The Virtual Halt

 

Within the vast of world of art mediums gaming is still relatively new in consideration. Interactive media lacks the long centuries of growth and maturity and thus remains decently volatile in the way it evolves and adapts- couple that with the hyper connected age of the 2000's where styles adapt and change rapidly and it can feel like entire ages of art shift overnight were once they would last at least a couple generations of human life. It can make what would otherwise be a failed moment in the evolution of art into a mere flash in a quickly forgotten pan. And it was only really recently when I was reminded of once such promising branch which has, once again, found itself largely overshadowed in the modern world of grasping innovation- Virtual Reality.

When first we touched on this concept there was no doubt that the world was in no way ready for the promise of what VR could provide- just from a technological level the Red Scan-lines of the Virtual Boy were better for little more than a tech demo than really creating a unique interactable world space. The 'Virtual Boy' better realised the promise of 3d animation than actual full-immersive play. But throughout the years there have been several pokes at trying to get VR off the ground once again as technology has progressed and honestly I thought the latest one might have been it, what with the actual promise finally reaching fruition, but still some nagging hang-ups slip in the way between mass adoption and mass development.

With the announcement of a VR version of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas I- well to be honest I did absolutely nothing because I don't remember hearing about that at all. The first I heard was when the thing was put on indefinite hold just a few days ago- (officially, I'm sure it was internally on the back bench for a while before IGN came poking.) which was when I really started to realise what a back foot the VR world is somehow back on again. I mean sure- "why would you want a VR version of a blocky 2004 world anyway- sounds like 'motion sickness the game!'" but on the otherhand why not just make the VR version of one of the most legendary entries to the biggest game franchise on the world? Isn't that a licence to print money? Unless... unless it isn't.

Because even in this enlightened age of ours- VR just really isn't a player within the space like it wants to be. Certainly doesn't help that the world underwent a financial downturn at the start of this new VR age, which considerably lowered public tolerance for trying out expensive new technological toys they may or may not like. But whatever the overall cause the result is that we are once again in the exact same holding pattern. People aren't buying up these headsets like they should be meaning developers aren't dedicating themselves to as bustling an audience as they want which means they need to be significantly more picky about where they sink their development funds. Is the public really going to flock to a VR version of San Andreas just 'for the nostalgia'? 

And whilst we're on 'costs'- VR games aren't getting any cheaper to make now are they? Well, on that point I don't suppose any game is going down in costs as we approach the new age- but there seems to be something excessively pricey about VR endeavours. Remember the ill-fated Metaverse project that Facebook was on for a while? A crappy social meeting space that ended up going nowhere because they were developing it for an audience that didn't exist? Yeah- that cost Facebook literally into the billions before they were forced to pull back on it. Billions that resulted in totally forgettable crap over-stuffed with sponsorship nonsense that pales in comparison to what Fortnite managed to pull off within a shorter time frame. And that's not exactly uncommon.

Well the 'billion dollar' development price tag might be uncommon- but ballooned budgets for VR games are just a headache. Whether it's because of how finicky this technology is, or how relatively new it is to the world requiring total invention to mimic relatively simple non-VR game styles, or maybe just the lack of accessible tools for the aspiring developer- whatever the case you won't see an indie rocking up to this space anytime soon and that should be pretty telling. Right now VR is practically ruled by a handful of studios who have pretty much primed themselves to deliver only VR related stuff for the foreseeable future and whilst that gives them pretty much the run of the audience, it's also a damning condemnation of the viability of this sector of the market.

San Andreas VR is an actual project that got officially halted- but how many others died in the pitch room because of the simple costs involved and the lack of prospective return at the end of it all? There really doesn't feel like a serious contingent of VR centric purists out there- honestly even the Stadia stans were more outspoken during their brief foray into utmost delusion. Virtual Reality might just have hit the ceiling once again and this time I couldn't really say what the problem is. Perhaps standardisation of the technology is key, putting it in as many households as possible, getting cheaper alternatives on the market- then developing killer apps can be seen as a worthwhile pursuit for teams out there. But how really realistic is that?

I like the idea of VR. I think it's a promising field especially for gaming, what with the way we can revolutionise experiencing immersion within such a field. Half Life managed to create an awesome little adventure using all of that- and I don't think they were using the absolute limits of what was possible to do so. But until a little bit of a reality check is visited on this studio- and someone enters the market with more an interest in VR on a hardware front, we're going to see the gap widen between ordinary gamers and the tiny VR niche. Maybe we need another manufacture to enter the ring and shake things up. Hey, I hear Xbox might need a new gig after they're done screwing up their console market!

After the Fall

I think we dropped the baton like the sixties didn't happen

There's a certain breed of executive out there who's convinced that the 'future of the games industry' revolves around sales models and accessibility. The kind who split hairs about how much a game should cost, the shape of it's post-sales monetisation schemes and selling games to people through direct, preferably subscription-based, online fronts that limit manufacturing costs. And, of course, they are right that these are preeminent issues of the gaming market that need to be discussed and figured out, although not always to the ends that they seek. However, I'm more of a direct consumer of games, with little love for the industrious side of our little industry; instead I find myself interested in the creative side of our 'industry future'. For in my eyes, what value is there in reworking the sales model of a game that's a pale update to an 18 year-old series? >cough< COD >cough<. Thus, whereas Google wants me thinking about the platforms I game on, I think about the construction of the game, which leaves me still somewhat insistent that VR has a Requiem to come.

We've heard precious little from the exciting frontier of VR gaming, despite it seeming very clear how it would be the fertile ground for the gaming future not so long ago. How long back was it that everyone was getting in on the market with either fully realised VR games or VR reworkings of old titles? Heck, I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you in the least to know that even Skyrim got a VR version released. All other huge leaps in the game-creation-process tend to be a tad more technical and so can become a little lost in translation. Raytracing? I suppose that effects real-time reflections or something? Sure, that's a little cool for a few minutes. 4K 60FPS? Still not really sold on the fact that 4K makes things better enough to warrant several hundred extra pounds to be honest. More teraflops? That still, and always will, sounds like a made up thing that the tech sector dreamed up in an industry-wide group snapchat to troll us normies. But when I think of VR, that's when my eyes really flash with visions of the future, when I wring my hands together and drool with anticipation, when I Stand tall and proclaim "Kono Giorno Giovanna niwa yume ga aru". (Wait, only half of that last statement made sense. I said I'm who now?)

The problem with VR, as I see it, is that so many of the VR titles made specifically for the platform are experience pieces that really aren't substantial enough to warrant people to go out and buy a machine to test them for themselves. (That and the prohibitive cost of any decent version of the hardware) Maybe you'll get to climb a mountain, or swim with sharks or... reject your humanity and become a VR Chat degenerate, descend into a bad game with Worse Company; but is any of that really worth your time or money? Recent years have given a few Shining Diamonds that stood out from the crowd, but you still can tell the herculean effort that went into making these titles far exceeds the work that would go into a normal title, thus it makes sense why so few studios take up the challenge. Yet whenever one does I would be remiss not to give them the time of day, and so when I see 'After the Fall' promising to deliver VR customers that classic co-op FPS action content that they've been missing out on, I see the potential.

Made by Vertigo Games, a studio with some priors in the VR sector, 'After the Fall' takes a frighteningly simple concept and threatens to modernize it under the scope of a VR title. We all know Co-op zombie shooter games afterall, the sorts of games that pride themselves around carnage thrown at the screen and wall-to-wall chaotic action in the most exciting moments. Games that champion multiplayer corporation with Echoes of the apocalypse sprinkled in there for flavouring. Titles like Left 4 Dead, Back 4 Blood and... well those two mainly. How much can the VR space add to the frantic action of those types of games in order to forge a true Gold Experience? Immersion. That added layer of dynamic and accurate player-avatar movement-tracking fits right at home with the in-your-face insanity of zombie horde shooter games.

'After the Fall' takes place within the alternate 1980's of Los Angeles (because every game has to be set in the same 2 US cities, apparently) and is said to take place 20 years after the end of the world; which almost makes it sound like a side-game from the 'Remnant' series. Wait, hang on; so The World ended in the sixties? Is this some sort of anti-hippie propaganda? Perhaps that's the hidden piece of lore to flesh out this game, because otherwise I suspect we're looking at a gameplay-focused romp with as little context as possible. As long as there's space for zombies of all different types to launch themselves at you, they'll have all the story they need because we honestly don't need anymore than that. (L4D certainly thrived just fine on that alone) Although speaking of; this will be a game to feature special types of undead and even big bosses, crossing that gap from average Zombie game to one that at least promises to have some sort of potential difficulty curve. (I appreciate the effort, big props.)

Even just looking at little glimpses of gameplay I can really see the ways in which Vertigo have grabbed ahold of this VR opportunity to try and push this somewhat familiar formula forward. In one shot you can see zombies crawling on the ceilings in an almost Xenomorph-esque fashion, taking up the sort of space that might only be caught in your peripheral vision, because that's the sort of cone of vision now open to the level designers through a VR headset. Gun mounted flashlights can open up the possibility of dark and tighter spaces that require quick movements in order to see around and faster moving enemies than what is typically seen in the VR scene helps keep the pressure up so that the average player won't fell like a total waste of space when he Bites the Dust. (Somehow even when you get helplessly swarmed by unassailable hoards of merely walking zombies, it still becomes the most embarrassing moment of your life.)

Of course, bringing all of this to the VR space is going to come with it's setbacks, and in this game's case the most obvious example is in the graphical fidelity. Looking at some of the character models for the enemies it's clear to see that we're looking at rough textures and rendering, but that's really what you have to deal with when making games for the most affordable pieces of hardware. Resolution is taxing and only the Index, as far as I'm aware, has a resolution capability surpassing 1080p, but giving how those headsets are still closer to 4 digits than most would like, it makes sense for Vertigo to aim for more sensible specs. And even if the raw graphical potential won't bring me to Heaven's Door in ecstasy, I can still respect the artistic intent behind it, because it's not so often we get to see a zombie apocalypse take place in a world so fallen. I like the '20 years of decay' style this game has going for it, give me S.T.A.L.K.E.R vibes, which I appreciate. (Although the colour grading is looking a little monochrome, as I'm sure you notice. Blue is gonna get boring real quick.)

Truly ground-breaking VR titles that fully take advantage of their unique platform to make their game are sure to be what grants eventual value to the VR market. But the games which pull that off, your Half Life: Alyx and Boneworks sorts of games, don't come around every other week. I think that we'll need an entirely separate industry of dedicated and learned VR developers to reach a good point with the VR market, and things are certainly trending in that direction. Until that time, however, games like this one which take the familiar and identify a few ways in which VR could maybe do it better will take up the space between now and then. But I feel it, in my bones I do, that one day VR games are going to reach a point where their sheer value proposition, immersion and engagement is going to hit the gaming public like a Sheer Heart Attack, and titles like 'After The Fall' will be the rungs on the ladder to get there. If there's but one question I have for myself to end on, it's why on earth did I choose to make no less than 12 stupid JOJO references in this blog.  Because that's just how excited this promising future makes it- is my excuse.

Occulus: Path of the Warrior

Day by day.

Virtual reality is a like a steady wave, rising and falling at a steady pace most of the time before a dramatic lurch and sudden crash. I'd like to think that Half-Life: Alyx was the first huge lurch that the tech has seen in terms of scope and quality in a long while, but I wonder at whether or not 'Path of the Warrior' continues that trajectory or falls short of the shore. Seeing as how I seem to have taken it upon myself to look over all of the VGA games for better or for worse, it seems I have forced myself into also looking at this misbegotten project, so I'll see where that goes.

From a conceptual standpoint, Path of the Warrior seems like a title that has started it's life on a straight trajectory to failure. By that I'm specifically referring to the way that the game itself is aimed at emulating the side-scrolling beat-em-up genre from yesteryear. This would put this title in the same crib as titles like 'Final Fight', 'Streets of rage' and 'Double dragon', all powerhouses in their day but games with have aged poorly with time. Whilst many classic adventures are still as fun to go through today as they were in their inception, (albeit with some allowances on our part) these titles only really hold-up with nostalgia. That is the reason why so few of these series' have persisted to this day and that those that have are widely panned with each release. They cannot capture the magic of the past because that magic is seemingly gone.

Path of the Warrior places itself in a precarious position immediately, and things aren't helped by the way that the marketing seems confused on where it wants to aim. Take a preliminary look at any modern day side-scrolling beat-em-up and you'll see the way in which they peddle 'member berries to their audience. (To borrow South Park's Metaphor.) You'll almost always see the footage of the beloved old titles spliced together into a nostalgic trip down memory lane before it all gets cut down by the new title. ('With HD graphics!') It's a very simple and emotionally manipulative tactic but it is effective and that is because it relies on things feeling familiar enough to get people hooked. Twisted Pixel's game seemed to understand this approach rather well, but somehow they still failed to stick the landing.

The VGA trailer that we saw featured a traditional pixel recreation of the standard elements that one would expect from a beat-em-up. A classic pixel style, several oddly placed barrels and a setting so cliche that these games could be created with nothing more than an AI at this point. But wait, there's a huge switch up as the camera shifts from a clear establishing shot of the bar and shoots into the player characters head, forcing us into a whole new experience. At this point almost everything recognizable about beat-em-ups fizzles away and we are left feeling as though our time has been a little bit wasted. The endearing pixel art is replaced by a goofy cartoonish style, the simple two button system becomes more complex and involved and, crucially, the game stops being an lounge-ideal time waster and becomes an active experience. So are we supposed to to engage our nostalgia or expect something new? (Marketing needs to be a lot clearer than this guys!)

That being said, I personally have never been a huge fan of the 'Beat-em-up' genre, so I actually enjoyed the direction that this trailer took quite a bit. I feel that the 'faux-pixel' art style is frightfully overplayed in today's industry (Although I don't particularly like these visuals any better) and I always thought that the two button control scheme of most beat-em-ups left so much to be desired. With the freedom of movement allowed by VR, this title can allow players to grab ahold of enemies and pick up items to bash over their heads. My favourite moment of this being show off was when we saw the player dome an opponent with a dart. (Something which is an actual phobia of mine, so I suppose this worked as a kind of therapy.)

Unlike with all of the other trailers that I have covered about the VGA, this one accompanied a game that released the same night therefore I have actual impressions and final-game footage to shift through too. Initial lookovers have been fairly positive for this title, as most seem to deem it a fun time waster for those with an Occulus already, although it ain't no system seller. (Which is something that the rift is in dire need of.) The gameplay seems to be intuitive and bouncy enough to emulate the light enjoyment of it's inspiration without falling for the trappings of feeling too samey that a lot of emulators do.

'Path of the Warrior' feels like the kind of game that VR was made for, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right kind of game for VR. Right now the biggest criticism with the platform is the way in which most games for it are weak and devoid of creativity and heart, and this title doesn't really seem to challenge that in the slightest. At least Half-Life: Alyx seems ready and willing to take a chance on a full blown product regardless of how that ultimately ends up, and I really wish that other titles would follow Valve's lead.

I realize that I've used this blog to big-up Half-life as much as to talk about Path of the Warrior, but that's only because Alyx was meant to show up at the VGA's before something inexplicable happened to prevent that. Admittedly that sucks for Path of the Warrior which is doomed by association, but that is the reality of game design sometimes. This may be a fun title but it has been swept under the rug by folk who have their eyes on something much grander, and I'm guilty of the exact same thing. So good work I guess, but kindly move over for what we can only hope to be the new age of VR coming eerily soon.

The practical insanity of Virtual Reality

Jamiroquai is gonna sue...

Today I had the idea of looking at an aspect of gaming that I have been very quiet on with this blog, or just in general. This is because I usually prefer to write about topics with which I posses something of a first hand account. However, recently I appear to have been branching out into Blogs detailing my thoughts on the future of gaming, so I might as well get to the one thing that everyone keeps telling me is the future; Virtual Reality. Namely, how impractical it currently is and how much I feel needs to change/improve before it starts to 'take over gaming'.

It seems that widespread virtual reality is still failing to reach the levels of cultural proliferation that we were promised back when Vive and Occulus were in their infancy. You know, the time when all of these budding tech companies were stroking their VR patents and scoffing at anyone who considered their ventures with a raised eyebrow. "Laugh it up kid, in a couple of years you'll be the stupid one." And, to their credit, both companies are still in business so something must be going right. (Despite that messy lawsuit with Zenimax.) But we've yet to reach the 'headset in every home' campaign promise that made us sign up all those years ago. Sure we've seen that the Playstation 5 intends to redesign and buff up it's Playstation VR into the eloquently named: Playstation VR 2; and rumors persist that Microsoft's Project Scarlett will support some form of VR, but these announcements seem like footnotes compared to the real system sellers. "Oh yeah, we're doing VR. But check out our resolutions and our RAM! That's the real deal baby!"

This situation has had me wondering; Why? Why isn't VR the powerhouse that it rightly should be. And don't get me wrong, it rightly should be the next big step in gaming. Afterall, where else is there to go? We've created games that look so authentic that stills of 'The Last of Us Part 2' genuinely look true-to-life with the right lighting. Realism has reached the point that it seems there is little more possible improvement in the visual department. (Except maybe training better animation algorithms to lighten heavy workloads.) So shouldn't we all be retreating into Ready Player One's Oasis and teaming up with Tracer and the Iron Giant to bring down big cooperate. (I never watched Ready Player One, if that isn't readily apparent.) It seems not. Or at least, not yet.

I feel like there are a few factors at play here but to start with I want to address the systems and games that one has at their disposal with VR, and why they may not be enough to support a mass exodus to this new hardware. Take a look at the spectrum of VR games out and you may notice something, most of them are shallow. Just like with any new console, the VR space was flooded with tech demo 'experinces' that amounted to little more than touring players through a space and showing off all the cool things that the system could accomplish. Of course, with VR these experiences are far more interesting than anything we're likely to see Christmas 2020 when the new console generation launches, purely for the gimmick of total visual immersion; but it's still a gimmick and those are usually characterized by their short life spans, and such should be the case with VR.

However, things don't seem to have gone that route. Even now we are seeing 'experince' games that exist to do little more than wow their audience with a quick, but expensive, tour. (More on that little caveat later.) Back in the launch period, these titles were more blatant. There was the game in which you went shark diving in the deep ocean and got attacked by a shark, or the one in which you went mountain climbing in the Andes. There was even one which shot players up an elevator and played off of your vertigo/fear of heightsin order to get a rise out of you. These were 'amusement park' tier attractions that one is expected to pay top dollar for. Later on in the life of VR, things hardly got any better. There was Ghostbusters VR, which offered people nothing more than a tour through the iconic firestation and literally nothing else. Rollercoaster dreams, which is a rollercoaster. And countless 'things you could do in real life but lack the freedom and time to do' games that you'll soon start to forget that these systems were originally marketing as 'gaming platforms.'

That isn't to say that every VR game is a 'sit back and do nothing' snorefest. Over the years there have been some VR games that have tried to buck the trend set by their contemporaries and deliver something worthwhile. The VR game 'John Wick Chronicles' allowed people to fight their way through heavy gunfire sceanrio's with none of the deftness of the iconic man-on-fire hero but all of the bullets. Until Dawn Rush of Blood was... another rollercoaster game! Really? Okay, but this one did focus on scaring the player with weak jump scares and keeping them somewhat entertained with on-the-rails shooter segments. And Lone Echo was a fully realized game about solving puzzles and traversing space as a robot which no control over his legs. All these games were active attempts to do something fun with the VR space, but most of them delivered something that was palatable for a moment, but hardly worth the heavy asking price on the box. (With the exception of Lone Echo, that game was pretty cool.)

Some other developers tried to make games that really took advantage of what VR had to offer, and these were the kind of experiences that most users would be familiar with. Owlchemy labs seem to be the masters of this right now with their expanding 'Job Simulator' brand of games and their 'Rick and Morty' experience to boot. Those games took advantage of the way that VR sets you into a fully interactible space and mixed it with fun, sometimes dry, humor; which I can appreciate being a Brit. Then there is the VR exclusive version of SUPERHOT, which removed the movement/time manipulation aspect of the console game in favour of a system wherein careless hand gestures could spell your doom. And then there is the streaming darling: BeatSaber, which completely supplants DanceDance Revolution as the music rhythm game of the modern generation. (And they didn't even need to turn tricks for Sony in order to get an ad in The Emoji Movie. For shame, Ubisoft!)

The problem that all these games suffer from right now is one that is in serious need of innovation; (I.e. a problem that won't be solved from just throwing money at it) most VR games are incapable of facilitating movement. This is not just because of bad control set-up (although that is a factor) but more due to the inherent motion sickness that many users suffer from when their world view shifts without their body moving. It's a disconnect that the human body wasn't built to handle and thus can really mess with people's heads. Unfortunately, the cost of this issue is that many VR developers find themselves stuck with the ideas that can be realized when your player is stuck to one spot. Some games have come up with the 'teleport method' but that is murder to immersion, so that cuts off a huge amount of the appeal of VR for a great deal of potential developers and consumers. What is left are games that are either really basic on-the-rails affairs (A genre which should be killed in a fire) or imaginative games which manage to make things interesting without changing the players location too often. (Although that takes real thought and effort to achieve so most people just give up and decide to make a console game instead.)

Additionally, the effort required to develop a VR game often far exceeds the returns that one could expect, and I'm not just talking about software difficulties. (Although I'm told that those do exist.) Rather I referencing the way that a VR environment requires a lot more care and attention be devoted to every aspect of design due to the fact that players are far closer to the world and they would be through a TV screen. Suddenly, all textures have to look good up close for fear of the player sticking their face all up in it. (Don't want anyone to start hurling the second they start making out pixels.) Then there is the fact that developers have to work overtime to hide the seams of the world, because players can look up and over everything within range of their grubby little mitts. You bet that means studios are forcing their modellers to texture the bottom of coffee cups to minute details. (Bethesda may be use to it but everyone else is still adjusting.) All that work is made despite the fact that the number of consumers who actually consume VR content is far inferior to other forms of digital entertainment; so why bother with all that effort in the first place?

But we've just gone all the way around back to the original point; nobody is playing VR. Why? Well, for my part I suspect that this could come down to two factors and both of them have to do with money. (Although bear in mind this is coming from the mind of a real life Scrooge McDuck here, so take this hypothesis with several grains of salt.) Here in the UK, a HTC Vive headset will set people back a cool £499, with the Pro variant reaching up to £800. Even the cheaper option, The Occulus Quest, is retailing for £399 on Amazon. This tech is going for console-grade price points despite the fact that their gaming versatility is laughable compared to even the most pitiful consoles. Few big companies even bother to support the VR ecosystem with games and those that do rarely put any effort behind their offerings. This has led to the VR marketplace being flooded with low effort or over priced products that leave a sour taste in the mouth of consumers. There might even be actual consumer dissent if the gimmick of virtual reality wasn't powerful enough to keep people hooked. Yet despite that, word of mouth tends to be more along the lines of "Not yet, but keep an eye on things" Instead of "Go out and buy a headset right now!"

"Surely there must be good, worthwhile, fairly-priced games on the VR marketplace!" You may be asking. And you would be right, of course there is. The problem is that the vast majority of them are video games already exist on paltry non-VR consoles. The best VR shooter right now is probably Payday 2, (which is on Steam) the best open world game, and I'm using 'best' to denote the fact that there is literally no other competition in this department, is Skyrim VR (Which is based on the Special Edition available on consoles and Steam) and the best horror game is undoubtedly Resident Evil 7 VR. (Which is similarly available everywhere.) None of these experiences are exclusive to VR and yet hold a prohibitively expensive barrier-to-entry in order for the general public to get hold of them. (Except for Resident Evil VR. That's available on PSVR which is by-far the most reasonably priced VR option at £150 on Amazon.)

At the end of the day, the tech may be there for great VR games to exist, but none of the other infrastructure has caught up yet. Studios aren't willing to code for it, consumers aren't willing to fork out for it, and the native games aren't good enough to make people willing. Recent times have seen some legitimate efforts to make something special; 'Blood and Truth', though horribly cliched, seems to be a decent B-List action game. (Actually I just read the title aloud to myself, make that D-List.) and Lone Echo is getting a sequel that looks to be a bit more hands on. But we have a ways to go before VR gaming becomes a genuine contender for gamer's screentime. Maybe once the studios start getting behind the concept, and the retailers start pricing the equipment reasonably, we'll start to see something real special bloom in the world of gaming. Who knows, maybe 10 years in the future this will be a VR blog. I'm joking. I'll definitely have killed myself long before then. (If VR vertigo doesn't kill me first.)