VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Because of basic biology.
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
and the same arguement applies to sitting in front of a computer screen using WSAD. its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt.
example: traditional, your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused' VR: your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused'
so you really havent answered the question in a way that illustrates a difference
I gave you the real answer and it is now up to you to accept it or not.
Your assertion that your vestibular system being confused by a game on a computer monitor is ....laughable.
I have no idea why would argue against something that you dont even know what it is.
its actually not laughable at all.
more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect? oh my! so the entire reason we have an inner ear problem is ONLY realated to when we are moving and..not in a car....not in a boat...not in a plane...not in a Mech...AND only when we are looking left and right with our head (the main difference between using a monitor and VR).
so yeah, I think its certifiable bullshit. Just like 'its too heavy' and 'there will be a lot of neck injuries' and 'they tried it in 1993 and clearly the technology is the same' and 'the computer requirements are too high but same specs for Quantum Break makes total sense'
yeah it all goes into the same bucket
oh and I should be clear my position is that VR movement doesnt have to be 10000% like real life in order for it to work at all in any way whatsoever. There is compromise here
It's the same and different, and it all depends on the context. Xiaoki is correct, though.
It's similar to how people get headaches when the world view isn't moving at the speed they are turning their head. The more immersed the person is in the game world, the more the mind is applying its experience with movement, physics, and travel.
This is where you own mind really messes with you. If you are in a vehicle in the game, your mind (and your body, to a certain degree) function as if your legs are still. However, if you are walking or if your mind is under the impression it is human ambulation, your mind and body want to walk. Vergence, accommodation, peripheral vision, and current 120degree view limitations can all eventually be solved with hardware and software solutions. To solve the issue of ambulation, it's more a matter of playing tricks. One such trick is to convince the viewer they are floating, flying or in/on some mobile unit (golf cart, wheelchair, skateboard, etc).
"its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt."
SEAN, your biology is the same but your perception is not. The difference between your screen and VR is that the screen and everything around it are static. No matter what is happening on the screen, your mind is fully aware that the monitor is a stationary object on your desk in the center of your view of many other stationary objects. Your mind has no reason to believe that you, yourself, are in motion.
However, once you expand that screen to IMAX size, things change.
"more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect? oh my! so the entire reason we have an inner ear problem is ONLY realated to when we are moving and..not in a car....not in a boat...not in a plane..."
But it DOES happen in those scenarios, SEAN, specifically when what the mind expects doesn't match what the mind is seeing. It's called "motion sickness."
"You get motion sickness when one part of your balance-sensing system (your inner ear, eyes, and sensory nerves) senses that your body is moving, but the other parts don't." - WebMD
"Motion sickness is the feeling you get when the motion you sense with your inner ear is different from the motion you visualize." - Medicinenet.com
"Motion sickness happens when the body, the inner ear, and the eyes send conflicting signals to the brain." - University of Maryland Medical Center
Exactly what Xiaoki said.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect? oh my! so the entire reason we have an inner ear problem is ONLY realated to when we are moving and..not in a car....not in a boat...not in a plane...not in a Mech...AND only when we are looking left and right with our head (the main difference between using a monitor and VR).
so yeah, I think its certifiable bullshit. Just like 'its too heavy' and 'there will be a lot of neck injuries' and 'they tried it in 1993 and clearly the technology is the same' and 'the computer requirements are too high but same specs for Quantum Break makes total sense'
yeah it all goes into the same bucket
oh and I should be clear my position is that VR movement doesnt have to be 10000% like real life in order for it to work at all in any way whatsoever. There is compromise here
It's the same and different, and it all depends on the context. Xiaoki is correct, though.
It's similar to how people get headaches when the world view isn't moving at the speed they are turning their head. The more immersed the person is in the game world, the more the mind is applying its experience with movement, physics, and travel.
This is where you own mind really messes with you. If you are in a vehicle in the game, your mind (and your body, to a certain degree) function as if your legs are still. However, if you are walking or if your mind is under the impression it is human ambulation, your mind and body want to walk. Vergence, accommodation, peripheral vision, and current 120degree view limitations can all eventually be solved with hardware and software solutions. To solve the issue of ambulation, it's more a matter of playing tricks. One such trick is to convince the viewer they are floating, flying or in/on some mobile unit (golf cart, wheelchair, skateboard, etc).
"its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt."
SEAN, your biology is the same but your perception is not. The difference between your screen and VR is that the screen and everything around it are static. No matter what is happening on the screen, your mind is fully aware that the monitor is a stationary object on your desk in the center of your view of many other stationary objects. Your mind has no reason to believe that you, yourself, are in motion.
However, once you expand that screen to IMAX size, things change.
"more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect? oh my! so the entire reason we have an inner ear problem is ONLY realated to when we are moving and..not in a car....not in a boat...not in a plane..."
But it DOES happen in those scenarios, SEAN, specifically when what the mind expects doesn't match what the mind is seeing. It's called "motion sickness."
"You get motion sickness when one part of your balance-sensing system (your inner ear, eyes, and sensory nerves) senses that your body is moving, but the other parts don't." - WebMD
"Motion sickness is the feeling you get when the motion you sense with your inner ear is different from the motion you visualize." - Medicinenet.com
"Motion sickness happens when the body, the inner ear, and the eyes send conflicting signals to the brain." - University of Maryland Medical Center
Exactly what Xiaoki said.
your missing the most important part of his position as well as that of others.
they are suggesting VR as a whole will basically not work without this problem solved. That means no car racing, no mech controlling, no skateboarding, no plane flying, no rollercoaster and no middle ground between movement like in Doom on the PC has done fore 20 some odd years but different for VR. I 'virtually' move more than I do in real life for fuck sake.
its one small problem that exists in a very specific VR experience that is not enough evidence to suggest a downfall or fault in VR as an entire system.
oh and people get dissy and sick playing doom on a PC...it happens...as you say.
I can literally just see in my mind a player playing COD with his finger firmly pressing the W key telling his buddy on skype that VR will fail because of movement problems
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I want them to solve the problem of motion sickness and I need it to be a big enough problem for them to spend time and effort solving it. Otherwise people like me can never play on VR so I'm hoping it is a big enough issue to drop their profits or get enough bad press for them to make it important.
I want them to solve the problem of motion sickness and I need it to be a big enough problem for them to spend time and effort solving it. Otherwise people like me can never play on VR so I'm hoping it is a big enough issue to drop their profits or get enough bad press for them to make it important.
well if it helps it appears in my view and experience to be something that goes away over time 'with practice' one might say.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Same with 3D graphics that was first becoming popular 20-30 years ago - it will dumb down initially while they are exploring the limits of the technology but as more games comes out it the complexity comes back.
It just takes a bit of time for developers to adapt. The developers themselves are not really getting stupider because of a new technology.
Same with 3D graphics that was first becoming popular 20-30 years ago - it will dumb down initially while they are exploring the limits of the technology but as more games comes out it the complexity comes back.
It just takes a bit of time for developers to adapt. The developers themselves are not really getting stupider because of a new technology.
Agree about the developers, there level of stupid is unchanged, either by time or by adopting 3D or VR.
However, how many games out there today offer 3D perspective using 3D screens? It seems to me that is a niche market.
VR may very well turn out to be this decades, and the next's, 3D screen. Technically doable but ultimately only a small niche market. Framerates, field of view, screen dooring, and yes motion sickness are all high difficulty problems. Then there are the medium difficulty problems, device weight, connectivity to the host (those cables!), heat from the device and, if you are in motion, falling and tripping hazards.
Then for VR itself, outside of gaming, the total lack of a recording device to capture a 3D image of the real world that allows you to move within it and the lack of bandwidth to transmit such a recording in real time.
It won't. It's just a fad. They've been trying for 30 years to get VR going. Every once in a while, they manage to for a year or so but they haven't managed to make it good enough for anyone to bother with the extra money it costs. Same with 3D.
They still only have the glasses thing with VR when that isn't even remotely enough to have real VR.
The 3D thing, while it looks good, it's still not good enough.
I think that voice to text can replace most conversational issues with VR. I would say the same with menu options. There will be less buttons of course on the motion controllers but the whole Samsung hand motion thing was cool and admittedly needs a lot of work, could allow for quick menu navigation.
The way MMORPGs function would have to change a bit to get the most out of the experience. For years I have hoped for a free motion strike MMO with VR that you could say words for power before you strike or freely with your hand to launch spells. Can you imagine not only talking to an NPC like you would through text but having them teach you specific phrases to say in combat. I would forever cease to care about ability hotbars
I think that voice to text can replace most conversational issues with VR. I would say the same with menu options. There will be less buttons of course on the motion controllers but the whole Samsung hand motion thing was cool and admittedly needs a lot of work, could allow for quick menu navigation.
The way MMORPGs function would have to change a bit to get the most out of the experience. For years I have hoped for a free motion strike MMO with VR that you could say words for power before you strike or freely with your hand to launch spells. Can you imagine not only talking to an NPC like you would through text but having them teach you specific phrases to say in combat. I would forever cease to care about ability hotbars
Voice to text has been around for a long while now. But try doing it with a non standard accent, Australian for example, you will soon turn it off. It just cannot work without extensive training and a serious AI at which stahe you are using some serious processing power to the detriment of what you were actually trying to do.
I think that voice to text can replace most conversational issues with VR. I would say the same with menu options. There will be less buttons of course on the motion controllers but the whole Samsung hand motion thing was cool and admittedly needs a lot of work, could allow for quick menu navigation.
The way MMORPGs function would have to change a bit to get the most out of the experience. For years I have hoped for a free motion strike MMO with VR that you could say words for power before you strike or freely with your hand to launch spells. Can you imagine not only talking to an NPC like you would through text but having them teach you specific phrases to say in combat. I would forever cease to care about ability hotbars
Voice to text has been around for a long while now. But try doing it with a non standard accent, Australian for example, you will soon turn it off. It just cannot work without extensive training and a serious AI at which stahe you are using some serious processing power to the detriment of what you were actually trying to do.
If true we all know that technologies advance, usually at the behest of need and in the case of VR the need could increase. If not then just take text communication out entirely. Where consoles are concerned they already utilize text minimally on the input side. With the ability to create voice channels, including actual whispers , plus having proximity I personally would not mind if text went entirely out of the window where VR based MMORPGs are concerned.
Same with 3D graphics that was first becoming popular 20-30 years ago - it will dumb down initially while they are exploring the limits of the technology but as more games comes out it the complexity comes back.
It just takes a bit of time for developers to adapt. The developers themselves are not really getting stupider because of a new technology.
Agree about the developers, there level of stupid is unchanged, either by time or by adopting 3D or VR.
However, how many games out there today offer 3D perspective using 3D screens? It seems to me that is a niche market.
VR may very well turn out to be this decades, and the next's, 3D screen. Technically doable but ultimately only a small niche market. Framerates, field of view, screen dooring, and yes motion sickness are all high difficulty problems. Then there are the medium difficulty problems, device weight, connectivity to the host (those cables!), heat from the device and, if you are in motion, falling and tripping hazards.
Then for VR itself, outside of gaming, the total lack of a recording device to capture a 3D image of the real world that allows you to move within it and the lack of bandwidth to transmit such a recording in real time.
The '3D-TV' (fixed viewpoint stereoscopic) analogy clung to in such detail by this tech's harsher critics is looking more and more laughable as time goes on:
It's not like that, either in user experience or market allegory. This is doubly ironic because I don't think that's what @aRtFuLThinG meant when he invoked the term "3D", but I could be wrong.
To paraphrase the article, people should stop using the 3D-monitor-display-TV analogy because frankly its a different technology. Attack the tech in its own merits or weaknesses, but making all kinds of market comparisons to something that isn't even intended to do the same thing just makes you look overly critical, nearly to the point of absurdity.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Same with 3D graphics that was first becoming popular 20-30 years ago - it will dumb down initially while they are exploring the limits of the technology but as more games comes out it the complexity comes back.
It just takes a bit of time for developers to adapt. The developers themselves are not really getting stupider because of a new technology.
Agree about the developers, there level of stupid is unchanged, either by time or by adopting 3D or VR.
However, how many games out there today offer 3D perspective using 3D screens? It seems to me that is a niche market.
VR may very well turn out to be this decades, and the next's, 3D screen. Technically doable but ultimately only a small niche market. Framerates, field of view, screen dooring, and yes motion sickness are all high difficulty problems. Then there are the medium difficulty problems, device weight, connectivity to the host (those cables!), heat from the device and, if you are in motion, falling and tripping hazards.
Then for VR itself, outside of gaming, the total lack of a recording device to capture a 3D image of the real world that allows you to move within it and the lack of bandwidth to transmit such a recording in real time.
The '3D-TV' (fixed viewpoint stereoscopic) analogy clung to in such detail by this tech's harsher critics is looking more and more laughable as time goes on:
It's not like that, either in user experience or market allegory. This is doubly ironic because I don't think that's what @aRtFuLThinG meant when he invoked the term "3D", but I could be wrong.
To paraphrase the article, people should stop using the 3D-monitor-display-TV analogy because frankly its a different technology. Attack the tech in its own merits or weaknesses, but making all kinds of market comparisons to something that isn't even intended to do the same thing just makes you look overly critical, nearly to the point of absurdity.
Fitstly I didn't read the linked article because it returns "page not available".
I agree VR is not 3D TV, but what it is, is a moving stereoscopic projection. This requires a full 3D space, 3D TV only requires a fixed point of view stereoscopic image, and even then they often cheat with 2D background and limited 2D layers in front of it.
You focus on market, even though I did not, I highlighted the technical difficulties not the marketability.
Comments
It's similar to how people get headaches when the world view isn't moving at the speed they are turning their head. The more immersed the person is in the game world, the more the mind is applying its experience with movement, physics, and travel.
This is where you own mind really messes with you. If you are in a vehicle in the game, your mind (and your body, to a certain degree) function as if your legs are still. However, if you are walking or if your mind is under the impression it is human ambulation, your mind and body want to walk.
Vergence, accommodation, peripheral vision, and current 120degree view limitations can all eventually be solved with hardware and software solutions. To solve the issue of ambulation, it's more a matter of playing tricks. One such trick is to convince the viewer they are floating, flying or in/on some mobile unit (golf cart, wheelchair, skateboard, etc).
"its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt."
SEAN, your biology is the same but your perception is not. The difference between your screen and VR is that the screen and everything around it are static. No matter what is happening on the screen, your mind is fully aware that the monitor is a stationary object on your desk in the center of your view of many other stationary objects. Your mind has no reason to believe that you, yourself, are in motion.
However, once you expand that screen to IMAX size, things change.
"more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect? oh my! so the entire reason we have an inner ear problem is ONLY realated to when we are moving and..not in a car....not in a boat...not in a plane..."
But it DOES happen in those scenarios, SEAN, specifically when what the mind expects doesn't match what the mind is seeing. It's called "motion sickness."
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
they are suggesting VR as a whole will basically not work without this problem solved. That means no car racing, no mech controlling, no skateboarding, no plane flying, no rollercoaster and no middle ground between movement like in Doom on the PC has done fore 20 some odd years but different for VR. I 'virtually' move more than I do in real life for fuck sake.
its one small problem that exists in a very specific VR experience that is not enough evidence to suggest a downfall or fault in VR as an entire system.
oh and people get dissy and sick playing doom on a PC...it happens...as you say.
I can literally just see in my mind a player playing COD with his finger firmly pressing the W key telling his buddy on skype that VR will fail because of movement problems
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It just takes a bit of time for developers to adapt. The developers themselves are not really getting stupider because of a new technology.
However, how many games out there today offer 3D perspective using 3D screens? It seems to me that is a niche market.
VR may very well turn out to be this decades, and the next's, 3D screen. Technically doable but ultimately only a small niche market. Framerates, field of view, screen dooring, and yes motion sickness are all high difficulty problems. Then there are the medium difficulty problems, device weight, connectivity to the host (those cables!), heat from the device and, if you are in motion, falling and tripping hazards.
Then for VR itself, outside of gaming, the total lack of a recording device to capture a 3D image of the real world that allows you to move within it and the lack of bandwidth to transmit such a recording in real time.
They still only have the glasses thing with VR when that isn't even remotely enough to have real VR.
The 3D thing, while it looks good, it's still not good enough.
Both can make you sick depending on the movement.
I think that voice to text can replace most conversational issues with VR. I would say the same with menu options. There will be less buttons of course on the motion controllers but the whole Samsung hand motion thing was cool and admittedly needs a lot of work, could allow for quick menu navigation.
The way MMORPGs function would have to change a bit to get the most out of the experience. For years I have hoped for a free motion strike MMO with VR that you could say words for power before you strike or freely with your hand to launch spells. Can you imagine not only talking to an NPC like you would through text but having them teach you specific phrases to say in combat. I would forever cease to care about ability hotbars
If true we all know that technologies advance, usually at the behest of need and in the case of VR the need could increase. If not then just take text communication out entirely. Where consoles are concerned they already utilize text minimally on the input side. With the ability to create voice channels, including actual whispers
http://www.pcmag.com/article/343933/virtual-reality-is-no-3d-tv
It's not like that, either in user experience or market allegory. This is doubly ironic because I don't think that's what @aRtFuLThinG meant when he invoked the term "3D", but I could be wrong.
To paraphrase the article, people should stop using the 3D-monitor-display-TV analogy because frankly its a different technology. Attack the tech in its own merits or weaknesses, but making all kinds of market comparisons to something that isn't even intended to do the same thing just makes you look overly critical, nearly to the point of absurdity.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I agree VR is not 3D TV, but what it is, is a moving stereoscopic projection. This requires a full 3D space, 3D TV only requires a fixed point of view stereoscopic image, and even then they often cheat with 2D background and limited 2D layers in front of it.
You focus on market, even though I did not, I highlighted the technical difficulties not the marketability.