However, I feel that some of the issues in that game are really self-inflicted wounds, such as touching objects pushing the avatar away from them sounds like a really silly physics simulation/collision detection bug. I guess some of it is down to Unity limitations, but still. But good to know that Unity could be good for a spacewalk simulator! :-p
I could also argue with the presence criteria. First, there is a major aspect missing from the consideration – presence is all in your head. It is more important to provide an engaging story and gameplay than top-notch graphics and interactions. If you are engaged in the gameplay, you likely won't even get the idea of tinkering with non-functioning drawers or switches. Provide a good stimulus to the brain and the human imagination will bridge over the gaps and you won't notice them. Without that engagement you fall into them …
The second issue is that I don't believe that presence (whether or not I feel present) should be the judging criteria for a game or VR experience. I am not playing games to "feel present", but for their entertainment value. If I get so engaged in it as to feel present, great, that's a welcome bonus.
However, the game could be a lot of fun even without feeling present in it. We didn't use VR for games for a long time and there was no problem with it so why to suddenly bash something only because I don't feel present in it? Furthermore, presence is a very individual, subjective thing, as also +Sébastien Kuntz mentions.
So can we move away from the presence holy grail, please? It is important, but it shouldn't be the most important thing when looking at a game or a VR application.
#blog ?
Gamasutra: Sebastien Kuntz’s Blog – Lessons from the VR field
Introduction: presence. Through my career I have tested many different VR systems, from entry level to high-end, with systems costing several million euros. I have developed a feeling of what VR represents for me. This feeling of being present in the virtual world is very strong.