> What was magical about it? I don't remember anything especially weird here.
IIRC the general tech level was essentially the recent past, but the technology to support this full-body VR game existed with no other consequences. And I think there was also an implication that it was multiplayer with another star system? (again, through unexplained technology with no other consequences).
I've played a few of the leading titles on PSVR but then hit upon this simple puzzle game that has burrowed into my mind. I can't wait to get back to it, I lose hours to this game
> It's absolutely a resource-management game, but I love it.
:-)
That's good! I absolutely loved these responses, BTW. I grinned all the way through reading them.
> I think because there's a little pressure, but not much, and there's a goal (build up enough industry to support building a spaceship to escape the planet you crash-landed on)
Fair enough! To quote an old song, "This is not my idea of a good time", but if it's yours, I am 100% all for it.
About 25Y ago, I got a magazine preview of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and I gave it to my then-partner as part of her birthday present.
She played it right through to completion, first time.
It took her entire birthday weekend, and she was cursing me at several points throughout, but she enjoyed herself a lot -- and hey, cheap weekend. :-D
It took her from Friday night, installing the game, to Sunday night, landing a manned spacecraft on a planet of another star... then she slept about 10 hours and went to work.
So very much not my idea of fun, although around then, we sometimes deathmatched until dawn, too. But I am definitely not here to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do!
> I wonder why space simulators and games always end up being so problematic. Elite Dangerous just seems to be going nowhere. Star Citizen is apparently a perpetual beta. Even KSP2 turned out to be a disappointment. Sigh.
Feature creep.
Everyone wants a space simulator.... then it must have atmospheric behaviour, and cities.... and well, we should be able to walk around on the ground... and shoot things.... make it a first person shooter, oh, and lots of aliens, make it a diplomacy simulator too.
> the first level was being created and I had no clue about the following events, and even less about how the game would end
I wonder if there is actual danger in this. Could you paint yourself into a corner and wind up in a situation in the story that just cannot be continued from?
Seems you could always come out of any situation, especially with sci-fi.
>The worlds and experiences are reminiscent of Stephenson's Snow Crash or Cline's Ready Player One in so many ways. It's eery, fascinating, and altogether odd.
It looks more like VR Idiocracy to me. Especially if you check out twitch and see donation stuff and stream overlays. It's just a platform for vomiting memes. https://imgur.com/ZkJq1cr
On the other hand, if it were super-serious-Deus-Ex-plotting-the-control-of-the-proletariat-VR-Chat, I don't think I could take that seriously either (and would be quickly overrun with Uganda knuckles anyway).
> There is a game out there (I shall not name) that is claiming to be a multi-planet 3d version of factorio.
Any particular reason you don't want to name it? I mean, I know what it is, and I've sunk 12 hours into it so far. While it still has a lot of polish left to do (It's only been in Early Access for two weeks!), it shows a lot of promise. I like it because it allows me to stack belts to more than two levels which makes dealing with spaghetti a lot easier.
I have the "other", more eh..."satisfying" factory game as well. It's beautiful, but placing objects in first-person is actually rather frustrating.
> Now if we had custom fast/ray-casting technology
No offence but I just cannot understand this viewpoint. A game is about fun, about gameplay. Pretty graphics do little for that (IMO) once the novelty's worn off, and can easily start to get in the way. A game's tech is mostly decoration (I said mostly, sometimes it can help). The real breakthrough in games would be in their depth of interaction, and that would take some kind of comprehensive model of humans and human experience, and more. We're not getting that soon.
>I find it completely implausible that a huge amount of people would.
there are 2.5 billion adult gamers in the world. A good percentage of that are partaking in games that easily qualify as virtual worlds.
no personal anecdote needed, huge amounts of people are already spending time in places that qualify as virtual worlds.
Our interfaces are clunky, and you can shift 'virtual world' around to mean something else, but it feels evident to me that this isn't an uncommon pastime/desire among people.
> All I seek is a full sensory experience of what I see and feel within a virtual environment.
Escapism is definitely aiming at that future we just don't have the tech, but that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed anyway. Personally I thought we would already have VR and so I keep playing to experience it as soon as possible.
> Think of any popular game (csgo, valorant, Fortnite, apex) ... Of course, they have differences like unique visuals, new items, and various ults/powers, but at the very core, it’s the same rotten stew.
I think this criticism is coming from an angle that would surely include chess... it's boring, has 8/9 pieces only, and it hasn't changed in decades or centuries. I think that is missing the point, especially with multiplayer games.
> Ball, the VC, claims Disney should be the power player in this, with games as extensions of the movie franchises.
This is how Vader Immortal[0] felt to me. It’s an interactive experience rather than a game, and while the graphics are good it still seems like early days for the tech, but it’s so much more immersive than a 2D non-interactive film. The immersion is difficult to describe, but you get to do things like wander around your personal ship, talk to your droid assistant, and of course wield a lightsaber.
There’s three episodes, and I’ve only done the first so far but plan to complete the other two soon. I have no idea how long I spent in the first one, probably a little over an hour. They’re $10 each, which might seem on the steep side for something shorter than a movie, but there’s a little replayability (there’s lightsaber trainer to practice) and I’ll gladly replay the mission a couple times even though I expect the same story.
> Reminds me of a game I used to play called Space Station 13. It's a completely unique game. Imagine a giant game of Among Us, but with the engine complexity of Dwarf Fortress.
I rather like games that have a lot of depth to them, especially if they manage to be at least remotely approachable.
For anyone craving a mechanically interesting single player experience, there's Ostranauts, which sees you trying to make a living in space with your own shuttle, space stations to explore and derelicts to salvage. It is mechanically interesting, if a bit unfinished (early access): https://store.steampowered.com/app/1022980/Ostranauts
And for something closer to SS13 that has multiplayer, there is also Barotrauma. In that game, a crew needs to operate a vessel, except that it's a submarine, chaos also ensues: https://store.steampowered.com/app/602960/Barotrauma/
I've never spent too much time in either of the games, but I admire the concepts and hope that eventually we'll get more (finished) projects like that, even if it's a bit of a niche type of game or audience.
IIRC the general tech level was essentially the recent past, but the technology to support this full-body VR game existed with no other consequences. And I think there was also an implication that it was multiplayer with another star system? (again, through unexplained technology with no other consequences).
reply