Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games) Games Technology

CCP Games Explains Why Virtual Reality First Person Shooters Still Don't Work 154

Posted by Soulskill
from the locate-enemy-then-fire-then-clean-vomit-from-keyboard dept.
An anonymous reader writes Icelandic studio CCP is better known for EVE Online, but its first foray into virtual reality with space shooter Valkyrie has caused a stir, and is widely seen as a flagship game for the Oculus Rift headset. In a new interview, Valkyrie executive producer Owen O'Brien explains what advantages the game will have when played with a headset — and gives his view on why a dogfighter is better suited to VR than a first person shooter: "People have hacked it together, but it doesn't really work," he says. "The basic problem is Simulator Sickness. In Valkyrie or any cockpit game or driving game, what you're doing in the real world, assuming you're sitting down, more or less mimics what your brain is telling you you're doing in the game. So you don't get that disconnect, and it's that disconnect that causes sickness. So, the problem with first-person shooters is that you're running or crouching or jumping in the game but not in the real world, and because it's so realistic it can make some people (not everybody) feel nauseated if they start doing it for extended periods of time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CCP Games Explains Why Virtual Reality First Person Shooters Still Don't Work

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday July 18, 2014 @01:46PM (#47484299)

    Wheelchair Hunter eXTreme

    You're sitting down. You could even sell wheels that attached to the side of office char armrests... and a gun accessory that tracked position relative to your body to match the virtual version.

    Or, a Battlezone clone where you are in an open cockpit.

  • by Immerman (2627577) on Friday July 18, 2014 @01:54PM (#47484371)

    Seriously - how many VR FPSes limit motion to anything resembling realistic speeds? Especially rotation. The average FPS has you running around at probably 20+mph and spinning 180* in a fraction of a second with a flick of the wrist. It takes me 3-4 seconds to complete a full rotation in real life at normal speeds, and if I spend much time turning quicker than that I start to get nauseous without any simulator needed. I can turn my head faster, but there's a lot more biofeedback maintaining orientation in that case. Spinning at FPS speeds should be generating massive accelerations of your inner ear, not to mention instantly launching from a complete standstill to a 20mph run - I'm not at all surprised that the absence of such accelerations throws people for a loop.

    I haven't heard many complaints of nausea from the various VR first-person adventure games, and I can't help thinking tat that is largely because they are typically far slower paced than a twitchy FPS. An obvious solution would be more realistically paced FPSes. Or potentially even just considerably gentler accelerations. Maybe you can still run at 20mph, but it takes you 5-10 seconds to get there from a complete stop. Can't see any solution for faster spinning as radial acceleration is constant at constant speed, but then I'm not sure it's needed - being able to look around at a realistic pace should greatly reduce the need for instant spins, especially if you can aim independently from head tracking so that you can fire directly backwards at that guy just visible in the edge of your vision while looking over your shoulder.

  • by bmo (77928) on Friday July 18, 2014 @02:13PM (#47484539)

    I could have let this one slide, but I have a few things to say:

    1. Darl, Darl McBride, is that you? When will you be testifying against Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow? You have a chance to redeem your soul! Imagine that!
    2. The myth that "you can't make money on open source" is a myth so debunked that you have entire industries built on it, from servers and supercomputers to cellphones and kids' toys.
    3. The myth that people don't get paid (slaves) to develop open source is belied by the fact that small companies like IBM are major contributors and specifically pay for people to work on open source code.

    And even Microsoft pays people to do it now.

    You can take your 20 year old arguments, write them out on oaktag, fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it straight up your arse.

    Have a great day.

    --
    BMO

Please go away.

Working...