Computer games.

[Toffe3m4n]

New season of Apex starts today

 

[dholliday]

VR will be niche for a long time to come imo. The tech is still very new and unpolished. The image quality is still substandard even on the best headsets and miles off being where it needs to be for mainstream adoption.

What VR have you played? Have you seen what Alyx actually looks like? It looks amazing. That opening scene is iconic, one of the most spectacular moments in gaming:



And that game has many more after that. Get up close to some of the enemy, or even just look at your own hands once you've got the gravity gloves on...incredible graphical fidelity. I've played the new Dooms on 4K Flatscreen...lots of detail, but the textures on Alyx are more impressive....for they have depth. Even on low-graphical settings and on a mid-range Headset Alyx has that wow factor.

Other graphically-quality titles: Lone Echo, Walking Dead: Saints & Sinners, conversions like No Man's Sky, Hellblade, X:Rebirth etc. Even indie titles like Paper Beast (Journey-esque game) look lovely.

Where there's an argument that graphics aren't up to snuff or titles are unpolished is when talking about many of the filler titles, small-budget indie efforts, lazy conversions, unofficial mods (VorpX is generally unusable), and on older headsets like the first Vive, Rift, Quest or PSVR...what we know as 1st-gen. But we're in the 2-gen now: Index, Rift S, Quest 2, Vive Pros, Pimax 8K. Unpolished no longer applies if playing one of the recognised better titles.

Even niche hardly applies anymore, considering over ten million VR headsets sold so far. The VR market is worth many billions already.

They are still uncomfortable to wear

I've never found them uncomfortable (I wear glasses and can play standing for hours). Good posture is important, standing shoulders straight and all that. Which ones have you tried?

Who wants to come from from hard days work and strap on some sweaty dork goggles ? Not me.

That is a fair argument, I quoted those posts on this earlier. Understandable, I guess...but the interesting question is maybe what percentage of gamers are couch potatoes? In the 80's the majority preferred standing too (arcades). The Wii, despite sniggers round here, sold more than PS3, Xbox 360 despite more basic graphics, also sold more than classics like the SNES & Megadrive combined.

Maybe VR will get that physical enthusiasm burning again...as it's clearly there (potentially) in a large part of the gamer populace.

Also a large portion of people who try VR can’t adapt to it and get motion sickness etc.

There's conflicting studies on this, or rather not enough studies. The consensus seems to be that the majority feel weird the first couple of hours, even after taking the headset off, but then their body (& brain) gets used to it and it becomes a non-issue. Organically, what's happening is your brain is detecting movement (when walking/running in smooth motion within VR...not 'teleporting') but your ears sense no movement. Your brain sends a signal to your body, invoking a queasy feeling...basically saying hang on a minute, what's going on here? Once you override that by simply taking a small break, then having another go, your brain more accepts what's happening. It's simple brain-training, really.


As Resident Evil 4 on the Quest is a best-seller, and has tons of comfort/immersion options...it will be interesting to see if Facebook/Oculus/Meta have collated data as to which percentage went for full-immersion options, which went for comfort, which switched from one to the other....and how long they played the game for.

On top of that it sucks for shooting games etc

ahahaha...no...it does not lol What games have you tried again?

Anyone who's played Alyx or Resident Evil 4 will tell you the shooting experience is unfathomably greater in VR than when using a joypab/keyboard/mouse on a flat screen. In Resi's case: you physically take the gun out of the holster, physically point it, aiming with your line-of-sight, and physically push down on the trigger button....while physically ducking down behind cover to prevent getting shot back. The satisfaction is immense. You're as accurate as your skills allow, so getting accurate hits in feels hugely rewarding. I've turned off all sight-helpers in Resi-4...effectively shooting a pistol as you would a real one...using your own ability to aim. Incomparable experience!

Then there's Skyrim VR or Fallout 4 VR (Steam PC Versions)...even they have excellent shooting mechanics (Bow 'n Arrow in Skyrim's case), and they're only conversions. Vastly more satisfying...more immersive...than using keyboard/mouse.

and only really works well and feels natural in things like racing and flight sims or games where you are in a fixed position the entire time.

I get the feeling you haven't properly tried VR yet.

You need some room, 2x2m minimum. And if your stomach can handle it, turn on all full-immersion options. Standing, not sitting (unless your character is actually sitting, as in racing/flight games). You hence physically turn around if you want to look behind you...that sort of thing.

The must-play action titles from my view is either Resi Evil 4 on the Quest 2, or Alyx on PC (also using Quest 2 with Link-cable, of even WiFi if the connection is sound). Lone Echo for those who don't enjoy shooters. Thrill of the Fight for a genuinely realistic boxing experience...3x3m space recommended...also Quest-compatible, so like RE4 totally wireless.


If I sound evangelical, it's probably because I am. Because VR gaming is arguably the most significant development in immersive gameplay ever. I must share the good news

People saying it will be mainstream in a few years are deluded imo

That article I linked is based on real data...doesn't sound deluded to me. Many analysts predicting the boom is already happening.



TL/DR...try it, yous might like it x

 

[longers]

Compared to a monitor the image quality is poor... its the number one critique of VR and something even VR users admit. That is the main reason the graphics look poor, it's nothing to do with the games or the developers or the textures or the lighting... it's that the displays simply don't yet support a resolution that is equivalent to that of a good monitor. This results in worse image quality and far more aliased image.

This is made worse by the fact that your eyes are very close to the screen in VR, making graphical/visual artefacts much more noticeable. Then there is the fact that due to the lower resolution, objects in the distance look unclear and blurry, this is one of the main complaints about VR in flight sims and sim racing and anything that involves long view distances.

The modern ones I have tried and used are the HP Reverb 2, HTC Vive Pro and the Samsung Odyssey. They were all tested mainly in iRacing which has arguably the most comprehensive and polished VR support of any game in existence. VR works great in sim racing, I know people who swear by it and will never go back to monitors but they don't value image quality that highly whereas it's a big deal for me... I cant stand aliasing and blurriness and VR magnifies it greatly due to the low resolution and proximity of your eyes to the screen. You may say that its not blurry for you and you do not see aliasing (as so many VR users say)... and that's fine, you're lucky these things don't bother you, but they exist and they are a big downside to VR for a lot of people.

As for shooting games, if you enjoy them in VR then great, I don't and neither does anyone else I know. =Can't be arsed to argue about it.

 

[longers]

All that said... when they do get round to significantly improving the current resolution of most headsets and we have computers that can run it all at a high frame rate I will invest in one for sim racing and flight sims. I reckon it will be several years until we get to that stage though.

 

[Daz1878]

I finished all of AC Valhalla a few days back - the base game and the various expansions (Ireland, France, Ragnarok, plus the short Beowulf & Berserker quests). Thoroughly enjoyed it, but it is a particularly huge game... the only parts that really got on my nerves were the

Spoiler

Asgard

missions that came very late on, and I really couldn't be bothered with those. That was the only real negative, though, and I really liked roaming through the various maps. Thinking of trying Odyssey next, as even though I bought it when it came out, I'd only just got into Origins at the time, thanks to the pile of shame that is my backlog...

 

[dholliday]

Compared to a monitor the image quality is poor... its the number one critique of VR and something even VR users admit. That is the main reason the graphics look poor, it's nothing to do with the games or the developers or the textures or the lighting... it's that the displays simply don't yet support a resolution that is equivalent to that of a good monitor. This results in worse image quality and far more aliased image.

This is made worse by the fact that your eyes are very close to the screen in VR, making graphical/visual artefacts much more noticeable. Then there is the fact that due to the lower resolution, objects in the distance look unclear and blurry, this is one of the main complaints about VR in flight sims and sim racing and anything that involves long view distances.

The modern ones I have tried and used are the HP Reverb 2, HTC Vive Pro and the Samsung Odyssey. They were all tested mainly in iRacing which has arguably the most comprehensive and polished VR support of any game in existence. VR works great in sim racing, I know people who swear by it and will never go back to monitors but they don't value image quality that highly whereas it's a big deal for me... I cant stand aliasing and blurriness and VR magnifies it greatly due to the low resolution and proximity of your eyes to the screen. You may say that its not blurry for you and you do not see aliasing (as so many VR users say)... and that's fine, you're lucky these things don't bother you, but they exist and they are a big downside to VR for a lot of people.

As for shooting games, if you enjoy them in VR then great, I don't and neither does anyone else I know. =Can't be arsed to argue about it.

We're not arguing. Just that I've never even heard of iRacing so not sure if it has the "the most comprehensive and polished VR support of any game in existence". The game has been around since 2008 and has a lengthy detailed Wikipedia article, yet only a single short sentence on its VR support. Candidates for most comprehensive and polished VR support would be games developed from the ground up in VR, like Half-Life: Alyx, Boneworks, Lone Echo, Beat Saber and myriad others.


To your other points:

- The resolution of the Quest 2 is 1832×1920 per-eye...which is greater than the 1080p monitors most people use. There's no 'screen-door' effect and it has a wide in-focus sweet spot. But you do have a point when we consider our eyes are that close, so our perception of resolution is less than it would be when looking at a 1920x1080 flat screen from a foot away. Ideally VR Headsets would offer 4000x4000 per-eye...but the processing power to cover that isn't there yet. That might take a good 5-10 years further development, as you also predict.

- VR shooting mechanics is generally celebrated and critically-acclaimed. There are very few reports of gamers not enjoying them. But fair enough if you personally just don't enjoy it.

- The blurring at the edges, or amplified flaws like aliasing, can be offputting, that is true. Tho' too much blurring is often caused by not having the headset on in its ideal position, or incorrect IPD setting, or some issue with eyesight. There's a bit of trial & error involved. But edges will still be blurry even with optimal setup, that's the nature of the beast. Understandable if that bothers some. In-play one rarely needs to look at edges, so for regular VR-gamers it doesn't appear to be a deal-breaker. Seems to be one of those things that some can live with, and others can't get past.


To your point here: "they don't value image quality that highly whereas it's a big deal for me...I cant stand aliasing and blurriness"...does this also extend to not being able to enjoy older games on flat screens? Like say the PS1-era Final Fantasies, or PS2-era GTA's, or N64 Mario/Zeldas etc? My better half also isn't a big VR fan and she'd agree with you about the edge-blurriness being offputting. But she also enjoys playing her old Megadrive games. It seems this edge-blurriness is an issue less because of lack of graphical fidelity, and more that the blurring just takes some folk out of the experience.

Maybe my enthusiasm and excitement at the immersive gameplay and simply being there overrides any less-than-stellar technical aspects of VR gaming. Bit like how replaying classic FF7 some of us don't mind how awfully-pixellated the main characters appear while strolling through smoothly pre-rendered backgrounds, because the rest of the experience is just so good.

Perception is in the eye of the beholder, innit.

 

[longers]

We're not arguing. Just that I've never even heard of iRacing so not sure if it has the "the most comprehensive and polished VR support of any game in existence". The game has been around since 2008 and has a lengthy detailed Wikipedia article, yet only a single short sentence on its VR support. Candidates for most comprehensive and polished VR support would be games developed from the ground up in VR, like Half-Life: Alyx, Boneworks, Lone Echo, Beat Saber and myriad others.


To your other points:

- The resolution of the Quest 2 is 1832×1920 per-eye...which is greater than the 1080p monitors most people use. There's no 'screen-door' effect and it has a wide in-focus sweet spot. But you do have a point when we consider our eyes are that close, so our perception of resolution is less than it would be when looking at a 1920x1080 flat screen from a foot away. Ideally VR Headsets would offer 4000x4000 per-eye...but the processing power to cover that isn't there yet. That might take a good 5-10 years further development, as you also predict.

- VR shooting mechanics is generally celebrated and critically-acclaimed. There are very few reports of gamers not enjoying them. But fair enough if you personally just don't enjoy it.

- The blurring at the edges, or amplified flaws like aliasing, can be offputting, that is true. Tho' too much blurring is often caused by not having the headset on in its ideal position, or incorrect IPD setting, or some issue with eyesight. There's a bit of trial & error involved. But edges will still be blurry even with optimal setup, that's the nature of the beast. Understandable if that bothers some. In-play one rarely needs to look at edges, so for regular VR-gamers it doesn't appear to be a deal-breaker. Seems to be one of those things that some can live with, and others can't get past.


To your point here: "they don't value image quality that highly whereas it's a big deal for me...I cant stand aliasing and blurriness"...does this also extend to not being able to enjoy older games on flat screens? Like say the PS1-era Final Fantasies, or PS2-era GTA's, or N64 Mario/Zeldas etc? My better half also isn't a big VR fan and she'd agree with you about the edge-blurriness being offputting. But she also enjoys playing her old Megadrive games. It seems this edge-blurriness is an issue less because of lack of graphical fidelity, and more that the blurring just takes some folk out of the experience.

Maybe my enthusiasm and excitement at the immersive gameplay and simply being there overrides any less-than-stellar technical aspects of VR gaming. Bit like how replaying classic FF7 some of us don't mind how awfully-pixellated the main characters appear while strolling through smoothly pre-rendered backgrounds, because the rest of the experience is just so good.

Perception is in the eye of the beholder, innit.

iRacing was amongst the first developers to implement modern VR into a game. It was one of the titles that was used in demo booths when the pre release versions of the Oculus Rift first dropped many years ago. They have been improving VR support since then and its the benchmark for VR in sim racing which is a big market for VR. This is a guess but Id bet that sim racing has a higher percentage of VR users (relative to non VR users) than any other genre out there. The advantages it brings are immense, way better spacial awareness, being able to look into apex's and of course massively increased immersion which triple screens can't replicate. My only issue with it within this genre is the resolution, it's 100% the future for sim racing and probably flight sims... but the technology is still in its infancy, I'll sign up once it's in a more polished state.

With regard to whether I can enjoy older games despite their graphical flaws... I don't really care about retro gaming. I have fond memories of playing on my NES/SNES/Megadrive when I was a kid but I've never had any desire to go back and play old games. I was always the kid who moved onto the next console straight away and never touched the old one afterwards. However if you gave me a bifta, 3 mates, a sofa and super bomberman... fun would be had.

 

[longers]

Fifa: EA Sports to break away from football body

Electronic Arts will instead produce new football games under the banner EA Sports FC.

www.bbc.co.uk

Speaking to the BBC, David Jackson, vice president at EA Sports, explained that the studio thinks it's time to move in a different direction in order to build a "brand for the future". Although the details of those experiences are vague at the moment, it's fair to assume that being able to watch real-life matches, experience Fortnite style live in-game events and have access to a broader range of branded in-game items are the kind of things EA would like to be able to offer.





Sounds great...

 

[dholliday]

iRacing was amongst the first developers to implement modern VR into a game. It was one of the titles that was used in demo booths when the pre release versions of the Oculus Rift first dropped many years ago. They have been improving VR support since then and its the benchmark for VR in sim racing which is a big market for VR. This is a guess but Id bet that sim racing has a higher percentage of VR users (relative to non VR users) than any other genre out there. The advantages it brings are immense, way better spacial awareness, being able to look into apex's and of course massively increased immersion which triple screens can't replicate. My only issue with it within this genre is the resolution, it's 100% the future for sim racing and probably flight sims... but the technology is still in its infancy, I'll sign up once it's in a more polished state.

aye...i imagine petrolheads are loving VR!

With regard to whether I can enjoy older games despite their graphical flaws... I don't really care about retro gaming. I have fond memories of playing on my NES/SNES/Megadrive when I was a kid but I've never had any desire to go back and play old games. I was always the kid who moved onto the next console straight away and never touched the old one afterwards. However if you gave me a bifta, 3 mates, a sofa and super bomberman... fun would be had.

i was the kid who still had C64 when everyone else had Amigas lol

i can still play and enjoy old favourites: C64 Turrican, Rollcage, 1998 Half-Life, FF7, PS2-era (and spliff-era!) Pro Evo... games which even today rank in my all-time top ten. Great games are like great music albums...just don't get old, at least to me.

But when I try modern highly-rated flat games now i can't help but imagine how it'd be in VR. Plague Tale, Far Cry: Primal and Bioshock Infinite are recent plays...all very good, but now i kinda want to be right in there.

 

[toffeemeister77]

So Fifa wanted $1 billion dollars for a 4 year license wow?!!!!

Sounds like EA will still have all the teams by dealing diretly with the local federations ETC.

Fifa: EA Sports to break away from football body

Electronic Arts will instead produce new football games under the banner EA Sports FC.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[TheBigIguana]

So Fifa wanted $1 billion dollars for a 4 year license wow?!!!!

Sounds like EA will still have all the teams by dealing diretly with the local federations ETC.

Fifa: EA Sports to break away from football body

Electronic Arts will instead produce new football games under the banner EA Sports FC.

www.bbc.co.uk

It is so dumb from FIFA. The game is going to be referred to as FIFA offhand for the next decade or more regardless of the real name. The only content that EA was using that was FIFA licensed was the World Cup and that isn't even a part of every game for obvious reasons. EA didn't need to give them any money and they got greedy. Just amazing.

 

[Wizard]

Fifa: EA Sports to break away from football body

Electronic Arts will instead produce new football games under the banner EA Sports FC.

www.bbc.co.uk

Speaking to the BBC, David Jackson, vice president at EA Sports, explained that the studio thinks it's time to move in a different direction in order to build a "brand for the future". Although the details of those experiences are vague at the moment, it's fair to assume that being able to watch real-life matches, experience Fortnite style live in-game events and have access to a broader range of branded in-game items are the kind of things EA would like to be able to offer.





Sounds great...

From the sounds of things it takes the shackles of EA and will basically just allow them to monetise it even more without the restrictions the FIFA license brought. So it will continue to be pretty rubbish and infuriating.

 

[toffeemeister77]

It is so dumb from FIFA. The game is going to be referred to as FIFA offhand for the next decade or more regardless of the real name. The only content that EA was using that was FIFA licensed was the World Cup and that isn't even a part of every game for obvious reasons. EA didn't need to give them any money and they got greedy. Just amazing.

Agreed, it's crazy from Fifa, I'm sure heads will role. It's so very niave from them saying they are going to build their own game. I'm sure they have no idea how much it costs to build a triple A game from scratch with no experience. They will probably lose even more money than just the sponsorship loss.

The Premier League is probably able to negotiate more money though I would imagine dealing directly with EA.

 

[TheBigIguana]

From the sounds of things it takes the shackles of EA and will basically just allow them to monetise it even more without the restrictions the FIFA license brought. So it will continue to be pretty rubbish and infuriating.

They've already agreed some kind of deal with Nike. It's probably going to continue the downhill trajectory.

 

[trueblue84]

From the sounds of things it takes the shackles of EA and will basically just allow them to monetise it even more without the restrictions the FIFA license brought. So it will continue to be pretty rubbish and infuriating.

EA haven't made a good game since desert strike. Get ready for a broken mess that is effectively gambling for kids.