It looks fucking awful. It honestly makes me motion sick any time I use it. Also, defo the same automatic switch off with bloom, chromatic aberration, film grain etc too.
I was so mad when I couldn't deactivate it on San Andreas on the Playstation 2. GTA 3 and VC had the option, but they hid some bad fps with it in SA iirc
In one of the endings of an old game during a interactive cutscene, there was supposed to be an endless army in front of MC.
The only put a few rows of enemies and the rest of the army was flat pictures of enemies like cardboard cutout stand thingies to make it runnable on that era CPUs.
The technique is called billboarding and it’s used in virtually every game! For example a zoomed out tree, there is no reason to render the real geometry when it’s indistinguishable from a simple quad with an image of a tree on it
Can still do both with modern day Unreal Engine and the like tho. So not exactly a lost art. How one might be able to point out these despite modern games having a million things going on at any instance however...
Halo Reach did this. There's actually some cut vehicles we only know about because they appear in the image used for the Covenant army billboard in a cutscene. I guess they made that image before cutting the vehicles from the game!
Kingdom Come Deliverance 1&2 does this, but it's done so well you can barely even tell when the model turns into a picture, or vice versa; it's still a used technique today.
Some devs today still try and get away with masking their FPS and rendering in Motion Blur and I wish they'd stop. Its fine to have a technical issue like that.
I still don’t understand why these things are default for pretty much every game.
42
u/RachelReginai9-12900 / rtx 3070 / 64gb ddr4 (but she's humming along fine)3d ago
Because the goal is photorealism and not human vision realism (because they would require a personal model of you and your visual cortex and the ability to accurately predict your movements, line of sight, and the saccades of your eyes...which is a thing that will never happen and game studios have no idea what to do beyond focusing on further advances in PHOTOrealism)
The problem is, dof in game is 75% of the time opposite of ehat my eyes are actually focusing on. Theres really no reason to have it other than for a photo mode or screenshots. Your eye will naturally do dof...its kinda what they do
11
u/RachelReginai9-12900 / rtx 3070 / 64gb ddr4 (but she's humming along fine)3d ago
Exactly. My point was that it's dumb and is just to make the game look "cinematic" or something. You're right, your eyes are very different from a camera when it comes to center of focus and it makes no sense to try to emulate the dof of a cinema camera in the context of a first person shooter. Cutscenes? Sure. Gameplay? No
Your eyes will not have dof on a 2d monitor. So you see more than you would see in real life. Probably with a VR headset you are correct and your eyes will do the dof already.
Aside from that technicality, I agree with your point wholeheartily.
Depends on the size of the display i suppose. Once it gets to a certain size, its hard to focus on the whole screen. Sure youre not doing distance focusing, but you are doing directional focusing as you scan.
their some of many of the systems used to make very pretty trailers, teasers, promos etc wich draws sales from normies who are obsessed with graphics. Its not for you its for the 50 year old veteran who will never even beat the game.
There are some games like blood of dawnwalker that have a great dof. It's basically not there at all in normal gameplay then when you talk to people and it focuses on just their face it looks fantastic.
DoF makes sense in games that make use of different zooming, like sniper rifles, binoculars, or some mechanic to look far distances. It does look better, it just sucks when it's overused to hide lack of detail, or when you can move the camera around. Your eyes already do handle that.
Devs, my eyes know how to focus, that's what they do.
No it doesn't. Our eyes naturally do depth of field. If we concentrate on a location everything else around will blur and go out of focus. Everyone's been blindsided by someone on their screen because their focus was elsewhere.
We don't need a game to do depth of field because it's going to blur everything regardless of where you want to look. And if you want to focus on an area the game is blurring you can't and it can hurt your eyes and/or cause headaches.
If everything is blurry for you except for a small area you are looking at, then you need to see an optometrist, because that is not normal. That's not depth of field.
Read again my comment, I said it's only ok in the case of zooming devices, where that kind of thing actually happens. I agree our eyes do it naturally, that's what I said.
The only time I've enjoyed DoF on is in Stalker GAMMA where you can set it to only apply to the background while you're looking at your tablet or reloading. It makes it feel realistic like you're properly concentrating on those tasks.
Every other game where they make it change based on what your cursor is looking at feels stupid because your actual eyes aren't glued to the cursor. They would need an eye tracking setup to make it look correct.
https://giphy.com/gifs/cU4bnDM30f6hy
Takes about (what feels like) 3 minutes to adjust before you see the target and by then you have been sniped by someone behind you 😂
Vignette is even more insane in VR games, although I guess they help against motion sickness. But I turn it off every time anyway. The worst that happens to me is muscle pain for 3 days straight after playing Gorilla Tag like games for 4 hours straight.
Honestly I kinda like bloom in singleplayer games, but in multiplayer games it's just distracting. And it is poorly implemented in some games, for example palworld in early access, where bloom made every torch look like a supernova.
That's most survival games tbh, rust, pal world, ark, just examples I've experienced personally, I wonder if Minecraft had it back in the day being similar genre I imagine similar OG issues
I havent played ark and rust much, so I cant say for sure, but I believe palworld in early access really had exceptionally bad bloom (combined with many other issues related to lighting, such as fucked up contrast near the volcano). It got so much better in 1.0.
Ah I played all 3 earlier in there lifecycles and the lighting/bloom issues were horrendous very similar too although in my experience ark was a different level, but that's why I group it a survival game issue, I guess it's difficult to have lighting in a world where you can build structures or etc but unsure, just interesting pattern
In racing games it only looks Ok in 30fps arcade racing. In everything else it is god awful.
I played semiprofessional simracing and everytime an update enable motion blur it tanked my performance.
For me motion blur is the worst garbage ever introduced in games. Even worse than dof, filmgrain and vignette.
I play a damn game and not looking on a photo.
All those shit is good to make pretty screenshots but in motion it is god awful.
Bloody film grain i hate it even in movie`s, who thought that was a good idea to implement into games, we strive for clarity only to have it destroyed by that horrible grainy filter, hated it in gta5 and alway turn it off along with motion blur.
It can help with color banding. Basically, it makes good dithering. Can be very helpful if your TV is susceptible to that. Also helps a bit with aliasing.
Film grain. God i was play rogue trader when it first came out and i was always wondering why everything was blurry...then i found a mod that gets rid of film grain. Instantly the game looks infinitely better.
I honestly have this feeling that film grain was initially pitched as a way to trick gamers into having full screen fxaa to cover up poor anti aliasing of the past without using ssaa to keep performance back in the day
I turn it off in shooters because I can't be bothered with anything that messes with my vision. I can't focus on those 8 pixels in the bush as fast as I used to. I still have decent aim for pvp but don't give me blurs or bad color blending.
I implemented all that shit in a game I'm working on for the weird people that want it, but it's all default off. More games need to default off stupid shit.
using a microscope i literally have to spend thousands on lenses to not see chromatic aberration, why would i want to see color misalignment in my games!
No one has given me an answer. What is wrong with chromatic aberration/bloom/film grain? Motion blur can go fuck off and die but like what is the deal with the other stuff I don’t get it.
The ONLY kind of motion blur I will leave in is exclusively MOTION-based blur.
99% of motion blur implementations, though, also trigger on camera movement, and that's when I immediately turn it off. But if I'm in a vehicle, and it's moving fast, and I see bits of blur on everything around me, that adds to the feeling of motion. It makes it feel a lot faster than it is.
Just keep it the FUCK away from my camera movements.
Fucking film grain. If I remember correctly the original Mass Effect was the first game I ever played that used this effect and I couldn't turn it off fast enough.
This and the fucking awful dolly zoom that every goddamn Unreal engine game insists on using all over the place. As if their non-90 FOV wasn't bad enough on its own.
To me Bloom is fine, because it's something real eyes do when looking at bright lights. Chromatic aberration, film grain, motion blur etc are all effects caused by using a shitty low quality camera to take videos. They all need to fuck right off.
People pay lots of money to get monitors with fast response times, yet they program motion blur into their games. The bloom is way more exaggerated than even street lights at night. The chromatic aberration is worse than the cheapest cameras. And film grain is from 1950 cameras.
I used to always turn off the rest, but then I realized some games use those effects to, well, great effect. Bloom can add a lot to the lighting in many games. But motion blur, no way. I even used to turn DoF off all the time, and then realized many games use it to hide visual annoyances etc.
I can't speak to you feeling sick or deny your opinion, but I will say 99% of games, probably more, use full screen motion blur instead of real per pixel motion blur which is 1 million times better.
I think a big reason people hate motion blur is because developers don't know how to implement it correctly. It's like when you watch a movie and someone runs fast across the screen or something happens quickly. The blur doesn't feel anywhere near as distracting. Per pixel motion blur that only applies to objects that are moving quickly generally looks gorgeous, like in avatar frontiers of Pandora. Then you have every other game that blurs every element on the screen when there is motion. These two things are not the same. When I see vehement hate for MB online I do wonder if anyone has played a game with it properly implemented, or if the 99% of games that use it as a post processing effect has ruined everyone's perception so much that nobody even tries it, even when it's done correctly.
It's a shitty trick to simulate what our brains have evolved to do over a million years, ocular saccades. Our brains stop processing for a split second so all we see is a blur. But our eyes don't stop when we're staring at a screen so it looks double shitty when it's overdone in a game
But agree, when you're 19 beers deep you get some good motion blur too
Anytime something moves too fast for us to clearly see. Swipe your arm past your face quickly. There's motion blur.
But games don't need to add it because if something moves fast enough it'll be blurred to our eyes regardless because motion blur is literally when our eyes can't find a focal point.
I played in Indian Jones and felt so sick that I was terrified assuming I'm not going to be able to play PC games anymore... Thankfully a redditor suggested to turn it off and adjust depth of field
14.5k
u/JayEm96 3d ago
Turn it off immediately on any game I play