Nintendo: VR isn't quite there yet

[ferofax]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

I don't want it

 

[Ghostyis40]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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:

"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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[Mario92]

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.

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]

I've been discovered!

 

[natkoden]

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]

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]

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.

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]

deleted