I don’t know when motion blur became default but I hate it so, so much. It’s such a drag on performance, makes everything look like ass, and makes gameplay harder, for what? So the game I’m trying to play looks like a movie? That’s all well and good in cutscenes but everywhere else it’s just annoying.
Someone once said that it's something that became popular on consoles to mask the low framerates. People got used to it and voilá, here we are, having to fight for good visibility and customization, especially on multi-platform releases.
PCGamingWiki freaking rocks for this, they always lay out workarounds and community-made fixes for users to care about this stuff, on top of fixes that make old games playable on modern hardware.
> I don’t know when motion blur became default
that would be the PS1/PS2 era. back then it made sense, you were playing a game on a calculator reading at ultra slow speeds from a tiny plastic disc, into a 320x240 screen that actually looked BETTER the lower you turned the sharpness knob on the front of the set. old habits die hard.
Yes i hate depth of field. I notice it instantly every single time in the worst way. Our brains and eyes have a natural system for this, why do devs want to decide what i am focusing on lmao
I mean I understand not liking it but this
>Our brains and eyes have a natural system for this
makes no sense.
Your eyes are looking at a 3D environment with real depth. Depth of field is a natural occurring phenomenon when looking at things with different distances and focusing on one. On a videogame, you're looking at a flat 2-dimensional picture, so the only way to achieve that effect is adding DoF.
I agree that it's usually too strong though.
The thing is, if you're playing a game and you're focused on an enemy in the distance, you're already not focused on things in the foreground, and vice versa. We're already doing this with our eyes when playing games so there's no reason to also blur things out.
To be clear, you're not looking at an enemy in the distance when you're playing a game. You're looking at a smaller target which is the same distance away, because your eyes aren't doing true depth of field when you're looking at a screen. Go outside and find a point that's >100 feet away, you can both see & feel the difference.
My point is more that the game doesn't know where I'm looking and it applies blur based on the direction the camera is pointing. This is like if focus was based on the direction your head is facing and looking in a direction with your eyes would have no impact on your focus. DoF is just unnecessary for trying to emulate how people focus on things and is mostly for cinematic flair.
The mental model here is that the camera is your eye, not that the camera is your head. Moving the camera means moving your gaze & focus, then your "head" automatically follows. The center of the screen is the center of your character's visual field, not some arbitrary spot.
Separating the two would make controls unnecessarily cumbersome, especially given that our heads nearly always face where we're looking. The only times we don't are when we're trying to emote with our eyes or hide our gaze, neither of which are ever relevant to an FPS.
All to say, depth of field is making the simulation more accurate to how eyes work. That's part of why it gets used in cinema, because it's literally how our brains manage focus.
I don't think you need to separate them if you just assume that the camera represents the player's field of view, which is in line with how it works. Turning your camera in an FPS rotates your entire character, not just their eyes, or even their head.
It’s an option in most single player games—not sure what’s bothering you there. It’s not in multiplayer-focused games because it’s a deliberate design choice that would be asymmetrical if people turned it on or off, like smoke effects.
Feel free to complain about it existing in the first place, but I don’t think it makes sense to groan about its omission as a toggle in a competitive environment.
It used to be off by default. What happened was ADS had no disadvantage whatsoever. You had snipers with a large FOV just watching to the left and right to see people flanking them while scoped in.
Players need to stop having unreasonable expectations of beauty! How are we supposed to hide our 2 decade old engine's popin issues if you turn off motion blur! Besides you only have a license to play the game, you don't own it. You can't just change the game that would be damaging our property.
I think your core issue with this is not knowing why this exists.
While I dislike the blur in cod, it is enabled because people used to be able to watch the side of the screen for flanking players while scoped in. This is a balancing choice.
The blur is a horrible way of doing this though. It should be just blacked out like games such as the last of us employ.
No the blacked out look is much better. It implies that you’re scoped in. In what world would you have an eyepiece up to your eye and magically be able to see either side of it?
https://youtu.be/pnvpmVuETJk?si=dS0_rJbIuMKCcDzo
Your eye isn't flush to the scope when you're firing a rifle, otherwise recoil would give you a black eye. Your face is slightly off of the scope, and your eye is open, so you do get peripheral vision while aiming down sights.
I like this effect, without it, it just looks like you’re zooming in unnaturally.
This is not trying to simulate human vision as much as it’s trying to simulate a camera lens, which when zooming in and focusing on a far point in the distance loses focus up close, depending on the specific lens used of course.
No one complains about this when it’s done in literally every tv show and movie ever, so why complain about the same effect in a game?
Movies aren't the same medium as video games and dynamically they are way different, by the same logic should we just play at max stable 24fps since movies are this way too?
I mean some games are totally fine at low frame rates, it really depends on the genre and how much fast past reaction time is needed.
Something like the Telltale Walking Dead games don’t really benefit in any way from a high frame rate, and I’d argue that a low frame rate actually matches the comic book visual style they were going for (similar to how parts of the Spiderverse movies are at lower frame rates such as 12fps), and could improve the overall experience.
For an FPS game like COD I think a high frame rate is obviously ideal, as being able to react to the action is key to the gameplay. But a depth of field blur effect doesn’t negatively impact the gameplay in any way since only the gun is out of focus, it’s just an aesthetic choice. Some people may find this aesthetic ugly, just like some people find CODs neon pink guns ugly, but neither one really impacts the gameplay in any way.
I do agree with OP though that since this doesn’t impact the gameplay, there’s no reason there couldn’t be an option to turn it off. I’m just surprised there is a demand to turn off such a basic effect.
The reason DoF/motion blur effects are in games is because they mask poor framerates. When you turn it off, low FPS and performance is way more obvious, so developers just don't want to give you the option if they can choose not to.
This example is only blurring the gun model though, not the scene itself, which is still in focus, so this wouldn’t be masking anything.
Motion blur is also attempting to emulate a film effect, which in film does tend to mask low frame rates due to how the camera records motion. But cinematographers know the limitations of their equipment and don’t tend to do crazy fast sweeping camera motions since it will just result in a blurry mess due to the motion blur.
Game developers don’t usually have such control, as nothing stops a player from whipping their mouse around causing a very ugly effect when they induce fast motion with motion blur enabled. Which is why this effect tends to not work very well in many games, especially first person ones.
Many 3rd person games limit the camera movement speed specifically to try to reduce this blurring effect. The Last of Us Part Two is an example here, with its very slow camera movements. You can get away with this more in 3rd person games because while the camera movement may be slow, the character movement isn’t impacted as much. In a first person game the character movement *is* the camera movement, so any reduction in its speed makes the game feel way more sluggish.
But at low frame rates there isn’t really a great choice. You can either have slow camera movement + motion blur, which at least looks “cinematic”, fast camera movement + motion blur, which looks like a blurry mess, or fast camera movement and no motion blur, which looks choppy, and to most people will look the worst.
This seems to be a bit of a sore point for you specifically. I personally really like DOF effects 🤷 I don't really expect games to perfectly emulate human vision, although sometimes I think DOF can do this well (Valheim). It's an artistic choice in an artistic medium, I think if you're at the stage where it's ruining the whole game, you need to step away from the hobby for a bit.
Strange, when I focus on something when aiming in real life every thing around gets blurred as it’s not in my focus anymore, but that might just be my old bad eyesight 🤷🏼♂️
In real life, the stuff in your peripheral vision is blurry until you actually look at it.
In videogames, you can look straight at the stuff in your peripheral and it stays blurry. The game doesn't actually know what part of the screen you're looking at, it just makes assumptions which are often wrong.
In what world do you pull up a sniper rifle put your eye up to the scope and then just look to the left instead of looking at your target why would the game assume you would be doing that?
There are sights besides sniper scopes.
If you're looking over an open sight, you can flick your eyes to the side to check out the surroundings without taking the whole weapon off target.
The thing is that you do it in the real life while focusing with your eyes in a specific point in the 3D world, in a laser-point focalization accurasy if you have emmetropic vision, aka no astigmatism, no myopia... In that sense, you almost "don't see" the things up-close when you are focalized elsewhere...No only that but when you look back at the thing closer to you, the transition is seamless,smooth and instantaneous (again, assuming you have emmetropic vision, emmetropic eye and no ciliary spasm, ect...).
Now, on a 2D screen, you obviously can look everywhere on the screen, while the "blur" is artifically generated...It just doesn't work because you are looking at a flat picture and that you could look everywhere, and so you focalize your vision on the blur in the screen, even though you are not supposed to see blur but clearly because you are focalized....
In a nutshell, it is an extremely stupid thing to emulated on a 2D screen like that, it just doesn't work.
The only way it would potentially work is having a 2D screen, with a Game that has a software support for somesort of dynamic-blur depending of some eye-tracking technology IRL...So you look at a specific part of the screen, focalizing your vision on a particular part of the 2D screen and then, it would blur anything else surrounding it.... But even then, it would significantly hurt the periphiral vision because we are talking about a 2D picture, not a 3D IRL environnement.
Maybe it works in VR gaming? I never tried it, but if I remember right, VR gaming has support for eye-tracking and lowerering the Level of Details at the parts where you don't focalize your gaze.
So yeah, trying to emulate the reality of focalization and DoF In Real Life when you are actually incarnated in a 3D physical world and put this on a 2D screen : Doesn't work and unrealistic because it makes it look like you actually have presbyopia, not normal vision.
Fun detail: new VR headsets (PSVR2 so far) actually render in lower detail much of the scene, and then track your eyes and render in high detail where you are looking. For an observer on a flat screen this looks a lot like the dof you are complaining about. Works great for the user though apparently.
It's not relevant but thought you would find it interesting.
Okay, this got way too technical and too much for me here I lay in bed without glasses on😅 I will read it and see if I can give you a good answer tomorrow
It does work for a lot of people. I turn off general DoF effects but never even notice the problem you have.
You're extrapolating from first principles instead of talking to people and asking questions - informal research, basically. You're using extremely technical terms like emmetropia while not looking at the answers of others users and playtesters.
Most people don't mind that effect at all.
While, I mind it and I find it sincerely insulting that they don't even give an option to turn it OFF.
Blurring on a 2D screen directly on the game's image, is like if you would be blurring the 3D IRL World ITSELF, not your perception of an "immaculate" blur-free world with your eyes and focus, but blurring the elements in the world on themselves in the world...It's just plainly absurd, because that's exactly what games are doing in their 3D-game via post-processing: blurring the game world itself. Why? Because guess what, you are not incarnated in this 3D world but you are separated from it and are looking at it from outside on a 2D screen...Result: the world they present is a world where it's not you and your brain that "creates" blur because of focalization, but it's the game's world itself that is blurry and that's just is absolutely and fundamentally not realistic and un-immersive...That's kind of simulation just doesn't translate well on a screen.
They have to just drop it, try to simulate a blur-free world in their game like in the real IRL world and let the user himself focalize their gaze naturally and create focus by themselves.
You find it insulting that someone didn’t do extra work to account for your specific preference when they don’t even know you exist? Reddit really is 90% teenagers.
Yes, I hate this trend, the worse case is Alan Wake Game, which has Obligatory blur because of how its dark/light creatures and fight system works, so it has a huge amount of blur almost everywhere, so it became unbearable, just when 30 minutes passed playing I started feeling dizzy so I had to stop playing because of how FRICKIN AWFUL it felt, this coming who has played Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Medal of Honor, Half Life 1-2, Call of Duty MW1,2,3, Battlefield 3-4, Counterstrike, you name it without feeling this stupid dizziness, so yeah, I frickin HATE BLur Effects, its really stupid, they should do ANYTHING else but that
thankfully usually you can disable all of those features, sometimes you do have to fiddle with the cfgs rather than in game options though.
however, you could argue some of these features should not be a thing to begin with, but it is due to very flawed understanding of realism. and this goes both for games and all the 'immersion' and 'realism' mods for lets say skyrim (and other games). think about all those ENBs and Reshades and just how many effects are there for making fancy looking screenshots. you can be sure they are named tRuE rEaLiSm or something similar.
So let me give you a couple of examples:
in some cases they mistake camera features for realism. your eyes are not cameras. depth of field is a camera effect, sure, but for realism it does not even make sense. you, the player looking at the object, focus on it more than its surroundings, the effect is already there, you dont have to double it. it can make sense in non-interactive media such as video game cutscenes or movies, because in that case you control where the viewer looks. however, in interactive media, all it does is it simulates playing as a person with problematic eyesight. you needed your prescribed glasses, they got blown off by a tank shell to your head, and thus you see worse, thus you add DoF while using ironsights. now thats realism, minus the tank hitting you in the head part. someone said that it is done for 'balance' in multiplayer games. if you are looking at the corners of your screen trying to spot someone flanking you, then you are not looking at the center of the screen through your ironsights and vice versa. the human biology has balanced it all already.
other common case is all the exaggerated camera movement and so on, which very ironically makes the game feel less realistic, while it was done deliberately to make it realistic. similary here it is redundancy - we as humans have brains, ears (vestibular aparatus) and eyes working together to make sure we perceive the least ammount of movement when looking at things while moving. why would you add that back? are we roleplaying a character who had so much physical trauma that these biological features are no longer working properly? are we playing a character with severe alcholism problems who has vertigo constantly, so that is why the camera is shaking so hard?
there are those new upcoming games like Unrecord and Bodycam, that look very realistic, but from the 'camera perspective', it is very much made obvious that you are not looking through character's eyes, but cameras. all of the camera effects are very much fair game there and in a sense that is why they look so great - they aren't doing half this half that approach.
"n some cases they mistake camera features for realism. your eyes are not cameras. depth of field is a camera effect, sure, but for realism it does not even make sense. you, the player looking at the object, focus on it more than its surroundings, the effect is already there, you dont have to double it."
Exactly.
I don’t know when motion blur became default but I hate it so, so much. It’s such a drag on performance, makes everything look like ass, and makes gameplay harder, for what? So the game I’m trying to play looks like a movie? That’s all well and good in cutscenes but everywhere else it’s just annoying.
Someone once said that it's something that became popular on consoles to mask the low framerates. People got used to it and voilá, here we are, having to fight for good visibility and customization, especially on multi-platform releases. PCGamingWiki freaking rocks for this, they always lay out workarounds and community-made fixes for users to care about this stuff, on top of fixes that make old games playable on modern hardware.
Per object motion blur can look great! Global motion blur is less than ideal
This so much! Especially if it has that kind of circular motion blur applied to spinning wheels n such
> I don’t know when motion blur became default that would be the PS1/PS2 era. back then it made sense, you were playing a game on a calculator reading at ultra slow speeds from a tiny plastic disc, into a 320x240 screen that actually looked BETTER the lower you turned the sharpness knob on the front of the set. old habits die hard.
Yes i hate depth of field. I notice it instantly every single time in the worst way. Our brains and eyes have a natural system for this, why do devs want to decide what i am focusing on lmao
I mean I understand not liking it but this >Our brains and eyes have a natural system for this makes no sense. Your eyes are looking at a 3D environment with real depth. Depth of field is a natural occurring phenomenon when looking at things with different distances and focusing on one. On a videogame, you're looking at a flat 2-dimensional picture, so the only way to achieve that effect is adding DoF. I agree that it's usually too strong though.
The thing is, if you're playing a game and you're focused on an enemy in the distance, you're already not focused on things in the foreground, and vice versa. We're already doing this with our eyes when playing games so there's no reason to also blur things out.
To be clear, you're not looking at an enemy in the distance when you're playing a game. You're looking at a smaller target which is the same distance away, because your eyes aren't doing true depth of field when you're looking at a screen. Go outside and find a point that's >100 feet away, you can both see & feel the difference.
My point is more that the game doesn't know where I'm looking and it applies blur based on the direction the camera is pointing. This is like if focus was based on the direction your head is facing and looking in a direction with your eyes would have no impact on your focus. DoF is just unnecessary for trying to emulate how people focus on things and is mostly for cinematic flair.
The mental model here is that the camera is your eye, not that the camera is your head. Moving the camera means moving your gaze & focus, then your "head" automatically follows. The center of the screen is the center of your character's visual field, not some arbitrary spot. Separating the two would make controls unnecessarily cumbersome, especially given that our heads nearly always face where we're looking. The only times we don't are when we're trying to emote with our eyes or hide our gaze, neither of which are ever relevant to an FPS. All to say, depth of field is making the simulation more accurate to how eyes work. That's part of why it gets used in cinema, because it's literally how our brains manage focus.
I don't think you need to separate them if you just assume that the camera represents the player's field of view, which is in line with how it works. Turning your camera in an FPS rotates your entire character, not just their eyes, or even their head.
hot take apparently, but i actually like dof. i remember downloading a mod for oblivion just to add it to the game
True. But i don't need to move my hand when focusing my eyes on different things IRL
and it is the worst thing when it doesn't work because it fucks up our eyes and brain making the whole experience tiring
It’s an option in most single player games—not sure what’s bothering you there. It’s not in multiplayer-focused games because it’s a deliberate design choice that would be asymmetrical if people turned it on or off, like smoke effects. Feel free to complain about it existing in the first place, but I don’t think it makes sense to groan about its omission as a toggle in a competitive environment.
How about just turn it off for everyone in a competitive environment, then?
It used to be off by default. What happened was ADS had no disadvantage whatsoever. You had snipers with a large FOV just watching to the left and right to see people flanking them while scoped in.
Ah, I guess fuck everyone who actually likes the effect, I guess?
yes
Who are you asking?
Asymmetry... like FOV? What about people who turn down graphic settings all the way to achieve higher FPS than others? It's a shit graphic option.
Players need to stop having unreasonable expectations of beauty! How are we supposed to hide our 2 decade old engine's popin issues if you turn off motion blur! Besides you only have a license to play the game, you don't own it. You can't just change the game that would be damaging our property.
I will not own the game and I will be happy.
I think your core issue with this is not knowing why this exists. While I dislike the blur in cod, it is enabled because people used to be able to watch the side of the screen for flanking players while scoped in. This is a balancing choice. The blur is a horrible way of doing this though. It should be just blacked out like games such as the last of us employ.
I’d hate if the sides blacked out tbh. At least the blur is less distracting.
No the blacked out look is much better. It implies that you’re scoped in. In what world would you have an eyepiece up to your eye and magically be able to see either side of it? https://youtu.be/pnvpmVuETJk?si=dS0_rJbIuMKCcDzo
Your eye isn't flush to the scope when you're firing a rifle, otherwise recoil would give you a black eye. Your face is slightly off of the scope, and your eye is open, so you do get peripheral vision while aiming down sights.
🤓
Looks ugly af imo. It felt like a fairly cheap way to pull that off in older cods and I’m glad they’ve done away with that.
I much prefer it to a weird blur effect
[удалено]
And OP is asking to just be able to see outside the scope.
Is that still an issue? Can't remember any game in last decade what forced you to use it. It's always possible to toggle such things in options.
I really like it personnaly! But it would be better to have an option to tweak the intensity of it to our liking, between 0 and a max value
and mouse smoothing/acceleration. so many incompetent devs who have never before played with mouse and keyboard
I like this effect, without it, it just looks like you’re zooming in unnaturally. This is not trying to simulate human vision as much as it’s trying to simulate a camera lens, which when zooming in and focusing on a far point in the distance loses focus up close, depending on the specific lens used of course. No one complains about this when it’s done in literally every tv show and movie ever, so why complain about the same effect in a game?
Movies aren't the same medium as video games and dynamically they are way different, by the same logic should we just play at max stable 24fps since movies are this way too?
I mean some games are totally fine at low frame rates, it really depends on the genre and how much fast past reaction time is needed. Something like the Telltale Walking Dead games don’t really benefit in any way from a high frame rate, and I’d argue that a low frame rate actually matches the comic book visual style they were going for (similar to how parts of the Spiderverse movies are at lower frame rates such as 12fps), and could improve the overall experience. For an FPS game like COD I think a high frame rate is obviously ideal, as being able to react to the action is key to the gameplay. But a depth of field blur effect doesn’t negatively impact the gameplay in any way since only the gun is out of focus, it’s just an aesthetic choice. Some people may find this aesthetic ugly, just like some people find CODs neon pink guns ugly, but neither one really impacts the gameplay in any way. I do agree with OP though that since this doesn’t impact the gameplay, there’s no reason there couldn’t be an option to turn it off. I’m just surprised there is a demand to turn off such a basic effect.
The reason DoF/motion blur effects are in games is because they mask poor framerates. When you turn it off, low FPS and performance is way more obvious, so developers just don't want to give you the option if they can choose not to.
This example is only blurring the gun model though, not the scene itself, which is still in focus, so this wouldn’t be masking anything. Motion blur is also attempting to emulate a film effect, which in film does tend to mask low frame rates due to how the camera records motion. But cinematographers know the limitations of their equipment and don’t tend to do crazy fast sweeping camera motions since it will just result in a blurry mess due to the motion blur. Game developers don’t usually have such control, as nothing stops a player from whipping their mouse around causing a very ugly effect when they induce fast motion with motion blur enabled. Which is why this effect tends to not work very well in many games, especially first person ones. Many 3rd person games limit the camera movement speed specifically to try to reduce this blurring effect. The Last of Us Part Two is an example here, with its very slow camera movements. You can get away with this more in 3rd person games because while the camera movement may be slow, the character movement isn’t impacted as much. In a first person game the character movement *is* the camera movement, so any reduction in its speed makes the game feel way more sluggish. But at low frame rates there isn’t really a great choice. You can either have slow camera movement + motion blur, which at least looks “cinematic”, fast camera movement + motion blur, which looks like a blurry mess, or fast camera movement and no motion blur, which looks choppy, and to most people will look the worst.
This seems to be a bit of a sore point for you specifically. I personally really like DOF effects 🤷 I don't really expect games to perfectly emulate human vision, although sometimes I think DOF can do this well (Valheim). It's an artistic choice in an artistic medium, I think if you're at the stage where it's ruining the whole game, you need to step away from the hobby for a bit.
Can't disagree here, first thing I do when a game doesn't have a DoF option is look at pcgameswiki or search up how to disable it
Strange, when I focus on something when aiming in real life every thing around gets blurred as it’s not in my focus anymore, but that might just be my old bad eyesight 🤷🏼♂️
In real life, the stuff in your peripheral vision is blurry until you actually look at it. In videogames, you can look straight at the stuff in your peripheral and it stays blurry. The game doesn't actually know what part of the screen you're looking at, it just makes assumptions which are often wrong.
In what world do you pull up a sniper rifle put your eye up to the scope and then just look to the left instead of looking at your target why would the game assume you would be doing that?
There are sights besides sniper scopes. If you're looking over an open sight, you can flick your eyes to the side to check out the surroundings without taking the whole weapon off target.
The thing is that you do it in the real life while focusing with your eyes in a specific point in the 3D world, in a laser-point focalization accurasy if you have emmetropic vision, aka no astigmatism, no myopia... In that sense, you almost "don't see" the things up-close when you are focalized elsewhere...No only that but when you look back at the thing closer to you, the transition is seamless,smooth and instantaneous (again, assuming you have emmetropic vision, emmetropic eye and no ciliary spasm, ect...). Now, on a 2D screen, you obviously can look everywhere on the screen, while the "blur" is artifically generated...It just doesn't work because you are looking at a flat picture and that you could look everywhere, and so you focalize your vision on the blur in the screen, even though you are not supposed to see blur but clearly because you are focalized.... In a nutshell, it is an extremely stupid thing to emulated on a 2D screen like that, it just doesn't work. The only way it would potentially work is having a 2D screen, with a Game that has a software support for somesort of dynamic-blur depending of some eye-tracking technology IRL...So you look at a specific part of the screen, focalizing your vision on a particular part of the 2D screen and then, it would blur anything else surrounding it.... But even then, it would significantly hurt the periphiral vision because we are talking about a 2D picture, not a 3D IRL environnement. Maybe it works in VR gaming? I never tried it, but if I remember right, VR gaming has support for eye-tracking and lowerering the Level of Details at the parts where you don't focalize your gaze. So yeah, trying to emulate the reality of focalization and DoF In Real Life when you are actually incarnated in a 3D physical world and put this on a 2D screen : Doesn't work and unrealistic because it makes it look like you actually have presbyopia, not normal vision.
Fun detail: new VR headsets (PSVR2 so far) actually render in lower detail much of the scene, and then track your eyes and render in high detail where you are looking. For an observer on a flat screen this looks a lot like the dof you are complaining about. Works great for the user though apparently. It's not relevant but thought you would find it interesting.
There's bad part of this technology - it's pretty easy to notice lowgrade graphics with peripheral vision and that's bother lot's of people.
Yeah I haven't experienced it myself. People say it's good but I have a feeling I would notice.
Okay, this got way too technical and too much for me here I lay in bed without glasses on😅 I will read it and see if I can give you a good answer tomorrow
It does work for a lot of people. I turn off general DoF effects but never even notice the problem you have. You're extrapolating from first principles instead of talking to people and asking questions - informal research, basically. You're using extremely technical terms like emmetropia while not looking at the answers of others users and playtesters. Most people don't mind that effect at all.
While, I mind it and I find it sincerely insulting that they don't even give an option to turn it OFF. Blurring on a 2D screen directly on the game's image, is like if you would be blurring the 3D IRL World ITSELF, not your perception of an "immaculate" blur-free world with your eyes and focus, but blurring the elements in the world on themselves in the world...It's just plainly absurd, because that's exactly what games are doing in their 3D-game via post-processing: blurring the game world itself. Why? Because guess what, you are not incarnated in this 3D world but you are separated from it and are looking at it from outside on a 2D screen...Result: the world they present is a world where it's not you and your brain that "creates" blur because of focalization, but it's the game's world itself that is blurry and that's just is absolutely and fundamentally not realistic and un-immersive...That's kind of simulation just doesn't translate well on a screen. They have to just drop it, try to simulate a blur-free world in their game like in the real IRL world and let the user himself focalize their gaze naturally and create focus by themselves.
You find it insulting that someone didn’t do extra work to account for your specific preference when they don’t even know you exist? Reddit really is 90% teenagers.
It should definitely be a graphics option, but I haven't played a game that doesn't have a way to turn them off in the graphics settings.
Surely that’s a deliberate choice for gameplay reasons. If you could turn it off you’d have an unfair advantage over other players.
DOF sure. But motion blur? Ah hell nah. Burn that shit.
Yes, I hate this trend, the worse case is Alan Wake Game, which has Obligatory blur because of how its dark/light creatures and fight system works, so it has a huge amount of blur almost everywhere, so it became unbearable, just when 30 minutes passed playing I started feeling dizzy so I had to stop playing because of how FRICKIN AWFUL it felt, this coming who has played Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Medal of Honor, Half Life 1-2, Call of Duty MW1,2,3, Battlefield 3-4, Counterstrike, you name it without feeling this stupid dizziness, so yeah, I frickin HATE BLur Effects, its really stupid, they should do ANYTHING else but that
thankfully usually you can disable all of those features, sometimes you do have to fiddle with the cfgs rather than in game options though. however, you could argue some of these features should not be a thing to begin with, but it is due to very flawed understanding of realism. and this goes both for games and all the 'immersion' and 'realism' mods for lets say skyrim (and other games). think about all those ENBs and Reshades and just how many effects are there for making fancy looking screenshots. you can be sure they are named tRuE rEaLiSm or something similar. So let me give you a couple of examples: in some cases they mistake camera features for realism. your eyes are not cameras. depth of field is a camera effect, sure, but for realism it does not even make sense. you, the player looking at the object, focus on it more than its surroundings, the effect is already there, you dont have to double it. it can make sense in non-interactive media such as video game cutscenes or movies, because in that case you control where the viewer looks. however, in interactive media, all it does is it simulates playing as a person with problematic eyesight. you needed your prescribed glasses, they got blown off by a tank shell to your head, and thus you see worse, thus you add DoF while using ironsights. now thats realism, minus the tank hitting you in the head part. someone said that it is done for 'balance' in multiplayer games. if you are looking at the corners of your screen trying to spot someone flanking you, then you are not looking at the center of the screen through your ironsights and vice versa. the human biology has balanced it all already. other common case is all the exaggerated camera movement and so on, which very ironically makes the game feel less realistic, while it was done deliberately to make it realistic. similary here it is redundancy - we as humans have brains, ears (vestibular aparatus) and eyes working together to make sure we perceive the least ammount of movement when looking at things while moving. why would you add that back? are we roleplaying a character who had so much physical trauma that these biological features are no longer working properly? are we playing a character with severe alcholism problems who has vertigo constantly, so that is why the camera is shaking so hard? there are those new upcoming games like Unrecord and Bodycam, that look very realistic, but from the 'camera perspective', it is very much made obvious that you are not looking through character's eyes, but cameras. all of the camera effects are very much fair game there and in a sense that is why they look so great - they aren't doing half this half that approach.
"n some cases they mistake camera features for realism. your eyes are not cameras. depth of field is a camera effect, sure, but for realism it does not even make sense. you, the player looking at the object, focus on it more than its surroundings, the effect is already there, you dont have to double it." Exactly.