Be Excellent To Each Other

You misspelled "sums up JC perfectly."

Mircosoft’s Zune sold several million.

Sick fucking burn.

Pretty much everything you've said has been pointed out to be wrong or meaningless.

Glad I read to the end of the thread as my post was going to be 'The Dreamcast would like a word'.

But now I've made it anyway. Ha!

I don't think VR will achieve critical mass this generation, WARNING ANECDOTES I know of many PSVRs that are in the back of cupboards already, PC VR headsets gathering dust etc - and that's from the small subset of people that actually bought them in the first place.

In fairness I know of a few folks who are REALLY into their PC VR for simulation racing games and racing games alone, but then again you're into a niche within a niche within a niche so will they make the entire thing viable? No.

VR's day might come when the tech is right, but we're a way off yet.

Then you're clearly listening to only one side of the argument.

The BBC have broadcast pitch-side VR views of all of the World Cup games they've covered this tournament. That to me says that VR is anything but a fad. It doesn't need to be a fully immersive interactive experience for it to work well in VR and to appeal to people (although it helps, obviously)

Well I guess that's how the news is all over then (bad, usually).

We'll see. If it can get some killer A+ quality titles on it I may upgrade. If I can play seated.

No, in your opinion it is. I'm entitled my own opinion, right? or did we reach "nanny state" status and I missed it?

I could spend all day making those sorts of points but of course it would just be dismissed out of hand. Funny thing is I have been on the end of pretty much every fad there ever was (3DVision, 1080p, 4k, stupid game controllers, £150 keyboards etc etc) and as you have pointed out you put yourself in the 1%. Then you do something else, and before you know it you are in the 1% of 1% club. And then you find out the fucking hard way you were duped. Let's use wide screen gaming as a topic for this. I bought 3 monitors, strapped them to the wall, loaded up Nvidia's software and played Dirt 3 over all three screens. It was incredible, amazing ! then all I found was games that did not support it properly and looked like ass. So that was another huge waste of money and time.

VR needs something huge. Something like Mario VR. Mostly because that is all it is really capable of right now. As soon as you start to get ultra realistic you start asking questions of the GPU and there ain't one out there to run it at high enough resolution to make it viable being truly real.

I played Super Hot on launch and it was not a VR game. If it was a true ground up VR game it wouldn't have come out first as a FPS sorta deal where you pause time etc. The game was amazing, but it only went so far before IMO it became repetitive. This is not grounds to dump £400 on a VR headset.

As I've said a few times now, we will see what happens. Even a proper decent platform romp (some sorta rip off of Mario) would be nice, and something that actually feels like a game rather than a tech demo (like Lucky's Tale).

Well, I mean, if it was ever up to me personally I might not allow you an opinion because they're so demonstrably awful; but given that the government isn't involved in this discussion at all I'm not sure why you'd even mention a 'nanny state'.

I'd like a PSVR. The £200 price point is very tempting now.

That point was based on a fact (a fact which - bonus - is correct), which makes it somewhat different to anything you've said.

Ever.

OK, let's ignore SuperHot VR for a second (although saying "it's not a true ground up VR game" just because it came out on a non-VR platform first is mindboggling)

• Onward
• Pavlov
• Hotdogs, Horseshoes & Hand Grenades
• Space Pirate Trainer
• BeatSaber
• Thumper
• Wilson's Heart
• I Expect You To Die
• Star Trek: Bridge Crew
• Robo Recall
• Audioshield
• Eleven: Table Tennis VR
• Subnautica
• Echo Arena
• Lone Echo

All of those are absolutely fantastic games and experiences, most of the time precisely because they are VR-based.

Also:
One of VR's greatest strengths IMO is that you don't *need* to get ultra realistic. Just the intro sequence of Robo Recall made me physically scared at one point, and let's not even get into the experience that many people have had playing Alien: Isolation in VR.

Being immersed in the experience means that you can look past cartoonish or slightly dodgy graphics. But eventually, they will come.

I fucking wish Robo Recall was on PSVR. It looks mad dope.

I thought that through for many hours too. I was all set to buy a PS4 Pro. Then I did some research and it is very low res, and thus incredibly limited.

If you want I can loan you my DK2. You will get about the same experience out of it. There's at least a day's worth of fun to be had with it.

I'd have used it more, but the "THIS HEADSET IS NOT OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED" and the fact it would not calibrate after they updated the software meant it was a tad limited. Mind you, things like Dear Angelica are worth experiencing at least twice



It just all felt incredibly basic to me. Sure, the effect was nice, but that is about where it ended.

I clearly recall being on this forum a good couple of years back asking if VR was any more than the bat and ball type games of the 80s. I was told yes, it is, basically.

I then buy a DK2 about a year ago (might be 18 months now tbh) and I was treated to basically exactly what I expected. I bought a few games, but they were terribly disappointing. Dirt Rally was one, IIRC that was fine in the car (the cockpit was fairly hi res) but the outside looked like dog mess and made me want to hurl. It was just so low res and fuzzy AF.

Are you basing all of your comments on experiencing these things on a DK2?

It is.

Nope. That was the baby step. I then saw no good, fit reason to spend £499 (at the time I bought it). It was exactly what I suspected it was. Fun for a few hours, but that is about it.

That said I did load up FO4 VR and even though it was a little grainy it was very impressive. Sadly I needed to spend £499 on a headset with controllers to play it, and then I would need to play it basically blindfolded whilst smashed out of my nut on anti psychotics and anti anxiety meds known for making me faint.

I may set it up again at some point and try out VorPX and try and get it running that way (Fallout 4 that is, about the only thing I could spend more than an hour playing in VR).

Oh yeah, the Oculus store was incredibly empty too. It wasn't hiding shit because I didn't have a CV it just wasn't there. About the best game in the Oculus store I could find was the eagle flying one.

Oh yeah again (edit). I also found out that the CV1 does not come with the lenses and thus I would need to spend £X to get it working with my glasses. At least the DK2 allows me to take my glasses off and use it clearly.

Oh, ok then.

Maybe my bog standard PS4 got upgraded by pixies.

I don't know what you've been reading, but it sounds like the biggest load of utter shash ever.

Firstly, VorPX is no substitute for a proper port. FO4 VR might have its problems, but it'd be a damn sight better than running VorPX. A good VR experience is not just about having the stereoscopic vision.

Secondly, the Oculus store isn't what I'd call empty - nearly everything in my list above is on the Oculus store, and you have the SteamVR store as well.

Thirdly, of course CV1 doesn't come with prescription lenses - how would that ever work? On the other hand, it works fine with glasses - unless you wear particularly wide frames, in which case you might have a little trouble with it - but my glasses are fine and have no problems with comfort.

You're not doing yourself any favours here, dude. VR without motion controllers is only barely VR, really, and as Touch doesn't work with DK2 I can only assume that you've never actually tried it. I mean, Christ, even the fiddliness of getting the DK2 to actually switch on and get the game appearing in it is light years behind the ease of use of CV1/Vive.

Vorpx converts the game into stereoscopic 3D so you can play it with a controller. I can not play with a headset on standing. That isn't going to happen. Maybe I might be in a minority not wanting to stand but Google denotes it isn't just me. There are countless threads on it. Bethesda said they would implement the 360/Xbone controller and then simply didn't, or at least haven't since then. It still states you need the motion controls.

Like I continually keep pointing out there needs to be something on VR I can't live without or else I simply don't want it. And nothing thus far has managed to convince me, given it is what I thought it would be. I don't really care what other people think about my reasons for not having a CV1. That is obviously going to be unique to me. However, in order for something to be a success it needs to appeal to every one. Not just one group of people who think it's the best thing ever invented but it flops any way. I was firmly in the 3DVision camp. I spent many, many hours playing L4D2 in 3D and I thought it was the best thing to happen to gaming ever. Sadly that notion wasn't exactly shared by all and thus it flopped. A shame, but after I had thought about it I could see why it happened. There was simply hardly any support for it, even from the people who fucking invented it (Nvidia). So it was clear to me I had been done over in a cash grab.

With regards to prescriptions and etc? the DK2 comes with alternate lenses. I originally tried it wearing my steel frame glasses, only to find them being shoved into my eyes creating two lenses that could easily be dirtied (by a finger print, for example, trying to lug the fucking thing onto my head with all of the cables coming out of it) and it was so uncomfortable I tried the other lenses and bingo ! I must have gotten lucky and it was either a match or very close to my prescription and I was able to play without glasses. I then checked to make sure that was the case with CV1 and it wasn't. So you then have to buy something else.

As for whether DK2 is a viable way of experiencing VR? I would say it is. Parts of it were utterly magical (like the bit in Dear Angelica where the smoke goes up your nose and you are sniffing at nothing) but when it came to things I would want to spend more than an hour doing? yeah, nothing. And to me? that would need to be Mario VR* or Fallout 4. That's it for me, I really don't want to play racing games I have no interest in cars.

*I mean an experience so amazing and incredible that you must have it. Like Mario 64 when it launched.

I don't like golf. Does that mean golf is a flop?

No, it means you don't like golf.

Right. So now maybe put that together with what you said.

If you don't like golf and don't want to play it nothing I can say or do will make you want to.

Just like if I don't like VR and it doesn't have the software I would like it to I don't like VR and don't want to spend many hundreds of pounds on something I won't use.

Thus, I would not spend time on the internet trying to make people who don't like golf buy a bag, trolley and clubs.

oh my god

Incredible.

I mean... I just... Yeah.

The problem here is that you said "VR is a fad" when what you should have said is "I don't much like what I've tried of VR"

If no one is playing golf I can walk my dog on the nice grass. What I’m saying is, you’re forgetting about all the lovely VR porn.

Golf is fad, Cras. No-one should buy golf clubs. I know this because I don't like it and I'm entitled to my opinion.

The important question though is: how does VR compare to Assassin's Creed Syndicate?

I know exactly what VorPX does. It's shit. A good VR game is not just about having 3D vision.

What you're basically doing is writing off an entire subsection of gaming as a "fad" because of your own shitty experience of it.

That would be akin to you writing off PC gaming on the whole because you tried it once and your GPU set itself on fire and burned down your house. Obviously nonsensical.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but until you actually give it a fair go using actual consumer hardware and not a bloody development kit, don't be surprised when people jump on you for having that opinion.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I fucking hate Mario 64. And Zelda. Guess that means that the Switch is fucked, eh?

Woah woah woah, I was with you up until here but there I draw the line.

Mario 64 “is” shit. Mario Odessey is pretty good though.

The controls for Mario 64 (and Ocarina of Time for that matter) are offensively bad (although I'm judging it by modern standards, I never played it at release) and Zelda's didn't seem much better.

Compared to current standards sure, I can see why you would say it IS shit now. But back in it's day i'd say it was "the shit".

It's actually a lot deeper than that, but of course I spent many days doing research and etc before concluding. I could spend hours and hours explaining it but why bother? the world will still continue on spinning regardless of what I feel.

So, I think my saying that it doesn't appeal to me because it doesn't have the right software is fair enough. BTW it's OK to hate Mario and Zelda (can't fucking stand the latter myself) but Mario 64 was enormous in proper 3D platform games. It was nearly perfect, other than DVS (dodgy view syndrome).

I also don't really like Quake either, but it defined a generation of games.

Posted this before and that little "THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED BEFORE YOU REPLIED" didn't pop up.

I see your point; controls are shite, did you see the controller though? But I'm talking about gameplay, enjoyability and fun to play.

Indeed it is.

Mutually exclusive IMO.

I had a similar complaint about Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3, but I managed to enjoy those anyway because mercifully the shitty controls (where you needed to somehow be capable of pressing 5 buttons at once just to shoot a gun or something) were very rarely needed in my playthroughs.

And don't get me started on the pressure-sensitive buttons. Good idea in principle, fucking terrible execution.

Aren't all buttons pressure sensitive though?

The best kind of correct etc. etc.

I understand what you meant though, like half press = 1 button 3/4 press a different button full press is another button.

I'm quite heavy handed (if you can believe that...) so I agree it's daft, but I understand why they do it "immersion" and what not.

I missed this in all the kerfuffle.

What do you mean by A+ quality? Graphics? Because if so, why should that matter? It's all about the gameplay experience, and most VR titles have that in spades. Take Eleven: Table Tennis VR, for example. Graphically it's terrible by modern standards and looks a bit like someone's just thrown together a load of assets in Unity, but it almost perfectly replicates the feeling of playing a game of table tennis.

There are loads of games available in the VR space that can be played seated. The Oculus store even has it as a filter.

In MGS2 (and possibly 3, although they may have realised the error of their ways by then) you slightly pushed a button (Square I think) to get your gun out and aim it.

At that point, you could then either shoot by pushing the button the rest of the way, or put your gun away by letting the button go.

But, because there was barely any travel on those face buttons, what you ended up doing most of the time was just getting your gun out and shooting straight away which gave your position away most of the time and got you caught.

Mad Maestro had a whole game around the functionality where you had to conduct music with varying degrees of enthusiasm (with the colours representing how hard to press the button).

Unrelated to the conversation, but that happens if you use the "Quick reply" box at the bottom of the main page, rather than hitting the reply or quote button.

Maybe because it has to be QUICK QUICK QUICK? Dunno.

Mystery solved.

You know, like a AAA title that may make every one sit up and pay attention. Whilst table tennis does appeal to me (because I used to be very good, still got my Nittaku bat as it goes) it's still very simple. Oh, and of course include a sitting option.