You can’t add teleportation into a game after the fact. You have to design it for teleportation from the ground up for that to work. You can only add smooth motion after the fact, since it’s the superior control scheme. That’s the issue, teleportation limits game design.
And yes, there are games were teleportation works well, simple single-player point&click exploration games work fine. But everything involving action and movement just takes a turn for the worse if developers are adding teleportation.
To name an example since you claim no one has done it take a look at half life alyx.
Half Life: Alyx is an example of exactly what I am talking about. It’s a far worse game than Half Life 2, as being designed around teleportation turned it into a static shooting gallery.
by moving in the room where you are playing so you can walk, dodge, crawl, etc….
Developers gave up on roomscale years ago. Everything these days has to work sitting or standing in place, without walking around, as that’s how the majority of peoples actually play VR. Valve tried to hype up roomscale in the early days, but as it turns out nobody really wants, and nobody has the space for making that work well anyway. Taking two steps only to hit the chaperone is no fun and constantly interrupts the flow of the game, sticking to controller based locomotion gives a much better experience.
But I don’t want to play those games in vr…
I would. And most other gamers seem to agree, as nobody wants to play mediocre VR games we have today, as can be seen by the general disinterest in VR. VR hype used to be based around it being the “next level” of gaming, futuristic scifi tech, yet the current VR games just feel like a total downgrade compared to what we can have on a monitor.
Thanks for clarifying your position. You seem to be the type i was describing. Well except that you didn’t claim everyone can get used to it and anyone who can’t is because they are not trying. As te technology stands, making games that only a fraction of the target audience that want and can consume it is not a great idea. Instead you say that most people want what you want and ignore the statistics.
I agree with your opinion that games that cater to me are better than games that don’t.
When you have the choice between making games that 20% of the audience can’t play, but everybody wants or making games that everybody can play, but 80% don’t even care about, the first option is the better one. VR however worked itself into a corner going far to much for the later one, maximum accessibility by making VR look boring, small scale and limiting, the exact opposite of everything it should represent. The result is that nobody wants or cares about VR anymore.
Motion sickness is simply not as serious of a problem as everybody makes it out to be, as the people that have issues with it won’t play the games that cause it. Not every game has to work for everybody and the majority of people can get used to it anyway.
The article doesn't cite a source and the number is meaningless without knowing the methodology. If you put a headset on somebody new to VR and spin them around the yaw or roll axis, almost everybody will get sick. But that's a situation you encounter in no modern VR game, which all have snap-turn (except for flight and racing sims). Furthermore, most people simply get used to it, even if they initially have issues with it. For some it takes longer than others, but the end result is that it is a non-issue. Fans, ginger and a bunch of other things can help as well.
Ever seen a beginner try dual stick controls in a FPS game? That doesn't exactly come naturally either, that doesn't mean we should stop making FPS games. My worst case of motion sickness so far was Half Life 2 on a monitor before they patched the FOV.
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion and so am i. I will keep not buying or refunding games that make me uncomfortable. developers that cater to you and oppose supporting teleportation will learn how it goes as well.
You can’t add teleportation into a game after the fact. You have to design it for teleportation from the ground up for that to work. You can only add smooth motion after the fact, since it’s the superior control scheme. That’s the issue, teleportation limits game design.
And yes, there are games were teleportation works well, simple single-player point&click exploration games work fine. But everything involving action and movement just takes a turn for the worse if developers are adding teleportation.
Half Life: Alyx is an example of exactly what I am talking about. It’s a far worse game than Half Life 2, as being designed around teleportation turned it into a static shooting gallery.
Developers gave up on roomscale years ago. Everything these days has to work sitting or standing in place, without walking around, as that’s how the majority of peoples actually play VR. Valve tried to hype up roomscale in the early days, but as it turns out nobody really wants, and nobody has the space for making that work well anyway. Taking two steps only to hit the chaperone is no fun and constantly interrupts the flow of the game, sticking to controller based locomotion gives a much better experience.
I would. And most other gamers seem to agree, as nobody wants to play mediocre VR games we have today, as can be seen by the general disinterest in VR. VR hype used to be based around it being the “next level” of gaming, futuristic scifi tech, yet the current VR games just feel like a total downgrade compared to what we can have on a monitor.
Thanks for clarifying your position. You seem to be the type i was describing. Well except that you didn’t claim everyone can get used to it and anyone who can’t is because they are not trying. As te technology stands, making games that only a fraction of the target audience that want and can consume it is not a great idea. Instead you say that most people want what you want and ignore the statistics.
I agree with your opinion that games that cater to me are better than games that don’t.
When you have the choice between making games that 20% of the audience can’t play, but everybody wants or making games that everybody can play, but 80% don’t even care about, the first option is the better one. VR however worked itself into a corner going far to much for the later one, maximum accessibility by making VR look boring, small scale and limiting, the exact opposite of everything it should represent. The result is that nobody wants or cares about VR anymore.
Motion sickness is simply not as serious of a problem as everybody makes it out to be, as the people that have issues with it won’t play the games that cause it. Not every game has to work for everybody and the majority of people can get used to it anyway.
The article says 40% to 70%. Not 20%
So halving your sales by ~50% on a small market doesn’t go well
The article doesn't cite a source and the number is meaningless without knowing the methodology. If you put a headset on somebody new to VR and spin them around the yaw or roll axis, almost everybody will get sick. But that's a situation you encounter in no modern VR game, which all have snap-turn (except for flight and racing sims). Furthermore, most people simply get used to it, even if they initially have issues with it. For some it takes longer than others, but the end result is that it is a non-issue. Fans, ginger and a bunch of other things can help as well.
Ever seen a beginner try dual stick controls in a FPS game? That doesn't exactly come naturally either, that doesn't mean we should stop making FPS games. My worst case of motion sickness so far was Half Life 2 on a monitor before they patched the FOV.
I suppose you are entitled to your opinion and so am i. I will keep not buying or refunding games that make me uncomfortable. developers that cater to you and oppose supporting teleportation will learn how it goes as well.