Be Excellent To Each Other

For the money, now, yes. It isn't as good as 3 or NV, it seems to lack some of their charm, dialogue choices are rubbish, but you can attach a sawblade to a hammer. And then,another.

Depends on what you didn't like about the previous games. It's a lot more focussed on combat this time around and like 99% of quests boil down to 'talk to someone, go to a place and kill the people they want killed, return to original person for reward'. So it's more streamlined in a way but it lacks in variety and I personally didn't feel anywhere near as compelled to spend time exploring the world as I did with previous games.

I should probably play Fallout 4.

After Dark Souls.

I honestly fell out of love with Fallout 4 pretty quickly after the initial OMG Fallout! reaction...the story just didn't engage with me and I just wanted to get it over with as soon as possible (or find away of destroying all the factions).

I loved it. The base-building and manufacturing I thought was excellent, the story was okay (it's not like they're ever great) and the only real disappointment to me was the lack of weapon customisation like in New Vegas.

I liked it. It was good fun.

Wait, what am I talking about? It had loads of weapon customisation. Idiot.

YOU COULD STRAP A CIRCULAR SAW BLADE TO A SLEDGEHAMMER

By the by, Ps vr is going to £199 in June with wipe out or something that I don't care about.

COR!

That's within my budget if it comes with techno dicks and if it doesn't it'll only take a couple weeks to get there. Psvr soooooon

joinnnn usssss

Thanks, mate

I began to make noises over it last night. We shall see.

You don't need techno dicks except for a few games.

There are some where they aren't technically needed but significantly improve the experience though - such as Star Trek.

Feex.

none of the games I've really enjoyed so far have needed them, I'd like some to try Superhot but that's it. Ultrawings, Skyrim, Resident Evil, Farpoint, Doom VR, GT Sport and the best PSVR game, Wipeout none of them need them. They're absolutely not a necessity.

Feexed by the guy who refused to engage with the entire multiplayer component of Bloodborne.

Mind you, I agree that if you’ve got the cash for VR it does provide unique experiences for games despite not being “necessary” (whatever that means in the context of entertainment) so those without VR can still enjoy the vanilla experience.

No one's said they're a necessity; the fact that they're technically optional isn't up for discussion.

I didn't like a thing you liked as much you liked it. Jesus Christ dude, get over it already.

^this

Apart from Superhot, off the top of my head there's I Expect You To Die, Batman, Rec Room, Job Simulator. Hopefully soon, also Beat Saber. These games all leverage the inherently more natural-feeling technodicks to build more immersion and they simply don't work with a Dualshock.

Skryrim is (I am told) much better with technodicks too, and having tried both I much preferred Rush of Blood after I ditched the pad. And I cannot imagine playing Trek with a pad. It'd be hugely immersion breaking.

I think you're selling the platform short if you don't pick them up.

If you don't own them, then every game you've enjoyed hasn't needed them, by definition. If you haven't tried the games that do need them then you're not really in a place to advise, are you?

Wait, RoB is even playable with a controller!? Fucking hell, why would you even?

See also: Batman.

Don’t get mardy over it. I couldn’t care less whether you liked it or not. Fact is, you didn’t engage with the multiplayer aspect and wasted “part of the potential of the whole thing” which was amusing as you’re critiquing someone for something similar.

I read this as RoB the Robotic Operating Buddy from the NES as you could use a controller to play Gyromite instead of getting the robot to help.

I'm not in any place to advise because I've only played the games that actually appealed to me and found that almost none of them would really benefit from techno dicks?

In any case I'm only advising to go ahead and get a PSVR even if you can't afford techno dicks to go with it right away, because you'll have a great time and depending what sort of games you're even into you might never feel compelled enough to bother at all.

A necessity for bothering to get a PSVR.

Don't you have a wheel for playing PSVR driving games, Mark? IMO that's a necessity as playing with a pad would be so immersion breaking I'd rather not bother.

I don't think it's in any way controversial to say that games that are designed to support custom controllers often usually benefit from use of those controllers. Equally there are VR games that aren't designed that way.

A Fallout VR thing would certainly test my resolve on VR.

For about a millisecond. Then I'd remember that it's a pointless, expensive gewgaw that'll be forgotten. And is anti-disabled.

How is it anti-disabled? More so than a pad, I mean.

You mean exactly like every single games console controller ever made until last week?

This is thoroughly disingenuous, you totally care--for some bizarre reason--to the extent you're now banging on about it outwith the confines of the Bloodborne thread. It was irritating enough even when it was sort of relevant but in this forced context it's even more grating. Pack it the fuck in you weirdo.

I don't believe anyone actually said that did they?

Pointless: only in so much as any leisure pursuit is pointless.
Expensive: well that's a personal decision of course. I'm more than happy with the value I've had out of mine and I suspect everyone else here who actually owns one will agree. Obviously that doesn't mean it's not too rich for your blood though.
"That'll be forgotten": I'm not really sure what this means? I don't spend a lot of time in my day thinking about my old Amstrad computer, but it was still good fun at the time it was relevant.

Strongly endorse. This current wave of VR in general is intoxicating, and PSVR is comfortably the most cost-effective way to try it.

Of course, I've spent PSVR money on dinner for two on more than one occasion in my life, which I must acknowledge as a caveat.

I hope that included Techno Dick pudding.

Kind of, the way your post read it was like it was almost a waste of time without them and my experience was that nothing could be further from the truth.

Not at all; I've played enough of your examples to know that games designed purely for controller + VR headset can be awesome (Wipeout and RE to give a couple of example) but there's no doubt in my mind that when a game is designed to work with the Move controllers and you use them the fun/immersion factor goes off the scale. Therefore not taking advantage of these options would be a massive waste of potential to my mind.

Also: request thread split of Fallout 76 stuff.

Valid. Temp lock.

Yeah, right. Because disabled people haven't been using modded controllers forever. I can't see anyone modding a VR headset so that my brother (with his severely partial sight) could use it effectively. And my brother is a huge gamer, mostly golf games. On his massive TV that he sits right next to. He can't play shooters cos they're too fast paced.

Does he use his console to it's full advantage? No. But he gets enjoyment out of what he can do.

There was that one guy who played Halo with his face. He wouldn't be able to use VR at all, either.

VR tech at the moment is kind of all or nothing, if you have great( or at least even) eyesight, don't puke your guts up within 30 seconds of putting the headset on, and have enough limb mobility to operate the motion controls, then it's great.

I know it's optional at the moment, but someone's going to try to make it mandatory in the next wave of consoles, I can feels it.

If it starts getting more prevalent (and frankly I expect it to remain niche) then the same motivation that today makes people create modded controllers will exist for VR controllers.

I don't know what constraints the heavily partial sight imposes but PSVR at least had no issues whatsoever being worn over glasses.

If there was a risk of VR games replacing non-VR it'd be a solid point. But there's very few VR only games and those that do exist have a fraction of the content of non-VR games.

Samsung Gear VR as an additional example has specific projects aimed at the partially sighted, from auto-magnifying based on target distance to adaptive per-eye focussing, something that a TV cannot do.

whut

Has he tried VR at all? Apart from anything the display technology means that you can use it to ignore VR entirely and get the effect of sitting in the front row of an IMAX, you can also wear glasses whilst using the headset. Furthermore for other folks who don't have the fine control of their hands needed for many traditional games there are lots of experiences that consist of not a lot more than looking around. Overall I would say that VR has fucking great potential to be really enabling and open up some really fun experiences to people who might otherwise not get to enjoy them.

Yeah, no. Basically, because it's retinopathy, strapping a screen in front of his eyes doesn't actually help much. How he explains it is that he has to use his less damaged bits of retina in order to gather information. So he'll literally stare at things out of the corner of his eye. His eyes are now different shapes due to scar tissue build-up. And his depth perception is very poor and also kinda messed up.

VR is hugely beneficial to disabled people, in ways that are both related and unrelated to gaming.

Here's one article, there are hundreds of others all covering different disabilities and people: https://wheelchairlift.com/articles/hel ... l-reality/

Put simply: saying VR gaming is anti-disabled is, ironically, somewhat short-sighted.