The next idiotic pseudo-realism: Motion Blur

[Skurge]

I know screenshots are not the best way to show motion blur, but I have to say the motion blur in dirt2 is probably the best iv seen yet.

The only part of the scene thats blurred are rims on the car, they spin really fast so they would blur IRL

Here, as someone mentioned earlier, in a car if you looked down at the road it would be the only part the would be blurred, not the whole screen. In this screenshot, only the part of road closest to the camera is blurred

 

[0roo0roo]

Yeah but in real life your eyes adjust to bring into focus whatever it is in the scene that you are looking at. As the game doesn't know which part of the scene your eyes are focused on it can't adjust the focus correctly.

thats entirely my point, its not realistic

 

[BladeVenom]

I also really hate motion blur. Other effects also seem overdone and unrealistic.

If they want to add realism, make round objects actually look round instead of looking like ****ing stop signs.

I kind of like the grain effect for horror games, but I can understand those who don't. I probably just watched too many low budget horror movies when I was kid.

 

[Skurge]

I also really hate motion blur. Other effects also seem overdone and unrealistic.

If they want to add realism, make round objects actually look round instead of looking like ****ing stop signs.

I kind of like the grain effect for horror games, but I can understand those who don't. I probably just watched too many low budget horror movies when I was kid.

I don't mind the grain effect in l4d, but in mass effect, it was just there to hide crappy textures.

 

[0roo0roo]

Thats well put and explain why movies can get away with it... but it doesn't explain the reason... the reason is technological limitations and cost. Filming at 200 FPS is not trivial, cameras have to make tradeoffs between different metrics of quality, and in addition to those tradeoffs, they must make a tradeoff between cost to produce/purchase said camera and its quality.

True but the question is whether more fps adds more to film, even tv had more frames/fields per second, but was the experience any better? For whatever reason film and film grain and its inherent characteristics are very conducive to telling visual stories.

 

[Idontcare]

I know screenshots are not the best way to show motion blur, but I have to say the motion blur in dirt2 is probably the best iv seen yet.

So we aren't entirely idiots after-all as this would seem to validate to some extent the philosophy that in-game motion blur effects can be viably introduced so as to mimic real-world effects of same.

There may be hope after all. Now if we can just get past the scripted/predictable "hold camera, zoom in quick, hold camera, shake a little, zoom out, dart, zoom in quick" that every other producer feels adds value to the world of cinema...

 

[pmv]

thats entirely my point, its not realistic

To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is exactly, or even which side of the argument you are on!

My point is simply that 'depth of field' effects in games are redundant, as if you are looking at the bit of the scene that is 'out of focus' its unrealistic because in reality whatever you look at automatically becomes 'in focus' precisely because you are looking at it and hence focussing on it.

To be able to focus on something that's out of focus is not something that happens in real life. Yet it is something you can do in games with 'depth of focus' effects. The game doesn't know which part of the scene you are looking at, so doesn't know which part to apply the focus to, so gets it wrong.

While if you are looking at the bit of the scene that the game shows as 'in focus' then it doesn't matter if the rest if 'out of focus' because you aren't looking at it!


(Motion blur is different I guess as in real life you can look directly at something and see motion blur, like the road effect above)

 

[Athadeus]

I wonder if there are any tech demos that use DoF in conjunction with retina tracking software and a webcam to implement it properly? I know that there is technology precise enough to enable impaired people to operate their computers fairly well, so it should definitely be possible.

 

[kornphlake]

Aiming a gun and having the gun shoot in the direction it is pointed are not the same thing. And yes, I've shot many guns. I am in the military.

Then you understand minute of angle and how rifles are inherently accurate to a fraction of a minute of angle at best. WWII vintage rifles with WWII vintage ammo were often no more accurate than 4 MOA, (that's 4 inches at 100 yards or 8 inches at 200 yards.) How big is your head? If your rifle is accurate to only 4 MOA then hitting an 8" target at ranges greater than 200 yards is improbable.

Have you ever bore sighted a rifle? Unless you were very lucky your first shot will miss the bulls eye by 1/2 inch or more even at 25 yards. Where you point may be very different from where the bullet impacts the target.

If you've ever done precision shooting you would know that minor factors do affect your shot, there's no way to be as accurate with a 10 lb trigger as you would be with a 2 lb trigger. You will move the rifle while the bullet is moving down the barrel, it will not hit the target exactly where your sights were when you pulled the trigger because you pulled the sights off the target when you pulled the trigger. At the highest level of competitive shooting rifles are clamped to heavy benches and the shooter contacts the rifle as little as possible to reduce the number of human factors as much as possible. If guns shot the direction they were pointed this wouldn't be necessary.

 

[NoQuarter]

They are adding handicaps for people able to run and aim. You don't play some average Joe in an FPS. 99% of the time you're a special forces guy able to sprint full speed carrying an M60 in addition to the 60lbs of gear. Running while shooting isn't something hard to do. Hitting your target, however, depends on how well you aim.

The problem is the camera represents both your eyes, which are very easy to keep steady, and your gun, which while running is not easy to keep steady. If you want no cone of fire you are gaining the accuracy of laser beams from your eyes since the crosshair is linked to the middle of your perfectly steady vision. The way crosshairs are tied to the camera right now you would need extreme camera bob to represent the movement or your gun as you run (making you sick because your eyes are now bobbing all over the place).

You could have the crosshairs bounce around independently from the screen so you can have your gun aim (crosshairs) bob while your vision (camera) stays steady, never seen a game do this and it sounds interesting but I'm guessing it was very disliked in testing.

Cone of fire seems like a good compromise to give you the confidence of where the crosshairs should be (center of camera) while simulating the inaccuracy of firing while sprinting. If we could all hit where we are looking instead of where we are aiming there wouldn't even be target practice.

 

[Skurge]

The problem is the camera represents both your eyes, which are very easy to keep steady, and your gun, which while running is not easy to keep steady. If you want no cone of fire you are gaining the accuracy of laser beams from your eyes since the crosshair is linked to the middle of your perfectly steady vision. The way crosshairs are tied to the camera right now you would need extreme camera bob to represent the movement or your gun as you run (making you sick because your eyes are now bobbing all over the place).

You could have the crosshairs bounce around independently from the screen so you can have your gun aim (crosshairs) bob while your vision (camera) stays steady, never seen a game do this and it sounds interesting but I'm guessing it was very disliked in testing.

Cone of fire seems like a good compromise to give you the confidence of where the crosshairs should be (center of camera) while simulating the inaccuracy of firing while sprinting. If we could all hit where we are looking instead of where we are aiming there wouldn't even be target practice.

I think AMRA has something akin to that, where the crosshairs move indignantly from the camera.

 

[taltamir]

Have you shot a real gun? To suggest that you can even aim while moving/running is far fetched.

he specifically and explicitly stated that for realism it should shoot where the gun is pointed, but not that you should be able to successfully point it while running.
Obviously your AIM should suffer... there are a variety of ways to do that (which are not entirely needed, its already made difficult by moving targets and moving frame of reference).
But the bullets should go "the right direction".
If you want the bullets to spray around then make the GUN and the CROSSHAIR bob around and make the bullets go towards the bobbing cross-hair rather then having the crosshair point at one direction and the bullets fly off at a ridiculous angle to it. (that part btw he didn't explicitly state, that part I am saying)

I know screenshots are not the best way to show motion blur, but I have to say the motion blur in dirt2 is probably the best iv seen yet.

The only part of the scene thats blurred are rims on the car, they spin really fast so they would blur IRL

Here, as someone mentioned earlier, in a car if you looked down at the road it would be the only part the would be blurred, not the whole screen. In this screenshot, only the part of road closest to the camera is blurred

Very nice... Done correct it can add to the picture quality. The problem is when its thrown around haphazardly to show everyone "ooh ooh, look at us, we have motion blur" rather then relegating it to places where it should actually occur.

My point is simply that 'depth of field' effects in games are redundant, as if you are looking at the bit of the scene that is 'out of focus' its unrealistic because in reality whatever you look at automatically becomes 'in focus' precisely because you are looking at it and hence focussing on it.

Good point... Unless the game is simulating bad vision, whatever you are looking at comes into focus. The game can just have the entire frame in focus... whatever you are looking at is in focus, whatever you are not is not being focused on anyways so it doesn't matter. By artificially blurring specific portions you are only setting yourself up for an unrealistic experience of the player looking at an object and it being in the "wrong" focus, something that wouldn't happen if they were looking it with IRL eyes instead of looking at a game that simulates reality. It is a slap in the face with the fact that they are playing a game that kills immersion.

 

[Sylvanas]

This is a good thread, I too hate Motion Blur, DoF, film grain and lens flare effects in recent games- the first thing I do is always disable them. Probably the biggest offender here is the UE3 engine- the post processing effects in games like Mass Effect 2 and GoW are terrible.

 

[lopri]

What games do you guys think have the most extreme examples of these effects?

Horse riding in Assassin's Creed

 

[pmv]

This is a good thread, I too hate Motion Blur, DoF, film grain and lens flare effects in recent games- the first thing I do is always disable them. Probably the biggest offender here is the UE3 engine- the post processing effects in games like Mass Effect 2 and GoW are terrible.

Motion blur is fine if used very conservatively. DoF seems pointless as you are supposed to be simulating your eyes, not a camera. Film grain also seems daft to me. Lens flare is only acceptable for external camera views on flight-sims!

What about 'God rays'? They do look pretty cool, and I _think_ they are representing an effect you do actually see with your eyes IRL, not just a camera. Though I'm not quite sure - possibly I need to go outside during daylight hours more often.

 

[taltamir]

I found mass effect 2 to be unplayable before disabling those "features".
Likewise for just cause 2.

What about 'God rays'? They do look pretty cool, and I _think_ they are representing an effect you do actually see with your eyes IRL, not just a camera. Though I'm not quite sure - possibly I need to go outside during daylight hours more often.

Those are real... err, I think. Don't see them in games often though... probably because they are real
its a shame too, they actually look good unlike those other "effects" (as long as they are tastefully done, they could look terrible too)

 

[Skurge]

I found mass effect 2 to be unplayable before disabling those "features".
Likewise for just cause 2.



Those are real... err, I think. Don't see them in games often though... probably because they are real
its a shame too, they actually look good unlike those other "effects" (as long as they are tastefully done, they could look terrible too)

Oh yeah god rays are real, especially on a cloudy day in the late afternoon they are very noticeable around here.

The god rays in crysis are a f'd up imo. In smoke they are very realistic, but its overdone with everything else. Don't get me wrong, it looks awesome, just too much.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Screw "head-bobbing", I think the "weapon-bobbing" in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is one of the most annoying effects. Not only you are probably not focusing on the gun when running to notice as much, it doesn't have to be such that it looks like a monkey swinging from a tree.

Personally I hate Motion Blur just as much if not more, because that particular feature gives me headaches and distracts from the actual game.

Have any of you ever wished for a ultra-realistic game? You know, like in an RPG where the character will have to do more than just fight monsters and get gear, but eat, sleep, get rest, etc. The problem with ultra-realistic effects are it can deter from the actual experience.

The problem we have are that developers conclude "Cinema-effects" will be what makes the game's experience. Those effects that can be only really noticeable by a camera is what makes some movies bad though.

Funny experience with blur in the real-world. When you focus on a slow moving object that happens to be mounted on a stationary platform like a conveyor belt used for luggage in airports and do it long enough, once in a while it feels like the belt is stationary and the world is moving instead.

 

[Sylvanas]

Oh yeah god rays are real, especially on a cloudy day in the late afternoon they are very noticeable around here.

The god rays in crysis are a f'd up imo. In smoke they are very realistic, but its overdone with everything else. Don't get me wrong, it looks awesome, just too much.

I'd agree 'god rays' are more realistic than some other post processing, but if you go outside and sit under a tree, look up at the sun through the leaves, I doubt you'll see sun shafts coming down like they do in Crysis. I'd venture to guess that it has something to do with the condition of the atmosphere (humidity- rainforests are a good example, humid atmosphere with lots of particulates floating around) and lighting conditions (cloudy day vs clear).

 

[IntelUser2000]

I can see one reason why the developers are doing that, other than that some developers have no clue and just do it because its "cool".

The effects like Motion Blur and Depth of Field are all demanding to the graphics hardware and something noticeable by a player. I think in truth many developers might have ran out of ways to make the effects dramatically better so they incorporate these cinematic-like effects.

 

[taltamir]

Personally I hate Motion Blur just as much if not more, because that particular feature gives me headaches and distracts from the actual game.

Agreed, I get severe headaches from that crap...

Have any of you ever wished for a ultra-realistic game? You know, like in an RPG where the character will have to do more than just fight monsters and get gear, but eat, sleep, get rest, etc. The problem with ultra-realistic effects are it can deter from the actual experience.

Heh, I always tell people how unfun realism was... If I wanted realism I'd go outside not escape into a game where I am a powerful wizard conquering the galaxy with my awesome magitech.
I want fun... stopping in the middle of the chase scene to take a dump? not fun... making 15 round trips to loot the place due to item weight restrictions? not fun (oblivion!)... making 50 round trips because of item weight restrictions AND the damn merchants don't have enough money to buy your merchant trash? NOT FUN! (FALLOUT3!)

I do enjoy a spot of consistency though... In just cause 2 it bothered me that he destroys the oil field by nuking it (its under some miles of ocean and earth... and it is supposedly the biggest oil field every discovered in human history! enough to make japan, USA, china, and russia go to war with each other over it... lol btw)
Or the superpowers he has without being super? that bothered me a lot...

In prototype though you ARE playing a guy with superpowers and it didn't bother me in the least... in fact the game let me have a lot more cooler toys then a lame hook gun (I had a hook gun too... the chain it form)... I could absorb people (And their skills), stealth into another's shape, have some real combat powers... etc etc... the game was waaaaaay more fun...

Saints Row 2? I just pretended to be playing a guy with wolverines healing factor. (I really did, I pretended as much).

The effects like Motion Blur and Depth of Field are all demanding to the graphics hardware and something noticeable by a player. I think in truth many developers might have ran out of ways to make the effects dramatically better so they incorporate these cinematic-like effects.

I think you nailed it... from 1970 to 1980? HUGE changes... 1980 to 1990? MASSIVE changes... 1990 to 2000 MAGNIFICENT Changes... 2000 to 2010? meh.... I mean its nice... but especially the last 5 years were nothing to write home about... I can still enjoy FPS games from ~2000. (some janres can be played 20 years after being made and still rock out though.. I give you ur quan masters: http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

 

[YBS1]

he specifically and explicitly stated that for realism it should shoot where the gun is pointed, but not that you should be able to successfully point it while running.
Obviously your AIM should suffer... there are a variety of ways to do that (which are not entirely needed, its already made difficult by moving targets and moving frame of reference).
But the bullets should go "the right direction".
If you want the bullets to spray around then make the GUN and the CROSSHAIR bob around and make the bullets go towards the bobbing cross-hair rather then having the crosshair point at one direction and the bullets fly off at a ridiculous angle to it. (that part btw he didn't explicitly state, that part I am saying)

Exactly, as I stated in my first post, I'm fine with realistic recoil and the like. That's a "fair" way of doing it. As you stated, in general your aim is already compromised by the very fact that you are moving and most likely aiming at another object also in motion. A skilled player shouldn't be further handicapped by random bullet trajectory.

The most contrasting example I can think of for this is Medal of Honor (AA, Spearhead) vs. Call of Duty (original). Now I'm not going to argue which is a better game, that is up to personal preference, but MOH's weapons were superior for skill based game play. Bullets tracked straight and true, and to be honest I preferred playing in the pre-iron sight days. Weapons were still affected by recoil though and could be intensified by a number of recoil realism mods. COD on the other hand had weapons that were nearly worthless in term of accuracy when fired from the hip, and quite frankly suffered from too much fire cone effect even once iron sighted. This wasn't from great distance either, the spread from only ~15-20ft was ridiculous. To be fair, the advent of iron sighting in games does add another dimension so I'm not totally down on it and obviously by now have become used to it. However, the iron sighting in and of itself gives the player advantages via increased zoom, why punish the fire from the hip style further by artificially decreasing weapon accuracy? One of the above posters was correct, it has all been done to more even the playing field. Throws in the element of pure luck, the more skilled will still win but it will look closer.

 

[taltamir]

One of the above posters was correct, it has all been done to more even the playing field. Throws in the element of pure luck, the more skilled will still win but it will look closer.

Which places it lower then an MMO... at least in an MMO if a guy beats me its because he has spent more hours grinding then me, even though skill is not taken into account (well, skill in combat... skill in leveling and in acquiring money and epic gear is very important... and if all the moons align and you encounter a person of equal level AND equal gear quality then your respective skills matter... well, mostly actually the class choice and spec choice... but following that there is some skill involved... but the vast majority of fights occur in the 5+ levels below or above you, which means skill is irrelevant)

But an FPS where luck determines if your bullets hit or not? That doesn't even deserve the title of game...
Speaking of... I just gave up in frustration on a game from 2002 (that looked fine BTW) called freedom fighter... very bad cone effect unless you are in "aim mode" (which is clunky and awkward). This is a big problem since unless you are getting headshots you will be wasting tons of bullets on enemies (more then they give back), and you need to kill hundreds of enemies so basically the only way to not run out of ammo is to get headshots... You could take cover and take aim and so on but it takes forever, so you use your buddies as a living distraction and charge in and headshot them from point blank...

Combined with a system where each arc gives you several areas you are free to explore in any order... but are actually extremely linear (you just don't know what to do first)... so... 40 minute fight to reach the helicopter station? well too bad, there are no explosives here... go try another zone (all enemies respawn and I need to fight through them again when I come back btw)... 30 minute fight... no explosives here as well... dead end as well until I take care of helicpter... go to zone 3... 50 minute fight... hurrah! I got the explosives... damn, enemy got the drop on me and I died... gotta restart the zone, spend 50 minutes getting the explosives... backtrack, spend 40 minute clearing the path to helicopters again then blow them up, then come back... etc... At this point I just said "screw it" and uninstalled.

Freeform requires that there be more then one path, not that there is only one single right path, and you can choose several wrong paths that end up in you wasting an hour killing literally hundreds of identical enemies with the same basic gun only to backtrack and try another path!

 

[0roo0roo]

lol theres nothing "real" about strafing everywhere, never mind while fighting.

View Post
One of the above posters was correct, it has all been done to more even the playing field. Throws in the element of pure luck, the more skilled will still win but it will look closer.

not really, its just a game play decision, the player always has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of switching to each mode during a fight, its not luck, its about game play choice. in the end the better player will win, it just adds an additional layer rather than the old way of hitscan doom gunfire.

Which places it lower then an MMO... at least in an MMO if a guy beats me its because he has spent more hours grinding then me, even though skill is not taken into account

heh i just don't consider that a skill. grinding is the reverse of skill.

 

[NoQuarter]

lol theres nothing "real" about strafing everywhere, never mind while fighting.

True, and I'll have to revise what I said earlier, the camera actually represents 3 independent views tied into one - your gun, your vision, and your body. Since they are all 3 tied to directly forward facing you're like Darth Vader with a neck cramp and laser eyes. It's not that easy to break them into 3 separate articulating controls.

So strafe is suppose to represent your ability to look left or right without actually running that way, and cone of fire the fact that your gun isn't always pointing right where your eyes (camera) are.