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...But if the focus is eye-popping exploration, a VR headset. Even for 3rd person games it really adds to the experience.
FTFY....People with VR will obviously vote for screen except in very rare circumstances where they haven't tried a 3rd person game on screen...
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.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: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...
VR doesn't add any sensory data to a 3rd person game...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.
I'm not gonna pretend I understand, but I appreciate the attempt, thanks brother...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 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.VR doesn't add any sensory data to a 3rd person game....
No it's not... please stop trolling with your VR evangelism...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.
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...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.
This is the very last time I reply to you as I want to ensure no one else is persuaded by your ridiculousness.No it's not... please stop trolling with your VR evangelism...
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.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.
Actually, no... stop trolling with this garbage dude...The effect of VR literally works the same as the human eyes, does it not? Answer: Yes
Yes, it is...No, VR is not a gimmick.
LMFAO dude stop just stop you've become a parody of yourself at this point...Astro Bot is a GOTY contender
Completely irrelevant. But yes it will always be a gimmick...ell, say VR is a gimmick if you want just for a moment, but to say it always will be?
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...This is the very last time I reply to you
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.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...
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...
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.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.
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.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.
That's what lack of serious competition will do for you.Astro Bot is a GOTY contender and one of the highest rated games of the year.
It is really cute, how blind hype repeaters also repeat the same tired arguments against all logic...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.
I'm not using this poll to bash any VR games, and astro bot technically isn't a 3rd person game...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.
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...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'm not using this poll to bash any VR games, and astro bot technically isn't a 3rd person game...
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?
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.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.
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...
I don't see you denying the assertion, and based on such golden quotes asLike 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?
VR doesn't add any sensory data to a 3rd person game...
I'm not gonna pretend I understand, but I appreciate the attempt
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.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...
It wouldn't, because the sole appeal of the game is it's vr control for the camera...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.
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...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"
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...I don't see you denying the assertion
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...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.
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.
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: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.
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.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 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/UnlawfulAcclaimedHareThat'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.
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?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.
The guy is clearly deranged.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.
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.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.
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.
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...
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...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...
The distinction is important in context with this topic, how could you not see that?It's still a third-person game. Stop overcomplicating it.