By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Motion Blur is awesome and saves you Money, stop the Hating

The use of motion blur in DriveClub was amazing, the sense of speed was great. I hope future racing games use it more/better.



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
Lawlight said:
SvennoJ said:
Lawlight said:
SvennoJ said:
Motion blur doesn't add anything it only subtracts.
But yes it is necessary to hide certain motion aliasing effects, like wheels appearing to turn backwards, or repeating road textures appearing to move backwards at certain speeds. Beyond that, it only degrades the image quality. Your eyes track objects, you only notice blurring on rotating objects, not on anything you follow with your eyes.


Wrong. It's great when giving you a sense of speed.

It doesn't give me a sense of speed. I turn it off on pc, sense of speed is still the same with games running at 30fps. The only downside is when textures repeat and the road appears to move backwards. Yet blurry sides don't add anything to the sense of speed. Much better to turn it off and get a bit better fps.

It does to me. Running around on Aggro with it feels epic. And also, why do you think Digital Foundry liked it was kept in the Nathan Drake collection even with it running at 60fps?

DF likes visual effects, in the Dark souls 3 hands on they even seem to be sorry that chromatic aberration is missing. Running around on Agro with motion blur doesn't make any sense to me, it's a personal preference.
The problem is it's usually over done. It happens with cameras with long exposure times, yet the exposure time is still significantly less than 1 frame. Games often seem to smear two frames together. And even when it is kept in check, why bother, not worth the fps hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRSIvSg84S8
I prefer no motion blur so I can make out the objects vs a blurry stream. Just like in RL you get glimpses of the actual objects when your eyes track them.


I guess it's a personal preference then.



Umn no, motion blurt doesn't save me money, that sounds completely nonsensical and misinformed, especially for someone who claims they don't get the hate and then goes to slander AF and general AA over motion blur. I am the type that finds motion blur incredibly off putting and non realistic, I find it disorientates my eyes a lot of the time and gives me a slight motion sickness feeling along with it actually hampering my frames than giving me a ton more like you boldly claim.

To add before you reply like you;ve already done before, no I don't get over motion sickness by adapting to the very thing that causes it, I don't work that way either.


Also why the thread to pit it "good for console gamers, dunno why the PC crowd be hatin, lets focus on that crowd instead" type thread.

Also I find Depth of field annoying as well since it heavily blurs a lot of the background image out and my eyes just don't work like that at all. In fact for almost any game I turn off DoF, Motion blur, Chromatic Aberration, Film grain and in recent good ports like Dying Light, turning off those fx permanently actually gained me more frames than having them all turned on. Chromatic Aberration is ugly as sin though for games, it works well for some other forms of media and photography but definitely not games.



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

Motion blur is a post process effect ...

More often than not I don't like it for the reason above ...

Using a screen space approach to simulate a camera's shuttering is a bad idea, quality wise ...

Temporal anti-aliasing is the future, not this smudging effect ...



Yeah, no thanks - that's the first effect I turn off in every game, along with depth of field and that latest devs' fetish called chromatic abomination.



Around the Network
HoloDust said:
Yeah, no thanks - that's the first effect I turn off in every game, along with depth of field and that latest devs' fetish called chromatic abomination.

For a while when I started playing Dying Light I had always wondered what the hell CA was as an effect that was bothering me a lot with the visuals and generally coloured blurring, then after some time I had to look up what CA was. Needless to say I find it one of the worst fx to throw into games besides motion blur and DoF.

Also after seeing some benches for Dying Light, turning off CA completely (through mods) actually showed an increase in fps, so CA did more harm visually and eprf wise than good, some devs need to elarn that shoving all these fx doesn't automatically make your game look objectively amazing and they should also fofer various ways to turn them fof completely since mods for some FX seem to be the only way. Thank the maker for having mods and option menus for PC versions though.

I also noticed that playing Starcraft II Legacy of the void wasn't jam packed with all those fx that we've listed in the thread so far, they could certainly be jammed in there but they aren't because Blizzard know not to do such a thing.



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

vivster said:
Ruler said:


because it is actually natural

It's natural when my glasses break. Motion blur in games is not comparable with the blur our eyes produce.


the movement of our body isnt comparble with the movement of a videogame character espacially ego shooters, the motion blur represents the actuall blur we would see if we would move like this



Motion blur is an artistic effect used to hide judder and as such is a love or hate thing. The motion blur like depicted in videogames only exists in videogames and movies. Normally only our brain creates passively motion blur when we are not focusing on the objects in motion.

Focusing on an motion blurred object in a videogame is totally unnatural and can create motion sickness.

It's a cinematic effect used to hide judder and ghosting blur mainly seen in non cathodic screens. The problem is that it completely destroys image clarity in the process and that most developers use a very low quality of motion blur.

Very high quality motion blur is the only one that should be used in videogames because it keeps the clarity at decent levels.

One of the best motion blur I have seen, one that is tolerable, is notably used in Driveclub. The motion blur used in Dying Light or the recent COD are also impressively high quality too and are also tolerable for me.

But others games that use a very low quality Motion blur are unplayable for me. For instance I cant' play Shadows of Mordor (Digital edition, I can't resell it) because of how badly blurred the image is at any motion, even a very slow motion. It's unbearable.

IMO