Hacker News Reader

Comment by daemonologist | Hacker News Reader

VR's problem, in my opinion, is that I can get immersed (fully, exactly as the author describes it) in a 2D game just fine - the lack of stereo vision or head-tracking or motion controls is no more an impediment to my immersion than the limited binocular overlap or peripheral vision or lag in a VR headset. And 2D is a heck of a lot cheaper and more convenient (and less nauseating).

That's not to say VR can never be successful, but I think it needs to offer something more compelling than just "immersion." Exercise or AR might be viable routes.

View on HN

I feel that's like saying "I can get just as fully immersed in a book so who needs movies?"

They're different experiences. I don't need Tetris or PacMan in VR. Conversely, Half-Life 1/2 etc are not remotely intense as Half-Life Alyx. In the first 2 you're watching a movie. In the later you're in the world of Half-Life

The frequency of choosing to go out to the movies is also about how often I think "I wish I could do this in VR".

Examples:

- Before going on a trip, pre-visiting the destination in Google Earth with VR is very spatially informative & makes directional intuition memorable upon arrival at the real world destination.

- Virtual role-play with environmental cues that cause make-believe to be ever more real.

But most people don't need this very often. Picking up a book or throwing on some earbuds to listen to a book are far more frequent and compatible with simultaneous other activities. VR feels the same--a high-demand focused experience that is infrequently worth the effort.

people watch more movies (video) than read books. TikTok, youtube, netflix, TV

The giant advantage regular games have is that I've yet to smash my hand into a wall playing them.

I think that the relatively low living space area for most of the world is a huge strain on VR adoption.

I think that will change when VR is like Striking Vipers.

It is like saying that, and it is a fine response to someone saying "VR isn't dead because immersion."

The reason movies exist isn't simply "immersion", it's a different experience than reading a book.

The most important quality of any successful trend (eg windows, internet, smart phones, cloud computing) has been convenience. Which is also the reason why I think Meta Glasses have a real chance to take off.

Also a key single use case that justifies the cost/friction of purchasing a new device.

Meta glasses somewhat justify themselves just for recording hikes/cycles/weddings etc.

Meta Glasses will just recreate the whole “glasshole” response that Google Glasses got, except with a company that has even worse of a reputation.

It has a chance because they don't have a reputation to lose.

There are many games for vr that cannot be done without the tech. It isnt all about immersion but facilitating unique experiences.

What held it back from mainstream imo is an inherent space issue (you need room) and a lack of multiplayer participation (need even more room). Compared to sitting on a couch in a small studio with a few friends, it doesnt stand a chance.

The other problem is most peoples first experience is with some shitty mall vr room where the “game” consists of free unity assets slapped together in a way that makes marky marks horizons look polished. Few people start off with something like the half life one.

I recently started enjoying virtual bike tours on my exercise bike, but vertigo when the camera turns is an issue. I absolutely wouldn't do it on a treadmill.

Exactly. It sounds like a detail that you can‘t eat and drink while you‘re in VR - but for casual experience it‘s friction and you resort back to a screen.

> I can get immersed in a 2D game just fine

You're probably the last generation who would think so.

I like VR and immersion in theory. I like being able to look around, but I absolutely hate the movement controls.

I know some people complain of motion sickness, but that doesn't bother me. I just want controls like Mario or Zelda on a regular joystick. Why can't this be done?

It doesn't even have to be first person. I'd play a third person game like Mario or Zelda with a VR camera tracking them. I just want that kind of movement.

Pushing a button to teleport in short hops is annoying as hell. I hate everything about it.

I gave up trying in frustration.

I always thought a great compromise would be games that gave you an overhead “gods eye” third person perspective. People seem to be obsessed with making VR games first person, but that’s where the movement problems come in.

The game Moss did this well for a platformers. But it could also be really fun for realtime strategy/simulation games (StarCraft, sim city) or sports games like Madden.

That would be fantastic.

I think even being the Lakitu camera in Mario 64 would work.

And you're right, it would kick ass for strategy, sim, and sports games.

I wonder if folks have tried building the movement and camera before the main gameplay loop. Just to see what feels right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com