• 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.

I Went To Valve And Saw The Future (VR Hype Thread)

mrekim

Member
Jan 5, 2007
50
0
0
I actually do believe it's compelling. It was compelling back then, too. It was really fucking awesome, actually - headache and all. But it never took off. I personally believe that was because of the inherent limitations, and the current development doesn't seem to fix those in any way (except for the headache issue) - if it's even possible to fix them.



No? The shit we had back then were head mounted cathode ray tubes. Insanely heavy and pretty low-res.
Hey, would you mind telling us what you think are "systematic" and "inherent limitations"?

I've noticed that people have been spending the last two pages trying to guess at what you're talking about and it's really hard to have a discussion when there isn't common ground.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
No? Read more than one of my posts. The VR we have today is the same VR we had twenty years ago. The basic idea never changed, the main problems never got solved. Yeah, it's a cheaper and lighter and the resolution is better now, but I don't think that's enough. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't suck now, and it didn't suck two decades ago. But it didn't sell back then, and I don't think it'll sell now.
You keep saying this without any solid concept of what the hell you're talking about. How is it the same? We're talking about high FOV, low latency, high resolution true 3D with positional tracking vs....well....the complete opposite. How are they the same since you seem so convinced?
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
3,871
464
620
No? Read more than one of my posts. The VR we have today is the same VR we had twenty years ago. The basic idea never changed, the main problems never got solved. Yeah, it's a cheaper and lighter and the resolution is better now, but I don't think that's enough. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't suck, and it didn't suck two decades ago. But it didn't sell back then, and I don't think it'll sell now.
But that's the thing, VR did suck two decades ago -- and that's the reason for it not selling, not the basic concept. The state things are in now is not even comparable to what we had back then. People will crave good VR when they see it. I have seen it. You, on the other hand, are making an enormous leap of faith (presumably not having tried any of the new HMDs being discussed in this thread).
 

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Mar 10, 2005
19,173
184
1,770
What a brilliant write up. Thanks OP.

I can't wait to get to try this. It's only a couple of years away. Time to start saving the pennies.
 

wsippel

Banned
May 25, 2006
14,534
0
0
Erfurt, Germany
Hey, would you mind telling us what you think are "systematic" and "inherent limitations"?

I've noticed that people have been spending the last two pages trying to guess at what you're talking about and it's really hard to have a discussion when there isn't common ground.
I already did: It's additional hardware, it's something you can only enjoy by yourself, and you're wasting a lot of performance rendering peripheral shit. Those are all systemic problems, inherent issues of VR. It's totally awesome in a gimmicky kinda way, but it's inefficient and has very little to no real mass market appeal.
 

Stoze

Member
Feb 20, 2013
4,204
0
415
I really want the VR products to start rolling out, ones that aren't development kits. There's already quite a bit of competition in play, but most of us haven't gotten a taste of us yet.

Can't wait for the VRpocalypse.
 

epmode

Member
Jun 7, 2004
28,470
0
0
You keep saying this without any solid concept of what the hell you're talking about. How is it the same? We're talking about high FOV, low latency, high resolution true 3D with positional tracking vs....well....the complete opposite. How are they the same since you seem so convinced?
As usual, the most outspoken against VR are the ones least informed about modern VR technology.
 

BobTheSpy

Banned
Nov 6, 2012
130
0
0
Hey, would you mind telling us what you think are "systematic" and "inherent limitations"?

I've noticed that people have been spending the last two pages trying to guess at what you're talking about and it's really hard to have a discussion when there isn't common ground.
Yeah, wsippel, what are the systemic limitations? You've never elaborated. And I'll say this: many of the fundamental problems plaguing VR for decadesHAVE BEEN SOLVED. (Well, except for resolution, which isn't good enough even at 1440p.)

Here were the problems facing VR:
1. Latency - old VR headsets had a shit-ton of it. The new Crystal Cove prototype has gotten latency down to below 20ms in some instances, which isn't perceivable.
2. Resolution - although I said this wasn't solved, it's been improved upon a lot.
3. Field of View - old VR headsets had shitty, low FoVs - decreasing immersion by a lot. The current dev kit has a FoV of 90 degrees and it will be improved upon in the consumer version.
4. Motion blur - this has been solved with low persistence displays.
5. General fidelity of the environment - old VR games obviously had terrible graphics.
6. Weight - the Rift is much lighter than old VR headsets.
7. Price - the Rift is only $300.

So.. the systemic issues you described? Yeah, they've been all fixed.
 

wsippel

Banned
May 25, 2006
14,534
0
0
Erfurt, Germany
You keep saying this without any solid concept of what the hell you're talking about. How is it the same? We're talking about high FOV, low latency, high resolution true 3D with positional tracking vs....well....the complete opposite. How are they the same since you seem so convinced?
No, it was actually exactly the same. The shit back then had no latency because it used cables, and it did have head tracking. And it was extremely high resolution compared to home PCs. You evidently never tried that shit.


But that's the thing, VR did suck two decades ago -- and that's the reason for it not selling, not the basic concept. The state things are in now is not even comparable to what we had back then. People will crave good VR when they see it. I have seen it. You, on the other hand, are making an enormous leap of faith (presumably not having tried any of the new HMDs being discussed in this thread).
Your reading comprehension sucks. I did try them, and I tried the old ones (unlike anybody else in this thread it seems). That's why I say the new systems, while certainly better, don't fix the actual issues.
 

Feep

Second-hand Citizen
Sep 14, 2006
14,847
15
0
Los Angeles, CA
www.playiridium.com
No, it was actually exactly the same. The shit back then had no latency because it used cables, and it did have head tracking. And it was extremely high resolution compared to home PCs. You evidently never tried that shit.
This is a pure and absolute factual error. You seem to completely misunderstand the fundamental causes of motion-to-photon latency and how important that number is to the VR experience in general.

Your argument that "fun things cost money" and "people don't like to do things alone in their own homes" are silly for their own reasons, but hey, to each their own.
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
3,871
464
620
I already did: It's additional hardware, it's something you can only enjoy by yourself, and you're wasting a lot of performance rendering peripheral shit. Those are all systemic problems, inherent issues of VR. It's totally awesome in a gimmicky kinda way, but it's inefficient and has very little to no real mass market appeal.
That's it? "Wasting performance" is perhaps the most negligible systemic fault I've ever heard of. Porn is arguably wasting a lot of performance, but that premise is evidently not compelling enough to sway a whole lot of people to stop watching it. I hope you're donating your spare cycles to Folding@home, lest you be hypocritical.

Is the Rift worth strapping plastic to your head and and looking stupid over? Absolutely. In fact, it's better to be alone for that. :p

Edit:
Your reading comprehension sucks. I did try them, and I tried the old ones (unlike anybody else in this thread it seems). That's why I say the new systems, while certainly better, don't fix the actual issues.
Okay, my apologies. So, your arguments boil down to immaterial concerns and cosmetics, which makes your position even more baffling.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
Even though I do believe VR is going to be a considerable movement, possibly to the point of being an adjunct medium focused primarily on more experiential game design, a formal place for things like Dear Esther and Façade, and I think wsippel's arguments have been really weak, this conversation is not worlds away from discussion about 3D a few years ago. It had been around twice before in film, once before in gaming, but the technology was terrible, and all of those things were fixed, and it blew up, made Avatar the biggest film ever, then it instantly disappeared.

I don't think VR will, but the argument that the technology has now matured isn't, in of itself, evidence of it's potential popularity.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
I already did: It's additional hardware, it's something you can only enjoy by yourself, and you're wasting a lot of performance rendering peripheral shit. Those are all systemic problems, inherent issues of VR. It's totally awesome in a gimmicky kinda way, but it's inefficient and has very little to no real mass market appeal.
None of those are inherent reasons why VR couldn't appeal to a mass market.

No, it was actually exactly the same. The shit back then had no latency because it used cables, and it did have head tracking. And it was extremely high resolution compared to home PCs. You evidently never tried that shit.
What resolution? How did it have NO latency when positional tracking is just now getting to the point where we are getting sub 20ms response? Yeah, it was the exact same....
 

call_kotaku

Member
Nov 27, 2012
6,567
0
0
New York, NY
No? I said I tried the old shit two decades ago and the new shit we have today, and I actually do think it was and is pretty awesome. I just believe it's a massive waste of computational performance in a real world scenario and I don't think it'll sell. Because it is as "awesome" now as it was twenty years ago, and it didn't sell back then, either. In fact, most people don't even seem to remember that VR really was a thing back then and how old the whole thing actually is. It didn't work. The question is: Do Occulus or the Valve thing or the Sony thing actually fix the issues that prevented VR from becoming mainstream in 1992? I personally don't think so, but you're free to disagree.
That's sort of the issue though, because by all accounts they have solved 99% of the issues that plagued 90s VR, but you choose to argue from a position of ignorant speculation without even trying to disprove existing evidence, even the anecdotal parts.

It's why Valve built a prototype VR set they'll never sell, just to show people that the experience is possible with affordable off-the-shelf components within 2 years.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,895
2
0
Windsor, UK
I thnk it has the potential to be the next Wii, something that grabs the attention of the wider population. Maybe just to have a go on a roller coaster, or walk round the louvre from the comfort of their sofa, rather than HL3, but let's see.
 

androvsky

Member
Sep 19, 2007
7,940
1
895
No, it was actually exactly the same. The shit back then had no latency because it used cables, and it did have head tracking. And it was extremely high resolution compared to home PCs. You evidently never tried that shit.
Are you talking about units available to consumers back in the 90's (sub-$1000 range), or some professional level stuff? Because I still have my issue of PC Gamer where they talk about all the VR headsets from back in the day, and I recall them mentioning the resolution was sad compared to normal monitors.
 

YuShtink

Member
Feb 16, 2007
2,153
0
0
No? Read more than one of my posts. The VR we have today is the same VR we had twenty years ago. The basic idea never changed, the main problems never got solved. Yeah, it's a cheaper and lighter and the resolution is better now, but I don't think that's enough. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't suck now, and it didn't suck two decades ago. But it didn't sell back then, and I don't think it'll sell now.
The fuck are you talking about man? VR DID suck back then, the experience wasn't even CLOSE to what you imagined it would be. You had a giant, heavy device on your head that could barely even render 3D environments at 30 frames per second. Now we're at under a single pound in weight and rendering full 3D environments in 60-90fps. You had a FOV of what? 45-60 degrees MAX? Now we have 90-110+. God knows what the overall latency of those old VR headsets, easily well over 100ms, probably closer to 200ms. Now we're about to cross over 20ms. Did any of the old ones have 6DOF positional tracking? I'm pretty sure they didn't. Did Virtuality ever get support from third party game engines? Accessible game engines like Unity and Unreal didn't even exist back then. Did any of those VR companies ever have an openly available SDK for easy injection into a number of 3D engines? Or full support from a huge net-based platform like Steam? The overall experience is on a whole other level. Oculus already has more active development than any VR system of the past EVER HAD, and it's not even actually out yet.
 

UrbanRats

Member
Jun 25, 2009
40,855
1
830
The scale thing is really making me excited.

I never got a chance to try VR yet, but for those who did, do you think a Godzilla-like game, or something EDF style would deliver in VR? That's what i fantasize about, atm.
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
3,871
464
620
I don't think VR will, but the argument that the technology has now matured isn't, in of itself, evidence of it's potential popularity.
That is actually a good point. We're all nerds who have waited for VR to happen all our lives, but the Rift could be a hard sell to the general public, at least initially. With that said, I think the comparison to 3D is a false equivalency. It was a gimmicky technology driven mostly by content creators and hardware vendors, not something with an innately useful function. With VR, though, we can already see SO many possibilities in so many different fields, I can't really see it "failing" in the general sense. Sure, it may catch on relatively slowly, but that's what the enthusiast market is for -- to fill the gap until the really useful applications become available.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
The scale thing is really making me excited.

I never got a chance to try VR yet, but for those who did, do you think a Godzilla-like game, or something EDF style would deliver in VR? That's what i fantasize about, atm.
Oh man, Shadow of the Colossus, fuck.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,895
2
0
Windsor, UK
The scale thing is really making me excited.

I never got a chance to try VR yet, but for those who did, do you think a Godzilla-like game, or something EDF style would deliver in VR? That's what i fantasize about, atm.
Absolutely. Actually EDF might be pretty damn scary.

Oh man, Shadow of the Colossus, fuck.
That might be tricky when it gets to the climbing?
 

Jenga

Banned
Nov 8, 2006
12,632
0
0
I thnk it has the potential to be the next Wii, something that grabs the attention of the wider population. Maybe just to have a go on a roller coaster, or walk round the louvre from the comfort of their sofa, rather than HL3, but let's see.
Agreed. VR is in the future....but honestly, I don't think it IS the future. Wouldn't mind if it turned out to not be the case though.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
That might be tricky when it gets to the climbing?
Yeah, I didn't mean the game, I mean walking around that environment watching them.

You could make some insane stealth game against huge giant beasts though.

EDIT: Speaking of pitches, I've been obsessed with VR for a couple of weeks, and I think more than anything, I want someone to make The Divine Comedy. Just imagine walking around those environments with AI companions, meeting the various people, watching a harp concert, etc, and visually I think it'd be ideal, vaguely abstract, lots of visual effects without relying on detailed texture work or bump mapping, etc.

Make it, Game of the Forever.
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
3,871
464
620
The fuck are you talking about man? VR DID suck back then, the experience wasn't even CLOSE to what you imagined it would be. You had a giant, heavy device on your head that could barely even render 3D environments at 30 frames per second. Now we're at under a single pound in weight and rendering full 3D environments in 60-90fps. You had a FOV of what? 45-60 degrees MAX? Now we have 90-110+. God knows what the overall latency of those old VR headsets, easily well over 100ms, probably closer to 200ms. Now we're about to cross over 20ms. Did any of the old ones have 6DOF positional tracking? I'm pretty sure they didn't. Did Virtuality ever get support from third party game engines? Accessible game engines like Unity and Unreal didn't even exist back then. Did any of those VR companies ever have an openly available SDK for easy injection into a number of 3D engines? Or full support from a huge net-based platform like Steam? The overall experience is on a whole other level. Oculus already has more active development than any VR system of the past EVER HAD, and it's not even actually out yet.
This deserves to be quoted. It really shows how absurd it is to even think of comparing early 90s VR to circa 2014 VR. But it's so obvious, how could anyone not realize it? Do people who use "VR sucked back in the 90s" as an argument understand that we've had an over six orders of magnitude increase in computing power since? Not to mention the cost of MEMS, etc. Did consumer affordable MEMS even exist before the Wii? Probably not.
 

wsippel

Banned
May 25, 2006
14,534
0
0
Erfurt, Germany
None of those are inherent reasons why VR couldn't appeal to a mass market.
Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all be rocking that Rift or whatever in three years. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it'll happen. And if it doesn't happen, maybe you'll remember that there was this "no fun allowed" assclown on NeoGAF back then who called it. If it does happen, you're also free to remember this thread and laugh at me, of course. And if NeoGAF is still around at that point, and if we're both not banned, you're free to call me out, and I'll eat crow in the most virtual of realities, live and in 3D on NeoGAF VR.
 

Jenga

Banned
Nov 8, 2006
12,632
0
0
Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.
VR will become mainstream after Valve. So basically whenever Sony and MS play catch up during the latter half of the ps4/xbone era.
 

Feep

Second-hand Citizen
Sep 14, 2006
14,847
15
0
Los Angeles, CA
www.playiridium.com
Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all be rocking that Rift or whatever in three years. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it'll happen. And if it doesn't happen, maybe you'll remember that there was this "no fun allowed" assclown on NeoGAF back then who called it.
Argument A: You have to be alone to use VR!
Argument B: You look silly when using VR!

Hmmmm.
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
3,871
464
620
Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all be rocking that Rift or whatever in three years. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it'll happen. And if it doesn't happen, maybe you'll remember that there was this "no fun allowed" assclown on NeoGAF back then who called it.
Just to put your money where your mouth is, how many copies do you expect CV1 to sell? I'd wager it'll easily do one million+ and would consider that a relative success.
 

ScRYeD

Member
Jun 17, 2007
905
0
0
VR won't be complete until we get a 21st century Power Glove's.
I wonder how it would work?
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all be rocking that Rift or whatever in three years. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it'll happen. And if it doesn't happen, maybe you'll remember that there was this "no fun allowed" assclown on NeoGAF back then who called it. If it does happen, you're also free to remember this thread and laugh at me, of course. And if NeoGAF is still around at that point, and if we're both not banned, you're free to call me out, and I'll eat crow in the most virtual of realities, live and in 3D on NeoGAF VR.
It's a deal. I've survived 6 years here without being banned. What's a few more :p
 

Whiskeymatt

Member
May 6, 2012
1,583
0
0
Speaking of pitches, I've been obsessed with VR for a couple of weeks, and I think more than anything, I want someone to make The Divine Comedy. Just imagine walking around those environments with AI companions, meeting the various people, watching a harp concert, etc, and visually I think it'd be ideal, vaguely abstract, lots of visual effects without relying on detailed texture work or bump mapping, etc.

Make it, Game of the Forever.
Who do I give all of my money to in order to guarantee this game's existence? Because I need it.
 
Apr 25, 2011
3,791
0
0
Last week I entered an anechoic chamber for the first time and listened to recordings through an array of positioned speakers and it blew me away. I can only imagine how it would feel to combine VR of this quality with something like that.
 

soxinthebox

Member
May 18, 2011
4,483
0
0
WA
Hi! I’m Feep, and yesterday, I went into Valve’s offices in Seattle because we’re like totally bros now. The primary reason for the visit was to try their fancy VR prototype, which will not be for sale anywhere ever for reasons I can only assume involve them already possessing approximately 3% of the national GDP.

I own an Oculus Rift dev kit, and I also did a writeup awhile back on VRCade, one of the first solutions to have positional tracking. I haven’t tried Crystal Cove or Sony’s solution (dear Sony: invite me to try this at GDC so I can write a hype thread for you too), but I hear Crystal Cove is only *slightly* behind Valve’s solution in terms of fidelity.
....
I want it

Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all be rocking that Rift or whatever in three years. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it'll happen. And if it doesn't happen, maybe you'll remember that there was this "no fun allowed" assclown on NeoGAF back then who called it. If it does happen, you're also free to remember this thread and laugh at me, of course. And if NeoGAF is still around at that point, and if we're both not banned, you're free to call me out, and I'll eat crow in the most virtual of realities, live and in 3D on NeoGAF VR.
 

wsippel

Banned
May 25, 2006
14,534
0
0
Erfurt, Germany
Argument A: You have to be alone to use VR!
Argument B: You look silly when using VR!

Hmmmm.
That's... not what I was saying. Sure, you do look silly, and you can't really share the experience with anybody else (not the same as having to be alone), but those aren't my main points. Those are smaller issues that will hinder widespread adoption, but not the main problems.

The main problems are money and power. Ideally, to use VR, you want to render several times the current FoV. And you want to render that stuff twice, to get the 3D effect. And since you only see a small part of the screen at any time, you'll ideally want two 4k screens in your headset, as even 1080p looks pixelated at that distance - you're only looking at maybe 1/9th of the whole screen at any time. Maybe people will be cool with 2014 games looking like Quake 3, but I heavily doubt it. Producing state of the art visuals for such a device is very demanding. So you'll not only need an additional piece of hardware that's a couple hundred bucks (it's not like the current headsets could realistically replace monitors), you'll also need a much more expensive system to do it justice.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Sep 10, 2009
29,419
1
0
Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.
So you specifically say it wasn't a price issues before, but now its the main issue.

Jesus you're full of shit. Stop being so cynical.

And with your arguments pretty much fully dismantled and rubbished, back to this being a hype thread, yea!?

I wonder if VR rooms will become a part of regular house design like 'gaming rooms' and whatnot exist right now.
 

Angelcurio

Member
Jul 18, 2006
3,160
27
1,360
Dominican Republic
VR could end up bringing the revival of Arcade like places. While the tech could simply be too expensive to end up on being available for personal use, like in a game console, it could actually be used for big companies, in some kind of entertainment places like the arcades used to be, since they would pay for a small amount of devices and have them available for mass use.
 

googleplex

Member
Jun 7, 2010
9,072
0
0
Great write-up! I've already starting saving money for my VR rig. Good then the consumer devices are about a year away.
 

Clawww

Member
Mar 11, 2013
6,683
0
0
USA
VR could end up bringing the revival of Arcade like places. While the tech could simply be too expensive to end up on being available for personal use, like in a game console, it could actually be used for big companies, in some kind of entertainment places like the arcades used to be, since they would pay for a small amount of devices and have them available for mass use.
I don't see it bringing back anything like arcades, but it could certainly be a mainstay as an exhibition device at all types of events and museums and galleries and stores and stuff. It's already being put to that use in a lot of places.
 

googleplex

Member
Jun 7, 2010
9,072
0
0
Feep said:
It’s important to note here that whatever the brain uses to ascribe the “this is a real object” tag to things, it isn’t related to textures: every material in the contraption was entirely untextured, only possessing a color and a soft specular highlight, but it sure looked real to me.
I have a feeling that Sony's VR solution and VR experiences will be counting on this fact. Great lighting with simple or no textures surfaces will be much easier for the PS4 to render at the prescribed framerates. But good VR will still fool your brain.
 

SneakyStephan

Banned
Jan 23, 2011
18,401
0
0
VR is gonna end up like 3D and Motion control gaming. just a fad.
except I've never seen anyone who tried it call it a fad
also there is as of yet no product and no real marketing so for now opinions on it are pretty reliable

I do believe it'll be its own niche outside of regular gaming as it's going to be extremely limited controls wise till someone figures something out
probably best to keep calling it vr and not put it under the gaming umbrella and just let it be its own thing so people can be creative on it rather than try to make standard games for it

Oh, but they are. I'll make it simple: VR won't appeal to the mass market because it costs a lot of money (expensive peripheral hardware with limited use, significant additional performance requirements) and you look like an idiot using it. That simple, really.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all be rocking that Rift or whatever in three years. I'm not against it, I just don't believe it'll happen. And if it doesn't happen, maybe you'll remember that there was this "no fun allowed" assclown on NeoGAF back then who called it. If it does happen, you're also free to remember this thread and laugh at me, of course. And if NeoGAF is still around at that point, and if we're both not banned, you're free to call me out, and I'll eat crow in the most virtual of realities, live and in 3D on NeoGAF VR.
yet people crawl over eachother to buy stupid 600+ dollar phones with a day's worth of battery life to do some 4th rate browsing and play some whale centric ungames on it , hell even your tag suggest you are an acolyte of that fad
 

Sentenza

Member
Dec 3, 2011
14,178
938
815
I have a feeling that Sony's VR solution and VR experiences will be counting on this fact. Great lighting with simple or no textures surfaces will be much easier for the PS4 to render at the prescribed framerates. But good VR will still fool your brain.
After all, in the end what really matters is that it must be specifically Sony VR to be good.
 

Chairmanchuck

Member
Jun 18, 2011
14,205
0
680
yet people crawl over eachother to buy stupid 600+ dollar phones with a day's worth of battery life to do some 4th rate browsing and play some whale centric ungames on it , hell even your tag suggest you are an acolyte of that fad
He is a mobilephone Game dev IIRC.
 

Kimosabae

Banned
May 9, 2009
10,013
1
0
I have to admit that I've put little consideration and largely want to dismiss the tech as a gimmick also... but Stu's comment regarding 'Divine Comedy' may have just sent my mind coursing down a very different riverbed.

It's not just that Divine Comedy is one of my favorite pieces of literature ever... it's the fact that a genuine interpretation of the classic outside literature might ONLY make sense in something like a VR video game. That's something I hadn't considered. Most of the ideas I've come across for VR have been derivations of the current paradigm of game design. That bores me. I don't care about amplifying the immersion of your typical dungeon crawler or FPS (which are, incidentally, the type of experiences I had trying Oculus for the first time last night).

But the idea of following Virgil through the Inferno as my guide and just being a passive witness to the marvels articulated in that book would be an amazing and novel experience that a lot of people outside the typical gaming demographic could be excited about.

It could also be very traumatic, given the right person and the fidelity high enough.

Every piece of literature that was ever 'unfilmable' or movie that was 'unadaptable' to video games may find an outlet (just for example).



*edit*

Sorry if the is the wrong thread for daydreaming. If it is, point me in the right direction.