Saturation Preference Poll

[tuluse]

Just out of curiosity I've got a question to the people who voted for A. I understand that the few of you went with A because "this is true to the original" (and I respect that), but I am also under the impression that there are also people who voted for A because "it looks more real than B or C". So I've got to ask. If it's so real... why is it that you guys don't have a problem with a toxic river in a middle of a desert 100+ years after the fact? (how many shallow rivers/streams do you have in the deserts to begin with?) Not only that, but the surrounding area look fine. Cacti seems to be toxic proof, buildings and other industrial material also seems to be fine despite being radiated for over 100 years. So... all that is real to you? Two a-bombs and a recent nuclear meltdown in Japan, and I have yet to see a green toxic river, or any evidence of it. C'mon. If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it.

I voted for A, I've argued against people who said C looked realistic. This does not imply that I think A looks realistic. Honestly, I think B looks the most realistic, I just want people to realize that lack of color is not what the real world looks like.

However, I do think A looks the most stylish, while C looks the most boring. I do think C looks the least realistic compared to looking outside at the real world.

Also, "If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it. " is a terrible philosophy to me. It's not an on off switch where the game either looks like Crysis or 16 color EGA graphics. The point is to create a world that seems real even though it isn't. A person can want realistic looking sand/water/sky/flags/whatever with a glowing stream of radiated water running through it.

So that's what I think. That and a quarter will get you a gum ball.

[Ronin73]

Just out of curiosity I've got a question to the people who voted for A. I understand that the few of you went with A because "this is true to the original" (and I respect that), but I am also under the impression that there are also people who voted for A because "it looks more real than B or C". So I've got to ask. If it's so real... why is it that you guys don't have a problem with a toxic river in a middle of a desert 100+ years after the fact? (how many shallow rivers/streams do you have in the deserts to begin with?) Not only that, but the surrounding area look fine. Cacti seems to be toxic proof, buildings and other industrial material also seems to be fine despite being radiated for over 100 years. So... all that is real to you? Two a-bombs and a recent nuclear meltdown in Japan, and I have yet to see a green toxic river, or any evidence of it. C'mon. If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it.

I voted option A because (for the most part) in the context of a sunset setting it looked the most reasonable to me in terms of color, however I did say that I thought something between A and B would probably be better.

Also, the poll didn't ask if the screenshot was realistic in terms of content. You have a valid point on the presence of a radioactive creek being there after all this time, however if I ignore the time frame and ask myself if there was radioactive creek, would I picture it being that bright, I would have to say yes.

It should be pointed out Wasteland obviously didn't handle radiation realistically, given the weird and wonderful creatures it created, so using real world references as a guide probably wouldn't be that helpful.

[salt1219]

all this arguing over A vs C, yet its been said this is only a poll to choose the default setting. all the other options will still be there.

I chose B, feel free to hate me for it.

[Woolfe]

Just out of curiosity I've got a question to the people who voted for A. I understand that the few of you went with A because "this is true to the original" (and I respect that), but I am also under the impression that there are also people who voted for A because "it looks more real than B or C". So I've got to ask. If it's so real... why is it that you guys don't have a problem with a toxic river in a middle of a desert 100+ years after the fact? (how many shallow rivers/streams do you have in the deserts to begin with?) Not only that, but the surrounding area look fine. Cacti seems to be toxic proof, buildings and other industrial material also seems to be fine despite being radiated for over 100 years. So... all that is real to you? Two a-bombs and a recent nuclear meltdown in Japan, and I have yet to see a green toxic river, or any evidence of it. C'mon. If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it.

I voted for A, I've argued against people who said C looked realistic. This does not imply that I think A looks realistic. Honestly, I think B looks the most realistic, I just want people to realize that lack of color is not what the real world looks like.

However, I do think A looks the most stylish, while C looks the most boring. I do think C looks the least realistic compared to looking outside at the real world.

Also, "If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it. " is a terrible philosophy to me. It's not an on off switch where the game either looks like Crysis or 16 color EGA graphics. The point is to create a world that seems real even though it isn't. A person can want realistic looking sand/water/sky/flags/whatever with a glowing stream of radiated water running through it.

So that's what I think. That and a quarter will get you a gum ball.

I pretty much agree with Tuluse.
Altho I do think the colours of A are not as extreme as some make out(that may be due to me living in Australia, I was honestly surprised by how much "brighter" it is down here compared to Canada where I had been living for 12 months). They are a little extreme. But it suits what I feel is WL. I actually don't like the green radiated stream that much. Green Toxic rivers, well there actually are examples of that, but they have more to do with industry than nuclear war.

So overall, I don't want it to look extremely realistic, I want it to have a style of its own. I want it to look "mostly" realistic, but to have some crazy extremes of WL. Just like Fallout did, with its retro 50's styling. I loved Fallout 1+2, and I even loved Fallout 3, and part of that was the graphical styling that appealed so much.

[sparkee666]

I like Bright colours and a high saturation in my games. There is usually a difference of opinion on this, but I think a lower saturation and realism produces a game that is closer to a movie and not as memorable. A more "cartoonish" game with brighter colours and higher saturation allows people to become part of the game and thus want to play it more.

I'm also of the personal belief that 3D animation and how it looks should follow the same rules as classical animation and claymation.

[Wile]

I like Bright colours and a high saturation in my games. There is usually a difference of opinion on this, but I think a lower saturation and realism produces a game that is closer to a movie and not as memorable. A more "cartoonish" game with brighter colours and higher saturation allows people to become part of the game and thus want to play it more.

Well, there's of course certain games where muted palette is necessary for mood purposes. Max Payne for example couldn't work that well with ultra bright and colourful palette. At least not in my opinion.

[Drool]

Well, there's of course certain games where muted palette is necessary for mood purposes. Max Payne for example couldn't work that well with ultra bright and colourful palette. At least not in my opinion.

No question. A dark, noir game can't work with a bright palette or heavy saturation. Hell, Fallout wouldn't work that way either.

The problem is that Wasteland is a different post-apocalypse than Fallout. Once again, more Hell Comes to Frogtown, less The Road.

[sparkee666]

Well, there's of course certain games where muted palette is necessary for mood purposes. Max Payne for example couldn't work that well with ultra bright and colourful palette. At least not in my opinion.

Fair enough, but Max pain was more of a big cinema feel when you played it. With the John Woo gun fights and Bullet time effects. It even inspired a movie Max Pain.

[wolfCarter]

I voted C because , in my mind since its a post apo world it should not be too shiny

[ffordesoon]

Actually, Max Payne 3 tells a dark noir story while using a bright, glitzy, almost hallucinogenic color palette, and gets away with it by making the player feel as disoriented as Max does. Whether you think it's a successful game is another matter entirely; my point is that bright colors can be used to provide contrast to a dark story.

Watchmen (the comic) is another example of this; it's drawn in a more or less realistic style, but the bold, lurid, EC-horror colors and shading create a sheen of cartooniness that makes all the violence and sex feel much more disturbing. There's a sense that the world of the book is Wrong, which heightens the alienation of the reader while simultaneously drawing him or her in. It's a superhero book colored like a horror book, and it looks beautifully disgusting as a result. Which fits right in with the writing and art.

[Wile]

Actually, Max Payne 3 tells a dark noir story while using a bright, glitzy, almost hallucinogenic color palette, and gets away with it by making the player feel as disoriented as Max does. Whether you think it's a successful game is another matter entirely; my point is that bright colors can be used to provide contrast to a dark story.

I never really got that noir feeling with Max Cutscene 3. I mean noir as a genre is pretty much defined by it's dark image and prominent shadows. But sure you can use bright colors with dark story, not saying that. It just doesn't work with noir in my opinion.

Watchmen (the comic) is another example of this; it's drawn in a more or less realistic style, but the bold, lurid, EC-horror colors and shading create a sheen of cartooniness that makes all the violence and sex feel much more disturbing. There's a sense that the world of the book is Wrong, which heightens the alienation of the reader while simultaneously drawing him or her in. It's a superhero book colored like a horror book, and it looks beautifully disgusting as a result. Which fits right in with the writing and art.

Yeah, I really like Watchmen. It's in the top 10 of my comic list.

[8bitweapon]

B

[Andrew_C]

Hi, I really like options A and B, A a bit better than B. I really dislike C, it looks so flat and dull and there seems too little contrast and colour range IMHO. Please, no GrimDark!

[john irwin finster]

I think the second shot is a good balance between a bleak wasteland and a vibrant environment. For myself, likely I'd adjust things to be on the more colorful side. More than anything, I appreciate the option to customize the look, as I think many people do. Maybe once I started the game I'd decide I want something darker, it's always good to have the option.

Seeing these I have to say again that for early screenshots these look great, especially for a game more focused on content than visuals. Thanks for keeping us updated!

[rudel_dietrich]

I am sure this has probably been mentioned several times, but I don't want to read 17 pages.
Most modern games let you choose a post processing filter in the graphic options. This being a PC only release will probably make that even easier to implement.
Giving the user the option of several filters would render this discussion moot.

[ButchinMelancholy]

I am sure this has probably been mentioned several times, but I don't want to read 17 pages.
Most modern games let you choose a post processing filter in the graphic options. This being a PC only release will probably make that even easier to implement.
Giving the user the option of several filters would render this discussion moot.

To not read all the comments, ok, but read the original post at least...

[irongamer]

Option B seems to be the best balance of color/desaturation in my opinion. It's not blooming with colors, but it does give a sense of what the scene looks like without making it too bland.

Agreed, I voted for A but B is beginning to grow on me. However, I think that B fails to properly convey a sunset.

I voted B. But I do believe you are correct, in the context of a sunset A is much better. An option between A and B may have been perfect imho.

[Hiver]

B with option A reserved for special and other places.

[psychoo]

I don`t agree with this approach for the poll. It`s just increasing overall saturation, not interesting at all. I think the radioactive water in the trench should be vibrant, glowing. making it`s close environment also greenish. The environment in general less saturated. The plants should have some vibrant colors too, but not as much as radiation or any emitting surface. I think it would be more pleasing to the eye, and also helps communicating things visually. Adds contrast.

Also, in the previous thread about the screenshot, someone made a nice photoshop work, the biggest deal was to push the ground color a bit to the red from orange. I think it helped greatly the image.

Thanks for reading.

[ffordesoon]

@psychoo:

I actually think increasing the contrast between onscreen items would be smart. A less realistic visual style lends itself nicely to a less naturalistic approach.

On the other hand, there's a day/night cycle, which means visual cues have to be clear in all twenty-four-plus lighting conditions. Glowing toxic waste could be an excellent way to handle that, but the "green smoke" rising from it is likely there to communicate the radioactivity of the water in daylight, which a simple glow wouldn't accomplish as effectively.

I'm assuming the guys and gals at inXile have already thought of all this, and have probably devised a solution to the problem, but it's worth mentioning anyway.