PC Gaming

pcgaming@lemmy.ca

15,907 readers

5,932 active

733 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago

moderation log

moderators

EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca

UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca

KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com

The people have spoken: Motion blur is the worst (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 month ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just a little amusing and not that surprising.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Nindelofocho@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Issue is motion blur is graphically intensive too so it makes the FPS even worse!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

To large extent yes. But whether or not it's worth it depends on the goal and the type of blur.

Valve IMO does it correctly in Counter Strike, where very tiny amount of blur is applied to give impression that your 100fps looks like 150fps. I prefer this over framgen tech because pretty much no lag is added.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent