Virtual Reality & Bleak Cities
Sep. 30th, 2010 05:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xenithSo I finally went to see Game On 2.0 and it was thought provoking, in ways the developers probably never intended. Two things in particular.
First the background: It's a touring exhibition about the development of video/computer games that consists of 130+ playable games. As in, you walk up to them, pick up the controls and play them. Game On 2.0 is the upgraded version of the original Game On exhibition. For some unknown reason, 2.0 had its world premiere at QVMAG in Launceston, and after being here since July, it's heading off to Greece next week. If/where it comes back to Australia, I have no idea.
So there's Pong and there's various games from 2010, and all sorts of stuff in the middle. Like the Atari console tank game and an early Tetris and Tomb Raider. And some of those hand-held games from the 1980s, like Donkey Kong. I had actually forgotten about them, for all the time we devoted to the things. All of which was rather cool, and it also gave me a chance to check out some games I've heard about but never seen, like the Sims.
But that's not the point of this post.
One of the highlights of the exhibitions is the VirtuSphere, a virtual reality ball that you get into. Except I had my boots on and it required flat shoes :( I wondered if it was worth going home to get different shoes. That seemed silly, but weighed against that, if I didn't try it, I might regret it, so I went home and came back.
The last time I tried something like this was at a computer expo in Adelaide back in 1996. That was a helmet/goggle and hand-held thingy (gun?) virtual reality set-up that was being heralded as the next big thing in gaming, and here we are 14 years later and they're all over the place. Um...
Some differences, the obvious one being the sphere that you're inside, and it's wireless. The display though, is a screen that is front of your face, so you can see the "real world" around the edges and below. The earlier version, if I remember correctly, covered your head and eyes, so all you saw was the computer display. Given that there's loud sound and your hands are involved via the controller/gun, the older system was much more immersive. From the point of view of psychological well-being, the (present-day) display screen might be a better solution.
Why haven't they become popular? I assume the limiting factor of the older system was movement through space i.e. walking. You can't walk in "real space" and have it mapped to the virtual world, or you will run into things and run out of things (walls and cabling). The Virtusphere enables you to walk, slowly. It tilts as you step forwards/backwards, and if you go to fast, you're liable to lose your balance. I guess you'd get used to that with time. It's not exactly something you can set up in our lounge room though.
I think the other problem with these systems is mental health. There's enough problems with current computer/TV gaming systems, and telling reality from the game. (And I say that as someone who has had that problem in the past, so it's not open to debate :) Immersing yourself for long periods of time in an alternate reality where you're shooting people or performing other activities not generally acceptable in the real world is probably a Very Bad Idea.
And yet, is this the future of gaming?
The other thing that had me thinking was one of the newer games with a city setting. Half Life maybe? Yeah, City 17. Just from a couple of minutes, it came across as a dreary, run-down sort of city in some dystopian future. Even outside of the dystopian setting, futuristic cities do tend towards bleakness: dreary and dirty and desperate. Makes for a dark, gritty story setting, I guess. But are they really that far removed from modern day cities? You could probably take any city of respectable size, and highlights its negative aspects -- dirty busy streets and roads, decaying buildings, graffiti-covered areas -- and the same feeling as some of these dark and dreary future cities. Maybe it's just a matter of what you choose to focus on. (And I wonder if I can do that for Melbourne. I don't think I have the right photos though.)
First the background: It's a touring exhibition about the development of video/computer games that consists of 130+ playable games. As in, you walk up to them, pick up the controls and play them. Game On 2.0 is the upgraded version of the original Game On exhibition. For some unknown reason, 2.0 had its world premiere at QVMAG in Launceston, and after being here since July, it's heading off to Greece next week. If/where it comes back to Australia, I have no idea.
So there's Pong and there's various games from 2010, and all sorts of stuff in the middle. Like the Atari console tank game and an early Tetris and Tomb Raider. And some of those hand-held games from the 1980s, like Donkey Kong. I had actually forgotten about them, for all the time we devoted to the things. All of which was rather cool, and it also gave me a chance to check out some games I've heard about but never seen, like the Sims.
But that's not the point of this post.
One of the highlights of the exhibitions is the VirtuSphere, a virtual reality ball that you get into. Except I had my boots on and it required flat shoes :( I wondered if it was worth going home to get different shoes. That seemed silly, but weighed against that, if I didn't try it, I might regret it, so I went home and came back.
The last time I tried something like this was at a computer expo in Adelaide back in 1996. That was a helmet/goggle and hand-held thingy (gun?) virtual reality set-up that was being heralded as the next big thing in gaming, and here we are 14 years later and they're all over the place. Um...
Some differences, the obvious one being the sphere that you're inside, and it's wireless. The display though, is a screen that is front of your face, so you can see the "real world" around the edges and below. The earlier version, if I remember correctly, covered your head and eyes, so all you saw was the computer display. Given that there's loud sound and your hands are involved via the controller/gun, the older system was much more immersive. From the point of view of psychological well-being, the (present-day) display screen might be a better solution.
Why haven't they become popular? I assume the limiting factor of the older system was movement through space i.e. walking. You can't walk in "real space" and have it mapped to the virtual world, or you will run into things and run out of things (walls and cabling). The Virtusphere enables you to walk, slowly. It tilts as you step forwards/backwards, and if you go to fast, you're liable to lose your balance. I guess you'd get used to that with time. It's not exactly something you can set up in our lounge room though.
I think the other problem with these systems is mental health. There's enough problems with current computer/TV gaming systems, and telling reality from the game. (And I say that as someone who has had that problem in the past, so it's not open to debate :) Immersing yourself for long periods of time in an alternate reality where you're shooting people or performing other activities not generally acceptable in the real world is probably a Very Bad Idea.
And yet, is this the future of gaming?
The other thing that had me thinking was one of the newer games with a city setting. Half Life maybe? Yeah, City 17. Just from a couple of minutes, it came across as a dreary, run-down sort of city in some dystopian future. Even outside of the dystopian setting, futuristic cities do tend towards bleakness: dreary and dirty and desperate. Makes for a dark, gritty story setting, I guess. But are they really that far removed from modern day cities? You could probably take any city of respectable size, and highlights its negative aspects -- dirty busy streets and roads, decaying buildings, graffiti-covered areas -- and the same feeling as some of these dark and dreary future cities. Maybe it's just a matter of what you choose to focus on. (And I wonder if I can do that for Melbourne. I don't think I have the right photos though.)
