Bloom. Bloom never changes.
this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
268 points (97.2% liked)
Greentext
6264 readers
1330 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The top right image is at sunrise or sunset, and if the game is going for natural illumination (rather than the so-called "Ambient lighting" which isn't at all realistic) low-light times will look pretty faded and somber because most light will be coming from indirect lighting so amongst other things the colors you will see are affected by the illumination being just light reflected by nearby objects which themselves have color and thus don't reflect the full light spectrum.
The top left image is with the sun high in the sky so most things are being illuminated by direct light. Further it looks like it's relying on the Ambient Lighting trick, which means shadows too will be better illuminated (and hence not realistic) because even though they're not hit by direct light, that ambient light makes everything look like it's getting light by a weaker light that is unaffected by shadows (and also projects no shadows) coming from all around. Oh, and it has the insane amount of bloom that the game originally had (IMHO, it looks better with it switched off) so everything looks extra bright and over-saturated.
it's clearly not the same time of day.
reminds me of the study that says that cars are more colorful in times where the economic prospects are better
What the fuck the new oblivion actually looks like that. First they outlaw levitation then they outlaw saturation.
Except those two screenshots are clearly taken at two different times of day and so there's absolutely no conclusion we can draw whatsoever from this.
It's just standard 4chaners whining about stuff
I like the ghosting on the blade edge, presumably from the fake frame generation, that they added in the right comic panel.
That's from chromatic aberration, the second most stupid idea since motion blurring everything to the maxx
That's just from TAA, iirc that meme predates frame-gen being abundant in games
That was my first thought. Is it 2008 again?
Bloom is used a lot subtly than it was in the 2000s. I think motion blur (and maybe depth of field) are the new bloom.
More like chromatic abberation, as both that and bloom was/is often used to hide graphical shortcomings.
Always loved that term. Sounds like an illusionist's D&D spell.
I can't stand motion blur/depth of field. Does it take extra processing to blur stuff? Either way it looks awful. Horizon forbidden west is completely different with it on or off.
There's two kinds of motion blur, really - camera based, and model based. Camera-based requires calculating one motion vector for the whole screen, which is basically free. Model-based requires projecting the motion of each vertex of the model in the projected view; one matrix multiply per vector is not 'expensive' on a modern graphics card. Depth of field requires comparing the depth buffer, which you'll have already created as part of rendering, and then taking several 'taps' around each point on the screen to calculate the blur for the 'focus distance' compared to the actual distance. The final image post-processing will generally process the whole screen anyway, so you're just throwing a couple of extra steps in for the two effects.
Now, what does it save you? If your engine is using TAA (temporal anti-aliasing) then that's performed by 'twitching' the camera a tiny amount (less than a pixel) every frame. If nothing's moving, then you can merge the last several frames to get a really high-quality anti-alias; all the detail that wouldn't be caught with a 'completely static' camera will be captured, and the result looks great. But things do move; if you recalculate 'where things were' then you can get a reasonable idea of what colour ought to be at each pixel. Since we need to calculate all the movement vectors to do that, then using the same info gives us the motion blur data 'for free' - we can add a little blur in post-processing to hide the TAA mistakes in post processing, and when implemented well(*) then it looks pretty effective. It's certainly much, much cheaper to calculate that 'proper' antialiasing like MSAA.
(*) It is also quite easy to not implement TAA well, and earn the ire of gamers for turning everything into a blurry mess. Doom (2016) does a fantastic job of it - it's in the engine at a low level - and I've never seen anyone complain about that game being blurry or smeared.
It takes time to load high-quality textures and models from disk, and it uses up the RAM budget for each frame. Using lower-quality textures and models for distant objects greatly helps rendering speed and prevents stutter, and a bit of depth-of-field hides the low-quality rendering with a bit of a smear.
Now, if your graphics card greatly exceeds the design requirement (which was probably some kind of console) then you can switch these effects off and the game will look even better, which might make you question why they're there in the first place. To help consoles look better with some 'cinematic' effects, is why.
bloom was major between like 2005-2009ish maybe, coexisted right before the piss filter of the console generation.
currently tech wise, the current joke trend is blurry TAA caused by the switch to deferred rendering in order to get better lighting. TAA was a stop gap AA to replace older AA methods that are less compatible with deferred rendering. It's why things look like shit(blurry) ontop of performing like shit (lighting/shadows/raytracing) unless you have high end hardware to deblur as much of the blurriness as possible.
This is a bit dishonest. You can clearly see in the screenshot that the sun is low in the sky, thus the darker/somewhat washed out tones. When it's high in the sky, the color really isn't that much different than the original, albeit obviously not as vivid. Whether the vivid/bright color of the original Oblivion is better than the remaster or not is purely subjective; I happen to prefer the newer aesthetic a lot more.
The below comic existed before the game even was announced. Some people just looked at the leaked pics and decided to start hating the remaster.
Everyone has a right to like/dislike things but this is just pure dishonest depiction of the game to fuel the hate circle jerk.
I agree with you, the remaster looks really nice. I dont feel it's washed-out at all. The only thing that freaks me out a little is how every NPC's mouth is a little too wide for their face now. Just a little.
For some reason the games difficulty being lowered dramatically has made me more judge mental of the graphics upgrade. Like they should only upgrade the graphics if they are going to get the gameplay right.
I did fix the difficulty thing with a mod though so its not like its unplayable.
It's been almost 20 years since I've played the original, so I may be misremembering its difficulty. I remember it being super easy to cheese everything, just like in the remaster. Really, I don't have a high opinion of vanilla combat in any of the Elder Scrolls games. I think Avowed did an excellent job of showing how FPS RPG combat can be accomplished well.