Topic: Should Nintendo be taking the Oculus Rift more seriously?

They'll just end up creating their own. Isn't that what Sony's doing or did or is going to do (IDK I haven't kept track really)?

Again, this whole debate is a waste of time. There's no reason to talk down the Rift's immersion or try and slam the GamePad as some sort of immersion breaking device. Neither of those things will make any difference to whether or not Nintendo should care about VR. Until the majority of gamers not only have one but also prefer using it? It's going to be something the big three can just outright ignore. And even when they do get to that point they're still going to have to be able to sell to people who want to play on a TV.

Lets also remember that a lot of games won't work that well as VR games anyways without a huge overhaul. Infact of the ten best selling games on the Wii U so far Mario Kart is the only one I can see being a decent fit with only small modifications. But even then I'd still rather it on my TV for local multi, even if I had the gear and it supported it it'd be a one off novelty thing.

How about you stop being a drama queen, and maybe eat a snickers? If he's impressed, let him be impressed.
I have my view on it, and I'm arrogant enough to think of my point as critically correct, but that doesn't mean I don't want anyone to enjoy Oculus.
Also, no opinion is wrong, that's the whole thing about an opinion.

Depends on what the opinion is about. Opinions can be wrong, opinions are only as "correct" as your ability to defend them. If you can't defend your opinion then your opinion ain't worth jack.
/pedantic

Yes, your sweeping generalizations were definitely personal opinions based on your individual experience with OR

The technology can in no way make games more enjoyable and cannot improve upon games in any way, yet those that believe otherwise are right as well. Sure that doesn't conflict at all.

To elaborate on the opinion vs fact nonsense, enjoyment in itself can be a quantitative value. We can measure how many people admittedly 'enjoy' a product. Proclaiming that something can in no way make something else more 'enjoyable' is not 100% opinion, because we can measure that statistic.

If we were to round up each individual person that has tested out OR, we could elaborate a quantitative value of how many people thought the device made the experience more enjoyable.

By saying 'it doesn't offer any kind of possibilities to make gaming more enjoyable' you're not merely passing off an opinion, you're making a statement about the product that we can measure. Since that statement is illogical, you hide behind it as an 'opinion' and use the ol 'lolol you just mad' counter.

Don't want anything to do with it? Awesome. But to completely dismiss any impact it'll have on video games, claim that everyone who enjoyed the device is 'easily impressed', and then turn to the 'oh yeah btw imo' tactic is foolish.

I just don't see this doing very well, especially since 3D TVs weren't very popular. If 3D TVs had a high adoption rate and there was all of 3D content, the VR headsets would make alot more sense. Most of the work is STILL going into the 3D visuals, and not really the part about being able to move your head to look around in the software stuffs.

Nobody has said the device will sell well or be accepted by the public

You're reiterating an earlier post of yours as if someone is disagreeing with you

Well, you were kind of disagreeing with me about how motion control had alot to do with VR. That's the "easier" half of what makes these devices, otherwise you'd have a 3D headset that doesn't move around.

The Morpheus is basically like combining a Wii remote and this: http://store.sony.com/wearable-hdtv-2d-3d-virtual-7.1-surroun...

That is what the Morpheus should have been, given that they could have included motion control and such in the device I just linked. Now, they are releasing 2 products that don't do one thing or the other.

I said OR was easily distinguishable and substantially different than your examples.

I haven't said anything about Morpheus, because I know better than to talk about anything Sony-related.

Ya, and I never said otherwise.

Okay; suit yourself.

Yeah, I enjoy relaxing in a comfortable environment because I'm just a Nintendo fan. And appreciating an interactive map and inventory screen that is in no way intrusive or debilitating is also due to brand loyalty.

Sorry it hurts your feelings that I'm not particularly interested in VR.

The ironic thing is I'm not particularly interested in it either, I've just been turned in favor of it by the comments in this thread suggesting the device is pointless and anyone that enjoys it is naive or 'easily impressed'

I'll generalize your apology as being for reading your comments though, in which case I accept

I am generally neutral to the OR but with your over negative Nintendo remarks I decided to say somethings.

1. VR is decent if you've got it setup properly. The fact that the OR has John Carmack? Even more confident of that
2. The crap about the GamePad being VR? Yeah, that's BS. Though talking crap about the GamePad? Why?
3. At the end of the day it's just a display. The importance of it will ultimately end up being a matter of adoption rates and what style the game is. I don't see TVs or monitors going anywhere anytime soon though.

You're welcome. I look forward to your next visit to these forums in 3 months to make more generalizations.

Not really. Moving the headset to look around = moving the GamePad to look around. The OR and Morpheus just do it in a more fancy manner by being in 3D, a higher resolution, and being strapped to your head with a massive view so it seems like you are in the software.

There is still a massive similarity between how they can be used to move the camera in the software. That is the key point, here, so it's not BS. As for the treadmill thing, they've already done a walk in place thing with the Wii balance board and with Kinect that would be largly the same, as well.

Sooo... "more fancy" means "actually VR" or what?

Come on, it's pretty disingenuous to say that a treadmill, a balance board, and a Gamepad are all examples of VR. I can go to an archery range and listen to the Lord of the Rings soundtrack and pretend I'm Orlando Bloom, doesn't make my phone a piece of VR equipment.

Nah, they don't need to worry.

There are so many reasons why this technology won't be the next big thing, not that I don't appreciate it but I feel it'll be a very niché market in a decade or so due to the limitations of VR. Also, isn't this thing addressed mostly for first person games? I don't see it as something that would improve the immersion in other types of games

I'm talking about this thing: http://shop.virtuix.com/Omni-Natural-Motion-Interface-p/virtu...

I can walk in place on the balance board or in front of the Kinect. Regardless, they are all part of the same idea. Also, I was mainly talking about the camera movement in the headset as being the main similarity between the GamePad and the OR/Morpheus.
I'm not trying to say that the GamePad will do exactly what the OR/Morpheus will do. I'm saying that somethings are similar between all of them; enough so, that I would say the GamePad, balance board, Wii remote+, PS Move, Kinect, and PS Camera are also part of this VR stuff. They even have a Wii remote+/PS Move looking controller called the Leap Motion.

Alright, but it's still inaccurate to say that tech that is a little more interactive than a traditional controller is a part of VR. VR is a specific thing, where you are totally immersed in the game. It's called virtual reality because a virtual world becomes reality. Your brain is being told by your senses that what you see, hear, etc is really there. No amount of precision with a Wii Remote is going to trick your brain into believing that you're really holding a golf club or sword.