• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Given the choice, would you rather play most 3rd person games on a screen or through VR headset?

Given the choice, would you rather play most 3rd person games on a screen or through VR headset?

  • Screen

    Votes: 51 71.8%
  • VR headset

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .
Seeing as how I can get motion sickness just from playing certain games on a regular screen, I'm not interested in trying to suffer through the nausea with vr.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
Screen. Both fast pace third person games like Bayonetta, NieR and Kingdom Hearts or slower ones like DQXI, VC4 and P5, VR just seems pointless for those type of games. But that’s just me.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
If the combat is worth a darn, screen.

But if the focus is eye-popping exploration, a VR headset. Even for 3rd person games it really adds to the experience. Wayward Sky -- not that great of a game, to be honest -- on PSVR convinced me that VR isn't just for games where the player himself is the avatar.

Since I worry much more about the former issue and not the latter, I voted for screen.
 

BANGS

Banned
But if the focus is eye-popping exploration, a VR headset. Even for 3rd person games it really adds to the experience.
Care to explain how this works for you? Like, what details and such can you see in VR that you can't see in a screen? I'm interested in where this notion comes from with certain people...
 
People without VR will obviously vote for screen except in very rare circumstances where they have tried a 3rd person game in VR.
 

BANGS

Banned
People with VR will obviously vote for screen except in very rare circumstances where they haven't tried a 3rd person game on screen...
FTFY....

JK, but why would you assume just because people tried VR that they would automatically find it superior? Are you really that much of a delusional fanboy? That'd be like if I said all xbox fans only like xbox because they haven't tried playstation... just pure stupidity...
 
Last edited:
Care to explain how this works for you? Like, what details and such can you see in VR that you can't see in a screen? I'm interested in where this notion comes from with certain people...
You always respond to more sensory data. That's how the human brain works. Which is why they'd be happy receiving more sensory information via VR, because it becomes more engrossing. This in turn can elevate emotions and create new emotions in the player.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Care to explain how this works for you? Like, what details and such can you see in VR that you can't see in a screen? I'm interested in where this notion comes from with certain people...
I'll stick with the example of Wayward Sky to explain:

The gameplay itself is boilerplate point-and-click where you tell the character where to go. But seeing it from an actual "bird's eye view" where you can move your head and look around gave me a feeling of playing with LEGOs on a table like when I was a kid. The Astrobot platformer (the older one, not the new standalone) felt the same way. There was a more recent game called Claybook that gave the same uncanny feeling of playing on a table.

If the game was Wonderful 101 or Shinobi or any other serious action game, the VR would be too distracting. But if the game's aim is eyecandy, the VR adds a lot.
 
IF VR reaches a point where I don't get intense nausea than I would say VR but as it stands now I would take a screen 100% of the time.
 

Pantz

Gold Member
Prefer a screen because 4K is too nice these days and VR isn't powerful enough yet. It would be great to have both options though since the experience will be different in VR. For some games I might pick one or the other ways to play through first.
 

BANGS

Banned
You always respond to more sensory data. That's how the human brain works. Which is why they'd be happy receiving more sensory information via VR, because it becomes more engrossing. This in turn can elevate emotions and create new emotions in the player.
VR doesn't add any sensory data to a 3rd person game...

The gameplay itself is boilerplate point-and-click where you tell the character where to go. But seeing it from an actual "bird's eye view" where you can move your head and look around gave me a feeling of playing with LEGOs on a table like when I was a kid. The Astrobot platformer (the older one, not the new standalone) felt the same way. There was a more recent game called Claybook that gave the same uncanny feeling of playing on a table.
I'm not gonna pretend I understand, but I appreciate the attempt, thanks brother...
 
VR doesn't add any sensory data to a 3rd person game....
If we replaced our eyes with a 2D camera, you'd certainly have a huge change in sensory data. (humans would have gone extinct) The same is obviously true for VR, minus the fact that it's lower specced compared to our eye.
 
Last edited:

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Most 3rd person games are made for a screen so, that. For now. Like, duh. But they could make 3rd person games that actually use VR for gameplay purposes too. Like, maybe the character is in front of you but you manipulate his/her arms 1:1 to aim at enemies or interact with objects and the environment. Like say, Wii Sports Resort sword fighting (or ugh, the various controls in Skyward Sword) but, obviously, better, fully working, 1:1, no mishaps. It could work, I dunno. But then if it doesn't then most VR games would go first person anyway and I'd rather play those than cling to the past, lol. And of course when better sets come along VR could allow you to play old school games in gigantic screens without IQ problems so there's that as well, when you're playing alone that is. We'll see.
 
Last edited:

BANGS

Banned
If we replaced our eyes with a 2D camera, you'd certainly have a huge change in sensory data. (humans would have gone extinct) The same is obviously true for VR, minus the fact that it's lower specced compared to our eye.
No it's not... please stop trolling with your VR evangelism...
 

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Fighting games could be cool in VR, feeling as if you're watching a fight with full scale fighters and everything or like in a diorama right in front of you. Dunno if that could translate to games where the character moves through an environment like Bayonetta that others suggested though. Maybe if it gave you the impression you're watching things from some magical drone thing it wouldn't cause disorientation? No idea if that can be solved. Like if you're playing something like Tomb Raider (or whatever with the camera normally focused on the character) in VR, does Lara's forward movement disorient you while your head movement is looking around the environment instead of focus on her or does it grow to be natural after a while like you're manipulating a camera on a drone set to follow her? Dunno.
 
Last edited:

TheSHEEEP

Gold Member
The great coming of VR has been "promised" many times, and yet here we are, with it being a niche and not significantly growing. Since about 10 years now, big names jumping on the bandwagon (well, more of a horse cart, really) changed nothing.
There are so many things wrong with the concept itself... it can never replace a simple screen + keyboard&mouse/controller setup.

VR is a gimmick. Nothing more, nothing less. Fun for the novelty factor, which wears off quickly.
It has always been, will always be.

Not a single great game has come out for VR (exclusive, I mean) that was more than a mediocre game at best. Strip the perspective away from VR games, put them on a normal screen, and nobody would bother even trying them out, that's how mediocre they are.
Like Wii, in a way. Best games on there are those that do not make use of gimmicky controls and are just good games. Which a VR device is not needed for -> gimmick.
 
Last edited:

BANGS

Banned
Fighting games could be cool in VR, feeling as if you're watching a fight with full scale fighters and everything or like in a diorama right in front of you. Dunno if that could translate to games where the character moves through an environment like Bayonetta that others suggested though. Maybe if it gave you the impression you're watching things from some magical drone thing it wouldn't cause disorientation? No idea if that can be solved. Like if you're playing something like Tomb Raider in VR, does Lara's forward movement disorient you while you head movement is looking around the environment instead of focus on her? Again, no idea.
Honestly that would just take away immersion for me. When I play a 2d fighter, I'm taking on the roll of one of the fighters, I don't want to take on the role of a spectator, especially one with drone like movement lmfao. But that's just me...
 
No it's not... please stop trolling with your VR evangelism...
This is the very last time I reply to you as I want to ensure no one else is persuaded by your ridiculousness.

The effect of VR literally works the same as the human eyes, does it not? Answer: Yes, aside from the vergence accommodation conflict which is almost entirely comfort-related and not experience-related. Therefore, the sensory gain is the same minus differences in specs between VR and our eyes. Again, if you had a perfect 2D camera that gave you 20/15 vision, it would still be a fundamental change in your life experience and the sensory data would be much, much less.
 

Vawn

Banned
I only want to play games specifically made for VR in VR. As amazing as Astro Bot and Moss are, not every game would be better in VR.

Most people still don't know what they're talking about when it comes to VR as they've spent little time with it.
 
Last edited:
The great coming of VR has been "promised" many times, and yet here we are, with it being a niche and not growing.
There are so many things wrong with the concept itself... it can never replace a simple screen + keyboard&mouse/controller setup.

VR is a gimmick. Nothing more, nothing less.
It has always been, will always be.

Not a single great game has come out for VR (exclusive, I mean) that was more than a mediocre game at best. Strip the perspective away from VR games, put them on a normal screen, and nobody would bother even trying them out, that's how mediocre they are.
Like Wii, in a way. Best games on there are those that do not make use of gimmicky controls and are just good games.
You clearly haven't a clue. You just eat up what you hear other people say. Your name is you, personified. Either that or you just knock things because you lack the capability to understand.

No, VR is not a gimmick. Astro Bot is a GOTY contender and one of the highest rated games of the year. Lone Echo was one of the highest rated last year. There are plenty of great VR games.

Hell, say VR is a gimmick if you want just for a moment, but to say it always will be? You're delusional. If we were having this conversation many decades ago, you'd be the first person to say PCs will always be the size of a room because you have no forward thinking at all.
 
Last edited:

BANGS

Banned
The effect of VR literally works the same as the human eyes, does it not? Answer: Yes
Actually, no... stop trolling with this garbage dude...

No, VR is not a gimmick.
Yes, it is...

Astro Bot is a GOTY contender
LMFAO dude stop just stop you've become a parody of yourself at this point...

ell, say VR is a gimmick if you want just for a moment, but to say it always will be?
Completely irrelevant. But yes it will always be a gimmick...

This is the very last time I reply to you
In case you didn't notice this is MY topic. Get out if you don't like me or the poll results that are driving you foaming mouthed mad...
 
Last edited:

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Honestly that would just take away immersion for me. When I play a 2d fighter, I'm taking on the roll of one of the fighters, I don't want to take on the role of a spectator, especially one with drone like movement lmfao. But that's just me...
I mean, if you can be immersed with a side view on whatever size TV, or a side view on a larger TV that makes them full-size, or a side view on a smaller TV or monitor, I'm sure you can be immersed if they look like they're fighting in front of you in stereoscopic 3D too and you're engulfed with the games graphics all around (though not much to see if you turn around) vs on a 2D screen in front of you... Whether you like it or not is a different matter but calling immersion into question in this manner I think is off the mark. Whether you choose to think that you're a spectator or not is up to you. The current cameras certainly don't try to give the impression that you personify the fighter and are where a spectator or a drone camera would be to keep up with the action too. I didn't say movement would be drone like either, it'd be whatever natural movement you did to keep the fighters in view. It'd have to be drone-like in games where the player moves through an environment so if it stayed static like you're sitting in the chair they'd eventually go too far from your field of view, that doesn't happen in a standard fighting game where the arena is relatively limited.

Also don't appreciate you call others out when you use this thread and poll results as an excuse to bash specific games when whether astro bot is good or not has no bearing on if "most" 3rd person games would be chosen on a tv instead of vr by most people and whether the ppl voting have even played it or not and poll results or not the amount of people voting on polls here is pitiful as of late to make any kind of deduction anyway. None of that is sensible discussion about the subject really.
 
Last edited:
For me I'd prefer screen most of the time. VR seems better for more immersive experiences...not something for everything but great for the things its good for.
 

johntown

Banned
I voted for screen and I have a VR set. While 3rd person can be fun in VR I just cannot spend really more than a few hours at most before it starts to be very uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:

Vawn

Banned
Actually, no... stop trolling with this garbage dude...


Yes, it is...


LMFAO dude stop just stop you've become a parody of yourself at this point...


Completely irrelevant. But yes it will always be a gimmick...


In case you didn't notice this is MY topic. Get out if you don't like me or the poll results that are driving you foaming mouthed mad...


I could tell by your poll that you've had little to no experience with VR. The question is loaded. Of course not every third-person game should be in VR. That doesn't make the ones specifically designed for it any less amazing.

And, yes, Astro Bot is on a lot of people's short list for GOTY. It wint win, because most (including you, I'm guessing), haven't been able to experience it.
 
I could tell by your poll that you've had little to no experience with VR. The question is loaded. Of course not every third-person game should be in VR. That doesn't make the ones specifically designed for it any less amazing.

And, yes, Astro Bot is on a lot of people's short list for GOTY. It wint win, because most (including you, I'm guessing), haven't been able to experience it.
He says he played 2 hours of the game. But then again, this is coming from someone who doesn't even grasp what using VR is like and the extra sensory data you gain, or is at least pretending otherwise, so I'm very skeptical.
 
Last edited:

gspat

Member
This poll title seems very biased?

It seems you're looking for an excuse to bash games played in VR?

Judging by your posts, you don't like VR all that much. But making an extremely lopsided poll just makes you look petty, which is a shame.

You missed adding at least 1 option to the poll that may have skewed it away from the position you want.

You should have added "It depends on the game and the game designers intent".

I cannot vote in this poll.
 

TheSHEEEP

Gold Member
You clearly haven't a clue. You just eat up what you hear other people say. Your name is you, personified. Either that or you just knock things because you lack the capability to understand.
In contrast to you, I have a background in game development & 3D programming and actually learned to program for the things (among other devices) - which, admittedly has gotten much easier recently. I know their technicalities fairly well.
The only one eating up what someone else says is you, eating up and regurgitating baseless hype.

The problems of these devices are theoretical ones that can never be fully solved:
You need to wear something on your head, which no matter how light you make it, will always be cumbersome.
It removes or hinders your ability to interact with the real world around you severely.
I have three monitors here at my desk, doing multiple things at the same time without having to do more than just turn my head - good luck doing that with a VR device in which turning your head is actually interacting with the game.
It is enormously straining for your eyes. If you don't believe me, believe science and people that actually develop these devices.

Even if we went all Sci-Fi and imagined something like the Star Trek holo deck, it wouldn't replace most use cases.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a VR hater, I'm just not hyped. It has its place. I can see it work out well in several fields in the industry, science, medicine, etc.
But for games, this is a gimmick, just like Wii was. Albeit with more lasting appeal.
I can see myself getting a newer VR device eventually, or offering VR support for own products. But never, ever, will it become the standard as it simply has too many downsides compared to monitors.

Astro Bot is a GOTY contender and one of the highest rated games of the year.
That's what lack of serious competition will do for you.
Forget about the perspective novelty for a moment, strip the game down to what games are about, gameplay. There's nothing in there, nothing, that other games haven't done already and better.
Ooohhh, you have to turn your head (or yourself) around to see better. Friggin' wow.
This is a capable rendition of Mario 64 and the likes - I'm not saying it is a bad game, but certainly not a GOTY contender outside of hipster circles.

Hell, say VR is a gimmick if you want just for a moment, but to say it always will be? You're delusional. If we were having this conversation many decades ago, you'd be the first person to say PCs will always be the size of a room because you have no forward thinking at all.
It is really cute, how blind hype repeaters also repeat the same tired arguments against all logic...

The exact same conversations were had over 20 years ago, when the first "pseudo VR" devices came along.
The exact same conversations were had 10 years ago (more like 8, I think Oculus Rift prototype was 2010).
And, where are we now?
Right, VR is a niche with little growth and the vast majority of gamers not caring. Just as it was 20 years ago, just as it was 10 years ago. 10 Years from now, it will have grown a bit (as all the tech & business sites predict), but that's about it. Almost nobody, including the developers of VR, still believes that VR will ever be as wide spread as normal monitors are.

Nothing wrong with niches, but don't pretend VR is anything it isn't.
 
Last edited:

ROMhack

Member
I'd rather not play any VR games for more than an hour so definitely screen.

Does nobody else get incredible eye strain using VR? I played Thumper last year at a friend's and whilst it was indeed brilliant, I had to lie down for an hour afterwards.
 
Last edited:

Gavin Stevens

Formerly 'o'dium'
VR has its uses but 99% of them are, for me at least, pointless. First person games are perfect for it, everything else... give me a screen.
 

BANGS

Banned
Also don't appreciate you call others out when you use this thread and poll results as an excuse to bash specific games when whether astro bot is good or not has no bearing on if "most" 3rd person games would be chosen on a tv instead of vr by most people and whether the ppl voting have even played it or not and poll results or not the amount of people voting on polls here is pitiful as of late to make any kind of deduction anyway. None of that is sensible discussion about the subject really.
I'm not using this poll to bash any VR games, and astro bot technically isn't a 3rd person game...

I could tell by your poll that you've had little to no experience with VR. The question is loaded. Of course not every third-person game should be in VR. That doesn't make the ones specifically designed for it any less amazing.

And, yes, Astro Bot is on a lot of people's short list for GOTY. It wint win, because most (including you, I'm guessing), haven't been able to experience it.
Like clockwork, the same tired argument comes up again. "You must not have tried VR if you don't absolutely love it." Is that REALLY all you guys have to say? Also the point of this poll wasn't to say that 3rd person games in VR are inherently bad. It was to prove to someone who claimed that the vast majority of people would prefer to play 3rd person games in VR instead of a screen... and that I was in the extreme minority for suggesting I'd rather play 3rd person games on a screen...
 

Vawn

Banned
I'm not using this poll to bash any VR games, and astro bot technically isn't a 3rd person game...

How do you figure that? What is it technically then?

Because you are controlling the robot character via the dummy robot? You're really grasping there, if you're going to say that makes it first-person.
 
Last edited:

BANGS

Banned
How do you figure that? What is it technically then?
I'm not sure exactly how we should label it. You control the robot in 3rd person yes, but you also control the camera which interacts in first person and is physically a part of the game. Both characters are under your control and can interact with each other, so labeling it 3rd person doesn't seem correct...
 
How do you figure that? What is it technically then?

Because you are controlling the robot character via the dummy robot? You're really grasping there, if you're going to say that makes it first-person.
Actually, I was wondering recently why don't they allow VR games like astro bot to be played on the TV. It would sell a lot.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
I'm not sure exactly how we should label it. You control the robot in 3rd person yes, but you also control the camera which interacts in first person and is physically a part of the game. Both characters are under your control and can interact with each other, so labeling it 3rd person doesn't seem correct...

Just because they made the camera a character doesn't make it not third person, you're being pedantic. Of course Astro Bot's a third person game. That's like saying Super Mario 64 isn't a third person game because you're "actually playing as Lakitu".
 

Shifty

Member
Rez is probably the most engaging third-person experience I've had in VR, but I'm of the opinion that the medium is better suited to first-person.

Not that the OP is looking to actually start a deep and informed discussion on the subject here, mind you...

Like clockwork, the same tired argument comes up again. "You must not have tried VR if you don't absolutely love it." Is that REALLY all you guys have to say?
I don't see you denying the assertion, and based on such golden quotes as
VR doesn't add any sensory data to a 3rd person game...

and
I'm not gonna pretend I understand, but I appreciate the attempt

it would seem that you don't have sufficient working knowledge of VR to actually be making such wild assertions as the ones in this thread.

It was to prove to someone who claimed that the vast majority of people would prefer to play 3rd person games in VR instead of a screen... and that I was in the extreme minority for suggesting I'd rather play 3rd person games on a screen...
Sure would have been nice if you'd been up-front about your intent rather than throwing up a poll 'apropos of nothing' for the sake of winning a petty argument from another thread.

That's playground shit, as is trying to beat someone over the head with a 'majority rules' statistical argument when your sample size is comprised of a meager ~30. You'd be better off trying to win that argument by making some informed qualitative assertions about the nature of the medium relative to the established 3rd person framework employed by traditional 'flat' games.
 
Last edited:

BANGS

Banned
Actually, I was wondering recently why don't they allow VR games like astro bot to be played on the TV. It would sell a lot.
It wouldn't, because the sole appeal of the game is it's vr control for the camera...

Just because they made the camera a character doesn't make it not third person, you're being pedantic. Of course Astro Bot's a third person game. That's like saying Super Mario 64 isn't a third person game because you're "actually playing as Lakitu"
Lakitu doesn't interact with Mario or anything else really, and you're not actively controlling him for most of the game like you are in Astro Bot. But either way I don't care about the label, I wasn't referring to Astro Bot or other 3rd person VR games that take advantage of VR unique controls when I said VR adds nothing to 3rd person games, because obviously those are an exception...

I don't see you denying the assertion
Well I do, and have several times. I play new VR games often and am more than educated on VR tech and more importantly software...

That's playground shit, as is trying to beat someone over the head with a 'majority rules' statistical argument when your sample size is comprised of a meager ~30.
His claim was that I was in the vast minority, so a small sample size of hardcore gamers should more than suffice. It's not playground shit as this poll could have easily gone the other way and I was more interested in finding out the truth than just proving I was right...
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
There's nothing in there, nothing, that other games haven't done already and better. Ooohhh, you have to turn your head (or yourself) around to see better. Friggin' wow.

That's one of the most reductive things I've read all year. You can do that about almost any game. Why does a game have to do things better than anything else before it in order to be considered great? Celeste is hardly groundbreaking, but it's going to be a favourite of many people this year. People love Astro Bot not because it's "the hipster choice" but because it's great as a VR game, I don't see why that's an issue. Obviously no one would care if it wasn't on VR, it'd just be another platformer. You have to take more into account when judging a game than the gameplay alone. Hell, Obra Dinn is just walking round a ship looking at dioramas and writing in a diary. Friggin' wow.
 
In contrast to you, I have a background in game development & 3D programming and actually learned to program for the things (among other devices) - which, admittedly has gotten much easier recently. I know their technicalities fairly well.
The only one eating up what someone else says is you, eating up and regurgitating baseless hype.

The problems of these devices are theoretical ones that can never be fully solved:
You need to wear something on your head, which no matter how light you make it, will always be cumbersome.
It removes or hinders your ability to interact with the real world around you severely.
I have three monitors here at my desk, doing multiple things at the same time without having to do more than just turn my head - good luck doing that with a VR device in which turning your head is actually interacting with the game.
It is enormously straining for your eyes. If you don't believe me, believe science and people that actually develop these devices.
Even if we went all Sci-Fi and imagined something like the Star Trek holo deck, it wouldn't replace most use cases.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. You clearly have a god complex, and think you know everything. Reality check, you know almost nothing about VR. Let me correct your misconceptions:

1. You don't need to solve wearing something. Headphones are doing just fine and they'd be more bulky than a pair of sunglasses (the eventual form factor), and far less interesting and valued.
2. Mixed Reality and eventually AR will be integrated into the headsets, letting you interact with real life in more ways than a normal human, let alone just as you're used to.
3. Various VR games let you turn without moving your head as an option. You can also simulate 3 monitors and play non-VR games.
4. VR is a potential eye strain, but that is completely solvable. No, has already been solved, with varifocal displays from Oculus and other companies. Now we just wait until they are implemented into a consumer product and then you'll focus your eyes naturally without any eye strain or headaches.


Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a VR hater, I'm just not hyped. It has its place. I can see it work out well in several fields in the industry, science, medicine, etc.
But for games, this is a gimmick, just like Wii was. Albeit with more lasting appeal.
I can see myself getting a newer VR device eventually, or offering VR support for own products. But never, ever, will it become the standard as it simply has too many downsides compared to monitors.
You come off as a VR hater. At the very least, you don't know much of anything about VR because almost everything you've said is complete BS, like there being no great games, or it being a gimmick. VR can definitely be given the chance to become the standard as VR/MR/AR is poised to be selling billions of units. With that userbase, it wouldn't surprise me to find that VR gaming is the dominant form. Whether it's dominant or just a super popular 50/50, 40/60 is unknown, but it's going to be one of the two.


That's what lack of serious competition will do for you.
Forget about the perspective novelty for a moment, strip the game down to what games are about, gameplay. There's nothing in there, nothing, that other games haven't done already and better.
Ooohhh, you have to turn your head (or yourself) around to see better. Friggin' wow.
This is a capable rendition of Mario 64 and the likes - I'm not saying it is a bad game, but certainly not a GOTY contender outside of hipster circles.
You clearly haven't even played a single VR game in your life. Please, point me to a single game that does this better: https://gfycat.com/UnlawfulAcclaimedHare
Oh, that's right, you can't. Because it's never been done before, and it's your first time seeing it.

It is really cute, how blind hype repeaters also repeat the same tired arguments against all logic...

The exact same conversations were had over 20 years ago, when the first "pseudo VR" devices came along.
The exact same conversations were had 10 years ago (more like 8, I think Oculus Rift prototype was 2010).
And, where are we now?
Right, VR is a niche with little growth and the vast majority of gamers not caring. Just as it was 20 years ago, just as it was 10 years ago. 10 Years from now, it will have grown a bit (as all the tech & business sites predict), but that's about it. Almost nobody, including the developers of VR, still believes that VR will ever be as wide spread as normal monitors are.

Nothing wrong with niches, but don't pretend VR is anything it isn't.
Uhh, no. The conversations 20 years ago was mostly excitement from people who imagined VR, hadn't tried it, and became disappointed. The VR industry was well aware for the most part that it was pretty bad. Now it's very different. Also, you do realize that even if VR grows so incredibly slow, it gets a free piggyback off AR?

You couldn't be more wrong.
 
Last edited:
That's one of the most reductive things I've read all year. You can do that about almost any game. Why does a game have to do things better than anything else before it in order to be considered great? Celeste is hardly groundbreaking, but it's going to be a favourite of many people this year. People love Astro Bot not because it's "the hipster choice" but because it's great as a VR game, I don't see why that's an issue. Obviously no one would care if it wasn't on VR, it'd just be another platformer. You have to take more into account when judging a game than the gameplay alone. Hell, Obra Dinn is just walking round a ship looking at dioramas and writing in a diary. Friggin' wow.
The guy is clearly deranged.
 
Actually, I was wondering recently why don't they allow VR games like astro bot to be played on the TV. It would sell a lot.
Because that would hinder VR sales and the game wouldn't work without VR anyway, and even if it did, it wouldn't be as good and would probably not sell that well.
 

Vawn

Banned
Actually, I was wondering recently why don't they allow VR games like astro bot to be played on the TV. It would sell a lot.

Did you play it? It would make a mediocre game at best outside VR.

Its MADE for VR, which is why it works so well. It doesn't usually work shoehorning a non-VR game into VR. The reverse is also true. All of Astro Bot's magic is because its design for VR.
 

Vawn

Banned
I'm not sure exactly how we should label it. You control the robot in 3rd person yes, but you also control the camera which interacts in first person and is physically a part of the game. Both characters are under your control and can interact with each other, so labeling it 3rd person doesn't seem correct...

You label it a third-person VR game.

Did you get hung up on what to call Mario 64 too? You're camera is being controlled by cameraman Lakitu.

Edit: sorry, I see this exact point and example was already stated.
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Member
I've never played a 3rd person game in VR so it's hard to say.

But from my understanding a screen would still be the more convenient option (by far). How much would the hardware cost to play something like Uncharted 4, God of War or Red Dead 2 on VR with at least the same visual fidelity as a $400 console?
 
Last edited:

BANGS

Banned
You label it a third-person VR game.
There has to be a distinction between games like Astro Boy and just regular 3rd person games being played in VR. Obviously VR adds something to Astro Boy, it doesn't to regular 3rd person games...
 

Vawn

Banned
There has to be a distinction between games like Astro Boy and just regular 3rd person games being played in VR. Obviously VR adds something to Astro Boy, it doesn't to regular 3rd person games...

It's still a third-person game. Stop overcomplicating it.

Also, since, as you claim to have experience with PSVR and this game, maybe you should stop calling it Astro Boy?
 

BANGS

Banned
It's still a third-person game. Stop overcomplicating it.
The distinction is important in context with this topic, how could you not see that?

And yes I am aware the y and t keys are right next to each other on the keyboard...
 

Enjay

Banned
Screen. Regardless of what some of the more "enthusiastic" people here will tell you, the VR gimmick adds nothing to the 3rd person view.
 
Top Bottom