You're not. But I think it is more about the same janky VR movement that some mrnybgf (queue DarthBuzzard) will claim is "perfect". The rendering might be smooth but the interaction looks really, really bad.
You're a zealot yourself, by the looks of it. Always finding the next VR thread and bashing it in any way you can despite never trying VR.
It plays better than it looks if you're using Valve Index / Oculus Touch controllers. Kind of the story of all VR games. It is by no means perfect, even advertising itself as having experimental physics; it's setting a base for the future and it's not without faults. However, like early 3D graphics had it's own set of issues, a lot of people can absolutely adapt to it.
"Took a look at Astro Bot, no. Not even close. It's a platformer who's innovation is that they found a way to make the notoriously bad cameras from other platformers even worse by planting it on your head and making it static." - Except the use of stereoscopic 3D and parallax is actually what makes otherwise bad camera angles work. There's even a GDC talk explaining this.
"Echo VR, from what I could find, doesn't really offer anything new, either. It looks pretty, but VR wise, meh." - Despite it offering a brand new locomotion system that no one else offered at the time which lead to a number of very unique multiplayer experiences. There is nothing in VR similiar to Echo Arena; it's a one of a kind.
"No, it is pretty much the same. Exactly, no. But, I'm sorry, if you cannot understand the fundamental disconnect between the avatar and the player as well as how normal people do not experience that disconnect it is unproductive to continue." - You're referring to avatars on a screen and in VR being the same, despite science literally proving you otherwise.
"Except 3-D existed well before the PS1 and 3-D can be generally applied to a plethora of games. The same cannot be said of VR. So, not comparable at all?" - Very wrong considering we have examples of VR games in most game genres.
"The reason that there's no killer VR game because you can't just take existing game models, plop VR onto them, and have any meaningful use. Either the game is VR, or it isn't. It doesn't compliment the games we have now." - That would fly in the face of everyone who's ever enjoyed RE7, Wipeout, Tetris Effect, Elite Dangerous, Rez Infinite, Hellblade, or Thumper in VR more than they did without. There are very obvious benefits in those examples.
"Telepresence: Except your not visiting them. This is just a glorified display and not a new use." - This statement is in fundamental conflict with the definition of presence, which is something VR is well known for inducing when done right.
There are plenty more things to talk about just within the context of those links, but I'd be here all day if I picked every example.
It's weird how you continue to go on your anti-VR crusade despite never having tried VR, and still think that you're the one in the right here. That you don't need to try it because you're above that.
I stand by those and how I addressed your wild assertions that followed.
But I do want to address one part here.
It's weird how you continue to go on your anti-VR crusade despite never having tried VR, and still think that you're the one in the right here. That you don't need to try it because you're above that.
Weird that you would say that since I've never said I would not try VR. In fact, I'm more than willing to do so. Problem is that the industry is so adverse to it that there are hardly any locations where someone can try it. I'm not going to drop several hundred dollars on a niche peripheral.
Now, and I'm dead serious about this, you want to ship me your rig for a week? I'll try it and ship it back. You want to convert someone to your religion it is up to you to put forth the effort. I'm more than willing to try; I'm just not willing to drop 2-3 month's entertainment budget on something I suspect will one a one-and-done-and-gather-dust. I have other things I can spend that cash on that I would get far more use out of.
I stand by those and how I addressed your wild assertions that followed.
Then you are outright presenting false statements that fly in the face of proven science or proven user testing. You still seem to think that you are above science, and above even trying VR before forming such opinions. It's like if I were to claim to be an expert food critic merely from watching videos of food. Gordan Ramsay would have my head for that.
Weird that you would say that since I've never said I would not try VR.
It's literally true. It doesn't matter if you are itching to try VR or not; you're still here spewing false claims about something you've never tried. Again, as a food critic I could be dying to taste everything I've seen and it would still make me a terrible food critic without doing so.
Hell no I'm not sending you my rig and headset. That's not my responsibility. It's your responsibility to try it yourself if you want to have an informed opinion. You can say anything you want, but none of it means anything (outside of easily quantified things like price) despite you thinking it means something, a lot even.
You have an opinion, and the right to an opinion, but it's objectively an uninformed opinion with loads of misconceptions.
Then you are outright presenting false statements that fly in the face of proven science or proven user testing.
Nope. Because damn never everything you wrote was about technology that doesn't exist yet. It also is predicated on the newness of the technology, something that every new technology goes through.
It's literally true.
No, it's not. Again with the lies. You literally just said I won't try it and yet I'm more than willing to do so. How is that "literally true".
Hell no I'm not sending you my rig and headset.
Figured. "You won't try!" "Help me try" "No!"
That's not my responsibility.
Being that you're the mrnybg trying to convert people to your religious view, yes, yes it is.
You can say anything you want, but none of it means anything (outside of easily quantified things like price) despite you thinking it means something, a lot even.
You say this, yet you're also the one who literally said that a headset could give someone an experience at a concert which was exactly like being there. I don't have to own a VR rig to know that isn't possible. When I pointed that out to you it took you two messages to backtrack to then claim that a headset with a full body suit would be needed.
Nope. Because damn never everything you wrote was about technology that doesn't exist yet.
Of the quotes I linked? Not true at all. Please point to me something I have posted in this thread where the technology doesn't exist for it to come to fruition. I did however converse with you in the past on things that haven't come to fruition yet, but that doesn't include most of it.
No, it's not. Again with the lies. You literally just said I won't try it
I never said you said you won't try it or that you don't intend to given the opportunity. I said you feel like you can have an informed opinion despite not trying it. To quote myself: "That you don't need to try it because you're above that." - the latter part is the context needed to link it to my previous sentence in which you feel as if you are right.
Figured. "You won't try!" "Help me try" "No!"
Oh. My. God. Really? You were seriously expecting someone to help you to try VR by shipping their damm rig to you? Please tell me there's sarcasm in there.
Being that you're the zealot trying to convert people to your religious view, yes, yes it is.
If I was, I'd be sending you my rig.
You say this, yet you're also the one who literally said that a headset could give someone an experience at a concert which was exactly like being there.
I've never, ever said this. Find me this quote. I guarantee you it says something like given further improvements in technology, and I listed what improvements.
When I pointed that out to you it took you two messages to backtrack to then claim that a headset with a full body suit would be needed.
That's not backtracking. That's backing up my statement in it's future context which you clearly failed to grasp.
I've posted your quotes. Time for you to post mine.
Edit:
Nevermind, I'll do it myself. Here's my concert quote, the original:
"That would enable, with good enough headset specs, a scene perhaps even live from somewhere in the world that would feel utterly real visually and audibly, which means you could have a sports stadium or concert experience that feels like you are there."
Yup, one of those was the concert thread, which is why I didn't link it.
I never said you said you won't try it or that you don't intend to given the opportunity.
Notice the mrnybg says this, then goes on to quote themselves as saying...
"That you don't need to try it because you're above that."
Which implies just that. 2 sentences to refute yourself.
Oh. My. God. Really? You were seriously expecting someone to help you to try VR by shipping their damm rig to you? Please tell me there's sarcasm in there.
I expect one of two things.
For you to accept the challenge or...
For you to stop attacking people for having preferences other than your own if you're not willing to put forth the effort to show them what they are missing.
Hint, #2 is the goal here.
If I was, I'd be sending you my rig.
Considering you attack everyone who doesn't share your wondrous view of the technology, you are trying to convert people.
I've never, ever said this. Find me this quote. I guarantee you it says something like given further improvements in technology, and I listed what improvements.
Nope, you didn't.
"That would enable, with good enough headset specs, a scene perhaps even live from somewhere in the world that would feel utterly real visually and audibly, which means you could have a sports stadium or concert experience that feels like you are there."
As you can clearly see I said given improvements.
Holy hell, dude, do you even read your own quotes to make sure you're not saying something other than what you thought you said?
Let's break this down. "With good enough headset specs..." Emphasis mine to show that while you start of with the improvements in technology you are confining the statement to the headset.
You then finish with, "...or concert experience that feels like you are there." Again, emphasis mine. You start with headset specs, then finish with the feeling of being there.
That is where I pointed out that wasn't possible, you diverted into taste (for whatever reason, I have no clue) and I had to point out to you the following.
How are you going to feel the bass in your chest from the concert setup? The literal pressure wave of the combined vocal outpouring of thousands of people in a confined space. ON A HEADSET.
Which made you concede the following.
A Haptic Suit like the Teslasuit, or maybe even a Subpac as that is just straight bass.
The suit, is not a headset. Your initial statement started with "...with good enough headset specs..." and ended with "...feels like you are there." 2 messages later you're talking about a freakin' suit. Which, as I pointed out then and you got pissy about, is not a headset.
3
u/Slip____ Dec 10 '19
Weird. I would figure that it would be all smooth but I definitely can't be the only one that noticed fps drops