But, provided the console is sold with 2 VR sets, wouldn't VR be preferrable to split screen for 2 ppl playing?
John Carmack "not all that excited" by next-gen hardware
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
But, provided the console is sold with 2 VR sets, wouldn't VR be preferrable to split screen for 2 ppl playing?
If you're playing on your VR headset, how does your cousin get to see it?
If you're playing on your VR headset, how does your cousin get to see it?
The output can be relayed to the television too, potentially. Getting others to see your performance is not a real issue.
The issue, as stated above, was to permit 2 people in the same room to play the game against one another or together, and using multiple VR sets would permit to do this, without compromising the fairness (which is often an issue with split screen).
There are too many of them that played Modern Warfare together in the dorms IMO. I know because my students (well, the men, anyway) showed up to class red-eyed the next day! I think seeing, interacting, and playing together can't be underestimated. When it comes to making the sale, Playing > Watching > Hearing. Heck, the only reason I ever got into the series was after playing Spec Ops in MW2 at a friend's place.
Definitely. The nice thing about a competitive market is it works like natural selection. Entrepreneurs that figure out what people want and how to get them to it succeed; those that don't fail. Obviously, Nintendo is very focused on the fact that playing together is still an important part of fun and can't simply be replaced by an online connection. But Treyarch, Bungie, and Infinity Ward are IMO very responsive to the consumers. In the COD series, there are more and more offline and co-op options with each release. Look at how much stuff there is for you to do offline with your friends in Black Ops and MW3 vs COD2 or MW1. It wouldn't be in there if they weren't getting a positive response. I think there will always be developers who figure out how to do that well and sell games by it.BigDuo209 said:
+1
JC needs to be aware that his RAGE game causes some people like me to have motion sickness...so whatever goggles he's developed will need to NOT have this bad side effect!
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I'm sure they can design around motion sickness to a certain extent but the fact is that you just can't trick all your organs into thinking you are moving so people who are more sensative to motion sickness than other will probably always run into situations where they might start feeling sick.
Something I'm much more worried about is the effect on my eyes. Having screens so close can't be good.
Something I'm much more worried about is the effect on my eyes. Having screens so close can't be good.
The reason why I get motion sickness with some FPS is precisely because there is head-movement while I am not actually moving my head. If that kind of thing isn't simulated, I never have any problems. So if an HMD has the camera follow my own head movements, I expect less motion sickness than when the game does this for me.
Yep. motion sickness is caused by the optical sensors giving information that the other senses, particualrly balance, aren't matching. A camera that tracks the head should generate less motion sickness.
At High Performance Graphics this year, there was a fascinating keynote, "Computer Graphics meets Computer Vision", by Jon Olick on using AR . It seems to me that the demo he put together (in ~3weeks!) could be a huge hit.
Yep, I remember playing this in '91:
http://www.arcade-history.com/?n=dactyl-nightmare&page=detail&id=12493
Blazkowicz
Legend
wow I played it as a tech demo, the game was set with invulnerability. I was maybe less than ten year old. it was in a technology oriented theme park, which had all matters of stuff (3D Imax, moving/vibrating seats, 60 fps cinema, a huge video wall made of a lot of CRTs)
The existing Google Glass prototypes only overlay peripheral vision, the only announced consumer AR glasses with an overlay across the center of vision are from Lumus Optical AFAIK (there are some monochrome version for the military too) and that has pretty low FoV.
It's probably just another phone or tablet demo, meh ...
It's probably just another phone or tablet demo, meh ...
You are not (I am already wearing glasses)
Sometimes I wish certain game types would be more physically demanding so ... I am waiting for a holodeck
Perhaps you should have attended.
The talk reviewed much of the current state of the art of comp vision + comp graphics, and showed why current AR systems (on various games/mobile platforms) are not terribly convincing.
The most extraordinary I've encountered in this genre was the SGI-powered virtual cave, where you actually walked into a small room, with images (potentially stereoscopic) were projected on all surfaces around you. It was bought due to a local politician having his mind blown on a on a planning trip to the US, and he saw to that it was bought to the local institution. They then turned to us in order to, well, have something to actually DO with it. "Wouldn't it be nice to, you know, walk around inside a protein". Idiots. But it was one of the tech high points of my life. Way cool, and useless. But cool. Have to respect that.
Idiots. But it was one of the tech high points of my life. Way cool, and useless. But cool. Have to respect that.The most extraordinary I've encountered in this genre was the SGI-powered virtual cave, where you actually walked into a small room, with images (potentially stereoscopic) were projected on all surfaces around you. It was bought due to a local politician having his mind blown on a on a planning trip to the US, and he saw to that it was bought to the local institution. They then turned to us in order to, well, have something to actually DO with it. "Wouldn't it be nice to, you know, walk around inside a protein".
We had one at the university I studied at. I believe it was mostly used for playing Quake 2 (great way to convince potential new students to start their studies there).
Cheers
Sigfried1977
Legend
Only if you lack any sort of imagination whatsoever or are entirely incapable of suspending your disbelief. I can immerse myself in cartoon visuals just fine. (probably more so than in uncanny photo-realistic visuals) I think the level and the quality of interactivity is far more vital to a VR experience than the visuals are.
I knew it would find its uses!
Seriously, if you regarded it as described here as an experiment in human/computer generated environment interaction, you could disregard its outrageous price and lack of utility, and simply enjoy it for the experience it could give.
Incidentally, even then it used 120Hz projection onto the surfaces, interactivity over rendering realism indeed.
Not everything has to be practical or possible to make into a palatable mass market device to be worthwhile to explore. The Carmack VR device is something I suspect I will have to own, lack of utility be damned. It will be interesting to experience and experiment with, and once I'm done with that, the next geek in line can buy it cheap from me, and have fun with it.
