Considering it as a defect sounds so negative.
Basically, it's not a defect
at all, its driven by the laws of nature. There is no perfect lens. As a side
note; we even experience chromatic aberration effects in an electromagnetic
lens (electron optics) despite there is no light at all.
I think we first should agree that no game is realistic to begin with. If you
consider games to be realistic you will always fall in this trap of yours.
Secondly, one needs to understand that visuals in games are not supposed to
match reality. The primary artistic focus lies on building graphics which
fits a given/intended aesthetic to convey a given atmosphere. This may result
in using techniques which do not find any counterpart in the real world or
only to a very less extend. It's not about reality, it's about whether the
graphics fits the aesthetic/atmosphere the game should convey. However, it may
happen that some of those effects may perhaps be too pronounced, which is the
job of the Quality Assurance (QA) to find out. So you may find CA in games
where there is no lens at all, which is complete legit from an artistic point
of view. You have to respect the visual art of the game if the artist and the
QA team agrees upon the given effects serving the atmosphere of the game. Not
everybody likes Picasso's line-drawings. In that case just pass on and let
others enjoy being exposed to such art/graphics.
Well, I agree with you that many of the effect are overused now and then like
lense flares and bloom back in the days. However, putting such effect at the
right place may add to the atmosphere no matter whether if the game was
supposed to be realistic or not. Being realistic is almost always not the
point in making video games (even if it looks so from the outside). It's not.
It's about creating a believable (not supposed realistic) aesthetic which
conveys the intend of the creator(s).
Look at the game Ghost Song (in the making) by one of our follow indie game
developers (i.e. Jobbs) over here at gaf;
This game uses some heavy CA in some places. So where is the lens? There is
non. And it's not needed. It's the choice of the artist using whatever fits
his/her vision. And if anyone doesn't like it, we will come full circle with
Picasso again.
Many of the modern video effect filters utilized for professional video
reproduction for movies (simulating video within the movie) are in need of
such effects. Sure 'a sane individual' would want RGB out, but this doesn't
say that such effects are of no use esp. not when being considered for
artistic work. A modern video game may use such effects at some places because
the artist may want to mimic sort of an old/analog video effect or want to
use it solely to make his/her style a bit different for conveying his/her
vision much better. There nothing wrong doing so. And yet some people won't
like such effects solely because they think it not realistic. I think those
people will miss the point entirely.
I'm all for realistic rendering whatsoever. But graphics for video games are
mainly artistically driven and not by reality (even if it looks so from the
outside). You say the effects (in this case CA with respect to the game in
question) is not realistic, but show me one artist who said that this or that
effect was supposed to be a realistic one. You will get a pretty different
answer why such effects where used at all.
I think it's useless to tell an artist what (s)he should use or not to draw
his/her graphics. I don't want that. I want to play and experience the game
like the artist has intended me to do. I want to see his/her vision, not my
one. Well, this doesn't mean I would like all styles, no, but I will respect
the artist for his/her vision even if it's not my game.
If you are interested, then head over to the old indie game dev thread here at
gaf. There was a strong discussion about using CA or not. If you follow along
the lines, you will see how a more technical person looks at CA and how an
artist (Jobbs) looks at CA.
