Poll: Is VR only going to be about walking simulators and shooting galleries?

[Zhukov]

So far VR games seem like an extended collective exercise in trying to make games where the player doesn't have to move.

It's quite comical and just a little bit sad.

When they solve that problem, if they solve that problem, then someone come find me.

Budget Cuts.

Watch it. Play it. Tell me if you still have issues.

I still have issues. Budget Cuts does what most such VR games do. Point to teleport rather than moving.

Granted, it does it more smoothly than other VR games I've seen and it lets you teleport anywhere rather than using predefined destination points, but it's still a comically over-complicated way of walking across a room.

At this point it seems that VR would be good for driving/piloting games and bugger all else.

Someone just make a decent mech piloting game already.

 

[infohippie]

Someone just make a decent mech piloting game already.

That's what I've been wishing for ever since the last one sixteen years ago. No, MWO doesn't count because it's PvP, multiplayer-only, trash. I am really hoping that VR might breathe new life into scifi vehicle sims like this, they were my favourite genre back in the day until they were killed off by the rise of first person shooters.

 

[Vigormortis]

It's been like a year at most. Give it time. Gimmicks are where games come from.

Hasn't even been three months, dude.

Seriously, it's like all the naysayers assume that unless VR completely and utterly redefines and usurps the entirety of the gaming industry overnight it's an utter failure.

It's like they're completely unaware of the history of the medium.

VR has been attempted and failed repeated since before the mid 90s. I'll grant that some of the tech demos look amazing, but the sh**** polygonal hellscapes that were VR in '98 also looked amazing at the time. Nothing's changed but the window dressing and the cost.

Wow, you....really have no idea just how much has actually changed from the laughably antiquated "VR" of yester-years to the VR of today. So much has changed it's not worth the time it'd take to type it out here. Might I suggest looking up...ooph, any one of dozens upon dozens of in-depth looks at the technology in the current crop of HMDs and the technological advances Valve, Oculus, and others had to create to make them work.

"Nothing's changed". Jeez...

Besides, you do understand that technology advances, right? I mean, many people had tried, and failed, many times before the Wright brothers managed to get an aircraft to fly. Yet aircraft are now a staple of our daily lives.

Just because something failed in the past does not mean it's doomed to fail forever. Why are so many convinced this is the case? "It failed before so it can't work now!" What an odd notion.

Sounds more like they want it to fail, and keep looking for reasons it must be so.

So far VR games seem like an extended collective exercise in trying to make games where the player doesn't have to move.

Uh, what?

I have roughly a dozen games on my Vive, all of which allow (and some even require) me to stand up and move around the room to play. Hell, one is a literal obstacle course.

I...really don't get where you're getting your ideas from here. At all.

It's quite comical and just a little bit sad.

As are many of the negative criticisms of the technology.

"You have to sit and not move to use it!" No, you don't. Room-scale tracking is all about freedom of movement.

"It makes everyone motion sick!" No, it doesn't. I've yet to have anyone experience motion sickness when using my Vive, even those who always get motion sickness from other HMDs.

"It's only a gimmick and all of its games are tech demoes!" Um, no applies here too. One of my most recent VR game purchases was Quar, and it's a pretty solid turn-based strategy game.

It's literally judging a technology they don't understand, at almost any level. It's text book ignorance.

When they solve that problem, if they solve that problem, then someone come find me.

They solved it almost two years ago. You must've missed the memo.

Somes games give people seizures, there are often warning beforehand that the game may induce a seizure to someone who is prone to having them. You know what they do? Not fucking play it.

If you get motion sickness playing VR, don't play VR. Simple.

Those seizure warnings are the same that apply to any game with the possibility of flashing lights. It's not an inherent issue with VR, it's an inherent issue with display technology and those prone to epileptic seizures.

OT: well shooters are the most popular genre atm. But anyone with any kind of imagination can see how it would work for most genres.

Adventure and puzzle games seem to be more popular, honestly. There've been quite a lot of 'em popping up lately.

I'd like to see a VR RTS. I'm not game developper but i could see the appeal of not only having a soldiers first point of view for recon purposes terrain awareness as well as a birds eye view of a big chunk of the map.

They already exist, and more are on the way.

Out of Ammo is a good example. It's in an early build but it's basically an RTS where you can stand above the battlefield, moving units and giving orders, and then shrink down and take control of a specific unit from its point of view. So, for example, you can build a sniper tower and place a soldier in it. Then, swoop down and take control of the sniper and actually move about the tower sniping enemies with the rifle yourself.

 

[Vigormortis]

Someone just make a decent mech piloting game already.

That's what I've been wishing for ever since the last one sixteen years ago. No, MWO doesn't count because it's PvP, multiplayer-only, trash. I am really hoping that VR might breathe new life into scifi vehicle sims like this, they were my favourite genre back in the day until they were killed off by the rise of first person shooters.

Already in the works.


I've heard of others, but I can't recall the names and obviously don't have videos for them.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Seriously, it's like all the naysayers assume that unless VR completely and utterly redefines and usurps the entirety of the gaming industry overnight it's an utter failure.

On the other hand, you are expecting those people to cough up $300 + whatever graphics hardware capable of supporting VR that still does not "completely and utterly redefines and usurps the entirety of the gaming".

And at this point, they are reasonable not to support VR. After all, you have compared it to the inventions - and many of the inventions have gotten where they are with millions spent from early adopters and investors. While said inventions were "kind of usable" to "highly impractical but still somehow cutting edge".

You can come back when it does get better in terms of technology or catalog of games. Because it is foolish to invest early in potential when what you will get is exactly same as other guys who put down money later - not really different from early access and etc.
(well, People who put down money later has advantage... but that's beside the point.)

 

[gsilver]

Someone just make a decent mech piloting game already.

Keep an eye on Vox Machinae
The prototype is playable now, and there full game is in the works.



And for a game with lots of movement and no teleporting, try Unseen Diplomacy.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I dont think I'll ever be into VR because its a different type of play then the games I have come to love all my life. If I had a holo-deck from star trek, I would use it to simulate a really nice computer I could sit and play games on. I might be product of 20th century gaming, but I find the abstract way of doing things by clicking buttons to be more fun then going out in the world and doing it for real. Especially since the abstract way give you more control and depth with things like character and inventory management. Real soldiers on the battlefield dont get to create and level up their character, which is the best part.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I dont think I'll ever be into VR because its a different type of play then the games I have come to love all my life. If I had a holo-deck from star trek, I would use it to simulate a really nice computer I could sit and play games on. I might be product of 20th century gaming, but I find the abstract way of doing things by clicking buttons to be more fun then going out in the world and doing it for real. Especially since the abstract way give you more control and depth with things like character and inventory management. Real soldiers on the battlefield dont get to create and level up their character, which is the best part.

The kind of vr game I have an interest in is one that uses traditional buttons too. It's more about being in the game and seein things as though they're there and less about a really good wiimote experience for me. Think the augmented reality some 3ds games like bravely second do for an idea.

 

[Zhukov]

So far VR games seem like an extended collective exercise in trying to make games where the player doesn't have to move.

Uh, what?

I have roughly a dozen games on my Vive,

Well, that explains why you're so eager to defend it. If I'd spent all that money I'd probably be doing the same thing.

all of which allow (and some even require) me to stand up and move around the room to play. Hell, one is a literal obstacle course.

I...really don't get where you're getting your ideas from here. At all.

It's quite comical and just a little bit sad.

As are many of the negative criticisms of the technology.

"You have to sit and not move to use it!" No, you don't. Room-scale tracking is all about freedom of movement.

"...move around the room..."
"... room-scale..."

I rest my case.

 

[Vinsin]

I'm just going to say I've loved my experiences with the Vive, Made for VR roomscale games are the most breathtaking gaming experiences I've ever had; then digging into VorpX even in it's unpolished state, with the 15+ minutes of work getting each game running has also been outstanding; frankly, Bioshock Infinite's scenes were one of the most beautiful and immersive gaming moments of my life once it was setup properly. This sense of amazement extended to Dishonored, The Long Dark, and other games. Even twitch titles, such as CSGO (Scout Headshots with headtracking! Fun times.)

Meanwhile games more polished, like Minecraft's mod Vivecraft put me completely in the world and let me roam with trigger, and play with all my old mods; I could NEVER return to normal minecraft. Never.

GTA IV is a experience I look forward to as well, same with VireIO's Fallout 4 Roomscale if I decide I can't wait for Bethesda to do it.

VR extends past gaming as well, especially helpful in game development (making models) but I think my opinion is 'clear' enough. VR is here to stay, it's not a gimmick, it is not limited in any fashion except that there is a medical-related hunt to find how to ease those that are prone to motion sickness into getting their VR legs, or just in general. But VR itself is not limited to any type of gaming genre anymore than the player or devs want it to be and the enjoyment and reasons for that enjoyment can barely be expressed, but is substantial.

I only look forward to the future of VR, if you haven't tried it out - do so; not just for a few minutes but really find a means to sit down/roomscale test it for half an hour at least; while I also think even while writing this YOU shouldn't believe this hype - but also don't believe anyone else's hate either. Just try it. End of story.

If you find your motion sickness prone or just 'don't like it' after giving it a real shot, well there you go, not everyone has to love it especially right now in it's early adopter phase..

- Which is in fact expensive, I'm on a budget, with a computer not meant for VR (FX6300 & GTX960) but plunged in anyway, and fell in love, a lot of games still being very accessible to me but that's another topic entirely; but I've probably spent upwards of 200 hours in VR at this point- as to a point, my girlfriend has as well - who.. pretty much steals the Vive from me half the time and has become obsessed with Holpoint, Tilt Brush, and Vivecraft. But naturally, prices will decline both in hardware for your computer and the HMD's themselves in time and make the technology vastly more accessible, as time will also open up more developed, polished game titles and even more polished hack-jobs enabling more polished non-vr titles for those without motion issues; hopefully even finding means around motion sickness in due course. With that' though, concluding my long-winded opinion and leaving it with a simple..


TLDR:
Love it.
That's it.
There is no shortening it.
Read the opinion; or just understand it as a "Yes" for VR. Try it yourself if your on the fence, no amount of reading is going to replace actually having gotten to experience it for yourself for half an hour or so and really knowing what it's like.

 

[Gennadios]

VR has been attempted and failed repeated since before the mid 90s. I'll grant that some of the tech demos look amazing, but the sh**** polygonal hellscapes that were VR in '98 also looked amazing at the time. Nothing's changed but the window dressing and the cost.

Wow, you....really have no idea just how much has actually changed from the laughably antiquated "VR" of yester-years to the VR of today. So much has changed it's not worth the time it'd take to type it out here. Might I suggest looking up...ooph, any one of dozens upon dozens of in-depth looks at the technology in the current crop of HMDs and the technological advances Valve, Oculus, and others had to create to make them work.

"Nothing's changed". Jeez...

Besides, you do understand that technology advances, right? I mean, many people had tried, and failed, many times before the Wright brothers managed to get an aircraft to fly. Yet aircraft are now a staple of our daily lives.

Just because something failed in the past does not mean it's doomed to fail forever. Why are so many convinced this is the case? "It failed before so it can't work now!" What an odd notion.

Sounds more like they want it to fail, and keep looking for reasons it must be so.

... because there has not been a single instance in history where people kept trying to make a bad idea work repeatedly across multiple generations and failed every time.

Since you can't be bothered to type up everything that's changed I can't be bothered to look it all up (aside from everything I read that states that this is "new" technology that it'll still require wires, and dongles, and motion sensing pylons and cameras all over the place, much like the mid 90's)

People aren't convinced that it will work because there isn't any kind of paradigm shift with the tech. I'm seeing the same technology that I saw in the 90's that's lighter, less bulky, with better graphics and motion sensing. Streamlined =/= better in this case. There's also the small fact that people aren't as well off as they were in the 90's and have smaller living spaces to contend with.

 

[gsilver]

Well, The Terminator for Dos sucked, so FPS games that mix on-foot and in-vehicle gameplay will never be good.

...Right?

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I think that a lot of people who are nay saying it right off the bat actually need to try it first. Motion controls were a gimmick, 3D was a gimmick, and neither felt like they made any meaningful difference. Motion controls were clunky ways to press virtual buttons, and 3D was barely noticeable, and full of inconvenience. You could hardly find someone more pessimistic about them.

I recently tried the HTC Vive, and it is actually amazing. The difference is like night and day. Walking around in a virtual world is so much more immersive than a TV screen. Scale just gets a totally new meaning with it. The Tilt Brush application was incredible, and I am almost positive that 3D modelling and animation will find a use for VR.

That being said, I don't think that this generation of VR devices is going to be the one that makes it commercially successful. There's too many devices, they're too expensive ($1000 for the Vive and $1000-1500 for a computer that could support it), and the user base won't likely ever become big enough for there to be enough supporting software. Particularly when the small market of VR users is further split by the differences between the various VR devices.

There's also the difficulty with translating games to it. I haven't played any regular games ported to it, but from what I played of Windlands, the button controlled movement was a little jarring (while not as bad as I'd have thought), and turning around constantly required me to mind the cables. It'd be nice to hear from anyone who has experience with that though.

I think that devices like the Vive will really shine in games that make use of the limited space movement. I can imagine piloting simulators, 3D modelling (This most of all), rail shooters, RTS games, etc would all work great. You just need to keep the platform in mind.

While they're not commercially viable, they're really impressive already, and can be utilized as far more than just a gimmick. I'm really excited to see how it changes over the next few years

 

[Vinsin]

I($1000 for the Vive and $1000-1500 for a computer

There's also the difficulty with translating games to it. I haven't played any regular games ported to it, but from what I played of Windlands, the button controlled movement was a little jarring (while not as bad as I'd have thought)

I'm using a $700 computer from a year ago to play VR fairly damn well. If I built one now for the same price it'd be flawless - for 900 it'd include a gtx 1070. Theres absolutely no need to go to the 1,000 mark unless your just being enthusiast-level about it or overpaying. If you use a partially valid computer (as most people have) all it really is- is a $300 GPU upgrade, or a $150-250 CPU upgrade, that can even includes MB. Especially while 'deals' are ongoing.

But primarily I just wanted to mention that the jarring feeling with Windlands (or any game, Spellfighter VR is a real test of your mental fortitude; it's 'movement' is almost intentionally harsh and difficult to control, not at all designed for those prone to motion sickness that's why it has a teleport option, as it goes from 0 -to- lightspeed type movement that can make you fall on your ass in reality; nearly did for me, real jarring.) -- after a little practice at any game like that, provided your not sickness prone (and to some, even that are) you'll train yourself to be used to it. Usually within 10-25 minutes; but mastered within an hour.

Just wanted to bring that up from experience, if you really wanted to dive into some of the less refined movement games it 'does get better' and easier to control with practice, to the point of it being second nature, I use the headset as a twitch-mouse cursor in CSGO sometimes it's that fluid.

That's not per game typically either, once you train yourself for one game, your effectively guarded and ready to dive into any others with minimal 'readiness' factor. I wake up and throw on VR now, I don't even use my monitor except for first thing in the morning type stuff and quickly checking messages when I don't want to sit down for a long period.

For cables as you mentioned, people are coming up with interesting solutions; even for the lighthouses. (Eg. if I hadn't wanted to drill holes, I'd have used tripod stands to mount the two lighthouses for VR.)

I saw one really interesting DIY where the Vive cable was attached to the ceiling completely on a roller type thing dog leash style to negate it from being in the way and be a smooth pull and withdraw as needed, think the DIY included how to make a spinner or something to de-turn the cord after multiple rotations or something but I couldn't find it if I tried, buried somewhere; still, the concept itself is pretty easy to figure out, basic cable management.

But personally I have no need for it, I or my girlfriend literally use BDSM bondage straps funnily enough to lock the sheets to the bed, lift it into a formerly unused closet without a door anymore, and it fits right in like a Murphy bed; tempted to buy a oversized yoga mat, cut to size and rolled when out of use-- to fit in our playspace, and play barefoot. So easy to tell where the cord is, and be able to avoid it without tripping after 'time' to get used to it.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Aside from games, it could be big for home movie watching experience. It is also making waves in the porn industry which usually means it is here to stay once they adopt it.

Yeh. I forget which, but one of them already has a virtual cinema bit of software that you can run your video files through. Apparently the current headsets are too low-res for this to be very good though.

I think what they're hinting at for watching sports could be a massive hit once the tech is in a really good place. Everyone can have a courtside view of the action.

 

[Vigormortis]

On the other hand, you are expecting those people to cough up $300 + whatever graphics hardware capable of supporting VR that still does not "completely and utterly redefines and usurps the entirety of the gaming".

Um...no, I'm not. I'm not expecting, or demanding, those people buy anything.

I can recognize the technological progress and industry-changing useful of a smartphone, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to buy one.

The options aren't limited to "have to buy a VR HMD" and "decry VR as a pointless gimmick".

Also: Why does VR have to usurp the entirety of the gaming industry? Where comes this notion that VR has to supplant standard display technology and game design as the preeminent gaming format? Why can't it, like most other significant additions to the industry, just add another branch to the wide range of options?

And at this point, they are reasonable not to support VR. After all, you have compared it to the inventions - and many of the inventions have gotten where they are with millions spent from early adopters and investors. While said inventions were "kind of usable" to "highly impractical but still somehow cutting edge".

There's a difference between "not supporting" and "naysaying". One is cautious apathy, at worst, while the other is vested negativity with the intent of undermining progress.

You can come back when it does get better in terms of technology or catalog of games. Because it is foolish to invest early in potential when what you will get is exactly same as other guys who put down money later - not really different from early access and etc.
(well, People who put down money later has advantage... but that's beside the point.)

By that mentality, one should never 'invest' in any piece of technology because, at some point in the near future, there will be a better version.

You can argue that you personally don't find the asking price worth the investment in the technology, and that many others don't either, but that doesn't change the fact that there are those who do. For some, the asking price of these first iterations are reasonable enough to invest in the technology, to get in at 'the ground floor'. For others, it's too much.

For me, the deciding factor is that I'm able to play a part in the growth of the technology. I can experience things as they evolve, I can contribute to the sharing of ideas, and I can attempt to add my own creations to the mix. Others won't be interested in that sort of thing, so these first HMDs might not seem worthwhile. But without those who do invest in the early iterations, new technology never really takes off.

And again, I'm not saying everyone HAS to buy an HMD. I'm not saying they HAVE to invest in the technology. I'm not even saying they HAVE to be interested in the technology. All I'm saying is, maybe people should educate themselves on what it is before they go about making false claims and judging it and those who're are either working on the technology or those who've invested in its future.

 

[Vigormortis]

... because there has not been a single instance in history where people kept trying to make a bad idea work repeatedly across multiple generations and failed every time.

First, you're presuming it's a "bad idea". Can you demonstrate this?

Second, not a single instance of people trying to make an idea work? Even a bad idea? You're joking, right? Humans have a penchant for stubbornly repeating themselves. Humans tried building flying machines for centuries before we finally made them work. For much of that time the endeavor was considered folly. Hell, we're still trying to
bring about flying cars, and that's a monumentally stupid idea.

Since you can't be bothered to type up everything that's changed I can't be bothered to look it all up (aside from everything I read that states that this is "new" technology that it'll still require wires, and dongles, and motion sensing pylons and cameras all over the place,

Did you know cars still require batteries and fuel to operate? Clearly cars have not advanced since the 50's.

Of course they require wires. Do you have any idea how much information has to be transmitted, in real time, to the headsets to display not one, but two HD images at a minimum of 90hrz? Far more than any reliable wireless/WIFI technology will allow for. And how do you expect them to be able to track user movements in a 3D space without some kind of tracking technology?

We aren't living in the world of Star Trek. We can't do holograms. Likely won't be able to for a long time. What we have in these VR HMDs (and in the promise of AR tech) is as close as we can get, and it's pretty damn close, all things considered. And now that it's here and works, it will become better and more advanced.

And I "didn't bother" to type it all out because there've been a LOT of advances in the technology. From the use of OLED display technology to tracking systems to the advances in graphical technology and coding structure to streamlining the process of compressing and decompressing visual data. I'm not going to sit here and type what would amount to a dissertation-length post for what could be solved by you taking a few seconds to type "advances in VR technology" into Google.

I can provide links, if it comes to it, but I'd prefer to know my efforts wouldn't go to waste. I'd rather not search up articles on the topic if you end up not bothering to read them.

much like the mid 90's)

Which VR HMDs from the 90's had room-scale tracking? I'm having trouble thinking of any, but if you're aware of some, please share.

People aren't convinced that it will work because there isn't any kind of paradigm shift with the tech. I'm seeing the same technology that I saw in the 90's that's lighter, less bulky, with better graphics and motion sensing. Streamlined =/= better in this case.

By definition stream-lined does mean better. It implies that the methods used previously have been improved upon and can be done more efficiently. I...don't get what you're trying to say here. It's better but it's not better?

There's definitely been a paradigm shift in the technology. For one, it actually works now, and finally allows for what is known as 'presence'. For another, it's readily available for home use.

Those alone are colossal advances in the technology, ignoring all other advances that have been made.

There's also the small fact that people aren't as well off as they were in the 90's and have smaller living spaces to contend with.

This is presumptive. Some people have less while others have more living space than they had previously. You're painting a wide swath based on personal experience. Besides, people make space for a big TV. They make space for the computer or some other entertainment device or system. Why would it be any different here? Why should it be different?

Either way, it doesn't matter. Space considerations aren't really an issue since, at least with the Vive, room-scale tracking is scalable. You can have a VR play space 15ft by 15ft, or one that's 1ft by 1ft, or one that's isolated to a chair.

It's remarkably adaptable.

 

[Poetic Nova]

I think it is too early to judge on this.
Although I personally have zero interest in ever getting one.

 

[Vigormortis]

Well, that explains why you're so eager to defend it. If I'd spent all that money I'd probably be doing the same thing.

Right, because I clearly couldn't make positive criticisms about the technology unless I owned one of them and felt compelled to "defend" my purchase.

Or, maybe, I examined the technology to see what it was all about, tried the devices several times, experimented with their capabilities, and was convinced of their positives, advances, and benefits. And, upon realizing my prior skepticism was unfounded, I decided to invest in the technology.

Nope! I'm just a biased fool trying to rationalize spending the money. Yep. That's it.

I'm curious, though. Have you actually tried any of them? The Vive, specifically? If not, I think it's safe to assume you're suffering from a similar level of bias with your criticisms.

Fair play and all that.

And I'm not "defending" it. You can't really "defend" a device. I'm just pointing out false claims and misinformation when I see them.

Calling out bullshit, if you will.

"...move around the room..."
"... room-scale..."

I rest my case.

What case? That the Vive allows both seated/standing and room-scale experiences? That, if you have the room for it, you can utilize the full capabilities of the room-scale tracking. But, if you don't have the room, you can just as easily use it in a standing or seated setup?

Yeah, I...don't see the point you're trying to make here. One moment you're complaining that all you see from VR games is developers trying to find ways to not allow the player to move, the next moment you're complaining that VR games have room-scale tracking that allow for movement. It's truly baffling. Are you just throwing out complaints for the hell of it? Are you grasping at straws for reasons to continue with your crusade of anti-VR sentiments?

Case still open? Recall the jury?

 

[Vigormortis]

Yeah, free-moving fast-action games are bad for VR. So, that sucks. Rail shooters work pretty well, but that's rather limiting. To me - it's inconvenient, but not huge. Most of the games I like involve directing lots of little guys around to fight for me, and those work great in VR.

I think animated movies specifically for VR could become pretty big.

There are already a few Myst-ish games out. I played Land's End on a GearVR, and I was frankly underwhelmed, but not because of the VR. The idea is sound.

I can affirm that RTS/TBS games are pretty fantastic in VR. Quar is marvelous.

Also: if you get the chance, you should check out games like Call of the Starseed and Vanishing Realms on the Vive. They're decent VR-centric adventure games somewhat akin to games like Myst and Elder Scrolls.