Oculus Rift?

Discussion regarding the game + tips and hints.
LegoRobot
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:21 pm

Oculus Rift?

Postby LegoRobot » Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:04 pm

This seems like the ideal game for full Oculus Rift integration. Is that in the plans?
User avatar
NeatNit
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:27 am

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby NeatNit » Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:25 am

Huh, I haven't thought of that. The tank body remains in the same direction while the view rotates freely. It IS ideal for the Oculus Rift!

Do you have one? I have a question (which I'm sure is answered somewhere but I haven't found it). I understand that you can look around using your head, but obviously you are limited in that regard (to about 180 degrees of rotation). So clearly there needs to be another way to rotate more than that, which would have to be the mouse for PC games or the right stick for controllers. But doesn't that completely break immersion and cause motion sickness?
Scribble[SFD]
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby Scribble[SFD] » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:37 am

"VR" via some headgear with mini-monitors on it isn't real "VR". Most people have never tried any type of "VR" gear and they think it will be just like the movies. However, if you have ever tried any type of "VR" gear, you will see it is a pretty crap experience.

If you really want to know what this type of "VR" experience is like without spending movie, the "Trail" version is absolutely free.
Step 1: Press your face directly against your monitor that you have right now
Step 2: Congrats, you are experiencing "VR"!!!

"VR tech" as it is today, is just that, nothing more than mini monitors 1 inch away from your eyes.

Although I have not used Oculus Rift in particular, I have tried a few different types of other stuff and it was just as I described above. I also have watched Oculus Rift's official tech demo, and it looks to be exactly as the previous techs but with "Cheaper" price and "less lag". Neither of these feature will actually change the fact that it is nothing more than having tiny monitors 1 inch away from your eyes.

Don't get me wrong. More than anything, I want good VR tech, but mini monitor headgear tech is NOT the way and a waste of time.

Ideally, I want direct brain input/output tech for a true VR experience so it will be the same as a dream, using the brain directly to generate your video game images, but that is decades into the future.

Now, THAT would be something to be excited about.

Compare to Oculus Rift, which, if it REALLY was all that great, then you would hear A LOT more buzz about it and a lot more people excited about it, but for the most part no one cares, except those gamers that think it will be good because they have never tried any type of "VR" headgear before.

Think of another example, nintendo 3DS, if it really was all that majorly video game changing experience, then everyone would have one. But they don't, but it really isn't that great.
User avatar
Phantaminium
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby Phantaminium » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:10 am

Scribble[SFD] wrote:"VR" via some headgear with mini-monitors on it isn't real "VR". Most people have never tried any type of "VR" gear and they think it will be just like the movies. However, if you have ever tried any type of "VR" gear, you will see it is a pretty crap experience.

If you really want to know what this type of "VR" experience is like without spending movie, the "Trail" version is absolutely free.
Step 1: Press your face directly against your monitor that you have right now
Step 2: Congrats, you are experiencing "VR"!!!

"VR tech" as it is today, is just that, nothing more than mini monitors 1 inch away from your eyes.

Although I have not used Oculus Rift in particular, I have tried a few different types of other stuff and it was just as I described above. I also have watched Oculus Rift's official tech demo, and it looks to be exactly as the previous techs but with "Cheaper" price and "less lag". Neither of these feature will actually change the fact that it is nothing more than having tiny monitors 1 inch away from your eyes.

Don't get me wrong. More than anything, I want good VR tech, but mini monitor headgear tech is NOT the way and a waste of time.

Ideally, I want direct brain input/output tech for a true VR experience so it will be the same as a dream, using the brain directly to generate your video game images, but that is decades into the future.

Now, THAT would be something to be excited about.

Compare to Oculus Rift, which, if it REALLY was all that great, then you would hear A LOT more buzz about it and a lot more people excited about it, but for the most part no one cares, except those gamers that think it will be good because they have never tried any type of "VR" headgear before.

Think of another example, nintendo 3DS, if it really was all that majorly video game changing experience, then everyone would have one. But they don't, but it really isn't that great.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P50fvL_EWYY Watch that and it should explain how it should work, with a demo in TF2.

I'm a ScatmanImage
User avatar
NeatNit
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:27 am

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby NeatNit » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:59 am

Scribble[SFD] wrote:long rant

First of all, I love my 3DS. When I first got it, and beat 2 long games on it then came back to PC... Everything was so flat. It was hell. Took me a while to get used to it again.

The Oculus Rift is exactly what you said (plus lenses). It is not the future of gaming, it is a mere novelty. So would be the "direct brain connection" you speak of. It might be really fucking cool when it comes out but it will be nothing but novelty. That doesn't stop either of them from being excellent.

The fact that it has "less lag" is really important. The fact that it's cheaper is especially important. The fact that it's strapped to your face is super-duper important, I don't think you can do that with your normal monitor.

I don't know if the Oculus Rift improves gameplay or hinders it, but I do know that immersion is important depending on your game. I would love to play Penumbra or Amnesia on the OR, it would make me shit my pants (hopefully not literally). I would not want to play BF3 on the OR, it will undoubtedly cause me to die a lot and ragequit.

Direct brain connection is not only decades/centuries into the future. It's probably never gonna happen. The security and health risks are way too high, and I guarantee if the technology ever does get created it will be banned in every self-respecting country in the world, except for science/military uses. You're not gonna play games on that system.

The Oculus Rift is not the future of gaming, it has very a very limited future, but that future is amazing.

For the record, I don't think TF2 would better with it. Not that I've tried it. I also don't think Tank Universal would have anything to gain from it. ("AIM WITH YOUR FACE!" sounds worse than the Power Glove.)
Scribble[SFD]
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby Scribble[SFD] » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:45 pm

NeatNit wrote:When I first got it, and beat 2 long games on it then came back to PC... Everything was so flat. It was hell. Took me a while to get used to it again.


A majority would disagree with you since, a majority isn't spending all their time on 3DS.

NeatNit wrote:it is a mere novelty. So would be the "direct brain connection" you speak of.


Are you kidding me? I don't think you understand what I mean. Because direct brain i/o would completely change not only gaming and movies and other media, but it would literally change human civilization and society.

NeatNit wrote:The security and health risks are way too high, and I guarantee if the technology ever does get created it will be banned in every self-respecting country in the world, except for science/military uses.


This is a contradiction to what you said in your quote above. So, what is it? Is it a "novelty" or is it "dangerous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111ones" technology?!
User avatar
NeatNit
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:27 am

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby NeatNit » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:18 pm

Considering how trivial it would be to make a virus that irrecoverably turns you into a useless pile of meat, yeah it would be illegal. I sure as hell won't try it.

If it WEREN'T illegal, it would be mere novelty. No one wants to go around wearing some huge device on his head, no one wants to have a dangerous surgery just to interact with technology, and if they make that thing wireless (read: telepathic) I doubt more than a handful of people would learn to control it, then again that's never going to happen anyway. The advantages are limited, also: you get an awesome experience at movie theaters as it is. How would that make it any better? Don't forget some people are old-fashioned and a direct brain connection is the #1 thing they're never going to try. Actually that kind of thing sounds like it would scare off more than 50% of the Earth's population, and with hardly anyone for a target audience, who's gonna bother?

So take a good, hard look at what I'm gonna show you. This is the closest thing you're going to get to brain control. The Oculus Rift, and a good pair of headphones, is the closest thing you're going to get to brain sensory input. That is never going to change.

By the way thanks for completely ignoring every single one of my points. ;)
Scribble[SFD]
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby Scribble[SFD] » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:01 am

NeatNit wrote:If it WEREN'T illegal, it would be mere novelty. No one wants to go around wearing some huge device on his head, no one wants to have a dangerous surgery just to interact with technology, and if they make that thing wireless (read: telepathic) I doubt more than a handful of people would learn to control it, then again that's never going to happen anyway. The advantages are limited, also: you get an awesome experience at movie theaters as it is. How would that make it any better? Don't forget some people are old-fashioned and a direct brain connection is the #1 thing they're never going to try. Actually that kind of thing sounds like it would scare off more than 50% of the Earth's population, and with hardly anyone for a target audience, who's gonna bother?


Wow, you sure know a lot about a technology that doesn't even exist yet!
User avatar
NeatNit
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:27 am

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby NeatNit » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:38 pm

Just think for a minute. Since the invention of computers, how many different input and output systems have been widely adopted?

Output:
1. Lights. LEDs, whatever. There can be a lot of them and they can represent something. See your router for an example. Your PC most likely has an 'On' light. Your screen too.
2. Screen. The big one. When lights just don't cut it, when you need more than a handful of binary indicators, when your computer is general-purpose, you need a screen capable of showing a wide array of things. It started out as just a black screen that showed nothing but text (see: terminal). Was put into a bit more use when GUIs became standard.
3. Sound. It started out as simple 8-bit beeps, usually for the motherboard to signal you when an error occurs (especially one where the screen cannot be used). As technology and needs grew, it quickly became what it is today - speakers can produce an infinite array of different sounds. This one didn't even evolve much - after it reached a 'good enough' state.


Input:
1. Keyboard, aka 'a bunch of buttons'. An evolution from the typewriter, this was available from the very beginning of computers as the main input device. You need to insert commands to the computer. There are a lot of different commands, you're better off spelling them out instead of having a button for each command - hence a key for every letter. This can appear in many different forms - a numeral keypad for phones, for example.
2. Game controller. Only used for gaming consoles (with which it normally comes bundled), sometimes used for PC games as well. Very niche use, and gets the job done. Most current versions also include a rumble output feature, which is again quite niche for gaming.
3. Mouse. For home computers, this has existed in some form since the beginning of graphical UI. There needs to be some way to get user input when the buttons are on the screen, so the mouse was invented.
4. Touchscreens. They've only been heavily used fairly recently, and it's too soon to tell, but it seems like they're here to stay. As Steve Jobs put it, it is inspired by the mouse - you have your buttons on the screen and you need to interact with them.


In all the years that computers have existed, these are the only things that have caught on. There have been many attempts to change the way we interact with technology, one such thing is Oculus Rift. Another would be all sorts of voice control. Stuff like Leap Motion, Myo, Kinect, Wii, you name it. Nothing's ever replaced the old and proven. These are the only ways we interact with technology and by god they will remain.

The point of this post is: whatever comes next, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, it's not going to beat the keyboard/mouse/screen/speaker combo. Ever.
User avatar
Phantaminium
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Oculus Rift?

Postby Phantaminium » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:16 pm

god where the hell is the Like button....

I'm a ScatmanImage

Return to “Game discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests