Virtual Reality

[Ronnie]

Ok then, there aren't lots of shooters in the AAA industry, my mistake.

[Retro_Link]

I'm really surprised they bothered to make this game as it's a very poor showcase of VR and 3D platformers gain nothing from using the VR, the reviewer even said that the controls would have been better handled via a regular camera control stick than the VR headset.

 

I think VR to play regular games - 2D games and 3D person games is pretty pointless, VR is really a way to experience worlds from a first person perspective.

I watched a video with Damon from IGN chatting to some VR devs, and the thing is, because of how new it all is, developers are still figuring out what does and doesn't work best in VR. It's the reason this first year or maybe even two, will be full of experiments. In a way that's kinda fun! We're all figuring it out together and there will be a lot of different experiences. Someone tried utilising the camera for platforming, and yeah it probably wasn't the best decision, but this type of game may well become very rare now and could be fun to have in a collection.

 

I wouldnt be surprised if this long experimental launch period is followed by a period of saminess that works, followed by diversity.

[Goron_3]

Ok then, there aren't lots of shooters in the AAA industry, my mistake.

 

No one said there wasn't, just as no one said that there weren't lots of RPGs (western and japanese), adventure games and sports titles out on the market...

 

Ronnie, do you know what the term FPS actually means? Just because games used the same camera angle doesn't mean the games are the same. With that logic Bloodborne and Mario 64 would both by third person action games.

[Happenstance]

I've heard enough conversations from people that are impressed with what VR is showing outside of just first person perspectives that I'm still quite positive on it. The devs themselves have pretty much all said that they know this isnt just going to be some instant success and will be a slow burn before we get the bigger games we are waiting for. I think its just one of those things where if people keep their expectations in check then it'll happen eventually. Until then I'll stick to my fps games like Fifa or Persona 4.

[Ashley]

Look I really don't think it's that controversial a statement to make, Nintendo AAA games have smaller budgets than the majority of AAA games out there. Nintendo are good at making brilliant games with a smaller budget.

 

But you didn't initially say "Nintendo make games on smaller budgets than AAA studios". You said Nintendo make games without a massive budget. Obviously without you quantifying what "massive" is it's open for interpretation, but given you were chastising the lack of Mario 64 quality at launch suggests you think Mario 64 was a cheap game to make. It was not. It took a long time to make - with reports suggesting Miyamoto spent months, maybe up to a year, perfecting the jumping mechanisms before even starting to work on the actual game - and that would have cost a lot of money.

 

A lot of the games that are currently being released for virtual reality are experimental. They are not designed to push any particular VR machine in the same way Mario 64 was. Yes, they will help sell them, but their main intent is to sell the concept. These are amped up tech demos at the end of the day. And I don't mean that disparagingly. Some great games have evolved from tech demos and have done well.

 

VR is finding its feet. It's not like a new console which is now part of an established industry (the gaming one) where there is more certainty it will be financially successful, it is a brand new piece of technology that is learning as it goes.

 

And once again I point back to my earlier comment that on average these games cost 1/6th of what Mario 64 did.

 

I'm really surprised they bothered to make this game as it's a very poor showcase of VR and 3D platformers gain nothing from using the VR, the reviewer even said that the controls would have been better handled via a regular camera control stick than the VR headset.

 

I think VR to play regular games - 2D games and 3D person games is pretty pointless, VR is really a way to experience worlds from a first person perspective.

 

Why wouldn't they? Sure, it may not show VR at its best but it will help to define what does and doesn't work well. I'm all for cutting games that aren't working, but if you have a playable game that shows some of what VR can do (and the review does state that) then go for it. It may fall on its arse, but it's better to try than to sit back criticising.

 

It's ridiculous to have already decided what VR should only be used for when we've not even seen all the consoles come to market. It would have been like saying the SNES shouldn't bother trying to do 3D and we wouldn't have Star Fox.

[Zechs Merquise]

Why wouldn't they? Sure, it may not show VR at its best but it will help to define what does and doesn't work well. I'm all for cutting games that aren't working, but if you have a playable game that shows some of what VR can do (and the review does state that) then go for it. It may fall on its arse, but it's better to try than to sit back criticising.

 

It's ridiculous to have already decided what VR should only be used for when we've not even seen all the consoles come to market. It would have been like saying the SNES shouldn't bother trying to do 3D and we wouldn't have Star Fox.

 

You've answered your own question in saying: "Sure, it may not show VR at its best". That is exactly why this was a pointless exercise.

 

When the N64 came out it did so with Mario 64, which essentially justified the system and showed off both the hardware in terms of its 3D ability and what could be done in a 3D world and it showed off the importance of the analogue stick - which at the time was something new. Now if the N64 had launched with a 2D Mario game it certainly wouldn't have had the same effect.

 

The game does indeed show a couple of things that VR can do, but when the reviewer states that the things that the VR does could be largely handled better using a second thumb stick and a regular pad, that isn't saying much for those VR features.

 

What's more, the fact the game itself looks like the kind of sub par shovel-ware that would have been critically panned if it had been released on the N64 is also rather embarrassing.

 

I'm not sure what point you're making when you say it is "better to try than to sit back criticising", I'm not a game developer, yet I have been playing games since 1987, so I'm pretty well versed in what will and won't work. I don't intend to try developing VR games, or any other games, but to suggest that people can't criticise something that obviously looks shit and should instead "try" I assume to develop games is a ludicrous point to make. It's like saying when you watch a shit film you can't say it is shit and should instead go out there and try to make a film.

 

Finally, it is hardly ridiculous to say what VR will and will not have good applications for. Virtual reality by its very definition tries to create a virtual reality for the user, it is a way to bring a greater degree of realism and immersion into a game through altering the perspective of the player to make them feel as though they are not looking at a screen but actually in the computer generated world. Straight away VR can be seen as hardware that will have applications for flight sims, racing games, games where you explore in a first person perspective or FPS games as viewing the world from the first person perspective using such hardware will only add to immersion. It doesn't have the same effect when you're watching an N64 quality 3D fox running around.

 

And equating knowing the application of VR to the limits of the SNES is nonsense! Star Fox on the SNES pushed boundaries and although the 3D world was very crude, at the time it was ground breaking. This game pushes no boundaries - either in game play or through the application of VR itself.

[Ashley]

You've answered your own question in saying: "Sure, it may not show VR at its best". That is exactly why this was a pointless exercise.

 

When the N64 came out it did so with Mario 64, which essentially justified the system and showed off both the hardware in terms of its 3D ability and what could be done in a 3D world and it showed off the importance of the analogue stick - which at the time was something new. Now if the N64 had launched with a 2D Mario game it certainly wouldn't have had the same effect.

 

The game does indeed show a couple of things that VR can do, but when the reviewer states that the things that the VR does could be largely handled better using a second thumb stick and a regular pad, that isn't saying much for those VR features.

 

What's more, the fact the game itself looks like the kind of sub par shovel-ware that would have been critically panned if it had been released on the N64 is also rather embarrassing.

 

I'm not sure what point you're making when you say it is "better to try than to sit back criticising", I'm not a game developer, yet I have been playing games since 1987, so I'm pretty well versed in what will and won't work. I don't intend to try developing VR games, or any other games, but to suggest that people can't criticise something that obviously looks shit and should instead "try" I assume to develop games is a ludicrous point to make. It's like saying when you watch a shit film you can't say it is shit and should instead go out there and try to make a film.

 

Finally, it is hardly ridiculous to say what VR will and will not have good applications for. Virtual reality by its very definition tries to create a virtual reality for the user, it is a way to bring a greater degree of realism and immersion into a game through altering the perspective of the player to make them feel as though they are not looking at a screen but actually in the computer generated world. Straight away VR can be seen as hardware that will have applications for flight sims, racing games, games where you explore in a first person perspective or FPS games as viewing the world from the first person perspective using such hardware will only add to immersion. It doesn't have the same effect when you're watching an N64 quality 3D fox running around.

 

And equating knowing the application of VR to the limits of the SNES is nonsense! Star Fox on the SNES pushed boundaries and although the 3D world was very crude, at the time it was ground breaking. This game pushes no boundaries - either in game play or through the application of VR itself.

 

So only something that shows a console at its best should be released?

 

Your comparison to Mario 64 is fool-hearty at best. Nintendo made the console. Nintendo was in R&D for years with that console. Nintendo made a flagship game alongside that console. Nintendo were in a better position to make a well-crafted experience to show off a console than any of the developers on VR are.

 

These games are showing off what VR can possibly do at a much cheaper cost than an N64 game was. In a way its more in-line with mobile games in this sense - they're defining the use of video games in a new technology. They're about finding what works. If you were expecting a VR game to be like Mario 64 you were setting your expectations too high. That game may come one day, but at launch it was always going to be a mixture of attempts at existing genres while the developers figure out what does and doesn't work. VR is different from console games in how they play and how users interact with them. It's impossible to launch with everything refined. It needs to be in the hands (and eyes) of actual gamers to learn. VR is completely different from the console industry. 2016 is completely different from 1996.

 

I wasn't saying you should go make games, but why are you trying to decide what does or doesn't work if you're not out there trying? You're entitled to an opinion, sure. You're entitled to say "I think it is better suited for virtual environments" (even though games are virtual environments). What I was taking issue was with you deciding what the industry should do based on your preferences. Preferences that may have been 29 years in the making, but let's not forget some of these developers of VR have been making games for longer than that. Maybe that's what you were trying to say - "I think that..." - but in reading your post as a whole it read as if you had decided what VR should be used for as an industry, rather than what you personally are interested in. But if you just want virtual environments then fine, focus on those. Just don't go telling game companies they shouldn't have bothered. Never tell someone they shouldn't have bothered. It's rude and its disheartening and no amount of years playing video games puts you in a position to diminish the attempts of others. You can critique and you can dislike, but do not say "they shouldn't have bothered".

 

This game does push boundaries. It tries to get a platformer working in VR. It seemingly fails at making it a good one, but it is something new. Just because its not good doesn't mean it doesn't push boundaries.

 

And the whole "push boundaries" argument is open to failure anyway. It's such a loose term you could argue it for anything if you really wanted to.

[Kav]

But people do moan when the Gamepad isn't shown why it's good in games, so people have a right to moan when VR isn't shown why it's great in games... no?

 

 

Quick post whilst I'm in the airport, only skim-read to be fair.

[Ashley]

But people do moan when the Gamepad isn't shown why it's good in games, so people have a right to moan when VR isn't shown why it's great in games... no?

 

 

Quick post whilst I'm in the airport, only skim-read to be fair.

 

Maybe I should make myself clearer.

 

Yes, you can moan about a bad (or non-existent) use of the tech.

 

You can't go telling people they shouldn't have bothered.

[Zechs Merquise]

So only something that shows a console at its best should be released?

 

I never said that, I said on release of new hardware games should show off the advantages of that hardware. Another example would be Wii Sports, I'm sure if the Wii was bundled with Tetris it wouldn't have had the same effect as that game wouldn't have benefited from the controls which were central to the new system and its appeal.

 

Your comparison to Mario 64 is fool-hearty at best. Nintendo made the console. Nintendo was in R&D for years with that console. Nintendo made a flagship game alongside that console. Nintendo were in a better position to make a well-crafted experience to show off a console than any of the developers on VR are.

 

Not really, Nintendo obviously did have more resources and had the ability to develop the software alongside the hardware. But at the same time these developers did have early access to VR development kits and producing rubbish and shovel-ware is still a poor show. If a developer doesn't have the skill to show off what a new system or new hardware can do and what the applications are of that new hardware, well then they deserve criticism for that. Which leads on to the next point...

 

These games are showing off what VR can possibly do at a much cheaper cost than an N64 game was. In a way its more in-line with mobile games in this sense - they're defining the use of video games in a new technology. They're about finding what works. If you were expecting a VR game to be like Mario 64 you were setting your expectations too high. That game may come one day, but at launch it was always going to be a mixture of attempts at existing genres while the developers figure out what does and doesn't work. VR is different from console games in how they play and how users interact with them. It's impossible to launch with everything refined. It needs to be in the hands (and eyes) of actual gamers to learn. VR is completely different from the console industry. 2016 is completely different from 1996.

 

Yes, this game looks cheap - in fact it looks like a sub-par N64 game ported to iOS, the sort of thing played on a tablet and bought for $0.95 on the app store! This is embarrassing and a waste of time. I can just imagine the laughs and criticism this would have garnered had it been part of the Wii U launch line-up, and rightly so.

 

I am not setting expectations too high if I expect new hardware to launch with something that justifies that hardware - this is what is expected of hardware. Hardware in itself is not a reason to go out and part with cash, it's what you can do with the hardware - or in this case what games can be played on it. Why would you buy hardware if the games are terrible or if they don't offer new experiences and fail to justify the asking price?

 

Developers have been using these VR units for years, hell I tried one around 30 months ago. If these developers haven't got to grips with them by now - at least to the point where they can produce something that at least offers something new and fresh and justifies using that technology, then that either suggests the developer is pretty rubbish, or the hardware doesn't offer too much. In this case, I believe the developer is pretty rubbish and isn't using the hardware correctly, which is why I feel this game is pointless.

 

I wasn't saying you should go make games, but why are you trying to decide what does or doesn't work if you're not out there trying? You're entitled to an opinion, sure. You're entitled to say "I think it is better suited for virtual environments" (even though games are virtual environments). What I was taking issue was with you deciding what the industry should do based on your preferences. Preferences that may have been 29 years in the making, but let's not forget some of these developers of VR have been making games for longer than that. Maybe that's what you were trying to say - "I think that..." - but in reading your post as a whole it read as if you had decided what VR should be used for as an industry, rather than what you personally are interested in. But if you just want virtual environments then fine, focus on those. Just don't go telling game companies they shouldn't have bothered. Never tell someone they shouldn't have bothered. It's rude and its disheartening and no amount of years playing video games puts you in a position to diminish the attempts of others. You can critique and you can dislike, but do not say "they shouldn't have bothered".

 

Because I am a consumer with an interest in gaming, I have the right to say what looks rubbish and what looks good, I have the right to say what looks like it works and what doesn't. Funny, because over in the Star Fox Zero thread lots of people are saying the new controls don't look like they will work, or look pretty rubbish! I can't take total issue with that, because they do look and sound odd. I don't see you over there on damage control duty though as you are with this title!

 

By your logic, I shouldn't tell Michael Bay that Transformers Extinction is a steaming pile of horse shit and he shouldn't have bothered because I have yet to try to make a AAA £300 million dollar action film based on a toy franchise! Or maybe I shouldn't tell Digital Homicide or any of the other rubbish game developers not to bother when they have produced total hack jobs of games because it might hurt their feelings! What nonsense!

 

I will tell these people they shouldn't have bothered - and I'm guessing the people who developed this haven't been developing games for over 29 years, because if they had they would be pretty lucky to still have jobs churning out something like this. If you are churning out iOS quality games in order to cash in on VR and get a quick sale as you're the first 3D platformer to 'use the hardware', DON'T BOTHER!

 

This game does push boundaries. It tries to get a platformer working in VR. It seemingly fails at making it a good one, but it is something new. Just because its not good doesn't mean it doesn't push boundaries.

 

And the whole "push boundaries" argument is open to failure anyway. It's such a loose term you could argue it for anything if you really wanted to.

 

This game doesn't push any boundaries. There are probably hundreds of these games on the App Store doing no business at all. These guys just ported one and added some poorly thought out VR that isn't needed. Just in the way lazy developers ported crappy platformers to the Wii and added waggle - but slagging them off was fine. Should we go back and give all the party games and added waggle rubbish on the Wii a free pass because the developers tried to get their game working with motion controls - and afterall we don't want to hurt their feelings?

 

I stand by my initial comments - this game is pointless, the devs shouldn't have bothered. It is a lazy cash in on new hardware and a wave of interest in VR. It should be viewed on the same level as added waggle in early Wii games.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Zechs Merquise

[Kav]

I find I agree with @Zechs Merquise on this... I get what @Ashley is saying but just tend to agree more with Zechs' points.

[Sheikah]

You really don't know what you're talking about. You've lumped MGS, Fallout and Battlefront all under the same umbrella. I don't even-

 

Not even a hint of a clue.

 

Genuinely embarrassed for the li'l fella.

[Retro_Link]

I never said that, I said on release of new hardware games should show off the advantages of that hardware. Another example would be Wii Sports, I'm sure if the Wii was bundled with Tetris it wouldn't have had the same effect as that game wouldn't have benefited from the controls which were central to the new system and its appeal.

VR does have a Wii Sports like game...

 

 

As for big games that prove VR's worth...

 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Retro_Link

[Zechs Merquise]

VR does have a Wii Sports like game...

 

Er... great? I never said it didn't, I was pointing out how the correct software sells hardware. Wii Sports sold the Wii, it was a proof of concept.

 

As for big games that prove VR's worth...

 

Whether these games prove VR's worth is yet to be seen. They do however use the technology correctly and do a great job of selling it. I hadn't seen the underwater exploration game and was thinking how well Endless Ocean would work using VR and done from a first person perspective. The improvement that VR can offer a game like Endless Ocean can be seen clearly and it would present a fresh and exciting experience.

 

I'm please you posted this, because you've rally supported the point I was trying to make. The software you have shown all utilises the VR hardware to provide an enhanced experience. When I tried Oculus I played a racing game, it felt so real and the feeling of motion was like riding a roller coaster and felt more 'real' than any other racing game I've ever played. Now let me make something clear - it didn't feel like driving a car, because when you drive a car you can feel the road surface and weight of the vehicle, but it was far more like driving a car than playing with a standard TV and controller.

 

The games you have shown utilise VR and look like they have had real effort put into them. The developers have clearly tried and I think they offer a tantalising view to what VR could offer in the future - a far cry from a 3D fox bouncing around in a basic platformer which would have felt out of date in 1998!

[Goron_3]

Er... great? I never said it didn't, I was pointing out how the correct software sells hardware. Wii Sports sold the Wii, it was a proof of concept.

 

 

 

Whether these games prove VR's worth is yet to be seen. They do however use the technology correctly and do a great job of selling it. I hadn't seen the underwater exploration game and was thinking how well Endless Ocean would work using VR and done from a first person perspective. The improvement that VR can offer a game like Endless Ocean can be seen clearly and it would present a fresh and exciting experience.

 

I'm please you posted this, because you've rally supported the point I was trying to make. The software you have shown all utilises the VR hardware to provide an enhanced experience. When I tried Oculus I played a racing game, it felt so real and the feeling of motion was like riding a roller coaster and felt more 'real' than any other racing game I've ever played. Now let me make something clear - it didn't feel like driving a car, because when you drive a car you can feel the road surface and weight of the vehicle, but it was far more like driving a car than playing with a standard TV and controller.

 

The games you have shown utilise VR and look like they have had real effort put into them. The developers have clearly tried and I think they offer a tantalising view to what VR could offer in the future - a far cry from a 3D fox bouncing around in a basic platformer which would have felt out of date in 1998!

 

So are you simply saying that games shouldn't be released at launch unless they are ground breaking experiences?

[Zechs Merquise]

So are you simply saying that games shouldn't be released at launch unless they are ground breaking experiences?

 

Not at all. I am suggesting launch titles should at least try to show off what the system if capable of and show that the system warrants purchase. For example, when the Wii U came out games like Nintendo Land showed what the gamepad could do - but third party efforts like Batman Arkham City and Black Ops 2 also helped with this showing how the gamepad could be used in other ways.

 

I am not expecting all games at the launch of a system to be ground breaking masterpieces, but then again I do expect some effort to be put in and when I see a game that looks like it would have been redundant and out dated in 1998 and looks like games that could be found and bought for pennies on the App Store I am going to call out that game and the developer behind it.

 

As I've said before this is akin to games in the early days of the Wii that were shovel ware with waggle shoe horned in because the developers saw an opportunity.

 

The shocking difference here is you're in this thread in some way defending this garbage, had this been on the Wii or Wii U or a Nintendo produced game that was so lazy and piss poor you'd be saying so and any one disagreeing would be a fan boy who was taking things too personally.

 

In fact there has recently been criticism of the Star Fox Zero control scheme and how an unsuitable control system has been foisted upon a game - a controls scheme that many don't think is necessary, don't think adds anything new to the game and people don't want to have to use!

 

Now here we have a game that has VR shoved into it, doesn't really need it, adds nothing new to the experience and on top of all that looks like total shite to boot, yet I am criticising that and somehow I am wrong for doing so?

[Ashley]

It's weird we're acting like there's only one game out...

 

And I'm about to head to a conference so a short response - I fundamentally can't get behind someone that is so willing to dismiss the work of others. There is plenty of media I dislike, feel was made badly and could discuss how to improve it until the cows come home but I would never think about telling them they shouldn't have bothered. It's callous and insensitive. People made these. They put their life and energy into it. You may not think it comes across, and yes you're going to have the easy cash ins, but people do care. They try. And then someone comes along and says they shouldn't have. It's a person you're talking about at the end of the day. Try and remember that.

 

It's a free market. Michael Bay can make a shit film and I could tell him why I feel it's shit, but if I don't want it I won't see it. We can discuss, it is great to do so, but I take issue with someone negating the work of others so blithely.

 

Once again, I'm not trying to say this game is great, I'm saying you shouldn't be saying it doesn't deserve to exist. I feel as equally against those that started petitions calling for the new Metroid and Paper Mario to be cancelled. Don't turn this into some console war. My issue is with your attitude towards others.

[Zechs Merquise]

It's weird we're acting like there's only one game out...

 

And I'm about to head to a conference so a short response - I fundamentally can't get behind someone that is so willing to dismiss the work of others. There is plenty of media I dislike, feel was made badly and could discuss how to improve it until the cows come home but I would never think about telling them they shouldn't have bothered. It's callous and insensitive. People made these. They put their life and energy into it. You may not think it comes across, and yes you're going to have the easy cash ins, but people do care. They try. And then someone comes along and says they shouldn't have. It's a person you're talking about at the end of the day. Try and remember that.

 

It's a free market. Michael Bay can make a shit film and I could tell him why I feel it's shit, but if I don't want it I won't see it. We can discuss, it is great to do so, but I take issue with someone negating the work of others so blithely.

 

Once again, I'm not trying to say this game is great, I'm saying you shouldn't be saying it doesn't deserve to exist. I feel as equally against those that started petitions calling for the new Metroid and Paper Mario to be cancelled. Don't turn this into some console war. My issue is with your attitude towards others.

 

This is the real world, these are adults, grown people that are releasing a product into a highly competitive market. We're not talking about children sat in a kindergarten making finger paintings to take home to their mum! This isn't about their feelings, and if their feelings are getting to get hurt over someone suggesting their game is shit and they shouldn't have bothered, then really they need to do some real growing up.

 

What's more, if they are upset over my comments, what happens when their game gets bad reviews? Or when people don't buy their games? Are they going to cry, moan or feel bad? What if their game doesn't perform and they lose their jobs or their company closes? And if all that happens - it is part of life.

 

I've seen countless threads where people have described Nintendo games as lazy, pointless updates, rehashes etc, are Nintendo employees crying over this? Shall we censor all discussion as feelings might get hurt? I don't know why you have had to turn this into some emotionally fuelled issue.

 

If you're an adult, deal with things. The big corporate world isn't a kindergarten where everything is soft and all the corners are rounded off so people can't get hurt. You've turned what I've said into something ridiculous, based around a warped world view that people's feelings take precedent over anything else and we should all try ever so hard not to upset people.

 

But no one here is going out of their way to upset anyone! A developer has produced a product and I've voiced an opinion. If those who have worked on this game are literally hurt and crying over that, than maybe they should do some growing up, as well as obviously learning how to make better games!

[Retro_Link]

In fact there has recently been criticism of the Star Fox Zero control scheme and how an unsuitable control system has been foisted upon a game - a controls scheme that many don't think is necessary, don't think adds anything new to the game and people don't want to have to use!

 

Now here we have a game that has VR shoved into it, doesn't really need it, adds nothing new to the experience and on top of all that looks like total shite to boot, yet I am criticising that and somehow I am wrong for doing so?

That squirrel game is an experiment... the controls in StarFox are an experiment... the industry is trying different things... some will work, some won't, some will criticise, some will enjoy the experience. How do you know a 10 year old won't have the best experience of his video game life with that squirrel game in VR?

 

Every console has plenty of flops, cash-ins, ports, shovel ware at launch... as well as big budget games that a year later are 5/10's. There are also some gems in launch line-ups that couldn't have been done on previous platforms, and that looks to be the case with VR. I don't see the issue here.

[Zechs Merquise]

That squirrel game is an experiment... the controls in StarFox are an experiment... the industry is trying different things... some will work, some won't, some will criticise, some will enjoy the experience. How do you know a 10 year old won't have the best experience of his video game life with that squirrel game in VR?

 

Every console has plenty of flops, cash-ins, ports, shovel ware at launch... as well as big budget games that a year later are 5/10's. There are also some gems in launch line-ups that couldn't have been done on previous platforms, and that looks to be the case with VR. I don't see the issue here.

 

No neither do I, I really don't see the issue here.

 

I am calling out a shit looking game, which really doesn't make any decent use of new hardware and looks like an iOS game.

 

People in other threads call out games like Star Fox Zero, Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess HD, NSMBU and Captain Toad and many, many more. These games are accused of many things, shoe horning in control schemes not needed, being lazy, looking uninspired, being cash-ins etc.

 

Yet, when I call this game out, all of a sudden it is an emotional attack on the developer and there's a giant storm of criticism of a game. Bizarre, almost like there is a double standard...

[Retro_Link]

I don't really see where this is going, but there's a difference between arguing that NSMB could have done something better with it's music and art style... that Twilight Princess could have received a graphical makeover equivalent to Wind Waker's, or that StarFox could have been something far more ambitious and included multiplayer - to flat out calling a game shit and that it shouldn't exist.

 

I'm not sure anyone has said that about any Wii U games.

Wii may have said that about Captain Toad, but he was banned a long time ago.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Retro_Link

[Happenstance]

Anyway.....

 

Quite looking forward to the 12th April when Oculus should be updating everyone's preorder dates. I still dont expect mine to come for a couple of months but seeing as they've just been giving everyone who ordered after a certain time the July release date it would be nice to get something a bit more specific.

[Goron_3]

This is the real world, these are adults, grown people that are releasing a product into a highly competitive market. We're not talking about children sat in a kindergarten making finger paintings to take home to their mum! This isn't about their feelings, and if their feelings are getting to get hurt over someone suggesting their game is shit and they shouldn't have bothered, then really they need to do some real growing up.

 

What's more, if they are upset over my comments, what happens when their game gets bad reviews? Or when people don't buy their games? Are they going to cry, moan or feel bad? What if their game doesn't perform and they lose their jobs or their company closes? And if all that happens - it is part of life.

 

I've seen countless threads where people have described Nintendo games as lazy, pointless updates, rehashes etc, are Nintendo employees crying over this? Shall we censor all discussion as feelings might get hurt? I don't know why you have had to turn this into some emotionally fuelled issue.

 

If you're an adult, deal with things. The big corporate world isn't a kindergarten where everything is soft and all the corners are rounded off so people can't get hurt. You've turned what I've said into something ridiculous, based around a warped world view that people's feelings take precedent over anything else and we should all try ever so hard not to upset people.

 

But no one here is going out of their way to upset anyone! A developer has produced a product and I've voiced an opinion. If those who have worked on this game are literally hurt and crying over that, than maybe they should do some growing up, as well as obviously learning how to make better games!

 

He never said that..you've gone so OT with that reply - I think you missed the point of Ashley's post.

[DriftKaiser]

Just saw a small bit about VR on Gadget show. There are a VR suit called Telesasuit which give harpic feedback when you got shoot at or a NPC touch you and a company want to expands the VR beyond the gaming and put the 360 degree cameras at the entertainments like sports/music/audience etc so people can pretend they are there from their home.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Just saw a small bit about VR on Gadget show. There are a VR suit called Telesasuit which give harpic feedback when you got shoot at or a NPC touch you and a company want to expands the VR beyond the gaming and put the 360 degree cameras at the entertainments like sports/music/audience etc so people can pretend they are there from their home.

 

VR Porn will be incredible with that thing.