Motion Blur nowdays are better than older games, as so other graphical effects

[AsrielDew128]

I like to make a point! It's probably a luke warm take, but hey! I just wanna say it

Motion Blur, Bloom, HDR and such used to crank to 11, particularly back in like pre 2010s and mid 2010s. However, since then, devs have crank down those effects to a more acceptable level, especially motion blur, with the advent of Object Motion Blur, It makes games feel that bit more immersive, as fast object looks realistically fast.

It's not as awful as before, as any new graphics effects.

This is just something I like to get out.

[GOATWD]

9 minutes ago, AsrielDew128 said:

I like to make a point! It's probably a luke warm take, but hey! I just wanna say it

Motion Blur, Bloom, HDR and such used to crank to 11, particularly back in like pre 2010s and mid 2010s. However, since then, devs have crank down those effects to a more acceptable level, especially motion blur, with the advent of Object Motion Blur, It makes games feel that bit more immersive, as fast object looks realistically fast.

It's not as awful as before, as any new graphics effects.

This is just something I like to get out.

i 100% agrea i like mostin blur iv been a consol gamer allmy life till reacnlty never beenm able to tern it off 

[WereCat]

Yes, as long as the implementation is good I can actually bear the motion blur in some games. But in majority of games it still sucks.

[Stahlmann]

Object motion blur is fine, but camera motion blur is something i just cannot bear.

[AsrielDew128]

50 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Yes, as long as the implementation is good I can actually bear the motion blur in some games. But in majority of games it still sucks.

This also applies to terrible TAA implamentation, Idk why Digital Founderies or even Linus didn't talk about this, but dear god, The computer monitors in Cyberpunk is terrible to use if you have TAA turned on, because the cursor turn into a blur like you're using a TA panel.

[porina]

What are some good examples of "good" motion blur these days?

 

What does "good" even mean? To me, I'd apply videography principles, where the effective shutter time for natural smoothness is half the frame time. Games I've looked at go way over that and it just looks plain bad. FFXVI launch implementation was outright horrible, and John at DF might need new glasses as he was happy with it. I'd pick too little or none over too much any day.

 

Maybe that's part of the problem. Game does not always know what the frame time will be before completing the rendering, so how does it know how much blur to add? Maybe workable if running on a fixed fps cap. Further consider that frame generation would also impact this. At high enough fps, the blur amount would tend towards zero anyway, so this is more a problem at low fps.

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, WereCat said:

Yes, as long as the implementation is good I can actually bear the motion blur in some games. But in majority of games it still sucks.

this ^^

 

6 hours ago, porina said:

Maybe that's part of the problem. Game does not always know what the frame time will be before completing the rendering, so how does it know how much blur to add? Maybe workable if running on a fixed fps cap. Further consider that frame generation would also impact this. At high enough fps, the blur amount would tend towards zero anyway, so this is more a problem at low fps.

however,  this seems to be a pc specific issue,  consoles generally have much better motion blur (since basically forever) 

 

 

6 hours ago, porina said:

John at DF might need new glasses as he was happy with it

xD DF is a joke, also since forever (tm)

[TetraSky]

Ah yes, I too love smearing butter all over my eyes when I move slightly.

[Kisai]

8 hours ago, AsrielDew128 said:

I like to make a point! It's probably a luke warm take, but hey! I just wanna say it

Motion Blur, Bloom, HDR and such used to crank to 11, particularly back in like pre 2010s and mid 2010s. However, since then, devs have crank down those effects to a more acceptable level, especially motion blur, with the advent of Object Motion Blur, It makes games feel that bit more immersive, as fast object looks realistically fast.

It's not as awful as before, as any new graphics effects.

This is just something I like to get out.

Motion Blur also is the number one reason why people get motion sick, likewise it's also a highly punitive GPU hog since it basically has to blur everything but the center of the FOV. Standard operating behavior is to turn motion blur off in games that have running or driving in it. (It might be fine if your character can't sprint, thus the blur is only invoked if you fall or launched out of something moving.)

 

That said, I'm someone who tends to turn AA off or dial it all the way down because "jagged edges" don't bother me at 4k. They only bother me at 720p, and sometimes at 1080p. I don't want things in the distance looking blurred away. Especially with DLSS which will make things stop being legible if the lower resolution render was AA'd.

 

[WereCat]

53 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Ah yes, I too love smearing butter all over my eyes when I move slightly.

It's almost necessary when you play at low framerates as it helps to mask some of the choppiness. (assuming it's the good implementation of MB) 

I see no reason to use it at higher framerates. 

[Doobeedoo]

Nah, it's just bad, masking low framerate to a degree but that's it. I'd rather not play then. Object motion blur can be ok depends, still don't see a need for it anyway, doesn't look better to me. Camera movement blur big no.

Also really any camera effect nonsense is horrible in general, blur, lense flare, chromatic abberation, depth of field, film grain, also depends but some other like rain drops if you don't have some visor, excessive camera shake, overused bloom. 

Our eyes are not cameras and also annoying bad designers forcing to make games "cinematic" crap is horrible. Especially when games don't offer control.

[Avocado Diaboli]

21 hours ago, AsrielDew128 said:

This is just something I like to get out.

This has been observable fact for decades at this point. Every time some new tech comes out, developers want to play with it and there's always some that overdo it. Cheap specular highlights made 7th gen games look all wet all the time. Experience shows them how to use those tools sensibly so they don't go overboard and gamers eventually stop noticing them altogether. Chances are everybody here who complains vehemently about motion blur has experienced a game that implements a modern, toned down version with motion blur enabled and hasn't noticed it, and most of the complaints stem from games that still overdo it to this day. Because that's what always happens.

[AsrielDew128]

19 hours ago, porina said:

What are some good examples of "good" motion blur these days?

 

What does "good" even mean? To me, I'd apply videography principles, where the effective shutter time for natural smoothness is half the frame time. Games I've looked at go way over that and it just looks plain bad. FFXVI launch implementation was outright horrible, and John at DF might need new glasses as he was happy with it. I'd pick too little or none over too much any day.

 

Maybe that's part of the problem. Game does not always know what the frame time will be before completing the rendering, so how does it know how much blur to add? Maybe workable if running on a fixed fps cap. Further consider that frame generation would also impact this. At high enough fps, the blur amount would tend towards zero anyway, so this is more a problem at low fps.

Actually, GAMES DO KNOW THE FRAME TIMES.

Although, It's mainly 1 frame delay, because It need to complete a frame to know how long it took between the next frame and the previous frame. It's delta time calculation. 

[AsrielDew128]

Just now, Avocado Diaboli said:

This has been observable fact for decades at this point. Every time some new tech comes out, developers want to play with it and there's always some that overdo it. Cheap specular highlights made 7th gen games look all wet all the time. Experience shows them how to use those tools sensibly so they don't go overboard and gamers eventually stop noticing them altogether. Chances are everybody here who complains vehemently about motion blur has experienced a game that implements a modern, toned down version with motion blur enabled and hasn't noticed it, and most of the complaints stem from games that still overdo it to this day. Because that's what always happens.

Yeah, most people don't notice there is Motion Blur in BG3, and there's no option to disable it from what I remember

[porina]

14 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

however,  this seems to be a pc specific issue,  consoles generally have much better motion blur (since basically forever) 

I refer you to FFXVI again. There might be an element of that for the same reason consoles can be better optimised: the platform generally doesn't change. Devs know how it will perform. With PCs, it can scale up or down much more wildly.

 

45 minutes ago, AsrielDew128 said:

Actually, GAMES DO KNOW THE FRAME TIMES.

Although, It's mainly 1 frame delay, because It need to complete a frame to know how long it took between the next frame and the previous frame. It's delta time calculation. 

If you're running locked fps that makes it easy to do.

 

If frame times are variable, you need to know what the frame time of the current frame being rendered is before you finish the current frame. You could base it on previous frame is things don't change too much. Or, I wonder if they can treat it in two parts: the frame render time (without blur) + blur as post process. That might be sufficient to get close enough.

 

[Sharkyx1]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:28 PM, Mark Kaine said:

xD DF is a joke, also since forever (tm)

Why?

 

DF is the most reliable outlet at what they do