This is how I'd love to play all first-person shooters from now on, but it's also completely impractical.
Continue reading…
Continue reading...
Polygon: This is the future of first-person shooters, but it's not quite ready for you
- Thread starter News Feed
- Start date
This is how I'd love to play all first-person shooters from now on, but it's also completely impractical.
Continue reading…
Continue reading...
I totally agree. This is my problem with FPS now, which is why they aren't my preferred genre. The same tired controls are sluggish and cumbersome. We need an alternative or just a whole new direction.
I think FPS and VR are a perfect match and seems like the next logical extension.
First person adventure/exploration would be pretty darn good in VR, as well. Kinect would give you endless puzzle-solving capabilities in VR.
Here's one thing with FPS: I'd like to see cut scenes removed and replaced with Half-Life-style storytelling that actually has scripted events while you play. I have no idea why this hasn't caught on already. It's so much more involving to me that way rather than be pulled from the game to watch basically a video.
First person adventure/exploration would be pretty darn good in VR, as well. Kinect would give you endless puzzle-solving capabilities in VR.
Here's one thing with FPS: I'd like to see cut scenes removed and replaced with Half-Life-style storytelling that actually has scripted events while you play. I have no idea why this hasn't caught on already. It's so much more involving to me that way rather than be pulled from the game to watch basically a video.
The problem with fps in vr is locomotion. Moving in vr while sitting or standing irl can be jarring for some ppl and cause simulator sickness. Even standing and rotating is not good enough when you have to move forward and stand still. There is a lot of encouraging experimentation going on right now, but that's the real reason it isn't ready yet.
Last edited:
Yeah I have a buddy who get queazy with today's fps motion sickness wise. We tease him properly about it the little girl.
Who the heck is going to do this?
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3820600/FullSizeRender.0.jpg)
Not you.....since you need the actual console to do it. LoL!
VR is impractical, unless it's a game geared to people strapping something on their head (if the avg person can even stand that for more than 20 minutes) and they can still just sit on a couch.
Any game maker expecting people to pay $300 for VR, get off the couch, make a lot of room in their living room, strap a helmet to their head and they have the room to run around, pivot, jump is making a big mistake.
Even basic things like moving/walking/running doesn't even make sense in VR. On one hand, they expect full immersion, yet how is someone going to move in a game? They expect the person to stand in one place and pretend to be walking/running on the spot like they are doing Richard Simmons exercise tapes?
And is the VR gear and controllers all going to be wireless? Or is there going to be cables like in the pic?
You're right.
And nobody else either since nobody bought Sharpshooter and Move with that glorious pink ball at the end of it.
That "pink ball" can be dozens of other colors, too. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you have to use it to know any better. LoL!
Moreover, its funny how no one needed the controllers, yet we are here a generation later....
.......still using them. LoL!
it's called DualShock 4 and light bar......with those bright pink colors. LoL!
But again, I don't expect you to understand this.
DS4, light bar, pink ball. That's some immersive "Virtual Reality". By the looks of it, the VR helmet is not wireless. lol
Last edited:
I guess they don't mind a hardwired cable draping over their arm, tangling, and what looks like an 8ft cord.
Sure don't. If it alleviates batteries, cost and image quality, then heck no. Because you have a DualShock and navigation stick, you'll be sitting down most of the time anyway. ...or in the same place.
Not very immersive if gamers just sit on the couch like traditional gaming. In that case, the only difference is that you have a thing strapped to your head and have some limited FOV adjustments as you can move your head around.
The point of VR is to get into it and be mobile doing it like the guy in the pic. Turn your body means you turn also in the helmet. Jump means you jump, etc....
That's why it's promoted as "virtual reality" and not "virtual couch sitting".
Wow! So that's what VR is. I never knew you needed all that to trick the brain. LOL!
Have you been in one of these before:
That's about as simple as I can give it to you.
Good example.
Those are real life trick tunnels which a person actually walks through. It's a real life experience. A person doesn't go through it by sitting on a chair and pressing up on an analog stick
You still don't understand. You don't have to walk to get the experience, just like the tunnel. Because you are immersed entirely in that world, it tricks the brain from distinguishing what is real and what isn't, and so your body reacts naturally as if it thinks that it is really there.
For example:
Last edited:
It's not worth arguing about. Haters will keep hating while we trailblaze the future. Then when VR has gone from the Zack Morris cell phone to the smart phones we know and love today, they'll love it and say how much better of a vr experience console A has than console B.
If they would only improve the FoV in Hololens, I'd honestly much rather that plus Kinect, as a VR/AR option. It would free up a lot of needless bulk and could include seeing near-field objects. You also wouldn't have to be lit up like a Christmas tree to achieve the same or better effect, since it could capture your entire skeleton, not just a gun.Who the heck is going to do this?
VR is not something Hololens specialize in even if it did have a wide fov. It can only mimic certain aspects. This is why MS had to partnered with Oculus and Valve.
That's a good list.It's not worth arguing about. Haters will keep hating while we trailblaze the future. Then when VR has gone from the Zack Morris cell phone to the smart phones we know and love today, they'll love it and say how much better of a vr experience console A has than console B.
And exactly why VR has never caught on. Every once in a while VR crops up (maybe it was Power Glove that started it off, unless there was something before that), and every time it has failed.
And every VR attempt before was actually cheap. Power Glove, Sega Activator, Virtual Boy, various gizmos PC gets that has to do with headsets or fancy controller are no more than $150. And they still failed. I highly doubt Morpheus or Rift will be any less than $250-300, unless Facebook (with it's buckets of money) wants to subsidize costs and sell at an absurd price like $99 for sake of getting people to buy one for social stuff.
However, new VR sets have an advantage in that consumer spending in the past 10 years is off the charts for gadgets. People have no problem shelling out $300, $400, $500+ for the newest phones and tablets every other year, so as long as the product is good $300 shouldn't be an issue.
Yes you do.
It shows you've never walked those fancy tunnels before. If you just stand at the start of it, nothing happens. It's just a bunch of weird colours rotating. No big deal. Standing there is nothing except laughing at other people ahead of you try it out.
But as soon as you try to walk the path yourself, your eyes and sense of coordination gets out of whack. Most people will stumble and have to grab a hand rail to make it across.
In basic VR, visuals are up close to your face with peripheral vision cut off as the goggles (depending how good the FOV angle is) will try to stretch it out like normal vision. If it can't it'll black out the sides.
Sitting on a couch (as you said most people will do), requires no motor skills like walking through a tunnel. Someone sitting on a couch even limits moving your head to 90 degrees left and right for small stretches of time. Companies will probably give gamers the choice of full VR and movement, or couch sitting mode. Counch sitting mode will be people sitting on their couch, kicking their feet up on the table and playing the game no different than playing on a TV except for the possibility of moving your head around.
Now if game companies and gamers are going to do full VR which is standing, pivoting, running on the spot etc.... that is more immersive and more real. Just like that vid of that guy playing a shooter on that fancy multi-directional tread mill where he actually has to turn and run for real.
One thing that also doesn't make sense for VR is that unless games/apps do it is the whole issue about vision having to do with a person's eyeballs. People see things not always staring straight at something and turning their head, but simply by shifting their eyes. In VR, I foresee people needing to move their head to see something because the gadget/game cannot detect a person wants to look at something by simply glancing with their eyeballs left, depending how good the FOV is.
Last edited:
You aren't the first to tell me this but I can't think of a reason that VR can't be done with Hololens (other than FOV). The display specifically and completely covers up anything behind the "hologram" with a solid image. There is no technical hurdle that has to be made other than a video path from whatever hardware (if it isn't to be handled within the device) to use the entire display area, rather than just display mixed-reality objects. If MS doesn't want to explore VR with it, homebrew will... provided the FOV is wide enough.
Those partnerships with Oculus and Valve could also be so MS can use patented development software for its own hardware at some point. I know that may sound like a stretch, but just a thought.
The fact remains that there are advantages of using a passive display for VR that are just too enormous to pass up at some point, IMO... even if it has to wait for Hololens 2.0.
What? LoL!
Obviously YOU haven't been in one before. The effect doesn't take place until you fully immerse yourself into the illusion. The reason be is because your peripheral vision is still detecting the illusion from the real world (the door you are standing in). So by fully immersing yourself, the brain is being overloaded since it has nothing to distinguish the reality from the moving illusion all around you.
Now then, in the case of sitting in a chair or on a couch, again, just like standing still in the tunnel, because you are immersed entirely in that illusion, your brain is going to naturally try to keep up with that illusion around you rather than where you are sitting or standing in reality. And that locomotion you talk about comes not from your feet, but the illusion around you. All you're simply doing is moving yourself around in that active illusion. Its kinda like being in a chair on a conveyor belt, but it is not you that is on the belt it is the world around you. The analog stick just pulls the moving illusion towards you rather than you moving towards the illusion. Its not different from you being in a wheelchair in the tunnel. So the illusion remains the same; you're just stationed now. LoL!
Last edited: