I'm not sure what you are referring to about skipping halfway through a transition, but a sinusoidal transition is almost always what you want anyway. Possibly a power distribution, one. That is, it should not just evenly slide from point A to B. You want some acceleration.
Acceleration is important, but the “pop” that they wanted was probably some form of the “squash and stretch” effect that we all subconsciously associate with good quality animation[1].
The conflict is that in the real world, people have momentum. They take a bit of time to change their velocities. In video games, we are accustomed to sprites that can instantly change velocity and sometimes go from motionless to moving significant distances in a single frame.
The publisher wanted both simultaneously. They wanted the human player character to instantly change direction in response to controls. But, they also wanted the character to move like a semi-realistic human who has momentum and takes a while to change directions instead of like a sprite that instantly changes direction. :/
Why is it "curious"? It's a direct consequence of attempting to emulate how non-rigid bodies (including people) move in the real world.
For a contrast of what happens when there's no squash and stretch in animation, take a look at pretty much everything ever made by Hanna-Barbera before 1990. Everything remains almost pathologically on-model all the time to reduce animation costs.
Apologies for missing this. I took the claim to mean not just animated movies, but animations of our devices. I am specifically remembering the silly animation that ubuntu used to have where a window would shimmer and shake as you moved it around. Or how it will "pop" onto the corner of the screen.
Windows that are flimsy are just annoying to me, which is why I would find the view that they are quality curious.
More realistic animation is typically described as more realistic. Not "popping and snappy."
