Project Gotham Racing 3 May Run at Only 30FPS

[Oddmaker]

Sorry to disappoint you but Project Gotham Racing 3 is set to run only at 30 FPS. Bizarre claims that with the motion blur and lighting effects it is hard to tell the difference.
"In the next generation frame rate will become much less important," says Wilson, "because when you apply HDR and these lighting effects and run with motion blur, you can't tell the difference at 60. You don't notice that much difference because the motion blur takes a lot of it away." We'll have to wait until we're playing it to decide if he's got a point, but watching the two of them pound through a Tokyo circuit it's obvious to see why they're having to work hard to optimise the game.Here's the Link (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=60899)

Oh well I guess having the HD era and 60 FPS is too much to ask.

[bapenguin]

I really don't get people who try to get their stuff to run at 100FPS. I'm perfectly happy with 30 or 40 in my games. I mean what, film is 24FPS right? Oh well, lets just see it in motion and see what happens.

[Akeldama]

The article doesn't really say that. It says they are aiming for higher than 30fps but might not have the time.

Anyway I really think that people get over-excited about the whole 30/60 thing. If the game is great fun to play and smooth (i.e. no sudden rise and fall of framerate) then I think it'll be just fine.

[agentgray]

I really don't get people who try to get their stuff to run at 100FPS. I'm perfectly happy with 30 or 40 in my games. I mean what, film is 24FPS right? Oh well, lets just see it in motion and see what happens.
Agreed. 15fps is even acceptable to someone with an untrained eye.

[mkelehan]

I'll be playing in 1080i anyway, so the difference is minimal.

[bapenguin]

The article doesn't really say that. It says they are aiming for higher than 30fps but might not have the time.

Anyway I really think that people get over-excited about the whole 30/60 thing. If the game is great fun to play and smooth (i.e. no sudden rise and fall of framerate) then I think it'll be just fine.

Ya I just changed the title. the designer just said currently it's running at 30FPS, they are targeting 60FPS, but may not get it because of time constraints. There's some good info from the article, I like how the game is running at 720P with 2x AA. Not bad for a first gen game. It also sounds like three's a ton of "special effects" with the graphics.

[Paranoia]

The news is less painful if you don't expect it to run at 60 fps in the first place.

[Cupelix]

Agreed. 15fps is even acceptable to someone with an untrained eye.
No, 15fps is noticable to just about anyone. This is a prepetual argument of what is "required" to not notice jittery movement. Movies get away with 24fps because the theatre is dark, and your persistance of vision (the effect you get when looking at something that is significantly brighter than its surroundings) fills in the gaps, so you don't notice the "low" framerate. It was always the theory that people can't see above 30fps, blah blah. I think 30fps is the minimum where "most" people can't tell - many hardcore gamers will tell you 45-60 is more of an accurate minimum.

I will say that their motion blur probably does eliminate a lot of need for a higher framerate. If they can promise not going below 30fps, probably no one will notice.

[MStiles]

The article also includes a quote that makes a good point: with real-time motion blur on all objects in the game, 60fps becomes much less necessary. This is why film works at 24fps - each 1/24th of a second is captured in its entirety, hence motion blur on fast-moving objects, backgrounds, etc.

Also: Forza ran at 30fps, and it felt totally smooth. Nobody really complained about it at all, and it got higher overall marks than GT4.

[Taco]

Generally, minimum for playable with me is 30, but I can easily tell the difference at a much higher level. Probably 80-90 is where I stop being able to really tell(if you plan on arguing, stow it). 60-70 is where I stop caring.

That said, 30 FPS in a racing game on a television will be plenty. It really depends on the game. If it's not a fast paced FPS 30 is almost always fine. I remember playing Morrowind at 20.

And yeah, you can't compare gaming FPS to movie FPS. Doesn't work that way.

[MStiles]

Movies get away with 24fps because the theatre is dark, and your persistance of vision (the effect you get when looking at something that is significantly brighter than its surroundings) fills in the gaps, so you don't notice the "low" framerate.

They also get away with it because each single frame of a movie includes "data" (if you will" for the entire 1/24th of a second. That's why there's motion blur...the camera captures everything it sees for an entire 1/24th of a second. One frame picks up right where the last one left off.

Not so in virtually all games. Each frame is an instantaneous snapshot of time, with the virtual camera capturing basically "zero time". Where one frame ends is actually 1/30th of a second (at 30fps) in distance from where the next one begins.

It was always the theory that people can't see above 30fps, blah blah. I think 30fps is the minimum where "most" people can't tell - many hardcore gamers will tell you 45-60 is more of an accurate minimum.

This was NEVER the theory. It's wildly misrepresented, but there's not an optomitrist or biologist that specializes in vision anywhere that thinks "people can't see above 30fps." They've done tests with military pilots where they can see an image flashed on a screen for 1/100th of a second, often even identifying the model of aircraft! (granted, fighter pilots have great eyes) Our eyes don't see in "frames" like bird's eyes do. There's a constant stream of info flowing to your brain, and how quickly you can "see" is a function of many variables. Size, color, speed, whether the object is moving laterally or toward you, whether it's in your peripheral vision or not...all can affect how long an image needs to "register."

[RMan]

With a well implimented motion blur effect going above 30FPS is not useful.

[Evak]

considering that Pal is 25FPS, NTSC is 30 and some cartons less than 15FPS with each frame doubled up, 30 is all that you realy need. Forza is locked at 30FPS and it's not noticeable.

[Orphiuchus]

The whole idea that you can tell the difference between 45 fps and 80 fps is just a ploy by the video card makers to make you think you need to upgrade when you dont.

[Taco]

Nope. You are wrong sir.

[bone_matrix]

30? 60? Who really cares in the long run? As long as it runs smooth, and has NO slowdown or jumps in framerate, does it really matter?

[Taco]

Depends on the game. For racing? No.

[Eran Hawke]

Frame rate is more important than resolution.

The only thing more important than frame rate is CONSISTENT frame rate.

[Taco]

Actually, I can't think of a situation in any game where you can take advantage of a 30+ framerate with a gamepad.

On the other hand, with a mouse....

[Taco]

Nice little article on FPS from a couple months ago.

http://bf1942.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=8643

[trip1eX]

YOu can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps in games.

I've noticed that Nintendo in general probably holds framerate in higher regard than most any other developer. Most of their games hit 60 fps.

I'd rather have a few less graphical effects and the game running at 60 fps than more effects and less fps. I wish more developers would have this philosophy.

[Tia]

Agreed. 15fps is even acceptable to someone with an untrained eye.

That is almost correct. In fact the human eye can only distinguish between 12 frames per second. Doesn't matter how trained your eye is, that is how many frames per second you can see. It was researched and discovered by Walt Disney back when they were making Snow White.

In fact all disney cartoons (and most cartoons in general) have only 12 double frames per second (that is 24 frames, but only every other frame there is a movement).

[Kelegacy]

The article also includes a quote that makes a good point: with real-time motion blur on all objects in the game, 60fps becomes much less necessary. This is why film works at 24fps - each 1/24th of a second is captured in its entirety, hence motion blur on fast-moving objects, backgrounds, etc.

Also: Forza ran at 30fps, and it felt totally smooth. Nobody really complained about it at all, and it got higher overall marks than GT4.

Forza ran at 30, but this is the next gen we are talking about. SHouldnt we expect more?

[mpsmith]

For most games I can tell if im getting below 60. Its not terrible but it's distinctly there.

If anyone thinks playing a game at 15fps is enough youre just an idiot who has never played a game. Or never played a game at different FPS. 30 might be OK with the motion blurring, but we will have to see on that one. Less than 30 and Im sure itd be visible.

[SMES]

In fact all disney cartoons (and most cartoons in general) have only 12 double frames per second (that is 24 frames, but only every other frame there is a movement).

The key is, as someone pointed out already, the nature of film as a passive media with inherent abilities such as capturing everything that happens in the span of the 1/24 (or 1/12) of a second. In cartoon films, the framerate requirement is even less important because animators can control those 12 double frames precisely, and they know when it is and isn't going to be too "jittery."

The truth is that a higher film framerate does not reduce jitters much, but it does increase resolution. Because with film all the motion blur will be captured regardless of the framerate. If film were only 5 frames per second, the images would be smooth, but they would also be much blurier and less detailed. The more frames of film you have recording an event, the more detail will be presented when you watch that film.

I'm sure movie makers would use 100 FPS of film if they could, but that would increase the cost of film so much that it isn't worth it.

Games are more like a slide show than a movie, in that each frame is an "instant" (where as with live action film each frame is a recording of everything that happened during the time it was exposed), but the game developers do not have the advantage of knowing which precise frames will be shown like a cartoon animator does. The animator creates each frame perfectly to flow into the next frame. For the average game, a game designer can only hope that a GeForce will render all the neccisary "moments."

That is why at even higher than 30 FPS we are able to notice "jumps" and "jitters"- because the hardware is not a Disney animator, and has no discretion for what is important unless of course the game designer impliments something to correct this, like the motion blur.

[dr_wily]

sounds like a worthless excuse to me to satisfy the screenshots

although i can agree that most of the time we wouldnt be able to tell, there is no reason why they cant scale back the drawn in, detail or effects to give a higher framerate or even allow the user to change.

comon we all dont crank up the graphics on our pcs to play multi right? We scale down to make a higher frame rate for the twitch. Same way for driving, especially those maddening license tests.

Compare any game on the n64 to the GC. Besides the horrendous graphics my biggest pet peeve of the n64 was the frame rate. The desert kart 64 level is damn near unplayable in 4 way. What is it going to be like here? I thanked my lucky stars all GC games were perfectly smooth while still cranking out the effects. perfect example: fzero. Still freaking pretty and never skips a beat on any level or any multi.

in conclusion: crap.

[Steve_Erhardt]

I really don't get people who try to get their stuff to run at 100FPS. I'm perfectly happy with 30 or 40 in my games. I mean what, film is 24FPS right? Oh well, lets just see it in motion and see what happens.
Well for me it boils down to being a buffer, really. At 100fps, I've got plenty of fps to burn as the screen gets more crowded with polys, effects, particles etc etc. Hopefully by the time all that crap knuckles a card down to 30fps from 100fps, it won't get any worse. ;)

[PantherModern]

While I am often in the consistency camp of framerate (i.e. as long as it is stable and doesn't vary widely, it's cool) there are almost always ineveitable dips in the framerate for one reason or another. That is why most games shoot for 60--so that you simply don't notice when they drop. That gets a lot harder at 30 FPS. But, if they lock it in and make sure that 30 is the bare minimum (which is the impression I got from the article) it should be fine. Still it certainly puts a bit of hurt on MS's marketing gurus. Apparently, there IS a cost for those high resolutions! Who woulda thought? But, remember, this is totally fresh software that had to be designed on non-standard equipment over a short development period. Hopefully MS's push to the product out the door won't impact the quality of it too much. To me, this whole lauch just seems somewhat rushed and ill-advised. Like Saturn.

[Xerxes]

UGH... You mean the Doom Movie fps scene is going to be 24fps... Totally unacceptable...

[phantomhitman]

There is a gigantic difference between 15fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps. A human can easily tell the difference between 15 and 30, and 30 and 60. Dont get the fps confused either, tv runs at 29.97 fps, meaning 29.97 IMAGES are in one second as compared to a video game that has to render and then display a game in real time at whatever framerate they are trying to hit. The game is simply not "playing" but actually have to create the images while displaying them.

You also have to take into account that the frame rate will take a huge hit when 6,7, or even 8 cars are on the screen at once, all hitting each other, sparks flying, damage being done, making all of this motion blur, showing the track, environments, and crowds. The game will look like crap just like the current forza and pgr does when this happens. Oh well, I guess I will get the game and go do donuts by myself, what a let down. :mad:

[IagoTheHunted]

Well... I studied this in college and there are a few points I think bare revelation:

a) Yeah 12 FPS IS the minimum required for persistance of vision.
b) persistance of vision is NOT the effect you get in a movie theatre because of a bright screen in a dark room. It's the effect of your brain to hold a picture, ANY PICTURE, for a very brief time in your field of vision. Ever seen those little toys where it's a piece of paper with a string on either end, and a bird on one side and a birdcage on the other? You twirl the paper around very quickly and it looks as though the bird is inside the cage, because your brain blurs together images that move that quickly. THAT is persistance of vision, and it appears continuous at 12 FPS for static images, and happens constantly for things in real life (thus allowing us to see something moving very quickly as a blur or streak in our vision, and allowing tracking of movement for things we would otherwise be unable to see).
c) Animation is drawn timed at 24fps (or 30 for tv) even though only 12 unique pictures are drawn per second USUALLY. Animators do this because it's pointless to draw 24FPS for something that isn't moveing more than normal pace, in fact it's almost impossible to do the in-betweens without making the animation look shakey. But for an object or character that's moveing exceptionally fast, they do animate on every frame so that you see the motion (which appears only as a blur) correctly.
d) and finally for games. the only reason 60 FPS is useful, in fact the only reason 30FPS is useful, is because of what was said earlier about each frame being a static frozen moment in time. Since there are no animators working on the realtime graphics to figure out when something is moveing exceptionally fast, the only way to have fast movement look correct is to show many many FPS constantly. However motion blur compensates for this blindspot by drawing in all that movement you lose by rendering only static frozen frames. IE, if you see a car whiz by at 60FPS all your going to see is a streak, even though every frame is drawn out. With motion blur instead of drawing the car 60 times a second to create a streak, it just draws a streak exactly as you would see it because of persistance of vision. Neither way is better, you see exactly the same thing.

[Demo_Boy]

Well we did an experiment a wihle ago where we doubled the physics tick rate of our game from 30 - 60 and we noticed a big difference in control fidelity and visual "presence".
Now we had bogs during peak load which was unpleasant, but I was left convinced that 60fps over 30 makes a big difference with control fluidity and playability.

[MasterEvilAce]

Grand Theft Auto has a built-in limit (if you chose to use it).. of 25 or 30, doesn't it?
GTA seems perfectly fine at 30FPS, to me. It's also probably because animations and car speeds are tweaked to work at that. If i take the limiter off, the game runs a lot faster but everything seems "slower" but I sort of notice a weird feel to the game, then. I played TFC in software mode, and it played fine. The game was fast-paced as hell, and it was crazy as hell to play. I also had 56k at the time, so I had a good 300 ping. I played pretty damn well at the time. I also played CS in the same situation. Most FPS I got was 6, but averaged a steady 5FPS. I didn't realize at the time that this was BAD. It seemed fine to me.

When I got a new computer I definitely felt a difference, the game played a lot slower, but it was smoother. The controls were also a lot harder to get used to, as they became more sensitive. I think this is the main factor in high framerates.. the controls definitely seem more crisp as the framerate goes up. In a game designed to work at 30FPS.. it definitely feels natural. A game designed with no real limit at all, you will definitely see a big difference as the frame rate changes.

[Xerxes]

So Iago, with motion blurs, wouldn't that be like animators? Making it seem more seemless and all you know.

[MasterEvilAce]

Well we did an experiment a wihle ago where we doubled the physics tick rate of our game from 30 - 60 and we noticed a big difference in control fidelity and visual "presence".
Now we had bogs during peak load which was unpleasant, but I was left convinced that 60fps over 30 makes a big difference with control fluidity and playability.
You beat me:P But that's what I was saying in my post.

I think for racing games, it's perfectly acceptible, because the controls can only be as responsive as they make the cars.

[Xerxes]

You beat me:P But that's what I was saying in my post.

I think for racing games, it's perfectly acceptible, because the controls can only be as responsive as they make the cars.

But that's in all games right?
Take Halo for instance, it's not a glitch FPS. If you didn't change the turn speed you could operate at a lower fps. MC even runs pretty slow. Ok well there are the vehicles, but still. Same for ghost recon.

Then you slam in a game like Unreal Tourny or Quake where you playing against other amped up twitchy characters. It's best to have a faster fps cause everything is moving at a much more frantic pace.

[RMan]

Iago explained this pretty well in his last point, except in the statement that neither technique is better. If implemented correctly (admittedly a big if), motion blur will simulate all the lost information between frames, but increasing the framerate will only supply one lost frame at 60FPS, two at 90, three at 120, and so on (assuming 30 FPS are being shown, and that the hardware would even allow it). Therefore, especially on existing video hardware, motion blur will achieve a far better overall experience since simulating it with a higher FPS with static frames would be extremely expensive and not really possible. There’s an example in NVidia’s SDK that demonstrates image based motion blur, I suggest you guys download it and check it out if you want to see how much of a difference it’ll make (and it’ll be MUCH more dramatic in a racing game, I think).

[Kelegacy]

So is motion blur going to be the racing genre's "fog"? You remember fog, right? I think games like Turok had it in abundance.

[SMES]

If implemented correctly (admittedly a big if), motion blur will simulate all the lost information between frames, but increasing the framerate will only supply one lost frame at ... There’s an example in NVidia’s SDK that demonstrates image based motion blur, I suggest you guys download it and check it out if you want to see how much of a difference it’ll make (and it’ll be MUCH more dramatic in a racing game, I think).

Yup :)

The perception of the eye and mind when it comes to what is good for animated cartoons and film is not comparable to any real time rendering (e.g. video games).

Special real time video voodoo such as Nvidia's motion blur is now becomming mainstream, and if implimented correctly as you say, it will make arguments over frames per second pointless- especially on consoles.

[SMES]

So is motion blur going to be the racing genre's "fog"? You remember fog, right? I think games like Turok had it in abundance.

Not so much fog, per say, but smoke and mirrors.

Where as fog was a blantant way to increase frame rates to acceptable level, advanced systems of motion blur will be undetectable in a game. The game will appear to run smoother with no downsides. Fog was a trade off- you lose distance of vision in favor of FPS. Motion blur is an example of one of the many modern real time rendering tools (or "tricks" if you prefer) which will just make the game better in every way.

[Kentor]

c) Animation is drawn timed at 24fps (or 30 for tv) even though only 12 unique pictures are drawn per second USUALLY. Animators do this because it's pointless to draw 24FPS for something that isn't moveing more than normal pace, in fact it's almost impossible to do the in-betweens without making the animation look shakey. But for an object or character that's moveing exceptionally fast, they do animate on every frame so that you see the motion (which appears only as a blur) correctly.That's incorrect. There are many examples of fluid hand drawn full frame annimation at 24FPS. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves being the prime example. The reason why 8 and 12 FPS annimation is prevalent is due to budget:
What we think of as Japanese animation, or anime, really didn’t take form until around the mid 1960’s, when American animation had stagnated and could not decline much further. I mentioned previously that Japanese animation traditionally used 8 cells per a second on which I will now elabourate.

Globally, the animation market had become rather grim. MGM has long since closed its cartoon studio in 1955, along with the great United Productions of America (responsible for such titles as Mister Magoo, and Gerald McBoing-Boing which was based on a story by Dr. Seuss and went on to win an Academy Award) abandoning animation in the late 1960. However, in the span of 5 years, UPA had popularized limited animation as a means to cutting animation budgets and reducing production time. The use of limited animation was so prevalent the even today many American’s associate early animation with those exceptionally rushed works.

In the 1940 ‘s to early 50’s short animation works, of 30 minutes or less, were typically created over the span of six months at 24 frames per a second. By 1960, a typical animated short was created in the space of two week with 6 to 12 frames of animation per a second reusing as many celluloid layers as possible. The major decline in animation quality was brought about by the loss of public interest after the Second World War and the popularization of broadcast television, which caused animation budgets to spiral to a mere pittance of what it once was.

The Japanese animation studio Toei was by no means a new studio by the summer of 1968, however, it was not until the release of Taiyo no Oji: Horus no Daiboken (Prince of the Sun: The Great Adventure of Horus), by Takahata Isao did Toei begin to produce animation en mass. The importance of Taiyo no Oji: Horus no Daiboken was not in its commercial success, but rather how it introduced limited animation as a viable means of producing an animated feature to the Japanese animation industry. Though Taiyo no Oji: Horus no Daiboken used 12 cells per a second as opposed to the more prevalent 24 cells per a second format, the film was well received from both an artistic and technical standpoint.

After this point, Toei and its competitors at Mushi Productions and Douga began to produce most then all of their works using limited animation. Where the use of limited animation signalled the decline of North American animation for nearly two decades, Japanese animation flourished using the same technique. This was bought about in no small way by Mushi Productions who created a mechanized limited animation system in 1963. Though the system was quite similar to those in North America, the skill employed in limited animation had reached levels exceeding those of the late 1930’s to late 1940’s.

North American studios used limited animation as the very lowest cost solution, employing very few frames, and even fewer Acetate celluloid layers. This was quite a step back from such 24 frame classics such as Disney’s 1937 feature Snow White, which had a rich visual quality due to their detailed and heavily layered scenes. Toei and Mushi Productions used their limited animation system to great success by using the older heavily layered techniques with the more recent limited animation technology. Subsequently, product costs were literally halved without the horrendous loss in quality seen the 1950’s North American works. This quality in what little cells we can afford mentality carries on today, and is one of the reasons anime has a very distinctive look.

You might recognize the Mushi Productions by its modern named adopted in 1968 – Tezuka Productions. Yes, in 1961 Mushi Productions, which was responsible for creating the limited animation system that brought about the proliferation of Japanese animation, was found founded by none other than Tezuka Osamu. The same Tezuka Osamu who literally invented the anime eye style used in just about every modern anime work, wrote and directed Jungle Taitei in 1950 (or Kimba the White Lion which Disney liberally borrowed, or perhaps stole depending on your perspective, for Lion King), similarly developed Princess Knight in 1953, and created one of the most influential animated works today: Tetsuwan Atom (AstroBoy).

d) and finally for games. the only reason 60 FPS is useful, in fact the only reason 30FPS is useful, is because of what was said earlier about each frame being a static frozen moment in time. Since there are no animators working on the realtime graphics to figure out when something is moveing exceptionally fast, the only way to have fast movement look correct is to show many many FPS constantly.60FPS is actually insufficient for motion blur for the most part. The typical response time of cones in the green range is under 10ms, and just slightly over for other ranges. Also, quite a few game companies are working on procedural techniques of automatically introducing motion blur into scenes, so I don't see how your comment on no one working on realtime motion blur applies.

[trip1eX]

What's funny is the PGR guys say they are working to get the fps to 60, but at the same time they try to say that 'motion blur tech' will make it so you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60.

So what w(hy)tf are they working on getting the game to 60 for then?

If the motion blur stuff worked that great they wouldn't be doing it.

[Xerxes]

bragging right...

[RMan]

So what w(hy)tf are they working on getting the game to 60 for then?
An excellent question. Perhaps they just want to make sure it runs fast enough so they don't get inconsistent rates and drop below 30 with a lot of action.

[Achilles]

Agreed. 15fps is even acceptable to someone with an untrained eye.I can guarantee you that you will not only notice but you’ll get a head ache and motion sickness, it may even make your eyes bleed. Anything under 30 gets jitter and frame tearing on a TV because it’ll be out of synch.

[mister_slim]

Is Ben Ward related to Alex Ward? Maybe Wards are genetically predisposed towards making racing games.

Anyway, I would prefer all games run at 60 fps. Obviously, with nice motion blur that's not necessary, but it's still preferable. I certainly wouldn't want to play Ninja Gaiden at 30 fps.

[The Iron Weasel]

I liked PGR2 i want PGR3. Do i care what the fps is? No as long as it doesn't drop a whole lot, and its smooth, PGR2 ran at 30 and i didn't give a shit, so i wont here either, i mean it'll look amazing right and has lots of spectators in 3D. Anyway they had me at announcement.

[IagoTheHunted]

60FPS is actually insufficient for motion blur for the most part. The typical response time of cones in the green range is under 10ms, and just slightly over for other ranges. Also, quite a few game companies are working on procedural techniques of automatically introducing motion blur into scenes, so I don't see how your comment on no one working on realtime motion blur applies.

Response time of cones doesn't disqualify the effect of motion blur. In many motion blur simulations only two or three inbetween frames are rendered on top of each other and then played back at 24-30 FPS. That's in the range of 60FPS visually, and its enough for your brain to figure it out, which is what matters. I never said it was true motion blur, I was just saying that your brain doesn't pick out individual frames when they're flying by at 30 or 60 FPS, the advantage to thoes framerates is in having the added visual cues in times of fast movement.
And I didn't say "no one's working on realtime motion blur" because I don't know what thats supposed to mean. You mean nobodys doing motion blur at 60FPS? Who knows I'm sure someones trying it, but it's silly, even the most highly trained FX specialist would be hard pressed to see blurring between frames moving that fast. The only usefull scenario would be if something flew by your field of vision within 1/60th of a second... then motionblur would help... but if that happens alot I'd say you have a pretty epileptic game.

[IagoTheHunted]

So Iago, with motion blurs, wouldn't that be like animators? Making it seem more seemless and all you know.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but yes the idea with motion blur is to make things seem more seamless visually reguarding motion. Figure if anti-aliasing makes the seams between objects seem more realistic, motion-blur does the same thing with motion (thats the best metaphore i can think of at the moment, sorry).

[Kentor]

And I didn't say "no one's working on realtime motion blur" because I don't know what thats supposed to mean. You mean nobodys doing motion blur at 60FPS? Who knows I'm sure someones trying it, but it's silly, even the most highly trained FX specialist would be hard pressed to see blurring between frames moving that fast. The only usefull scenario would be if something flew by your field of vision within 1/60th of a second... then motionblur would help... but if that happens alot I'd say you have a pretty epileptic game.
You haven't played many fighting games or Q3A have you?