Virtual Reality - Your thoughts...

[tapedeck]

When Edison invented the lightbulb he patented thousands of ideas and failed a thousand times. Yet everytime he failed he stated he was one step closer to creating the lightbulb we all take for granted today.

 

We would do well to remember that Nintendo staff are not only masters of game design but serial inventors too, taking steps forward to create that lightbulb moment for both gamers and shareholders. This leads me to discuss their recent patents and the term Virtual Reality...

 

 

As another of Nintendo's inventions/patents is unleashed on the world the press are all over it. It's to be expected as Nintendo have shown how to shift gaming into new directions multiple times and it would be poor (lite) journalism to not sensationalize their latest patent. Afterall we could be seeing the spacehopper of the future.

 

Yet as I dwell on and imagine the experiences and possibilities surrounding the wii controller currently by my side I can't help but feel that peripherals were always a part of the psyche (or industry obsession) of creating a 'virtual reality'. Perhaps I blame the 1990's perception that VR headsets were the way forward.

Interesting then that we see Microsoft's camera tech needing no 'personal' peripherals yet promising us full, precise control over any on-screen action. In the light of the Wii controller and Sony's 'wand' (and drawing comparisons to the eyetoy's failure to direct the entire future of gaming) I can see that cynics are already sniping from their keyboards about the future of 'physical' gaming and what it could entail. 'We need a controller' they cry. Are they afraid to 'let go' or do we require a physical medium when interacting with something? Interesting debate perhaps.

 

Yet in the left hand side of my brain I logically ponder if Wii has already brought Virtual Reality to the masses in an accessible format hitching a ride on every families best friend: the TV remote. Perhaps this was the lightbulb moment for Nintendo. Have we already experienced the perfect blend of accessible virtual reality? Look at the success of Wii. Look at the legions of young children who love swooshing the remote around like it's a wand, a bat, a sword and so on...

 

Perhaps we already have the ultimate virtual reality device in our hands 'today'. But on the other hand, do we even need to be in the game via physical interaction?

 

The more I think about Virtual Reality and truly being 'in' the game, the more I remember how I was 'in' the game back when I was playing the NES, SNES and N64. I never needed a headset a camera or motion control. (And the market certainly never needed the Virtual Boy). Remember when SEGA took Virtual Reality as a moniker to push exciting new tech? Virtua Fighter/Racer certainly didn't alter my reality but did create some moments of reality lucidity. (For comparisons sake early '3D' Nintendo games such as Stunt Race FX and Starfox did too, purely through gameplay.) But the industry's obsession with using Virtual Reality as a tool has always been there.

 

A final thought: Perhaps Virtual Reality is something adults wish to truly embrace as a means to recapture their inner child-like mind all over again. Maybe they need their imaginations to be forced in directions by what they see with their eyes. Certainly as an adult, gaming doesn't capture my every sense like it used to.

 

And so I feel that Virtual Reality is a mirage for gamers. A carrot dangling overhead in the programme. Do we need it? Does it even exist? When you were sucked into that 8-Bit videogame was THAT already Virtual Reality?

 

Next time you swipe that tennis ball with your arm or bounce on that Goomba's head question which one was closer to being in the game. Perhaps you may be surprised by the results.

 

 

Thoughts as always.

Edited August 11, 2009 by tapedeck

[Shino]

I would love that someone invented a way to interact with just the thoughts, even if I had to use a headband our some clips on my hair, it would increase the possibilities so much. None of us will actually be able to do physically all the crazy stuff we like to see in games, so wouldn't it be awesome if your avatar just responded to how you think and turn a fighter with limited input into some kind of Ong Bak game. This implemented with 3D virtual reality would effectively be the FUCKING MATRIX!! I hope that's where all this motion sensing stuff is leading to.

[Emasher]

By definition, no game we've seen yet can be considered virtual reality. Virtual reality is about the way we control and interact with games but also perceive them. To truly be virtual reality the game must be seen by the player as reality reality, but still not truly exist. Just like a model of lets say a chair in a game would be considered a virtual chair. The chair is not a real chair, and the player knows its not a real chair, but the player still considers it to be a chair.

 

I don't think the technology that's being developed now (Natal, Wii M+, Sony's Wand, The Vitality Sensor, ect.) is really related to the technology that we will supposedly, eventually create Virtual Reality with, I do think that perhaps its a step towards it.

 

The Virtual Boy failed mostly because Nintendo was trying to do too much at once I think. The Virtual Boy was Nintendo trying to get as close to what was perceived at the time to be virtual reality without caring really about anything else. Many other devices have failed for doing too much at once. You have to start small and prefect the basics of something before moving on to everything else. Look at the iPhone, Apple started out with a phone, that had just did the bare basics of what a Phone should do. But it did what it did better than most other phones on the market. Slowly they added new features in every update, to reach the iPhone we have today.

 

If companies ever want to create true virtual reality, they have to look at what a device needs to do to to produce a virtual reality. They have to start with the very basic features such a console would need, and work their way up. I don't think technology today is quite ready for them to start this though. Its going to be a good few years before technology has advanced enough. Virtual Reality will "exist" some day, but it will be a while, probably within our lifetimes I think, but it will be a while.

[Patch]

Does it even exist? When you were sucked into that 8-Bit videogame was THAT already Virtual Reality?

 

I totally see where you're coming from and it's an interesting thought. Is Virtual Reality simply the experience of an event that is not real, no matter how unrealistic?

 

If so, television gives us virtual reality to a certain degree. I can remember watching Jurassic Park at the cinema and almost feeling like I was there, drenched with rain and about to be eaten or crushed to death. Of course, this was simply sensory input made realistic by the large screen size and surround sound.

 

Videogames are pretty much the same, but with added interaction. That is, your decisions affect the outcome. Does Virtual Reality have to include this interaction? Probably not at first. I would therefore expect to see gains towards Virtual Reality not just in the videogame sector but in the film/TV industry too. Look at the new wave of 3D films for instance.

 

Looking at the untapped senses, perhaps the next step is for cinemas to have smell-o-vision! We could probably live without the sense of taste being replicated, but the hardest hurdle would undoubtedly be emulating the sense of touch. You know, preferably without those big black cables inserted in your body a la The Matrix.

[Blue_Ninja0]

I never really grasped the proper definition of Virtual Reality. Is it what The Matrix is? Or something else?