Anyone else burnt out on flat screen gaming?

[Ramses]

I read a short review the other day of a space sim on the Occulus dk2 and my mouth is watering. I'm tired of buying video cards, we aren't getting photo realism anytime soon and I'm just not wowed by new games the way I was even a few years ago. I'm old enough to remember the little red 3d Nintendo dealy and what it hinted at. Anyone else foot tapping with impatience for real 3d and immersion?

 

[UberNeuman]

No.

 

[TheSlamma]

Oculus requires a video card still.

But no not really, I think we got a little too much realism now.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Subyman]

I had an Oculus DK1 and am sold on getting the consumer version. It will be the future of some genres for sure, no doubt in my mind. From what I saw, we'd need around 4k res for it to look really good though. The lens magnify the screen, so a 1080p will show the silk screen effect. 1440p supposedly looks better, but 4k is what's needed for a really smooth experience.

I think I'll still want my screen though because I don't always want to be totally immersed. I like to watch videos while gaming.

 

[Ramses]

Interesting. I remember downloading wolfenstien3d shareware off the local BBS and being flored and staying up all night playing, coming from pacman and the like it was a new world. There have been some others, GL Quake, early UT, some of the COD, the usuals. Nothing has really wowed me in awhile short of a few with good story lines. I see lots of different graphics but none of them really better. It's all still a flat screen or three. When I was a kid I expected by 2014 we'd be living on mars at will and jacking in ala-matrix. Been sort of a disappointment. PC hardware is fast and relatively cheap which is cool but it's the same old softare, click click click, type type, move mouse, repeat. Blah. I shuffle data for a living and it's like pulling teeth.

 

[Ramses]

I've had enough of LCDs, I'll say that much. It's got to be one of the PC industry's longest running scams. I just want a display technology that isn't a fundamentally flawed dead-end, whether it's in a head-mounted package or a classic monitor, I don't mind.

Immersion, yes. "Too much realism"? Bollocks.

I miss my 21" Sun CRT every day.

 

[alcoholbob]

I miss gaming on a big screen, I had a 47" screen that was like 4 feet away and blew me away while playing games because it filled my view completely. The only problem was web browsing hurt my neck because the screen was so big lol. We need adjustable size screens IMO. A screen that can expand during gaming would be sick. Like a 32" screen that's adjustable to 40" or so

 

[Ramses]

Big screens is a variation on what I'm looking for I think. I find myself when I'm really into a game getting closer and closer to my 27" trying to blot out the outside world.

 

[PlanetJosh]

If 2D is part of the discussion then about the photorealism comment in the first post - have you tried Crysis 3? I know some will say it's not close to photorealism but I'm not so sure. I think it approaches it.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Ramses]

No, so I just went and watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j-iHzthJ40 on youtube and it's a fine representation of what I'm talking about. It is not even remotely real-life like. It's a very fine example of nice looking video game graphics and only, imo, somewhat better than crysis 2 which was a fun game but nothing to talk about years later. Wavy grass some fog and some rain dribbles on a visor aren't impressing me in 2014 I'm afraid. I'm sure it's a nice game and lots of work went into it and I'll buy it when it goes on sale eventually but it's, just like everything else. It looks like a nice computer game.
Un-wowed.

 

[PlanetJosh]

^ I see your point about Crysis 3. On closer look which I did a few days after it came out even with Speed Tree, or whatever tree renderer they use, the joints of tree branches to the tree trunk are still generally blocky and not realistic. And the grass attachment to the ground is not done in a natural realistic manner. Same problems in other games of course. I probably want it to seem realistic and I do get impressed by the latest shiny surfaces.

 

[xantub]

I was thinking the same thing just this morning. I was playing Dragon Age 2, high quality everything, and it looks great but I thought "yeah, but I'm still watching it on a flat screen, no matter how great the graphics get, it's still watching TV".

Having said that, I'm looking forward to playing with a VR device but I'm not sure how it'll work to control things. Mouse is obviously ok, and WASD is good too, but I have to look at the keyboard to see where everything else is (especially function keys), and that won't be possible with the Rift.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[BSim500]

3D VR goggles? Giant flat screens? Photorealism? Yes, but is it FUN to play?

 

[motsm]

I've had enough of LCDs, I'll say that much.

Just a horrid technology, how anyone even tolerates their monitor baffles me.

That said, I really have no interest in moving beyond a traditional monitor, I just want them to improve to a point where they aren't distractingly bad.

 

[Midwayman]

Traditional LCDs are horrible horrible displays for games. Sample and hold FTL.

However I'm pretty excited for VR. The current rift stuff I've seen has been cool enough that I'll get it for sure when released.

 

[gorcorps]

Just a horrid technology, how anyone even tolerates their monitor baffles me.

That said, I really have no interest in moving beyond a traditional monitor, I just want them to improve to a point where they aren't distractingly bad.

Well... what other choice do we have?

 

[Red Storm]

Cannot wait for the Rift. Next month they're bringing some to the Air & Space museum to show off some space ship tie-in with Interstellar, can't wait to go try it out.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Hold on a sec, isn't there a flat screen that could please all of us? The full OLED 25" Sony monitor, 2d only I believe. It's over $7,000 (USD I think), but think of the problems it may be solving like no more worries about contrast (or very little), ideal black color and so on:

http://www.agoraquest.com/news/sony-video/sony-s-outs-two-new-oled-monitors/

It used to be over $20,000 two or three years ago. Don't know why the big price drop. And no I don't own one although with my father's approval I could take out the 7k from our joint account and buy it. He said it's a no go atm.

 

[Ramses]

Well... what other choice do we have?

I imagine CRT tech could have been, and may have been, improved considerably reguarding size weight heat and power usage.
Wasn't cheap though, not new anyway. I suspect the profit margin is kickin for LCD vs CRT's.

 

[DeathReborn]

Projectors are where they should be focusing development. Hopefully a good quality 4K projector will be reasonably priced towards the end of next year, £5900~ is quite a steep price currently.

 

[QueBert]

give me an uber neck brace and a 3D headset made with CRT technology please! The Rift's still based on LCDs which sucks ass for gaming.

 

[norseamd]

No, so I just went and watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j-iHzthJ40 on youtube and it's a fine representation of what I'm talking about. It is not even remotely real-life like. It's a very fine example of nice looking video game graphics and only, imo, somewhat better than crysis 2 which was a fun game but nothing to talk about years later. Wavy grass some fog and some rain dribbles on a visor aren't impressing me in 2014 I'm afraid. I'm sure it's a nice game and lots of work went into it and I'll buy it when it goes on sale eventually but it's, just like everything else. It looks like a nice computer game. Un-wowed.

Come on now.

You know that youtube video quality is pure crap. Where is a video that is not limited to 30 fps and compressed?