Make night time dark. - Page 12

Grognard · 2012-02-05, 03:35 PM

I know there are some concerns about not readily seeing targets being a problem, Ive felt that myself from time to time in dark games...

However, in first person, when I can kinda simulate looking around, and sneaking, and how do I say this... trying to access my 6th sense when I sense eerie danger... it seems to be a trade off, but a good one, for me.

Even in movies, when you can only hear the sounds of the enemy rolling (or walking) up slowly from what seems to be ev-er-y-where, in the dark, knowing that at anytime a battle could explode into a mass CQB... or point-blank fire clusterf*ck... is a lot of fun to watch.

This does not sound like a blast, so to speak? No one wants "Darkside 2", but do we really want to give up the stuff only the night can bring? A moderate cycle of darkness, that is sometimes very dark, with a bigger light-cycle, weather and all, seems like a lot of immersion, to me...

Vancha · 2012-02-05, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by DayOne

- "There's no reason too."
- "There's no reason not too."

They cancel out and it is therefore a double negative.

Nope. If they cancel out, you end up with "there's reason to", which isn't the same as "there's no reason not to".

Edit: I'd be amazed if anyone managed to come up with a decent point on the topic that hadn't already been discussed by now.

Graywolves · 2012-02-05, 04:24 PM

Nope. The negatives were for different nouns which is clear with the sentence. Although in the same sentence, there is no contradiction or canceling.

The rules of grammar are more like guidelines anyways.

Warborn · 2012-02-05, 06:37 PM

Okay, let's see here. It's not about canceling out or nouns or anything, it's about implying a positive within a single sentence despite using negatives. Saying "there's no point in not something-something" implies there is a reason to something-something. You should have, in this, simply said "If everyone has flashlights then there should be dark nights" or whatever it was you were actually saying.

On the other hand, "there's no reason not to" is a double negative but I think it's considered stylistically appropriate. Double negatives don't seem to be strictly inappropriate, and some of them are permissible.

WELP

NewSith · 2012-02-05, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Okay, let's see here. It's not about canceling out or nouns or anything, it's about implying a positive within a single sentence despite using negatives. Saying "there's no point in not something-something" implies there is a reason to something-something. You should have, in this, simply said "If everyone has flashlights then there should be dark nights" or whatever it was you were actually saying.

On the other hand, "there's no reason not to" is a double negative but I think it's considered stylistically appropriate. Double negatives don't seem to be strictly inappropriate, and some of them are permissible.

I think it's because negative here highlights the object, while positive highlights the word "reason".

Also Hamma is gonna delete everything here and give us a warning.

Vancha · 2012-02-05, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Saying "there's no point in not something-something" implies there is a reason to something-something.

There's no reason not to blink twice.

Is there a reason to blink twice? No, but that doesn't mean there's a reason not to.

Warborn · 2012-02-05, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

There's no reason not to blink twice.

Is there a reason to blink twice? No, but that doesn't mean there's a reason not to.

You're implying there is in saying that.

Check out this thing I just farted out:

STALKER: Call of Pripyat at night. Meant to be scary and realistic because there are lots of mutants running around at night and STALKER attempts a degree of realism.

ArmA2 at night. Meant to be realistic. You have night optics, thermal imaging, etc to defeat the darkness.

Skyrim at night. Not meant to be scary or realistic, but rather strictly atmospheric.

Versus:
http://i.imgur.com/B0YW2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PsY3v.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QLO6Q.jpg

The first two pictures, from ArmA and STALKER, are what VioletZero was advocating as far as I could tell. Various people agreed with her stance of "must use night vision or must not fight at night at all". That's unacceptable and as you can see from those shots night in realistically dark games is really dark.

Skyrim, on the other hand, is pretty silly. There is no detriment at all to visibility at night. Underground you might use a torch now and then but that's pushing it, even.

Finally, the last three images are night time shots from Planetside 2. I think they've found the perfect balance. First, it looks amazing. Very atmospheric. Second, it impairs vision somewhat but you're not crippled. There's still room for night vision, lamps for guns and helmets and stuff, and otherwise darkness-defeating options. BUT, you're hardly crippled by the lack of it. You can easily see off into the distance a ways, although there'd certainly be a greater potential for stealth. Conversely, firing a weapon would make a very noticeable flash from the way it looks to me.

So there's that. That's a snapshot of the two extremes we find in gaming, the ultra-realistic and the "who gives a math" approaches, and the happy middleground Planetside 2 has found. Look at yonder photographs and imagine which is most appropriate for a MMO like Planetside, a game not about realism or scary mutants, but about fun gameplay and cool visuals. If you've decided what they've shown is what they should do, you are right. Everyone else is wrong. Always. You're always wrong.

WaryWizard · 2012-02-05, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

You're implying there is in saying that.

Check out this thing I just farted out:

STALKER: Call of Pripyat at night. Meant to be scary and realistic because there are lots of mutants running around at night and STALKER attempts a degree of realism.

ArmA2 at night. Meant to be realistic. You have night optics, thermal imaging, etc to defeat the darkness.

Skyrim at night. Not meant to be scary or realistic, but rather strictly atmospheric.

Versus:
http://i.imgur.com/B0YW2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PsY3v.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QLO6Q.jpg

The first two pictures, from ArmA and STALKER, are what VioletZero was advocating as far as I could tell. Various people agreed with her stance of "must use night vision or must not fight at night at all". That's unacceptable and as you can see from those shots night in realistically dark games is really dark.

Skyrim, on the other hand, is pretty silly. There is no detriment at all to visibility at night. Underground you might use a torch now and then but that's pushing it, even.

Finally, the last three images are night time shots from Planetside 2. I think they've found the perfect balance. First, it looks amazing. Very atmospheric. Second, it impairs vision somewhat but you're not crippled. There's still room for night vision, lamps for guns and helmets and stuff, and otherwise darkness-defeating options. BUT, you're hardly crippled by the lack of it. You can easily see off into the distance a ways, although there'd certainly be a greater potential for stealth. Conversely, firing a weapon would make a very noticeable flash from the way it looks to me.

So there's that. That's a snapshot of the two extremes we find in gaming, the ultra-realistic and the "who gives a math" approaches, and the happy middleground Planetside 2 has found. Look at yonder photographs and imagine which is most appropriate for a MMO like Planetside, a game not about realism or scary mutants, but about fun gameplay and cool visuals. If you've decided what they've shown is what they should do, you are right. Everyone else is wrong. Always. You're always wrong.

I find the first planetside image too bright. Maybe it is the way the fog is illuminated, but that's a little too bright. Kinda hurt my eyes when I first looked at it.

I want it to look a "little" darker than this

Vancha · 2012-02-05, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

You're implying there is in saying that.

So, "Is there a reason to X? No, but there's no reason not to." is a contradictory statement to you?

Originally Posted by Warborn

The first two pictures, from ArmA and STALKER, are what VioletZero was advocating as far as I could tell. Various people agreed with her stance of "must use night vision or must not fight at night at all". That's unacceptable and as you can see from those shots night in realistically dark games is really dark.

Skyrim, on the other hand, is pretty silly. There is no detriment at all to visibility at night. Underground you might use a torch now and then but that's pushing it, even.

Finally, the last three images are night time shots from Planetside 2. I think they've found the perfect balance. First, it looks amazing. Very atmospheric. Second, it impairs vision somewhat but you're not crippled. There's still room for night vision, lamps for guns and helmets and stuff, and otherwise darkness-defeating options. BUT, you're hardly crippled by the lack of it. You can easily see off into the distance a ways, although there'd certainly be a greater potential for stealth. Conversely, firing a weapon would make a very noticeable flash from the way it looks to me.

So there's that. That's a snapshot of the two extremes we find in gaming, the ultra-realistic and the "who gives a math" approaches, and the happy middleground Planetside 2 has found. Look at yonder photographs and imagine which is most appropriate for a MMO like Planetside, a game not about realism or scary mutants, but about fun gameplay and cool visuals. If you've decided what they've shown is what they should do, you are right. Everyone else is wrong. Always. You're always wrong.

Yup, everyone's wrong. It doesn't come down to subjective opinion and it's not about the kind of gameplay people like...Nope, they're objectively wrong.

Using WaryWizard's picture as the basis, this is what I'd rather see (or, not see).

Warborn · 2012-02-05, 11:42 PM

Yes. Everyone is wrong and subjectively objectively words words I was being fatuous, stop acting like this is an important thing that you need to care about.

Vancha · 2012-02-06, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Yes. Everyone is wrong and subjectively objectively words words I was being fatuous, stop acting like this is an important thing that you need to care about.

I'm a no-lifer. I do care about it.

CuddlyChud · 2012-02-06, 05:32 AM

I think environment should affect gameplay, but it should never dictate gameplay. I think night time in BF3 is about right. I don't want it so dark that i'm required to use a flashlight, but it should confer some advantage to those who do have one.

Brokinarrow · 2012-02-06, 10:01 AM

Maybe if they added some sort of adjustment for your eyes and such... for example, it takes about 30 minutes of sitting in darkness for your eyes to fully adjust so that you'll have your best "night vision" possible. They could have it take a few second to adjust your eyes in the game when you leave a well lit area or get flashed by a flashlight. Once your eyes are adjusted, it's still fairly dark but you can see decently enough to move around and spot enemy players that aren't hiding in shadows.

BorisBlade · 2012-02-06, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by NewSith

Semi-related note - if you want to force leaning away from alltime-nightvision, you can make nightvision have some undesired visual effects for the user. Like a bright glow of a visor or something. So a person not using the NV will have advantage over the one with it.

Example:
TRCyclerPr0 runs with nighvision off.
ImarkpeoplENC snipes with nighvision off.
ImarkpeoplENC turns nightvision on to find TRCyclerPr0 on the field.
ImarkpeoplENC looks for a black sihloette on the green background.
Meanwhile TRCyclerPr0 spots a suddenly appearing blue glow coming from far infront.
TRCyclerPr0 shoots and kills ImarkpeoplENC.

Perfect idea, any game where you just obviously turn on night vision at night is plain awful. Just means you get terrible green nights. Personally i hate night vision period which is why i dont want it so dark as to need it, but i do want it much harder to see. Or at very least add the effect you suggest and with a very very grainy night vision. It must have plenty of downsides so that going without it can be bad due to less contrast but better due to more clarity and no blue glow and also allow for bright flashes to blind night vision users. I'd rather have no night than forced night vision, and i love dark nights.

Rumblepit · 2012-02-06, 04:23 PM

mortal online... very dark sometimes.

i was beta testing this game in 2010, the weather, seasons, and the moons cycle all effected how dark it got at night. in this video there is know moon out at all. this means you cant see your hand in front of your face. this was as dark as it got in the game and it didnt happen that often.but this had good and bad effects on gameplay.