Gaming Adr1ft Review

The sheer arrogance of this statement is astonishing!

Just because we aren't drooling at the thought of VR, we're ignorant to the technology and must be led into the light?!

 

no.
the presence

 

I assume you meant "present".

Another huge dollop of arrogant bullsh!t.

 

@rainbowbridge: You have to understand that there are people who don't want to go into VR just yet for varying reasons.

I'm waiting for when the headsets can achieve at least UHD resolution at =>60Hz for EACH eye in the most demanding games. I also know that SLI/Crossfire support isn't offered yet but if they can hit my specifications, I'll buy into it. After having spent the last two and a half years gaming in UHD, I will not accept anything less. In fact, 1080p is now positively horrible to look at for me (unless on my 14" laptop). However, I'm not about to stomp around demanding that others also meet my expectations.

Also, bear in mind that some people actually get ill using the current VR gear. What about them?

Edit: sorry Gareth, you ninja'd me!

 

Exactly right. Utterly bizarre the reviewer is completely oblivious to this being a VR title. We know it's not the greatest game ever, it's more of an experience and showcase for VR and it actually does that very well. Playing without VR is a waste of time and the reviewer is an idiot. This is a budget title to showcase vr. Without vr it's flat and lifeless.

Yes it could have been so much better in gameplay and soma is a much better game for the 2d gamers out there.

 

Yes and those people can play soma as the reviewer states... A much better game. Non vr gamers playing vr games is a wasted effort. It's like me reviewing soma on a vr website: 'Soma is a great game that could have been so much more with the addition of VR - as it is i can't recommend it to VR gamers due to the extreme flatness and cartoonish imagery 2d imposes'.

 

He's simply irritated that a vr game is reviewed and not one mention of the fact that it's built for vr.

I can understand his annoyance.

I bought this game with the awateness that it was more an experience for vr than a game. User reviews said that on steam. Thus i had no expectation of great gameplay and i would not have purchased this game without vr. It's nice to float around a space station with everything life size 3d. In 2d it looks **** and isn't worth the time.

Perhaps this journalist will review Eve Valkyrie next without one mention of VR?

 

Excuse my ignorance here, as I haven't really invested too much of my time in VR, but I do have a question.

What is the significance of the review for this game mentioning VR for some people?

OK, I get that Rick could have mentioned that this is a VR poster boy game, but exactly what context are you expecting him to mention that?

"This game was kind of boring in places, but it is meant for VR, which means the VR review would have garnered a higher score!"

 

I'm no VR fan, but if this game was designed as a poster boy for VR then I would have thought at least mentioning that would have been sensible.

I'm not saying it should have scored any better, but talking about the fact that it might be a slightly different experience/more enjoyable or whatever in VR seems logical to me.

 

The point is this is a VR title. The game itself isn't very good and out of context (vr) it's not worth the money.
As a vr experience it's worth it. No vr doesn't make a **** game good but vr isn't just about the gameplay... It's about the experience of being weightless in space and that is something vr is able to convey.

I play this in vr for the same reason I'd play 360 3d vr video. The experience of being there and that is conveyed very well in this VR experience. So yes, the reviewer is an idiot and he should follow this review with a review of eve valkyrie in 2d with no vr.

 

So a reviewer hasn't reviewed a game the way you think it should be reviewed so that makes said reviewer an idiot?

Abandoning thread now.

 

A bit harsh of me i would say.

I'm just writing that review of Soma on VR website now. Although i like the game a lot it is let down by extreme 2d ness and zero head tracking.

Actually had a rethink and I'm going back to my original assertion of idiot review.

Let's take a VR game and present it to non VR players and not once mention the fact that it's a VR game.

Let's totally overlook the fact that it was developed as a VR showcase and loses purpose outside of VR.

Im wondering which vr game he will review next?

 

Ok.

So asides from not mentioning that the game is 'also' in VR, you have no other complaint about the article?

A bit derailed here, but is SOMA in VR now? If that's the article you're writing, would you mind IM'ing me the link?

Ta

 

Thanks for the review ... I'm one of the (what, 99.9% ? - OK, 99% if we include people still waiting for the hardware)) bit-techers who doesn't have a VR headset, and I'm happy to know it's a rubbish game that I would be better not spending my money on.

 

The game was built primarily for VR so it shouldn't have been under review here.

As you can see... The result is non VR gamers have no real concept of a game having value as an immersive experience that makes you feel like you're weightless in space. All they see is "rubbish game".

The whole point i was making was that just as you have taken a VR game and presented it as a 2 dimensional non immersive game for the 2d brigade... I could take Soma and review it on a VR website where it would fail to measure up in terms of lifesize 3d visuals wherever you look (VR).

Taking a VR experience and reviewing it as a conventional game for the 2d crowd is dumb.

As i said... Might as well complete the stupidity by presenting some HTC vive games for the non-vr crowd as well.

 

Then it shouldn't have been released outside of a VR environment. The fact they've released it to be played outside of VR invites a non-VR review.

 

Ok, sure.

You could review SOMA on a VR website and say that it wasn't an immersive experience in VR, but was still a good game. Why can't the opposite stand?

Don't get me wrong here - I get what you're saying, and yes, I agree that the review probably should have mentioned that this was indeed designed 'Primarily' for VR...but not exclusively.

Even the Adr1ft (awful, putting the 1 in by the way) website doesn't actually mention that this game 'should' be played in VR. In fact, apart from mentioning you can buy it for Oculus, there isn't any suggestion that you should play it in VR.

By the way. This isn't Eurogamer. Let's keep 'so and so is stupid' comments for those sites.

 

Eurogamer: agree.

I actually bought the game knowing it was average. I still bought it for the vr experience though. Reviewer should at least have mentioned as you said. I'm wondering if he even knew it worked in vr?

 

RBB - How old are you? Im 39 and have been through two VR revolutions. For those of us that are of similar age, the current VR is very much deja vu. Prehaps to 14yos the current hype is so 'kool' that it removes the need of a game to entertain. For me and many others, if does not.

Just because I can turn my head around and in doing so what I see tracks, in actual 3D (a different 2D image provided to both eyes) - as has been said above - should not mean a game that has (as you stated) been developed as Oculus Rift eye candy, get a good score on a gaming site. Its a gaming review - not a 'pretty 3D experience review'.

I agree that the VR support should be mentioned as clearly this round of VR is bigger than the previous couple. However - a relatively basic game should be called out as such. If not, if we state this game is the best game ever developed, just because it supports VR, why should devs produce decent games?

I echo the thoughts of Gareth also. Well put.