Launch a game for first time. Step 1: Disable Motion Blur Step 2: Contemplate in your mind about how much you hate motion blur.

Jesus, that was motion blur in GTA Vice City?! I always wondered what was causing that horrid ghosting effect.

From a N4G user: *_"The issue with motion blur is the implementation of the feature is based on a misperception of the human senses. We experience motion blur all the time in our everyday lives as we turn our head and look around. But the reality is we are unaware it is occurring. In games they have made the sensation overt and thus it is unrealistic. To many people it is annoying and for a few, sickening._* *_The same is partially true with headbob. In actuality, it occurs to varying degrees depending upon things as gait, skeletal structure, etc. But as we matured our brains rapidly developed compensation mechanisms such as your eye rotation almost imperceptibly up and down. They have made the sensation overt in many games and depending upon how it is instituted it can provide an unrealistic experience for the gamer."_*

I like motion blur when you drive super fast, makes me feel i'm going even faster

Per object motion blur is fine. But blurring the whole screen? Yeah, I always disable that.

Motion blur is so good when it's turned off

My problem with motion blur is that in FPS games it adds to how long it takes to identify and prioritize targets in hectic situations and can make small hit boxes seem larger than they actually are. In short, it makes lining up enemy heads in fire fights slower.

"Gta San Andreas" *shows footage of Vice City*

Motion blur can be beautiful when it’s done in moderation.... when it’s just spammed, it’s just an ugly mess

Camera blur: No Per-object motion blur: Hell Yes

"WARNING - CONTAINS MOTION BLUR" I appreciate the sarcastic touch.

My vision is blurry I put on glasses. My game is blurry I disable the blur. If I am watching someone else play fine. I don't necessarily mind (like a cinematic Doom game play for example.) Best option is when you have an option.

Raindrops on the screen really pisses me off! You don't see raindrops on your eyeballs so don't put it in game unless it's ACTUALLY on glass. Also faux lens flare from the sun is stoopid in games too, for the same reason!

Alex: You should take a look at how *current virtual reality systems* handle motion if you want to examine how motion blur pertains to simulated realism. In a nutshell, they forgo all motion blur and use a "low persistence display", which only exposes time-slices (frames) to your eyes at the instant that they're relevant. What this does is it allows you to track a moving object across the area of the display with your eyes without it appearing smudged. In real life, a moving object tracked with your eyes would also not appear blurred. However, in a "per object motion blur" scenario, the object is necessarily blurred even if you're tracking it with your eyes, which is not realistic, however cinematic it may be. The ideal display, in other words, is a low-persistence (flickering) display synchronized to a locked frame rate. To achieve a locked frame rate, some VR systems (e.g. Oculus' "asynchronous space warp") generates predictive frames in the event of a frame drop. You make a good case for per-object blur sans camera blur on conventional displays, though by separating the two forms of blur, it ceases to be a simulation of a camera shutter and becomes its own idiosyncratic presentation.

Jokes on you. I have my hand showed up as discrete pictures in front of my crt monitor.

I started loving good motion blur when i first played Crysis. That per-object blur blew my mind. It was insane 12 years ago. To sum it up : Camera Blur = Meh, Per-Object Blur = Love

Well.. if you can switch off or on anytime, there's no problem with it...

Always GREAT videos from you Alex, keep up the good work! :)

You forgot one entire type of motion blur, which almost all games since 2010 have implemented due to low resource requirements and I think might be the source of the hate. This is linear blur post-filter (framebuffer) motion blur-where a game takes the current frame and applies a simple Photoshop style linear blur having the angle and intensity determined by the position of the right stick (or the acceleration values of the mouse, even is not using acceleration for gameplay). The entire Crisis series is notorious for introducing this technique, which is easily seen in the tritium sights of guns trailing behind *and yet also proceeding forward* the actual frame. This was particularly bad in Crysis 2, due to the game having a bad framerate on console and needing blur to hide it. Turn with a stick and laugh as apparently the motion blur can predict the future! As bad as it sounds though, the most annoying part is that the blur shifts as you change the motion angle without leaving previous blur in place, so you can spin the stick and make your own blurred helicopter blade out of your gun. This effect is barebones but also has been optimized to use close to no resources-making it very attractive to console developers that can barely push 30 FPS. The general rule is that if stage demos show careful, deliberate, and slow camera motion on a console controller, that game likely uses post-filter motion blur. The point is to hide the ugly steps in angular rotation of the camera, which looks great externally but feels horrible to the player. For those wondering, this motion blur method works on the same principle as FXAA, which also developed at the same time. You can render the frame, then apply a blanket filter to it afterward in the framebuffer prior to display. FXAA essentially performs a gaussian blur to the image, where newer implementations have used a mask generated from the depth buffer to control the amount of blur in different areas (and ideally only blurring jaggies on silhouette edges). Linear post-filter motion blur has seen a few improvements as well, but at the cost of more performance and as such it usually isn't implemented using newer iterations. As such, it looks jarring and can lead to motion sickness since it inserts additional, non-existent motion (the leading blur). The first complaint I hear when people turn it off is it makes them sick. Motion blur is good, but you can't cut corners. Per-object motion blur is great in general, but usually the most costly. Full frame / per pixel motion blur can also be good, but to look natural it needs to sample previous frames further back than most hardware and engines comfortably allow. Linear post-frame motion blur however is just cheap with close to no benefit, only designed to smooth camera rotation at the destruction of realistic motion.

You inspired me to give it a shot on Far Cry 5. It's better than it was on older consoles and games for sure, but my primary issue still persists. To try to see things, I tend to stop more, or keep my mouse more still. I think this is why the PS2 style blur didn't bother me as much, as if something was coming towards me, I still saw it easily in the distance. Yes, I saw four of it, but I saw it. With modern motion blur it's so smudgy that I might miss something entirely. It feels like I'm missing out on detail for it too. The option I really want besides on or off is "on for cutscenes only" as I feel it helps the more cinematic parts of the game.

I personally can't get enough of (high-quality) motion blur and depth of field in games. They make 3d graphics so much more vivid and "spatial"

Honestly, I've been an amateur dev for going on 20 years, and motion blur is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but which is kind of counter-productive in reality. In principle it exists to cover up the discrepancy between rendering an image as a sequence of discrete frames, vs what the visual effect is of the human eye which while limited in how fast of a detail it can perceive, is not picking things up in discrete 'frames', but rather when something is too fast it all just blurs. Cameras recording the real world also create this blur, because indeed the actual motion of objects in reality is a smooth continuous sequence, where in a rendered scene it's actually a series of small jumps between frames. (the intermediate motions never happen.) OK, so... What's the problem with this anyway? Why did we decide fake motion blur is a thing that we needed? Well, in the beginning it was meant to improve the look of games which ran at low framerates. To some extent, due to how we see things, what constitutes a 'low' framerate actually depends on how fast things move. A completely static non-interactive scene looks the same whether rendered at 1 fps or 1000 But as soon as things move, you get issues. 30 fps is an important number for perceptual reasons related to being able to identify individual frames. (the root cause of the '30 fps is enough'/'no it's not!' argument lies in people not actually comparing like for like. 30 fps has specific implications, but it doesn't cover every issue that results from low framerates. And often not the ones people pick when they claim they can 'see' faster framerates - which they probably can, but not for the reasons that 30 fps is relevant.) but moving objects are a different matter. As I said, in effect objects in virtual environments are teleporting, not moving. It's just that they teleport short distances at a rapid rate creating the illusion of smooth movement. But obviously, the higher the framerate, the less visible this 'teleport' is. An object that moves half the distance across the screen in 1 second, at 15 fps is moving 1/30th the way across the screen every frame, but at 30 fps is moving 1/60th the distance, and at 60 fps 1/120th the distance. (and at 1000 fps would be moving 1/2000th the distance, which is basically half a pixel at 1080p) So... What can you do about this to make this less noticeable? Well, in the real world when an object moves faster than a camera can deal with, it smears along it's direction of motion. Eg. Motion blur. Thus, if you were to fake this effect, perhaps things would look better? That was the idea anyway. Just one problem. faking motion blur turns out to be really expensive computationally. And, since the eye blurs together things that move too fast anyway, another way to solve this problem is just to increase the framerate. Given that the framerate is tied to the computational complexity of rendering in a very direct manner, motion blur is most necessary/useful at low framerates, but fake motion blur is expensive computationally, in almost every situation you can think of, you're better off without the motion blur and gaining the extra framerate, rather than adding motion blur, and making your framerate worse because of the workload this implies. In other words, faking motion blur is a solution to a problem that's worse than the problem it's trying to solve. Of course, if you have performance to spare and are somehow framerate capped... Maybe it'd help a little. (but only if the effect is well implemented. Which it often is not.) Say, if you have a computer that can easily render a scene at 200 fps, but paired to a monitor that is limited to 60 fps, then it might be worthwhile - in theory. But how often do you run into a case like that? Consoles often aren't hitting the 60 fps limit of televisions. Gaming PC's are often coupled with high framerate monitors... In general it is hardly ever a good solution to the problem it was intended to fix... (as a general concept for instance you might be better off rendering two frames and blending them together to produce a single rendered frame over specific attempts at producing a motion blur effect.)

Idk, I love motion blur. Makes everything seem more cinematic and can smooth out lower FPS. High FPS with blur like Doom looks awesome imo. Competitive games I turn it off but it’s a nice, low tax setting

Sorry Alex, it's still the first thing I turn off. You make a good case and I understand the technical need for it... But it just feels bad.

Don't worry, you didn't convince me as I was already fully aware motion blur helps the image - as long as it's implemented properly. I never held a hate against it... but if it was shitty implementation in older games in particular, I would disable it.

you say its hated because of history, but the truth is that todays games still suck and the issues have not been solved. Motion blur is a promotional tool, so that footage and trailers look better and more cinematic for trailers. our Eyes have natural motion blur, our brains already smear and disregard unneeded information on the screen. I like to have the clearest and most detailed input into my eyes as possible. honestly, Motion blur solves a problem that does not need to be solved.

One takeaway from this: didnt know I could center weapons in DOOM 2016, subscribing.

As someone who has experience in stop motion photography I can tell you the reason stop motion got replaced by loathed cgi is since there's no motion blur, it has that trademark strobing effect of any stop motion film. Right before cgi blew up, Hollywood was implementing several ways to add motion blur to stop motion. This is why I've never even considered turning it off in a game.

I always thought the motion blur in Crysis 1 looked fantastic and the game was less visually complete without it. That's about the only implementation I can think of that actually adds to the visual fidelity of the game.

it's honestly camera motion blur e.g. when the whole image is blurred, that I'm against as it gives me a headache. Object blur is absolutely fine if it's done right.

This video convinced me to give motion blur a try and I came to appreciate its effects in games. Although I didn't find too many games where I liked it to be enabled it certainly strengthened the gameplay for some genres. Well done

When I leave motion blur on sometimes I have a problem with it. When I turn motion blur off I never have a problem with that. Problem solved.

I generally turn it off. My experience with motion blur was through the PS2 for the first time and it was distracting and I felt like it hindered performance. So well, I got used to playing games without motion blur and I'm fine without it.

Isn't motion blur also used to hide poor performance / low framerates? And it's very powerful at that, too. I think it's a point that's missing in the video.

i cannort believe that I had to like the vid praising motion blur. You've put to words what I was lacking in either knowledge or vocabulary. Thank you

Motion blur is like Internet explorer you only do one thing with each one. With Internet explorer you download another web browser. And with motion blur ya turn it off.

I'm not kidding when I say that just watching the clips of games with motion blur makes me feel a bit sick. I have to turn motion blur off when I play games.

Motion blur in racing games = on Motion blur in other games = off I really don't want motion blur unless I'm driving 150 km/h. It only makes sense there. It doesn't make sense to get motion blur when I turn my head ever so slightly

I'm a motion blur junkie, I'm always looking for it. This video is so beautifully explained

Thanks, at least now I know which motion blur settings I need to experiment with. I would however like some more info on the computing cost of the different types of blur, as that is an additional reason why you would toggle them off.

I do love motion blur if is in the right moment, it makes the image looks better, more realistic and even could hide some framedrops so i think is very good, but only if it is used in the right spots!

What are examples of good motion blur other than the new Doom. I detest camera motion blur. I don't have a problem with per object motion blur.

I like Motion Blur in my games, it helps to convey the illusion of fast movement and fluidity. Makes it more immersive and realistic. To me at least. I kinda had a soft spot for that early 2000 PS2 effect, since all GTA games of that era have it, and I play them constantly. I don't know, maybe I'm kinda inmune to motion sickness.

I'm amazed that you actually convinced me that motion blur *can* be good in specific circumstances (per-object done right, z-axis/eye-tracked peripheral). But no game quite does it right so I think it's usually better off. Especially when it creates a framerate *cost* which tends to make it even worse.

The argument for motion blur is fundamentally flawed. The argument in this video is that motion blur is a worthy objective because it simulates the behavior of cameras or eyes; but that behavior is not optimal. It gets in the way of you being able to play the game more effectively. Especially PC gamers, who have control over whether motion blur is used, like shiny graphics but are ultimately concerned with playing the game as effectively as possible. Motion blur in cameras is something that the camera industry endeavors to remove. It's silly that game developers endeavor to add it. Natural motion blur is virtually imperceptible; unless you make an effort to see it. Going to the wavy hand example you only get that because you're NOT focusing on the hand. You're allowing for your perception to be blurred. If you spin your body around you generally won't see your environment blurred either. This is because you're rotating your hips, and your neck, and your eyes to focus on a single point and your brain is able to remove that blur from your perception. In a video game you can't turn around like you can in reality. You only have a mouse or a thumbstick to translate the experience of moving dozens of different joints and muscles that your body is effortlessly moving in a symphony of motion to avoid everything that motion blur is trying to achieve. When you're turning around in a video game, the renderer doesn't know what you're trying to focus on and stabilize, so it just blurs everything; it doesn't make a lick of sense. Motion blur might make sense once we have retina tracking monitors with foveted rendering; however you literally would not be able to observe the motion blur anyway.

When it's used in games that require fast movement, (Sonic Generations, DOOM, Wolfenstein II), it can look cinematic and exhilerating. But it can become tiresome if overused. I personally like how Panic Button has used Motion Blur to their advantage when porting DOOM and Wolfenstein II, to make the games look smoother than how it actually runs.

This made me think about ray traced graphics which might become practical for games in the next two or three graphics card generations. Since each pixel on the screen receives many rays, it would be possible to do extremely high quality motion blur by simply varying the time rays are simulated at and using simply interpolation on in-game geometry. I think you're ignoring the real reason people don't like motion blur: Almost all current iterations hide information. In a shooter, people aren't actually looking for realistic graphics when they choose their settings, they're looking for the settings that let them see the most clearly. The only case where motion blur is useful is when it allows you to understand the motion of something that would otherwise be going too fast to tell, and even then, it's best to blur the object itself as little as possible, and simply leave a blur in front/behind the object.

Ok, fair enough. I always tend to turn mb off because my eyes naturally blur the picture when moving the camera. However, per object mb is something I can definitely get behind. Will have to see how it plays out in games to come. Thanks for the info!

In the real world, when your eyes track an object that is in motion relative to you, it will remain sharp. For example, road signs remain readable even in the split second when driving past them. This is why I dislike it in games, except when used as a dramatic effect as in Virtua Fighter 3, Shenmue or Ridge Racer Type 4. Even if motion blur is done so perfectly as to reproduce a film camera exactly, it's still a distracting immersion breaker for an interactive 3D game, because you shouldn't ever see it when deliberately tracking something.Having said that, Gears of Wars still looks amazing for a 12 year old game. Better than many popular 2018 games still.

Motion blur, depth of field and lens flare really gets in the way of you actually seeing the game you are playing, so they are set to OFF from minute 1.

I always appreciate well implemented motion blur.

My eyes have natural motion blur My screen wile being a good one still have a very small amount of ghosting Why would i want another ghosting ("motion blur") effect over the 2 above?

The first thing people think about when they hear "Motion Blur", they think about Camera Motion blur. And that kind of motion blur is trash. Only Per-Object Motion blur is acceptable. Devs should give us more options to choose what kind of motion blur we want active in the game, instead of turning it off all together. ofc, you can dive into the config files and do it yourself.... but why should we have to do that.

No

That "PS2 motion blur" i´ve seen it before in N64 Perfect Dark when they punch you or hit you with narcotic gun.

One of the games that implemented motion blur very early was Trackmania Sunrise (2005), a racing game, they managed to introduce a Per object motion blur (Not camera motion blur) in a fantastic way, although a bit rough because of the low number of samples... but for the year it was, it was really good. Also, the game has a replay editor where you can add camera motion blur to make cinematic shots.

I love the per-object motion blur in Doom 2016, it makes both the game and animations seem like they are rendered in much higher frame rates even on a 60Hz display. I share and love motion blur when it is done right. :) I can see that there's still alot of negativity regarding motion blur in the comments, but I definitely think everybody should give it a shot, at least in Doom 2016 where it is superbly executed (start at "low" setting). For those experiencing motion sickness, perhaps it's a side-effect of the motion becomming more realistic. The basis of motion sickness is the difference between percieved motion in your brain and your body. It's likely that the gap between frames actually help the brain to isolate the image to something superficial instead of "real motion". While people that don't get motionsick generally experience a more fluid natural motion with well implemented motion blur.

I still turn it off 99% of the time. Most games even today do not do it correctly and it hinders performance. I'll always take visual clarity over an obtrusive screen effect. Especially if I'm playing a shooter.

I legit laughed out loud at "Wave if you love motion blur!"

I always turn motion blur on and i like it for 3 reasons. 1. It makes the game look more cinematic. 2. It hides frame drops making it look smoother. 3. Without motion blur PC/Console game loses it's charm and for me it feels more like a mobile game without it.

Anyone else feeling kinda sick after watching this video? lol (Great video though)

The first thing I always disable is film grain, it makes the game look so horrible...

This is 100% correct. I used to really dislike motion blur most the time. I say most the time becasue there were moments where I digged it like Killzone 2 and 3. But by the time last gen rolled around I had moved 80% on to PC and I would always turn motion blur off. Importantly, I will mention that last gen it was pretty affordable to build a PC that completely destroyed the consoles, so there I was having a ball of a time on a 1080Ti. But this gen, I find myself playing a lot on my PS5(despite having a 4080) ever since I found out how good filmic motion blur is now in games. I often choose the "Quality" mode rather than the "Performance" mode on console because the look of 30fps with long exposure combined with per object mb can be so good that I just go for the higher resolution + RT. Of course if it is a fighting, competitive or fast paced FPS then more frames the better but even character action games like DMC, I am fine with Quality mode + filmic motion blur. It looks, dare i say, c i n e m a t i c.

So to sum things up: 1. Motion blur has a bad rep because it was implemented poorly. 2. Motion blur is still implemented poorly, but better than it was before. 3. There's only maybe 2 games with well implemented motion blur. 4. Motion blur gets in the way of gameplay due to interfering with conveyance. This video didn't make a good case for motion blur. The problem with motion blur is that it will likely never take into account where I have my eyes. Sure, they could remove it from the center like you suggest but that doesn't mean that's where I'm focused. When I don't focus on my hand and wave it in front of my face it's blurry as it passes but if I focus on it (i.e. follow it with my eyes) then it's no longer blurry. So if a game has motion blur whether or not it's per pixel or per object it'll never take into account that I'm focusing on the movement of the object since it doesn't have that information. If I follow something that's moving on the screen with my eyes and it's blurring due to motion blur effects that's immediately unnatural and distracting. Consider the amount of processing power motion blur takes. I'd much rather get the extra frames than I would use up frames for the motion blur effect. I prefer more frames of information conveyed plainly over more frames of information smeared on the screen. I think there's a future to motion blur in VR considering the future of the tech is going to be on the shoulders of eye tracking for foveated rendering but it doesn't have much of a place in regular gaming outside of low refresh rate TVs paired with consoles.

When i play games to win i turn it off but when i play for fun it´s on to enjoy the beautiful vistas!

the only good motion blur is Freeman's Mind motion blur. too bad we will never achieve that one.

4:40 We need 1000fps to get rid of gaps in motion Doom Eternal and a NASA computer: now this looks like a job for me

Motion blur shot my parents in front of me while walking through the alley behind a theater.

1. Disable Motion Blur 2. Disable Depth of Field 3. Disable Chromatic abberation 4. Disable grain filter 5. Disable any hell-blurring anti-aliasing 5. - Now you can play properly.

I can't remember the last time I went into a video with one very strong opinion and came out with a completely different one. Great job!

Awesome explanation of motion blur in games. I usually turned off blur because it made me dizzy, but in today's best engines it looks good and enhancing the experience. So 100% agree with your video.

I still remember how I played Lost Planet for the first time and was blown away with how cool object motion blur looks. It felt like I'm watching awesome action movie. That was 12 years ago... Motion blur is a great effect when implemented right. Sadly, not a lot of games do that.

I really like motion when it's subtle, yet makes the movements so smooth. You can run the game at 40fps and it doesn't hurt your eyes so bad. Otherwise you would have to run the game at solid 100+ frames per second.

_I like motion blur. It just makes everything look smoother, just as long as it's not too strong._

I always get shit on when i say i like motion blur, everyone immediately thinks that it blurs your screen entirely, only older games did that, i'm glad i found this video to know I'm not alone.

I’ve never understood the overwhelming hate for motion blur, all of a sudden every second person has motion sickness tendencies

I'm the odd one out here, but I much prefer motion blur being on. Just looks way more natural. Probably has to do with me working in 3d animation/vfx as well, because vfx without motionblur just looks bad. Motionblur these days in games is quite good most of the time so for the most part you can just leave it on. The way motion blur is done this days is similar to how vfx handles it a lot of times as well (you don't always render it, since doing it in post gives more control in compositing) You write out a velocity pass for each frames which is a 3 gradient image for each velocity axis (red for x, green for y, blue for z) and you use it to add blur in post. Now, in vfx there are ways to fix the comon artifacts, like masking with object id's (or using depth data) and applying motion blur on different seperate layers. So I assume in the future you could also do this in games. Probably too taxing right now.

Except motion is entirely believable without motion blur

Guess motion blur at 144FPS is better than regular 24FPS

Came here for advice Got a history lesson

I’d say input delay is our biggest enemy x3 it takes away the realism of things when gaming some tvs are really bad upto around 200ms> (edit: never expected so many likes xD)

When i move my head super fast, i dont see anything even resembling what motion blur is supposed to simulate. So basically, i turn it off and my eyes do the work and i get natural motion blur. Idk if that makes any sense at all

You've done an amazing job explaining how motion blur works and how it is has been implemented in games through the generations. I had no idea it was this complex, I just thought every implementation was camera-based motion blur that was used to blur a frame by reducing pixel count during high motion scenes to lessen GPU load and maintain steady frame rates on lesser hardware (consoles). Per-object motion blur is incredible and can really add to the impact of events, like when an anime character winds up and punches something at high speed and that blur effect ends upon impact into a high resolution scene. It can really add "oomph" to your actions in a game. Now that I know the effect is implemented differently through the use of different techniques by each individual developer I will most certainly try turning it on. You've got me wondering if I've been missing out on some visual fidelity in certain titles that use it in striking ways, such as was shown in your Doom footage with that chain gun. That looks nuts! The way the bullets blur as they're fed into the gun and the barrel churns them out in a blurry mess. Now THAT'S good use of motion blur!

I agree with all of it. I used to hate motion blur and AA in games because it looked bad, was blurry and unclear in the games I played. Since I got a new PC I tried using more advanced graphics options in games since the new PC was alot more powerful than my old one. I realized that most games I tried then with motion blur and AA looked amazing and now I allways try it and I'm dissapointed if it's not good.

Great video , but i still don't care for Motion Blur.

Awesome video! :) People are about as openminded as I've come to expect from this comment section. Anyway, my take is this: Per object motion blur yay, camera motion blur nay.

Great video. The only thing missing is a couple of examples of object motion blur both on and off side by side comparisons.

I like good motion blur. Engines like CryEngine or Unreal have a really good motion blur and it add very natural visual feeling.

How can you even put "Focus" and "Motion Blur" in the same title??

Camera motion blur doesn't need to be condemned, it just needs to be applied in a vignette, where the effect is less extreme as you get closer to the middle of the screen, up to no camera motion blur at all in the direct focus region, which could be a simple scaleable oval. And don't tell me this is hard on framerates, pixel shaders already have examples of low frame impact gradient application in many titles. A simple radial gradient should be no problem, especially with the hardware in systems currently being sold, even the Switch could take it.

At the risk of repeating myself, you guys are really, REALLY good at explaining things. Like... in a structured, non-repetitive, entertaining manner. Compared to the fire-and-forget style of other channels I'm used to. It's almost as if you actually research and prepare, lol. Anyway - quality content once again. Thanks!

I usually leave it on cause I can see gaps between the frames with fast camera movement, even in 60fps.

you didn‘t convince me, since i am experimenting with motion blur in every single game - most of the time to end up by turning it off. But did you really make a 20min video where you talk almost a third of that time about ps2 without any mention of SSX?! i mean, come on!

I always disable motion blur. Makes me feel slightly sick when its on.

Motion blur was first experimented with some PS1 games which manipulated the framebuffer to blend frames and create the "accumulation blur" effect. Metal Gear Solid and Rollcage Stage 2 are a perfect example.

If I wanted butter vision, I'd just spread butter in my eyes. I want to be able to look at the nice visuals of the graphics in the game. Especially in games like Far Cry 4/5, where you can immerse yourself in the world, run through foliage and what not.

This video is absolutely brilliant! And in my opinion it's one of the most important things to address in 3D gaming. It's such a shame that it's way to easy to do a bad implementation and there's way to many variables going on with the LCD technology itself. Even playing in full 240Hz / 240 FPS can be a mess (with or without MBR) because of the lack of properly implemented blur, the "emptiness" between fast moving objects is extremely distracting for me, it is obviously better then 60Hz but unless we have crazy FPS values (like 1000 FPS and continuous lightning), we'll probably need better solutions to improve this experience. It's such an divisive topic that there's a lot of games who lacks any implementation after all. My favorite competitive fast paced game is OW, and even at 240Hz it is extremely distracting to play sometimes because of that. It's a shame it's an underrated and misunderstood topic. A good analogy for me is just the way it feels to see a low FPS movie recorded with a fast shutter speed. It is extremely distracting and feels completely unnatural. 3D gaming in general feels always like this and you nailed the reason in the very first part of the video why.

"More realistic" isn't always better. All your technical jargon doesn't change the fact that games look aesthetically better without motion blur (or depth of field, for that matter).

I think motion blur is excellent for single player games like DOOM or BioShock, but when it comes to mutiplayer I always want my view of the battlefield as uninterrupted as possible, where perhaps immersion takes a backseat to gameplay. Not all of the time, though.

I really value your takes on technology. Since i saw your video 2 years ago, i try out motion blur in every game. Have changed to OLED screen meanwhile. But i'm still in "motion blur is the devil"-club.