Put on a pair of glasses. Distortion of light. There's your CA.
Look into virtually any given room. There's your indirect lighting, that AO approximates.

What you're doing here is saying something that's blatantly false and I'm not going to argue about it because it's not up for debate. These are basic topics within the field of optics.

...LOL

I said naked eye.

The naked eye does suffer from chromatic abberation, which our brains manage to filter out. That does not mean it's not there, and it does not mean it isn't part and parcel of the human sight. Replicating natural human sight as we experience it, rather than as it really is, has never been a priority to my knowledge. The end goal is to recreate what we can reasonably consider to be natural vision, be it through a photograph or a piece of video just as well as a human's sight, simply because we can't capture and reproduce the latter. So if you have an irrational hatred of it, that's your problem and yours only. I personally hate it when people die of organ failure, in fact, I think people should stop doing it. Why not just stay alive, it's way healthier?

That doesn't even make sense. You argue that the end goal is to "recreate what we can reasonably consider to be natural vision" but said earlier that "the naked eye does suffer from chromatic abberation, which our brains manage to filter out"

If the end goal is to "recreate what we can reasonably consider to be natural vision" then chromatic abberation would not be an effect used because "our brains manage to filter out".

You have a really poor argument.

And you're full of shit, but I don't hold it against you. Doesn't help that that's clearly not what I said, though, because what you're saying makes no sense.

And you suck, but I don't hold it against you.

I wear glasses and I've never experienced chromatic aberration.

The strength of the effect depends on the strength of your glasses so you probably have fairly good eyesight. I'm myopic and my glasses have a strength of about 6 dioptres (I had to Google these words because English is hard) so it's a very constant thing for me. I don't mind it at all.

But it's good to hear that I'm not the only one here who thinks this Pi guy is a dipshit. Me too, my man, me too.

Actually, I'm short-sighted too and my glasses have almost the same strength as yours (aaaand I had to google "myopic" because english is indeed hard)

(...and I like Bortus, too )

I believe that's saint Bortus, eater of things, warmer of eggs, grower of mustaches.

I'm quite nearsighted and have never experienced it. (My vision fades out less than a foot from my face if I'm not wearing my glasses. Another lady in my knitting group tried on a pair of mine by mistake and said it was like being in a fish bowl.)

ETA: Probably also about six diopters, from online 'this is what your vision is like' tests.

Strange. I've pretty much never not experienced it. It's a constant, like lens flares. I guess I just have a very cinematic world view.

Detailed graphics are incredibly time consuming freaking expensive to create. I'd rather they get the basics for a robust graphics system in place and solid gameplay and then start fiddling with graphics.

And I'm incredibly nearsighted and have just had to start wearing rather chunky bifocals, If they cause minor chromatic aberrations, my brain is adjusting for them. Glasses shouldn't cause visible chromatic aberrations, if they do they are defective or badly scratched.

Also ambient occlusion (in computer terms) is an advanced 3d rendering process, not a natural process although it reproduces natural lighting much more accurately than simpler systems. You will notice the difference between scenes rendered with and without ambient occlusion Some say they prefer it without as it can create a more cinematic effect, with the right renderer and in the right hands. Effects which a skilled artist can create using any renderer. And anything can look ugly in the hands of an unskilled artist or as a result of poor art direction.

Agree.

I look forward to the finish product, give EA some competition.

I am sooooo sick of the realism obcession absolutely rotting this fandom... Can we just get a good game? You know, GAMEPLAY! I wouldn't give a crap if it looked like SimCity 2000, or Mario 64, I just want it to have interesting gameplay and mechanics! You know, fun??? Everything beyond that is windowdressing, and you can't turn shit into gold with 4k textures...

What's wrong with wanting a game with good graphics AND good gameplay? It's not like they are mutually exclusive. You may don't care about the visuals but some people do. Because you know, different people like and expect different things...

Well I want realism in my gameplay even more than realistic graphics. I have a feeling that parrot999's "just get a good game" is exactly what the Sims devs are trying to do and that's what's ruining my digital dollhouse experience. They've turned everything into a way to score achievements instead of just letting the sims lives develop like they used to. Now everything is player-facing including the emotions. Sims appear to feel nothing, just the player can use the buff to reach some goal.

And that is why The Sims 2 will always be THE game for me and many others. It may not be the prettiest, fastest game there is but it has charm and can move forward on it's own without much interference from the player. I don't play that often but when I do, my TS2 Sims make me giggle and keep me entertained way more than my TS4 Sims ever did.

^ Exactly. For me it's a lot of little things that makes me like TS2 more than I ever liked TS3 or TS4. Sure, it lacks those big things like an open neighborhood or CASt, but for me those aren't a "must" to enjoy the game, even though I occasionally miss them (CASt would have made recoloring easier, and an open neighborhood would've been nice for outdoor screenshots). TS4 does have a few things I'd like to have in my TS2 game, but it's not much, and it's things I'm able to manage without.

I like the aspiration, want/fear and interest systems in TS2. It's more "I'm here, use me if you want, ignore me otherwise", and they don't interfere much with gameplay but instead give the sims a bit of personality so they'll occasionally do some animations or interactions that's in line with their personality. In TS3 and TS4 I feel the moodlets and emotions ruin a lot of the fun, and make the sims feel more lifeless, because they only do things in line with their moodlets or emotions there and then, with no long-term effects. The traits aren't much helpful, either. In TS4 the achievements are extremely repetitive and either easy or too annoying, and the emotions are very flawed (for instance, toddlers get tantrums every 5 minutes, and pets have broken emotions so they all of a sudden start behaving strange for no apparent reason) and in TS3 they're simply not that interesting.

While I like Sims 2 for it's 'realism', it's also far from realistic. It's a nice balance. Little details are generally comical, or sweet, there for immersion. But having something like realistic gameplay include everything from scrubbing every little dirt spec from your counter to having sims grow hair on their bodies constantly, dynamically, having to trim it and style, besides being technically extremely hard to implement even for AAA game developer team, would also be really really boring.

The issue is developer resources aren't infinite, and prioritization is important with development... Once you get the gameplay right, THEN you can polish up the graphics if you have the resources to. I disagree with Inge that my attitude is responsible for the Sims 4's issues.... It's that Sims Team have insane priorities... Why are they rebranding and changing the UI instead of adding any of the still missing features??? And they are even botching the rebrand horrendously... Why is the game not being polished when it really needs it? Why is it that they prioritize flashiness over gameplay in these latest packs??? I honestly don't get it.
But however Sims team is screwing their game up, this game should NOT follow their mistakes, and focus on making a robust game, FIRST and foremost. And that DOES include that balance of gameplay realism and gaminess, but DOES NOT necessarily mean including the latest greatest graphics rendering methods..

Also, no one seems to acknowledge this, but the simulation on the backend of a sims game is pretty intensive... The first game was isometric for a reason. The more complex a simulation, the more limited graphics can be without limiting system reqs too much... This is why shooters and the like usually have the most detailed graphics, because the simulation is usually pretty light. It's all about what is happening under the hood, and game development isn't magic.... Though anything is better than EA coding...

And one last thing: Good aesthetic and good graphics aren't the same thing... It matters HOW you utilize graphical features. The Sims 2 may technically have dated graphics, but the texturework is so fun and detailed, and imaginative, it's hard to care. It looks good in spite of the aged graphics.... Except the sims... I still need the skin defaults and especially EYE defaults... Those eyes really could have used some refinement...

I agree, but there's still nothing wrong with wishing for both. I don't see how it is "rotting this fandom".

It's rotting the fandom because nothing will make you guys happy... Because even if The Sims series became on par with a Nintendo game in quality and detail, you'd STILL complain! Then there are those that wanna eschew the traditional sims whimsy for... something else... Who don't want occults or any of the interesting weirdness to be a thing . And it's clear you guys want another series entirely... And then when just that appears to be happening, and shows such an insane improvement in mechanics over any sims game, you can only complain about that not having AAA shooter graphics... What you want is really not possible... You can't have an open world life sim with such insane graphical fidelity!

There's too much that needs to happen under the hood for that to work! And do you know WHY the sims doesn't have much in the way of competition? It's because these games are fucking insane to make! There is so much coding involved that even a company like EA, who tries to rush things to release, spends 3-4 years making each title! The Sims 2 started production a year after The Sims 1... Same with 3... Think about that... A AAA company with hundreds of employees dedicated to one project takes 4 years to release said product, and it's STILL somewhat a mess on release... That's a lot of investment for anyone to make, and you guys are being this harsh on an INDIE project, for using cel shaded basic graphics!
This is not some massive company that can afford to invest 100s of millions of dollars in a game like this.. The graphics will improve I'm sure... But they aren't gonna be HD hyper-realistic, because that's not feasable... ESPECIALLY with everything they are promising on release.

I don't think a game of the complexity that a The Sims-type game has will ever be able to achieve AAA graphic-wise because there so much other stuff that needs to be simulated that graphics aren't the best thing to prioritize.

Paralives is gaining some traction in The Sims community:







I'm still waiting for the BIG Yibs like Deligracy and TheSimSupply to report on it... Maybe I should find a seat while I wait.