Aeolus451 said:
You're strawmanning by bringing up VR as it is today repeatedly when I'm talking about VR in its ideal state/near it and I posted this in response to you earlier.. "You're right about VR as it is now because it's incomplete or a just a meager step towards what it will be. No doubt, once it or a similar tech gets fairly close to the ideal version of vr, playing games on a tv will become retro. It will have the ideal level of immersion the vast majority of gamers crave for." It's far easier to attack my argument as if I'm talking about current VR instead of the ideal version of VR. My opinion about the vast majority of gamers craving the ideal level of immersion makes sense in context with the ideal level of VR. It's apparent to anyone intellectually honest about gaming and themselves. In the majority of games, you're playing as a character or as yourself in the game world. Immersion is king. The more deeper you get lost in the experience, the better the game is. It's why games in general are becoming more realistic and less gamey. If you can actually find a "source" to counter my opinion, have at it. I already answered any relevant questions that you had more than once. I can't find the threads with polls about VR on this forum because of the search functionality being meh but I'm sure you at least seen some of them. You're more than welcome to search for yourself. Here's one from a different site. https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-what-do-you-think-of-vr-gaming.486671/ I already said the threshold. Hell, you even quoted it. |
I'm not attacking your argument as if you're talking about current VR solutions. But rather I'm using current VR solutions as one way to attack your argument. There's a clear difference you're not grasping. I'm "attacking" your assertion that (paraphrasing because you worded it terribly) "The vast majority of gamers crave the ideal level of immersion that VR can provide". One of the ways to do that is to demonstrate that if such an assertion is true, then it stands to reason that current VR solutions would be far more popular than they are because although they are less than ideal, they are still far more immersive than gaming on a television. So what is it? Are you also asserting that the vast majority of gamers are so fickle that 99% of them will refuse to adopt new technology in any way until it's nearly perfect? Because there's plenty of instances that demonstrate that is patently false. But I'll get to them.
So "anyone who is intellectually honest about gaming, they'll accept your premise that "immersion is king"" lol. So now you're making an argument that your assertion is true because obviously and people are in denial if t hey disagree, without providing a shred of evidence for it It's too bad that you're completely wrong.
Why do you think 100 million people bought a Wii to play Wii Sports? It wasn't because Wii Sports was "more immersive" than Uncharted, Halo 3 or any of the other far more realistic games that were out there at the time time? Look at all of the people that sink hours and hours every week into playing Nintendo and Super Nintendo games. Look at how people clamored for NES and SNES classics. Look at how well the Switch is selling when it is pretty much the same price as a PS4 + PSVR when they went on sale during the holidays. Are you telling me that the Switch offers a "more immersive experience" than PSVR? If so, please, go ahead and support such an argument. I'd love to hear that one. Last I checked, the highest selling 1st party title in years was about a Cartoony looking plumber wearing a living hat with eyes that had to rescue his princess girlfriend from a giant angry turtle and his asshole kids who was going to marry the princess against her will. The view was third person. He ran around in levels made of candy and used his living hat to transfer his consciousness into giant living bullets. Care to explain to me how that sells so well if "immersion is king"?
It's because immersion isn't king. People buy video games, and video game consoles primarily to have fun, and that has always been the case. So who is really being intellectually dishonest?
Also, when I said "threshold" I meant for you to quantify it. The term "ideal" is ambiguous since what is "ideal" is an incredibly subjective term. So saying "close to ideal" is a meaningless phrase. So let me help you out. If you were to say "the vast majority of gamers will start buying VR headsets when the headsets have a resolution of X, a field of view of Y, a refresh rate of Z, and a price point of Q". What are X, Y, Z, and Q in your opinion? Feel free to expand on that if there are other things VR solutions must include before the vast marjority of gamers buy them.
I'm not interesting in literally searching this site and other parts of the internet for other arguments you made about VR (especially when, you know, you don't even have the same username here as you have on that site. Apparently I now have you convince both you and my wife I am actually NOT a mindreader despite your expectations). Frankly, you make so many baseless or near-baseless assertions that I don't see how it can possibly be worth my time. Either make your best version of the argument today (supported with evidence) or don't even bother mentioning that you might have made it in the past. I don't have any reason to believe that any argument you've made elsewhere is more compelling than the one you've made now. Besides, it's not reasonable to expect anyone to pick through your post history, and I'm not about to ask Rolstoppable to go through his notes.
P.S. Unsurprisingly, you don't understand how sources work. If you make an assertion like "the "vast majority" of gamers crave the ideal level of immersion" then the onus is on your to demonstrate that is true, not on me to demonstrate that is false.
