| Yes, it is interesting and makes some good points. Not sure I agree with everything he says. Some (many) of his arguments are actually assertions: his POV stated as fact. Some of the assertions are plain odd, and I don't know what to make of them e.g.
Quote:
because everything in VR has to be rendered twice, once for each eye, those things will always look worse than they would in non-VR
Does rendering something twice reduce the resolution or spoil the colour balance, or something? I don't think so. And what does he mean by looking "worse"? To who? In what way? Maybe he means something like a given amount of processing will produce a single image of x quality or two images of x - n quality. But he doesn't say this. In fact, what evidence I've seen suggests that when depth is added to imagery via VR, perception of detail increases.
I don't want to focus on this one point, but I think it's his over-assertiveness that harms the piece. He doesn't write "those things can look worse" he writes "those things will always look worse". He does this throughout.
But on the other hand, I think several of his main points are probably right. There's a lot of good-enoughness about, when what's on offer plainly isn't. Facebook/Meta gave VR a huge boost with the Quest 2, a VR headset, up with the very best, but at a medium games console price. But, to a degree they don't seem to have realised what they did. They're back to moderate incremental improvements in hardware, when another leap is needed. They've got the jitters over cash I suppose. And game design and technology must change. So much is just tweaked-up standard 3D video gaming.He May Be Your Dog But He's Wearing My Collar
|
