A Recent videogame innovation
Moderator: Moderators
- Kaori
- Bellator In Machina
- Posts: 4302
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:42 am
- Location: -Wherever I go, there I am.-
A Recent videogame innovation
I've been thinking about how lately Videogames are becoming more than just pictures on a screen, and before anybody says it, NO, I don't think VR is gonna take off anytime soon, I'm talking about features like collectible toys that can interact with your games and movement based gameplay(except you Kinect, nobody likes you), so what do you guys think of these? For good or for bad.
- Avatar_Crim
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:17 am
Re: A Recent videogame innovation
I think VR is going to take a good long time to take off, especially at some of those price points, but that's me lol. Now, I know as of now they don't do much, but I have gotten into that Amiibo craze that hit. I enjoy collecting them, and then using them in games, regardless of how much or little they add.
- Kaori
- Bellator In Machina
- Posts: 4302
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:42 am
- Location: -Wherever I go, there I am.-
Re: A Recent videogame innovation
My younger sister wants lego dimensions and I own a couple of Amiibo's myself, namely Lucina and Robin, I just use them for Code Name STEAM as extra characters, and with Fire Emblem Fates coming out, I'll be sure to scan them in the game and have them run my town, I honestly thought the collectible toy game gimmick would bomb, glad I was wrong.Avatar_Crim wrote:I think VR is going to take a good long time to take off, especially at some of those price points, but that's me lol. Now, I know as of now they don't do much, but I have gotten into that Amiibo craze that hit. I enjoy collecting them, and then using them in games, regardless of how much or little they add.
Re: A Recent videogame innovation
VR still has ~5 years before it becomes a major contender in terms of commercial technology, but I'm glad that Facebook bought Oculus rift. If there's anybody who can commercialize VR, it's them.
- Kaori
- Bellator In Machina
- Posts: 4302
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:42 am
- Location: -Wherever I go, there I am.-
Re: A Recent videogame innovation
I thought Valve owned Oculus Rift? People have been promising VR gaming since the 80's yet nothing available to the average consumer on the market since then, I'd prefer a simulation pod over a headset since a headset based gaming system might make me dizzy.Falions wrote:VR still has ~5 years before it becomes a major contender in terms of commercial technology, but I'm glad that Facebook bought Oculus rift. If there's anybody who can commercialize VR, it's them.
Re: A Recent videogame innovation
No? Facebook bought it last year. Also, the technology is finally advanced enough to make it less of a headache. We've come a long way since the Virtual Boy.Kaori wrote:I thought Valve owned Oculus Rift? People have been promising VR gaming since the 80's yet nothing available to the average consumer on the market since then, I'd prefer a simulation pod over a headset since a headset based gaming system might make me dizzy.Falions wrote:VR still has ~5 years before it becomes a major contender in terms of commercial technology, but I'm glad that Facebook bought Oculus rift. If there's anybody who can commercialize VR, it's them.
Re: A Recent videogame innovation
Back on the topic of physical game objects, personally I see them as the most extreme form of required periferal devices. I like that on PC and consoles, the majority of the time a game is made to function with the periferals that are almost definitely there, ie: keyboard/mouse for pc or controller for PS4, and don't typically require special controllers to play. Games that have these types of extra physical controllers that 1: are required to play their game and 2: don't function for any other game, look to me like a gimmicky form of micro-transaction style games like a digital card game that requires you to pay for the good cards. While I don't particularly care for the micro-transaction model, I'm not saying it's a bad model. On the contrary, I've seen plenty of good game that follow it.
So, bottom line is: while I personally don't care for them, so long as they aren't overpriced and don't cause massive environmental damage when everyone inevitably throws them away, they follow a successful model and also provide physical interaction that allows a level of immersion that some people may enjoy.
So, bottom line is: while I personally don't care for them, so long as they aren't overpriced and don't cause massive environmental damage when everyone inevitably throws them away, they follow a successful model and also provide physical interaction that allows a level of immersion that some people may enjoy.
- Kaori
- Bellator In Machina
- Posts: 4302
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:42 am
- Location: -Wherever I go, there I am.-
Re: A Recent videogame innovation
Well the Lego Dimensions game you can play with the figures like normal toys so I don't see anybody throwing those aways, and besides, the toys would make decent paperweights, I used mine as such during my finals recently.N3IWVC wrote:Back on the topic of physical game objects, personally I see them as the most extreme form of required periferal devices. I like that on PC and consoles, the majority of the time a game is made to function with the periferals that are almost definitely there, ie: keyboard/mouse for pc or controller for PS4, and don't typically require special controllers to play. Games that have these types of extra physical controllers that 1: are required to play their game and 2: don't function for any other game, look to me like a gimmicky form of micro-transaction style games like a digital card game that requires you to pay for the good cards. While I don't particularly care for the micro-transaction model, I'm not saying it's a bad model. On the contrary, I've seen plenty of good game that follow it.
So, bottom line is: while I personally don't care for them, so long as they aren't overpriced and don't cause massive environmental damage when everyone inevitably throws them away, they follow a successful model and also provide physical interaction that allows a level of immersion that some people may enjoy.
Less of a headache, but its still there, I honestly don't see the appeal of VR, do you have to turn your head to look around or you do you have to use a controller? Either one sounds tedious, the former since moving your head around to look still gets you dizzy, and I can't see the buttons on the remote while wearing a headset.Falions wrote:No? Facebook bought it last year. Also, the technology is finally advanced enough to make it less of a headache. We've come a long way since the Virtual Boy.Kaori wrote:I thought Valve owned Oculus Rift? People have been promising VR gaming since the 80's yet nothing available to the average consumer on the market since then, I'd prefer a simulation pod over a headset since a headset based gaming system might make me dizzy.Falions wrote:VR still has ~5 years before it becomes a major contender in terms of commercial technology, but I'm glad that Facebook bought Oculus rift. If there's anybody who can commercialize VR, it's them.