I included copy of the Multiple NextGen Xbox video in tnis thread, but I think the main discussion should be in the NextGen thread: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...sh-of-reality-2018.60604/page-36#post-2036255
Insomniac draws on the Ratchet and Clank engine to push some incredible animations and post-effects in Spider-Man. Visually, the only contender this generation is 2015's Batman Arkham Knight -- itself with a similar open-world dynamic, and great effects.
I donno, every game looks cartoony to me.
This would be true for extremely low percistance monitors, but for actual consumer monitors a single frame of animation stays on screen for many ms, so, with or without eyetracking, your natural ability to "follow" a moving object with your eyes is already hindered anyway. It will feel juddery unless each frame only flashes very briefly. So there is still a point in using MB as a form of motion anti aliasing deapite the whole eye movement rethoric.Motion blur really only makes sense out of cutscenes is if you have eye tracking. Things are only blurred if they are moving relative to your eyes. If a car goes past the frame, it's only blurred if my eyes aren't following it. (The shape of the motion blur on the wheels also changes depending on if my eyes are following the car. If my eye follow the car, the wheels are blurred in a circular pattern around the axle, while if my eyes are stationary relative to the ground, the part of the wheel near the ground receives little blur, while the part of the wheel farthest from the ground receives more blur.) If I focus my eyes on something in my periphery, then turn my head to bring it into the center of my field of view, the object does not become blurry while I do this. All motion blur implementations assume the player's eyes are focused on a fixed point on screen, and they all get these wrong.
The only acceptable places to use motion blur during gameplay are for things that move too fast or abruptly for eyes to follow, and maybe a little bit on the very edge of the screen to emphasize speed.
AAA games are already in the uncanny valley. Not even high-end CGI has managed to get out of it. Pursuing photorealism at this point is a fool's errand.To further elaborate, realtime graphics are so far away from interactive photorealism there is no point in going all out trying to achieve it. A consistent visual direction is far more important IMO than "realism" because in the end, pushing for absolute realism just means a games visuals age faster once the new rendering engine or tech is released. There is so much more that can be done with the limited compute power in terms of gameplay than the never ending horizon of photorealism. AI behavior/pathfinding, collision detection, complex world state book keeping, etc, these are things that I look forward to more so than graphics for the next-gen consoles. Until we reach interactive graphics that are indistinguishable from real life, many graphic art styles can age like milk but great gameplay can last forever.
The eye tracking moving objects isn’t rethoric, that’s how our visual system works.This would be true for extremely low percistance monitors, but for actual consumer monitors a single frame of animation stays on screen for many ms, so, with or without eyetracking, your natural ability to "follow" a moving object with your eyes is already hindered anyway. It will feel juddery unless each frame only flashes very briefly. So there is still a point in using MB as a form of motion anti aliasing deapite the whole eye movement rethoric.