Nobody seems to mention the fact that most of VR games out there require using the hard-to-familiarize hard-to-memorize joysticks to interact with the game.
I own a Valve Index and I mostly don't play it because of it's just really a hassle to have to physically stand up (or even seated) and to wave your arms around, only to forget how to reload your damn gun after a couple of weeks/months of not playing.
I wish that people built simple keyboard-and-mouse VR games that I could enjoy the VRness of the experience using my fingers and palms like I'm used to in the past 30 years.
I want CSGO VR, not a good-looking-cheap-knock-off that I need to figure out how to reload each gun and where to draw the grenade from. I want Cities Skylines VR where I can see my city from above wherever I look.
I want Red Alert VR.
The most enjoyable games I currently have that is worth whipping VR out for are those I can play with a regular XBox controller which I'm quite familiar with already.
This is fascinating, because my instinct is completely opposite :)
I enjoy VR games for their easy-start/easy-stop hassle-free/memorization-free aspect. If I want a 3 hour session of complex game, I start my PC. If I have 10 minutes and just want to PLAY during those 10 minutes, I pick up my Quest2 and just... go. Whether I played yesterday or month ago, they tend to be intuitive. I absolutely positively do not want mouse and keyboard to be part of my VR experience :-).
Maybe your complaint is about bad VR games, because those certainly exist!
If I want to go back and play GTA V or RDR2 after a few months, I'm going to spend ~10 minutes finding a guide to my Xbox controller and trying to remember how you do all ~30 actions. And then still spend the next 30 minutes pressing the wrong buttons until I finally get back in my muscle memory.
On my Quest 2, you just go. Of course the games tend to be much simpler too. But memorizing how to use the controllers has just never been something I had to do.
This seems like a strange example because out of my fairly large VR game collection, I can't think of a single shooter where reloading is anything different from just physically doing a reload action like you would with a real gun. I can only think of two games where the ammo is stored differently than real life (Compound and Alyx), the rest have ammo pouches and belts.
I can think of one smaller game where reloading is different, and that's Space Pirate Trainer, where you bring your guns behind your back for a moment. But that's more of an arcade game than what most people mean when they talk about shooters.
Maybe give Subnautica a try. Or the old version of HL2 on VR.
> physically doing a reload action like you would with a real gun
More like physically doing a reload action while wearing a thick pair of well-buttered gloves.
Each game does have small differences in the reloading process, be it pressing a specific button to release the slide or (strangely) pulling the charging handle every reload. Even firearms enthusiasts would have to learn these details.
Beyond that, VR controls are still limited. You have little to no tactile feedback, so you don't intuitively know when you failed to grab the magazine off of your belt or failed to grip the bolt. You have to learn the exact positions and tolerances to avoid slipping up and botching an entire reload in the heat of the moment. I find this to be completely unsatisfying in comparison to mastering a real life manual task.
I also often find myself banging my controllers together, especially when handling pistols.
I think most people find this kind of thing frustrating and immersion breaking, which pretty much defeats the draw of VR gaming.
My favorite VR game is Resident Evil 4 partly because it seems that they focused on reducing the friction of weapon handling. Most processes are fairly simplified and the tolerances are generous, but you still get that heightened level of intractability in VR vs a simple button press.
Reloading typically involves disengaging and removing the empty magazine, sliding in a fresh magazine, and then pulling back on the gun's slide to chamber a round.
If you shoot real guns a lot, it's probably second nature. But it's a fairly involved motor process that's cumbersome to implement in VR. Furthermore, different guns in FPS games can have different (often creative) reload animations; Reaper from Overwatch for instance, simply discards his twin short-barrel shotguns and pulls out two new ones. Will these different reload animations necessitate different VR gestures?
Going for realism in VR or any video game is fraught with these kinds of problems. "The more you get specific about situations analogous to reality, the more you have to stipulate on." --Egoraptor
(There's a YouTube channel of a guy who makes different "reload animations" of himself wielding various objects (smoke detectors, caulk guns, toasters, Furbies, etc.) as "guns" with a different, unique way of reloading each: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHi-xECyGTU )
It’s common beginner gamedev thinking that making things more realistic makes them better. It’s only fun if it’s fun. Realistic is usually != fun. Maximizing the core fun element, taking away everything else, is a good way to make a fun game.
Realistic skydiving game: Start! Drive your civic to the DZ. Oh no there’s traffic! Wait for plane. Get in plane. Take 20 minutes to fly to altitude. Fall for 1 minute. There are no obstacles, nothing around you so you don’t die. Land. Wait to get picked up, take 1 hr to repack your parachute. Talk to your friends about how cool it was.
Fun skydiving game: Start! Jump out of airplane immediately. Skydive for 15 minutes. Surf on the wing of a plane. Avoid obstacles. Fly around buildings. Try to land in a swimming pool on the side of a mountain. Land. Parachute repacks automatically. You’re back in the air automatically.
> It’s common beginner gamedev thinking that making things more realistic makes them better. It’s only fun if it’s fun. Realistic is usually != fun.
As another case in point: movement speeds in most first-person 3D games are unrealistically fast (like, walking at 10 mph, running at 20+ mph), because realistic movement speeds would make navigating around the game world painfully slow.
We need a cops and robbers game where the robbers serve their prison sentence in real time, and the cops have to fill in mountains of paperwork for every shot fired :)
> Why would you want that, rather than just hitting 'r' or whatever?
I think it's more engaging/immersive not because it's more realistic, but rather because it adds nuance to the action and makes it more of a skill to be learned. The lows of the "oh shit" moment of flubbing a reload in the middle of a firefight and the highs of pulling off a perfectly timed John Wick-esque reload in the middle of a firefight are much more intense than just tapping a button.
It's a more embodied version of the "reload bar" mechanic in some games where you can just hit the reload button for a normal reload or hit it twice with good timing to get a better/faster reload, but if you miss the sweet spot you get a worse/slower reload.
The focus in VR games right now is creating realistic interactions. Ideally, your controllers should be only for interacting with meta content, like menus and other things "outside" of the game, or for controlling virtual hands.
Pushing a button to trigger a visible sequence of actions from your character breaks the immersion. It creates a separation between you and your character in a scenario where you're supposed to be the character.
Ultimately it is a stylistic choice. There's definitely room for both types of game in this space, but combining realistic and arcade style interactions in the same game tends to not work that well.
A big part of VR is manipulating psychology to fool you into feeling more immersed. It works pretty well until it doesn't, then users can become very uncomfortable.
I think the main problem here is semantics. We use the term VR to describe wholly-immersive games as well as traditional flat games with a 3D head mounted display, and everything in between. OP seems to just want a HMD experience tied to a traditional game. The industry really needs to come up with new terms to disambiguate these ideas.
Because if you hit "R" and your in-game model does something that you are not doing physically in real life, you will likely get motion sick or at least disoriented. It is a very unnatural feeling, and why VR games are so hard to design for.
> I can't think of a single shooter where reloading is anything different from just physically doing a reload action like you would with a real gun.
I'm fairly confident that more people have experience reloading video game guns (just press Square) vs. the motions required to reload a real gun.
I know that when I'm playing Pavlov, every time I spawn with a new gun, I have to relearn how to reload it (and then die surrounded by all the clips I've dropped).
> I know that when I'm playing Pavlov, every time I spawn with a new gun, I have to relearn how to reload it (and then die surrounded by all the clips I've dropped).
That is realism. Real guns are quite different in this regard too.
I understand you would prefer to just push a button but this makes it more realistic and adds another factor of skill.. Just like taking cover in real life.
Situational awareness in VR is better than pancake games. But a lot of other things are more difficult because it's more realistic.
No, you misunderstood me. I like the realistic reload mechanisms in Pavlov, I think they're fun and wouldn't change anything.
But the parent comment complained about having to relearn complex control schemes every time they pick up a VR game, which is valid. Effectively nobody is going to have the muscle memory for reloading a gun, making it strictly more complicated than just mashing a reload button.
Is that really different though from consoles? Most console games have control mechanisms that need to be learned for each game. Often with really complex button mechanisms. And as another poster pointed out, often you can have a button reload option too. Pavlov is different in this because it's a player versus player game, thus giving the option for a one-button reload would put the others using the more realistic option a disadvantage (so many times I've dropped a clip in Alyx and scrambling trying to grab it :D ).
So in PvP you need to make one choice and stick with it. Single player games don't have this issue.
The only game that really messed this up IMO was Lone Echo. There's a tutorial for a new thing every 2 minutes and that really gets annoying.
I'm kind of sick of the realistic reloading being so prevalent (and mandatory) in VR. It was novel for a while, but it really takes me out of focusing on what the enemies are doing. Especially since it's not something that 'just works if you get it somewhat right' for pretty much any of those games and sometimes requires more precision for grabbing ammo out of your belt than for shooting the damn enemies.
Many of them require you to grab something in your belt area (and I'm a fat guy, so several games already require me pushing into my body to get to the right position), and/or I'll try to do it without looking down (like I would in real life) but then the game thinks I clicked in the wrong area, so I have to look down each time and even then it seems I clicked just slightly off 2-3 times before I can grab the damn clip off my belt, and by then the zombie or whatever has closed half the distance to me.
You're already breaking immersion for movement by having a stick to move you around and not walking 1 to 1, just let me press a damn button, wait a couple seconds while focusing on the enemy, and keep shooting.
Also, requiring you to grab ammo from your belt pretty much stops the game from being able to be played seated, because you'll be jabbing your couch or chair arm trying to get to your virtual belt. Sometimes I just don't want to stand in place for an hour. For most of those games, that's the only thing keeping them from being playable while seated.
One of the reasons I like Space Pirate Trainer so much is because there's no immersion breaking there, it's all energy weapons and you just have to slow down or stop shooting for a moment for it to recharge enough to shoot again, no reload required. And I can keep my focus on the enemies swarming around me. But I want more games besides that, and there doesn't seem to be that many (at least not that I'm aware of).
Compound is another one I like, although it does have several steps for its more complicated guns (although not the basic guns, and I tend to rely heavily on those), and sometimes requires you to drop your second gun (for it to float in midair, mind you) so you have a hand free to reload your other gun. How's that for immersion breaking?
Any game where you're seated in some kind of cockpit is my idea of a perfect VR game. This way you can be comfortably sit at your desk with familiar controls, but still have immersive head tracking. For me, I'd love to see a WWI or WWII air combat kind of game like the old Red Baron or IL-2 Sturmovik.
I find those types of games intolerable due to motion sickness - the inner ear is at odds with what the eyes are seeing.
In-game, the aircraft's seat is constantly rotating and accelerating all over the place. The seat I'm physically sitting on is not moving. This causes a great deal of motion sickness.
I found cockpit games to be the least nauseating since my "avatar" was seated, just like I was. The only thing moving was the view outside of the cockpit so it was like having a window into another scene. For bonus points, I would arrange the throttle and stick so they were in the same place as their virtual representations, so when I moved my hands, they matched the character's hands in the game as long as I kept them on the throttle/stick controllers.
Anything where I was "walking" around gave me the same disconnect you mentioned - my avatar was walking around but my body was seated in a chair with hands on a controller or joystick.
Have you tried doing "VR" with a large monitor or TV and a simple webcam on top? There are apps available that let you do this. Basically it just adds some basic head tracking (limited range of course) using off the shelf hardware you probably already own. I have yet to see anyone in my personal life (limited anecdotal evidence of course here) get sick from this type of "VR" and it is also much easier for your computer to run (basically just requires as much compute as the game without head tracking) since there is only one screen instead of two. Also allows you to make sure to keep a very high framerate which is the most common cause of motion sickness.
Supposedly you get much better results using a phone actually ( maybe becuase of the DoF camera?). SmoothTrack for iOS comes up ( I have not personally used it). I was already using an old phone as a webcam however for my desktop so I have the thing on a big gooseneck arm already - might try this myself!
Looks like people are saying the other issue with webcams is they are low framerate - there are dedicated devices it seems like TrackIR (more money) but I bet a phone with a decent FPS camera could work well. Theres also software called OpenTrack (and people are saying to get a high FPS webcam with low latency). Some people on reddit are even using a wiimote to reduce CPU useage supposedly.
Biggest thing though is you want the largest screen possible - otherwise you will barely be able to move your head and still be looking at the monitor (best experience I had was in a theater with 3 full imax screens side by side)
I messed around with ViewTracker and FaceCamNoIR years ago before I got one of the early Oculus dev kits. You had to limit your motion a bit, but it was somewhat cool for changing the angle of perspective in flying games. But honestly it just made me want to try out VR even more.
Nowadays I haven't used any of them in a long time because the Oculus is outdated and barely usable. None of the newer options seem worth the cost for me (in money or Facebook attachment) so I haven't played with any of that in a while.
Ironically you get motion sickness on a real plane, as a passenger, for the opposite reason... you can feel the forces, but you can't really see the motion.
It was inspired by motion sickness prevention glasses I heard about. They are hollow with water inside halfway to provide a horizon that reflects real motion. I think the perk to the VR thing is to be able to watch movies or read books without that little line getting in your way. But I don't know how pronounced that line is.
Edit: Interesting, the glasses actually have hollow rims with a blue fluid.
That's not ironic, it is perfectly consistent with the phenomena of motion sickness -- sight not correlating to motion. Irony is when Ronald Reagan got a gunshot wound when the bullet bounced off the bulletproof window and hit him in the chest.
Neither you nor GP gave an example of a traditional meaning of the word Irony. Both of the examples represent the more modern definition of situational irony as "something that is amusingly unexpected". I don't think you can say anything is not ironic under that definition. After all, everything makes sense if you understand it well enough, so any level of surprise would be ironic because what you understood pointed to one outcome and a different outcome was produced. All that is left is whether you find the difference to be amusing or not.
Older usage of the word does not include amusing coincidences such as this. It used to be used to describe speech which intentionally meant the opposite of its plain meaning for humor or emphasis, such as sarcasm, or in dramatic context a situation where the audience has greater awareness than a character.
Words change and this is a meaning everyone seems to want I guess. I was just pointing out that once you go down this route, its pretty hard to differentiate between what is ironic or not because its a broad and subjective definition.
Your assertion does not make sense to me. Your definition is that the situation is ironic because a slightly broader statement of that situation is ironic? It sounds like you are just saying its ironic because it seems ironic. All that means is that it gives you a feeling which you associate with that word. The reason it seems ironic is that the unexpected outcome of a "life-saving" thing actually resulting in injury, is amusing, because it is the opposite of its intention. In fact almost every time something has a net positive influence on overall outcomes, there will be cases where some outcomes are worse. If you are shot and the surgeon goes to perform life-saving surgury, but it turns out you have an allergy to the anesthetic and it kills you, is that ironic? A doctor who was intending to save you actually killed you. I don't know about this definition but I guess its the one we're stuck with. I'll probably just call it an amusing coincidence though.
> If you are shot and the surgeon goes to perform life-saving surgury, but it turns out you have an allergy to the anesthetic and it kills you, is that ironic? A doctor who was intending to save you actually killed you.
Oh come on.
A device which was made for one purpose and one purpose only -- to stop the president from getting shot ends up getting the president shot. This is the direct opposite of the intention of the thing's existence -- hence "intentionally ... the opposite of its plain meaning".
If you want to purposefully dilute things to make a point you can do that, but it is dishonest.
You selected the relatively modern definition from the dictionary. That usage is fairly recent and is very broad in definition. The verbal and literary definitions are usually the ones that pedants are protective of. I specifically said that it fits that modern definition. I was actually criticizing the parent for calling out your usage, as if his example was more ironic than yours.
You can get motion sickness in a real plane as a pilot too. In flight school I saw many cases, in the summer they used to fly early morning and late afternoon to avoid strong thermal currents. The situation is more similar to seasick on rough seas, everything is moving and sometimes in unpredictable manner.
Is that why I got motion sickness I wonder? I spent a couple of hours trying out various vr experiences and after sitting to look at a video of whales, standing to play various first person shooters I sat down to play a racing game and got motion sickness. Affected me for the rest of the day and really put me off vr, which is a shame as I thought it was incredible at first.
VR motion sickness is a tricky problem. Much like regular motion sickness, some people get over it after a period of time, and some never do.
It's highly dependent on the type of VR content you're looking at. For most people, the moment the camera or your character moves at odds with your real head, they get uncomfortable. My job is developing VR stuff and still when head tracking gets out of sync for more than a second, I get dizzy and have a headache the rest of the day.
If you want to continue with VR, I'd say stick with standing experiences. Try out the racing game now and then, but quit at the first sign of discomfort. You may find that your brain gets used to the conflicting input over time, or it might not. No way to tell without trying it.
It's a big part of the "comfort" rating that Oculus has in their store. Some games have a lot of movement (e.g. a table tennis simulator), but as long as the movement matches up there's minimal risk of motion sickness.
I even can't handle first person shooters where the camera moves around using a control stick (the sensation of movement is unpleasant). Some games solve this with a mode where you sort of "snap" from one position to another rather than "moving".
Interesting! I just assumed if the latency was consistently good enough that motion sickness wouldn't be a problem. I'd feel dumb buying a fancy VR rig only to not be able to play for fear of barfing all over my keyboard.
I played a lot of Descent in the 90s and beyond, and got really used to 6dof flying, which at the time some folks couldn't stomach, so perhaps I'd do OK.
Star Wars Squadrons really excels with this. It seemed like it was a VR only game before being released non-VR, but the style of game really would take well to VR.
I couldn't get that one working with my controllers in VR (HP Reverb G2). I could see the initial screen and being seated in a cockpit, but nothing responded to anything I was doing.
I couldn't even get a handle on mapping to my throttle/stick. There were so many odd controls that didn't map to intuitive keys and I got frustrated trying to manually map everything when I didn't have any real idea of what all of the controls were without playing a bit of the game.
I kept getting stuck unable to control or do things during the game and eventually gave up since it had been a promotional free download and I wasn't invested enough to spend more than an hour or two trying to get it set up.
VTOL VR is fucking amazing for this. You're right there in the cockpit, and you have to reach out and hit buttons and fiddle with dials around the MFDs and everything. Its so, so, so good.
Red Alert VR! I too thought RTS would be awesome in VR. But alas, making games was beaten out of me by the sentiment that game development isn’t professionally viable without major crunch time. Failing of my own, but I hope someone tries!
I had Oculus Rift in my living room, then upgraded to Index. The difference in lighthouse placement basically reduced my usage of Index vs Rift by 75%. It’s impossible to get out and use casually.
> only to forget how to reload your damn gun after a couple of weeks/months of not playing.
I played that Jedi game on PS5 the other day and found it really intuitive how they implemented the reloading. There you have to pull back this little virtual lever with your non-gun hand. I liked that much better than remembering some button even if it's not 100% realistic.
I assumed this was possible - it was when I was working with very early VR prototypes.
I think what is going to end up being big is the setup where you have a camera on top of a monitor or TV that just does head tracking. As TV's get larger and cheaper (and projectors better and better) having no headset but nice head tracking is a great middleground to VR. Plus other people can easily watch you play (and it is easier for noobs to get into). Most games do not really need full 360 degree head movement - you can just turn around with a keyboard or controller as you normally would.
Seems like a wild take to me. VR is not nearly as immersive as people say. But reloading guns with physical interactions is one of the few bits that does feel very good.
MS Flight Simulator 2020 or Automobilista 2 are absolutely awesome VR games that can be controlled by keyboard only in real time and there is vorpX allowing older games to be played in VR. Surely, Alyx is slow, Hellblade has restricted movement, but those strange VR controllers allow some interesting experiences like Adr1ft when one feels like a real astronaut in open space.
I agree that for AR/VR or motion based "experiences" and games, the controls always are the weakest point, and I think this is crucial to understand the slow adoption.
This is also more fundamental and difficult to solve than it seems.
Beating the seemingly low-tech but widely successful existing control systems is not a given.
There are places like Two Bit Circus in Los Angeles that do this beautifully - they have odd VR games that you could never play at home because they have a crazy unique controller setup.
One in particular that I feel like is critically underrated (mainly due to the game itself being a bit boring) is a flying game. You lay down in this bird like giant controller with your arms at your sides and there are multiple fans blowing in your face. You can tilt the whole thing, move the "wings" to change your speed and angle / elevation and do lots of other movements. The game itself is basically just cruising around a virtual world (they have a few different types) but I thought it was super cool. The fans even change speed and direction based on how you are flying.
If the game itself was more engaging (like say it was multiplayer and maybe you were piloting a mechanical "bird" with lasers and whatnot) I think it would be pretty freaking awesome. But the "controller" of course must be very expensive and takes up a ton of space so it is really not useable at home unless you have a ton of extra space and disposable income. And of course it is a bit of a one trick pony.
There is a lot of work going into hand tracking and natural interactions these days. People seem to feel much better and more immersed when they can use their hands to manipulate virtual objects.
Oculus has this very neat trick with their controllers. Most of the buttons and sticks have some type of sensor that detects if you're touching it, even lightly. They use that information to alter the pose of the virtual hand. When the controllers are visible, your virtual fingers mostly match where your real ones are on the controller.
At least one company builds unique user profiles that make your virtual hands the same size and skin tone as your physical hands, as well as adjusting for height and other parameters. Personally I find it gimmicky, but some people like it.
Unfortunately, the technology isn't quite robust enough that we can fully get rid of controllers. Ultraleap is working on a system with multiple 3D IR cameras to track hands from multiple perspectives. I think this is the most likely path forward. There's some really crazy alternatives like strapping dozens of electrodes to the forearm to record muscle impulses that get fed to an ML model which extrapolates hand and finger movement.
You're right, there's a lot of fundamental problems we have to work around, and it's far from easy. Even with Facebook's ridiculous resources, the oculus hand tracking is hot wet garbage for anything even slightly abnormal, like wearing a jacket.
But, the industry as a whole is really picking up steam. It won't be too much longer before we solve most of the big problems.
The Wii did it easily. Racing simulators and flight simulators do it all the time. Gamepad controls exist because they have been iteratively refined to be the best way to play a game sitting on a couch.
Existing VR controls are great now that the Quest Pro controllers can self-track. The problems have been that you either had to setup lighthouses around your room to track you or have your hands always be in sight of the headset cameras. However, the QPro controllers can track independently like the headset itself by using SLAM and the difference is huge.
I don't see why you would think that the controls are difficult to solve. The problem isn't the controls -- the problem is that people don't realize how tiring it is to actually physically do the things you do in a video game, even on a very basic level. This makes VR great for getting physical activity -- but it makes for a very bad 'lazy day gaming' or 'after work gaming' recreation.
It sounds awesome to think about being in VR and being in the FPS until you realize that people who fight wars as infantry for real have to be in amazing shape.
> It sounds awesome to think about being in VR and being in the FPS
Yes. This is one of the things that leads to the counterintuitive truth that if you want a fully immersive and fun game (defining "immersive" as "the player is no longer aware that the game world is not their actual reality), you don't actually want too much realism.
What you want is an "effortlessness" -- the ability for the player to trigger an action without effort or conscious thought.
The VR version is more often than not more intuitive than the mouse/keyboard combo or even a traditional controller.
Furthermore, the idea that having to stand up (not always true) and perform natural arm movements being bad is just silly to me. Arguably, the best performing VR game is Beat Saber.
Weird take if you ask me. The 2D versions of those games seem to be what you want, but with 3D visuals I guess. Some kind of 3D monitor seems more fitting than "VR".
VR is all about the immersion, and that means doing physical actions that approximate real world actions. That's the whole point, and that's why the vast majority of VR games (and the popular ones of course) incorporate that physicality.
> Nobody seems to mention the fact that most of VR games out there require using the hard-to-familiarize hard-to-memorize joysticks to interact with the game.
> I own a Valve Index and I mostly don't play it because of it's just really a hassle to have to physically stand up (or even seated) and to wave your arms around, only to forget how to reload your damn gun after a couple of weeks/months of not playing.
> I wish that people built simple keyboard-and-mouse VR games that I could enjoy the VRness of the experience using my fingers and palms like I'm used to in the past 30 years.
all I hear you saying is that you're an older person now, and that you learned to play with a controller and that's how games should be.
well, I'm even older (or lazier) because I never even learned to play FPS games with a controller. WASD+mouse for me please.
I always see people confusing familiarity with "simplicity" and "ease of use". of course familiar things are better! but let's not mangle together the simple and well-made with the familiar; though it's hard to do this.
The part that you quoted says "I wish that people built simple keyboard-and-mouse VR games" -- that sounds to me like they mean the same thing you mean when you say "WASD+mouse for me please".
I own a Valve Index and I mostly don't play it because of it's just really a hassle to have to physically stand up (or even seated) and to wave your arms around, only to forget how to reload your damn gun after a couple of weeks/months of not playing.
I wish that people built simple keyboard-and-mouse VR games that I could enjoy the VRness of the experience using my fingers and palms like I'm used to in the past 30 years.
I want CSGO VR, not a good-looking-cheap-knock-off that I need to figure out how to reload each gun and where to draw the grenade from. I want Cities Skylines VR where I can see my city from above wherever I look. I want Red Alert VR.
The most enjoyable games I currently have that is worth whipping VR out for are those I can play with a regular XBox controller which I'm quite familiar with already.