently being waved around as some sort of magical technology that will single-handedly make all games photoreal, if we can only get hardware that can process it in real time.
Unfortunately this is simply not true. The fact is, there are some effects which can be achieved more effectively, or more accurately, by ray tracing, but it also comes with a lot of it's own limitations, and not just when it comes to speed. Even if the hardware was available, there would be no reason to have an engine ray trace everything all the time, it's just not necessary. It's not really the simple choice of "ray tracing vs. rasterisation" which is often described. Visual effects artists in film or television don't ray trace everything even though they don't suffer from the limitation of having to render a frame in 1/60th of a second. Because it doesn't add anything to the visual quality in a lot of cases. Of course if you're dealing with pretty, glossy reflections in complex surfaces there are few alternatives. Not to mention other applications like shadowing, occlusion and colour-bleeding, although in those cases there are alternatives, and alternatives which often produce superior results. The point is it's not an "either, or" situation, and while it would be nice to have access to real-time ray tracing functionality, don't expect it to suddenly make all your games photoreal. Ray tracing won't improve your models, your textures or your animation.

On the Subject of PHaGS

Nonami Takizawa

This was originally going to feature my observations on the subject of monitor input lag, but it quickly arrived at broader territory as we will see in due course. Monitor input lag, essentially the time delay between a monitor receiving an image from the computer and making that image visible to the user, has become the new yardstick for LCD monitors. What amuses me about it is the way wannabe hardcore gamers will pour scorn on a monitor that has been demonstrated, on some random website of no repute, to have a high lag when the truth is 90% of those people probably couldn't even tell the difference in practice. Of course I understand that there is variation in lag, and that less lag is better, but I also understand that a lot of the people who are the most critical and "discerning" are simply deluding themselves that they're good enough gamers to even notice the difference. They want to be seen to reject higher-lag monitors because they see it as an indication of their own gaming prowess.
Of course, by "prowess" I'm really referring to a player's reaction times in FPSes, which is the only genre where a few milliseconds of lag are even an issue. Similarly, when the armchair critics denounce a monitor as being "bad for gaming", they really mean "bad for pro-level FPS gaming", which in turn really means "fine for 99% of people".
It is often easy to identify the pretenders, as their grasp of the technical issues involved is often slight, to say the least. Look out for people claiming that a monitor demonstrated more input lag in one game than another, for example.

It is what I'm going to call Pseudo Hardcore Gamer Syndrome, at least until I think of a catchier title. People who aren't really "all that" but who want to believe they are, and certainly want other people to believe they are, and so adopt the affectations of legitimate top-tier (FPS) gamers as a substitute for genuine ability. I haven't just invented this demographic, as evidenced by the huge variety of "Fatal1ty"-branded gaming products available, for example. Not that PHaGS sufferers (it's almost like I worked backwards from the acronym) would be seen dead with a Fatal1ty mouse/keyboard/psu/cock ring, because those products aren't hardcore enough for the true pros.

Left 4 Dead was, and still is, a tremendous example of PHaGS in action. I've pointed out in the past that pretty much 100% of L4D players think they are better at the game than everyone else, and will often bemoan the quality of random players to a generally sympathetic audience who don't realise that they are, in reality, criticising each other. The other members of that group you just played with who were "poor players" on account of the fact that they wouldn't follow your instructions without question, are most likely busy lamenting your own deficiencies.

The general derision for Far Cry 2 was no doubt in part due it not being just another vacuous corridor shooter designed for the Quake 3 crowd. The common criticisms concerned issues which got in the way of the PHaGS approach of powering through any FPS as quickly as possible so that the sufferer can jump on the nearest forum and announce how short the game was, and especially how easy it was, in an attempt to demonstrate their advanced gamer status.

Of course PHaGS doesn't only affect FPS players. MMOs are another breeding ground for players who want to be seen as better than they really are. Unfortunately in MMOs, monitor input lag is hardly an issue because the games are at the mercy of much higher network lag, nor do pro-branded products like mice, keyboards or anal beads offer any real game play advantages. Fortunately there are plenty of other avenues in which to channel your hardcore pretensions. Historically, MMOs have substituted time played for actual skill, and that will suit the common PHaGS sufferer just fine, since they are commonly ne'er do wells who are in a position to spend an excessive amount of time in-game. There is also the classic issue of beta "testing", because of course only the best players will get into a beta. Or at least so the people in the beta would like to believe. Beyond that, MMOs are largely all about the gear, which at the high end is usually a function of time played, so that's naturally compatible with the PHaGS ethos.

Is there a cure for PHaGS? Perhaps "growing up" might be an effective remedy. There is, however, a danger that once the sufferer has acquired the symptoms, time might further reinforce the delusional state. After all, if you've been playing MMOs since Ultima Online, you must be an exceptional player, right? There's also a serious risk of contagion, as demonstrated (appropriately enough) by L4D. As more and more players accumulate more and more hours played in games which bring them into contact with existing sufferers, the chances of new players developing the symptoms will increase accordingly. It's also important to recognise the dangerous feedback that can occur as the infected population has arguably already grown to the point of becoming a profitable marketing demographic for game developers. Thus more games will be developed which feed on the weaknesses of current sufferers in addition to attracting new and susceptible players, further escalating the problem. It is not inconceivable that the only people who will escape the epidemic are those who have a natural resistance to infection and lack the overall inadequacy and weakness of those people who are most likely to become victims of this ruthless disease.

On the Subject of The Hunter

Some Random Model

I had never heard of The Hunter until it popped up on a forum recently. It was being compared with Crysis, at least graphically, and I have to admit that initially I scoffed at what seemed to be some crappy redneck hunting game. Look at those shitty avatars! Crysis?? Yeah, right.

But first things first. Subsequent online discussions about the game have tended to disintegrate into impassioned, if pointless, arguments about the nature of hunting in general. Mindless bloodlust or sensible population control? A means to provide food or a means to provide wall trophies? I have no interest in hunting in real life. It's difficult to be impressed by someone dropping a deer at 200m using a rifle. I'd be impressed if the hunters took them down bare-handed. Or if the deer could shoot back. Don't confuse that with me giving a fuck about poor, innocent animals, though, because I don't. Hunting simply doesn't appeal, in the same way that I have no interest in opera or knitting.

Still, the trailer looked pretty, and the idea of a more leisurely-paced game was attractive, and best of all the basic game is free.

It doesn't look as advanced as Crysis, let's settle that one right away. The graphics reminded me more of Stalker, which isn't a criticism, just an observation. On the other hand the island reserve is nice and big (and seamless) and the forest nice and dense. Well, it's nice from an aesthetic point of view, not so much when you're trying to spot a bastard deer. There's a dynamic day/night, or rather dawn/dusk cycle, and just like in Far Cry 2 the game can look stunning in the morning and evening. In full daylight it can be a bit harsh, a bit electric green, but even then there are cloud shadows rolling across the hills and grass. Some of the meadows especially are gorgeous. And it runs pretty well too, although I've had a couple of crashes. Overall, far more impressive than I was expecting.

Then there's the game play. It should be understood that this is no run-and-gun FPS. In fact there's not much gunning at all, and you're not going to get very far if you run (in either sense; the run speed isn't exactly a sprint, and any deer will hear you coming a mile off). It's barely a walk-and-gun, more like a crouch-and-then-prone-and-then-spot-and-maybe-gun-if-you're-lucky. It's a much more measured, thoughtful experience which will immediately alienate all the "hardcore" online FPS fans and for that alone it deserves respect. It turns out that for me at least, and naturally my opinion is the correct one, The Hunter is enormously immersive. It's amazing how much time you can spend in it, simply tracking and exploring and perhaps spotting the odd animal along the way. You can sit in a watchtower (or whatever they're called in hunting circles), camp your favourite meadow or beach or forest clearing. Well, ok, there aren't that many options for things to do, but that makes it all the more impressive that it's such a compelling game. There's the carrot-and-stick element of "if I just follow this next track...", or "if I just wait here a little longer...".

It's not perfect, but then no game is. There's a slightly bizarre, and incredibly annoying 4 hour / 10km limit before it kicks you back to the hunting lodge. That might seem like plenty of time/distance, but when it kicks in while you're trying to track a wounded deer like it has done for me twice this week, it couldn't be more frustrating. According to some posts on the forums it is done to prevent server overloading or some such rubbish. No one seems to know why they can't let you "rest" in the same position rather than forcing you to retrace several kilometres of slow jogging, by which time the tracks are long gone.

Not being a real hunter I can't comment on the realism of the animal AI. The deer cetainly seem to be verrrrry sensitive, and I've often approached at what I thought was a very restrained pace only to see the deer bouncing off over the horizon. It wasn't until I figured out how important wind direction is, and located the smoke bottle in the inventory, that I started making progress. It makes a close encounter quite nerve-wracking, and it requires a lot of patience to get that perfect shot. Or luck.

Anyway, in terms of value for money it's unrivalled, and that aside it's the best game I'm played so far this year. Of course it's early days, but The Hunter will certainly keep me occupied while I wait for Burnout Paradise to download on Steam (finally!).

On the Subject of HAWX

Holly Madison

How the fuck could anyone mistake Tom Clancy's HAWX for a proper, realistic flight sim? The fact that it's a multi-format release should be enough to tell you it's an arcade game, and if there's any doubt beyond that then a quick look at any of the teasers and trailers should firmly put the matter to rest.

And yet since the release of the PC demo, I'm seeing endless forum posts from people whining that the flight model is unrealistic, or the unlimited ammo and fuel is unrealistic, or it's not as realistic as Falcon 4 or Lock-On - Modern Air Combat or whatever other chin-stroking flight sim they can think of.

It's like complaining that Mario Kart isn't realistic. It's an arcade game. It's about action, pretty pictures and blowing stuff up. It's like some people saw a picture of an aeroplane and immediately started dusting off their joystick/thrust/pedal combos.

Anyway, some people's idiotic presumptions aside, I was quite enjoying the PC demo. For a while. But like virtually everyone else who's tried it, the out-of-cockpit "assistance off" mode started to wear thin quite quickly. I was saddened to see a developer response to the issue,

Our "Assistance OFF" mode comes with a completely different gameplay style than the one we have been used to until now in other flight combat games. The dogfight camera is the only camera that can support that type of gameplay. Here are just a few of the features we wanted to implement in the "Assistance OFF" mode, which could only be obtained through the "Dogfight camera":

• See both your target and your own aircraft at the same time, to anticipate and quickly react to your opponent's moves.
• See incoming missiles as they approach your aircraft, so you can assess impact time and calculate exactly when you need to react.
• See every move that your plane makes, this being the only way to execute extreme maneuvers, never seen before in other flight combat games.

This is why the dogfight camera is and will remain the only camera available when playing in "Assistance OFF" mode. This camera is at the core of the game design, and an essential part to create the game experience.

What a load of absolute wank. What they actually mean is the game would be too easy if you had a proper cockpit (or even chase) view in assistance off mode, so they've added artificial difficulty by forcing you to use a needlessly disorientating camera. The first two "reasons" they give are essentially the same, but the third doesn't even make sense. The 3rd-person view is "the only way to execute extreme maneuvers"? Hitting brake+up elevators at the same time, which seems to be the full extent of the game's "extreme maneuvers", has nothing to do with the camera. The fact is that if you were in a first-person view, you'd be able to judge when to complete the move much more easily than you can with the current camera.

Of course a first-person view wouldn't show off their fancy graphics as well.

And the game seems to be quite pretty, at least from high-altitude. At ground level the simple box buildings look a bit... boxy. The clouds are sweet, though. Another side effect of the "not a proper sim"-ness is that there are limits to the active flight zone. Admittedly it takes a little while to reach them, but when you do you'll find a very sci-fi force field blocking any further exploration.

I thought it felt a bit like Strike Commander, a classic action-oriented, non-sim flight sim. It was probably that nostalgia that led me to preorder on Steam. However, having spent a little more time with the demo, and after discovering that the assistance off camera is apparently here to stay, I'm wondering if I should have bothered.