You guys are missing the point. They're not trying to mimic the human eye, they're trying to mimic TV.

I don't know what gave you the impression that we don't get that, Elmo, given the discussion we've been having in here on that very subject..

I suppose that's how most people are accustomed to watching auto racing, so it makes a certain amount of sense.

Outside of replays, it makes no sense at all. The game involves actually playing the part of the driver, FFS!! The first time someone wants to craft a 'sit-on-the-couch-watching-rally-coverage' simulator, these DOF effects will be expected and welcomed (so long as they make it perfectly clear that I am viewing their world through the lens of a camera, and why).

As I said earlier -- DOF effects have no place in the game unless these screens are depicting the replays (which they appear to be doing. I'm still just ranting, BTW - it seems as though we all agree about this stuff).

Let's not get me going on lensflares.. those are extra stupid

----
The dactylic pentameter consists of too [sic] parts separated by a diaeresis. Each part consists of to [sic] dactyls and a long syllable. The spondee may take the place of the dactyl in the first part, but not in tEh [sic] second... -Harkness.
This comment was edited on Apr 30, 13:22.

You guys are missing the point. They're not trying to mimic the human eye, they're trying to mimic TV. I suppose that's how most people are accustomed to watching auto racing, so it makes a certain amount of sense.

I'm also of the opinion that lens effects are annoying. Could anything be more stupid than lens flares in a *first person* shooter?

Already? This is just ridiculous :/

Codemasters = new EA.

The thing about how the eye works is that we switch our focus depths automatically, so whatever we're looking at is in focus. We don't notice that the rest of our field of vision is out of focus unless we make an effort to do so. As soon as we shift our focus to something that was blurry, we auto-focus and it's no longer blurred.

Exactly. The kind of depth of field seen in these shots is totally out of place unless what we're seeing are screens taken from a replay mode. Efects such as this are the result of distortions caused by the subject being viewed through a lens, and are not at all realistic to human eyesight.

On a camera, the depth of field is determined by three factors: the aperture on the lens, the focal length of the lens, and the distance the camera is from the point of focus. These shots exhibit the kind of shallow DOF you see with wide apertures and/or telephoto lenses, for example.

I'm all for extra layers of realism in the replay modes, but if developers start putting DOF effects into games just because they can, I think I'm going to snap, so I certainly hope they keep it well away from the gameplay. Having 3/4 of the screen out of focus while you're trying to drive a rally in the rain just because someone thought they'd show off their nifty shader won't be any fun (Lensflare is bad enough -- there's another example of an effect that has no business being in 90% of the games that have it, but at least it's easy enough to ignore..).

'Course, as we've all noticed, it doesn't look like they've added anything over '04 that warrants picking this one up anyway, so it's all just ranting on my part anyway..

----
The dactylic pentameter consists of too [sic] parts separated by a diaeresis. Each part consists of to [sic] dactyls and a long syllable. The spondee may take the place of the dactyl in the first part, but not in tEh [sic] second... -Harkness.

Artificial depth of field tracking tends to be more distracting than anything else. The thing about how the eye works is that we switch our focus depths automatically, so whatever we're looking at is in focus. We don't notice that the rest of our field of vision is out of focus unless we make an effort to do so. As soon as we shift our focus to something that was blurry, we auto-focus and it's no longer blurred.

How's the game going to know where my actual eyes are looking? If I look to the side and the game "thinks" my focus shouldn't be there, it'll be blurry and it'll stick out like a sore thumb as being "wrong."

The only time you can get away with depth of field blur effects is when you give the viewer an irresistable "target object" to hold their attention, focus on that and blur the rest. Then the effect is really cool - until you've seen it a hundred times, look off the target, and notice the blur.

I'm intrigued by the "focus" effect in the screenshots, which seems to mimic the human eye's behaviour of only being able to focus on a certain depth of field at any given moment. Curious to see if the effect is actually in the game, and if it's more annoying than is justified by the increase in "realism".

I bought CMR04 for the PC for the full $40, and I've been fairly pleased with that investment. I've definatey extracted $40 worth of fun out of it, at any rate.

I bought CM04 for $20, a week later I determined I plaid $21 too much for it.

I enjoy Colin McRae 2004, but there is one petpev I had about the game that bothered me the most. I have the X-Box version and I didn't like the 4 different selections of control buttons they have given me. I prefer to customize what each button to do! I prepare a list of things I would like to see in the game.

-Customization of apperance of driver's outfit and cars.
In Project Gotham racing you can customize driver's helmet. In Need For Speed Underground, you can change colors of your car.

-More viewing controls
One major thing I liked about Project Gotham Racing 2 is that I can use the camera control to look all around the car from any angle.

-Customization of climate and weather
In Project Gotham Racing, in multiplayer I was allowed to set for it to rain or not to rain. Day or Night, etc.

If they're not going to upgrade the graphics and physics significantly, why bother? The gameplay for CMR4 was the same game as CMR3, just a few different cars and tracks. I don't see CMR5 being any better.

Because he's still a rally driver and all...