Provided with two.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Motion blur: are you a fan?
- Thread starter MrOogieBoogie
- Start date
Provided with two.
GoW3, UC2/3, Gears 3, and Crysis 2 all have excellent use and implementation of motion blur. It can sometimes be too heavy or low quality in some games, but when done right I do enjoy it.
One thing that kind of bugs me sometimes is how it's presented in games. Motion blur should mostly occur when an object is moving along the outer areas of your focal point, if you're focusing on a moving object the motion blur should be considerably less or gone entirely. I can think of very few games that handle motion blur in this manner.
I've heard developers say something similar, that at 60fps and above motion blur isn't really necessary since the human eye should create the blur naturally. Of course this doesn't mean a game can't have motion blur at higher frame rates, but I can see how some think it's unnecessary at 60fps or above. Really it's all a matter of preference IMO since some people like it and some don't.
UE3 used to have some poor motion blur, but it's much better now with their recent implementation.
http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/MotionBlurSkinning.html
The motion blur in Gears 3 is beautiful.
One thing that kind of bugs me sometimes is how it's presented in games. Motion blur should mostly occur when an object is moving along the outer areas of your focal point, if you're focusing on a moving object the motion blur should be considerably less or gone entirely. I can think of very few games that handle motion blur in this manner.
I've heard developers say something similar, that at 60fps and above motion blur isn't really necessary since the human eye should create the blur naturally. Of course this doesn't mean a game can't have motion blur at higher frame rates, but I can see how some think it's unnecessary at 60fps or above. Really it's all a matter of preference IMO since some people like it and some don't.
UE3 used to have some poor motion blur, but it's much better now with their recent implementation.
http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/MotionBlurSkinning.html
The motion blur in Gears 3 is beautiful.
SuperDowns
Banned
Yes.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Yep, MT Framework's MB is awesome...besides the already mentioned PGR4, GoW3, BF3 (PC), Resistance 3 some other games that have really impressive MB are SW: The Force Unleashed II, Tekken 6 & Crysis 2.
And yes Gears 3 has the best use of MB in any UE3 game thus far, it's on a whole other level when compared to other UE3 powered titles and up there with PGR4 and GoW3 IMO.
Tekken 6 with motion blur on looks a lot more impressive IMO, so smooth. ^_^
Uhh, the motion blur looks exactly like that.
It's one of the best examples of motion blur out there. I can't even begin to imagine why you seem to think otherwise. I've played it on both PC and 360 and the effect is phenomenal. Adds a lot to the visuals.
It's the best example of motion blur in MT Framework.
That being said, it's still very good in the other games. Only DMC4 lacks motion blur due to its 60 fps target (the cutscenes make use of it, however).
Yeah, it's a massive improvement over every other UE3 title I've played. However, it still doesn't look as clean as some of the best implementations.
Right, Crysis. A modest showing.
It honestly depends on the game, but if its multiplayer no thanks. I agree crysis did it extremely well. But often times the screen just loses too much detail. Motion blur with 3rd Person cameras are also horrible. Slightest blending might be necessary to not be jittery, but otherwise its eye bleeding.
GreggTheGrimReaper
Member
Ruins everything.
CadetMahoney
Member
I always thought MB on consoles was used to mask frame drops or something? with the aesthetics angle being secondary amirite?
That's just silly.
What on earth would prompt you to make this comment? Which game pushed you to that point?
Not at all. Quality motion blur (especially object based) is actually quite demanding and adds to the load. It definitely isn't used to mask a low framerate, though it does help smooth out 30 fps quite a bit.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
I like it in racing games when you use a nitro boost. It gives the feeling of driving at blazing speeds and creates a sense of rush. Racing games without it just doesn't feel right anymore. Example, Burnout on the PSP didn't feel as fun compared to the PS2 versions.
To Far Away Times
Member
I turn off motion blur and depth of field in every game that has an option for it.
You don't need to simulate what your eyes are doing. There's no "pre-made" motion blur in nature. Why would I suddendly need a new coating of blur when watching a screen? My eyes are ALREADY blurring together the TV's frames. 60fps with and without motion blur is extremely close and equally smooth for 99,9% of all existing humans. SF4 and Battlefield3 would probably look a tiny bit better without the motion blur imo as this would remove that extra motion blur over the one your eye is naturally causing. You can prefer having motion blur "on" but it makes the whole thing more "film like" instead of more "real life".
Also, it's totally understandable to prefer motion blur anyways because that's the mold since 50 years +. People simply are used to the softeness created by motion blur and when they see it again, they feel right at home. That's why you have people that prefer a GT5 replay that is 30fps + motion blur instead of a GT4 replay that is pure 60fps.
Dark Octave
Banned
It's a cool effect that makes quick actions look more realistic and smooth.
Wave your hand in front of your face rapidly and you'll notice that there is a natural blur present with fast motion. This is why object motion blur is so good (when used properly).
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I think he's saying an object on the screen moving that fast would naturally produce the same effect. I agree with you that it doesn't, but I don't know why exactly. Part of it is probably that the objects on screen don't tend to move as fast or as far (relative to our visual field) as our hand when we're waving it right in front of our face.
Exactly my point for not ever needing motion blur at 60fps. 60fps is smooth enough for my eye to naturally blur the frames. I don't need an extra coating of blur that would just be... unnatural. At 30fps we clearly have a debate. I would probably prefer motion blur. But I would simply prefer the dev to aim for 60fps instead. At 24fps like movies, the blur is absolutely needed in order for the movie to be at least watchable.
ZombieTimeMachine
Member
Yeah, it tends to trigger motion sickness and migraines in me (though sometimes I can handle it if it isn't too strong). Generally speaking, things that are known to make people sick in games should always have an option to be turned off (also, please cool it with the shaky cam devs).
How About No
Member
I have enjoyed many implementations of the motion blur effect.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
You think of motion blur in terms of "need" but I think of it as an aesthetic choice, one that can still improve the look of games running at framerates higher than 30fps. It looks more like film, or high quality CG. Is that inherently the way things "should" look? No. I realize that my preference is due to an association with the appearance of other modern media, but regardless of its origin it remains my preference.
No, your eyes do not naturally blur the frames. Your eye blurs the movement of your hand because it actually moves from point A to point B. Visual frames do not move...they simply appear and disappear. Therefore, there is no movement to blur. Motion blur simply restores this lost movement.
I like depth of field when it's very subtly applied to an image to improve the IQ of distant objects, but nothing more.
So what's the difference between something moving from point A to point B on a screen?
Assuming the frame rate is high enough, your eyes can still create a natural blur for moving objects.
Actually, the human perceives changes in lighting. The retina also retain that light for a certain time, it changes gradually. It's mostly similar to ghosting in slow LCD screens. So yes there's blur "in your eyes" when you look at a TV screen. This also explain why you will be able to spot 1 black frame in a 1000fps movie of white frames. It's not exactly the same as the motion blur in games but anyways I think this effect is actually benefital in low FPS (30 or less). At 60fps, I don't feel the need for it unless you want the added "softeness" for artistic reasons, something a previous poster mentionned and that I can agree with. Anyhow, I would prefer movies and games to be 60fps without motion blur (generally speaking).
I agree, MT framework has some of the best motion blur I have seen. I think that was first title with per object mb this gen.
Although I don't agree with Gears 3 not being up there. Gears 3 has great motion blur.
Oh and Fight Night of course...
No, motion blur happens due to a lack of focus. This doesn't work with a 2D screen.
Typographenia
Member
I always turn it off. It annoys me immensely, and I'm so glad it's typically optional.
Peterthumpa
Member
That's exactly why games have motion blur. The object in front of you (the TV) isn't moving while you're playing and I believe the eyes doesn't "register" motion blur from a moving video.
When an object goes from point A to point B in the physical world, it actually travels from point A to point B...it occupies the points in between for a short period of time which creates motion blur.
When an object goes from point A to point B on a screen in the span of a frame, it never occupies the points in between. The object is at point A one frame, and point B the next. There is no movement in between to create any blur. Motion blur simply re-introduces this missing motion information.
Your eye will have some image retention from one frame to the next, but will not reintroduce the motion blur that would occur naturally.
brain_stew
Member
What your describing only applies to displays that use sample and hold. My plasma has perfect motion resolution.
There's a very easy way to demonstrate this. Take your mouse cursor and move it across the screen very fast. Notice how you only see the mouse cursor in a few places on the screen? That's because the motion information in between those points for your mouse cursor is missing.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Looks great when implemented well.
Great object-based blur examples: Dead Rising, Crysis, Uncharted 2.
Great camera-based blur examples: Gears of War series, Kingdoms of Amalur.
Just off the top of my head.
Great object-based blur examples: Dead Rising, Crysis, Uncharted 2.
Great camera-based blur examples: Gears of War series, Kingdoms of Amalur.
Just off the top of my head.
Wark
Member
I'm not really bothered when it is on, but I guess it really depends on the context. When it is implemented in a completely jarring manner, then I think it becomes a little ridiculous. I guess you can chalk me up under "if it is done right" category - although I rarely see myself ever really turning it off.
I never liked the motion blur in Crysis because it felt really overdone on the player's weapons. It was also kind of glitched for the end of some weapons, as I recall.
Lost Planet 1 was probably one of the best examples of OBMB, i remember seeing it on console way back and didnt realize what it was just noticed that switching weapons was extremely fluid and didnt understand why it looked so good.
Lost planet 1 is still a remarkable game in visuals.
Lost planet 1 is still a remarkable game in visuals.
Warm Machine
Member
As with all visual effects, when tastefully done, it is a wonderful thing.
I know, basically described the same earlier in this thread, I just don't think a natural blur (created by our eyes) is impossible in a game with high enough frame rates.
Just Cause 2 didn't have motion blur on the ps3? I thought both versions were the same, no?
If there are enough frames, the information should be there for the eye to create a blur though. I understand what you mean by an object occupying space, but I think it has more to do with controlling focus than anything else. When you're looking at a screen, it's not hard to be focused on most, if not all of the screen. However in the real world, that's not so easy since your eyes is gathering more information, making it impossible to focus on everything at once.
TUROK
Member
Gears of War (1, 2, and 3) has OMB as well. Has one of the most subtle implementations I've ever seen too. Looks snazzy too.
mickcenary
Member
Motion Blur is hands-down the greatest visual effect ever (hyperbole). Seriously, though, I love it. Just look at the Kilzones/Uncharteds and Gears of War 3. Superb cases for, in my eyes.
Motion blur can range from forced to subtle & effective. Recently I was very impressed by the motion blur on Soulcalibur V when doing quick steps around the stage. It's a little hard to spot on a YouTube video but look at the background & not the characters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulgIAijPjC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulgIAijPjC4
Santerestil
Banned
Bloom: are you a fan?
No.
In general, I prefer visual fidelity on the screen - and let the human eye distort the images.
lucius
Member
Lens of truth says it is disabled in the PS3 version although they listed it as a negative, I disagree. Too much blur was going in in the 360 version turned me off. I am just going by playing the 360 demo a few times. It one of the very few multiplat to sell better on PS3, I think the cleaner look was one of the reasons.
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-just-cause-2/
Go down to graphics is where they say it was disabled in PS3.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
I hate it when it's done for the sake of ZOMG MOSHUN BLRRRRRR instead of as a method to bring about a cool effect in an action or whatever. Witcher 2's when the camera moves is nice in that it doesn't obscure your PoV either.
Similar threads
- Poll