A few days back I tried CONVRGE for the first time, just to check it out. It's basically just a VR-chat type of thing. When I joined the main room, there was nobody there but me and some guy called dave. Found his avatar at the 'dance floor' but he didn't respond or so I just left after exploring a bit.
Today I read this thread:
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/convrge/comments/3c8oi3/day_6_and_still_no_movement_does_anyone_know_dave/[/url]
... welp :v:
[QUOTE=Clavus;48137918]A few days back I tried CONVRGE for the first time, just to check it out. It's basically just a VR-chat type of thing. When I joined the main room, there was nobody there but me and some guy called dave. Found his avatar at the 'dance floor' but he didn't respond or so I just left after exploring a bit.
Today I read this thread:
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/convrge/comments/3c8oi3/day_6_and_still_no_movement_does_anyone_know_dave/[/url]
... welp :v:[/QUOTE]
was he in a different position?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48105251]Very interesting article. It makes me wonder if VR might almost be better suited to third person applications in gaming, at least during the early years while the hardware improves. As other folks mentioned, looking down on your game (like, the Sims) as an eye in the sky might be a more natural feeling than plopping you into the environment in a virtual body. It could be very cool with dollhouse games, strategy games, action RPG's, virtual tabletop games, tower defense games, city builders, and things of that nature. Basically, anything that disembodies you. These would limit the disconnect between your game body and real body, since you don't have a game body-- you're the invisible eyes and hands of God.
For first person games, we may have to settle for experiences that have you relatively static (cockpit simulators for planes, spacecraft, robots, etc), or perhaps explain away the inconsistencies between your body and your brain in an immersive way. Instead of a traditional body, a traditional body, you are a drone or robot, for example? No arms or legs, just a floating head with guns on it? Or an energy ball of some kind? Ghost game, doing ghostly things as a ghost? I haven't used any of this tech yet, but if the primary limitations are those highlighted in the article, they seem like easy limitations to work around for a wide variety of genres.[/QUOTE]
Man I honestly never even thought of playing a VR game other than something that was first person. Makes me drool at the thought of playing StarCraft II and being able to fly down and run with a pack of zerglings into your enemy's base or something!
[QUOTE=Ithon;48137539]This will show how much abuse it can take. If they don't constantly replace them.
If the stores can send feedback on the progress of break down of the units over a frequent basis, it could be useful for the next model.[/QUOTE]
You know they're going to be using the demo booths for analytics. It just makes sense.
[QUOTE=srobins;48138007]Man I honestly never even thought of playing a VR game other than something that was first person. Makes me drool at the thought of playing StarCraft II and being able to fly down and run with a pack of zerglings into your enemy's base or something![/QUOTE]
There are few things that VR can't make better with games. Like, no, you don't need VR to play an RTS like StarCraft, but having that sense of depth and presence added to your eye-in-the-sky view, and being able to lean in and watch your dudes gettin' all fucked up and whatnot? Moving your head to look around the game map? Could be cool. This might not be the main draw of VR for games, but it's that it can be pretty easily worked into a wide variety of genres in neat little ways that I think will ultimately help secure a place for it on the shelves of most PC gamers. There's a lot more potential for VR in gaming than just cockpit simulators.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48138650]There are few things that VR can't make better with games. Like, no, you don't need VR to play an RTS like StarCraft, but having that sense of depth and presence added to your eye-in-the-sky view, and being able to lean in and watch your dudes gettin' all fucked up and whatnot? Moving your head to look around the game map? Could be cool. This might not be the main draw of VR for games, but it's that it can be pretty easily worked into a wide variety of genres in neat little ways that I think will ultimately help secure a place for it on the shelves of most PC gamers. There's a lot more potential for VR in gaming than just cockpit simulators.[/QUOTE]
Take my word with a grain of salt as I've never used VR before, and while I'm excited about VR, I think it'll end up a lot like 3D movies. It'll start out shoehorned into every game, but eventually people will only use VR when it's actually fitting.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48105251]Very interesting article. It makes me wonder if VR might almost be better suited to third person applications in gaming, at least during the early years while the hardware improves. As other folks mentioned, looking down on your game (like, the Sims) as an eye in the sky might be a more natural feeling than plopping you into the environment in a virtual body. It could be very cool with dollhouse games, strategy games, action RPG's, virtual tabletop games, tower defense games, city builders, and things of that nature. Basically, anything that disembodies you. These would limit the disconnect between your game body and real body, since you don't have a game body-- you're the invisible eyes and hands of God.
For first person games, we may have to settle for experiences that have you relatively static (cockpit simulators for planes, spacecraft, robots, etc), or perhaps explain away the inconsistencies between your body and your brain in an immersive way. Instead of a traditional body, a traditional body, you are a drone or robot, for example? No arms or legs, just a floating head with guns on it? Or an energy ball of some kind? Ghost game, doing ghostly things as a ghost? I haven't used any of this tech yet, but if the primary limitations are those highlighted in the article, they seem like easy limitations to work around for a wide variety of genres.[/QUOTE]
I've been using using the two rifts for a bit, and I think that linear, non-accelerated movement is perfectly acceptable. Then again, compared to my cousin, I seem to have a fairly strong constitution when it comes to VR. He got sick playing Half-life 2 for 10 minutes on DK1, and DK2 he can manage until the airboat sequence where it immediately takes him to puke town. Meanwhile, I was able to play HL2 perfectly fine in both headsets, even going around and jumping and doing all the crazy stuff. But once I went into Outerra and tried to fly the Mig-29, I got immediately sick when I inverted the plane and dived towards the ground.
What the article says about movement is more-or-less true in my opinion. Acceleration will MURDER you and give you immediate nausea, but constant movement itself isn't that bad. It does leave a lot more avenues of gameplay to be a lot more appealing to me. For instance, my main in Team Fortress 2 is the engineer, and scout as my second. But once I put on the VR goggles, I am immediately attracted to the slower-moving classes like the Heavy or Demoman. From there, I can still navigate a scene, zero nausea, and with my stationary frame of reference, my accuracy feels like it triples when I try to aim at fast-moving things as the crosshair itself moves but not my head. Shooting pipe-bombs over hills is incredibly intuitive and you get a lot better at aiming those, too. Mounted weapons and turrets are probably going to see a lot more attention by VR players.
I feel like we are going to see a lot more slower-paced games with VR. Particularily in the stealth genre. It's generally known that in first-person perspective, hiding inside of a bush is fucking misery because you can't see out of it. But with VR, and more importantly, looking with two eyes, you can see out of a bush much easier. While one leaf may block vision with one eye, it will not block the other, so your brain automatically blends information from the non-occluded eyes, revealing about 40% more of your surroundings than you would otherwise see from a monitor.
Also, dark environments are FAR more easier to navigate, as your eyes can adjust to the brightness levels, and since you do not have monitor-glare from the sun, I feel as though they are going to be much more appealing environments to play in. Bright environments are fucking atrocious and if you hate playing Counter-Strike in a dark room and you get flashbanged, you'll know the pain I'm talking about.
So yeah, a stealthy-hidey game in a dark forest is going to be a lot more fun to play in. You're just going to walk to the objective anyways so why not take it slow?
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;48112796]I'd love to see a version of Hammer or whatever using this. Would actually make level creation and probably modelling in general very very easy. The non-gaming applications of the rift & Vive are actually incredible[/QUOTE]
Oh man, VR is going to be SO GREAT for architectural design and level design. I had once been making a custom map for Natural Selection 2. The whole time, I felt as though it wasn't really big enough, and even hallways that were 256 units wide and 160 units tall still felt really cramped in first-person on a monitor. But once I put on the DK1 and went to the same room, it was actually really really large.
The scale of things is just so intuitive and it just works immediately. I guarantee you will never have a problem making a first-person environment too big if you find a way to do mapping with a VR headset on. Although if you make a tight environment to navigate in VR, I'm pretty sure it's going to be very cramped and dense for players who are still using a monitor, so you might have to be careful.
Who knows, maybe we will see rooms which are 96" tall rather than the video game standard of 128".
Oculus are fully funding around two dozen games
[QUOTE]“We have a pretty big investment into Oculus Studios’ triple-A, high production value games”
Oculus keeps some developers closer than others. The company has an Oculus Studios business, which fully funds Oculus-exclusive games like Insomniac’s Edge of Nowhere. Iribe says Oculus has about two dozen games it is fully funding via Oculus Studios. Sometimes studios approach Oculus about funding a game fully, and sometimes Oculus brings ideas to developers that they want to take part in its Oculus Studios program.
Oculus also has a publishing business that makes smaller investments into VR games that are non-exclusive to the Rift, and recently announced a $10 million indie game developer fund.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://gamasutra.com/view/news/247607/8_key_VR_takeaways_from_a_chat_with_Oculus_CEO.php[/url]
[QUOTE=jazzpunk;48139775]Oculus are fully funding around two dozen games
[url]http://gamasutra.com/view/news/247607/8_key_VR_takeaways_from_a_chat_with_Oculus_CEO.php[/url][/QUOTE]
As amazing as the tech itself is, I think it's important not to underestimate the content available at launch. Seems Oculus and FB know this as well. I hope that "VR has no games" won't be a thing.
[QUOTE=elevate;48138715]Take my word with a grain of salt as I've never used VR before, and while I'm excited about VR, I think it'll end up a lot like 3D movies. It'll start out shoehorned into every game, but eventually people will only use VR when it's actually fitting.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's a fair comparison. 3D home media dwindled because it's relatively unimpressive. Even IMAX 3D gets boring after your 2nd consecutive viewing. VR is so much more interesting and impressive the only offput would be cost
[QUOTE=srobins;48143854]I don't think that's a fair comparison. 3D home media dwindled because it's relatively unimpressive. Even IMAX 3D gets boring after your 2nd consecutive viewing. VR is so much more interesting and impressive the only offput would be cost[/QUOTE]
Valid point. Like I said, I've never used VR before.
New 'London Heist' B-roll footage. I'm interested in trying it :dance:. Hopefully the bullet sponge enemies and physics twitches are fixed because they're harming the immersion a lot.
[video=youtube;Cf5bkQJGQbk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf5bkQJGQbk[/video]
[video=youtube;WRBryvdzA9E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRBryvdzA9E[/video]
Looks pretty awesome.
Jesus christ why do those censor bleeps have to be so loud
The bloom is too intense, imo.
Can the Rift be used instead of an Oculus on PS4?
Looks like you can't do any moving, so it's basically a glorified shooter on rails, like an arcade game.
Regardless, pretty amazing looking.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;48145626]Can the Rift be used instead of an Oculus on PS4?[/QUOTE]
Is this even a question?
[QUOTE=woolio1;48145894]Is this even a question?[/QUOTE]
Ehem... Morpheus.
I need to sleep.
The answer is pretty obvious.
Well goddamn, because i really want to play that London Heist game, but im not interested in Project Morpheus.
Microsoft finally added the FoV to their newest HoloLens video.
[hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKpKlh1-en0[/hd]
wow that's tiny
the video was probably a bit disingenuous to the actual FOV, getting a camera inside the unit probably means it's sitting farther from it than your eyes would, therefore a smaller forward window. Still concerning but so long as it doesn't feel like two small google glass ports it can't be too bad to experience
What I'm curious about is the technical hold up that's preventing them from increasing it. I think it was mentioned somewhere that the FOV isn't going to be getting better, at least not in the near future, but they never explained why.
[QUOTE=Why485;48150355]What I'm curious about is the technical hold up that's preventing them from increasing it. I think it was mentioned somewhere that the FOV isn't going to be getting better, at least not in the near future, but they never explained why.[/QUOTE]
my guess is a lack of space inside the headset. You can't exactly stick FOV-warping lenses onto a headset you're meant to see clear through
[QUOTE=dai;48150045]the video was probably a bit disingenuous to the actual FOV, getting a camera inside the unit probably means it's sitting farther from it than your eyes would, therefore a smaller forward window.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt that's what they did. It'll be simulated.
[QUOTE=Scot;48150462]I highly doubt that's what they did. It'll be simulated.[/QUOTE]
talking explicitly about the through-the-lens view, everything else is probably with their specialty camera rig with the hololens computer projecting into the viewfinder
you can see camera bounds and the overal view of the scene makes it feel like it's going to have very noticeable bounds. the white thing behind is just an item in the background but you see the heart hitting the top and left edges at this point. Hopefully it's just a bad angle through the lens and there's a lot more workspace down and to the right
[t]http://i.imgur.com/dxQ7X7C.png[/t]
With the way they are marketing it, I get the sense that the first generation Hololens stuff isn't[I] really[/I] going to be intended for mass consumption like VR stuff is. Feels more like it's going to be for professional work and maybe development for future AR tech.
I have a distinct feeling that the gen 1 stuff is going to be well outside of most consumers price ranges anyway.
Every impression for hololense said that the only downside is the tiny FOV. It is roughly like having a credit card and inch or two away from your nose, so the video looks pretty accurate to me.
The good news is that is actually works 100% like advertised. So.. having a small FOV doesn't "break" it really, and it works as intended. It's just you might have to look around more or step back to get a full picture. One of those things where you'd want to wait for the gen 2 device to come out if you want a truly seamless perfect experience.
And lets be honest, Hololens looks bulky as hell. A slicker gen2 format that can capture an FOV similar to goggles or glasses would be ideal. Something like this gen 1 is still perfect for enthusiasts as apparently it delivers the dream perfectly fine if you don't mind experiencing it through a window.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
