# Nintendo: VR isn't quite there yet



## mrtofu (Jun 14, 2014)

deleted


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 14, 2014)

Why does nobody try to clone pokemon any more? It was all the rage in the GBA days and unlike people trying to clone COD we actually and fairly frequently got some good stuff out of it (miss you medabots, robopon and demi kids).

It is not like it is a terribly complex engine (though http://www.dragonflycave.com/rbycapture.aspx gets a minor nod of appreciation) or battle system.

Anyway now I am torn between my usual line in "VR is not quite ready for primetime" and fulfilling my mag staff/reporter mandate of flame posts with "What a shocker. Nintendo, a company not exactly with its finger on the pulse of technology, does not think VR is up to snuff.".


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jun 14, 2014)

Nin10doh: Still Living in the 1980's


----------



## Arras (Jun 14, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Nin10doh: Still Living in the 1980's


Still butthurt over the Virtual Boy.


----------



## Skelletonike (Jun 14, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> Why does nobody try to clone pokemon any more? It was all the rage in the GBA days and unlike people trying to clone COD we actually and fairly frequently got some good stuff out of it (miss you medabots, robopon and demi kids).


 
Thing is, Medabot games keep on being released, they were always different from Pokemon (and more interesting imho, the DS game was awesome). 

Right now the 3DS has Medabots 7 for the 3DS, and 8 was recently announced also for the 3DS.

Last year Natsume said that Medabots 7 wouldn't be released in the west, but perhaps future titles could. Now all you can do is hope that Medabots 8 does indeed get localized like the GBA game (granted, only reason the GBA games were released was due to the anime at the time).

Same happens with a lot of games similar to Pokemon, like the Digimon games and other series, they just don't get brought out to the west.


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 14, 2014)

I see a grim future for Ninty...


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jun 14, 2014)

To be honest, I just prefer to pick up the controller, look at the TV screen and play. That's all I want, no VR stuff.


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 14, 2014)

I don't see much use for VR on nintendo consoles anyway.


----------



## goober (Jun 14, 2014)

Nintendo is right. Of course, it's akin to saying that gaming is getting there but wasn't ready with the Atari 2600 or NES. It's a bit foolhardy, but I can understand their viewpoint since mainly, mainly, they're hurting on the cash front and there's absolutely no point to make that worse by diving into an unproven in the consumer market technology. Then again, they had be stupid and bring an idiotic tablet to a console while making sure it does absolutely nothing special but raise the price and cut into their profits. So... yeah. (I'm playing pikmin 3 with the tablet controller. While it's better than how they ruined two perfectly decent Zelda games with horrible motion controls, it's hardly "WOW I have been waiting for this my entire life!!!" and it definitely can be annoying, but thank god for options.

When I can watch a move in 3D on a reasonably priced VR headset, THEN it will have come into its own. As it stands, that experience is rather horrible and I still think games don't look quite good enough due to the resolution of the screens. It's passable, but hardly tolerable depending on the costs.

Plus, the VR aspect of gaming is stupid. It'll have a few good games but it'll be like Motion Gaming and largely ruin perfectly good games. The only difference, I hope, is that the good VR games are AMAZING and well worth it. Especially if VR plagues us like Motion gaming has. I don't mind it being optional, that's the best. But if you put VR into a third person or side scrolling game, it damn well better be optional.

Immersive 3D will make these headsets worth it, the VR will only be cute but it'll wear thin extremely fast.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jun 14, 2014)

goober said:


> Nintendo is right. Of course, it's akin to saying that gaming is getting there but wasn't ready with the Atari 2600 or NES. It's a bit foolhardy, but I can understand their viewpoint since mainly, mainly, they're hurting on the cash front and there's absolutely no point to make that worse by diving in an unproven in the consumer market technology. Then again, they had be stupid and bring an idiotic tablet to a console while making sure it does absolutely nothing special but raise the price and cut into their profits. So... yeah.
> 
> When I can watch a move in 3D on a reasonably priced VR headset, THEN it will have come into its own. As it stands, that experience is rather horrible and I still think games don't look quite good enough due to the resolution of the screens. It's passable, but hardly tolerable depending on the costs.
> 
> ...


 
Isn't gaming on PC's like Ultra Super Hyper Mega 4K HD? That's HD-fied 'nuff for VR ain't it?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jun 14, 2014)

the digimon games did have that problem with people expecting to get awesome anime season 01/02/03 games and then got this random digiworld townbuilder stuff instead (and those semiplayable fightinggames). granted they werent terrible and they did get a small following, but that was about it. and eventually they made the game everyone always wanted on psp but didnt want to translate it for all the western manchildren that would gladly throw all their money at one last psp release...

however, theres still quite a bunch of these games. dragon quest monsters, those dinosaur king and fossil fighter games, spectrobes (at least a little bit). and i'd gather quite a few more


----------



## goober (Jun 14, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Isn't gaming on PC's like Ultra Super Hyper Mega 4K HD? That's HD-fied 'nuff for VR ain't it?


 
If the screens on the headset were 4k per eye, sure! But that's not how it works As it stands, there's still a "screen door" effect. especially with movies. Even with the "1080p" resolution screens. It's the hardware of the OR and Morpheus that's the problem, not the resolution of the software.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 15, 2014)

Skelletonike said:


> Thing is, Medabot games keep on being released, they were always different from Pokemon (and more interesting imho, the DS game was awesome).
> 
> Right now the 3DS has Medabots 7 for the 3DS, and 8 was recently announced also for the 3DS.
> 
> ...




Yeah I know about the later medabots games and that was probably pushing it a bit. A similar thing happened with tactics games as well -- loads of great ones on the GBA but the DS was back to final fantasy and maybe hoshigami (which was also mostly a PS1 port), granted the PSP did slightly better..

As for not similar to pokemon
A few moves able to be set per type, collectible/catchable, stats from experience, turn based (give or take those stupid races), with a team of a few and a ho hum story about training to be the very best... want to try that one again? Granted I found it far more enjoyable than


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 15, 2014)

I think virtual reality is a pipe dream. What happened after motion games revolutionized gaming? Right...everyone went back to mashing buttons (even for swordfighting games). Kinect can measure everyting of a player, but it's not even MENTIONED last E3. Why would this be any different? Even if the hardware becomes perfectly capable of fooling your sight and hearing into thinking you are IN the game...then you'll still break immersion by using buttons than actually moving.

What I understand the least is why the videogame industry is attempting to build this thing. Wouldn't it be more obvious to create such a device to watch 3D porn movies first? That should be a much simpler goal on all technological aspects. Instead, there seems to be a race going on to creating the first VR helmet that wasn't user friendly in the '90's, and I haven't yet heard much independent reviews saying it's much better now.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 15, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> What happened after motion games revolutionized gaming?



People made home consoles that tried to copy the steering wheels, skis, motorbikes, guns and roller balls of the arcades and took until somewhere in the region of until the PS1 days (so over a decades and more than two generations) to get close to equalling the power and quality of graphics (which was still a real thing).


----------



## ChaosBoi (Jun 15, 2014)

I'm still hoping an idea like MS' Illumiroom will become commercially available in the near future. I mean, VR is good and all, but what about a device that expands the game resolution outside of the TV and map it to the entire room?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jun 15, 2014)

Ze goggles zey do nuthing! 

All jokes aside, VR is one of those tech's that day will come. Just not for a long time. 

Will require faster machines with more RAM than we have right now, we have enough trouble running a single stationary 1080P display on home consoles.

Maybe the next gen consoles could do it? Need more RAM and better CPU's and GPU's. Also head tracking will be required... 

I am sure Sony will pull off something on it's current hardware, but will it be good enough to sell to the masses? (I wouldn't bet on it, but I could be wrong.)



ChaosBoi said:


> I'm still hoping an idea like MS' Illumiroom will become commercially available in the near future. I mean, VR is good and all, but what about a device that expands the game resolution outside of the TV and map it to the entire room?


 

I thought that tech was fantastic to be honest. 

When I watched that demo, I wanted a 360 right then and there! lol



Taleweaver said:


> I think virtual reality is a pipe dream. What happened after motion games revolutionized gaming? Right...everyone went back to mashing buttons (even for swordfighting games). Kinect can measure everyting of a player, but it's not even MENTIONED last E3. Why would this be any different? Even if the hardware becomes perfectly capable of fooling your sight and hearing into thinking you are IN the game...then you'll still break immersion by using buttons than actually moving.
> 
> What I understand the least is why the videogame industry is attempting to build this thing. Wouldn't it be more obvious to create such a device to watch 3D porn movies first? That should be a much simpler goal on all technological aspects. Instead, there seems to be a race going on to creating the first VR helmet that wasn't user friendly in the '90's, and I haven't yet heard much independent reviews saying it's much better now.


 

VR has been sucking money out of companies for at least 30 years... I suspect Sony will be another "victim" in that this will fall under

A. It's an add in device so it's market share and support will be limited making the expense of owning it not really worth it. (This could happen if it's semi popular like Kinect was.) 

or

B. It will be an expensive add on that will be poorly supported or will be an added cost to trying to support it. (No it will not be as simple as making a game 3D, VR and 3D are separate concepts.) 

or

C. It's a wild success and everyone who buys a PS4 also buys this thing!!! (This one only happens in the marketing teem's wildest fantasies. It did happen with the Dual Shock on the PS1 but that's the about the only time I can recall a peripheral selling so well that it gained a lot of support.) Dual shock was probably a bit cheaper and added something the consumer could actually see the functionality (a physical thing.) VR headset will just make you look like Darth Nerd and possibly give you motion sickness.


----------



## GHANMI (Jun 15, 2014)

On a slightly off-topic note, Medarot DS isn't even that difficult to translate.
Basic Japanese level, standard file formats (well granted some of the fonts need to be rearranged, but nothing getting a font from another localized game can't solve, and come on it has English half-width support properly built-in the Japanese release!)
Neatly arranged fonts with a dozen or so font palettes that you won't even need to touch, script files in uncompressed Shift-JIS under "spt" files... Tinke and its hex editor are enough, you may not even need to use Crystaltile2 (well, it's useful for text search )
It would make for a nice beginner romhacking project, provided the translator is passionate enough about the games.


----------



## TyBlood13 (Jun 15, 2014)

I really don't care for the idea of VR, at least I won't be unless a way similar to Sword Art Online is actually made (but minus the being stuck in the game part =P)


----------



## Hop2089 (Jun 15, 2014)

I have no use for VR in games, but I have a few use for VR in other things.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 15, 2014)

Come on, Nintendo, that's never stopped you before!

Really, it depends on what you mean by "VR" and "there." Yeah, we're still pretty far behind on that whole holodeck thing, but the Oculus Rift as it stands is a pretty spectacular device. I'm also excited for Sony's Project Morpheus whether or not it all pans out; even if it's a dud, the presence of competition on the market will only help spur things along.

VR doesn't necessarily need to hit it big with the masses; a dedicated niche could be enough. Maybe now's not the time for every company to drop what they're doing and cobble together a VR headset, but it'd be nice if we get there sooner rather than later.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jun 15, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Come on, Nintendo, that's never stopped you before!
> 
> Really, it depends on what you mean by "VR" and "there." Yeah, we're still pretty far behind on that whole holodeck thing, but the Oculus Rift as it stands is a pretty spectacular device. I'm also excited for Sony's Project Morpheus whether or not it all pans out; even if it's a dud, the presence of competition on the market will only help spur things along.
> 
> VR doesn't necessarily need to hit it big with the masses; a dedicated niche could be enough. Maybe now's not the time for every company to drop what they're doing and cobble together a VR headset, but it'd be nice if we get there sooner rather than later.


 

True enough. 

That being said I would like to see some remade games for it, King's Field 1 and 2 from the PS1, maybe Doom II... Resident Evil might give people some heart attacks? lol

As far as new games go, I would like to see a Gran Turismo where you can look around while you drive, also even though I joked about it a good RE game made for it would be awesome, maybe RE 4? I know I know it's been remade like 30 times but it is still pretty damned good... lol

I am sure as soon as I hit post I will think of a few more games but those would be pretty cool with head tracking in a first person perspective.


----------



## Nah3DS (Jun 15, 2014)

gimmick... remember that word you guys used so often? ;O;


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jun 15, 2014)

Introducing the Nintendodeck!


----------



## laudern (Jun 15, 2014)

WatchGintama said:


> In a Gamespot interview with Reggie Fils-Aime, Fils-Aime felt that virtual reality technology isn't quite there yet.​


​ 

Hey Nintendo! Is online gaming "there yet"?


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jun 15, 2014)

nintendos device when it's ready who needs gimmicky glasses ?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 15, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> I see a grim future for Ninty...


Virtual Boy 2?



WiiCube_2013 said:


> To be honest, I just prefer to pick up the controller, look at the TV screen and play. That's all I want, no VR stuff.


Even if VR would be better? If VR hits off, it might replace TVs.



XrosBlader821 said:


> I don't see much use for VR on nintendo consoles anyway.


 
Why not? Surely you want to see games like Zelda, Metroid and Starfox in VR.



ChaosBoi said:


> I'm still hoping an idea like MS' Illumiroom will become commercially available in the near future. I mean, VR is good and all, but what about a device that expands the game resolution outside of the TV and map it to the entire room?


Surprise we haven't heard anymore of that.
It would seems you would need a room with light () to no stuff in the way. Also finding a place for the projector. At least with VR you wouldn't have to worry about the stuff in your room.


----------



## ChaosBoi (Jun 15, 2014)

Last I checked, the reason why we haven't heard much was because the projectors needed for the whole idea to work was too expensive to commercially manufacture. Or something like that.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 15, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> Even if VR would be better? If VR hits off, it might replace TVs.


Not a chance. You can watch television with the entire family, whereas VR is a solitary experience. And local co-op is also pretty strong in console gaming. So even if everything would be perfect, it will never replace a television. Well...not in the current state (it may be different if the device becomes so cheap people will buy many of them...kind of like with controllers...but that'll be even further away in the future).


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 15, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> Not a chance. You can watch television with the entire family, whereas VR is a solitary experience. And local co-op is also pretty strong in console gaming. So even if everything would be perfect, it will never replace a television. Well...not in the current state (it may be different if the device becomes so cheap people will buy many of them...kind of like with controllers...but that'll be even further away in the future).


Buying multiple of them is what I meant. It's not like people don't have multiple TVs.
The dev kit is only $350.00.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 15, 2014)

I stand corrected. Had no idea it was that cheap already.


----------



## chartube12 (Jun 15, 2014)

It is funny how Mr. M the other day tried the Rift at E3 and liked it. Said he could see several uses for it. He also hoped the nintendo legal team wouldn't sue anyone to hell for trying to hack their systems to make fun india rift games and experiments with it. Now this other Nintendo guy comes along and denies VR has possible current use.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 15, 2014)

chartube12 said:


> It is funny how Mr. M the other day tried the Rift at E3 and liked it. Said he could see several uses for it. He also hoped the nintendo legal team wouldn't sue anyone to hell for trying to hack their systems to make fun india rift games and experiments with it. Now this other Nintendo guy comes along and denies VR has possible current use.


Well, they are two different people, but all he said was that it isn't ready yet, not that there aren't any current uses.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 15, 2014)

I would like to see the full context of the conversation that lead to that quote.


----------



## orcid (Jun 15, 2014)

These VR devices doesn't fit to Nintendo at all. There share of the gaming market are kids, families and old guys like me who enjoy there style of games. At the moment VR fits more for the people who play e.g. online fps or the kind of pc gamer who plays alone in front of his pc monitor and enjoys spending money for the newest hardware.


----------



## Mario92 (Jun 15, 2014)

VR requires more horsepower from machine to have really good feel and only works with certain kind of games, mainly first person games. How many first person games does Nintendo have? 

Playstation 3 with cheap bad 3D TVs with super bad, laggy and flickering image and 3DS with 3D image breaking from the slightest movement already ruined stereoscopic 3D almost entirely. With PC it's either buy $40 software or $100 extra hardware to play in 3D if game doesn't have it build in. ugh... 
Still loved playing Mirror's edge with trial and Trine 2 and Sonic Generations have build in 3D - 1080p with no lag. 

I would love to see consoles managing 3D image before hopping into VR train. Every single PS3 3D title is next to unplayable in 3D mode.


----------



## ploggy (Jun 15, 2014)

If Nintendo did VR:


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 15, 2014)

orcid said:


> These VR devices doesn't fit to Nintendo at all. There share of the gaming market are kids, families and old guys like me who enjoy there style of games. At the moment VR fits more for the people who play e.g. online fps or the kind of pc gamer who plays alone in front of his pc monitor and enjoys spending money for the newest hardware.


Are you saying face mounted dual eye screens isn't in Nintendo's MO? This is from the people who made the DS with two screens, one of which is a resistive touch screen, a 3DS with a 3d screen, and motion controls with the Wii. They could probably do some really fun stuff with it. Who the market audience is doesn't matter, Nintendo could probably sell anything as long as they put the right software behind it. Oculus on the Wii would be amazing, real first person snowboarding is the first thing that comes to my mind, and I've never really played too much with the Wii. Oh, first person shooters would work just fine with motion controls, they just need to get rid of that magnetic bar and add a gyroscope to the headset to track where your face is looking.

VR not fit with Nintendo? Don't make me laugh. It's practically begging for them to do something really neat with it and garner support.

EDIT:  I just thought of the hilarious idea taping a DS to someones head and calling it VR.  It would allow you to stick a toothpick into someones eye and control it.


----------



## orcid (Jun 15, 2014)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> Are you saying face mounted dual eye screens isn't in Nintendo's MO? This is from the people who made the DS with two screens, one of which is a resistive touch screen, a 3DS with a 3d screen, and motion controls with the Wii. They could probably do some really fun stuff with it. Who the market audience is doesn't matter, Nintendo could probably sell anything as long as they put the right software behind it. Oculus on the Wii would be amazing, real first person snowboarding is the first thing that comes to my mind, and I've never really played too much with the Wii. Oh, first person shooters would work just fine with motion controls, they just need to get rid of that magnetic bar and add a gyroscope to the headset to track where your face is looking.
> 
> VR not fit with Nintendo? Don't make me laugh. It's practically begging for them to do something really neat with it and garner support.


I didn't say that they can't make great games for a VR device. These devices just don't fit to their stategy and major audience. And yes: this matters. It would be crazy starting a direct fight against Sony, Microsoft (and the PC).
Also at the moment the devices are too expensive selling them as an peripherial for a console. They would need to be in the price range of a balance board or a secound controller for a huge success. Another possibility would be releasing the next console together with VR like the Wii with motion controls and the Wii U with the gamepad. But I don't think the prices of VR devices will drop so drastically in the next years that this console could have reasonable price tag. Also Nintendo would have to give up their biggest strength: the local multiplayer.
A more realistic possibility is the development of a VR "handheld". This makes more sense. The problem is that it's far too early for such a device and it would be more a niche product, that couldn't compete against normal handhelds.


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 15, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> Why not? Surely you want to see games like Zelda, Metroid and Starfox in VR.


FPS Zelda will play like shit. Zelda games are 3rd person for a good reason. 

The only 2 franchises that would benefit from VR are Starfox and Metroid.
Now let's see how frequent we see those getting a sequel... Oh right they rarely get a sequel.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 15, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> FPS Zelda will play like shit. Zelda games are 3rd person for a good reason.
> 
> The only 2 franchises that would benefit from VR are Starfox and Metroid.
> Now let's see how frequent we see those getting a sequel... Oh right they rarely get a sequel.


 

The rift also works fine for the third person perspective, so Zelda, for example, would have no problem.


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 15, 2014)

Gahars said:


> The rift also works fine for the third person perspective, so Zelda, for example, would have no problem.


 
Isn't it missing the purpose playing VR games in 3rd person?


----------



## Veho (Jun 15, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Isn't it missing the purpose playing VR games in 3rd person?


The purpose of VR is to enhance immersion, and if you can stick your head right into the game world and look around, the purpose is fulfilled.


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 15, 2014)

Veho said:


> The purpose of VR is to enhance immersion, and if you can stick your head right into the game world and look around, the purpose is fulfilled.


 
I'm not buying VR to be able to control the camera guy lol.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jun 15, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> I'm not buying VR to be able to control the camera guy lol.


 

Well no offense but don't knock it until you've tried it. I haven't tried it so I won't weigh in on it but it could be a really cool experience, whether it's first or third person.


----------



## Veho (Jun 15, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> I'm not buying VR to be able to control the camera guy lol.


And what would you use it for in a first person game if not to control the camera?


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 15, 2014)

Veho said:


> And what would you use it for in a first person game if not to control the camera?


 
In a fps you don't control the camera guy, you control the person you play as.


----------



## Veho (Jun 15, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> In a fps you don't control the camera guy, you control the person you play as.


As in aiming?


----------



## natkoden (Jun 15, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well no offense but *don't knock it until you've tried it*. I haven't tried it so I won't weigh in on it but it could be a really cool experience, whether it's first or third person.


 
Too bad you can't follow that advice yourself.


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 15, 2014)

Veho said:


> As in aiming?


 
no. which part of Camera Guy do you not understand?
I have nothing against moving the camera through VR unless its not the camera of the person I play as or at least I believe that without trying it out.
This "discussion" was over after McCommunist's Post.


----------



## ScarletCrystals (Jun 15, 2014)

First person fire emblem as the tactician  
Having to shout a million commands across the battlefield cause your allies still needs you to tell them how to get from point A to point B...


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 15, 2014)

I don't understand why a first-person Zelda would be bad.


----------



## Arras (Jun 15, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> I don't understand why a first-person Zelda would be bad.


IMO first person in a game where most combat is melee isn't really great. Yes, that includes things like Elder Scrolls. Also, spin attacks ;A;


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 15, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> I don't understand why a first-person Zelda would be bad.


 
Zelda games have their camera's positioned behind link so that you have a good overview in battles to where your enemies are. You know if somebody is behind you and if you see him attack you can dodge or at least react to it.
Also if you look at some athletic moves of link the camera would be just crazy. Simple attacks would move the camera all over the place it would be more confusing than helpful. Similar like the camera does a 360 spin in MGS the twin snakes when you CQC in first person mode. 
Also there is this one VR project where a dude ported the first TLOZ to the Oculus and you could clearly see how limited the vision is and how unnecessarily harder this version is.


----------



## groit (Jun 15, 2014)

vr things are stupid.  anything that takes atvantage of stereoscopic vision fucks with the eyes of millions of gamers.  Personaly, I have double vision


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 15, 2014)

groit said:


> vr things are stupid. anything that takes atvantage of stereoscopic vision fucks with the eyes of millions of gamers. Personaly, I have double vision


 
Stereoscopic VR opens up the possibility for you to see what we see.  If the position of the center of each eye could theoretically be made adjustable in software in order to make up for your eye that faces the wrong way.  Or, I guess everything VR is stupid for everyone because it doesn't necessarily cater to your specific medical issues.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 15, 2014)

groit said:


> vr things are stupid.  anything that takes atvantage of stereoscopic vision fucks with the eyes of millions of gamers.  Personaly, I have double vision



I wonder if it is that many. Eyesight problems, sure. Eyesight problems that preclude the use of VR, maybe not so much. Likewise if you can wear glasses for your condition then there is a good change you can fix a lot of things in software to make it work for abnormalities. Similarly the likes of the rift and co seem somewhat interested in head tracking and that does not need stereoscopic vision to work.

Equally many of the things used in games already pose serious problems to a lot of people, sure many will avoid that as a lot of it is known (for instance you tend not to get puzzles or UIs that trouble red-green colourblind) but it is not mandated everywhere. Hell even the control schemes used in games have been shown to mess up an awful lot of people.


----------



## groit (Jun 15, 2014)

cant correct my eyesight.. ive tried prisms but the pupil in one eye overcorrects.. maybe one day itll change but haters gonna hate


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 16, 2014)

groit said:


> cant correct my eyesight.. ive tried prisms but the pupil in one eye overcorrects.. maybe one day itll change but haters gonna hate


The thing about software is it can be pretty dynamic where things ground in glass tend not to be. I am not sure what the phrase at the end is relevant to though.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jun 16, 2014)

natkoden said:


> Too bad you can't follow that advice yourself.


 

I'm not saying that the 3rd person view may be good or not but to not judge it until you've played it, especially since previews have said third person view is still pretty immersive.

Unbunch your panties.


----------



## ferofax (Jun 16, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Isn't it missing the purpose playing VR games in 3rd person?


 
Just because you have a monitor (or two) slapped to your face doesn't mean it's mandatory to have everything in 1st person -- that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at things. Not calling you out, just saying let's not restrict ourselves.



groit said:


> vr things are stupid. anything that takes atvantage of stereoscopic vision fucks with the eyes of millions of gamers. Personaly, I have double vision


 
First off, just because you can't enjoy something because of physical/medical restrictions doesn't mean it's stupid. It's people who think like that, more likely. Second, stereoscopic 3D only hurts when the people who make them don't know shit and keep forcing weird and unnatural viewing angles. You'll know something has good 3D when it looks like looking through a diorama/aquarium/terrarium/window.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 16, 2014)

Arras said:


> IMO first person in a game where most combat is melee isn't really great. Yes, that includes things like Elder Scrolls. Also, spin attacks ;A;


Well, there's a bunch of other people that disagree. They are even using VR with Skyrim or any other 3D game really. Spin attacks can quickly turn to third person and back.



XrosBlader821 said:


> Zelda games have their camera's positioned behind link so that you have a good overview in battles to where your enemies are. You know if somebody is behind you and if you see him attack you can dodge or at least react to it.
> Also if you look at some athletic moves of link the camera would be just crazy. Simple attacks would move the camera all over the place it would be more confusing than helpful. Similar like the camera does a 360 spin in MGS the twin snakes when you CQC in first person mode.
> Also there is this one VR project where a dude ported the first TLOZ to the Oculus and you could clearly see how limited the vision is and how unnecessarily harder this version is.


Not knowing where everything is at is part of the immersion. Part of VR.  Making the game harder is
a bonus. Spin attacks and maybe flips would be the only problem. Everything else would be fine. In fact, you can do somethings in first person in some Zelda games.

Anyway, it's not like you wouldn't have a choice. Even Skyrim gives you a choice between first,third person and VR.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 16, 2014)

ITT: Nintendo still butthurt over Virtual Boy fiasco.
Oh well. I'm already playing GameCube and Wii games in VR with headtracking 
And it's pretty awesome.

I expect everyone will want their share of the VR market just like what happened with motion controls after Nintendo introduced theirs.


----------



## LightyKD (Jun 17, 2014)

Again. Unless the VR tech can turn me into one of these...







I don't want it


----------



## Centrix (Jun 17, 2014)

I feel it should be rather interesting when Big N dose decide to reenter the VR world I mean thwey did do the Virtual Boy which I think would still be an awesome system if it was in color


----------



## pasc (Jun 18, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> I think virtual reality is a pipe dream. What happened after motion games revolutionized gaming? Right...everyone went back to mashing buttons (even for swordfighting games). Kinect can measure everyting of a player, but it's not even MENTIONED last E3. Why would this be any different? Even if the hardware becomes perfectly capable of fooling your sight and hearing into thinking you are IN the game...then you'll still break immersion by using buttons than actually moving.
> 
> What I understand the least is why the videogame industry is attempting to build this thing. Wouldn't it be more obvious to create such a device to watch 3D porn movies first? That should be a much simpler goal on all technological aspects. Instead, there seems to be a race going on to creating the first VR helmet that wasn't user friendly in the '90's, and I haven't yet heard much independent reviews saying it's much better now.


 

PPL don't want innovation.
They want their old stuff.
Why do you think sequels sell so much ? Especially compared to new "innovative" IP's ?


----------



## Veho (Jun 18, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> What I understand the least is why the videogame industry is attempting to build this thing. Wouldn't it be more obvious to create such a device to watch 3D porn movies first? That should be a much simpler goal on all technological aspects.


3D screens and video glasses already exist. If you want VR headsets to make any sense in this context, you'd have to develop the technology to scan live action environments directly into 3D models in real time so the headtracking would do something. 




Taleweaver said:


> Instead, there seems to be a race going on to creating the first VR helmet that wasn't user friendly in the '90's, and I haven't yet heard much independent reviews saying it's much better now.


Are you using some "true Scotsman" definition of "independent" here? Because the current tech is leaps and bounds above the 90s devices, and every review I've seen says so.


----------



## mr. fancypants (Jun 18, 2014)

TyBlood13 said:


> I really don't care for the idea of VR, at least I won't be unless a way similar to Sword Art Online is actually made (but minus the being stuck in the game part =P)


 
And to slaughter each other


But maybe this time is going to happen for ninty


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 19, 2014)

orcid said:


> These VR devices doesn't fit to Nintendo at all.


Yeah, I mean, it's totally not like they've tried to get into the VR business themselves... 


Spoiler










Weird goggles are totally not something they'd go for.


Spoiler










_"VR just isn't quite there yet".*_

*We've gone soft, we no longer try to innovate and stay on the bleeding edge of technology like we used to. 


XrosBlader821 said:


> In a fps you don't control the camera guy, you control the person you play as.


That's one of the common misconceptions about 3D perspective in general. You _never_ actually control the camera, the viewpoint is only created once. Useful quote:


			
				Prof. Farnsworth said:
			
		

> _"The engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is and the engines move the universe around it."_


As dumb as it sounds, the camera always stays in the same spot, what moves is everything the camera sees within its viewport.


----------



## natkoden (Jun 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, I mean, it's totally not like they've tried to get into the VR business themselves...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 
Yeah... but you can move your head and not your weapon/aim.

So I think that happens when you play a FPS with a VR headset, you move the camera (eyes, whatever) and not the weapon.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 19, 2014)

natkoden said:


> Yeah... but you can move your head and not your weapon/aim. So I think that happens when you play a FPS with a VR headset, you move the camera (eyes, whatever) and not the weapon.


The only difference between _"normal"_ 3D perspective and _"stereo"_ 3D perspective is that you're rendering two viewports, one for each virtual _"eye"_, the rest works exactly the same. Again, you're not moving the camera, you're moving the universe around the camera, but not everything has to move with the same speed, if at all, hence the gun stays where it's supposed to be.


----------



## CathyRina (Jun 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> As dumb as it sounds, the camera always stays in the same spot, what moves is everything the camera sees within its viewport.


----------



## Mario92 (Jun 19, 2014)

ferofax said:


> Just because you have a monitor (or two) slapped to your face doesn't mean it's mandatory to have everything in 1st person -- that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at things. Not calling you out, just saying let's not restrict ourselves.


 
Because slapping those two screens in front of your face means you are looking the game like you are in the game hence the name virtual reality. That means first person games are almost only thing that makes perfect sense. For example with third person you are basically strapped with stick to character and flaoting behind him/her. The point of it being VR then pretty much vanishes as moving head doesn't give you any benefit and camera isn't fully controlled with head movement which makes you pretty much sick - like someone moves you in the air without you moving. 
You can even put some old NES game to VR by putting display on 3D enviroment but you are still watching it in first person. 

Stereoscopic 3D is like watching stuff happening inside a box and that's why it works with many more genres in general. 



ploggy said:


> If Nintendo did VR: *video*


Even if nintendo does same games for every console at least they are taking advantages of new console (or at least try) instead of simple copy-paste.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 19, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


>








_I've been discovered!_


----------



## natkoden (Jun 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The only difference between _"normal"_ 3D perspective and _"stereo"_ 3D perspective is that you're rendering two viewports, one for each virtual _"eye"_, the rest works exactly the same. Again, you're not moving the camera, you're moving the universe around the camera, but not everything has to move with the same speed, if at all, hence the gun stays where it's supposed to be.


 
then it will be so boring...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 19, 2014)

natkoden said:


> then it will be so boring...


Well, that's just how OpenGL works. T'is all an optical illusion, the camera never actually moves.


----------



## Veho (Jun 19, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> The only difference between _"normal"_ 3D perspective and _"stereo"_ 3D perspective is that you're rendering two viewports, one for each virtual _"eye"_, the rest works exactly the same. Again, you're not moving the camera, you're moving the universe around the camera, but not everything has to move with the same speed, if at all, hence the gun stays where it's supposed to be.


What Foxi means is, yes, you can move your head and look one way while the weapon aim stays pointed the other way. 



Mario92 said:


> Because slapping those two screens in front of your face means you are looking the game like you are in the game hence the name virtual reality. That means first person games are almost only thing that makes perfect sense. For example with third person you are basically strapped with stick to character and flaoting behind him/her. The point of it being VR then pretty much vanishes as moving head doesn't give you any benefit and camera isn't fully controlled with head movement which makes you pretty much sick - like someone moves you in the air without you moving.
> You can even put some old NES game to VR by putting display on 3D enviroment but you are still watching it in first person.
> 
> Stereoscopic 3D is like watching stuff happening inside a box and that's why it works with many more genres in general.


VR headsets use stereoscopic 3D as well. They are like watching stuff happen inside a box, but with your entire head shoved into the box. 

VR makes sense in 3rd person games too if you decouple the view controls from the movement controls (and there is no reason not to). That way you could look around inside the game world while your character stays facing/moving the same direction. You would get to look around and see more of the surroundings, be aware of the enemies without having to change the direction you're moving, and motion parallax (in conjunction with the stereoscopic 3D) would improve the perception of obstacles and platforms for the platformer parts.


----------



## mrtofu (Jun 19, 2014)

deleted


----------

