Lafiel said:
Even years before the Virtual Boy was released there were headsets with headtracking, which ment the user could be placed inside a world (with real scales etc) instead of the user simply seeing a small scene in 3D infront of them. Nintendo marketed the VB as VR, but it never was that. The VB is simply put a "weird looking" 3D monitor. The 3DS has a better claim to be VR, although I think it's capabilities were never used in such a way. |
Just because there was much better VR headsets at the time doesn't mean that the Virtual Boy wasn't VR. At the time it was widely considered to be VR, and I cen remember reading many articles and magazines that said as much, and it still is considered "VR" by many today (and again, no one is saying it was good or even decent VR even for the time).
You don't make the rules about what constitutes "VR" and what doesn't. The consensus amongst the gaming industry and media alike at the time, both before and after its demise, called it a "VR system". I don't see any reason to change that just because 20 years later, modern VR solutions blow it out of the water in every way imaginable.
Let me put it to you this way: Imagine in 15 years time, someone looked back on the GTX 1050 graphics card and said "That wasn't a real graphics card. It didn't do real time ray tracing, it didn't play AAA games at the time in 4K at ultra settings,it doesn't do (insert 15 years of advancement here), and look there were better graphics processing solutions at the time that did real time ray tracing, 4K, and other things the 1050 didn't do! It has the same feature set in common with this more modern APU. nVidia marketed it as a graphics card but it never was. The GTX is simply put a "weird looking" APU!" They would be laughed at. Because it's horseshit.
