Nintendo: VR Isn't There Yet, We'll be on Board When it is

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

When asked about other technologies he thought weren't ready for market, Fils-Aime responded, "the internet, twitch streaming, hard drives, high definition televisions, CD's, and DVD's."

Lunar Templar:

NuclearKangaroo:
VR isnt there yet but tablet controllers are?

ok that was a cheap shot, sorry

its their opinion, but they are going to miss out

I agree with Reggie on this, head sets like the rift feel more like a part of a greater whole we dont have yet.

what is missing then?

Mcoffey:

Olas:

Mcoffey:

The touch screen as implemented in the DS? Yeah, not that great. Most of the time the game was better off when it completely ignored it. At best it was vestigial, only useful for looking at menus at the same time as gameplay (Neat but doesn't justify the second screen), and at worst it was a hindrance that was forced on the player (Both of the DS Zelda games were worse off by forcing touch screen controls).
Nintendo thinks it's a good idea, because of course they do. Just brings me back to my original point.

That said, it's use in many of the 3DS games I've played is more enjoyable, but only because they haven't used shitty gimmicks and mostly stick with my above "At Best", and keep it for maps and menus. Still doesn't justify it's existence, and has never made me say "Okay, I could not have had this great experience without the touch screen".

Vestigial at best? A whole lot of great DS games would have been virtually unplayable without it, Kirby Canvas Curse, Scribblenauts, Elite Beat Agents, Meteos. The touchscreen made those games. Some games implemented it poorly, which often happens when the idea is new, but poor implementation is not the fault of hardware.

Meteos and Scribblenauts are both multiplatform games, and they both did just fine without the touchscreen.

Okay, let's look at the platforms Scribblenauts has been on: DS, 3DS, IOS, WiiU, Android, and PC. PC is the only one that doesn't have a touchscreen and it has a mouse and keyboard. Unless you think you could fit a mouse and keyboard on a portable device I think the touchscreen is a winner.

As for Meteos, I'll admit I didn't know there was a 360 version. That being said I don't see how it can work nearly as well without a touchscreen, and the reviews seem to reflect that.

Elite Beat Agents is just Guitar Hero, and doesn't do anything that couldn't have been done with a gamepad.

Except, you know, not be shit. Just because a game could theoretically work under a different control mechanism doesn't mean it wouldn't completely alter the feel of the game. Of course since you apparently can't differentiate the game from Guitar Hero I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that. You must think Guitar Hero would have been the same without the guitar peripheral too.

Kirby is the only one that needed the Touchscreen, and even then it wasn't a good game, as most games built around gimmicks aren't.

It was one of the best games on the DS, and that's not just my opinion, it got good reviews almost across the board. Metacritic has it at 86%

Olas:

Eh, I can believe the framerate needs to be consistent, but as far as needing to be 60fps or higher? I'll believe it when I experience it.

60FPS is a requirement of the latency from the headset tracking. It takes 2ms for the headtracker to pick up movement, 16ms to render, 15-20ms to transfer back to the headset and 15-20ms for the pixels to physically switch over. If you have 60FPS then every frame is registering the movement of your vision. If you don't then the image judders as you move.

In the future, when they lower the latency, apparently it's going to require even higher framerates to stop juddering.
http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/1v0ori/will_low_persistence_lower_the_60_fps_requirement/

There are some theories on finding ways to fix the problem without increasing framerate though
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/down-the-vr-rabbit-hole-fixing-judder/

Well, in Nintendos eyes a modern online MP is also not there yet, so I really dont give that much about their predictions.
Also nobody uses Twitch...nobody needed optical disks when we have cartridges and harddrives are unnecessary.
So, yeah...Nintendo is maybe not in the best position to judge when a technology is ready for the public.

Also: cough....Virtual Boy...cough
I guess it was "there" a couple of years ago when they themself tried it.

BigTuk:
Devices like the occulus are a niche fad. A very nice niche fad mind you but seriously. They will be the domain of people who:

Who do not Actually require glasses

Not sure about that one. Susan Arendt, formerly of The Escapist, has confirmed that Project Morpheus at least is comfortable and easy to adjust for someone who wears glasses.

Alterego-X:
VR will absolutely be a niche, but on the long term I still expect it to be a bit bigger than the console gaming niche.

I agree with this completely. I'm not really sure exactly where the intersection gaming and VR will end up. I see VR working perfectly with some games but just being a total mismatch with others. VR technology as a whole, however, is going to be hugely important in the future of a variety of fields from physical design to medicine. Developing it first through gaming applications is a pretty logical route to push the technology forward.1

NuclearKangaroo:

Lunar Templar:

NuclearKangaroo:
VR isnt there yet but tablet controllers are?

ok that was a cheap shot, sorry

its their opinion, but they are going to miss out

I agree with Reggie on this, head sets like the rift feel more like a part of a greater whole we dont have yet.

what is missing then?

It depends on the genre. For vehicle sims, nothing. Everything you could possibly want for a sim short of gravity manipulation is available, albeit at a cost. For personal games(i.e. your avatar is a humanoid that moves around) good motion controls, more precise tactile feedback, more developers willing to put time into accurate positional audio, movement input that feels natural. Some games will always be better with a controller, but imagine VR as a replacement for a game like Shenmue or point-and-click adventure games. A HMD is a good start, but more could be done.

Since my primary interest in the Rift is for vehicular sims, I'm pretty much set once it comes out. But I can see how others might not be entirely satisfied with just visual VR.

gmaverick019:

Also, put minecraft on there, and you'll have waves of people coming to it for that alone. I'm not a huge minecraft fan, but you can't ignore the ridiculous audience it has.

I don't think it's a given that the huge install base of Minecraft will necessarily translate to OR, let alone to consoles, let alone to Nintendo consoles.

I mean, I'm sure some will be interested, but I'm sure that's true of the larger gamerbase.

probably; we really don't know how the Oculus is going to do despite its Kickstarter success and the PS4 Morpheus has other issues. Nintendo did experiment with the Virtual Boy, but in all honesty that was more a precursor to the 3DS than the Oculus or Morpheus.

NuclearKangaroo:

Lunar Templar:

NuclearKangaroo:
VR isnt there yet but tablet controllers are?

ok that was a cheap shot, sorry

its their opinion, but they are going to miss out

I agree with Reggie on this, head sets like the rift feel more like a part of a greater whole we dont have yet.

what is missing then?

Probably full immersion. The biggest problem with VR right now is that it is in an uncanny valley state, real enough that some senses are fooled, but fake enough that the rest of the body knows its not. Forgetting for a second that you're essentially wearing a bulky helmet to see an LCD screen inches from your eyes, we rely on at least three of the five senses (sight, sound, and touch) to truly be somewhere (Obviously the other senses are used and obviously there are people out there who don't have one or more of the senses but we're focusing on the average person). In video games before, we enhance the two senses we can (sight and sound) to make up for the senses we can't have. Really, if we can get touch right, both in feedback and in usage, VR technology can take off.

OT: Well, yeah, he's right. In the current console market, VR isn't going to sell consoles. While it will be in everyone's best interest to keep an eye on VR technology, this generation will only work as an add-on peripheral and we all know how those turn out.

xaszatm:

NuclearKangaroo:

Lunar Templar:

I agree with Reggie on this, head sets like the rift feel more like a part of a greater whole we dont have yet.

what is missing then?

Probably full immersion. The biggest problem with VR right now is that it is in an uncanny valley state, real enough that some senses are fooled, but fake enough that the rest of the body knows its not. Forgetting for a second that you're essentially wearing a bulky helmet to see an LCD screen inches from your eyes, we rely on at least three of the five senses (sight, sound, and touch) to truly be somewhere (Obviously the other senses are used and obviously there are people out there who don't have one or more of the senses but we're focusing on the average person). In video games before, we enhance the two senses we can (sight and sound) to make up for the senses we can't have. Really, if we can get touch right, both in feedback and in usage, VR technology can take off.

OT: Well, yeah, he's right. In the current console market, VR isn't going to sell consoles. While it will be in everyone's best interest to keep an eye on VR technology, this generation will only work as an add-on peripheral and we all know how those turn out.

i dont expect it to be anything more than an add-on peripheral, but a very successful one

NuclearKangaroo:

xaszatm:

NuclearKangaroo:

what is missing then?

Probably full immersion. The biggest problem with VR right now is that it is in an uncanny valley state, real enough that some senses are fooled, but fake enough that the rest of the body knows its not. Forgetting for a second that you're essentially wearing a bulky helmet to see an LCD screen inches from your eyes, we rely on at least three of the five senses (sight, sound, and touch) to truly be somewhere (Obviously the other senses are used and obviously there are people out there who don't have one or more of the senses but we're focusing on the average person). In video games before, we enhance the two senses we can (sight and sound) to make up for the senses we can't have. Really, if we can get touch right, both in feedback and in usage, VR technology can take off.

OT: Well, yeah, he's right. In the current console market, VR isn't going to sell consoles. While it will be in everyone's best interest to keep an eye on VR technology, this generation will only work as an add-on peripheral and we all know how those turn out.

i dont expect it to be anything more than an add-on peripheral, but a very successful one

I'm not so sure. Remember the hassle with the 3DS? VR, at its current state, will be ten times worse. Add to the fact that peripherals never sell well to begin with, I'm not seeing it take off within this generation. Now with the PS5, Xbox Two, and Wii UX, I can see it being a somewhat implemented feature but for this one its too late.

xaszatm:
[quote="NuclearKangaroo" post="7.852756.21093001"]
Probably full immersion. The biggest problem with VR right now is that it is in an uncanny valley state, real enough that some senses are fooled, but fake enough that the rest of the body knows its not. Forgetting for a second that you're essentially wearing a bulky helmet to see an LCD screen inches from your eyes, we rely on at least three of the five senses (sight, sound, and touch) to truly be somewhere (Obviously the other senses are used and obviously there are people out there who don't have one or more of the senses but we're focusing on the average person). In video games before, we enhance the two senses we can (sight and sound) to make up for the senses we can't have. Really, if we can get touch right, both in feedback and in usage, VR technology can take off.

OT: Well, yeah, he's right. In the current console market, VR isn't going to sell consoles. While it will be in everyone's best interest to keep an eye on VR technology, this generation will only work as an add-on peripheral and we all know how those turn out.

Thats a pretty big statement without anything to go on.
Yeah, its stupid to say that VR is gonna be the future, but honestly its just as arrogant to just stick your head in the sand and pretend it hasnt got a lot of things going for it,like:

- Huge amaounts of money
- A huge company backing
- Lots of expert developers who seem very much interested in the idea
- Lots of hype

Also, I have spoken with 7 people who tried it on conventions, and none noticed an uncanny valley-feeling. They all felt quite immersed...even without having some gunpowder rubbed under their nose.

Will VR take off? No idea, but people should maybe be a little more careful with sentences like "we all know how those turn out."

xaszatm:

NuclearKangaroo:

xaszatm:

Probably full immersion. The biggest problem with VR right now is that it is in an uncanny valley state, real enough that some senses are fooled, but fake enough that the rest of the body knows its not. Forgetting for a second that you're essentially wearing a bulky helmet to see an LCD screen inches from your eyes, we rely on at least three of the five senses (sight, sound, and touch) to truly be somewhere (Obviously the other senses are used and obviously there are people out there who don't have one or more of the senses but we're focusing on the average person). In video games before, we enhance the two senses we can (sight and sound) to make up for the senses we can't have. Really, if we can get touch right, both in feedback and in usage, VR technology can take off.

OT: Well, yeah, he's right. In the current console market, VR isn't going to sell consoles. While it will be in everyone's best interest to keep an eye on VR technology, this generation will only work as an add-on peripheral and we all know how those turn out.

i dont expect it to be anything more than an add-on peripheral, but a very successful one

I'm not so sure. Remember the hassle with the 3DS? VR, at its current state, will be ten times worse. Add to the fact that peripherals never sell well to begin with, I'm not seeing it take off within this generation. Now with the PS5, Xbox Two, and Wii UX, I can see it being a somewhat implemented feature but for this one its too late.

you keep thinking about consoles dude, PC doesnt have generations per se, so they can afford to introduce the VR progressively, and as we all know, PC is the main platform of the oculus rift, the way theyve been working, step by step, has allowed both customers and developers to familiarize themselves with the peripheral, develop software and demos for it and attract more and more big names from the industry among their ranks

im not saying the Oculus will be infallible, but id be more surprised if it failed than if it didnt

Every Time I hear Nintendo and Virtual Reality, I think of two things; The first thing is the Virtual Boy, which I own along with about 5 games for it. It's okay, although the Right eye is kind of screwed up. The Second Thing I think of is this.

OT: I think that Reggie isn't necessarily wrong, but I hope Nintendo is ready for VR when the time is right.

Boy oh boy. Can't wait 'till I get to play Super Mario VR Brothers, Metroid VR and Legend of Zelda: The Virtual Reality goggles of plot contrivance.

It'll be such an innovation that I'll wonder how I ever could have doubted them.

Translation:
None of our crappy hardware is capable of running anything even remotely resembling a 1st person game in 1080p with a stable 60+ fps.
We are coming out with our own occulus ripoffs in a few years tho and you should totally buy those.

NuclearKangaroo:

xaszatm:

NuclearKangaroo:

i dont expect it to be anything more than an add-on peripheral, but a very successful one

I'm not so sure. Remember the hassle with the 3DS? VR, at its current state, will be ten times worse. Add to the fact that peripherals never sell well to begin with, I'm not seeing it take off within this generation. Now with the PS5, Xbox Two, and Wii UX, I can see it being a somewhat implemented feature but for this one its too late.

you keep thinking about consoles dude, PC doesnt have generations per se, so they can afford to introduce the VR progressively, and as we all know, PC is the main platform of the oculus rift, the way theyve been working, step by step, has allowed both customers and developers to familiarize themselves with the peripheral, develop software and demos for it and attract more and more big names from the industry among their ranks

im not saying the Oculus will be infallible, but id be more surprised if it failed than if it didnt

Well yeah, I'm thinking about consoles because Nintendo makes consoles. PC will be the place where VR can grow and thrive as it's not tied to a single system with inferior hardware (and this goes for the PS4 and Xbox One as well) for six years. And I don't think the Oculus will be a failure, though I still don't see it becoming VR's BIG break out hit. It will probably keep enough interest to do two things: Make a profit and will start a wheel to making VR a larger picture, if not commonplace, within 10 years. But, as I was primarily talking about consoles beforehand, no I'm not seeing it in this console generation. PC, yes. Consoles, not yet.

HalloHerrNoob:

xaszatm:
[quote="NuclearKangaroo" post="7.852756.21093001"]
Probably full immersion. The biggest problem with VR right now is that it is in an uncanny valley state, real enough that some senses are fooled, but fake enough that the rest of the body knows its not. Forgetting for a second that you're essentially wearing a bulky helmet to see an LCD screen inches from your eyes, we rely on at least three of the five senses (sight, sound, and touch) to truly be somewhere (Obviously the other senses are used and obviously there are people out there who don't have one or more of the senses but we're focusing on the average person). In video games before, we enhance the two senses we can (sight and sound) to make up for the senses we can't have. Really, if we can get touch right, both in feedback and in usage, VR technology can take off.

OT: Well, yeah, he's right. In the current console market, VR isn't going to sell consoles. While it will be in everyone's best interest to keep an eye on VR technology, this generation will only work as an add-on peripheral and we all know how those turn out.

Thats a pretty big statement without anything to go on.
Yeah, its stupid to say that VR is gonna be the future, but honestly its just as arrogant to just stick your head in the sand and pretend it hasnt got a lot of things going for it,like:

- Huge amaounts of money
- A huge company backing
- Lots of expert developers who seem very much interested in the idea
- Lots of hype

Also, I have spoken with 7 people who tried it on conventions, and none noticed an uncanny valley-feeling. They all felt quite immersed...even without having some gunpowder rubbed under their nose.

Will VR take off? No idea, but people should maybe be a little more careful with sentences like "we all know how those turn out."

And it will be in your best interest to not insult everyone blindly. Calling me arrogant and and saying I'm pretending not to notice the console is quite frankly rude and insulting. While I haven't been paying that much attention to the Occulus Rift, I'm not in the camp that says this will fail. I'm also not in the camp that says this will be the next big thing either, though. It will be vital step for making VR a common video game tool, but I'm not so sure it will be the thing that sells like wildfire.

Furthermore, I was talking about console add-on peripherals when I said "we all know how those turn out." Very rarely will a console add-on make a profit, and since the Occulus Rift isn't a console thing (as far as I'm aware), it would be inferior to the Occulus Rift anyways. There, happy? Or do you have a larger heap of bile to throw in my face?

xaszatm:

NuclearKangaroo:

xaszatm:

I'm not so sure. Remember the hassle with the 3DS? VR, at its current state, will be ten times worse. Add to the fact that peripherals never sell well to begin with, I'm not seeing it take off within this generation. Now with the PS5, Xbox Two, and Wii UX, I can see it being a somewhat implemented feature but for this one its too late.

you keep thinking about consoles dude, PC doesnt have generations per se, so they can afford to introduce the VR progressively, and as we all know, PC is the main platform of the oculus rift, the way theyve been working, step by step, has allowed both customers and developers to familiarize themselves with the peripheral, develop software and demos for it and attract more and more big names from the industry among their ranks

im not saying the Oculus will be infallible, but id be more surprised if it failed than if it didnt

Well yeah, I'm thinking about consoles because Nintendo makes consoles. PC will be the place where VR can grow and thrive as it's not tied to a single system with inferior hardware (and this goes for the PS4 and Xbox One as well) for six years. And I don't think the Oculus will be a failure, though I still don't see it becoming VR's BIG break out hit. It will probably keep enough interest to do two things: Make a profit and will start a wheel to making VR a larger picture, if not commonplace, within 10 years. But, as I was primarily talking about consoles beforehand, no I'm not seeing it in this console generation. PC, yes. Consoles, not yet.

uhmmm... i guess

tough im not entirely convinced nintendo should dismiss the idea just yet, Sony might steal their lunch... again

Vegosiux:

RandV80:
Anyone else starting to feel that people saying 'I don't think x technology will be anything more than a gimmick' is getting to feel very hipster-ish?

I don't know, anyone starting to feel people saying "This is going to be totally awesome" is starting to feel rather fanboy-ish?

Some of us are just more cautious about it, and really, I don't think VR becoming mainstream at this point would be a good thing (as was noted, people with glasses, and the entire OR set is kind of heavy to wear for a while, stuff like that...). 'sides, keeping up with one reality is hard work, switching between two sets of sensory inputs would just give me a headache >.>

It's one thing if someone says their 'cautious' about a technology, or voice concerns about it causing some sort of irritation. What I'm calling 'hipster-ish' is when this is followed up by a 'it probably isn't going anywhere' statement.

A big comparable is 3d movies, and lets take Avatar for example. On the internet many complained about it giving them headaches called it all sorts of derogatory terms and suggested that 3D movies were just another fad like they were last time and wouldn't be going anywhere. Yet Avatar was I think the highest grossing movie ever, and 5 years later 3D movies are still going strong. Now there's more legitimate complaints about it being the dictionary definition of a 'gimmick', but like it or not it's one that the general public has accepted & adopted and is here to stay.

Now onto VR, the Occulus Rift had a highly successful kickstarter. There's a massive amount of personally testimonies from a wide range of industry veterans who've had a chance to try it and are now believers. And finally, Facebook just dropped a billion dollars to acquire it. Now while technically anything can still happen, you have to do some serious mental hurdles or be extremely self centered/opinionated to see this as anything but a home run waiting to happen.

Vivi22:
When asked about other technologies he thought weren't ready for market, Fils-Aime responded, "the internet, twitch streaming, hard drives, high definition televisions, CD's, and DVD's."

Reggie said that they're looking to do great things with Twitch.

Really, what's wrong with Wii U's online?

Nintendo obviously doesn't have any trouble with HD anymore, given the games they showed at E3.

On topic, remember that Miyamoto tried out the Rift at E3, and Miyamoto is still a powerful figure at Nintendo.

Also, in the article, Reggie said that they're looking into VR. Here's his quote:

"For us, it's all about fun gameplay. That's what we want. We want a fun, compelling experience. Right now, the technology isn't quite there yet, in our view. Certainly, it's something we're looking at. We look at a wide range of technologies. When it's there and enables a fun experience, we'll be there, too."

VG_Addict:

Vivi22:
When asked about other technologies he thought weren't ready for market, Fils-Aime responded, "the internet, twitch streaming, hard drives, high definition televisions, CD's, and DVD's."

Reggie said that they're looking to do great things with Twitch.

Really, what's wrong with Wii U's online?

Nintendo obviously doesn't have any trouble with HD anymore, given the games they showed at E3.

On topic, remember that Miyamoto tried out the Rift at E3, and Miyamoto is still a powerful figure at Nintendo.

Also, in the article, Reggie said that they're looking into VR. Here's his quote:

"For us, it's all about fun gameplay. That's what we want. We want a fun, compelling experience. Right now, the technology isn't quite there yet, in our view. Certainly, it's something we're looking at. We look at a wide range of technologies. When it's there and enables a fun experience, we'll be there, too."

If you look up, you'll be able to see a joke flying right past your head.

All of those technologies are things that at one point or another, Nintendo refused to get on board with. And they were wrong about every single one.

Vivi22:

VG_Addict:

Vivi22:
When asked about other technologies he thought weren't ready for market, Fils-Aime responded, "the internet, twitch streaming, hard drives, high definition televisions, CD's, and DVD's."

Reggie said that they're looking to do great things with Twitch.

Really, what's wrong with Wii U's online?

Nintendo obviously doesn't have any trouble with HD anymore, given the games they showed at E3.

On topic, remember that Miyamoto tried out the Rift at E3, and Miyamoto is still a powerful figure at Nintendo.

Also, in the article, Reggie said that they're looking into VR. Here's his quote:

"For us, it's all about fun gameplay. That's what we want. We want a fun, compelling experience. Right now, the technology isn't quite there yet, in our view. Certainly, it's something we're looking at. We look at a wide range of technologies. When it's there and enables a fun experience, we'll be there, too."

If you look up, you'll be able to see a joke flying right past your head.

All of those technologies are things that at one point or another, Nintendo refused to get on board with. And they were wrong about every single one.

I got the joke just fine.

I was just pointing out that Reggie said that they're looking to work with Twitch, and in this article, he said they're still looking at VR.

VG_Addict:

Vivi22:

VG_Addict:

Reggie said that they're looking to do great things with Twitch.

Really, what's wrong with Wii U's online?

Nintendo obviously doesn't have any trouble with HD anymore, given the games they showed at E3.

On topic, remember that Miyamoto tried out the Rift at E3, and Miyamoto is still a powerful figure at Nintendo.

Also, in the article, Reggie said that they're looking into VR. Here's his quote:

"For us, it's all about fun gameplay. That's what we want. We want a fun, compelling experience. Right now, the technology isn't quite there yet, in our view. Certainly, it's something we're looking at. We look at a wide range of technologies. When it's there and enables a fun experience, we'll be there, too."

If you look up, you'll be able to see a joke flying right past your head.

All of those technologies are things that at one point or another, Nintendo refused to get on board with. And they were wrong about every single one.

I got the joke just fine.

I was just pointing out that Reggie said that they're looking to work with Twitch, and in this article, he said they're still looking at VR.

For someone who got the joke you seem to have a hard time catching the point. Them saying they're looking into these things doesn't really mean anything. Particularly with regard to Twitch streaming. Knowing Nintendo, they probably won't get on board until next gen at least. And they didn't sound overly enthusiastic about it considering the man said he literally doesn't see what's fun about streaming.

In typical Nintendo fashion, they're already behind the 8-ball and have no interest in catching up until everyone else has shown that this stuff is here to stay. They're probably the least forward thinking company in the industry.

Vivi22:

VG_Addict:

Vivi22:

If you look up, you'll be able to see a joke flying right past your head.

All of those technologies are things that at one point or another, Nintendo refused to get on board with. And they were wrong about every single one.

I got the joke just fine.

I was just pointing out that Reggie said that they're looking to work with Twitch, and in this article, he said they're still looking at VR.

For someone who got the joke you seem to have a hard time catching the point. Them saying they're looking into these things doesn't really mean anything. Particularly with regard to Twitch streaming. Knowing Nintendo, they probably won't get on board until next gen at least. And they didn't sound overly enthusiastic about it considering the man said he literally doesn't see what's fun about streaming.

In typical Nintendo fashion, they're already behind the 8-ball and have no interest in catching up until everyone else has shown that this stuff is here to stay. They're probably the least forward thinking company in the industry.

They're the least forward thinking company in the industry? What about Direct, Miiverse, and the Treehouse stream?

On a somewhat related joke, would anyone else like a VR Zelda or Metroid?

Or even better, a VR Pokemon?

VG_Addict:
On a somewhat related joke, would anyone else like a VR Zelda or Metroid?

Or even better, a VR Pokemon?

Out of those three, Metroid VR would be the only one I'd be interested in, mostly because I think it would be a great fit for a Metroid Prime type game where Samus' helmet is the UI. I can't imagine a first person Zelda game(and I have no interest in third person perspective VR), and Pokemon never really grabbed me at all.

But Metroid on a HMD? Yeah, I'm now thinking I'd love to see the Dolphin emulator get Oculus Rift support.

oh, yes, youll get on board just like you got on board with CDs, no region locks, regular disc format, controllers, internet support.....
Oh, wait, you had to be dragged in screaming into all of those and still fail to deliver properly.

Olas:

The touchscreen wasn't a good hardware decision? Nintendo obviously thinks it was.

Why does it need to be 60 FPS? Why does it even need to be 1080p for that matter?

and see how well that ended for nintendo.
1080p/60fps per eye is the bare minimum unless you like explosive vomiting from nausea.
without this (and many other factors mind you) your eyes are simply too good at distinguishing this as false information and think your getting mixed signals, body interprets that as food poisoning (because food poisoning actually does that) and vacates your stomach.

Casual Shinji:
And yet 3D is still forced on us despite adding nothing of value. Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean publishers won't try their damnedest to make us use it anyway if they think it'll add an extra buck.

last time i saw a 3D movie was half a year ago and i did so by choice where another 2D version was playing quite close by 3 hours later. i chose 3D because i do not experience the negative sides of 3D so its only a bonus to me, but im not really a fanatic of it or anything. if its there fine, if not, fine as well.
so wheres the forcing?

Olas:

Eh, I can believe the framerate needs to be consistent, but as far as needing to be 60fps or higher? I'll believe it when I experience it.

anything bellow is actually very choppy. very visually choppy. 60 was picked because of standard IPS screens maximum refresh rate (60hz), but the more the better. everyone with eyes can see a clear difference in fluidity as FPS gets higher, so the evidence for this needing to fool you into thinking its real life is quite obviuos.

Why is 1080p suddenly the benchmark? I would think even 1080p would be far too low if you truly want to fool the eyes, I'm not even sure 4k would do it. So you're saying that 1080p, which just so happens to be an industry standard for displays, is also coincidentally the lowest possible resolution that would work and anything lower would break the experience? I'm doubtful to say the least. I'm sure 1080p is better than 720p, and I would think 4k or 10k would be better than 1080, but it seems much more like it would be on a sliding scale than have a breaking point.

1080p is just what they found as the lowest limit that actually works. 4k would be better true. while the screens are very close, they are also very small, so the effect of looking at single pixel up clsoe is not that huge. i mean, if you were to compress 27" into 7" on same resolution pixelation from same distance would look differently, same principle applies.
1080p is more than 2 times more pixels than 720p. of course its better.
As to why we dont go for 4k? for one, 4k screens that small is very expensive, for two, it would need a very powerful computer to generate it at consistent framerate.

You say it's literally twice as hard, but that sounds like complete bullshit to me. Both images are nearly the same, they're just rendered from slightly different angles. You're saying the system needs to perform every single calculation in the game twice for that? Give me a break.

its true rendering isnt twice as demanding for static objects. it is for anything that moves or changes (particles for example) and also is every time you look around as the game does not actually keep objects drawn when you dont look at them. since you need framerate consitency you need for enough power to generate images while moving, looking around and having particle effects on at same time. framerate drops like in regualr games is not acceptable in VR, so you cant bank on "not going to happen most of the time". thus you need power to generate both just to be able to work in every situation.

Considering the fact that games like Doom and Minecraft are being made for Occulus, I don't think the outcry will be too terrible if Nintendo's games look a bit worse than whatever the others can do. If the scale truly is 2:1 across the board then Nintendo will be at the exact same disadvantage they're already at in terms of graphics.

have you seen Doom in high resolution with good antialiasing? it looks better than a few modern games. of course till you encounter low-res enemies. thing is, nintendo would be at a disadvantange, Sony will be at a disadvantange, Oculus wont, since PCs already can do that without lower the graphics.

RandV80:

A big comparable is 3d movies, and lets take Avatar for example. On the internet many complained about it giving them headaches called it all sorts of derogatory terms and suggested that 3D movies were just another fad like they were last time and wouldn't be going anywhere. Yet Avatar was I think the highest grossing movie ever, and 5 years later 3D movies are still going strong. Now there's more legitimate complaints about it being the dictionary definition of a 'gimmick', but like it or not it's one that the general public has accepted & adopted and is here to stay.

Now onto VR, the Occulus Rift had a highly successful kickstarter. There's a massive amount of personally testimonies from a wide range of industry veterans who've had a chance to try it and are now believers. And finally, Facebook just dropped a billion dollars to acquire it. Now while technically anything can still happen, you have to do some serious mental hurdles or be extremely self centered/opinionated to see this as anything but a home run waiting to happen.

BUt 3D movies that require glasses and special monitors/projectors is a fad. It was a fad in the 50s and people got bored of it. it was a fad in the 70s and people got bored of it. It is a fad in the 00s and so far people are not taking it for granted, 3D TV business have went belly up and theaters is basically the only place with them.
Now, a 3D screens with no glasses (3DS) is a whole different matter. that is actually a new invention.

As far as the concerns of 3D movies such as headaches and nausea, they are real and many people do experience this. those people avoid 3D movies when possible.
Avatar is not the most grossing movie ever, but it is in the top 10. it however was going to make well 3D or not becasue it had many factors going for it that is easy to make money off (not the right topic for that though).

So i wouldnt go on to tell that 3D is here to stay, because history teaches us otherwise. personally i experience no sideeffects of 3D, but in movies it just feels unnecessary (mostly because its not real 3D but rather post-processing so it feels layered) and in games it actually messes up with my depth perception rather than helps it. i just dont see the appeal, but yeah have your 3D as much as you want, im fine with that as long as you let me have my 2D too. but that does not mean its not a fad or its here to stay though.

I havent tried oculus myself, but people that tried it sound like zealot fanatics defending their religion, and i dont mean it in a bad way but rather "it left impression so great they would defend it no matter what".

Facebook actually dropped only 650 million into Oculus Rift. The rest are Facebook options and those are as good as useless for the company unless it wants to sell off and run away. not to mention that its not 2 billion anymore because the option prices are falling.

As far as VR goes, im cautiuosly optimistic. i like the idea of it, and i think Oculus is going into right direction, but its still far from what i really want, and that is VR where i dont need large spaces and omnitracks but rather can control it with my brainwaves.

Strazdas:

Casual Shinji:
And yet 3D is still forced on us despite adding nothing of value. Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean publishers won't try their damnedest to make us use it anyway if they think it'll add an extra buck.

last time i saw a 3D movie was half a year ago and i did so by choice where another 2D version was playing quite close by 3 hours later. i chose 3D because i do not experience the negative sides of 3D so its only a bonus to me, but im not really a fanatic of it or anything. if its there fine, if not, fine as well.
so wheres the forcing?

In that many movie theaters don't bother giving you the choice and make the 3D version default. I go watch any of the big Hollywood productions at the movie theater and it's go for 3D or go home.

Casual Shinji:

Strazdas:

Casual Shinji:
And yet 3D is still forced on us despite adding nothing of value. Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean publishers won't try their damnedest to make us use it anyway if they think it'll add an extra buck.

last time i saw a 3D movie was half a year ago and i did so by choice where another 2D version was playing quite close by 3 hours later. i chose 3D because i do not experience the negative sides of 3D so its only a bonus to me, but im not really a fanatic of it or anything. if its there fine, if not, fine as well.
so wheres the forcing?

In that many movie theaters don't bother giving you the choice and make the 3D version default. I go watch any of the big Hollywood productions at the movie theater and it's go for 3D or go home.

i can see how this can be a problem. here we usually have multiple "Rooms" playing movies (the modern theaters here have 5 or so) and often its more like 2 rooms playing 3D version, 1 room playing 2D version and 2 other rooms playing different movies, so we get to choose if we want to. Not always granted, especially with less popular movies but so far i have been able to choose when i wanted. Sucks that your theaters arent as good.

Strazdas:

xaszatm:

A big comparable is 3d movies, and lets take Avatar for example. On the internet many complained about it giving them headaches called it all sorts of derogatory terms and suggested that 3D movies were just another fad like they were last time and wouldn't be going anywhere. Yet Avatar was I think the highest grossing movie ever, and 5 years later 3D movies are still going strong. Now there's more legitimate complaints about it being the dictionary definition of a 'gimmick', but like it or not it's one that the general public has accepted & adopted and is here to stay.

Now onto VR, the Occulus Rift had a highly successful kickstarter. There's a massive amount of personally testimonies from a wide range of industry veterans who've had a chance to try it and are now believers. And finally, Facebook just dropped a billion dollars to acquire it. Now while technically anything can still happen, you have to do some serious mental hurdles or be extremely self centered/opinionated to see this as anything but a home run waiting to happen.

BUt 3D movies that require glasses and special monitors/projectors is a fad. It was a fad in the 50s and people got bored of it. it was a fad in the 70s and people got bored of it. It is a fad in the 00s and so far people are not taking it for granted, 3D TV business have went belly up and theaters is basically the only place with them.
Now, a 3D screens with no glasses (3DS) is a whole different matter. that is actually a new invention.

As far as the concerns of 3D movies such as headaches and nausea, they are real and many people do experience this. those people avoid 3D movies when possible.
Avatar is not the most grossing movie ever, but it is in the top 10. it however was going to make well 3D or not becasue it had many factors going for it that is easy to make money off (not the right topic for that though).

So i wouldnt go on to tell that 3D is here to stay, because history teaches us otherwise. personally i experience no sideeffects of 3D, but in movies it just feels unnecessary (mostly because its not real 3D but rather post-processing so it feels layered) and in games it actually messes up with my depth perception rather than helps it. i just dont see the appeal, but yeah have your 3D as much as you want, im fine with that as long as you let me have my 2D too. but that does not mean its not a fad or its here to stay though.

I havent tried oculus myself, but people that tried it sound like zealot fanatics defending their religion, and i dont mean it in a bad way but rather "it left impression so great they would defend it no matter what".

Facebook actually dropped only 650 million into Oculus Rift. The rest are Facebook options and those are as good as useless for the company unless it wants to sell off and run away. not to mention that its not 2 billion anymore because the option prices are falling.

As far as VR goes, im cautiuosly optimistic. i like the idea of it, and i think Oculus is going into right direction, but its still far from what i really want, and that is VR where i dont need large spaces and omnitracks but rather can control it with my brainwaves.

Uh, something must be wrong with the quote button because I'm not the one who said that.

xaszatm:
Uh, something must be wrong with the quote button because I'm not the one who said that.

no idea how that happened. i wanst multiquoting even. Fixed now, sorry for the mistake.

Strazdas:
oh, yes, youll get on board just like you got on board with CDs, no region locks, regular disc format, controllers, internet support.....
Oh, wait, you had to be dragged in screaming into all of those and still fail to deliver properly.

I'm not sure how Nintendo was dragged kicking and screaming into disks/CDs or controllers, and while they may have terrible online multiplayer, they never shied away from internet access in general.

Olas:

The touchscreen wasn't a good hardware decision? Nintendo obviously thinks it was.

Why does it need to be 60 FPS? Why does it even need to be 1080p for that matter?

and see how well that ended for nintendo.

The DS is the highest selling mobile platform of all time, it's sold almost as many units as the PS2. The 3DS is still in it's lifecycle but has already sold more units than the Gamecube or original Xbox. I think the experiment was a success.

Olas:

Strazdas:
oh, yes, youll get on board just like you got on board with CDs, no region locks, regular disc format, controllers, internet support.....
Oh, wait, you had to be dragged in screaming into all of those and still fail to deliver properly.

I'm not sure how Nintendo was dragged kicking and screaming into disks/CDs or controllers, and while they may have terrible online multiplayer, they never shied away from internet access in general.

Nintendo wanted to use cartridges when whole world was already using CDs, they were the last adopters of CDs and were pretty much forced to do it or go bancrupt.
Nintendo does not shy away form internet? is thats why they sleectively disable internet because they think they know better and imagine themselves to be your nanny who knows what sites you can look at?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here