3 ms·

I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on non-realistic graphics for VR to keep the specs down. If you try to make a VR game that looks as good as cur

I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on non-realistic graphics for VR to keep the specs down. If you try to make a VR game that looks as good as current high-end games, it's always going to require massive horsepower because it must run at 60+ FPS at a high resolution so everyone but hardcore gamers are going to be left out. Mobile gaming became hugely popular without high-end graphics because of the easy of use, portability and touch input controls. I would have thought it would make more sense for VR games to focus on experiences you can only have with VR games (e.g. highly immersive, having sense of scale, use of hand input) and play to its strengths rather than limit its audience with high-end graphics. I'm very excited about VR but having to buy a Rift and a high-end Windows gaming PC is asking a lot to get involved.

Arelius 11y ago
There is a lot of emphasis on non-realistic graphics. But the consensus is that it must run at 90FPS+ with two views so that bumps the specs back up again. Especially considering that most contemporary game engines aren't build with those sort of latencies in mind.
- mastax 11y ago
  > There is a lot of emphasis on non-realistic graphics Yes, I've seen this a lot on mobile especially and also with things like "Job Simulator". What I'm confused about is everyone (especially on /r/oculus) being very adamant about needing a GTX 970+ for VR. My ~$200 GTX 760 can consistently run Team Fortress 2 at upwards of 200 frames per second, and TF2 looks fine to me. I'm sure many people will appreciate having games for VR that take advantage of their fancy hardware, but why scare people away with such high requirements? Can't the industry tighten its belt a little for the first round and live with the fact that VR games won't look quite as good as their 2D counterparts? Surely even a $700 gaming PC would deliver a better experience than GearVR, which is already quite good.

Arelius 11y ago

There is a lot of emphasis on non-realistic graphics. But the consensus is that it must run at 90FPS+ with two views so that bumps the specs back up again. Especially considering that most contemporary game engines aren't build with those sort of latencies in mind.

mastax 11y ago
> There is a lot of emphasis on non-realistic graphics Yes, I've seen this a lot on mobile especially and also with things like "Job Simulator". What I'm confused about is everyone (especially on /r/oculus) being very adamant about needing a GTX 970+ for VR. My ~$200 GTX 760 can consistently run Team Fortress 2 at upwards of 200 frames per second, and TF2 looks fine to me. I'm sure many people will appreciate having games for VR that take advantage of their fancy hardware, but why scare people away with such high requirements? Can't the industry tighten its belt a little for the first round and live with the fact that VR games won't look quite as good as their 2D counterparts? Surely even a $700 gaming PC would deliver a better experience than GearVR, which is already quite good.