we as gamers have been playing games in which the player is 'moving' in the game for around 20 years or so when in fact the real person is not moving, why is this now a deal breaker
and by the way every VR demo that I have played in which I move by keyboard but I phyiscally do not move was fine and it was a great experience.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
we as gamers have been playing games in which the player is 'moving' in the game for around 20 years or so when in fact the real person is not moving, why is this now a deal breaker
Because people expect it due to immersion.. just like how people actually try to lean on VR objects and so on... The brain is actually really stupid in that way.
It can be built around by providing a logical reason to be stationary or non-walking. It is also ofc just a matter of "getting used to" but seeing how a non-game manage such simple things as FPS controlls (not to mention vehicle controls like tanks) i think we simply stick with the teleportation for now. =D
Well I'm sure something similar could have been said for motion controls and that didn't stop the Wii from taking off. Right now it's the price and the lack of a genre defining game that will keep VR from being mainstream.
we as gamers have been playing games in which the player is 'moving' in the game for around 20 years or so when in fact the real person is not moving, why is this now a deal breaker
Because people expect it due to immersion.. just like how people actually try to lean on VR objects and so on... The brain is actually really stupid in that way.
It can be built around by providing a logical reason to be stationary or non-walking. It is also ofc just a matter of "getting used to" but seeing how a non-game manage such simple things as FPS controlls (not to mention vehicle controls like tanks) i think we simply stick with the teleportation for now. =D
I am saying
I have tried VR demos in which the player moves but I do not
It was still an enchanced playing experience from the same thing done on a monitor and it was not a problem in anyway. Would it be better if I was moving in a car or mech like thing instead? sure, deal breaker? not even close
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
XBox will be left looking like the consolation prize of consoles, the one you buy when you can't afford the best, etc. They're already lagging behind PS4 as it is, that kind of "loss of face" could damage their brand beyond repair.
I'd not be surprised if the XBox execs are all developing ulcers at the moment. About all they can do at this point would be to partner-up with Oculus, Vive or Samsung, and I'm quite sure that all those options must be about as attractive as ritual suicide in public.
... They've planned to open up Xbox as a service now......
wait what? very cool.
I heard someone say this is what Microsoft needs to do about 3 years ago, I agree and I have been predicting that they would actually do it to. do you have some details on this?
Just MS up to their usual tricks, lol
They can't win the console wars, so they will attempt to leverage their domination of the OS market (Windows 10) to do an end-run around both PS4 AND Steam !
Soon you'll be able to just subscribe to XBox-Live and play the games directly on your PC without even owning a console...
Thats a good thing. The whole console thing needs to pass. Consoles were great when the average person didn't have the time, money and knowledge of PCs and their hardware to play games on their computer, but that age has long past.
It has to be said, if MS actually pulls it off with UWP and Win10, then it doesn't really matter that the XB1 didn't sell that well, because the numbers of Win10 machines is in the hundreds of millions, rather than just the 40 million that the PS4 has sold, and since the XB1 is still pretty much costing MS money with every sale, such as they are, the potential earnings from making the PC in effect, their 'new' console, is to say the least, huge, if that possibility isn't at least in part the reason why Sony is going to be releasing a more powerful version of the PS4, then i would be very much surprised, that MS is already lining up 'exclusives' for Win10 using UWP is a flare lit tip off for sure. O.o
I have zero interest in VR. I just do not see the appeal and I think they're making a huge mistake by putting so much money into developing all these headsets and making games compatible with it.
I get it that you don't like it, but I'm surprised you can't see the appeal. People being able to interact in a VR setting. I can easily see the appeal.
I have tried VR demos in which the player moves but I do not
It was still an enchanced playing experience from the same thing done on a monitor and it was not a problem in anyway. Would it be better if I was moving in a car or mech like thing instead? sure, deal breaker? not even close
For what it is worth i agree....
But i am not an average gamer and have adjusted to many weird and odd rules. I have heard many cite not being able to move around when expecting too a major let-down. People are people i guess.
I have tried VR demos in which the player moves but I do not
It was still an enchanced playing experience from the same thing done on a monitor and it was not a problem in anyway. Would it be better if I was moving in a car or mech like thing instead? sure, deal breaker? not even close
For what it is worth i agree....
But i am not an average gamer and have adjusted to many weird and odd rules. I have heard many cite not being able to move around when expecting too a major let-down. People are people i guess.
I think for anyone who has played FPS games fairly regularly the experience is intuitive enough. at least that is my feeling
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Most the VR stuff is crap. Job simulator for example. Fun to mess around in for 5 minutes but other than that it doesn't serve much purpose. Some jumpers could be fun I guess. There should be enough interest out there to make a profit I would think.
Watching a 3D movie on a VR headset has nothing to do with VR, that's simply a "better" way to watch 3D content, but by no means a revolution.
Most critics that claim "VR is just strapping a 3D TV to your face" fundamentally don't understand what VR is all about.
When you watch a 3D movie, you are a passive consumer of the product. You cannot influence the action in any way, neither can you change the camera viewing angle, direction or distance. The only difference between a 3D movie and the regular version is depth of field. That's why 3D TV failed to make any big splash.
Anyone that was an active gamer in the 90's before "3D games" were a thing, might be able to grasp the idea of VR more easily. Remember when games were played with isometric fixed-camera views ? You observed the world from above, you were never in the thick of it at ground level. Remember when Doom, Descent and Castle Wolfenstein came along and suddenly you were IN the game world ? Pixelated heaven, it was awesome !
VR gaming is like that transition from isometric gaming to 3D first-person-view gaming.
Watching a 3D movie on a VR headset has nothing to do with VR, that's simply a "better" way to watch 3D content, but by no means a revolution.
Most critics that claim "VR is just strapping a 3D TV to your face" fundamentally don't understand what VR is all about.
When you watch a 3D movie, you are a passive consumer of the product. You cannot influence the action in any way, neither can you change the camera viewing angle, direction or distance. The only difference between a 3D movie and the regular version is depth of field. That's why 3D TV failed to make any big splash.
Anyone that was an active gamer in the 90's before "3D games" were a thing, might be able to grasp the idea of VR more easily. Remember when games were played with isometric fixed-camera views ? You observed the world from above, you were never in the thick of it at ground level. Remember when Doom, Descent and Castle Wolfenstein came along and suddenly you were IN the game world ? Pixelated heaven, it was awesome !
VR gaming is like that transition from isometric gaming to 3D first-person-view gaming.
yes.
and on that last point John Carmack had similar ways of expressing the impact of VR.
I do think that VR for watching non-interactive movie content will also have a large impact but yeah, not as much as the whole 6 degrees of freedom and interactive with the environment part will have.
From the film side it just allows me to have what would normally be a $6000 mega huge screen taking up an entire room but in my backpack and costing around $600 instead
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I got to try this game below in VR and let me tell you I am now a believer...there is sooooo much immersion and potential for VR games aside from the rinky dink games coming out now. Give it time and we will see more serious looking games like The SoulKeeper VR and thats only first generation, imagine in 5 - 10 years what we will have available content wise.
What you didn't see in that game was -- movement. In many games like this you can't just walk around.. and it ends up killing immersion quite a bit. The Vive is better than other systems with moving around a room, but chances are this runs on either a controller... or a "blink" system.
Yeah you're right, VIVE is better for that now and it had to use movement tricks due to limited space for the towers with room scale movement.
I was able to play it and they had a space to walk around in using the towers, limited but it helped alot being able to move just for the combat alone when needed.
Other than that movement over long distances was via blink or teleporting to a location although the devs said they are on the fence about just using the controllers touch pads much like joysticks. Oh and they are getting their virtuix omni in sometime next week to start making The SoulKeeper have access to virtuix omni movement. IMO I will probably play via blink or touch pad on controllers despite some movement since I am one of those lazy gamers lol.
Even then without having 1 for 1 body movement it is still an entirely new way to experience our beloved games, as one of the posters above alluded to, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but its almost like going from 2D to 3D and getting to play 1st person in game for the first time vs the old school side scrollers or isometric top level views.
I for one welcome our VR overlords...although hopefully at a cheaper price in a year or two lol.
I for one welcome our VR overlords...although hopefully at a cheaper price in a year or two lol.
Cheaper, lighter, simpler and with higher fidelity.
Each new iteration will be better. Even if ALL the current VR offerings fail, it will all be back in 3 or 4 years from now with much better tech. It's simply THAT compelling.
I have tried VR demos in which the player moves but I do not
It was still an enchanced playing experience from the same thing done on a monitor and it was not a problem in anyway. Would it be better if I was moving in a car or mech like thing instead? sure, deal breaker? not even close
For what it is worth i agree....
But i am not an average gamer and have adjusted to many weird and odd rules. I have heard many cite not being able to move around when expecting too a major let-down. People are people i guess.
I think for anyone who has played FPS games fairly regularly the experience is intuitive enough. at least that is my feeling
It isn't going to be a game breaker.. it's going to be an immersion breaker.
The point of VR is to bring you into a world where you can walk around and see whatever you want. The Wii did it differently -- the wiimotes allowed for overly simplistic controls.. body motion and the like didn't really matter, swinging the controller in the right way did. Positioning is supposed to mean more for VR.
True movement isn't something VR is capable of right now. Again the Vive is the best shot at this and it's also the least popular and most expensive. Next in line will be whatever Hololens comes out with and probably where most of these virtualrealistic games may come into play.
Even though the Vive does have a passthrough camera, it isn't built for AR and won't be able to run anything in true motion, but the passthrough is a good idea for people that want a more mobile VR experience.
Watching a 3D movie on a VR headset has nothing to do with VR, that's simply a "better" way to watch 3D content, but by no means a revolution.
Most critics that claim "VR is just strapping a 3D TV to your face" fundamentally don't understand what VR is all about.
When you watch a 3D movie, you are a passive consumer of the product. You cannot influence the action in any way, neither can you change the camera viewing angle, direction or distance. The only difference between a 3D movie and the regular version is depth of field. That's why 3D TV failed to make any big splash.
Anyone that was an active gamer in the 90's before "3D games" were a thing, might be able to grasp the idea of VR more easily. Remember when games were played with isometric fixed-camera views ? You observed the world from above, you were never in the thick of it at ground level. Remember when Doom, Descent and Castle Wolfenstein came along and suddenly you were IN the game world ? Pixelated heaven, it was awesome !
VR gaming is like that transition from isometric gaming to 3D first-person-view gaming.
To be honest though, it really isn't much more than strapping a 3D TV to your face -- at least in many of the current cases of VR.
For example... the current Demo that you'll find at most places that allow you to test VR. Aside from turning around and viewing what's behind or above you.. it still is COMPLETELY passive. You're stuck at a single point for a narrative.. even if you can swivel.
Think of it like an MMO world where you have a monitor stuck to your head, and the camera view is attached to your position. It would be indestinguishable from what VR is in every single one of those demo instances.
The monitor is on your head and you turn around... at the same time the mouse pans around with you.. you're now looking behind your character. You look up and at the exact same time the mouse look pans up and you're looking above you. There is no magic that makes this happen.. which is why cell phones can run 80% of the content thats on the VR market today.
Gaming isn't changing as much as people are claiming.. it's really just the perception of how they're playing.
Think about VR rides in theme parks... When I was a young kid, they had the Back to the Future ride at Universal. I loved that ride.. you got into a car and you had screens around you.. you could look out the windows of the delorean and no matter which way you could look, you were in a different world. The car movements, the sounds.. all truly immersive... and that was decades ago -- and would be exactly the same kind of similar - on rails narrative VR experience as you get today. Perception wise it was a thrill ride.. but it was only so because I experienced it sparingly.
It loses its luster after you've experienced it more than once.
I have tried VR demos in which the player moves but I do not
It was still an enchanced playing experience from the same thing done on a monitor and it was not a problem in anyway. Would it be better if I was moving in a car or mech like thing instead? sure, deal breaker? not even close
For what it is worth i agree....
But i am not an average gamer and have adjusted to many weird and odd rules. I have heard many cite not being able to move around when expecting too a major let-down. People are people i guess.
I think for anyone who has played FPS games fairly regularly the experience is intuitive enough. at least that is my feeling
It isn't going to be a game breaker.. it's going to be an immersion breaker.
I state again.
The first VR experience I had was where my character moved but I didnt and it was INSTANSTLY instinctive and I didnt even think about. AND the VR experience enchanced my overall gaming experience to what it would have been otherwise.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
and by the way every VR demo that I have played in which I move by keyboard but I phyiscally do not move was fine and it was a great experience.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It can be built around by providing a logical reason to be stationary or non-walking. It is also ofc just a matter of "getting used to" but seeing how a non-game manage such simple things as FPS controlls (not to mention vehicle controls like tanks) i think we simply stick with the teleportation for now. =D
This have been a good conversation
I have tried VR demos in which the player moves but I do not
It was still an enchanced playing experience from the same thing done on a monitor and it was not a problem in anyway. Would it be better if I was moving in a car or mech like thing instead? sure, deal breaker? not even close
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I self identify as a monkey.
50% probably don't know who the president is.
I self identify as a monkey.
But i am not an average gamer and have adjusted to many weird and odd rules. I have heard many cite not being able to move around when expecting too a major let-down. People are people i guess.
This have been a good conversation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Brookhaven for an example is a nice example of VR that is... well.. a very simplistic "game"
This have been a good conversation
Most critics that claim "VR is just strapping a 3D TV to your face" fundamentally don't understand what VR is all about.
When you watch a 3D movie, you are a passive consumer of the product. You cannot influence the action in any way, neither can you change the camera viewing angle, direction or distance. The only difference between a 3D movie and the regular version is depth of field. That's why 3D TV failed to make any big splash.
Anyone that was an active gamer in the 90's before "3D games" were a thing, might be able to grasp the idea of VR more easily. Remember when games were played with isometric fixed-camera views ? You observed the world from above, you were never in the thick of it at ground level. Remember when Doom, Descent and Castle Wolfenstein came along and suddenly you were IN the game world ? Pixelated heaven, it was awesome !
VR gaming is like that transition from isometric gaming to 3D first-person-view gaming.
and on that last point John Carmack had similar ways of expressing the impact of VR.
I do think that VR for watching non-interactive movie content will also have a large impact but yeah, not as much as the whole 6 degrees of freedom and interactive with the environment part will have.
From the film side it just allows me to have what would normally be a $6000 mega huge screen taking up an entire room but in my backpack and costing around $600 instead
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yeah you're right, VIVE is better for that now and it had to use movement tricks due to limited space for the towers with room scale movement.
I was able to play it and they had a space to walk around in using the towers, limited but it helped alot being able to move just for the combat alone when needed.
Other than that movement over long distances was via blink or teleporting to a location although the devs said they are on the fence about just using the controllers touch pads much like joysticks. Oh and they are getting their virtuix omni in sometime next week to start making The SoulKeeper have access to virtuix omni movement. IMO I will probably play via blink or touch pad on controllers despite some movement since I am one of those lazy gamers lol.
Even then without having 1 for 1 body movement it is still an entirely new way to experience our beloved games, as one of the posters above alluded to, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but its almost like going from 2D to 3D and getting to play 1st person in game for the first time vs the old school side scrollers or isometric top level views.
I for one welcome our VR overlords...although hopefully at a cheaper price in a year or two lol.
Each new iteration will be better. Even if ALL the current VR offerings fail, it will all be back in 3 or 4 years from now with much better tech. It's simply THAT compelling.
The point of VR is to bring you into a world where you can walk around and see whatever you want. The Wii did it differently -- the wiimotes allowed for overly simplistic controls.. body motion and the like didn't really matter, swinging the controller in the right way did. Positioning is supposed to mean more for VR.
True movement isn't something VR is capable of right now. Again the Vive is the best shot at this and it's also the least popular and most expensive. Next in line will be whatever Hololens comes out with and probably where most of these virtualrealistic games may come into play.
Even though the Vive does have a passthrough camera, it isn't built for AR and won't be able to run anything in true motion, but the passthrough is a good idea for people that want a more mobile VR experience.
For example... the current Demo that you'll find at most places that allow you to test VR. Aside from turning around and viewing what's behind or above you.. it still is COMPLETELY passive. You're stuck at a single point for a narrative.. even if you can swivel.
Think of it like an MMO world where you have a monitor stuck to your head, and the camera view is attached to your position. It would be indestinguishable from what VR is in every single one of those demo instances.
The monitor is on your head and you turn around... at the same time the mouse pans around with you.. you're now looking behind your character. You look up and at the exact same time the mouse look pans up and you're looking above you. There is no magic that makes this happen.. which is why cell phones can run 80% of the content thats on the VR market today.
Gaming isn't changing as much as people are claiming.. it's really just the perception of how they're playing.
Think about VR rides in theme parks... When I was a young kid, they had the Back to the Future ride at Universal. I loved that ride.. you got into a car and you had screens around you.. you could look out the windows of the delorean and no matter which way you could look, you were in a different world. The car movements, the sounds.. all truly immersive... and that was decades ago -- and would be exactly the same kind of similar - on rails narrative VR experience as you get today. Perception wise it was a thrill ride.. but it was only so because I experienced it sparingly.
It loses its luster after you've experienced it more than once.
this link article likely represents more gamers then there re PS4 consoles
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I state again.
The first VR experience I had was where my character moved but I didnt and it was INSTANSTLY instinctive and I didnt even think about. AND the VR experience enchanced my overall gaming experience to what it would have been otherwise.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me