Proof that motion blur isn't a gimmick

[kjcheezhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by jpdavis82

Pro-Tak was a gimmick, fight for the fumble was a gimmick, motion blur and having to know when a wr is looking is not a gimmick. What about all the gimmicks other sports games have? I don't even want to go there.

The key point is that you don't have to know when a wr is looking as long as you user catch.

All games have gimmicks. FPS games point out how you can shoot various objects like cans and bottles, etc. That still doesn't change the fact that that they are gimmicks.

[jpdavis82]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jaaa

And here I thought I was the only one taking crazy pills. Excellent articulation of what I've been trying say. LOL. The dude just gave you the actual definition of gimmick, and explained why every part of the definition described motion blur to a tee. He literally spelled out for you why motion blur is nothing more than a gimmick. And you're still denying it. Unbelievable. Look, I'm not saying it's a bad gimmick, or something I don't want. But you're being intellectually dishonest if you're trying to dress motion blur up as something more than a gimmick.

Technically EA is not really marketing motion blur, in fact if you didn't use the forums and never watched the webcast you wouldn't even know about it.

I mean EA is REALLY marketing it on their website

"The motion blur increase and decrease is often unnoticeable when the game is in motion. It just looks right."

That is the only line that talks about motion blur in the whole presentation blog. They are definitely not marketing it as a new feature, it's almost like what nba2k12 did when they mentioned that the mascots shoot t shirts into the stands, they mentioned it they didn't make it a huge deal and some people probably have never noticed it, so was that a gimmick or was that just a part of the game to add realism, there is NO difference.

[jpdavis82]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

Having the cameras behave like real cameras seems like an important part of a game striving to mimic a television broadcast. Maybe that's just me.

It's definitely not just you, I think it is a great addition.

[mrprice33]

It's like accurate camera placement and having nantz and sims in the right spots in the booth. It's an important detail for broadcast authenticity. Not something that will revolutionize the game on the field, but if you want the game to look like it does on tv, you should have some kind of blur and depth of field.

By some of the arguments in this thread, most of the things people gush about in various "little things" threads on these boards would be classified as gimmicks.

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by kjcheezhead

"In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use."

Quote: Originally Posted by Jaaa

LOL. The dude just gave you the actual definition of gimmick, and explained why every part of the definition described motion blur to a tee. He literally spelled out for you why motion blur is nothing more than a gimmick. And you're still denying it. Unbelievable. Look, I'm not saying it's a bad gimmick, or something I don't want. But you're being intellectually dishonest if you're trying to dress motion blur up as something more than a gimmick.

A feature is a prominent or conspicuous part or characteristic.

Motion blur isn't a big enough addition to be considered a feature. They're not selling it as a huge addition either.

So a gimmick is a feature.
A feature is something prominent and easily noticeable.
Motion blur is not prominent nor easily noticeable.
Therefore, motion blur is not a gimmick.

[jpdavis82]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jaaa

And here I thought I was the only one taking crazy pills. Excellent articulation of what I've been trying say. LOL. The dude just gave you the actual definition of gimmick, and explained why every part of the definition described motion blur to a tee. He literally spelled out for you why motion blur is nothing more than a gimmick. And you're still denying it. Unbelievable. Look, I'm not saying it's a bad gimmick, or something I don't want. But you're being intellectually dishonest if you're trying to dress motion blur up as something more than a gimmick.

I will give you credit for not sitting here saying EA shouldn't be focusing on things like motion blur and should be focusing more on gameplay. Those people are very uneducated when it comes to how the game is being developed. You have a guy like Jean Adams who does nothing but the art in the game and you have a guy like Larry Richart doing nothing but gameplay. So Jean Adams may have added motion blur and have nothing to do with anything to do with gameplay, nor would we want him to, but yet he and the presentation crew get the blame for there not being more things improved in gameplay. It's just ignorant.

[wallofhate]

Why do people constantly always use the "they need to focus more on gameply" saying. Im assuming most of us have jobs those jobs consist of people with certain knowledge or expertise on certain aspects of that job put those different aspects together u create and get the end result of doing the task at hand. Theh have gameplay people they have art people they have advertisement people they have all types of people who dont necessarily do or know the other aspect of the business they work for. And all get allotted a certain amount of time and man power to do their job. That being said lets just wait for the final product before we get our panties in a bunch fellas

[johnnyg713]

So people cry because Madden has horrible running animations and EA doesn't fix them. EA specifically puts in motion blur to make running animations look more realistic and people cry they put in motion blur.