Topic: Another reason why it may be N5 and have VR

[nemo_83]

Okay your tired of speculation but look closly and connect the dots.  Say N5's name is done with an N with the second half of the N highlighted to show the roman numeral V.  I know I've said this too much.  But there is more.  The V not only represents 5 but also Virtual.  

N=nintendo  V=number 5
N=in  V=2005
N=in or Nintendo V= virtual

I see the next GB utilizing a VR screen that can be or must be hooked to the N5.

[norebonomis]

dude, lay off the crack. you must be playing too much mario

[KDR_11k]

1. Nintendo tried VR already. It's down there on the list of failed gaming devices and called Virtual Boy.
2. That name is a placeholder until they find a good one. I mean, have you ever seen a device labeled NV30 in a store? Or r350?

[Nintendo Gamecube]

how about N XXXXX

That'll surely change thier kiddie image.

[nemo_83]

haha.  I could see MS sticking with the Xbox name just so they can get to the number name XXX.  That is if they aren't working with Nintendo next gen.  By the way, why is that topic about MS and Nintendo still in the GameCube board and everyone else gets their stuff shipped over here to noman's land.

[Pale]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
1. Nintendo tried VR already. It's down there on the list of failed gaming devices and called Virtual Boy.
2. That name is a placeholder until they find a good one. I mean, have you ever seen a device labeled NV30 in a store? Or r350?

ACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!

[Bill Aurion]

1) Ninty has never used a code name as the final name for any of their consoles.

2) I believe no one will use VR technology again after the VB fiasco.  It's not often you see great companies make mistakes, but it happens with devasting consequences.  If anyone does eventually do it, it won't be Ninty.

[ThePerm]

heheh how old are the people begging for vr...and how long have yuo been gaming.....VR aint in a helmet. Everythign we do is VR. Shenmue was good vr. Metorid prime was VR. VR means Virtual Reality not Visor Required.

[Pale]

The virtual boy was VR just as much as a red game you play on tv with 3d glasses would be...sheesh

I swear, half these people calling the virtual boy "VR" must not have actually played one...

[Grey Ninja]

Quote
Originally posted by: norebonomis
dude, lay off the crack. you must be playing too much mario

[KDR_11k]

There are many mislabelings in day to day language. Just because VR isn't defined as something displaying a pseudo-3d image, that doesn't mean consumers don't refer to it as such. Means it's completely pointless to argue about what is VR and what not. As long as people THINK it is VR, it's VR for them.

3D glasses/helmets are things that were available for the PC for a long time now, but they were no success and put extra strain on your eyes. Honestly, noone would buy a console that over half of them cannot play for more than thirty consecutive minutes without their eyes hurting. Also, novel concepts either attract or scare away. And as the VB has shown, VR displays tend to fall into the latter category.

[aoi tsuki]

There was also Sega VR, a head-mounted unit which was canned because too many testers got sick after operating it.  

[manunited4eva22]

I've seen a Geforce 5900 and 9800pro, indeed I have.

[nemo_83]

I remember when N64 was Project Reality.  The truth is that both of those names sucked.  Then there was Dolphin which really was confusing how it related to gaming.  It turned into StarCube behind closed doors and then GameCube.  So Dolphin was better but all three of those names sucked.  Especially compared to the names Dreamcast and Playstation.  

N5 sounds simple and sleek.  By the way what does the SP in GBAsp stand for?  SP sounds cool though.  

You people know exactly what I mean when I say VR.  Sure today it maybe defined as a motion sensing helmet that puts you inside the game.  Tommorow it could mean hollograms.  The tech already exists.  They can make hollograms better now than the ones seen in Star Wars with their monochromatic static look.  They're just a bit pricy.

VB cannot be compared.  First it was supposed to be for the portable market.   It was anything but portable.  The graphics were nothing impressive.  And they were all just red lines.  Plus the thing hurt your eyes.  Also it had no motion sensing technologies and was nothing more than a glorified screen.  The idea of making the screen seem bigger through the use of head gear is good though.  

Also by 2005 the costs will be lower than they were in 1995.  As time passes these helmets can give everyone thier own HD widescreen, built in soround sound, a built in mic so we don't have to type, and smell emitors by the nose.

[nemo_83]

I also forgot to mention that a few years ago when GameCube was still Dolphin there were rumors that Nintendo has never abandoned their research into VR gaming.  

[manunited4eva22]

Ya...in 2005 it will still cost 20,000 dollars a model for what you are describing. Dream on.

[nemo_83]

ha.  you're getting ripped off.  i only payed 14,000 dollars for a GameBoy with tilt technology and a screen.

[Pale]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
There are many mislabelings in day to day language. Just because VR isn't defined as something displaying a pseudo-3d image, that doesn't mean consumers don't refer to it as such. Means it's completely pointless to argue about what is VR and what not. As long as people THINK it is VR, it's VR for them.

3D glasses/helmets are things that were available for the PC for a long time now, but they were no success and put extra strain on your eyes. Honestly, noone would buy a console that over half of them cannot play for more than thirty consecutive minutes without their eyes hurting. Also, novel concepts either attract or scare away. And as the VB has shown, VR displays tend to fall into the latter category.

But it is important to understand what we mean by VR, when people talk about launching a big VR thing they mean a helmet with motion sensor and the like.  This has NOTHING to do with the virtual boy, and thus the success of the virtual boy has nothing to do with the would be success of such a product.

[Qbric]

Vr is a feasible venture thats waiting for the right technology and market. The right time is soon and the right market is gaming. I mean for this to apply to the mass amrket. VR is abundant in specialized high tech sectors. Neway, its VB was an amazing feat, and served as proof of concept. It failed but times change people. Did you see Tomb Raider, the new one? Well that was a panasonic VR "helmet" lara was wearing and if you think they dont exist ina lab somewhere, getting its kinks ironed out, you guessed wrong. I think that was the only product panasonic placed in that movie that wasn't on the market. They were essentially a real product. Also, there's tech out there that dsplays right onto your iris, looks as big as a 42" plasma. Good stuff I tell ya.

And to top it off, if you will: http://www.eyetop.net/home/default.asp

[Ocarina Blue]

Well, my main problem with VR is that you have a screen several centimeters away from your eyes. That means headaches and nausea. I've heard rumours of a devise that simply adjusts semi-transparent filters for different hue, brightness and clolours, and has an automatic light source behind it. The idea being that if you are in an area of natural light, you use much less batteries, and don't get a headache. The problem is, natural sources of light are not often consistently spread, meaning that you either have a terrible looking game, or just a standard headache (if you use the light source). I like the idea of projecting something onto your iris, but it would be too hard to position, and if something was done wrong, it's too easy to do permanent damage to your eyes.

[KDR_11k]

I guess you guys mean the retina, the iris prevents light from entering the eye.