Battlefield 3 is the successor to the acclaimed game Battlefield 2. It includes advanced and innovative features like Frostbite 2, the incredible technology that takes animation, destruction, lighting, scale and audio to new heights, Feeling the impact of bullets and explosions, dragging your fallen comrades into safety, and mounting your weapon on almost any part of the terrain, and unparalleled vehicle warfare.
In-game screens
(view original)
Post a comment
u know that DICE uses real people to make the solders on bf3. they use that computer program where u stick little dots all over a real persons face and a camera picks up the dots and they use that 3d image of the persons face to make a extremly realistic person. so u might run into a bf3 solder someday in real life lol
you mean "statistic scanning"? rockstar games have recently used it for la noire.
no, its called: motion capture.
LA Noire's technology is a completely different program where they use 30 HD cameras to capture every angle of a person's face and motion such as wrinkles.
that technology has been used for quite a while now and the sensors over the person's body is used for animation not the model, i believe they use something else for that such as a laser scanner
It's all very well saying this looks amazing. Which I can recognise and understand from an artistic and technological viewpoint. But with regards to 'realism' of the visuals this is far from accurate compared to 'real life' (despite peoples zealous fanatical reverence).
My point is about the game creators attempt to render an environment as close to reality as possible, an aim since the dawn of computer gaming. Yet the tendancy is to make 'stylistic' choices to hide differences or embellish visuals using certain graphical techniques.
In Battlefield 3 it seems they have gone overboard with high contrast and unnatural lighting (or atleast missed out important considerations).
There is a key difference between "photo realism" and "optical realism" its a massive mistake to follow "photo realism" in a computer game. Great for still images and dramatic movies but totally totally unrealistic for actual gameplay and at worst a hindrance (in a game like this).
No one seems to makes the distinction between the two and I note a great number of people are swept away by the strong contrasts in the lighting and I put forward that its due to the natural excitment to the dramatic effect it produces, just as a powerful highly contrasted black and white photo can be a strong and intense image. It should not be confused with the 'realism' of the average human eye, which adjusts to light conditions unlike battlefield 3 visuals.
Basicly in short, the lighting is a mess.
p.s. I have played the game.
It's not the only game to play this cheap gimmick trick , its dramatic, it looks like a movie, it probably sells.