Games (inc Online)VR

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)   4 Nov 10:14 
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)      32 of 37 
42839.32 In reply to 42839.31 
I *think* his point there is that, with GPU power being finite, if you're rendering it twice then it's going to be "half" the quality.

i.e. you could, on a 2d screen, have a twice-as-good-looking-game.

Which there's *something* to, but not much.
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   4 Nov 11:36 
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)      33 of 37 
42839.33 In reply to 42839.31 
My own feeling is *never having put a vr headset on* the cost-benefit ratio is way off, such that it will never reach market scale but will always be a luxury curio. Then there's the headset issue itself, another showstopper (IMO). Xenophon makes a good point about the eye watering, display-spanning resolutions which require a meaty, and pricey gpu to do justice. Anyway, it's all above my pay grade. I like playing games on an ordinary 2d display on an ordinary pc that's not tethered to my head* well enough. In fairness, one could level similar complaints to almost any amusement you could name. It could be sour grapes, but I'm not really tempted in the first place that I even want to test out the experience.

*um headphones though
“Beer can artwork accidentally thrown in bin”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)   5 Nov 21:08 
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)      34 of 37 
42839.34 In reply to 42839.32 
Yes, I thought that was the kind of thing he probably meant, but he phrased it in an odd way. I suspected that he phrased it in an odd way to lend some dubious certainty to his case. Which is a shame, because it doesn't need it.

He May Be Your Dog But He's Wearing My Collar
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  william (WILLIAMA)   5 Nov 23:31 
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)      35 of 37 
42839.35 In reply to 42839.33 
Well.......the last time I checked, Nvidia are banging out a card for common-or-garden 3D video gaming on a 2D monitor that a gamer could buy, or, alternatively invest in eight complete Quest 3 sets. Nvidia may go broke one day, but not right now. I mean, you're not wrong. The cost benefit thing. But it's an analysis that doesn't help me understand. Some smokers spend 50p on a little plastic lighter when others think a £1000 Cartier thing is essential. A Quest 3 costs about the same as many an average gamer will blow on just the graphics card. SO what I'm stumbling around with, is that pointing to the cost is like this: I choose a packet of chocolate digestives at £1.50 but somebody suggests I should try Bonne Maman Milk Chocolate Caramel Tartlets at £2.00*. I've been eating chocolate digestives for years and although the new sweet and crunchy treat is quite pleasant, and exotically European, I state that I enjoy what I have and the cost benefit analysis is way off. Actually, that argument is way off, never mind the cost benefit. It's an argument that only makes sense when the cost is a "cost". My REAL point is that cost, on it's own, isn't necessarily the main issue in the failure of VR to wipe 2D/3D gaming from the world.

Wearing upwards of 1lb on your head while gaming is a downer, especially when it will run out of puff in less than 2 hours.

Few VR games are truly great games. Many are cobbled together on old 3D engines like Unreal.

Spend £400 and you have access to about 20 truly great games. VR. (If you have watched many VR scifi films you may find some of these disappointing).

Spend £400 and you have access to about 20 million squilllion games including some that have changed both actual and gaming history. 3D (NB at £400 you may find some of these disappointing).

There are games that are so good they could be played on an Amstrad smart watch and still be jaw-dropping. 3D or VR

For me, there's something about some moments in VR gaming that are so good that --- fuck! But then again, I spent HOURS guiding a tiny Mario in his grossly pixelated submarine to finally overcome a crudely drawn octopus. And I was a grown man. And the game was sublime.

What I want to say is that there's something wonderful about VR gaming and it would be a shame if it's overlooked becaused it isn't what people think it should be. And that isn't (all) to do with cost. Incidentally, I think it's impossible that elements of VR won't appear in most future games at some stage.

*some perfectly competent chip shop analogies were overlooked to the detriment of all in this post.

He May Be Your Dog But He's Wearing My Collar
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)   6 Nov 10:21 
 To:  william (WILLIAMA)      36 of 37 
42839.36 In reply to 42839.35 
Right, I confess that I am woefully uninformed about VR gaming to be mouthing off about it. But it clearly hasn't taken off, and nothing I've seen or read has made me even curious, my own reasons are probably not much of a factor in the overall scheme.
“Beer can artwork accidentally thrown in bin”
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  milko   7 Nov 18:48 
 To:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)      37 of 37 
42839.37 In reply to 42839.36 
I still use mine extensively for playing sims, they're just so very much better in VR, to the extent that I won't buy one if it doesn't have the option. Flying and driving stuff on PCVR.
I don't really bother so much with the standalone games, I keep meaning to give them more of a go but ...hm, I don't play other games much anyway, so it's not really VR thats stopping me.
 
milko
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All    
 

1–20  21–37

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats