Why does ESO look like this?

disky · December 5

Compare these two screenshots:

The first one is max settings ESO without Reshade. The second is with Reshade enabled and tweaked. Now, is it fair to compare a base-engine game with one that has has Reshade running on top of it? I kinda feel like it is. It's not only ESO that does this, to be clear. Lots of games have this issue, and it's why Reshade is so popular. My question is, why do developers make this kind of grey, foggy, muddy look the default for so many games? Why would this be something that developers see fit to do to their own game, to deliberately make it look like a washed-out mess? Surely, at least in newer engines, it's possible to alleviate this either at the render level or in screen space without needing external tools.

By the way, the 34fps in the top-right corner is because it was done with Snip & Sketch, not the built-in screenshot tool, which isn't affected by Reshade. The screenshots were taken with ESO running in the background. I get a solid 60fps while playing at all times on a 60hz 2k monitor.

disky · December 5

Here's another example, in Hag Fen.

Gabriel_H · December 5

ReShade is basically fine tuning the Depth of Field and Ambient Occlusion settings. You can achieve a similar effect by simply changing the in-game DoF and AO settings.

Edit: Typos

Northwold · December 5

To my eyes I like the look of ESO and I actually don't like your reshade examples which look too contrasty to me. It's an artistic choice and much of the day in the real world light will just look boring. I don't want my game world to look like that.

A LOT is going to depend on people's screen settings though. Ie what your screen physically presents to your eyes. Which unfortunately isn't something you can screenshot. It's notable that since the death of CRT screens, for instance, many monitors don't have good black levels which may make some games look more washed out than they're intended to be.

disky · December 5

Gabriel_H wrote: »

ReShade is basically fine tuning the Depth of Field and Ambient Occlusion settings. You can achieve a similar effect by simply changing the in-game DoF and AO settings.

Edit: Typos

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Reshade does a lot more than that, and obviously that's an advantage which developers don't necessarily have the ability to implement due to time and/or budget constraints. That being said, I've played around with those settings you mentioned and the game does absolutely still have a "fog filter" on top of everything. ESO is not the only culprit, of course.

Gabriel_H · December 5

disky wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

ReShade is basically fine tuning the Depth of Field and Ambient Occlusion settings. You can achieve a similar effect by simply changing the in-game DoF and AO settings.

Edit: Typos

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Reshade does a lot more than that, and obviously that's an advantage which developers don't necessarily have the ability to implement due to time and/or budget constraints. That being said, I've played around with those settings you mentioned and the game does absolutely still have a "fog filter" on top of everything. ESO is not the only culprit, of course.

ReShade also plays around with colour-correction but you can alter that the colour profile through your graphics card, as well as antialiasing which can also be adjusted in the game settings. In addition to that ReShade has post-processing tools that if part of the game would massively hamper performance.

disky · December 5

Here's Skingrad.

Northwold wrote: »

To my eyes I like the look of ESO and I actually don't like your reshade examples which look too contrasty to me. It's an artistic choice and much of the day in the real world light will just look boring. I don't want my game world to look like that.

A LOT is going to depend on people's screen settings though. Ie what your screen physically presents to your eyes. Which unfortunately isn't something you can screenshot. It's notable that since the death of CRT screens, for instance, many monitors don't have good black levels which may make some games look more washed out than they're intended to be.

Every monitor is different, but I think it's telling that Reshade is as popular as it is. This seems to happen a lot in games, and it's wild that developers seem to think it's the best option. In the examples I provided, not only do colors pop more and have a greater HDR, with things like adaptive sharpening and actually effective AA, you get far more texture depth and detail from the normal low-res textures we're used to as well. So I don't see how these examples could look worse than vanilla, other than the fact that monitor settings are what they are. The game is still muddy and grey by default.

disky · December 5

Gabriel_H wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

ReShade is basically fine tuning the Depth of Field and Ambient Occlusion settings. You can achieve a similar effect by simply changing the in-game DoF and AO settings.

Edit: Typos

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Reshade does a lot more than that, and obviously that's an advantage which developers don't necessarily have the ability to implement due to time and/or budget constraints. That being said, I've played around with those settings you mentioned and the game does absolutely still have a "fog filter" on top of everything. ESO is not the only culprit, of course.

ReShade also plays around with colour-correction but you can alter that the colour profile through your graphics card, as well as antialiasing which can also be adjusted in the game settings. In addition to that ReShade has post-processing tools that if part of the game would massively hamper performance.

But why should it be necessary to make any changes at all? That's what I'm asking. Again, I get that displays are different, that's not the point. ESO, and other games as well, do this a lot these days, and it's odd to me that developers choose to build their games this way. Reshade does not affect my performance at all, though it might for some on lower-end machines. Default AA doesn't do nearly enough, or not nearly well enough, which is why it's still a valuable tool in Reshade.

Syldras · December 5

On my screen, the upper pictures look better. More nuance and details, while the lower pictures look too high-contrast and especially too dark (there's several big black spots on the Skingrad picture where I see literally nothing). Not a fan of the higher saturation either.

Tandor · December 5

In the first comparison, it seems to me that the cloud definition in the sky is significantly better in the first picture without Reshade. Otherwise, and in the other pictures, I can't see any significant difference between the two sets of pictures. In the past, whenever such comparisons have been presented with very obvious differences I've always preferred the ones without Reshade. Clearly it's a very subjective thing!

Gabriel_H · December 5

disky wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

ReShade is basically fine tuning the Depth of Field and Ambient Occlusion settings. You can achieve a similar effect by simply changing the in-game DoF and AO settings.

Edit: Typos

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Reshade does a lot more than that, and obviously that's an advantage which developers don't necessarily have the ability to implement due to time and/or budget constraints. That being said, I've played around with those settings you mentioned and the game does absolutely still have a "fog filter" on top of everything. ESO is not the only culprit, of course.

ReShade also plays around with colour-correction but you can alter that the colour profile through your graphics card, as well as antialiasing which can also be adjusted in the game settings. In addition to that ReShade has post-processing tools that if part of the game would massively hamper performance.

But why should it be necessary to make any changes at all? That's what I'm asking. Again, I get that displays are different, that's not the point. ESO, and other games as well, do this a lot these days, and it's odd to me that developers choose to build their games this way. Reshade does not affect my performance at all, though it might for some on lower-end machines. Default AA doesn't do nearly enough, or not nearly well enough, which is why it's still a valuable tool in Reshade.

Different graphics cards have different performance. Some can handle the more advanced graphics processing, some can't. It will always be a mini-game for users - how realistic can they make something look before their fps drops below an acceptable level.

Edit: And just to say of that last set of screenshots. The bottom one looks unnatural to me compared to the top one. The colours are too warm, it's like looking through brown sunglasses.

Soarora · December 5

I don’t think these are good examples, maybe it’s my graphics settings or my monitor but in some areas (especially base game), everything does look washed out without reshade.

Danikat · December 5

Northwold wrote: »

To my eyes I like the look of ESO and I actually don't like your reshade examples which look too contrasty to me. It's an artistic choice and much of the day in the real world light will just look boring. I don't want my game world to look like that.

A LOT is going to depend on people's screen settings though. Ie what your screen physically presents to your eyes. Which unfortunately isn't something you can screenshot. It's notable that since the death of CRT screens, for instance, many monitors don't have good black levels which may make some games look more washed out than they're intended to be.

I agree. I've been pressured to install Reshade for several games in the past and premade or recommended settings for if always end up putting me off because they ramp up the contrast far too much. Inevitably when I take the time to adjust it to something I do like I find it's almost indistinguishable from the game without Reshade running, so I uninstall it. Now I've given up listening to people who tell me I "need it" and will like their settings.

But I've noticed the same thing happens with TVs in shops, they all have the contrast ramped up to extremes, and apparently they do that because it helps sell them, so I guess some people do like it.

I also agree that a lot depends on your setup. Not just your screen but your graphics card, even where your computer is and the lighting in the room. Then personal preferences on top of that.

I've noticed several people lately complaining about having to set up a game and/or their PC to get the performance they want, and it always surprises me because I always thought having that option was one of the advantages of PC gaming.

I suppose I don't care that much because if ESO was changed to look he way the OP wants I could use the same tools to put it back (as noted the games own settings and graphics card software can do the same things), but I don't think it would be possible to find one universally preferred setting.

LunaFlora · December 5

Reshade is fine,
but i like base game more in these screenshots.

metheglyn · December 5

I prefer your base game screenshots to your Reshade ones. Two of the Reshade screenshots are just too dark for me and don't really look like the Tamriel I know and love. The screenshots with Reshade also remind me of some AI generated art people have posted from time to time.

disky · December 5

Guys, I fully agree that monitors and GPU settings vary, and you may not agree with my Reshade configuration, but even after viewing this on multiple monitors and my phone, I think they still look much better than the default, which presents a grey fog and muddier textures no matter what. Adjust contrasts per your preference and it's clearly better than vanilla.

Gabriel_H · December 5

Just to add you can generate pretty much the same "pop" in colour simply by altering the custom colour profile on your graphics card software. You can alter temp, saturation, extend the contrast or brightness etc. BUT it's purely on your display so any screenshots will be at "normal" colours levels.

Tandor · December 5

disky wrote: »

Guys, I fully agree that monitors and GPU settings vary, and you may not agree with my Reshade configuration, but even after viewing this on multiple monitors and my phone, I think they still look much better than the default, which presents a grey fog and muddier textures no matter what. Adjust contrasts per your preference and it's clearly better than vanilla.

That's your opinion, and one you're perfectly entitled to hold.

I initially thought you had put this thread up in order to have an open discussion on the merits and demerits of Reshade, and whether developers should use it as standard. It now seems increasingly clear that you won't accept any contrary opinions from posters whose faulty settings are in your view responsible for them not seeing Reshade as clearly better than vanilla.

Sluggy · December 5

Gabriel_H wrote: »

ReShade is basically fine tuning the Depth of Field and Ambient Occlusion settings. You can achieve a similar effect by simply changing the in-game DoF and AO settings.

Edit: Typos

In this case it's also doing color and contract balance passes.

To the original poster:
In the end it comes down to preference and artistic choice. Some prefer a more balanced color without the blow-outs and black-outs and some prefer a stronger contrast. It's also why you monitor and video card come with tons of settings to choose from in order to modify color and contrast balance as well.

P.S. Color is a waaaay more complicated topic than most people realize and it's entirely possible that techniques and technologies that exist now did not exist when they were designing this stuff.

disky · December 5

Tandor wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Guys, I fully agree that monitors and GPU settings vary, and you may not agree with my Reshade configuration, but even after viewing this on multiple monitors and my phone, I think they still look much better than the default, which presents a grey fog and muddier textures no matter what. Adjust contrasts per your preference and it's clearly better than vanilla.

That's your opinion, and one you're perfectly entitled to hold.

I initially thought you had put this thread up in order to have an open discussion on the merits and demerits of Reshade, and whether developers should use it as standard. It now seems increasingly clear that you won't accept any contrary opinions from posters whose faulty settings are in your view responsible for them not seeing Reshade as clearly better than vanilla.

I'm not talking about the merits and demerits of Reshade, I'm trying to discuss the default settings for the game, and why they look foggy and muddy, and why other games do as well. I'm including Reshade in the discussion because the reason it is frequently used is as a way of fixing this. I don't know if anyone that has replied has actually addressed that point, and instead try to provide other ways of addressing it, such as with GPU or monitor settings. That's not the point. The point is the game itself, and why the default settings are the way that they are.

disky · December 5

Sluggy wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

ReShade is basically fine tuning the Depth of Field and Ambient Occlusion settings. You can achieve a similar effect by simply changing the in-game DoF and AO settings.

Edit: Typos

In this case it's also doing color and contract balance passes.

To the original poster:
In the end it comes down to preference and artistic choice. Some prefer a more balanced color without the blow-outs and black-outs and some prefer a stronger contrast. It's also why you monitor and video card come with tons of settings to choose from in order to modify color and contrast balance as well.

P.S. Color is a waaaay more complicated topic than most people realize and it's entirely possible that techniques and technologies that exist now did not exist when they were designing this stuff.

That's fair, but if the fact that this game has been around for a while is the issue, then why is it that Reshade is still such a common tool for fixing this kind of thing in other, newer games?

valenwood_vegan · December 5

Subjective things are subjective.

Vaqual · December 5

Be glad that you have a way of tweaking things to your liking. I wouldn't want to use it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum

Gabriel_H · December 5

disky wrote: »

I'm not talking about the merits and demerits of Reshade, I'm trying to discuss the default settings for the game, and why they look foggy and muddy, and why other games do as well.

Realism: Old banners are weather worn and faded, wooden sidings are old and tired losing texture, focal points (a sense of sense of blurred distance when focussed on something close).

In addition to that - render distance due to cpu/graphic card limitations. Loading a partial blur at a distance still gives the appearance of distance without the need to fully render in the texture.

Edit: Typos

Erickson9610 · December 5

disky wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Guys, I fully agree that monitors and GPU settings vary, and you may not agree with my Reshade configuration, but even after viewing this on multiple monitors and my phone, I think they still look much better than the default, which presents a grey fog and muddier textures no matter what. Adjust contrasts per your preference and it's clearly better than vanilla.

That's your opinion, and one you're perfectly entitled to hold.

I initially thought you had put this thread up in order to have an open discussion on the merits and demerits of Reshade, and whether developers should use it as standard. It now seems increasingly clear that you won't accept any contrary opinions from posters whose faulty settings are in your view responsible for them not seeing Reshade as clearly better than vanilla.

I'm not talking about the merits and demerits of Reshade, I'm trying to discuss the default settings for the game, and why they look foggy and muddy, and why other games do as well. I'm including Reshade in the discussion because the reason it is frequently used is as a way of fixing this. I don't know if anyone that has replied has actually addressed that point, and instead try to provide other ways of addressing it, such as with GPU or monitor settings. That's not the point. The point is the game itself, and why the default settings are the way that they are.

The default settings don't look "foggy and muddy". If anything, they lack saturation to give the game a more realistic feel. I know several people prefer the saturated look to their games, so it's understandable why Reshade would be so popular.

Orbital78 · December 5

Nvidia's software update made their game filters much less annoying, that is what I use. It brightens things up mostly, I used some settings I found on the interwebs back when it was Remix or something like that. It used to be annoying because everytime you updated drivers it would reset your settings. I wrote and saved the settings I liked in a text document, but that wasn't very cool having to redo so often.

joshisanonymous · December 5

I've yet to see a game whose visuals feel improved to me by ReShade. I assume that's why ESO looks like this.

SilverIce58 · December 5

I find that some of your screenshots of Reshade make the game look more like one of those cinematic trailers honestly. And I can see how that might be appealing, but I prefer the game to look how it normally does. I don't use Reshade, and honestly had no idea that it was an application. Thought it was for screenshots lol.

ESO_player123 · December 5

The reshaded ones look annoying for my eyes. I prefer the "washed out" original ones.

disky · December 5

Gabriel_H wrote: »

disky wrote: »

I'm not talking about the merits and demerits of Reshade, I'm trying to discuss the default settings for the game, and why they look foggy and muddy, and why other games do as well.

Realism: Old banners are weather worn and faded, wooden sidings are old and tired losing texture, focal points (a sense of sense of blurred distance when focussed on something close).

In addition to that - render distance due to cpu/graphic card limitations. Loading a partial blur at a distance still gives the appearance of distance without the need to fully render in the texture.

Edit: Typos

The real world doesn't look like this. It doesn't look like there's a grey fog over everything, with the notable exception of times when there is actually grey fog over everything, but that's not what this is. There's no reason for ESO and other games to look like this. Disapprove of my examples all you want, that's not realism, it's just bad default settings.

disky · December 5

SilverIce58 wrote: »

I find that some of your screenshots of Reshade make the game look more like one of those cinematic trailers honestly. And I can see how that might be appealing, but I prefer the game to look how it normally does. I don't use Reshade, and honestly had no idea that it was an application. Thought it was for screenshots lol.

If you're used to something and don't want it to change, I get that. It's what most of the people on this forum seem to feel. The point remains that game studios don't have to build games like this. They can look better. Reshade doesn't have to exist.