That contributes to the WoW factor, sure. It's impressive the first time, the second, the third, after that, it wears off. Or it should. Seems not.
The "WOW factor" is most prevalent when you experience it for the first few times, but the "wonder" of being in the world of Half Life or exploring some Sci-Fi world/strange planet in say Obduction or The Solus Project or looking up and seeing a dinosaur that appears to be 10x taller than you doesn't wear off even when the novelty of it does, at least for me.
But when you're speaking about the novelty wearing off after the first, second, third time. That's usually how I feel about game series like say Far Cry/AssCreed/Hitman etc. ("It's Far Cry, but this time it's in the Himalayas/Montana/the Prehistoric/Cuba" or "It's Assassin's Creed, but this time you're in the American Revolution/French Revolution/Victorian London/Ancient Egypt/Ancient Greece/Viking Invasion of Britain" or "It's Hitman, but this time you get to go to Dubai!"). Similar with Half Life, I was excited for Half Life: Alyx
because it was a major VR Blockbuster and it's probably GOTY for me this year. If it was Half Life 3, now 16 years later and you're still Gordon hammering Headcrabs with your crowbar and solving physics puzzles with slightly prettier graphics, it might still have been interesting, but I don't think I could have drawn anywhere near the same level of enthusiasm about it.
But what about the mechanics, the gameplay? What does it add? Now you understand when I say that it's useless because there's no innovation on that front?
All these elements, VR, photorealistic graphics or very high resolution, story, voice acting, characters, life-like or highly detailed animations are things that are invoked as pros by reviewers as well as gamers when discussing a game. But these aspects are more prized in a movie, where there's no interaction, not in a videogame.
It's also why some games today that have a AAA production values are called interactive movies, because the focus is on what I mentioned above and less on the the gameplay side of things but with a high level of polish. These games also are very profitable and players who like these "games"also support the VR tech because they're easily impressed and they believe that immersion cannot be achieved without this technology.
You understand that you're posting in the thread of a AAA video game franchise about to get its 8th major installment (if you can call their late releases that), that would have had all of these things and production values whether it had a VR port or not? I don't expect them to reinvent the wheel because of it, nor do I see how it infringes on your enjoyment of the game or not.
I'm not sure what any of your rant has to do with VR in specific, although I do indeed also generally enjoy playing games rendered at "very high resolution", whether it was just released or from 1998 and do generally enjoy better graphics and more intricate level design, especially in very visual genres like shooters. Some of your points don't even make any sense or are in any way equivalent to the others. Like "characters" or "story", do you expect the game to not have characters or a story? Pretty sure "voice acting" was also something Hitman has always had.
As for innovation, mechanics and gameplay, what exactly do you expect on that front from the 8th major Hitman title (or from most Shooters in general)? For me, if it's gonna be another game in X game series, at least there's something to look forward to that's exciting by being able to personally explore the world with its AAA production values that they've built and directly interacting with objects, hitting someone over the head with them, hiding evidence or strangling/shooting someone in first person instead of pressing a button to do so for a change.
As for what VR would specifically change in a VR-only game, see for instance the very bottom bit here in regards to HL:Alyx:
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...tween-hl1-and-hl2.130792/page-20#post-6578788
Aside from that, the VR games scene in the past few years has generally felt a lot like the PC gaming scene in the 90s, with new developers entering the fray, developers trying new things and mechanics, trying new takes on specific genres, experimenting with what works and releasing new titles or franchises that wouldn't otherwise have existed. It's also been near entirely politics-free so far I'd guess largely due to its size and perceived lack of consequence by people usually obsessed about that, although I'm sure all of that is bound to change if/when it grows much larger with similar problems to the mainstream gaming industry and 20+ titles in single franchises with close to no experimentation or trying something new.
For me, interaction via a monitor, keyboard and mouse is simply, enough. It's easy, direct and fast. I didn't find the idea of VR in games appealing back then when I first learned of it and I don't find it now either. Even after watching tens of videos, various games being played in VR, of different genres. I haven't seen any convincing argument that it revolutionizes gaming in any meaningful capacity.
You're not going to get an idea of what it is like to play something in VR from watching "tens of videos" about it, you'll just have to try it yourself if you want to sound less like someone that doesn't know WTF he is talking about.
That hatred you speak of stems from the fact that the people who support this stuff decide (knowingly or not) which direction the gaming industry as a whole, is going. And since gaming is a hobby of mine, seeing it being reduced to this, makes me think not so pleasant thoughts.
Well, you'll get over it. I'll happily spend my money to decide that I want more VR titles and ports and there's nothing you can do about it.
And you should try to recalibrate your opinions about other countries and cultures. You'd come out on top and be the better man for it.
I speak from a place of intimate knowledge about said places, I'm fine thanks for your concern.
