I read once that in VR "geometry matters more than textures" and I totally agree with that. Some of the most immersive moments I've had in VR are when I was peeking around a corner. The graphics were all simple, but the geometry of the corner and connecting corridor are what gave me such a great sense of presence.
I've written software for nearly 20 years now and I don't want to do anything other than VR development. It's the new frontier.
I'm really bored of those.
That gives me:
1. SuperHot
2. Arizona Sunshine
3. The Unspoken
4. Dead and Buried
Looking through Steam sorted by user reviews: http://store.steampowered.com/search/?sort_by=Reviews_DESC&t...
Gives me another easy set. I'll stick to things I own or I've heard almost universally good things about:
5. Smashbox Arena
6. Sairento
7. QuivR
8. Distance
9. Bullet Sorrow
10. Vertigo
11. Serious Sam: TFE
12: Bullet Sorrow
13: Werewolves Within
14: ROM Extraction
There's more but I got bored. I can personally vouch for the excellence of at least 5 of those.
I can't imagine how the game works not in VR.
The Vive seems harder to rationalize because it seems like a really expensive toy with only a few crappy games for it. Am I wrong about this? Is the VR really worth it? I keep reading awful things about the resolution and about motion sickness issues - I care very much about those things.
I'd have an easier time with it if the resolution was doubled and it was closer to a $500 price point. But as is it just seems crazy to pay that much to have a way lower resolution screen than my current monitor strapped an inch from my eyes.
This reminds me of the Nintendo Wii and Wii Tennis and all those other Wii sports games that were really fun.
VR = immersion.
The gear, resolution, tech is all details.
Given my loose definition, we've had VR for years. Dr Dan Bricklin once asked me (rhetorically): where are you during a (deep) phone conversation? Here? There? Both?
AR is when the gear matters as much as than the story.
Source: Gadfly during the first VR hype cycle.
Everything you mention are very (very) simple technical limitations on what are basically proof-of-concept devices. If you think we don't have the technical capability to put higher-resolution screens in there, or to make better graphics, or to extend the FOV... the only problem right now is cost. The reason for these limitations is cost. They're solving the hard problems before tackling the easy ones because we already know how to solve the easy problems. Solving easy problems doesn't get you hundreds of millions of dollars worth of startup investment. And screen resolution is definitively an "easy" problem to solve.
The YC post didn't say "VR is perfect today", it said "VR is going to get a lot better". You have to be able to see into the future and determine what problems are solvable and what problems may never be solved. All of the problems you see with current VR are ones that are easily solvable (except maybe immersion, but you'd have to actually define what that actually means).
Nope. We were blown away.
Even knowing full well we'd eventually have real-time photorealistically rendered worlds to explore, surgery to perform, molecules to inspect... The early advances were exciting.
"Everything you mention are very (very) simple technical limitations on what are basically proof-of-concept devices."
VR has some thorny non-gear problems to solve. Human physiology ain't simple.
HoloLens are the biggest let down. That FOV was unusable.
Maybe mercurial MagicLeap is doing AR the right way.
Magic Leap has an augmented reality device that does that, although not launched yet.
My feeling is that light field displays will massively increase sense of reality - and reports of people using Magic Leap back that up.
However, I don't think it's necessary for lots of use of VR or AR.
When you describe the binocular effect, I know what you mean, however my experience is that all those issues fade away once your brain "accepts" the inputs and starts filtering out the noise. How long did you get to demo the Vive? In my experience (and those I've demonstrated to) it takes a bit. These days, if I'm in an engaging game, I'll lose the peripheral darkness on an unconscious level in the same way I'll lose the world outside a monitor when playing an engaging PC game.
Personally, as someone who owned and purchased some of the early HMDs of the 1990s - these kind of comments look "interesting" to me. I mean, people are complaining about the "low FOV and resolution" - when they clearly never had to use HMDs with 20 degree FOV and 320 x 240 resolutions...
Today's HMDs are things we only dreamed about (and those who could get close to this - well, those HMDs cost more than an automobile.
Regarding the "filtering out the noise" - we used to call this "seeing past or beyond the pixels". It was purely psychological or something going on (I think there were studies done on the effect). There came a point where you stopped noticing the pixels, and/or the low FOV - and it all just started looking much better than it did. The key, though, was to stop focusing on the issue - which some people couldn't.
Being better than what they had in the 90's doesn't mean it's good. It's still too low - like trying to view 4k content on a 720p display.
> The key, though, was to stop focusing on the issue - which some people couldn't.
Or the low resolution is thrown in your face. For example, attempting to view a virtual poster on a somewhat distant virtual wall. It's large enough that you should be able to read it, but the resolution is so low you can't.
Nothing pops you out of that immersion faster than having the fact you're looking at low resolution display thrown in your face.
If VR can't render readable posters then good artists will stop putting posters in VR.
The best analogy I have heard is that VR is experienced in layers, and the time it takes to settle into deeper and deeper levels is different for everyone.
1. Medium, a sculpting program[1]. This tool lets you build 3D sculptures. The intuitiveness of the controls and the ease with which you can make these gigantic sculptures feels amazing. I think things like this are going to have a huge effect on how art is made. It's such an empowering experience to be able to so easily make these huge pieces of art.
2. RiftSketch[2]. This is just a simple demo, but it puts you in an open plane where you can modify the world around you by writing Javascript in an in-world console. Again, the feeling of empowerment in being able to alter your world so easily was really cool.
3. The Unspoken[3]. This is a game where you're a wizard and shoot fireballs and things at other wizards. Not sure what to say about it but it was really fun.
[1]: https://youtu.be/KX-UyFCUfa8?t=1406 [2]: https://github.com/brianpeiris/RiftSketch [3]: http://www.insomniacgames.com/games/the-unspoken/
The big problem with VR is the product liability issues.
The same thing might have been said about the commodore 64. Hardware being accessible to the (rich) consumer vs only to research labs and businesses is enough of a difference to create new industries!
My experience was the opposite of yours: I expected a lot, and was still happily surprised by the results. Head tracking is excellent, no motion sickness at all, and consistently high framerates made the experience extraordinary immersive for me. I love just spending time in Windlands and Robinson.
Like you, though, I look forward to higher resolutions and field of view, but I'm a very happy customer with the current setup. I guess we'll see how I feel in a few months!
One person, like you, can have a much worse view and experience than someone else.
I find Valve's the Lab demos to be very, very good. If you're looking for pixels, then the experience isn't fun enough.
The limitations you mention are absolutely issues, but they start to fade away and the feeling of immersion rises the longer you are in it. YMMV though.
Go up to using a rift or vice for Elite with my hotas and i can see it being awesome. Planning to get either a rift or vive this year.
So - which is it?
Everyone has had different experiences with VR. To call another person's personal experience a hyperbole is disingenuous.
I wasn't expecting much and yet I was still underwhelmed. There is zero immersion, primarily due to the poor resolution, the screen door effect, and the crippled field of view. It felt like watching a scene through a pair of binoculars, but that's not a fair comparison either, as physical binoculars are more immersive than any of these devices.
I feel like I the only one that feels such disappointment!