Man, this shit blew me away in 2005. Why couldn't have Nintendo

>a VR headset in 2005
gee I wonder
the technology only just last year became ready for consumers, and even then, it's still a relatively expensive niche

the wii was revolutionary, whether you like it or not. it was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for bringing video games into the mainstream - while video games were more popular than ever at the time, they were still considered an inaccessible hobby by many.

>>389788448
>it was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for bringing video games into the mainstream
You say that like it's a good thing.

ninendo will probably never get into vr, or get into it very late, because nintendo is a company that wears it's failures for a long time
virtual boy is still probably heavy on the minds of all the company's higher ups.

>>389788448
>it was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for bringing video games into the mainstream
Video games were mainstream at least since the NES era. Most casuals just bought the Wii for muh motion controls and nothing else.

>>389789323
VR is a gimmick, that especially in its current form places more restrictions than opportunities on the game devs. Many old genres and playing styles simply don't translate well, or at all, into VR experiences, resulting various streamlining and re-designs, quite a bit like what happened when touch-screen mobile shit became popular.

>>389790417
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>389789323
They will eventually once the technology is considerably cheaper.

>>389788448
>the technology only just last year became ready for consumers
The tech is not ready. Point and click teleporting isn't fun, arrow shooting shovelware for $60 isn't good, and no graphical fidelity just goes to show none of it will ever be optimized.

>>389790551
Right back at you.
Many devs have already stated it out loud in past couple years: You can't just take an old shooter and turn it into a working, enjoyable VR experience with couple clicks.

For example, the VR-sickness is a real deal problem, that devs need to take into consideration when developing the games. You can reduce the problem by making the players' FOV narrow and by keeping the movement speeds low. Even RE7 embraced these new rules of thumb, faking the FOV with dark areas and the flashlight beam, while MC's movements are very sluggish, as were the enemies.

File: 1200px-NES-Console-Set[1].jpg (65KB, 1200x652px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1200x652px

>>389788448
>it was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for bringing video games into the mainstream
It what?

>>389791010
>You can't just take an old shooter and turn it into a working, enjoyable VR experience with couple clicks.

Well no. You have to make a UI just for VR and motion controls. Games like Onward and Lone Echo have done that and work great.

Locomotion is a weakness but not so much it puts down the level of interaction. You're not forced to stand in one spot like every naysayer parrots as fact.

>>389788448
> it was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for bringing video games into the mainstream
I'd say the NES and the first two PlayStations did a better job at that.

>>389788641
It may not have been your cup of tea, but it was a success on every count and even had a few good implementations of waggle tech for core gamers.
SMG's star bit mechanic was fun. MP3's aiming was well-done. Red Steel 2 was good. Wario Land Shake It had a bit of motion control that added to the game.
>>389790326
>>389791253
Mainstream as in people knew about them already, sure, but the Wii was the first console to make them accessible to people who were still put off by controllers and the thematic state of video games as a whole. Motion controls are intuitive, and Wii Sports is a perfect gateway video game - plus, it's not some intense shooter or bright, obnoxious platformer for kids.
Plus, Pong and Pac-Man were already around.
The Wii was almost as many people's first console as the NES was. It's about the demographics it attracted. You ever been to someone's house who doesn't really play video games, but has a Wii? I have, more times than I can count.
>>389790417
>>389790794
Superhot VR, Rez Infinite, Climbey, To The Top, Raw Data, TheWaveVR, Onward, Blocks, AltspaceVR, and Star Trek Bridge Crew are all compelling worthwhile experiences which can't be done the same way on a flat screen. The tech is great as it is, it just still has some limitations.
>>389791010
>You can't just take an old shooter and turn it into a working, enjoyable VR experience with couple clicks.
No fucking shit. That doesn't mean VR can't be used for video games - you have to develop around it. All the games/experiences I mentioned above are great examples.
Motion sickness is a non-issue after a few days of use for most people, and comfort settings in most competently developed VR games are completely toggleable. RE7 was slow and awkward because it was still trying to be a flat-screen game, not a VR game from the ground up. Not everything works. It's a different medium.

>>389788448
>was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for bringing video games into the mainstream
The PS2 says hi.

File: VR Trigger discipline.gif (3MB, 445x250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 445x250px

>>389792216
>No fucking shit. That doesn't mean VR can't be used for video games
I never claimed you could NOT use them. Just that as the tech is now, you are forced to simplify a lot of ideas just to make the games work smooth and enjoyably in VR.

Ultimately, this greatly limits the number of genres and playing styles that are even plausible in VR. Just like you don't really see FPS games on mobiles, you pretty much cannot NOT have VR games in first-person view.

>>389792784
A bunch of launch titles were 3rd person games and they worked just fine. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

>>389792784
>you are forced to simplify a lot of ideas
I'm sure it seems like that, but I think it's too easy to dismiss VR as inherently restrictive. There's plenty of things you can do in VR that you could never do with a controller/m+kb. Having the precision that comes from using your own hands is pretty game-changing in and of itself. It's like, back when 3D was starting to become possible for consoles, people didn't quite know what to do with it. Early classics like Crash Bandicoot even made notable mistakes when they didn't account for things like depth perception. 3D isn't a bad medium for developing platformers, it just requires a different set of mechanical considerations.

>>389793307
This doesn't contradict anything he said.

>>389792784
'Simpify' doesn't mean worse. A lot of devs are finding that old methods are pointless with full hand motion support. Why have a menu system when the player can simply pull something from their belt? Why have command buttons and animations for actions when the player can simply do those actions themselves?

>>389793636
>pretty much cannot NOT have VR games in first-person view.

Except that's wrong.

>>389793337
I am sure that advances will happen with the tech and thus software too, but as of now, we've merely downsized similar kind of VR tech we had back in 90s.

>>389793307
>A bunch of launch titles were 3rd person games
such as? And having "a bunch" does not change the fact that MAJORITY of VR games are NOT in 3rd person.

>>389793651
>'Simpify' doesn't mean worse.
Obviously, but in the current form, you cannot expect pull Quake-style crazy speeds and jumps or play melee fighting games on VR. I've seen some pretty neat prototypes for RTS games though, like that VR recreation of C&C, but it pretty much just turns the game into a virtual table-top experience.

>>389794170
Lucky's Tale and Chronos were launch titles. Edge Of Nowhere is another known one.

>does not change the fact that MAJORITY of VR games are NOT in 3rd person.

And? Just because most devs take the obvious route doesn't mean it "cannot" be done. All these games were very well reviewed. Nothing about them not being first person for VR hindered them in any way.

>>389794170
Actually just go ahead and scroll through this and see for yourself that the majority were not FPS

http://www.pcgamer.com/all-31-oculus-rift-launch-games-our-take-on-a-strong-launch-lineup/

>>389794170
>but as of now, we've merely downsized similar kind of VR tech we had back in 90s.
If by downsized you mean improved upon ridiculously, then yeah. Tracking is pretty much perfect, and screen resolution is already increasing in the new Windows headsets Acer and etc. are releasing.
You won't get affordable full-body or haptic gear for decades.
You'll never have SAO/.hack neural interface stuff, and I wonder if that's what people are actually expecting when they talk about how 'disappointing' current VR is.
>such as?
edge of tomorrow, lucky's tale, chronos, every 3rd person game playable in dolphin or ppsspp
>MAJORITY of VR games are NOT in 3rd person
so what's your point?
>you cannot expect pull Quake-style crazy speeds and jumps or play melee fighting games on VR.
To The Top gets pretty fast and acrobatic. The Raw Data developers are also working on a similar game. There's already boxing games in VR. Did you mean something like Street Fighter? I mean, that's one of those kinds of games that just can't be done, but is that supposed to indicate that VR is inherently worse?

>>389794170
Crazy speeds aren't comfortable in VR and probably wouldn't be comfortable in reality. It would be like righting a bumper car all the time. I believe games like Quake are only that fast to compensate for the detached nature of playing on a monitor and M&KB.

As for fighting games, check out Gorn and Raw Data. It's another good example of 'back to basics' with VR design. Instead of pre-animated attacks and blocks, you just pick out a weapon model and do it yourself. Aiming for vitals and striking attacks to parry them.

>>389792216
>You ever been to someone's house who doesn't really play video games, but has a Wii?
Yeah, a Wii they used to play Wii Sports for the first couple of months after owning it, and then used exclusively as a 480p Netflix box. People didn't buy it because it made video games accessible, they bought it because it was a hip, seemingly new piece of tech. They bought it because day time talk show hosts bought it.

The Wii didn't so much bring video games to the mainstream as much as it brought owning a video game console to the mainstream. A subtle, but crucial difference.

>>389795249
That hasn't been my experience.
I know plenty of people who got one as their first console and played Wii Sports/Play/Resort every once in a while for years. People who didn't like video games could get into the Wii really easily, and exposed a lot more people to the medium. Lots more people above the 18-24 demographic found the Wii accessible in a way no other console was. It made it significantly easier for parents to play with their kids, or vice versa. Of course, since the WiiU was such an awful followup, they were mostly left in the dust, but mobile games filled the niche.
Its popularity may have snowballed, but it had a definite effect on people's attitudes towards video games.

>>389794832
>If by downsized you mean improved upon ridiculously, then yeah
What I meant is that even the current tech is tied to the same principles as two decades ago: a "monitor helmet" with built in headphones, and hand-held control devices. Obviously the specs have improved a lot, but so far the advantages end there. What we need is a proper breakthrough when it comes to user interaction; just like the analog sticks revolutionized 3D gaming after years of being stuck with D-pads.

>You won't get affordable full-body or haptic gear for decades.
or A decade.
>You'll never have SAO/.hack neural interface stuff
Never say "never". We already have tech that allows controlling devices with tech implanted into a person's brain, or more accurately inside blood vessels within the brain. This stuff can only send a few bytes of data per second so far though, and ain't gonna be mainstream in a looong while.

>I wonder if that's what people are actually expecting when they talk about how 'disappointing' current VR is.
Nah, it's just that it lacks proper, memorable blockbuster games. Majority of VR content are mere "Virtual reality experiences", like roller-coaster rides essentially, OR very gimmicky stuff that barely is a step above from games over 15 years ago.

>every 3rd person game playable in dolphin or ppsspp
transitioning old "2D" games into VR experiences is stretching the definitions a bit. You can even turn SMB1 into 3D with machine code.

>so what's your point?
Lack of 3rd person titles demonstrates lack of interest and/or technical difficulties developing such content for VR. And so far, it seems like all you can do with VR goggles is to mimic and BE the "camera" in platformers and such.

>To The Top gets pretty fast and acrobatic.
pretty neat ideas, but these bring up another trend and issue I'd actually not been able to put into words up until now: Mixing genres and playstyles in a single game is very challenging in VR.
>boxing
but try making a VR Tekken.

>>389788150
Trendsetters>Trendfollowers

>>389796091
Wait till they can plug you in the matrix then, I guess. I'm more than happy being able to aim a gun in Onward.

>>389796091
1/2
>What we need is a proper breakthrough when it comes to user interaction
In a year or two, we'll probably have gloves instead of these weird ergonomic tracked wands. Valve's Knuckles controllers are an interesting step towards it.
UX isn't going to progress much until AR breaks into the mainstream. Once that gets viable in less than half a decade, it's going to be the Next Big Thing (TM), and people are going to need to figure out how we interact with that, which will filter down into VR.
>Never say "never".
While we can already control stuff with our brain, we sure as hell won't be able to fool ourselves into having completely separate sensory experiences in our lifetimes. Eventually? Maybe. Eventually we'll be a spacefaring civilization that spans the entire solar system and beyond. But not in the next century.
> it lacks proper, memorable blockbuster games
Because, as I'm sure you're aware, it's a chicken-egg situation for publishers right now. It's not profitable for big studios, but it's a goldmine for indies. Rockstar just today announced they're making an L.A. Noire game for VR. While the Steam VR catalogue is overflowing with more shovelware than the first few years of the Wii, there's still plenty of memorable experiences, even if the production value isn't. Everything I listed earlier has been completely worthwhile, and there's plenty more I've played that I didn't list and still enjoyed for whatever reason. I don't regret my purchase. No video game on a flat screen could ever replicate what it feels like to play Superhot VR, or Windlands, or Gorn. It's just not possible. There's physiological sensations you're experiencing here that nothing else in entertainment media has ever accomplished.
>stretching the definitions a bit.
Sure, but it's cool to play Sunshine and be surrounded by Delfino. Or play Metroid and be inside Samus' helmet and see the Parasite Queen in full scale. Or get a sense of how fast you're really going in Wipeout.

>>389792216
>Climbey, To The Top
Finally someone besides me mentioning these. I'll have to try the ones you mentioned that I haven't played, as you are a man of taste.

>>389793751
How does the existence of working 3rd person games say anything about 1st person games

>>389797964
Not them but
>pretty much cannot NOT have VR games in first-person view.
means they're saying all VR games have to be in 1st person.

>>389798356
missed the double negative

>>389796091
>>389797536
2/2
>Lack of 3rd person titles demonstrates lack of interest and/or technical difficulties developing such content for VR
Or maybe it demonstrates that first person experiences are more compelling for new users because of the novelty. There's no "technical difficulties". Why would there be? It's literally the same thing as a flat-screen game, just with depth perception. It's a step above a 3D monitor.
> mimic and BE the "camera" in platformers and such.
I mean... yeah? It's a third-person game. What's missing? Sure, it'd be cool if you had more interactivity than just controlling the character - Lucky's Tale would be even more fun if you could reach out and grab platforms for the guy before making him jump onto them - but that's technically possible to make. It's not a restriction of the medium.
> Mixing genres and playstyles in a single game is very challenging in VR.
Probably because people have only been making VR games for three years, maximum. What sort of genre-mixing is VR incompatible with?
Sure, there are genres that VR is incompatible with, but It's not like people suddenly become stupider and less able to switch between sets of mechanics when they're seeing things in 3D.
>but try making a VR Tekken.
I already conceded that. I'm not trying to argue that some games can't be ported to VR, but weren't you just saying you didn't want stuff that was barely a step above from games made over 15 years ago?
Fighting games as they're made now are based on the characters executing moves that a human being physically can't do. This isn't a surprise, but it isn't proof that VR is objectively limited in comparison, since there's plenty of shit you'd never be able to do in 2D that you can in VR.

>>389798928
>I'm not trying to argue that some games can't be ported to VR,
fuck
I'm not trying to argue that every game can* be ported
>>389797841
hell yeah buddy
any underrated VR games you wanna plug? I'm looking for some good shit now that I've gotten a few hours out of Rez

I really don't get this belief that until VR is literally flawless and can do everything, we shouldn't be playing it and instead stick to our dusty old monitors.

Why not enjoy what it gives us now?

>>389788150
>he fell for the really bad prerendered Mario and Samus

>>389799527
Sure, check out Cosmic Trip, Airtone, and Awaken

>>389799539
Because it sucks compared to what it can be.

Be fucking patient.

File: 8yej3rasomzy[1].jpg (351KB, 699x3305px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 699x3305px

>>389801913
>Because it sucks compared to what it can be.
A statement that applies to literally every technology out there.

i love how these companies like nintendo who tried to do shit like the virtual boy without proper hardware back then are all now skeptical about current VR

it is like they are butthurt that someone else came in with the right tools and took their place

>>389799937
Good to see that Cosmic Trip is out of EA. How long is it?
>>389801913
Of course it sucks compared to .hack or whatever, but people don't give it nearly enough credit for what it is. It's my favorite piece of technology I own, and it's already given me some unforgettable experiences. If you're not 100% sold on it, that's totally fine, and I get it - it's still niche. But we've got some Snow Crash shit on our hands here, and it seems kind of stupid of people to shit on others for jumping onto it.

>>389794771
lmao actually went to look at that list but more than half of that are indeed FPS games, also the list is biased as it was crafted by the pcgamer cucks and they purposely added a higher number of nonFPS games in that bunch than the actual average you would find

most devs and consumers will look for VR FPS games, VR is a FPS game thing