Comments on: RPS Asks: Depth Of Field, Motion Blur?

By: Stringycustard

Stringycustard — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:52:04 +0000

That’s precisely what I’m working on at the moment. Take a look at the link in my name. Side-scroller with blur effects, double vision, etc. Still in early development, though.

I far prefer to have visual effects blocking out what I see in single-player games if they are used to indicate some effect taking hold on the player character, not because of the prettiness (although that doesn’t hurt), but due to the immersion. It makes the character more real, and their hardship (from a nearby grenade explosion, for example) a bit more real.

However, I always thought it was hilarious back in the day when playing multi-player games that the folks with better graphics cards fared worse at the game because they had extra voluminous fog/smoke/fire in their way, and more recently depth of field and hdr. The cheaper cards (or the smart people who turned off all the effects) had an edge over the others.

Although it’s not quite the same thing, I remember a bunch of us getting smacked down bad in Counterstrike (not the source version) because the guy had a really slow computer/gfx card so everything ran in slow mo on his system, and made it easier to shoot us all (I’d put it down to poor network code save that CS was made for networks, but this was one of the few instances their code failed to cater for).

By: Daniel Purvis

Daniel Purvis — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:48:59 +0000

Depth of field is most annoying in CoD:MW when you’re sniping through grass and the depth shifts to the fuckin’ blades right in front of your eyes instead of the dipshit you’re aiming at a hundred yards off…

By: d.

d. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:22:18 +0000

I love motion-blur, because it makes games look smooth on my old computer.
I hate depth-of-field when it does not follow my eyes’ focus point.

By: wqwewqaa

wqwewqaa — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:21:18 +0000

“Have we reached a point in graphics where there’s too much extra processing?”"

Hell yes. That point was reached years ago when they started using too much bloom in every darn game. And yes, I turn DoF always off because it is not used correctly IMO. In Gothic 3 blur/dof looks nice if it’s applied only to objects that are kilometers away because it takes of some of the jagginess and makes things look a bit more like in fairy tales. Speaking of fairy tales, I believe Trine uses DoF too and that’s a fine-looking game.

Anyway, motion blur and depth of field in first person games is almost always waste of resources.

By: Digitali

Digitali — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:24:40 +0000

[quote]a trained soldier doesnt even look at his waepon while reloading[/quote]

As an infantryman for four years, this. You’re trying to determine the originating location of incoming fire and, if possible, taking cover behind something. At no point should you be looking at your weapon unless it jams.

By: ascagnel

ascagnel — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:19:40 +0000

I think I’m the only person that liked Clear Sky’s DoF implementation. As a game that makes a point to beat you down, it only makes sense that reloading makes you lose track of what you’ve been doing.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:24:33 +0000

The question of Motion Blur and Depth of Field are seperate cases. Motion blur is inherently an exageration. Though the Scout from TF springs to mind as a good subtle usage. Where as DoF is intended as a realism effect yet ironicaly gets exagerated more so than motion blur. The most outstanding examples I suppose would be the ones we notice the least? That being said two immediatly come to mind. For DoF Halo 2s Cutscenes and Lost Planet. The latter also having the best motion blur I have ever scene.
It is unfortunate that when new effects become available they come off so clumsy. Largely I would expect they are included in games without a gameplay purpose and simply become part of a checklist or atleast are included because its easy to do so.
I was quite annoyed at what Starbreeze did to the Riddick remake. It was technicaly superior to original, clearly. But the new effects and/or the implementation of them completely changed the look and feel of the game for the worse.
Disclosure: I have only read the first and the last two posts ;P

By: Sean

Sean — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:53:24 +0000

DoF is not as realistic as it could be. It has problems, but I re-enabled it in Mass Effect (I might waffle on this) after playing a bit without. It is better, in my estimation, than no DoF, because it serves to mute unnecessary background info, which is damn fine graphic design: highlight focal point by making it sharp. Subdue background (or foreground) by making it less detailed. That’s the rule.

What you hate, and I admit is a problem, is when it is bluring things that you ARE trying to focus on. But this is not a problem with motion blur. This is the single most prevalent problem in gaming today: judging player intention, and reacting to that. Usually, either user testing or user input is required. Critique the details of DoF that you don’t like. Otherwise, the best the developers know to do is to give you control of DoF. On/Off is the obvious way to do this, but wouldn’t it be cool if ctrl-mousewheel adjusted the depth of focus? THAT would be cool, if a bit over-designed to compensate for player taste. Better yet, the developers ought to try to judge what they think the player wants to look at. Then, get a few players to come try it, and see what they think.

By: Muzman

Muzman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:07:19 +0000

It’s not a straw man, it’s a fact. And some people certainly appear to be saying shallow focus is not a fact of their vision, so that’s not a straw man either.

If you are looking at a screen the screen is in focus. The fact of your retinas having higher acuity in the middle of your view than in the periphery is neither here not there. If what is displayed on that screen is designed to represent 3d space where your eyes wouldn’t be in deep focus, a shallow focus effect can help reinforce the illusion. That’s why they do it (in FPSs anyway). And yes a shortcoming is that ‘eyes’ in an FPS are fixed where your own eyes are not and people look around the screen while playing. I’m not sure what we’re talking about.

By: JFM

JFM — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:36:05 +0000

Depth of field/focus is a feature of any lens – whether it’s our eyes or a camera lens.

In photography (and therefore cinema), it’s a matter of technique whether you want to emphasise or reduce the effect, but it’s pretty popular among a lot of photographers (me included).

Look at this photo – http://www.flickr.com/photos/josephfarthing/3537603418/
Here the shallow depth of field is used to make the background less noticeable, and stop it distracting from the subject. (Not perfect, but the fastest example I could find.)

In real life, our eyes also have a depth of focus – it’s much more impressive than almost any glass lens, and is mostly unnoticeable to us, but it *is* there.

What game designers have is a choice – they can use DoF cinematically, like a photographer, or subtly like the eye.

Either way, I think it’s a valid technique and often quite a pretty one.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:53:58 +0000

I’d say putting the background out of focus while reloading brings the experience into a realm that is more realistic in that, if you were really shooting people, there’d be an amount of time in which you’d have to focus on reloading and not on something far away. After all, reloading actually takes focus, not just pressing “R”, IRL. That being said, whether or not that is the intent of the designers, or if it is implemented well, or if that effect is desired by the player, is a whole other story.

By: SirDorius

SirDorius — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:32:14 +0000

In FPSs no, because it makes spotting enemies uselessly harder (and yes, 50 ms does make a difference, if it didn’t I’d be playing Mario Party). In other games, it’s a nice effect if it’s not overused. Like someone pointed out, in Assassin’s Creed.