Problem 2: Uncontrolled Movement (cut scenes, head bob) It can be hard enough dealing with motion sickness in a seated VR game that is designed for it, let alone a game that is not! So, for example if you look down or left or right without keeping your body entirely still, then what you see doesn't match what you're body is doing, resulting in motion sickness (the rotational axis in game probably won't exactly match that of your head, so things will feel "off", regardless). The way your viewpoint works in 3D games is basically just like a ball rotating in place, but that isn't exactly how we look around, we shift slightly side to side, or lean forward or back a bit. The first problem is the head tracking doesn't really work right, since it just emulates the mouse. It's unfortunate because I had high expectations for this when I purchased my Vive, but at this point I consider normal 3D games basically unplayable. Still, given the two extremes I voted yes just because it most closely aligns with what I believe.I would say the experience is pretty bad, even when the games work with something like VorpX (as others said, not all of the games you listed are probably supported). It's not uncommon that polls here only offer extremes at either end of the spectrum when I think most of the interesting discourse is somewhere in-between. So, I'm not fine with fov sliders being absent generally speaking, but I also don't think this type of feature should be mandatory either. However, I can understand why that sort of option can't be included in the competitive multiplayer environment, at least not without heavy consideration. It's what allowed my Mum to enjoy and complete Uncharted 4. That allows people to play and enjoy these games without great motor dexterity. In this example, an option to change that feature of the game from the killers perspective could spoil the games balance.Īs another example, I believe that all shooting games should offer some form of aim assistance that actively aims for players, as an accessibility option. Say for a moment, you're making a game with a killer who has to hunt down other people and those players rely on the killers narrower field of view, to escape his vision (kind of like how Dead by Deadlight forces the killer to play in first person, but the survivors play in third person). But I also think there's room for certain features to be missing if they are either too difficult to include given certain constraints, or conflict in a very explicit way with the design in a game that can't be experienced in isolation.
In principle, I think that fov options should be present wherever possible, and I think all studios should make efforts to make these options possible. 'It should be mandatory to believe in god' However, if you frame the same statement as. It's not altogether unreasonable, they believe that everyone's lives would be better if they had faith.
I think this is a belief that a lot of religious people have. For instance someone might hold the belief If something is mandated, it is essential. The word mandatory implies some sort of consequence too.
#FALLOUT 4 MOTION SICKNESS FOV HEAD BOB PLUS#
There may be some specific design reasoning a game might have a particular fov, plus I also don't think that you get very far by forcing developers to include certain features. I didn't vote no, but the choice of phrasing for the yes option is pretty harsh, specifically the word 'mandatory'.
0 kommentar(er)
