-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
James Cameron unimpressed with Oculus and VR tech.
- Thread starter Game4life
- Start date
InaudibleWhispa
Member
What are the limits? There are a ton of cool DK2 demo's in a variety of genres. Even stuff that doesn't seem like a fit on paper such as Deeper and Lucky's Tale, 3rd person action platformers, are absolutely wonderful. You also seem to be limiting VR to the state it is currently in. Unlike curved TV's, what a VR headset fundamentally is isn't set in stone. Iribe has said a number of times the long term end goal for Oculus is something the size of a pair of sunglasses. By that point mobiles will be powerful enough to run incredible experiences for the mainstream, and the resolution will be imperceptible. What's stopping mainstream success at that point?
Star Citizen and Elite, both Kickstarted projects, have raised over $60 million between them. Lots of people are foaming at the mouth for space sims, and Oculus is the perfect way to experience them. I wouldn't play Elite any other way.
He's not wrong. As it is now you need too many different things to get a partially functional VR experience. I think the average consumer would be overwhelmed by what it takes to get things up and running and underwhelmed by the end result. Miyamoto has it right when he says the tech would work better in an arcade setting right now. That's basically what the Valve demo that people were so impressed by was.
It's funny though. I was just watching Cameron's Deepsea Challenger 3D the other day and thinking that would make a great home VR experience. It gives a valid reason for the player to just be sitting in a chair holding some kind of controller with no real feedback from the environment.
It's funny though. I was just watching Cameron's Deepsea Challenger 3D the other day and thinking that would make a great home VR experience. It gives a valid reason for the player to just be sitting in a chair holding some kind of controller with no real feedback from the environment.
I agree but for different reasons. Oculus was quite magical when I tried it but I was already getting fatigue. Like wearing 3D glasses or using Wii Remotes, it's fun for a few days then the novelty wears off and you just want to relax in front of your TV as normal.
I think it has interesting commercial applications though, hence why I think Facebook snapped them up. For the consumer market, it'll never become anything big.
I think it has interesting commercial applications though, hence why I think Facebook snapped them up. For the consumer market, it'll never become anything big.
Crazy dude. You just PM'd me telling me I was trolling you and was acting with malicious intent, but then you say something like this and I cant help but think you're the one trolling us.
You really need to try modern VR before you continue making statements like this because its very obvious you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to say that you should gain some first-hand knowledge before making all sorts of uninformed comments.
Neuromancer
Member
I think for nature documentaries it could be amazing. For narrative based movies, I can't see it taking off.
No, it was terrible because it was monochrome, it was uncomfortable to use, and it was expensive.
Pretty much, his current questions are ones that I share and I'm excited for VR. I still think it's going to be awhile before we get anything that truely justifies the tech.
Also :
http://youtu.be/67MRiMT9cnE
Canis lupus
Member
That's very possible. VR needs to have its killer app, its Avatar moment soon before mass interest slowly wanes.
Yeah, once we're at the point of discussing limitations and benefits then we're simply at a "wait and see" stage. I'm willing to put up with the inconvenience of 3D glasses so I can watch Piranha 3D in even more of its goofy glory and many people would rather just watch it without the glasses. The inconvenience of VR is much more pronounced than 3D glasses, but the benefits are also much more pronounced than simple 3D. People will put up with inconvenience if it delivers something that they consider worth it. For me, I don't even need it to be mainstream, I just want it to be successful enough to be able to carry its own weight and a sustainable lifespan.
It's up to the hardware makers and developers to deliver. It'll be fascinating. Even first-person horror games that have been made to work in VR are far too intense for me. It's scary, but not in a fun way. But, you don't need the same tools to create dread and horror in VR than you do with a computer screen and speakers. You can create something more subtle and more effective, something akin to atmospheric horror films like The Haunting, Rosemary's Baby, The Changeling, etc. Will a large enough audience respond to this sort of horror that's best accentuated by VR? Who knows! It's up to great creative minds to play with VR and find new nooks and crannies to exploit. Personally, I can't wait to find out what happens with VR.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
This was my takeaway as well, and I agree 100 percent. I feel like dk2 gives you even more of a desire to reach out and touch the world around you, or walk around in it. Unless it's a seated sim experience you just want more from the tech and realize we're quite a ways off from anything substantial in terms of tactile interaction and freedom of movement. I want vr to get there but we've got a ways to go.
randomengine
Banned
I want to break this down a little further. Let's imagine we had VR and the latest NBA 2K game has support for VR. You can literally play the games as a certain player. At first that would seem so cool and immersive and interesting, but after a while I think gamers would just want to play a basketball sim as they have always been playing it.
Why? Well because the VR-mode just gives more experience it doesn't add gameplay elements. It wouldn't enhance anything but the experience. Games are about games and game design -systems within the game that provide fun. I really don't think VR interacts all that well with those systems. They are trying to achieve divergent ends.
That said, would a VR-mode be kinda cool in the next NBA 2K game? Sure, but expect a couple of things:
1. Non-VR gamers will be pissed that time/money was spent on the mode. This is true because game development resources are zero-sum.
2. Expect VR-support to almost always be a side-feature and never the main feature of a traditional game.
Lastly, if you build a VR-game it is difficult to imagine what new systems can be brought to video gaming that cannot be realized with current (or future) tech. What I mean is whatever gameplay they would come up with in a VR game built from scratch would build upon game design that is already established. The only difference would be which type of game would emphasize which part of the game. The VR game would emphasize immersion and the experience, whereas a traditional game with a VR mode would simply try to maximize the use of the existing systems with a VR experience.
Why? Well because the VR-mode just gives more experience it doesn't add gameplay elements. It wouldn't enhance anything but the experience. Games are about games and game design -systems within the game that provide fun. I really don't think VR interacts all that well with those systems. They are trying to achieve divergent ends.
That said, would a VR-mode be kinda cool in the next NBA 2K game? Sure, but expect a couple of things:
1. Non-VR gamers will be pissed that time/money was spent on the mode. This is true because game development resources are zero-sum.
2. Expect VR-support to almost always be a side-feature and never the main feature of a traditional game.
Lastly, if you build a VR-game it is difficult to imagine what new systems can be brought to video gaming that cannot be realized with current (or future) tech. What I mean is whatever gameplay they would come up with in a VR game built from scratch would build upon game design that is already established. The only difference would be which type of game would emphasize which part of the game. The VR game would emphasize immersion and the experience, whereas a traditional game with a VR mode would simply try to maximize the use of the existing systems with a VR experience.
GoldenCrow
Member
I'm not surprised really. I think younger more adventurous directors and producers will have a better more engaged approach to what they can do with the technology.
The most obvious one to me is using the material from a film/play as The Sunset Limited and place the user within the room as an observer.
The most obvious one to me is using the material from a film/play as The Sunset Limited and place the user within the room as an observer.
This. I asked for it for Christmas when I was a kid and there were kiosks at the mall. I played pinball and tennis and I couldn't have been more depressed. I told my parents and they had to return it the same day they bought it. I don't think they've ever forgiven me for that.
Tidus_Great
Banned
he's an ass but he's right. until something is adopted by the public and is actually wanted then who cares.
see 3DTVs
see 3DTVs
platformmaster918
Banned
Well I am unimpressed with any of your movies since Terminator 2 mr. Cameron so THERE! Seriously though he has 2 of the most overrated movies of all time.
Cameron recently went to the deepest part of the planet, by himself. And has personally been behind creating technology just to film his work.
I kinda scoffed a little on the first page but he adventuerererers plenty
This idea that VR doesn't do anything for gameplay is, once again, ignorant.
People complain that modern gaming has stagnant gameplay mechanics and VR is actually the sort of medium that could change that. Don't confuse your own lack of imagination with VR's imagined limited potential.
It has already proven it can change gameplay in incredible ways.
Any game that isn't built with VR in mind is going to be a compromised experience in general. While I do feel that VR is applicable to far more areas of gaming than people realize, it doesn't *have* to be a part of every game ever. An NBA2k16 doesn't need a VR mode if its going to be half-assed. But in the future, a dedicated VR basketball game could be fucking awesome.
You are again speaking of VR's limited nature yet you have no experience of it and clearly have a limited imagination that you're mistaking for absolute limitations of a medium.
VR can do far, far more than you realize.
TheAdmiester
Member
I sincerely hope this is the case.
CrunchyFrog
Member
3d isn't impressive, it's just different layers and cheap parlor trick effects that don't really add anything to the narrative. 3d movies have been around forever.
Considering this is tech that does exactly what he set out to do with Avatar and does it better with precise IOD and perspective and distortion correction, I'm a little surprised that he's so dismissive. It's like THE definitive method of watching 3D movies.
Considering this is tech that does exactly what he set out to do with Avatar and does it better with precise IOD and perspective and distortion correction, I'm a little surprised that he's so dismissive. It's like THE definitive method of watching 3D movies.
Pops Maellard
Member
This. Painfully obviously this, actually, and I agree. I don't really have any interest in a VR film experience.
AHA-Lambda
Member
That's ok, I was unimpressed with Avatar.
RedAssedApe
Banned
haha..i like how this threadis right next to "Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion"
CrunchyFrog
Member
That's pretty much exactly a role playing video game.
outunderthestars
Banned
As someone who has used OR I have to say that I wasn't that impressed either. It still has a long way to go before it is truly ready for public use.
Insane Metal
Gold Member
As much as I admire him for his work, I know he's usually an asshole (so many people from the business say that about him).
And, honestly, anyone who supports 3D for movies and does not feel anything about VR is out of his mind.
And, honestly, anyone who supports 3D for movies and does not feel anything about VR is out of his mind.
AuthenticM
Member
Baby steps, James. Baby steps. We'll get there.
Teletraan1
Banned
But that shit is just corny gimmicks. For a movie I will take it how the director intended it. Do you think half the scenes in movies would be as impactful if you were watching it from the perspective of an extra or a fly on the wall rather than a properly framed scene? It would be a joke to the artists work. Are you going to film upskirts too because that is where everyones camera is going the whole time. I can see where he is coming from for a movie perspective, it would be impossible to film the way you are suggesting without it being limited to silly gimmick shots that really add nothing to the film itself.
Long way? Not at all. Anyway, I think the number of people who don't find Elite Dangerous with a HOTAS, or Assetto Corsa with a wheel impressive is pretty tiny.. Yes it is alpha/beta on alpha righ now, but some of us have more fun with a Oculus Rift DK2 these days than we've had in decades. Every time I sit down with my G27 and Assetto Corsa, it's "as a kid at christmas" for me, the experience is that profound. You know that Ferrari La Ferrari we're not ever going to afford, let alone drive it around Spa? I'm ****** doing it / sitting in the car driving it around SPA right now, and it pretty much (-gforces of course..) feels like driving an actual car around an actual track.
One can only hope and dream
masterkajo
Member
masterkajo unimpressed with Avatar and 3D tech.
El-Pistolero
Member
James Cameron? Really? The guy is a tech pioneer and a visionary when it comes to this. Check some of his accomplishments in the field and listen to interviews of him talking about 3D projection and virtual reality...You will change your tune!
Masterz117
Banned
Makes sense, given that it's just a tv strapped to your face. VR my ass, especially if all it can do is put the facebook timeline on the refrigerator.
BibiMaghoo
Member
To be fair, it's not like he is a VR expert, and if someone doesn't appreciate his films, then he is essentially a nobody to that person.
Here is a man with the muscle to push any tech in entertainment. He should do so if he wants better results, in my opinion.
Pretty much agree with his statement. VR is cool and I'd like to see where it goes, but I just don't think it's quite that time yet. I'm just not excited for the Oculus Rift. I can't imagine doing anything more with it than exploring the internet, sim games, and probably a lot of horror games.
Thankfully, the potential of VR is not limited to what you can imagine it to be, no offense. That's a mistake a lot of people are making. Even people involved or paying close attention to VR are constantly being surprised by what other people are doing and what is possible.
For example, I can personally attest to the fact(yes, fact) that 3D platformers can be absolutely brilliant in VR. Which is why its so ridiculous that Nintendo isn't getting onboard. It works *so well* and provides a new level of interaction and experience that you have to experience to believe. A 3D Mario game in VR would more than jaw-dropping, it would be pants-dropping.
And really, so many other genres would work fantastically well too, given somebody who gave it some care. VR is in such an infant state right now gaming-wise, that while its already proven itself in many ways, its also wrong to judge it solely by what its doing right now.
In terms of movies, that is definitely up in the air. It will be challenging, at the very least. We will start seeing some film content quite soon though, so the question of whether it has potential or not will be answered quite quickly. And that's talking native VR films. Using the Rift as a *general* movie viewer is already apparently quite brilliant even if it needs a higher resolution still(which will come).