Who even thinks motion blur is a good idea?

Nukester said:

DoF is nice for screenshots, but seems kind of strange while actually playing. Motion blur is just a waste of resources to me

Click to expand...

It's nice for CERTAIN screenshots. If the background isn't particularly interesting and you want to make sure people concentrate on whatever is in focus, it's a good thing. If you've got an interesting foreground AND background, though, it's a very bad thing.

The ancient evil of lens flair is my current Most Hated Graphics Feature, though.

Zloth said:

It's nice for CERTAIN screenshots. If the background isn't particularly interesting and you want to make sure people concentrate on whatever is in focus, it's a good thing. If you've got an interesting foreground AND background, though, it's a very bad thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah I meant with screenshots that are more like a telephoto lens of a camera, like the DoF screenshot above, where the background is blurred and the subject itself is in focus. For those type of shots, DoF is nice. If you are trying to get some kind of vista view from a mountaintop, then yeah it sucks

Interesting that so many people are against it. I quite like it sometimes, and I remember the first time I really appreciated it - which was in the first Crysis. There were some really chaotic battles involving a tank and what not, and explosions would shake the screen and motion blur would simulate the impact on your visual sense.

I found that quite effective.

Since then, it's been pretty hit and miss. Sometimes I find it helps immersion, and sometimes I find it getting in the way of the view.

Certainly not all bad, but to each his own.

I like it when utilised intelligently to create a sense of changing consciousness; when a player is poisoned or under some other psychoactive agent for example, I think it can be immersively useful.

I fondly remember taking the mushrooms in Ultima Underworld for example and walking around squnting at the screen as all manner of fractal blurring and rapid colour change was initiated on the screen.

I also haven't minded it when done to create a "wormhole" travelling tunnel sensation. Some racing games for example have done this particularly well (Rollcage and a couple of the Need For Speed games come to mind)

Pessimeister said:

I like it when utilised intelligently to create a sense of changing consciousness; when a player is poisoned or under some other psychoactive agent for example, I think it can be immersively useful.

I fondly remember taking the mushrooms in Ultima Underworld for example and walking around squnting at the screen as all manner of fractal blurring and rapid colour change was initiated on the screen.

I also haven't minded it when done to create a "wormhole" travelling tunnel sensation. Some racing games for example have done this particularly well (Rollcage and a couple of the Need For Speed games come to mind)

Click to expand...

But in these cases it's less of a graphics option but specifically applied to mimic a feeling (and adding immersion), that's ok by me. All the others cases I will turn it off, annoying as hell it is to me.

basharran said:

But in these cases it's less of a graphics option but specifically applied to mimic a feeling (and adding immersion), that's ok by me. All the others cases I will turn it off, annoying as hell it is to me.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Examples like those mentioned by DArtagnan and Pessimeister are instances where I agree that motion blur can be effective when done right and in moderation.

Problem is, it's rarely used like that. Instead, we usually get full-scene motion blur that causes the entire screen to blur every time you pan the camera.

It's okay for individual objects, e.g. when you swing a sword and the sword gets slightly blurred.

But full screen motion blur when you move the camera? I hate that with a passion.

I remember playing Two Worlds 2 on PS3. Couldn't stand it for more than 5 minutes.
Still getting headaches when watching LPs of that game.
E.g. this video from 2:30 onward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SrNw6CuwSA

LordConti said:

It's okay for individual objects, e.g. when you swing a sword and the sword gets slightly blurred.

But full screen motion blur when you move the camera? I hate that with a passion.

I remember playing Two Worlds 2 on PS3. Couldn't stand it for more than 5 minutes.
Still getting headaches when watching LPs of that game.
E.g. this video from 2:30 onward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SrNw6CuwSA

Click to expand...

Yeeeeech!!!

You evil thing!!!

pibbur who wonders if paracetamol (who some disturbed people call acetaminophen) will be strong enough to handle 5 minutes of exposure. He himself had to look away after merely 30 seceonds.

I have yet to see motion blur and depth of field done in a good way. To the point where I always check every games settings before I start them so I can turn it off.

My guess it's a thing born from peoples obsession with realism over the last years. But some thing you just cannot re-create. Motion blur and dept of field is a thing that sits in our eyes. A screen is NOT our eyes, it's merely a tool we are looking at. Therefore it's impossible to re-create these features on a simple screen. Perhaps with VR goggles I can see it being a thing as it could more naturally occur in relation with our eyes.

Well, the same can be said about anything that's created on a 2D screen - that it's not our eyes. Does that mean we should give up every kind of visual representation or estimation of reality?

Not without a better argument than stating the obvious that it's not our eyes.

I think we've come a very long way when it comes to simulating visual reality - and there are always paths we can take to more realism.

As for motion blur, it's clearly not the most popular effect around here, but there's plenty of room for improvement. Makes no sense to simply not try and make it work.

I'm talking about emulating the screen as realistic eyes, not about just what we see. We can recognize objects on a screen just as well as we can on a piece of paper. But we cannot recognize dept of field on a screen as our actual dept of field is already outside of the screen as we are watching it.

NyxVampiria said:

I'm talking about emulating the screen as realistic eyes, not about just what we see. We can recognize objects on a screen just as well as we can on a piece of paper. But we cannot recognize dept of field on a screen as our actual dept of field is already outside of the screen as we are watching it.

Click to expand...

I can't really make sense of what you're saying. It's like saying we can't create 3D objects on a 2D screen because the screen is 2D and 3D objects only exist outside the screen. But we can, it's just not real 3D - it's an illusion.

Depth of field is just another illusion, and I happen to think it works well in several games already. To me, it adds quite a bit to the sensation of distance because it simulates how our eyes focus - beyond what 3D objects alone can achieve in relation to each other. I think it was Gothic 3 where I started to notice how it really helped the vistas - and the illusion of huge landscapes.

I also don't think these features are always and necessarily put in games by morons who just want to add as much dazzle as possible. I think there's a lot of games made by serious and talented people - and that they sometimes REALLY and TRULY believe depth of field and motion blur both add something to the games they're making.

Some people obviously don't think so, and that's ok. But arguing against it isn't very effective if the primary point is that "it's not real - so it can't look real".

If there's one thing advances in visuals have demonstrated, it's that we can achieve much more than we ever thought was possible in the past.