1 bump

It's just another fad.

It is absolutely amazing, but it doesn't integrate well in most conventional games.

>>341421564
Yeah, all VR shit have toned down gameplay

>>341420978
Have never heard someone who's actually used it not be impressed. Completely immersive, but as of right now it's stupid expensive and the only games are glorified tech demos. Also apparently moving in the first person makes you sick. Not sure if it's a fault of the gear (previous versions had problems that caused sickness) or just the disconnect i.e. sea sickness.

>>341421964
It does make you sick, because your eyes perceive acceleration when your vestibular system doesn't so your brain is freaking the fuck out. But it does become a matter of adaptability. My first run in HL2 with DK2 was pretty tough and I only lasted like ten minutes, but with each subsequent try I could handle it better and better to the point where I'd be able to barely feel it all and go on for hours. And obviously wider audience doesn't care about games to such extent as to spend their time training. However this shit doesn't happen at all in simulators where your body is fixed and you're moving inside some vehicle.

>>341422441
Yea it's like how I get carsick when I'm not watching outside - body feels movement/vibration from cars and eyes see no movement. Look outside and you're fine. Glad to hear that it can be trained out.

>>341420978
It is really groundbreaking. It is so different that rules of game design don't apply to it so most devs who do VR are trying to figure out how to make games for it.

Just wait, there'll be full AAA titles in a few years that make the headsets worth it. Valve is working on something

>>341422601
>Look outside and you're fine.
That's literally opposite of my case. When I was a child, I'd get carsick from watching from the windows.

Remember how Kinect was so integral to xbone at launch and now it's nowhere to be seen?

Yeah, VR is that important to the next gen.

It'll end up just being like you're really close to the monitor when playing a normal game.

>>341420978
VR is fucking amazing, I just get the feeling that outside simulators no one knows what to do with it.

Vive is just same $20 VR demos, and PSvr on E3 was just same 5 to $20 interactive VR experiences (as they call it)

>>341420978
>Can someone explain to a disillusioned yet still hopeful gamer this VR nonsense?
The issues is that VR delivers what gaming advertising had been promising for years. But because literally every word that can be used to described VR had already been overused, there is nothing anyone can say that can convince you the shit is real.

Try it to find out. Nothing we say on this forum matter until then.

>>341420978
I wouldn't dismiss it as a fad. It had a lot of flase starts so did touchscreen technology (anyone remember the Apple Newton?)

>>341420978
it's the future.
works great, makes vidya completely new experience.
also porn. porn will never be the same.

slowly it's gonna catch on, people will gradually realize the potential. i'm getting one myself in a year or two when it gets cheaper.

If it wasnt so expensive I think it would be a great step forward for games. It actually makes horror gams into horror games, and it just generally feels quite "natural" after a while, like when you hear something you look over your shoulder instinctively, rather than turn a camera. But again, too expensive at the moment, especially with few games to make use of it.

Something they could do far off into the next gen is have systems pre packed with a headset, like they did with the cameras, that way people could actually buy games that support it and developers will actually want to support games using it because people will actually buy the games.

It's the future of video games, but I believe it's a rather distant future. That is, the technology is simply not well developed enough to have a meaningful impact on video games.
It's absolutely amazing for simple simulators and highly atmospheric games with little gameplay, however.

Need actual VR games, man.
Not tech demos. Not quirky little indie games. Not racing games that are playable without but are also good for VR I guess.

For it to REALLY kick off, you need big, highly polished AAA-level games with fully integrated VR from the get-go.
Your big action shooters or your first person open RPGs or any of that. Stuff that lets you get truly immersed while playing a game that isn't either over in an hour, jumpscares in the dark or some lame puzzle indieshit.

I have high hopes for VR, but until they stop just jamming it into stuff or making endless games based around sitting in a seat and looking around you, it'll not catch on.

I don't REALLY want VR to be VR. I can't imagine it working too well, it seems hard to implement well and it's expensive.

What I really want is TVless consoles. I never knew I wanted this until I tried games on just the Wii U game pad. It's so fucking convenient sometimes.

That's why I'm interested in the PSVR. Not for any of the head tracking or movement or whatever VR tech it has. I just want to wear the headset and be able to play the PS4 without a TV.

My TV is currently broken and unless I buy a brand new one (which I'm not) I have to wait 2-3 weeks for a special part from Japan so it can be repaired. I just want to play Bloodborne, goddamn it.

>>341420978
It is in no way groundbreaking for games as we know them, as it hardly fits in most of them in any useful way, but it does give ground for new kinds of games.

>>341420978
>implying motion controls weren't groundbreakingµ
Because the stupid pleb majority didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't great.

>>341421805
>>341421564
/thread
Literally thread. It will change the way we'll watch movies and play games, but not yet.
RE7 will be the beginning, because the VR is optional.
Everyone who has ever tried VR will agree, only neckbeards who can't afford it or haven't left their basements in years to try one at conventions would disagree.