DarthBuzzer
Member
You haven't even tried a well done 3rd person VR game, so you are biased and have a worthless opinion. It objectively adds to 3rd person games when done right.
Last edited:
-
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?
- Thread starter BANGS
- Start date
BANGS
Banned
My dear god VR fanboys are the worst types of predictable trolls...
David Ricardo
Member
I played the demo 2 or 3 times. It kinda reminded me of mario 64.
You come off as an unbalanced fanatic so I value your opinion in the same way
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
You didn't make that very clear when you started the thread. The poll choice is just "most third person games", not "third person games that were not designed to be play in VR". It's an obvious mislead to prove a point to someone in another thread. And I even agree with you, I don't want to play the majority of games in VR, but that's because the vast majority of games aren't made for VR, not because I have the choice. It's just a ridiculous proposition.
a multicultural team of v
Member
This thread makes no sense then. If you specifically ignore all third person VR games that would actually be worth playing in VR what kind of results are you expecting?
The point of VR is to have Astro Bot type experiences, not play literally the exact same games as before in VR.
This is like asking would you rather use a controller or mouse and keyboard, but you have to exclude every PC game because they were designed for m&k.
DarthBuzzer
Member
Except, you know, I'm informed? The reason why I know you've never played a decent 3rd person VR game is because there is objective value in the game quality when doing it right. It's not arguable whatsoever.
You can't claim that a game like Hellblade would be a better quality game and experience without VR. It's the definitive version for a reason.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
It wasn't meant to be misleading, it's just that most 3rd person games are regular 3rd person games and not specifically made for VR 3rd person games. Either way, the answer for the question I asked is clear, not even sure what the problem is...
I was expecting exactly the answers I got. This was to prove that most people prefer to play 3rd person games on a screen, as I was told I was in the vast minority for thinking as such. The thread makes perfect sense, I got the answers the question I asked...
Vawn
Banned
My point exactly. If you played games like Astro Bot or Moss you wouldn't say this.
BANGS
Banned
That's not a problem with the poll, as those games were the ones I was specifically trying to find people's opinion on. Obviously people would prefer to play "Made for VR" 3rd person games in VR, I would never argue against that...
And again I've made it clear several times that those games are irrelevant to the question asked here...
BANGS
Banned
If it makes you all feel better, I request the mods change the question to "Given the choice, would you rather play God of War on a screen or through VR headset?". Because that specifically is what I was told I was in the vast minority for thinking, and I have a feeling that distinction would only work in my favor...
Last edited:
General Lee
Member
Once the headsets improve in quality enough, I can see them replacing TVs and monitors for most gaming use cases. That said, we're still far off from that. Having something strapped to your face will be more uncomfortable, and it's going to take a lot of improvement to get to 4K screen level of fidelity on a VR headset. But once those things are at a sufficient level, I'd say it's objectively better. You can create the home theater of your dreams in VR, and have perfect streoscopic 3D in games too. I've played games like Mass Effect 2 on VR with Vorpx in cinema mode with stereoscopic 3D and it looks pretty awesome. The overall experience just isn't quite good enough to replace a standard screen yet, since Rift is still quite blurry and has a lot of screen door and could use a wider fov, but more than anything it's tiresome to wear for extended periods of time. The headsets need to be closer to ski goggle size and weight before you can comfortably have 3 hour sessions with them.
Personally I'm eagerly waiting for the moment we'll get headsets like what Oculus demoed with Half Dome, aka 140+ degree fov, 4K res, foveated rendering etc. I'm hoping Microsoft will come up with something like that after next gen Xbox comes around and makes it compatible with Windows too. We're still a few years off from these though, so I expect people to continue claiming VR is a gimmick for a good while yet.
Personally I'm eagerly waiting for the moment we'll get headsets like what Oculus demoed with Half Dome, aka 140+ degree fov, 4K res, foveated rendering etc. I'm hoping Microsoft will come up with something like that after next gen Xbox comes around and makes it compatible with Windows too. We're still a few years off from these though, so I expect people to continue claiming VR is a gimmick for a good while yet.
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
That's more like it, but you must see that the thread was fatally flawed. That's why several people are saying the same thing. Again, I agree, I don't want to play games like God of War in VR, and I agree that most people probably wouldn't, but games like God of War aren't designed for VR. I could make a thread called "Would you rather play Astro Bot in VR or on a screen?" and the inverse would be true. It doesn't prove much.
The problem with your poll is that the results will be skewed by the leading question you posed and the limited answers you make available.
Moss and Astro bot aren't 3rd person? I question if you know what a 3rd person game is? At least add your definition to the OP
The change to the question you posted is just as absurd as the original question.
BANGS
Banned
Well exactly, it proves exactly what I was claiming. This isn't "VR bad, the topic" or anything, I just wanted to know if people actually preferred playing games like god of war in VR like darthbuzzer likes to claim or if they preffered screens like I imagined...
Why? This is the actual question I was trying to ask, just more specific. Do you think it's absurd that VR isn't the best at displaying every game or something? Because that's all this poll is asking, it's not asking if you'd rather play VR games on a screen. If that was the question, a lot more people would be voting VR obviously...
BANGS
Banned
We all know what 3rd person games are and I've already fully explained the distinctions I should have made and failed to do so at the beginning of this topic, why are you so hung up on this? I'm not even sure what your point is anymore...
Again, we're talking specifically about God of War and similar 3rd person games in VR here, not 3rd person games specially designed for VR functionality like Astro Bot. Get it?
Last edited:
#Phonepunk#
Banned
i would rather play on a screen. VR is cool but still glitchy in places, plus my head gets tired from having all that extra weight on it. ask me again in 5 or 10 years maybe i'll have a different answer.
tbh the ideal thing would be 3d holographic projection. just let me turn off the lights in my room and see the VR reality around me.
tbh the ideal thing would be 3d holographic projection. just let me turn off the lights in my room and see the VR reality around me.
Last edited:
TheSHEEEP
Gold Member
Which proves my point perfectly, thank you.
In the best cases, VR gives a slight boost to immersion until you get used to it and it becomes just the same as a screen.
In the worst case, it is a negative distraction and the game would be much better without all that "head motion".
In most cases, especially for games that make no real use of any "personal" perspective (like most strategy games), it won't make a difference.
All of that at the price of the additional encumbrance on your head, eye strain, lots of cables, etc. etc.
While much of that can be solved in theory, in practice it will probably never happen and even if, then at a price so high nobody will be be able to afford it.
It has to compete with a simple (and in relation to that, cheap) screen.
Precisely.
Having to turn your head around in the game is part of the gameplay. And besides that, it is just a platformer that could just as well work without VR. Making the point that it is a VR game rather moot to begin with.
I know some people are easily fascinated by a gimmick like that, but I tried it and... nah, it's just a gimmick. LIke Wii or Gamecube Bongo drums.
It doesn't add anything to my enjoyment of a game, and I am quite obviously not the only one that is left rather cold by this "novelty". And I am actually one of the people not needing glasses and not getting motion sick from a VR headset.
That is an absurd oversimplification of the game and you know it. It is also entirely besides the point.
I am impressed. You did not correct a single "misconception", as the only misconception here is that you confuse scifi with reality.
Wouldn't have thought that possible, really.
1. The theory that tech development becomes faster, smaller and cheaper in an unlimited manner has long been disproven, Moore's law is dead. We simply cannot make things arbitrarily small, and the smaller we can make them, the more expensive they will be. A lot of tech has to fit into a VR device, and that has a certain weight that goes beyond just some glass. Energy storage alone either means you have a cable attached or a heavy battery. Even if all of that would be doable at such a low weight that it would be equal in encumbrance to a pair of glasses, its cost would be astronomical. And again, all of that will then still have to compete with a cheap screen setup.
2. Alright, Dr. Who. Wake me up when your reality becomes mine, and I'll gladly buy your fancy glasses
3. Of course you can do all of that (though simply looking at some screens is way easier, IMO), I never claimed you couldn't, but why would I get a VR headset just to do things I can do without anyway? The benefits you get compared to a screen setup are very, very limited. And instead you get all the downsides we've talked about enough now.
4. LOL! Even Oculus themselves say those are merely a “middle ground” on the way to an eventual "perfect solution". It is just a theory to begin with, I don't think much more was heard of it after the paper. And from glancing over the papers, they solve the problem by making the hardware even more complicated, even more processing intensive, even more expensive... you see the problem here, right?
In the end, it all comes down to how blind your hopes about future developments are, and how affordable those developments will be.
What I see is this: The more problems VR devices solve, the more expensive they will become. The more expensive they become, the less likely that they will actually spread.
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
What? How is it the same when I do things in VR that I can't do on a screen? How do I smash my head through objects on my screen? How do I shoot something that is physically in any direction other than directly in front of me? Just because you could "translate" a version of these mechanics to a TV screen, like holding a stick to turn, doesn't mean it's the same thing. The entire point of Astro Bot is that you're inside of the 3D world. A bit part of its charm is all the nuance and detail that isn't possible to achieve by watching these things happening on a flat screen five feet away. That's what makes Astro Bot so beloved by the majority of people that have played it, not the act of running around and jumping to collect coins.
I get that it clearly doesn't impress you, and believe me, I've played shitty VR games that would have been better off as regular games, but there are plenty of cases where VR is essential because that's how and why the game was designed.
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
AV Sorry, I should have clarified I was talking about games that do not have specific VR-interactions in that paragraph.
Then sure, I'm with you. I don't want to play games not designed for VR in VR.
But the post I originally quotes you on was specifically about Astro Bot, which is a game that is only as good as it is because of VR. It's entire premise hasn't been done better anywhere before. That's why Super Lucky's Tale had such a meh reception, they just created a basic 3D platformer for VR without much care or thought about the way you experienced it.
BANGS
Banned
DarthBuzzer
Member
That's not how it works. You get used to being in VR, but that doesn't make it remotely the same as a screen. You're still going to be more emotionally connected to something like Hellblade because you're right there inches away from Senua. You're still going to be feeling more attuned to the environment and it will have a greater affect on you, because biology says so. This is how your brain works and is why VR experiences are stored closer to the memory center of the brain unlike normal games.
And why are you being so unbelievably pessimistic about something as simple as fixing cables or eye strain? It's literally already a done deal.
No, it would not work as well with out VR, as it couldn't be done without VR, and even if it could, would be an inferior game, without question. You didn't try anything that resembles what VR actually does, or what it captures. This is like me grabbing a PS4 and playing a few mediocre games that I'd forget about in a week, avoiding all the great games and experiences.
You do realize that things eventually trickle down in price? Some of these will be expensive at first, but will be mass produced by many different billion dollar companies. There are countless solutions to various problems. Varifocal displays are literally one of many solutions. You can use multifocal displays, you can use light-fields, you can use holographic displays, you name it. These aren't sci-fi, they all exist.I am impressed. You did not correct a single "misconception", as the only misconception here is that you confuse scifi with reality.
Wouldn't have thought that possible, really.
1. The theory that tech development becomes faster, smaller and cheaper in an unlimited manner has long been disproven, Moore's law is dead. We simply cannot make things arbitrarily small, and the smaller we can make them, the more expensive they will be. A lot of tech has to fit into a VR device, and that has a certain weight that goes beyond just some glass. Energy storage alone either means you have a cable attached or a heavy battery. Even if all of that would be doable at such a low weight that it would be equal in encumbrance to a pair of glasses, its cost would be astronomical. And again, all of that will then still have to compete with a cheap screen setup.
2. Alright, Dr. Who. Wake me up when your reality becomes mine, and I'll gladly buy your fancy glasses
3. Of course you can do all of that (though simply looking at some screens is way easier, IMO), I never claimed you couldn't, but why would I get a VR headset just to do things I can do without anyway? The benefits you get compared to a screen setup are very, very limited. And instead you get all the downsides we've talked about enough now.
4. LOL! Even Oculus themselves say those are merely a “middle ground” on the way to an eventual "perfect solution". It is just a theory to begin with, I don't think much more was heard of it after the paper. And from glancing over the papers, they solve the problem by making the hardware even more complicated, even more processing intensive, even more expensive... you see the problem here, right?
In the end, it all comes down to how blind your hopes about future developments are, and how affordable those developments will be.
What I see is this: The more problems VR devices solve, the more expensive they will become. The more expensive they become, the less likely that they will actually spread.
1. Your lecture is pointless because this form factor has already been achieved in the Facebook Reality Lab, and was discussed in a presentation as being a clear lab construction and not ready to produce for consumers, but completely within physical bounds. Cost is inevitably going to be low enough to provide this form factor. Stop being pessimistic for no reason. Also the battery can be worn around your waist if needed. And it would obliterate a normal screen setup. People will still find some use for normal screens, but they are just static screens. Sunglasses that do VR/MR/AR would be worth 100 screens, and even that is underselling it.
2. What are you blabbering about now? This already exists:
3. There are many benefits to simulating screens but they require the hardware to improve. The point is that you'd have a portable screen dispenser. You can throw any amount of screens of any size, any shape, 3D or no 3D, light-field or no-light-field - and you could put them in virtual environments or in real life, and could be either static objects or screens that follow you, and could give you the most productive work environment, and could give you a perfect comfort position in bed with any viewing angle, and could be shared with anyone no matter where they are in the world, as if they are physically in front of the screen. Plus, you can replicate your dream setup or create one that you can't really own like a full blown IMAX theater. Clearly there are loads of uses as the tech improves, which is all inevitable.
4. They solve vergence accommodation, but could be made with a more convenient solution. That's what Oculus are saying, not that it doesn't do the job well enough in quality terms. Again, it's not a theory. Everything you believe is a theory, because you live in fairy tale land, but this is not. Look up Oculus Half Dome, it uses varifocal displays.
Last edited:
CloudStrife_ca
Member
I've done this abit with RDR2 and my PSVR while there is no VR support in RDR2 its definitely an experience to play on a screen the size of a movie theatre or an IMAX screen depending what you're settings are on. Resolution drops obviously and I know thats a deal breaker for some people but its not terrible and theres something to be said about looking up at those sunsets from a high vantage point on your own personal movie screen.
Generally speaking if I've got a bit more time to really sit down and play, I'll throw on my headset and jump in and allow myself to be immersed in it all. The stereoscopic 3D sound that comes out of the headset when a good set of headphones are plugged in to the headset don't hurt either as it makes it a wider range of ambient sounds sounding like they are coming from different areas within the game. Birds chirping, sounds of the wind, people, I notice it and I was born without a left ear drum so to a person with full hearing, I'm sure its even more crazy.
Throwing on your VR headset to play a game without VR support is like immersing yourself in/ on your own personal movie screen but it blocks everything else out in the background, all your sight and sound is focused.
Generally speaking if I've got a bit more time to really sit down and play, I'll throw on my headset and jump in and allow myself to be immersed in it all. The stereoscopic 3D sound that comes out of the headset when a good set of headphones are plugged in to the headset don't hurt either as it makes it a wider range of ambient sounds sounding like they are coming from different areas within the game. Birds chirping, sounds of the wind, people, I notice it and I was born without a left ear drum so to a person with full hearing, I'm sure its even more crazy.
Throwing on your VR headset to play a game without VR support is like immersing yourself in/ on your own personal movie screen but it blocks everything else out in the background, all your sight and sound is focused.
Wonko_C
Member
Having had a PlayStation VR for a little more than a year, I'd love to have more 3rd person games in VR. No, I'd love to have evertything in VR, including 2D sprite-based games. I think there's already a 2D beat 'em up game that's playable in VR, but unfortunately I don't have unlimited funds so I haven't been able to purchase it yet.
VR would be a perfect excuse to revive classic arcade franchises like Gradius, Contra, Streets of Rage, Lethal Enforcers, Castlevania, Final Fight, and 3D light gun games like The House of the Dead, Time Crisis, etc. would be cool too.
VR would be a perfect excuse to revive classic arcade franchises like Gradius, Contra, Streets of Rage, Lethal Enforcers, Castlevania, Final Fight, and 3D light gun games like The House of the Dead, Time Crisis, etc. would be cool too.
TheSHEEEP
Gold Member
A bit off topic, but I had to laugh, as you bring one of the worst and most pretentious pseudo-games of the last decade as an example for "emotional connection". I was emotionally connected, alright. Rarely did a game make me rage so hard at incompetent game design...
As your entire argument basically comes down to this, I'll just address that and be done with it.
This inevability you talk about does not exist, there is neither a hint nor a proof to its existence. As I said already, Moore's law is disproved. There are physical boundaries here that even billions worth of companies mass-producing won't ever change. Small size comes at a cost and there is a limit to just how small we can make things.
I am not being pessimistic here, I am being realistic. All you have shown are concepts and prototypes that may or may not ever see the light of day (most prototypes don't, as a general rule) and if they do, will be no doubt expensive.
I'd like you to show me that Facebook Reality Lab prototype that is so miraculously light and can still do it all, and at an affordable price.
PS: I do not need to carry a battery around my waist to have a screen, though I do like the idea. Carrying a personal battery around that can supply a multitude of devices sounds rather practical.
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
Hellblade was cited because it's the perfect example of a traditional 3rd person game with an over-the-shoulder perspective. It doesn't matter what you think about the game or not; the point is that your brain is more engaged, period - it's how the organ works.
There's a misconception that Moore's Law is going to continue indefinitely, but you also have the misconception that everything I am talking about relies on Moore's Law. It doesn't.
Oculus made a bunch of predictions for 2022. Michael Abrash was always talking about it in consumer terms, and what a consumer product would look like with cost in mind. He's at the top of his field and knows what he's talking about, even being surprised at just how fast VR is advancing.
We have not seen the Facebook Lab prototype, as it was referenced but not shown.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Do you have any sources to cite that have researched how much more engaged your brain in when viewing a piece of media via VR vs traditional screens? And does that study take into account initial shock value?
BibiMaghoo
Member
I have played a third person game on a headset. It was good until the camera movement put your face inside scenery or at weird angles that would otherwise be out of bounds. Defo a screen.
DarthBuzzer
Member
I'll make an exception to respond to you this time.
Anything that is closer to how we perceive the real world is going to cause more reaction. This is why VR horror games are scarier, and people are scared of heights in VR, and rarely in non-VR. This is why personal space exists in VR and doesn't exist on a screen. You never back away because your physical personal space doesn't feel violated when someone gets close on a screen, but this happens by instinct in VR. at least when someone is bothered by it in general.
As for sources:
Education: You retain more information with practical experience which is why VR is more effective than a video that explains the same concepts: https://uploadvr.com/chinese-vr-education-study/
Memory Recall: https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/06/23/can-virtual-reality-enhance-recall/136452.html
VR is often called the empathy machine because it can cause a higher amount of untapped empathy in people. There are lots of studies on this too.
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
That could be fixed by pushing the environment back in equal force. A bunch of VR games do this today.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I assumed at the time it was not done because of the effect it would have on the players immersion and motion issues. Does it feel off when it happens?
D
Deleted member 740922
Unconfirmed Member
Screen only. VR is a complete non-starter for me due to motion sickness sadly 
BANGS
Banned
I'm talking specifically examples like hellblade and god of war that you mentioned. How does VR effect the experience in those types of games in the same manner when you aren't actually perceiving it any differently than on a large screen in front of you? I understand what you mean by horror games, rollercoasters, etc because those simulate the first person viewpoint which makes sense...
Lightsbane
Member
Screen. I throw up after 15 minutes using VR.
You just feel closer to it.
DarthBuzzer
Member
It depends on the implemention. Lone Echo and Echo VR does this really well and it feels fairly fine. It could always be toggled to just fade into black if needed.
DarthBuzzer
Member
So you mean on a giant screen simulated screen? It would be more immersive with a higher tendency to make you connected, but not by much compared to actually playing it as a VR game. Though you'd need a high enough resolution for this to be truly worthwhile as we're now comparing 2D screens to 2D screens, but real screens having the current advantage of much higher resolution.
This is better for movies than games today. I watched Ready Player One in a virtual theater with a perceived 720p IMAX screen and it was close to the real thing.
Last edited:
DarthBuzzer
Member
It's not a pointless gimmick and certainly doesn't outright make you throw up, as that is a software cause, not a hardware cause.
A.Romero
Member
My only experience with 3rd person in VR is Hellblade and I quite liked it. It is definitely more immersive and at least for me the trade of in resolution is worth it.
VR is not yet at the point where it can replace a screen but I think it will eventually come. I'm fairly sure RDR2 on PC will support VR and it will be one of those games that truly pushes the platform and will set a new standard for VR games.
VR is not yet at the point where it can replace a screen but I think it will eventually come. I'm fairly sure RDR2 on PC will support VR and it will be one of those games that truly pushes the platform and will set a new standard for VR games.
DarthBuzzer
Member
Glad to see someone else has played Hellblade in VR. Seems to be a rare sight among here. Fenrir boss is a nightmare come to life in VR, really terrifying.
A.Romero
Member
I just got it during the fall sale so I haven't played it all yet (too distracted with BFV and Yakuza Kiwami 2) but I have seen enough to believe in the concept of VR games other than first person. I haven't played the non VR version of that particular game but it's not difficult to imagine. So far I think it's the best looking VR game I have played so far and it really makes me want to play other high budget games in VR. Right now, given the option, I would chose VR over traditional screen for any game, even if it's just for experimentation purposes.
My dream game is a Total War game in VR. Just imagining being able to see the campaign map from the air and select units as if I was just reaching in a table game makes me hot and bothered. Jumping into the perspective of a unit in the field and being surrounded by enemy soldiers with arrows flying around and stuff sounds too awesome.
That said, screen still takes more of my gaming time because I have way more options to play and because it's just more practical. I keep my OR connected all the time, even if I only play like an hour a week.
