Post by: Nile Boogie on October 30, 2005, 06:25:18 AM
I am asking these questions in hindsight of the Freehand controller being shown, which gives us more of an idea of how the games will be played. I do apologize if this topic has since been discussed, i saw no thread. My thoughts before were " it seems plausible but unlikely" however the freehand controller seems to give Stereoscopic 3D more credence.
Post by: MarioAllStar on October 30, 2005, 07:03:48 AM
I think that it makes just as much sense to use a 3D controller on a 2D screen as it does to play the 3D games we play now. It is essentially a 2D plane, yes, but we can interpret the depth in a 3D fashion. When we see a person far away in a game, we can tell that they are far away.
Would 3D displays be an evolutionary step in gaming and all media displayed on a television currently? Yes. Are stereoscopic glasses the way to achieve that? I don't think so.
Post by: zakkiel on October 30, 2005, 07:23:01 AM
Post by: TMW on October 30, 2005, 07:25:04 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on October 30, 2005, 09:55:44 AM
Do you guys remember the Marionette video I posted a while back?
Also a visor would solve any issues about how we are to control camera in Zelda while using the remote to swing the sword.
And there is a visor attachement now for the PSP for the next MGS. This kind of thing very well could still be planned for this generation. If and when VR ever happens it will be an option as some people just can't see it.
In five years I was thinking Nintendo would be refining the 3D remote; not already packaging in VR headgear. After the remote was shown; I thought the helmet would follow the ten year cycle Nintendo has established. Maybe they don't want to take any chances this generation, perhaps the reaction to "NintendoON" inspired them, or this could simply be their way of fighting HD.
Post by: Pale on October 30, 2005, 10:02:54 AM
But seriously, I have recently seen several different options for 3D displays in action... The best ones require you to stand in one spot without ever moving. The ones that allow moving around have a frustrating re-focus time assuming I was able to focus on it in the first place.
I don't think helmets will ever make their way into the mainstream either. They detach the user from their actual surroundings too much. This can be VERY disorienting and lead to extreme motion sickness to much of the population.
In a sense, Nintendo addressed this problem with the virtual boy, as it was a stationary object. I think much of the reason it failed was the red factor, not the visor factor. Well that and the fact that the ONLY reason for staring into this device was to get 3D, and 3D doesn't really add that much to gameplay.
Now to let me go a little crazy here.. and I'm actually being honest...
I don't think 3D will ever change video games until something like the holodeck from star trek is created. Just sticking someone in a virtual world won't work as much as actually creating that world. If you know what I mean. This requires an arena of sorts... In 50 years, look for arcades to make a comeback using a similar technology. =P
(And I understand that we will never be able to create a leaf that is actually tactile... Think of it this way... say the arena is an actual basketball court with a real basketball... Then screaming fans and opponents are layered over top... I dunno.. thats my "In the yeaaarrr two thousannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd" for the day.)
Post by: nemo_83 on October 30, 2005, 12:35:27 PM
The motion control is supposed to alleviate the motion sickness 3D games already create by staring at a stationary screen with the camera jingling around everywhere.
Speaking of motion sickness; I watched Advent Children, and I have not felt so sick since the last time I went deep sea fishing.
Post by: pudu on October 30, 2005, 01:21:02 PM
NOT use red/blue glasses - I simply can't see the 3d image correctly with these. I may need to get glasses to even out my eye vision but I'm sure many will have similar problems, plus the image just isn't of a high quality.
NOT attempt a VR headset - next to no chance of this happening anyway but would explain their not caring about HD output. The price alone throws this out I think but if they did make one cheap enough to sell for the console I don't see how it could be anything other then crap.
MAYBE use "shutter galsses" - not sure if that's the real name for them but these are the glasses that only allow one eye at a time to see the screen but blocking the other one out (so the screen alters every other frame between left eye and right eye outputs). This, from what I know about 3D displays, is probably the best option. It could be synced up wirelessly or through the controller attatchment so that probably wouldn't be an issue. I doubt this would be too expensive. The problems are: a virtual halfing of either framerate or graphical quality to render frames for each eye (something that wouldn't help a console rumored to be inferior power-wise already), possibly problematic eye problems from too slow of a "shutter" effect, and not everyone getting the highest effect from it possible (differences in vision and how peoples eyes react).
The problems also can arise with the fact that most TVs are I believe 50 and 60Hz (60 fps max) so the most you would percieve would be 30fps. I see this technology being more of something maybe the generation after the next may use. I believe around 2007 or 2008 the HDTVs coming out will be running at 120 fps and closer to the year 2010 I've heard TVs framerate will be up to 240. My point here is that once most TVs run at atleast 120 fps an acceptable every-other-eye rendering tech could run at a smooth 60fps. But who knows, maybe by this time VR glasses will be good enough and cheap enough to make it to a console.
Post by: Pale on October 30, 2005, 01:28:19 PM
So again, really, what's the point?
Post by: nemo_83 on October 30, 2005, 06:04:34 PM
Post by: Dasmos on October 30, 2005, 06:21:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
So again, really, what's the point?
What you have described nemo is not necessary. It wouldn't add any depth (har har) to the game at all.
Post by: zakkiel on October 30, 2005, 06:40:07 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 31, 2005, 03:31:05 AM
Shutter glasses require a 120Hz output at minimum to look decent, a light source flickering at 30Hz would cause a headache at best and a seizure at worst. TVs cannot output 120Hz (PAL TVs can do 100 but they don't take a 100Hz signal). Sure, Sony claimed the PS3 will be able to do 120Hz output but since no TV can display that anyway it's pointless.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 31, 2005, 07:58:12 AM
Anyway, see for yourself.
Quote
In the future, what do you think video games will be like?
It's convenient to make games that are played on TVs. But I always wanted to have a custom-sized screen that wasn't the typical four-cornered cathode-ray-tube TV. I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room. But I would rather not say anything more about that.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958127.htm?campaign_id=rss_magzn
Post by: KDR_11k on October 31, 2005, 08:21:37 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 31, 2005, 08:48:45 AM
3d without red and blue or glasses would be ok in my book.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 31, 2005, 09:43:51 AM
That is how I would do it too.
Back on topic; I don't understand how I could thread a needle in a game but my aim when shooting or jumping would not improve. That is like saying the remote is no good for shooters; its only good for micro games where you play operation. The purpose of the 3D is not to only wow you with $#!+ coming out of the screen at you, but to help you percieve distances better. Not only would it help your jumping in Mario where the camera is in third person, but a game like Metroid (about the only fp game that uses jumping well) would be able to use the motion control to allow gamers to look down in real time in 3D. The motion control in the head gear would allow you to aim forward while looking over your shoulder. At the cheapest level they could simply make it some ear pieces, a microphone, and some shutter glasses that have the same motion control tech as the remote. They would not have to sell a screen though they have shown with the GBMicro that they can make small screens for cheap with high clarity. The idea is that your tv and the console will do most all of the work while all you have to do is put on the head gear.
Simply my opinion:
$100 stereoscopics along with 3D motion control >>>>>>>>>>>>useless $2,000-$13,000 higher resolutions which drain the energy of the console making developing games difficult.
If Nintendo ever did do this they better make it work with the new 3D movies encouraging people to play their movies with Nintendo's remote and system. Nintendo should go out to movie execs and tell them they want their 3D movies on their console (perhaps they really should have done this and gathered lots of money from these Hollywood suits to ensure the Revolution was invincible); they would be exclusive simply because of the fact that there is no other major hardware provider like Sony who would be offering hardware that could play or display the 3D movies. Right now the reason Hollywood is looking into 3D is because HD technology did not increase ticket sales; it drove up prices due to opperating costs resulting in five minute long SUV commercials at the beginning of movies and nine dollar movie tickets. Now noone goes to the movies and Hollywood is looking for a real way to get people to watch their movies again. The drop in profits in the movie industry is what will happen when games go to HD. The resolution to the crisis is 3D. 3D is something anyone can sit down with regardless of age or sex and immediately notice the change. Unless you are unable to see 3D; I don't know what that would be like, but Disney World wouldn't be as much fun I'm sure.
Post by: Kairon on October 31, 2005, 10:03:35 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pale on October 31, 2005, 10:51:54 AM
Have you guys ever tried any VR type games?
Have you ever been to Disney Quest in Orlando? They have a few visor driven games... granted some of what holds these games back is the sheer bulk of the visor, the 3D still doesn't help the gameplay that much... In many games, specifically the Aladdin game, I found myself closing one eye in order to make more sense of what is going on. In other words, the 3D did absolutely nothing for me... the only thing that was cool was the motion sensing as you looked around, and even that made me sick.
I understand how it seems cool on the outside, but the financial investment combined with the risk of turning 3D imparied people (like myself) off shows just how dumb of a business decision it would be. As someone said above, one risk at a time. The world is already doubtful that technology is good enough to make the rev controller work... I'm doubtful that 3D technology will EVER be good enough to make it work... maybe Nintendo can prove me wrong in 10-15 years, but now is definately not the time.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 31, 2005, 07:25:31 PM
May 13, 2004
"The concept of a home system today is defined as hardware that you tether to a box, and you are tethered to it via a controller; we think that's an old paradigm."
- Reginald Fils-Aime
January 01, 2005
I can't find the quote by Miyamoto on the same subject from a while ago, but he directly said if he could do anything he would make it so gamers didn't need a tv. It sounded like he was promoting the idea of virtual reality in the future.
Post by: King of Twitch on October 31, 2005, 07:52:15 PM
coming Spring 2011...
Post by: zakkiel on October 31, 2005, 07:55:15 PM
QuoteBecause jumping is a task where you judge a distance of several feet or more along the ground, or where the ground would be; thus, you naturally use nearby objects and textures to determine distance. Threading a needle is a task where you can't get useful information from the background, unless you have the needle lying on a table or something. Otherwise, the needle is isolated from its surroundings. It still probably wouldn't be very useful if the needle was just of one size, because you would automatically compare its size with the frame of the tv and get an accurate idea of how far away it is. Either way, the depth perception provided by having two eyes is only useful for things quite close to your face.
Back on topic; I don't understand how I could thread a needle in a game but my aim when shooting or jumping would not improve.
Post by: pudu on October 31, 2005, 10:01:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
"We invented the current way a console is played - in front of a television and holding a controller - but maybe that image will change." - Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President
May 13, 2004
"The concept of a home system today is defined as hardware that you tether to a box, and you are tethered to it via a controller; we think that's an old paradigm."
- Reginald Fils-Aime
January 01, 2005
I can't find the quote by Miyamoto on the same subject from a while ago, but he directly said if he could do anything he would make it so gamers didn't need a tv. It sounded like he was promoting the idea of virtual reality in the future.
This might not be the Miyamoto quote you're refering to but it fits in with the others
Quote
Asked what he thought videogames would be like in the future, Miyamoto suggested removing what has always been a key ingredient for the medium: televisions. "It's convenient to make games that are played on TVs," he said. "But I always wanted to have a custom-sized screen that wasn't the typical four-cornered cathode-ray-tube TV. I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room. But I would rather not say anything more about that."
LINK
Nice to know that they are already thinking of this next step, regardless of when it can be implimented.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 01, 2005, 05:21:42 AM
Edit: Put my foot in my mouth there, as Nintendo already HAS released a mediocre 3D system in the form of Virtual Boy. My point is Nintendo probably won't make that mistake again.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 01, 2005, 06:28:59 AM
Sounds to good to be true, but then again...it could be true. It seems to fit hand in hand with Nintendo's remote. You could literally fill your room with millions of marios and set them loose to play on whatever objects are in the camera's sight.
The only problem is, I don't think it will make gaming any better. You still have to look at the tv or through a visor to see the images being render. Right now, visors are out of the question. Looking through your tv still requires you to look at your TV, so what's the difference between games made how they are now other than the background is your living room and not computer generated?
In a decade, I hope to see this technology booming. I can only imagine how fun paintballing would be, except not with paintballs but with virtual weapons. Or better yet, seeing Link fight Ganon on your desk. Or watching Ryu and Ken fight in the middle of your yard. Hopefully it'll be possible for the computer animated objects to change the surrounding objects virtually. So if Ryu throws a fire ball into a wall it'll leave a hole.
Meh...something to think about
Post by: nemo_83 on November 01, 2005, 08:03:05 AM
Don't forget his "big gun" quote either.
As far as I am concerned dropping a thread through a needle's hole is the same as dropping Mario down a pipe.
This new quote could be hinting at games using cameras to take video of your room, the console would then layout a skeleton, insert virtual objects such as a light saber in your hand or the Mario Bros on your coffee table. You would look at the screen, but on the screen they would be running around your room. It would make for a few fun games; it would insert a virtual hologram into the video stream of your room that you watch on tv. Immersion may own patents on this though.
I believe that eventually there will be head gear and it will allow home gaming to go portable. The visor's screen could be translucent allowing you to see everything in front of you in the real world. Virtual characters and worlds could then be mapped onto your real world. Combine all this with 3D motion control and 2015 sounds like gaming will rule the world. People would be going on virtual adventures.
Post by: zakkiel on November 01, 2005, 08:08:40 AM
QuoteAnd then we will make machines to take care of our basic bodily needs. The machines will rebel and enslave us all in our virtual reality, and we will become human batteries. Oh wait: that already happened. The Matrix has you, fools!
I believe that eventually there will be head gear and it will allow home gaming to go portable. The visor's screen could be translucent allowing you to see everything in front of you in the real world. Virtual characters and worlds could then be mapped onto your real world. Combine all this with 3D motion control and 2015 sounds like gaming will rule the world. People would be going on virtual adventures.
Honestly, I can't see this happening, and I have no desire for it to. Nothin in virtual reality appeals to me. I like my own well enough, and see absolutely no advantage to having Mario running around on my coffee table as opposed to my television screen. If Nintendo tries something like this, I guarantee you it will be Virtual Boy 2.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 01, 2005, 08:43:36 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 01, 2005, 10:14:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkielQuoteAnd then we will make machines to take care of our basic bodily needs. The machines will rebel and enslave us all in our virtual reality, and we will become human batteries. Oh wait: that already happened. The Matrix has you, fools!
I believe that eventually there will be head gear and it will allow home gaming to go portable. The visor's screen could be translucent allowing you to see everything in front of you in the real world. Virtual characters and worlds could then be mapped onto your real world. Combine all this with 3D motion control and 2015 sounds like gaming will rule the world. People would be going on virtual adventures.
Honestly, I can't see this happening, and I have no desire for it to. Nothin in virtual reality appeals to me. I like my own well enough, and see absolutely no advantage to having Mario running around on my coffee table as opposed to my television screen. If Nintendo tries something like this, I guarantee you it will be Virtual Boy 2.
Okay, why can't you see this happening? Search augmented reality and it'll bring up a Howstuffworks.com page. Yeah, it's already happening. Maybe I misunderstood you, maybe you meant about the REV which I would agree.
Second, why would you have no desire to see this happen? Your forgetting something. This isn't virtual reality. Everything isn't computer generated. It is instead reality with computer generated objects. You see no advantages to this? Are you blind? Imagine play Fifa: AR where the stadium seems to float out in front of you while you sit on the couch. You would play as from any viewpoint you'd like, as you could easily get up and walk around the stadium. You see....your forgetting that this technology doesn't have to interact with the enviroment, it just can if it wants to.
Could you imagine walking around while millions of tiny marios scatter every which way as the panic for dear life. They would hide in your closet, or run behind the couch. If they invented some kind of glove you could even pick them up and chuck them at a wall (demented yes, but fun). You could even shoot super lasers out of your index finger and watch the explosion propel marios all over the place. It would be halarious.
I'd continue further but I don't have the time...
Post by: norebonomis on November 01, 2005, 11:05:18 AM
i also would point out that it wouldn't be hard at all to make all your favorite 3d n64 games stereo scopic
i think we will first see steroscopic viewing, then maybe the generation after that augmented reality.
nintendo wouldn't go online last generation because they didn't think it was time. is it time for virtual reality to finaly be mainstream? this is not a question i can answer, but it would rock.
edit: what i would LOVE to see is more fan-made videos like the famous "nintendoON" if just to proove that something like that could be made by one person in a short amount of time.
Post by: zakkiel on November 01, 2005, 11:15:07 AM
QuoteThe very fact that there is a "how stuff works" page on this pretty seals it, as far as I'm concerned. Did you see their article on the Rev? I mean, this is a site that honestly believes researches have broken the speed of light by shining a lazer at a curved mirror. You'd be better off reading the National Inquirer, it's at least funny.
Okay, why can't you see this happening? Search augmented reality and it'll bring up a Howstuffworks.com page.
It won't happen first because it would require you to lazer-image everything in the environment in order to have the game properly interact with it, a process as expensive as it would be tedious and pointless. Unless you happened to be an expert in 3-d modeling, in which case you could use a level editor and do it by hand, I guess. Second, I can't think of any reason to believe someone will find a workable display. Workable requires reasonable power requirements (especially given that you have to have a portable device capable of generating near-photorealistic graphics running of the same power). It also has to be small, completely transparent, and somehow allow your eyes to focus properly. "Augmented reality" is entirely faith-based, in that the people who want it to be true simply assume that all the necessary technology is possible and will simply be discovered in a matter of time. It's much like cold fusion that way. Third, it's the ultimate g immick. How many games would be improved by playing them in levels exactly corresponding to your house? 0. After the first ten minutes, when the novelty of walking arund your house while playing a video game wore off, you would just be playing a video game with monotonous (and bad) level design. (Want to play outside? Guess what? You get to lazer-image everything there too! Hurray!) Finally, if all the previous hurdles were miraculously to evaporate, the expense would just be mind-boggling.
QuoteWow, yes, this certainly would be mildly amusing for a brief period of time. Quite worth investing thousands-millions of dollars and pouring God knows how many hours of my life down the drain.
Could you imagine walking around while millions of tiny marios scatter every which way as the panic for dear life. They would hide in your closet, or run behind the couch.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 01, 2005, 11:23:31 AM
"I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room."
I think at this point it's not even a videogame. It's like something different that's like videogame but not really. To me sitting in front of a screen and playing with a controller is part of the experience. Having a holodeck would be really cool but it's not the same as a game. For starters everything is from your eye view. Sometimes you want a third person view. It's kind of like 2D and 3D gaming. Sometimes you want a flat 2D plain. For some games you don't want total freedom. The limitations of the reality presented can be part of the game. Super Mario Bros sure wouldn't have been as fun if you could just side step the Goombas.
I would own a holodeck and a console. To me they would be totally different forms of entertainment.
It's like how even though you can do almost anything with movies, plays still exist. Even though we can record music, concerts still exist. Even though we have cars, people still ride bikes and horses. Therefore gaming as we know it right now, and ironically as Nintendo pioneered it, will always exist. There will always be some demand for it regardless of what Nintendo does with remote controllers or 3D displays.
Post by: ThePerm on November 01, 2005, 11:28:49 AM
Post by: wandering on November 01, 2005, 02:56:02 PM
Quote
Augmented Reality? Total Immersion? .....
Kind of off topic, but this reminds me of an idea I had a while back. You know those Phillips plasma screens with AmbaLight or whatever? Imagine if Nintendo took that step further. Imagine a projecter that projects images all around on the walls in your room, not for you to look at directly, but for you to take in peripherally while you're playing. In F-Zero, for example, lights might whiz past you as you play. In Zelda, rain and thunder might be present on the walls around you.
Post by: norebonomis on November 01, 2005, 03:18:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Kind of off topic, but this reminds me of an idea I had a while back. You know those Phillips plasma screens with AmbaLight or whatever? Imagine if Nintendo took that step further. Imagine a projecter that projects images all around on the walls in your room, not for you to look at directly, but for you to take in peripherally while you're playing. In F-Zero, for example, lights might whiz past you as you play. In Zelda, rain and thunder might be present on the walls around you.
that is genious! they could do the same ambi-projection for everything from movies to games to music videos..
i can imagine watching the ring and see a shadow on my floor when it looks like the girls is coming out of the tv....
that would be pretty sweet.
the possiblities are pretty endless. but how would the technology work?
this is why i'm fond of steroscopic displays, wheather head mounted or inside of a 'box'
Post by: IceCold on November 01, 2005, 08:10:09 PM
Powerglove------>NRC
Virtual Boy------> N3D
Nintendo's been lying to us; it's the PROCESS OF EVOLUTION, not a Revolution...
"We must know the past to understand the present, and face the future"
Post by: Hawkeye_a on November 02, 2005, 01:04:24 AM
VR/Stereoscopic technology sounds like it would need some hefty hardware. The most cost effective way to go about VR would have to be a visor.
but i reckon, for an additional price, VR/Stereoscopic 3D can be a possibility...
Miyamotos comments recently about going beyond the corners of the television and more important that he "count comment any further on it", made this possibility even more real, at least to me.
Cheers
Post by: ThePerm on November 02, 2005, 03:46:04 AM
Post by: Nile Boogie on November 02, 2005, 04:05:33 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on November 02, 2005, 04:12:20 AM
Imagine when technology is capable of making a pair of sunglasses that are AR capable. Or better yet, what about a pair of contacts. Imagine a doctor performing surgery with such contacts. AR could draw the exact line needed for the incesion. The doctor can of course still see the patient. Since it's AR, it doesn't create the environment like VR would. Instead, it would simply place objects onto the environment. The doctor would then simply have to trace the line. Furthermore, it could highlight which organ or what area is infected. And so on and so forth. Also, imagine students training with AR. No more piglets/frogs/worms getting slaughtered. Instead a virtual pig would be subject to disecting. It would be very realistic, to the point where it looks like you have a knife (forget what's called) in your hand.
