How Much Detail Is Too Much For Games? 201
jones_supa writes "Gamasutra editor Eric Schwarz gives thought to the constantly increasing amount of graphical detail in computer games. He notes how the cues leading the player can be hindered too much if they drown in the surroundings, making it harder for the game to hint whether the player is making progress. Consistent visual language helps to categorize various objects, making their meaning more obvious. Paths through the game world can be difficult to read simply due to dense vegetation. For some cases 'obfuscation through detail' can also actually work really well. Schwarz challenges us to ponder how the amount of detail makes a game either more or less enjoyable."
Re:It's not detail, it's contrast (Score:4, Informative)
I'd prefer monitors that can work without a hugely contrasting image.
Take a game like Quake. It plays perfectly, in all its dark, murky, brown palette, on CRTs. Throw it on an LCD without boosting the game's brightness and it can be quite difficult to pick out the details. Reacting to this, mappers seemed to go between one of two paths
The first option, they'll make a game nearly fullbright, then add shadows in for contrast. Dark colors other than shadows are delegated for things you shouldn't be paying attention to -- mainly extraneous paths.
The second option is that the mapper significantly increases the brightness setting in the game, designing a level that is actually quite dark and very difficult to see at a normal brightness level on a calibrated monitor.
not a crt vs lcd thing (Score:2, Informative)
A properly-calibrated LCD image is very close to a properly-calibrated CRT image. If you're seeing significant differences, one or the other is miscalibrated.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Informative)
Millitary training in the 80s taught me that static camouflage is hard to see, but movement leaps out at you.
It _should_ be hard to see the stationary sniper.