E3 Was Secretly Terrible For The Future Of Virtual Reality

Dayaks said:
This thread is hilarious.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of fervent hating from people who have never tried the new devices. When someone who actually owns or has at least tried a Rift or Vive chimes in, they get trolled by the not so [H] juvenile members of the community. [H] at its worst. Where is that Michael Jackson popcorn gif when you need it?
 
"You first need to experience VR mini-golf to appreciate just how revolutionary and mind-blowing it truly is! Here, check out this YouTube video where grandma absolutely flips her shit at the realism in VR archery!"

I agree with the first post in this thread. Wake me up when we get MechWarrior, Gran Tursimo and Wing Commander VR titles instead of Wii mini-games with Superman64 levels of draw distance fog and half-baked motion control gimmicks.
 
crusty_juggler said:
"You first need to experience VR mini-golf to appreciate just how revolutionary and mind-blowing it truly is! Here, check out this YouTube video where grandma absolutely flips her shit at the realism in VR archery!"

I agree with the first post in this thread. Wake me up when we get MechWarrior, Gran Tursimo and Wing Commander VR titles instead of Wii mini-games with Superman64 levels of draw distance fog and half-baked motion control gimmicks.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but Chronos and Edge of Nowhere look pretty damn good to me...



 
TheSmJ said:
I don't know about you, but Chronos and Edge of Nowhere look pretty damn good to me...



Click to expand...




Yea, but what will those games look when using the VR? These are 3rd person views they are showing....I don't want to wear the VR contraption for a 3rd person view...
 
TheSmJ said:
I don't know about you, but Chronos and Edge of Nowhere look pretty damn good to me...



Click to expand...
It's the flat textures and draw distance fog in those games that turns me off. It seems as though we're going backwards when it comes to image fidelity in VR. I could never see myself spending the money on such a costly piece of display technology only to play games with Playstation 2 textures and 1990's levels of framerate-saving trickery. I do understand that these things are necessary due to VR's need for a locked 90+ FPS framerate and the relatively high resolution of their panels, though.

A consumer could either spend their money on a 1440p monitor and a nice GPU to play all his games, or spend that money on a VR rig and play a handful of low detail Indie games with funky motion controls. The latter just doesn't seem very [H]ard to me.
 
azuza001 said:
Said it before, say it again. They should start with flight Sims and racing Sims for vr before moving into motion controls for interacting with 3d world's. Xwing vs Tie Fighter VR for the win .
Click to expand...
They should start with straight cortex recording with semi legal squids before moving into motion controls for 3d worlds. Strange Days for the win!


strange-days.png
 
Just think, with the advancements in direct-to-brain interfaces VR will surely bring, soon we''ll see mnemonic couriers with over 80 GBs of neural storage.

The only issue I see is the related growth of the cyber Yakuza should such technology take hold.

FIEqdxI.jpg
 
TheSmJ said:
You say that like these options are mutually exclusive when they are in fact both the same rig.
Click to expand...
True. But for those that don't have the money to purchase both a sweet monitor and the VR headset, which one would they choose?
 
crusty_juggler said:
A consumer could either spend their money on a 1440p monitor and a nice GPU to play all his games, or spend that money on a VR rig and play a handful of low detail Indie games with funky motion controls. The latter just doesn't seem very [H]ard to me.
Click to expand...

It's presence, not pixels, that we're going for here. As long as the visuals are immersive enough to provide a sense of presence, it doesn't matter at all that they aren't photorealistic. Most people play games, in part, to satisfy escapist urges, and this is the main reason why these sorts of games can still be successful despite not providing photorealistic imagery. If you are playing a game to go to a place that is not the real world, it doesn't matter that the virtual world does not look like the real one as long as it's good enough to make you feel you are actually there.

If I want to go on a crazy adventure, I'd rather be taken to another world where the visuals are crazy. Sitting in your home looking at photorealistic graphics on a screen is a completely different thing from putting on your headset and going to a crazy world.
 
crusty_juggler said:
True. But for those that don't have the money to purchase both a sweet monitor and the VR headset, which one would they choose?
Click to expand...

Probably the monitor (which they should), and then go into the VR threads and bitch about how bad VR is since they cannot afford both and envy those that has one. :p

That said, VR today is mostly tech demos, with very few full games. Playing games that are not made for VR are in general a pain in the butt and much more playable on a regular monitor. Even with the Virtual Desktop app and other methods. A VR setup isn´t anything I would recommend instead of a traditional monitor, but in addition to one.

When a game is made properly for VR, its a whole new gaming experience. The immersion is in another league compared to gaming infront of a monitor. As CEEPeep mentioned, its all about presence. You spend much longer time in the enviroment compared to gaming on a monitor. On a monitor, you are simply looking at a screen showing an enviroment wondering if there is anything you can do there or move on, while in VR you feel you are standing in the enviroment sucking it all in, being amazed over even the smallest thing. A low resolution indie title can be more interesting then a high resolution AAA title due to the level of immersion and presence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top