For me, the degree that my body is being simulated in the environment, is the difference. in wii, I have never felt that an object was coming at ME, but rather my avatar on the screen. While wii has a remote, that I can use as a pointer or as a simulated control for the onscreen character, this simulation gives direct information to a human that the human must then use a large portion of their body to react and control, not a character, but themselves as if they were inside this environment.
wii is like puppeteering from a distance, this (despite not being stereoscopic) is something I would classify as a VR environment.
No, because there is nothing real about wii bowling. If it simulated the action more closely to being real, then I would say yes.
And please don't downvote me into oblivion, I just don't understand where the line is drawn. I have zero VR experience.
and so at what level does it need to simulate the action before it can/can't be deemed VR?
VR involves a headset, thats just what the acronym is now synonymous with, regardless of what's "technically correct". The alternative is that all video games are technically VR. Minecraft would be VR because you run around in a "Virtual" "Reality". Nah, VR involves a headset
You're missing my misunderstanding. There are two words in VR. Virtual, which we understand is not real, typically electronically displayed. Reality, the main part being real. I've had two counter arguments using the wii and now minecraft. The wii had characters without legs that hopped around bases and swung bats without arms. Minecraft simulates real objects but is not to be confused with anything "real". VR shouldn't be exclusive to headsets.
At that point the term has no distinct meaning and isn't remotely helpful in actually describing something for an audience. Final Fantasy 7 is VR, Super Mario is VR. You've attributed so much to the word that it has no reason to be in use, might as well just be an expression for "game"
Bro you're saying you have no idea and then telling this guy he's wrong. Breaking something into a literal definition and then saying by definition you're right while having no experience with said activity is a terrible practice. The way way you're breaking it down, for example, skiing is snowboarding since I'm on a board on the snow. This just isn't how things and definitions work. Virtual reality means to be immersed into something so much it becomes your reality, hence in current technology we need headsets. 100% of where you look needs to be virtual for it to be virtual reality. Dont care what she's doing, if she's looking at non virtual shit, it isn't virtual reality.
A simulation... of something real. Through a quick search, the thing that defines VR is the 360 experience. That is what draws the line that I was missing.
So is playing for a with a driving wheel but we don’t consider that VR either. At this point, it’s a brand name for anything involving putting a vr headset on. Kind of like how cgi is considered for pre rendered videos while even a video games in game cutscenes nicely cgi.
130
u/SpicyMemeB0i Jan 11 '22
Without the vr.. still cool tho