The Vitality Sensor was a brillant idea. The concept might be a little abstract and hard to grasp without any examples, but I'm sure some developers could do magical things with the input the sensor provides. The only problem was the implementation - you simply can't use the clip in a addition to a regular controller. But if Nintendo manages to integrate the sensor in a regular pad, it could open some amazing possibilities.
The value of biometric sensors in future gaming *spawn
- Thread starter wsippel
- Start date
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Brrrruurrrrgghhh.....??!?!
...
... :scoobydoconfusedface:
I've read some amazing things online but... just... wow!
In principle, the idea of using information about the player's physiological state is a really good one. Nintendo weren't the first to come up with idea or the first to try and incorporate it into a game either, but it was still a ballsy move.
The problem is in implementing such an idea; the idea itself is sound and would lend itself to some exciting possibilities.
The problem is in implementing such an idea; the idea itself is sound and would lend itself to some exciting possibilities.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
How? What possibilities that would have any meaningful impact to gaming as it currently stands?
I heard alot of comments like this about hairy-fairy technologies that are interesting in and of themselves, but the ostensible potential for meaningfully impacting the way that we play and/or enjoy videogames is really only minimal at best.
I wasn't sold on the vitality sensor's concept when i first heard other technology enthusiasts talking about it's potential way before Nintendo announced anything. Nor was I sold on it after they did. And there was also a damn good reason why they canned it, because it was a silly idea.
Ultimately, stuff like that is great for full-immersion virtual reality simulation, that in concept we will probably never see in people's homes for the next 20-50 years. For now though, stuff like that is useless and adds very little that isn't almost entirely superficial to the experience. I'd rather greater emphasis and exploration into what can be done with better motion control and voice recognition technologies, better world simulation with physics and physics based animation, better AI etc than silly stuff like reading your heart-rate or pulse.
If you want to limit things to "gaming as it currently stands" then it'd probably have about the same impact as "waggle" on gaming as it stood in the PS2 era. If you build in a condition of nothing being different then I guess no, nothing would be different.
Maybe, maybe not. You find out by making it available and seeing what gets done. Getting physiological data from millions of players and plotting it against specific in game events would give you fantastic information as a game designer, if nothing else. A university would kill for that kind of data. Changing in game variables (colours, behavioural states, difficulty) or triggering events that you know (normally) have a specific effect on players of various "types" could all be done on a more user specified level. Just thinking about it for literally a few seconds already give you more things than you could try and test in a year.
It was a great idea. It was a silly implementation. Clipping some crap on your finger was never going to take off.
Things like heart rate, perspiration, eye dilation, voice stress are all ways to get an understanding of how the experience you've made is affecting people and getting some direct information is always better than inferring everything. If it could be useful for full immersion VR then it could be useful elsewhere.
It's definitely a good idea. Definitely. Absolutely. Now might not be its time, that's all.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I only use "gaming as it currently stands" as a qualifier, as "as it currently stands" there are next to no gaming implementations using biometric feedback data to change or adjust the way a game is being played. There's nothing to go off, so if you can't sit down and think about any reasonable implementations that would meaningfully improve gaming, why would you invest millions simply to throw something out there and hope that developers would? I know devs are the creatives of the industry, but they can't turn lead into gold. The original Wiimote proved that, and i believe we're seeing a similar thing with kinect and hands-free gaming. On the other hand, both those devices still offer more imaginable gaming applications than biometric feedback ever could.
But then it becomes a good idea for improving the game developement process by better understanding how gameplay devices and mechanics affect the player. You won't get consumers to pay extra money for a peripheral soley to feed data back to the game developers. If you want to obtain that kind of data you're better off doing focus-testing in a controlled environment. Gamers love gaming, and many love the devs that make the games they love, but none that are reasonable human beings would invest in extra peripherals simply so that game devs and pubs can capture more data. It's not a consumer product.
It really wasn't. It was a silly idea and a silly implementation. Nintendo realised the error of their ways and promptly corrected it after embarrasing themselves with its reveal. It was a pulse monitor for Wii-fit and little else.
Biometrics on the whole could be interesting in affecting say for example enemy AI in horror games. But like the Vitality sensor for fitness applications, on a whole the potential benefits they offer to gaming on the whole probably aren't worth the price of admission, and their limitations as technology at the present time are legion. I agree with you that ultimately for stuff like full immersion VR, biometrics would be amazing going hand-in-hand with stuff like advanced AI and voice recognition for natural conversations with in-game NPCs. At the moment though those other technologies aren't there yet, and probably won't be for a while, and likewise with biometric feedback tech.
Nintendo should look for a new gimmick that's realistic and can add something to gaming as it is now, whilst opening up things to new forms of play. Unfortunately, I personally don't believe there's much out there technologically that fits that bill. So i firmly believe that next-gen will revolve more around deepening the more traditional gameplay experiences as well as advancing current interface technologies like motion, pointer, voice rec etc..
Edit:
Actually I this is getting a bit off topic, but i do think that there's value in a discussion about the merits or not of biometric feedback technologies and their potential in gaming. Perhaps a MOD can create a spin-off thread?
Last edited by a moderator:
I know several companies have looked at Biometric sensors.
There is some question as to if it's healthy (read lega risk) to have players try and control those inputs.
Whether the intent is just to monitor or not, you'll still be setting up a feedback loop that players will earn to control.
There is some question as to if it's healthy (read lega risk) to have players try and control those inputs.
Whether the intent is just to monitor or not, you'll still be setting up a feedback loop that players will earn to control.
YESSSH... Would be great if we have this emoticon on B3D.
I like the idea of biometrics sensors (including muscle-based and mind-controlled projects) in gaming. Exercise games are too tiring, I would like to see music games with bio-sensor input. ^_^
Horror games is probably another favorite but it's too lonely. I like social and party games better in this context (e.g., lie detector, strip poker)
Well I certainly wouldn't push biometrics as being a direct replacement for existing types of input device - not waggle nor Kinect has provent o be a replacement for a pad, and even an analogue thumbstick blows for some things compared to a good d-pad or mouse. And I can well image that it'd be difficult to justify making a significant investment in a product as things currently stand. I'd see it as a supplementary things to add to consumer products when (if) the cost and intrusiveness of the technology was low enough to make it viable. There's always going to be some risk in moving in a new direction - both Wiimote and Kinect were laughed until the dollars stared rolling in - but it is hard to see biometirc measurement being as direct or sellable and as gloriously lacking in subtlety as your grandad waving his arms around.
There are many non consumer technologies (such as DRM and game stat reporting) that make it into consumer hardware and software, but I wouldn't primarily expect measurement technology unless the player got something back from it directly also. The privacy issues alone would probably sink it. Testing from none controlled environments is valuable too btw, which is again why so much back end tracking of real player actions and choices goes on.
There was a Kinect fitness game with a heart rate monitor too. I want it but can't find it new now, and don't want a sweatcond hand version. It's a good idea even just for a fitness game!
I agree with you about all this. I kind of see video games (all platforms) as a gimped version of full immersion and full measurement. Not all games need everything - infact some games need little more than a D-pad and 1 button - but I would like that to be a choice and not an enforced limitation.
The thing I would most like to see a platform support is accurate eye tracking. That - along with voice and gesture recognition - would allow fast, accurate, and naturalistic inputs that could be applied to a complex range of interactions. It would be incredible for both online and offline, single player games and you could build some wonderful gameplay mechanics around it. That's probably a really long way off though.
I think WiiU is a kind of half way house - bringing an expanded and improved DS experience (as someone else put it) to a expanded audience where it can be applied to more games. And probably other stuff to (like Netflix on a second screen).
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Agreed, I was actually making the reference that WiiU is imho more of a deepning of the traditional gaming experience rather than a possible poor attempt at trying to hack some underdeveloped fringe technology into gaming simply for the sake of starting another "revolution". Imo Nintendo is doing the right sort of thing with WiiU, however i do hope that they haven't abandoned motion gaming with what they started with the original Wii.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
YESSSH... Would be great if we have this emoticon on B3D.
Lol, suggestion to the MODs for forum improvements right there ;-)
I think when you look at the expanded potential for biometrics and what they can provide for games, provided the costs are low enough, the technology un-intrusive enough, and also provided it actually works as described, is pretty great but moreso in the longterm. In ther short term I think its use is a bit limited, and not simply because the individual technologies aren't there.
I think there needs to be a big improvement to other areas of gaming tech before biometric input interfaces can add any real significant value to the games we play. However, I agree that there are exceptions to that, as there are ostensibly areas even now where biometrics could add a great deal of value to specific genres of games.
Your lie detector idea actually sounds fantastic for games like LA Noire or say a mass effect game.
And to this point I fully concede that the vitality sensor (implemented in the right way) would be a great addition to the medium.
However, as I said at the start of this, we're talking about Nintendo here.
They don't do anything resembling leadership in this fashion. They are strictly stuck in the toy isle. Not only in people's perception of them, but in the image they intentionally portray.
They have made a few attempts to stray from this in applying for a visa out of Toy'sRus, but a game or two per generation is hardly going to change the perception when the vast majority of their product is still aimed at 10 year old kids (and for a while, their moms too).
They are permanent residents there. That is their citizenship.
As such, advanced concepts like reading your emotional state or attempting to detect a lie is completely meaningless for what they do.
As I said, if another company were behind it, great. But Nintendo isn't the driver to get anything useful out of this type of tech and is instead another attempt by them to sell plastic in the hopes of remaining relevant for at least a little while longer before MS, Sony and Apple go scooping up the kids too.
Actually, you can buy gimmicks like lie detectors from those late night informercials.
I don't see what's wrong with Nintendo pushing technologies in Wii and WiiFit. Afterall, they did change the way people perceive and play console games, from kids to old men and women.
So far, voice recognition solutions on the market are also not as accurate as I think they should be. Nonetheless, Apple, Google and MS all have big plans for it.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
To be fair, the Vitality sensor however implemented, in it's announced incarnation, wouldn't have given you anywhere near enough information to really have a good handle on a player's "emotional state". All it was was a heart-rate sensor. Far too limited.
Like function said something more akin to accurate eye tracking would be much more beneficial and useful in a videogame context.
I also disagree with your rant on Nintendo too. Whilst I respect your opinion, I believe that Nintendo has a good idea of where the industry and gaming as a whole is going, I just don't think that they are prepared to make the financial investments necessary to take it in that direction (and in many ways based on they chosen demographic I don't blame them).
There's a distinct need for younger gamer focussed game and console development, and I hardly see that as something negative or a failure of Nintendo.
Also, it's naive to think that MS or Sony could uproot Nintendo's dominance in the gaming space for younger gamers. Especially when the most popular games on those companies platforms are essentially murder simulators. Nintendo will always be relevant if only for that reason alone. But that's getting badly OT.
In other words, you disagree, but then again, you agree.
____________________
I wonder how much it would cost to have a heat image sensor like flir built into kinect and what advancements could be achieved with that? Would it be fast and detailed enough to detect blushing? Could be rather useful in exercise games ... any other useful scenarios?
Agreed on the eye-tracking deal but we've had this conversation before. :smile:
