My eyes will do the blurring on their own, thank you very much. Same goes for motion blur.

huh? Your eyes absolutely do have limited depth of field just like any camera, and need to focus at a particular distance. Anything as close as your nose will be out of focus, and if you're reading something close, your distant vision will be blurry.

You usually don't notice it because the focus immediately follows your active attention.

It looks wrong in games when the game wrongly assumes which item on screen you actually want to be looking at.

This is part of art direction and the director is trying to focus the viewer's attention on a particular area by utilizing it.

I understand where you're coming from but utilized well, it is a powerful tool.

1. However, your eyes have depth of field view too. Your eyes are actually cameras in that point regard. Look at the monitor, your hand or any object close to you. Focus on it. Notice how the background gets blurry? That's a feature from your eyes and brain to bring stuff into focus.
2. But besides this fact, even if you would see everything in focus, its does not mean the developers of film scenes (movies or games) shouldn't use DOF as a tool for an artistic expression. It can help bring things in focus in a busy background.

Motion blur, Depth of Field, Bloom, Chromatic aberration.

Off, Off, Off and Off.

Bloom is good so long it's not overdone. It makes bright lights actually look bright when you can't physically make the pixels brighter like on an HDR screen

Yeah, in quite a few cases (especially a particular generation of console games in which motion blur can't be disabled) it is covering for something. Some effects like TAA work great if the camera doesn't whip around quickly, but can leave some "ghosting" if the camera moves too fast. So motion blur makes the ghosting less visible. Film grain is another one that is sometimes used to hide noise in dynamic light reflections and the like. I'm of the opinion that they look like ass but in some games they do look better than what they're covering up.

Wardogs! Great game

Default setting imo is a bit much. I'd turn it almost all the way down. I'm usually using the top third of the screen to look ahead so DoF can get kind of annoying, since I'm not pointing my crosshair at what I'm looking at.

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.

It's only "cinematic" in movies because of limited tech. I made the mistake of watching The Hobbit in HFR. It was only a mistake because I've seen what we could have, but again idiots said no because it's new and different.

In my experience, these are often tuned for the trailer, or tuned for someone watching the game played, rather than tuning it for the player. The game is experienced very differently from those different perspectives, and it's sometimes difficult to keep them all in mind when making a large game.

Don't even need a crappy monitor anymore; they can artificially add ghosting via DLSS/FSR if it's not implemented well.

Depends on what type of AA we're talking. Old style geometry based tech is actually increased resolution at the edges. New temporal tech tho...

Wild someone downvoted you for such a benign comment.

O.o How many games do you play that have film grain?

Next you'll tell me you can't get tinnitus from falling rocks.

What do you mean the 300 Mph speed meter is lying