>>381531743
I don't think we have even scratched the limitations. Gameplay wise VR is mostly limited to human movement but that still leaves pretty much every human activity open for a VR version. There are a lot of VR games so it might feel like everything has been done already but there aren't a lot of GOOD VR games, it's all shallow as fuck tech demos, something like Blade & Sorcery, amazing combat, really satisfying but there's not fucking game to it, it's just weaves of enemies. If it was a flat game that just had good combat and empty arenas it would be brushed off as shovelware. We still haven't reached a point where someone can take that satisfying combat and put it into a fleshed out open world RPG which is the bare minimum as far as game ideas go. And if you don't think first person shooters can carry a medium then you haven't been playing video games for the last 30 years.
>Story wise games seem to also be simplified since it’s in first person.
This doesn't make any sense, first person doesn't limit a story. Have you ever read a book? You don't need to be able to see the back of your characters head for a good narrative.
>A big cast of characters would never happen.
Why? Again, this just doesn't make any sense. There is no reason you can't have lots of characters in VR the only reason we don't is because most VR games just don't even bother to have a story.