ITT : Useless feature in game

I think its because its supposed to emulate how your eyes work(but your eyes do this while looking at a screen anyway)

Springboard and electro anomalies instantly discharge when a moving object is present. You can sprint through both types of anomalies unharmed during the short period in which the anomaly recharges.

Attached: 1644160438825.jpg (640x760, 153.74K)

but that's actually pretty useful

Forces the player to focus on particular things the devs want them to, helpful in obscuring low detail distant objects and also can be a gameplay element, e.g. Alien Isolation where focusing on the motion detector would result in the rest of the scene being blurred which is exactly how your eyes work in real life because contrary to the opinions of retards depth of field is not just a thing only cameras deal with.

you can buy em

>Literally why?
For marketing. Every screen effect meant to emulate the function of a film camera only exists to make the game appear more "real" to audiences who are too stupid to realize how those effects negatively affect gameplay, and how they are actually less realistic than their absence.

Attached: cinematic_v4.png (1024x3584, 622.99K)

Having items as well as healing/cure spells.

not so much a game, but the black and white buttons on the OG xbox controller. i remember towards the end of its lifespan you would have games that wouldnt even map it to a function

Bolts are used to make a path through dangerous anomaly fields you retard. If you throw one on the ground and the anomaly doesn’t react to it it’s safe to walk along that small area.

Exactly, you kill 3 enemies and you have them all filled up so it's useless
But if you couldn't buy them then it would go from being useless to a heavy detriment.

I might actually go so far as to say everything except sugars should have been fully restocked on rest

cope

Implementing depth of field determined by the focal point of your character's eyes is redundant because the player is still only focusing on a very restricted area of their field of vision anyway. The vast majority of what your eyes perceive is already blurred because you're not looking straight at it. When the character is the one applying focus instead of the player, the character has to perform actions that the player activates using the control interface, when the same exact effect could be achieved by the player simply moving their eyes around.

motion blur

>you can use consumable items to heal/remove debuffs without spending a turn
>healing spells are infinite but they not only use up your turn, but also cost the same resource as your offensive spells
it's balanced

>all these meme answers
>all these autistic reddit retard answers
>all these "I have bifocals and and practically legally blind, now let me project my complaints about visual effects my defective genes are bothered by onto the entire world" answers
>no real answers
The cane in Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde.

Typical rookie mistake.

>le epic old game amirite my fellow boomerbros? upvotes please

Having a spell that does the exact same thing as a readily available consumable

>insecure faggotry
I listed an ACTUALLY useless item in a game. You babies list visual effects your 04/50 vision struggles with.

Because it makes pretty screenshots that sell the game.

gameplay

The crap the used to do in the early days when they made whatever the center of the screen was the focal point and blur everything else was stupid. In real life we can move our eyes independently of our head. My example with Alien Isolation, however, was a good one because you actually are in direct control of setting your focal point with a single button and it was actually a gameplay element to control your focal point. It was something akin to realtime inventory as a mechanic. As a means of obscuring distant terrain it's objectively good. Humans aren't birds. Stuff in the distance should be blurred because we just can't focus for that far a distance.

>useless item
OP is asking for useless features
Try reading

Other way around

motion blur

Chromatic aberration.

they're REALLY useful around those fire anomalies because they're super hard to see at least with a gasmask on

So yes, I posted an actually useless feature, while the bad vision gang is crying about visual effects.

Separate "Look" and "Touch" buttons in an adventure puzzle game. Make it all the same. Inaccessible objects will be looked at, interactive objects will be touched. No sense trying both on everything.

First thing people like about pics I shot on my DSLR is the bokeh, that's why.

DONT TOUCH THAT YOU'LL GET BURNED MAN JUST LOOK

I remember those, whenever a game did use it it always felt extremely clunky. Usually it was just some niche thing you could ignore though so wasn't that big of an issue.

>In real life we can move our eyes independently of our head.
Yes, and Amanda Ripley is capable of moving her eyes independently of her motion-detector holding arm. The narrow area of full focus in human vision is perfectly adequate for faking depth of field on a 2d screen. You're looking at the detector. What is visible outside your immediate focus? Blurred scenery. Because you're not focusing on it. There's no reason for the game to redundantly blur it for you.
When I played the game on an Oculus Devkit in 2014 with that shitty hacked VR mod, it became even clearer that the blur serves no purpose as it attempts to apply a screen space blur effect on the vision of two independent eyes when you bring up the detector. With that stereoscopic vision your eyes are the ones supposed to focus on different distances. Not having the blur and faking the effect with the center of focus in monoscopic 3d is a good enough compromise in the absence of actually being able to change focal point in stereoscopic 3d.

Beast Vision from blood

Attached: B1_beastvision[1].gif (29x13, 1.04K)

I mean if IRL im focusing on the motion detector part of my screen the rest of the screen is being blurred, so why blur it twice?

>You're looking at the detector. What is visible outside your immediate focus? Blurred scenery. Because you're not focusing on it. There's no reason for the game to redundantly blur it for you.
You aren't actually this stupid, are you?

Hands are very useful user

Is this a troll? Or do you people really not know EVERYTHING on the screen, regardless of what depth is being simulated by the computer program, will always be in focus because ALL of the screen is the same distance from you?

Ask that from yourself you actual braindead cretin. Look at the question mark at the end of your post and lie to yourself with a straight face that you can distinguish the shape of the first letters in your post. Do not respond if it isn't in unconditional concession because I'm dictating reality to you and giving you a binary choice between absorbing information provided and maintaining willful ignorance.

Women.

Attached: 1461713728502.png (600x500, 539.72K)

I suggest you look up what a monitor/tv is and then look up what focusing is and then realize why what you said is so stupid.

Yea I much prefer how Nioh does it. Most of the combat related items have an overall capacity so you can't have the max number of everything equipped at once but they also refill when you rest. You spec into magic/dex to unlock the spells/tools and then you decide how many of each thing you want to have equipped at a time. It is about weighing your options and trying to optimize the capacity of your available tools. There are still limited use items but most of them can be acquired easily or are also available as non limited versions in the magic/ninja skill trees. The problem with From is that their games haven't ever really put much emphasis on consumable items just in general. They always feel like an afterthought. At least Elden Ring gave you crafting and a few quick slots instead of having to constantly cycle through the down button, but 4 extra slots and 2 in the pause menu still isn't nearly enough. Nioh also has extra sets of 4 toggleable quick slots in the menu.

>EVERYTHING on the screen, regardless of what depth is being simulated by the computer program, will always be in focus because ALL of the screen is the same distance from you?
Are you some kind of transcendentally legendary level of console peasant, sitting so far away from so small a television screen that your field of view ingame is literally 2 degrees? Because that's the angle of view of the human fovea. That is the maximum amount that can be in focus.

You are teetering on the top of the Dunning-Kruger peak and embarrassing yourself. Everything you're saying is completely wrong and as a result you think everyone contradicting you with the actual facts is stupid.

You're conflating peripheral vision with focal depth. It's not the same thing.

Iron mode you F5 pressing faggot

this image is some "um ackshully" level bullshit, more than half of these are implemented for better game feel
yeah im sure weapon animations would feel and look a lot nicer if the camera was static
depth of field can be used to direct the viewers eye to a subject, etc.
Go Fuck Yourself

Just wanted to see who got

It's a semantic argument then. The point is that the small section of sharp vision in the fovea is a good enough substitute for actual focal depth on a 2-D screen. There's no reason for an ingame implementation of screen space DOF in a situation where the character is supposed to focus on something at a specific distance.

and it's a reference to the book in the movie

>plays turn based games
>consumables don't cost a turn when used
Name 3 games that do that

Sex in games

This is how someone knows that a person on Yea Forums doesn't actually play videogames. Things that simultaneously make a game worse to play and less realistic can only be considered positive by those who only look at games.

>It's a semantic argument then
No, it isn't. Because your peripheral vision is not diminished anywhere near to the same extent differences in required focal depth will result in.

why do you think this is the case? Can you give an example of it looking better off vs on?

>"oh, this thing is so tiny, it's harmless"
>kills you from 30m away
What now, fucker.

Already been posted in the thread but
>consumable doubling the effect of the spell
>worse than an actual spell
>can't craft it
>finite resource with no way to get more

Congratulations on successfully gaslighting me into questioning my own perception, because I tested it just now by looking at objects in a narrow field at significantly different distances, and you're wrong. The difference is at worst negligible and at best not enough to justify the presence of a manually activated ingame feature that outsources an un-implementable vision function between the player and the display onto the ingame character.

someone should record this one and save it on a plate in case humanity ends.
We shall pass the message.

why is AO bad