object depth items : suggestion for minor rephrasing

[BlackShark]

Suggestion for rephrasing object depth items :

current phrasing :

in top level anomalies :
Obvious depth rendering errors between game objects like trees, cars, buildings, etc. An example could be a tree in the distance rendered at screen depth or an object rendered at a far depth is hiding a closer object.

in secondary level anomalies :
Fire, smoke, haze, and similar blur effects are rendered at screen depth instead of in 3D (e.g. flames appear separated from source).

My suggestions :
-rephrase by defining by 3D objects and 2D sprites
-subdivide 2D sprites in 2 items : All 2D sprites vs only one of them (all 2D sprites would cost more points than only some of them)
and maybe move the "all 2D sprites" into top level anomalies

example of rephrasing :
in top level anomalies :
Obvious depth rendering errors between 3D game objects like characters, cars, buildings etc... An example could be a character in the distance rendered at screen depth or an object rendered at a far depth is hiding a closer object.

Still in top level anomalies :
Obvious depth rendering errors between important 2D game objects and associated 3D objects. An example could be leaves from a tree detaching from the trunk or mud/smoke from a rally car rendered at screen depth.

in secondary level anomalies :
Minor flame, gunfire, smoke, haze, or similar 2D effects are rendered at screen depth
-X- tick this box if all the previously mentionned issues happen
-X- tick this box if only one of the previously mentionned issues happen

[Neil]

Hi Blackshark,

It seems very complicated. I've read this message a few times, and I'm still having trouble understanding it.

Another thing to consider is when we add options within a question, it can undermine the data. For example, when we have previously submitted games that have selected this the first time, by adding a second option or completely changing its meaning, the data becomes invalid.

It's easier to add new options than to completely redefine old options. Do you follow what I mean?

However, I think this is still too complicated and technical. I'm not sure the majority of gamers will grasp it. We live in a world where people still describe a messed up post processing effect as "ghosting".

Regards,
Neil

[BlackShark]

I see so in this case. forget about the 2D vs 3D thing and just keep the one effect vs all effect proposition.

-> All of the following elements are rendered at screen depth instead of being at their correct depth : Fire, smoke, haze, and similar blur effects (e.g. flames appear separated from source).
-> Only one of the following elements is rendered at screen depth instead of being at it's correct depth but the others are correct : Fire, smoke, haze, and similar blur effects (e.g. flames appear separated from source).


And transfer the previous entries to the "all effects" item

[Neil]

Hi Blackshark,

I don't think this would get us further ahead because there is already a question about smoke, haze, etc. in non-critical errors. HOWEVER, we can do this in the critical error section:

"Obvious depth rendering errors between game solid objects like trees, cars, buildings, etc. An example could be a tree in the distance rendered at screen depth or an object rendered at a far depth is hiding a closer object."

Whether there is one smoke error or twenty, it still should be treated the same way, especially since it is listed as a non-critical anomaly.

What do you think?

Regards,
Neil

[BlackShark]

The critical section should be clear enough, but for the non critical section i do think we should separate 1 2D effect wrong, vs all 2D effect wrong.

Having all 2D effects wrong would mean there is a problem with the entire engine rendering all 2D elements (sprites) at HUD level. It is very bad, but not bad enough to be considered a critical issue.
Having only one effect would mean the developers would have only screwed one particular FX but the engine is sane since other 2D effects appear to be rendered properly.

But remember this is just a minor score tweaking, so if you want to skip that I have no problem with it.

[Neil]

I think we should keep it as is. Once it gets too complex, it's harder for gamers to fill out and understand. Whether it's 15 points or 30 points, I think the driver developers and game developers should take notice of glaring anomalies.

Regards,
Neil