Things that piss me off about people that want to make FPS games

haha, cover shooting in those games are toys compared to cover shooting in a VR shooter. In a VR game you actually cover shoot, in a desktop game its just a gimmick.

Its not restricted movement, its quite the opposite, Here I kill 3 players very quickly with a pump action shotgun never the less, I lean over a obsticle todo it too something thats very natural in a VR game, since you just do it

 

Killing them while barely making 2 steps. Good illustration of movement, okay. And more elaborate cover mechanic is still a cover mechanic (done to death at this point)

 

Difference is its not a forced mechanic, in VR you just do it. Its not scripted.
Quick example I found in same video

 

See this isn't what wins me over to virtual reality. What wins me over is being able to shoot in different directions like in Skyrim VR where you can load up a spell in each hand and then aim them in completely different directions to attack.

 

Thing is, you can do what you like, since its free! Thats whats nice. You can shoot blind from cover, you can take up a dead guys pistol and akimbo etc,etc

edit: another example. In a classic desktop game this needs to be a lame "perk"

 

You:

Also you (shoots teammate because its too hard for you to tell both teams apart in your own game):

I hope you see the irony. But at least you acknowledge this is an issue you need to fix!

 

Yeah, its fixed though, thats an old build on the 5.2 engine. Unity lighting was fubar back then, it was actually first in 5.6 that 5.x had somewhat correct lighting. Plus I have redone lighting on that level. Here example from 2017 because I havent baked this level on 2019 yet.




Though it can be further perfected, light probes are hell

 

And we've smoothly transitioned to "Things that piss me off about people that post about their game in every post”.

 

Asking the real questions.

 

It's just fun to see how people are so shortsighted, can't see the future of things to come

 

You do realize that if you end up being wrong we will never let you hear the end of it, right?

 

Yes, please give us a date for when that "future" will surely be there, so that we can streamline the rubbing-it-under-your-nose-process with a calendar reminder and a link back to this thread.

 

More big game companies need to make multiple games for VR like Valve is doing. Right now VR feels like a novelty that is wearing off for people with $ to burn. I think VR is more useful in the education field but the price is holding it back.

 

Remember the wii, and playstation with motion controls how you can actually pick up guns and it wasn't gimmicky like just pushing a button? I remember how that turned out

 

Although I'm not a fan of your "everyone else is a peasant" attitude here in the forum, I do think that your game looks good and fun, so, yeah, nice job.

 

Without peasants there can't be lords

Glad you liked it!

 

Spamming again with your product?

But tell you what I don't like about your game, the aimbot.
It kills all potential fun about actual feeling shooting real thing.

What is the purpose of aimbot in your game?
Is something to compensate that VR can not compete with old school keyboard and mouse?

 

And without lords there can't be peasant uprisings.

 

I agree that the Ford quote is applicable to VR. Most people beg for small, predictable changes. They want iteration rather than innovation. With regards to Half Life, I honestly think the people complaining about the idea of a VR Half Life are simply big fans of Half Life. Those people simply want to have a game called Half Life 3 with the same gameplay mechanics as Half Life 2, but with improved graphics that are AAA quality for 2019/2020.

 

I don't think it's so philosophical.

The bare practicalities of VR just aren't broadly attractive. Innovation is always welcome. Just has to be the right innovation.

 

Valve literally used Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source to force gamers to accept Steam, so it would be only fitting for Valve to use Steam to heavily promote Half Life Alyx.

I also think it is awesome to see Valve deeply commit to a serious VR project. Just keep in mind that flat screen games are still going to be the majority of the market for a very long time. Even if Half Life Alyx somehow manages to be so awesome that it convinces millions of gamers to rush out and buy VR hardware and upgrade their PCs, it still would not instantly wipe out enthusiasm for flat screen games.

Speaking of PC hardware, Half Life Alyx requires a minimum of Windows 10, a quad core CPU, a GTX 1060 (with 6GB VRAM), and 12GB of RAM. So maybe a 3rd of Steam's current userbase owns hardware capable of running Half Life Alyx. I assume the recommended specs will be much higher.

I am not sure if Half Life Alyx will entice a lot of people to suddenly upgrade their PCs. For example, one friend of mine has a PC that meets all of those min specs, except his video card is a GTX 1060 3GB instead of the GTX 1060 6GB. I highly doubt he would upgrade his PC just to play Half Life Alyx.

 

Consider that. I bet major audience is indeed previous generation of HL1/2 following by CS. But majority of that audience wont be having VR. At least not anytime soon. I don't think they expect strictly the same, or similar mechanics as predecessors. But at least something they can play, with modern fresh take.

 

If you ignore the fact that there is no evidence he ever said anything of the kind.

https://hbr.org/2011/08/henry-ford-never-said-the-fast

I have to agree with the following article. If he had asked them what they wanted they would have likely responded with "a faster mode of transportation" and while some might have commented on the form factor most of them wouldn't care.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/290410

That said if he had made that quote it still wouldn't be applicable here because the reason horses lost to cars is not just due to their performance. Horses were inferior in just about every single way at the time the cars came out. Virtual reality is just not there yet.

 

This sums it up right here.

Anders is either willfully ignorant or otherwise about the fact those vast majority of market simply couldn't afford the bare minimum to play this game even if they really wanted to.

Heck, I make games and my machine barely meets requirements. That's insane. I'm also a 30+ year old, western home owner, married with no children, and I don't think I'd find it reasonable to splurge on the hardware necessary to play another shootin' game.

 

The Valve Index is a thousand US dollars, and requires a high end gaming PC to use. There is a niche market for that, but you cannot expect mass adaption of that. For VR, "mass adaption" will likely occur with a device like the Oculus Quest.

 

Watching that trailer, I will admit it got me a bit excited at first. The part where the arm sweeps the junk on the counter and finds a bullet. How cool right? But actually think it through. Imagine playing and it's so F***ing tedious that you have to literally pick through junk to find bullets.

No thanks, I'll take desktop games like Fallout where I push "a" and contents of the drawers are in a menu. Of course same thing can happen in VR, but my point is... it's just meaningless fluff that cost waaay too much right now.

 

That said you don't have to have a Valve Index. You can use a Windows Mixed Reality headset and currently the cheapest one available is the Samsung HMD Odyssey+ selling for $229 in the US.

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-Wireless-Controllers-XE800ZBA-HC1US/dp/B07HS7R1RT

You can purchase used GTX 1060 6GB cards and RX 580 8GB cards off of eBay for around $100.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=GTX+1060
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=RX+580

Rest of the computer can be built for around $300. None of the following parts are on sale.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz 6-Core Processor ($99.07 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock A320M-HDV R4.0 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($58.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: GeIL EVO POTENZA 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($46.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: ADATA SU655 120 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($18.98 @ Amazon)
Case: Rosewill SCM-01 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($24.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Logisys 480 W ATX Power Supply ($21.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $271.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-11-22 22:32 EST-0500

 

I agree with some of that, but I also think some VR stuff does pass the cut off for being innovative.

Innovation is about changing the rules and delivering the solution to the new set of rules. Cars won for a variety of reasons other than performance. For example, I can leave my car unattended in a garage for weeks at a time, but I cannot do that with a horse.

For young people today, mobility services like Uber are challenging the notion of owning your own car. Self driving cars combined with a mobility service may eventually convince many people to pay for a "Mobility Prime" service where a fleet of self driving Amazon cars takes people everywhere they need to go instead of needing to own a car. If/When that happens, car ownership will eventually lose out to mobility subscription services.

Typically innovations win when they empower people without means. For example, mobility services built on top of self driving cars could empower people who cannot drive, such as children or elderly citizens. It will also empower people who cannot afford to own a car. The winning criteria will be about empowering people to do something rather than about specific technical performance numbers.

VR has some opportunities to shine in terms of innovation, but it probably won't be through ultra high end VR solutions attached to ultra high end PCs. It would be through VR devices that empower people in some way. The Oculus Quest is innovative in that it is only $400 for a complete working VR solution that does not need any computer and does not need complex setup. Somebody who wants to play some VR titles can buy a Quest and jump right in.

The Quest appears ready to be the VR console. It is innovative in the same way an Xbox One, PS4, or Switch is innovative. Those consoles are not even close to the performance numbers of a high end gaming PC, but they empower millions of people to experience a good enough version of the gaming experience. Relatively low cost and very easy to set up. The Quest is innovative because it delivers the same thing as a typical console but for the VR space.

Similarly, the Oculus Go also has some innovation, enough though it lacks some of the key features of the Quest. The Go offers a really low cost stand alone solution to deliver at least a subset of the VR experience to users. In that way, the Go is innovative.

The Oculus Rift was innovative when it first came out, since it was a good enough solution for VR and it was readily available. Most VR products since the Rift have been iterations on that basic design.

Products like the Valve Index are awesome but not innovative. The Valve Index is simply the latest high end iteration of high end VR attached to high end PCs. The Valve Index empowers nobody.

 

In terms of mass adaption, price is one factor. Ease of use is another. There is a relatively niche group of people who will custom build a low cost solution to try to get VR going. Most gamers won't try the Samsung HMD Odyssey+ unless they know for sure it works well in the game they plan to play. For example, if they are planning to play Half Life Alyx, they would need to know that the Samsung HMD Odyssey+ would work with that game.

 

The Windows Mixed Reality headsets are about a generation and a half behind in terms of tracking and display quality at best and still cost $300 in Canada. That's a tall order, especially when, after five years, there's only been one game that's really moving the needle at all as far as VR interest is concerned.

From a consumer point of view, VR is untested, expensive tech with a lot of drawbacks and not a lot of compelling reasons to check it out.

 

Mr Andrson (Neo) probably wont agree with that

 

Try and get him to admitting to being an average consumer, I dare ya.

 

On top of being inferior for transport, horses also cost more, in terms of both money and time.

I'm having trouble imagining AR/VR ever getting cheaper than an entry level monitor.

 

Also if a car gets a flat you don't have to shoot it in the head.

 

Hooves don't go flat. You monster!

 

There is no aimbot. Raycasts starts from barrel which is more accurate than most desktop shooters, they often start from center of screen for some reason. Though we dont have ballistics in production yet only in a branch, so it shoots the raycast in a straight line from barrel.

 

Valve Index is the premium product, you can buy cheaper ones like the Rift S, WMR etc. But I always say, buy quality and cry once.

Look at the monitor market. A good monitor starts around 1-1.5k USD. But the peasants like Ony calls them buy cheap TN panels for 2-300 USD. VR is a new tech, there will be these cheap ass crap versions too for VR. Though, A VR system is 100 times more advanced than a monitor. You got the lenses, you got the tracking, etc

 

I laughed so hard at that rebuttal that I fell off my chair and now . . .

Spoiler

I can't giddyup

 

I enjoy buying high end products myself. However, I do not expect everybody else to, and I try to look at the big picture when considering innovation for example. You said in this thread that the Valve Index could lead to mass adoption for VR. Based on the price of the product, there is basically zero chance of the Valve Index leading to mass adoption.

The Valve Index is an iterative improvement on existing technology that only really appeals to people who already like VR and want to pay the premium to own a premium product. It is basically the opposite of a mainstream product.

Calling people peasants or butt hurt or what ever is not effective. It does not help you understand markets or predict technology trends. In other words, that attitude is counter productive.

 

Would you call Porsche or Ferrari a failed product? Or the Michelin restaurant on the corner that charge 400 USD per seat wine package not included a failure?

You don't need to target the commoners to have a success you know.

 

There is also another problem with these low level VR systems like mobile VR, people get to try this becasue it's accessible and then reject it as a gimmick, although it is nowhere the real deal

Edit: but im sure the better systems will drop in prices over the years

 

Ha! You've returned the favor.

 

Yeah but oyu keep saying VR is gonna go mainstream. Ferrari and Porsche never went mainsteam. Just for people with poor heart and poor mind trying to fit in.

You want VR to go big so your game can go big so people can appreciate your genius, try starting from place of understanding and empathy instead of S***take and maybe you win some converts.

 

Haha, people with poor mind. Dude, you have a case of what we call 'Jantelag' in Swedish Google it

 

Aren't those two roughly one order of magnitude apart from each other in price?

So you're saying VR games should cost ~400$ per title to make up for the lack of mainstream adoption of the hardware?

 

Depends on which Porsche, a Porsche 918 Spyder is not cheap. Though personally modern super cars like the Spyder or Ferrari are pretty ugly. I much rather buy the much cheaper Porsche Cayman GT4 which has classic Porsche looks or go retro. My father once had a Lamborghini Miura, cars like that much more attract me. Oh well, this is going off topic.

Funny enough its only the hardware that has premium prizes, the games are cheaper.

 

Interesting idea, but no, that's wrong conclusion.

Poor mind, poor heart. As in, you compulsively compare yourself to everyone and everything, even when it's not the subject of conversation. It's like meme level.

When you make it like that, it ruins your argument for VR. Even if you make smart points about VR, if the person doing so comes across as a big douche, who is gonna listen?

I don't think you are here to talk with people and discuss ideas. Just argue to gain attention because poor heart, poor mind. All you got to do is go back and read the writing. Once you are saying VR is going to go mainstream. Then you are insulting the "peasants." VR is a fine wine. But people are too dumb to appreciate. By the way, your game has best in class mechanics. Here is ten videos. Too bad the peasants can't see the difference and are playing all the competitor games instead.

Your position is no position, you just fire a shot back at anyone you perceive as threat. You aren't moving the ball anywhere. Just holding on to it. Very annoying as it stifles any real forward moving discussion. There is lot of young college kids hanging around here trying to get started in making games. Instead they getting sucked into useless non-discussion. If you are a real developer you should be setting good example. Not making black-hole on non-production.

My advice: Finish your game, shut up about it, and then make a better one. In the battle for VR multiplayer shooters, you have lost. So what? Are you going to quit the war? You need to learn from what your competitors have done better than you and apply it towards a new game while they are fat and happy. Don't quit the war because you lost one battle.

Right now your competitors are majorly outdoing you in all fronts. And you are hear saying your mechanics are better. Maybe so, but if you can't market that then it doesn't matter. Don't talk about forward progress in the future. Make it happen right now. And stop gloating. Even if it were true that you are so much smarter and better, nobody wants to hear about it. Let the work speak for itself and you don't need to say a word.

It seems you have too much money to spare. You just have to tell everyone about it. Instead of indulging your face, hire a marketing manager. An art director. Spend less time tinkering with mechanics that nobody noticed and figure out why competitor sold and you didn't. This is called humility, and it's what makes you have a rich heart and a rich mind.

 

If observing carefully, whatever is happening in your targeting system, I see pointer snaps on target, when very close to it. So player don't need to aim very accurate. Just close enough. So for example you can not shoot just next to the head, unless maybe target move. Btw, shooting standing targets is not really fun.

 

There is no such thing in the game, I despite consoles, gamepads and autoaim.

This is the code at the time of that video:

Code (CSharp):

1.         protected virtual void RayCastBullet(Vector3 pos, Vector3 direction) {
2.             RaycastHit hitInfo;
3.             Physics.Raycast (pos, direction, out hitInfo, LocalFirearm.EffectiveRange, bulletHitMask);
4.             Hittable hit;
5.  
6.             if (hitInfo.transform != null) {
7.                 if ((hit = Hittable.Get(hitInfo.transform)))                
8.                     hit.Execute(hitInfo);                                                
9.                 else
10.                 {
11.                     var material = MaterialManager.Instance.GetMaterial(hitInfo).Type;
12.                     Impact(material, hitInfo.point, hitInfo.normal);
13.                     RPC("FireWithImpact", NetworkReceivers.Others, material, hitInfo.point, hitInfo.normal);
14.                 }
15.  
16.             } else
17.             {
18.                 RPC("Fire", NetworkReceivers.Others, pos, direction, true);
19.             }  
20.         }

 

No, I would definitely not call a Porsche or Ferrari a failed product. I would call them very successful niche market products. The Porsche and Ferrari cars will never achieve mass adoption. To continue the car analogies, mass adoption would be something inexpensive from Nissan.

Again, it is possible to have a successful business that targets a niche luxury customer, but that is the opposite of mass adoption. You used the phrase "mass adoption" earlier in this thread, and mass adoption is very different from niche luxury.