Do all AAA games need dynamic lighting?

[YoungBlade]

A lot of modern games tout their dynamic lighting as a headline feature to make the game world feel immersive. However, this feature does come with a big performance cost.

 

The reason why older games used static lighting baked into the scene is because of the amount of computation required to accurately render the effects of light sources.

 

While being able to accurately show things like the effects of the sun moving across the sky and being blocked by dynamic clouds is certainly more true to life, I do wonder if it's always a worthwhile trade-off to make.

 

Sometimes, as an artistic choice, it can make sense, but I worry that some studios feel pressured into adding in this feature to make their game seem more "premium" or "next-gen" when they could use a much cheaper solution that could give the game better day one reception by not tanking performance.

 

Do you feel like these new AAA games really need this feature to feel immersive? Or would static lighting still be acceptable for a modern AAA title in 2025?

[Mark Kaine]

It's entirely irrelevant (except possible performance cost) what matters is that it's good, and "dynamic" is just a buzzword anyway, we had that decades ago it was just different tech, result was same or similar or better.

 

Lots of ue4/ue5 hames have great lighting, until you go into a different area then it suddenly looks dull/bad...

[Eviljuche]

Dynamic lightning was a thing since the 90s. It's the implementation of it in mainstream engines that's bloatware, not the concept. What worries me more is the fact that barely any AAA game nowadays uses DL in any way besides the visual decoration. No hiding in the darkened areas on night, no ability to shoot the light bulbs down, not many light sources that can be moved or are moveable by themselves, etc. 

[podkall]

17 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

While being able to accurately show things like the effects of the sun moving across the sky and being blocked by dynamic clouds is certainly more true to life, I do wonder if it's always a worthwhile trade-off to make.

If static lighting can immitate that on good enough level, perhaps dynamic lighting isn't completely necessary for AAA title.

 

Problem then comes, if static lighting requires more "work" than dynamic lighting that adjusts itself based on the object/camera/light positions? Then dynamic lighting suddenly possibly reduces cost of work/stuff to do and have more budget for other areas or use less budget.

[Mark Kaine]

10 minutes ago, Eviljuche said:

Dynamic lightning was a thing since the 90s. It's the implementation of it in mainstream engines that's bloatware, not the concept. What worries me more is the fact that barely any AAA game nowadays uses DL in any way besides the visual decoration. No hiding in the darkened areas on night, no ability to shoot the light bulbs down, not many light sources that can be moved or are moveable by themselves, etc. 

Exactly if there's a lightbulb and I can't shoot it, there goes my "immersion"... 

[Mark Kaine]

10 minutes ago, podkall said:

more budget for other areas or use less budget.

yeah, like for non working mirrors and bulletproof lightbulbs....

[Millios]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Exactly if there's a lightbulb and I can't shoot it, there goes my "immersion"... 

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, like for non working mirrors and bulletproof lightbulbs....

Ngl I think you just don't like lightbulbs /s

[podkall]

53 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

A lot of modern games tout their dynamic lighting as a headline feature to make the game world feel immersive. However, this feature does come with a big performance cost.

Don't some older AA/AAA titles use dynamic lighting without tanking performance?

[YoungBlade]

12 minutes ago, podkall said:

If static lighting can immitate that on good enough level, perhaps dynamic lighting isn't completely necessary for AAA title.

 

Problem then comes, if static lighting requires more "work" than dynamic lighting that adjusts itself based on the object/camera/light positions? Then dynamic lighting suddenly possibly reduces cost of work/stuff to do and have more budget for other areas or use less budget.

If you want to make static lighting behave just like dynamic lighting, then yes, it can be much more costly from a development perspective.

 

My point was more about whether or not all games require this to feel immersive.

 

Andrew Lesnie, the cinematographer on The Lord of the Rings, was asked by an actor about a dark scene that was well lit, "Where is all the light coming from?" to which he responded, "From the same place as the music." 

 

Film and games are not real. I've been annoyed watching movies with realistic nighttime lighting, because I can't see what's happening. That actually takes me out of the film. The exact same thing can happen in games.

 

I do feel like, in some cases, a lack of realism can make a game more immersive. Plenty of games have music that's playing to draw you into what's happening. That's not real. When I'm approaching a significant event in my life, music doesn't start playing to let me know something important is about to happen. But when the boss music starts, I sit up in my chair and pay attention.

 

Lighting is no different. It just needs to be good. Not necessarily realistic.

[YoungBlade]

1 minute ago, podkall said:

Don't some older AA/AAA titles use dynamic lighting without tanking performance?

It depends on what you mean by "dynamic lighting." Technically, regular Minecraft has "dynamic lighting" in the sense that none of the lighting is baked, and it responds in real time to changes in the environment. 

 

In the case of older AAA games, they usually had either a static lighting system that used things like light maps to allow for certain elements to be dynamic, such as shooting a light bulb making that part of the room get darker. Or they had a hybrid system, where certain things like torches or flashlights were dynamic, but that lighting was basically overlaid on top of the baked lighting.

 

Those results are less realistic. Light isn't actually additive to our eyes. If I go outside in the noon day sun and point a flashlight at a lit patch of ground, it will likely not even be perceived by my eyes as any different. But in games of that era, your flashlight always makes whatever you point it at brighter.

[starsmine]

Fully dynamic? no.

but static lighting falls apart as soon as things in game interact with light. Like its always funny when some things have shadows but others dont and it does take me out even 20 years ago. 

[porina]

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

Sometimes, as an artistic choice, it can make sense

That could go both ways. If games are trying to be ever more "realistic" then the current end game is path traced global illumination. Not doing that is part artistic choice, part practical performance reality.

 

If the artistic choice is not to attain ultimate realism, then anything goes.

[YoungBlade]

1 minute ago, porina said:

That could go both ways. If games are trying to be ever more "realistic" then the current end game is path traced global illumination. Not doing that is part artistic choice, part practical performance reality.

 

If the artistic choice is not to attain ultimate realism, then anything goes.

There are certainly games where it's clear that the goal was to maximize the realism of lighting. Alan Wake 2 is a good example, and I saw far fewer posts calling that game unoptimized compared to other AAA releases at the time, I think in part because it genuinely felt like the performance intensive effects were deliberate and justified. So, yes, it ran at just 30fps at 4K max settings using path tracing on an RTX 4090, but it was also arguably the most realistic looking game of all time, so I think people were more forgiving of the trade off.

 

Whereas in some games, like a notable recent AAA cell shaded title, while the dynamic lighting system is impressive in many aspects, it almost feels tacked on. The art style makes the realistic Lumen RT lighting feel more like it's a modern RTX remix of a game from two decades ago, rather than a clearly thought out artistic choice.

 

My concern is that studios are feeling pressured into using fully dynamic lighting systems by the industry when it might not be the best choice for their game. I don't think gamers are really clamoring for every game to have true-to-life lighting effects, and that it's more GPU makers and engine developers who want to push this.

 

But I might be in the minority. Maybe other gamers really do feel like realistic lighting is important to make a game feel immersive, modern, next-gen, etc.

[GuiltySpark_]

Yes, I expect it. I just hope that its implemented in a way that isn't a bear to deal with (looking at you, software lumen). 

[Doobeedoo]

It's more like to ease the development time using modern tech, less manual work with probes etc. But as far as performance, it's on devs and company can they actually optimize game, this is literally the main thing, be it older tech or newer.