Dexter111 said:
Because how you look is really important to a gaming experience, how do you think people squatting in front of their PC or TV looked at first? It became normal after a while. And I?m pretty sure once your roommates would try it out themselves they would rather ask ?What are you playing? Can I try it too?? instead of laughing.
My comment about how you look was really just a joke.
The Wii-Mote was a gimmick; this really, really isn?t and improves the experience a lot.
I really fail to see how this is at all different than the Wii-mote in terms of being a gimmick. Both of them are intended as new ways to play a game (well, Nintendo has tried VR in the past, but still, the idea remains). They both are advertised, both by their developers and by their fans, as ways to enhance the experience, primarily by putting you in the game. What makes one a gimmick and the other not one, outside of the fact that you happen to like one and not the other?
I'm not entirely opposed to new ways of playing a game. I think motion control, when implemented properly, is a great idea. Nintendo managed to do this with many of their Wii games, even if most games developed for the system treated the Wii-mote as a gimmick. The most the Occulus Rift looks to provide is bringing you closer to the experience and dominate more of peripheral vision with the game (i.e. increase immersion). However, I fail to see the benefit of that, as games are already excellent at immersing the player, so that makes it no more advantageous to the gamer and offering a new way to play than 3D effects. After that, the idea of "looking to aim"
might sounds like a nice idea at first (I find it potentially annoying), but I fail to see how it could possibly catch on for the long run any more than the Wii-mote did, and I also see it being a pain to keep moving your head around like that..
Looking through the headset is less eye straining than looking at a TV or monitor.
As of right now, we can't confirm that, as only the developers are willing to say it, and given that they claimed there was a 2-3% motion sickness rate after demoing a group with 40% motion sickness [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-05-oculus-rift-impressions-its-amazing-until-it-makes-you-want-to-hurl], I'm not sure their word is the absolute best to go on right now (after all, they are trying to sell the product to us without any real, hard data). And, going back to the article, these are hardcore gamers they're working with, not the people who already avoid gaming because it makes them nauseated. While I understand they are working to improve on it, the fact that they also state that part of the factor regarding motion sickness is due to familiarity with the VR technology doesn't exactly make me feel comfortable with it. Not to mention, their potential solution of adding motion tracking doesn't exactly sound too pleasing either [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Xbox-360-Kinect-Standalone.png].
Anyways, I really wish to see how this affects people outside of the developers and those marketing it for them. Nintendo and their hardcore fans said the 3D effects on the 3DS weren't going to be that bad (and actually lauded them), but my experience with it says differently. However, the 3DS has a slider so I can turn those effects off. The Occulus Rift is pointless and a complete waste of money if it causes excess eye strain, motion sickness, neck and back pains, etc.