"It does it dynamically by using the crosshair to determine the focal point by using the nearest object it overlaps, not counting grass or foliage(usually). If you want to focus on something else, move the crosshair."
THAT IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL! >:9
It really doesn't bother me so much, but... IDK, I think thats kinda the point where realism is no longer benefiting the game. I don't particularly enjoy realism. I think the point of having good graphical effects should be to communicate what things are. and sometimes realism gets in the way of that. Some 64 games have visuals that perform their job better than some of the effect happy games you see today. Actually, I think the cup has to go to some of the NES/SNES sprites, because they had to work in such small constraints. I feel sometimes today, people just get too focused on how real it looks, or even the graphic technology. Like, people ragging on games for not having a cast shadow, or not having enough particle effects or whatever.
Unless its being used to bring some sort of gameplay depth by making it harder to see, that's good too. For instance, it would actually be kinda cool to have an exaggerated depth of field for like a survival horror game though :o
I'm kinda half asleep, so this rant was probably very non-sequetor :U
That was the full scene blur during reloads. Something they adopted from Black. Quite a charming feature. --- 2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
I really liked the full screen blur during reloads. I wish it was in the online, because it may be a little disadvantageous but I thought it made the game look better. --- no wonder fox's father died... dumbass was wearing shades in space - gameheadache