DF Is there a way to play it with usual controller without VR? Can we have this officially supported?

[v00d00m4n]

Anyone in DF remember me? im that guy who fixed original psychonauts and grim remaster with unofficial patches and mods, and i really would like to play this piece of Psychonauts, but i dont own VR and i dont see in vidoes anything in this game that makes it impossible to play without VR - rotation of camera can be done with mini stick, as well as cursor\hand movement, a little clunky maybe, but possible. So, cant we have an update please for non VR mode? Or can you at least confirm what engine you use and how open and moddable it is to unofficially (yet again im planning to do a job instead of you) add non VR camera and controls support?

[Starcat5]

There is a reason I never got this game on the PS4. If the Devs or a Modder can get this to work for me without requiring a $200 ~ $400 headset that only works with two of my games, both of which have non-VR options, then I would gladly shell out full price for this game.

[Benamax]

Taking VR away from a VR game isn't really a good idea. It makes it far less enjoyable, and is purposefully going against the game's design. It'd probably be a better idea to just watch a video of it at that point.

[thegrandpoobah [GGS]]

It huts no one to have a non-VR version. Some people cannot afford VR. Others can't do VR because it makes them sick. I couldn't care less if it was "less impressive" without VR.

[Benamax]

Originally posted by thegrandpoobah GGS:

It huts no one to have a non-VR version. Some people cannot afford VR. Others can't do VR because it makes them sick. I couldn't care less if it was "less impressive" without VR.

Except most people will complain when the game isn't as fun as they imagined. Making low quality non-VR games will hurt people. It's like playing Wii Sports with an Xbox controller.

[thegrandpoobah [GGS]]

I have more then a few games that offer both. People will complain literally about anything.

[Benamax]

Originally posted by thegrandpoobah GGS:

I have more then a few games that offer both. People will complain literally about anything.

Yes, there are games that offer 2D and VR modes. But often, it starts off as a 2D game, and then gets VR support either in an update (Payday 2), or as a simple sit-down mode with little effort put in (Subnautica). Taking a VR-only game, and making it 2D is a harder process in most cases.

[thegrandpoobah [GGS]]

Not disagreeing on the difficulty of putting in a non-VR mode. Game developement isn't easy. I just feel for many games it is a tactical mistake to make a title VR only. WIth this title I feel that way. There hasn't been a new Pschyonauts title in a very long time, this would probably sell more if it offered both. I feel the same for most indy titles. You are automatically limiting your potential audiance, in some case by more then half, by making a title VR only. I want to also state that I am not agruing that ALL titles should offer both, there should be VR only titles. Just in many cases right now I feel it is a mistake to be VR only. In this economic climate many can just not afford one. It is still too new. VR hasn't been around long enough to become widely established. Just my personal opinion.

[thegrandpoobah [GGS]]

Not to mention that some people, like me, get sick with VR. While I am also sure that there will also be a surprising number of people who simply do not like VR.

[Benamax]

Originally posted by thegrandpoobah GGS:

Not disagreeing on the difficulty of putting in a non-VR mode. Game developement isn't easy. I just feel for many games it is a tactical mistake to make a title VR only. WIth this title I feel that way. There hasn't been a new Pschyonauts title in a very long time, this would probably sell more if it offered both. I feel the same for most indy titles. You are automatically limiting your potential audiance, in some case by more then half, by making a title VR only. I want to also state that I am not agruing that ALL titles should offer both, there should be VR only titles. Just in many cases right now I feel it is a mistake to be VR only. In this economic climate many can just not afford one. It is still too new. VR hasn't been around long enough to become widely established. Just my personal opinion.

I'm not just talking about the difficulty and costs of creating a non-VR mode, it's also the fact that it probably wouldn't be as enjoyable. Look up some gameplay of it on YouTube, and you'll notice that gameplay isn't a huge factor in this game. It's mostly the idea of being immersed in this wacky world. That's something that can't really be shown on a 2D screen. I wish it could, but it just can't. Changing the creator's vision for a game just to allow more people to play it is risky. It would remove the "wow" factor of this game in many areas. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that this game is more of an experience, rather than a game. It does have gameplay elements, but they're not very captiviating or fun. The focus is on the immersive world, and bringing it to life with VR. I know I've already said it, but it just can't be experienced with a 2D screen. You'll still get to go back to the world of Psychonauts in the sequel, and you won't need a VR headset to do it. But changing this current game in an attempt to make it more accessible isn't a good idea, in my opinion.

Originally posted by thegrandpoobah GGS:

Not to mention that some people, like me, get sick with VR. While I am also sure that there will also be a surprising number of people who simply do not like VR.

I'm also sorry that you can't experience VR. I really wish you could. But not all games are accessible to everyone. Games with immense difficulty, such as Cuphead and Dark Souls, are not for everyone. Some people wanted to just see the visuals of Cuphead, or explore the world of Dark Souls, but the developers stood by their vision for the game, and didn't change them. I'm not saying they couldn't create a non-VR mode for this game, it just would change the experience, likely in a bad direction.

[HalfChaos]

Originally posted by thegrandpoobah GGS:

It huts no one to have a non-VR version. Some people cannot afford VR. Others can't do VR because it makes them sick. I couldn't care less if it was "less impressive" without VR.

It costs money to make a vr-game not use vr in the same way it takes money to make a non-vr game vr compatible. Money doesn't grow on trees, so unless you're proposing a kickstarter...

[Mercury]

Without VR the game falls flat, it would be pretty trash tbh

[v00d00m4n]

Why do we need VR if we have 3D displays and Tobii Eye tracker? Pretty much enough to get immersed. Current vr controls so clunky and limited, especially walking (because I don't know what kind of idiot designed Vive and other vr controlers without mini stick are least likely one PS vita had, and without 12 classic buttons split across both hands for compatibility and smoother transition, so you can for example walk like normal instead of warping around), and lack of incut body and and hands, so it feels less immersive than flat screen with classic controls.

[Benamax]

Originally posted by Voodooman:

Why do we need VR if we have 3D displays and Tobii Eye tracker? Pretty much enough to get immersed. Current vr controls so clunky and limited, especially walking (because I don't know what kind of idiot designed Vive and other vr controlers without mini stick are least likely one PS vita had, and without 12 classic buttons split across both hands for compatibility and smoother transition, so you can for example walk like normal instead of warping around), and lack of incut body and and hands, so it feels less immersive than flat screen with classic controls.

Because 3D displays are quickly becoming outdated and unsupported. Tell me... have you ever actually used a VR headset? Compared to a 3D monitor, it's 10 times more immersive. It takes up your vision, gives you hands to look at, and feels closer to being inside the game than 3D ever will. Don't get me wrong, I love 3D. I own a 3D television myself. But it's nowhere near the level of immersive that a VR headset can give. Yes, locomotion is an issue. Full body presence is also an issue. But what we have right now with VR is still more immersive than looking at a flat 2D/3D screen.

[Space Coward]

Originally posted by Voodooman:

Why do we need VR if we have 3D displays and Tobii Eye tracker? Pretty much enough to get immersed. Current vr controls so clunky and limited, especially walking (because I don't know what kind of idiot designed Vive and other vr controlers without mini stick are least likely one PS vita had, and without 12 classic buttons split across both hands for compatibility and smoother transition, so you can for example walk like normal instead of warping around), and lack of incut body and and hands, so it feels less immersive than flat screen with classic controls.

Sorry, but... this just shows a lack of research. The Oculus actually has thumbsticks, as well as multiple buttons, and while I disagree with the decision to use touchpads on Vive, it makes games such as H3VR notably smoother. In the meantime, you're free to walk around by walking around. As in, physically.

Tobii and triple monitors don't even come close to the feel of VR-- the feel of having everything follow you as you walk around a room, or swiveling 180 degrees behind you to stare at a fish outside the window instead of your living room. There's just no comparison.

If this game did have a non-VR version, it would most likely be panned as a "walking simulator," a "dull barebones cash-in," or any other assortment of cheap and easily repeatable phrases to use online. The whole draw is having to examine an environment in person, and it's probably the best I've seen of the concept... removing VR would completely kill every accomplishment this game has going for it.

[eqalidan]

Originally posted by Benamax:

Originally posted by Voodooman:

Why do we need VR if we have 3D displays and Tobii Eye tracker? Pretty much enough to get immersed. Current vr controls so clunky and limited, especially walking (because I don't know what kind of idiot designed Vive and other vr controlers without mini stick are least likely one PS vita had, and without 12 classic buttons split across both hands for compatibility and smoother transition, so you can for example walk like normal instead of warping around), and lack of incut body and and hands, so it feels less immersive than flat screen with classic controls.

Because 3D displays are quickly becoming outdated and unsupported. Tell me... have you ever actually used a VR headset? Compared to a 3D monitor, it's 10 times more immersive. It takes up your vision, gives you hands to look at, and feels closer to being inside the game than 3D ever will. Don't get me wrong, I love 3D. I own a 3D television myself. But it's nowhere near the level of immersive that a VR headset can give. Yes, locomotion is an issue. Full body presence is also an issue. But what we have right now with VR is still more immersive than looking at a flat 2D/3D screen.

yes I have, and no it isn't. Granted, nothing really comes close to the epcot center 3d gimmick screen, but vr itself is nothing special, not until you can move your eyes and have no way to see the thing on your head.

room scale vr, while it can be fun, is a VERY limiting factor. I personally have all of about a square yard, and if I have to wave my arms around, there is a good chance of hitting my monitor because my bed is right behind me, though im lucky and could route the cables below me to an area of the basement that is more or less clear of crap.

also, as for 3d dying as a display format... every tv that can do 120hz and every monitor that can do 120+ can do 3d.