Revolution is revolutionary???

pfft. Gaming is accepted. So what? I still do it because I like it, not because EVERYBODY ELSE does.
The big problem here being that what was once directed to an elite group of geeks, is now having to be redesigned to accomodate the <i> masses </i>. (BOY that sounds elitist). And you know what? Executives and marketers treat the masses like they're beasts - like a bunch of useless and illiterate morons who buy anything that has a brand stamped on it.

Elitist as that may sound, most of us who were around when gaming was a bit more oriented to a specific niche, had our gaming needs more purposefully filled. While today's gaming experiences still have some of yesterday's innovative contents, fact is that, like music or movies, there are now too many marketers and executives involved in the decisionmaking, and too little creativity in the industry as a whole. Games could become as generic as comercial music and movies have. Stuff will have no publisher because it doesn't sell, and we'll get more and more crap from the britneys and adam sandlers of gaming - burying the true form of fun and innovative gaming under an utterly unavoidable pile of commercial popularity.

Maybe it won't go that far, but you know what happens when too many marketers and too little creativity are involved? Something similar to the 1983 market. Let's say the industry doesn't crash like that. There'll still be thousands of identical crap games, being bought because they're cool, as opposed to thousands of identical crap games not being bought.


Still sounds like a grim future, doesn't it?



Let's talk about revolution, though.
... there's still nothing much to talk about. It'd damn well be revolutionary or it might be nintendo's last console. Not because nintendo is worse, but because they have less money. They're in a risky situation. Still - I really don't find sony or microsoft very impressive either, as of yet.

And if I'd qualify as a "something" fanboy, I'm a <i> GAMING </i> fanboy, and I have consoles from pretty much everyone - Atari, Mattel, Nintendo, Sony... It's all good as long as it doesn't suck ass. And sucking ass is (literally and metaphoricly) a VERY personal thing.

 

Well I don't wear them nor do I wish to. I don't want to wear glasses to play video games the same as I don't want the use crutches to play football.

We all thought that 10 years ago.

I'm sure you could if you wanted to. Man went to the moon with less than a 75Mhz PC.

 

PS2 already has touch sensitive (analog) buttons, and the gyroscope idea sounds pretty bad. It's annoying when people (especially little kids) jerk around the controller when playing videogames as if it accomplishes something, now it will.

I also wouldn't be able to stand wearing 3D glasses/goggles or anything else on my face/head, that intrudes my personal space .

 

I want VR.

I really do.

 

Because their new functions have no other practical use. Really, why do Nintendo think they can revolutionise control? An analogue stick and D-Pad is all I really need. It'll take a hell of an engineering job to prove otherwise to me.

I love Nintendo games, but they were better before they started putting bullshit in. Controlling Mario with a stylus? No.

 

I've yet to see it used as more than a cheesey gimmik.

 

lol, there was a sliders episode on today about VR..mwahaha, damn that was funny.

Anyways, I'll give this a chance and try it out, just because it's new. It sounds dumb, but maybe they'll pull it off and blow everyone away...maybe.

 

that you like it or not, nintendo's next console seems to be the most interesting. Still it could be all bullshit, it's now up to ninty. The revolution everyon's waiting for or just another hype just like the others? it seems to be the second option, for now, but i really hope not. talk about the ps3 having a proccessor better than 1000 proccesors of today's pcs all in one mega powerfull CELL proccesor, that would break the Moore law and all, and try to not laugh. or what about that emotion engine that could bring us into a matrix-esque world?

 

Three are three ways to do 3D images and all of them are flawed....

1 - LCD Shutters / Spinning Disc

Ah the first wave of VR. Flick between left and right images at around 15 frames a second to get a 3D image... nice not...

Seen in
Vectrex Imager (Spinning Coloured Disc)
Sega 3D Glasses - Mark III / Master System
Nintendo 3D Glasses - Famicom
Continental Circus - Arcade

2 - Red / Green glasses
A few games used Red / Green filters and Red / Green graphics to do 3D, yes it worked but the results were fairly awful as in the B Movie films that used it.

Seen in
A few computer games, even on the Spectrum (idiots...)

3 - Twin Screen glasses

The third wave had tiny LCD screens giving you two images, better refresh rates but still gave most people head aches, play it for too long and you got crossed eyed. Later ones used Direct 3D so gave fairly good results(ish).

Seen in
Virtual Boy
Various PC 3D glasses

4 - Psuedo 3D

This method uses curved surfaces to give the impression of 3D, works well but it's not a true 3D image.

Seen in

Segas Time Traveler

5 - Polarised light

Another method is to use polarising filters to polarise the light and using cheap glasses (even disposable ones) so you only see the correct polarised image. An excellent method as it does work very well, and with Direct X on PCs you can get it to work with any 3D game. However it's out of the league of consumers, why? Well it requires two projectors to project an image onto a screen (works well in cinemas say...) most people cant afford one... the image also has to be sqaure else you get distortion errors which will confuse the heck out of your brain... Another way of doing it would be to use a monochromic LCD screen with very fine lines and you could get a reasonable 3Dish image from that with little extra cost...

Seen in

Expensive executive demostrations (one example I saw cost about $20,000....)

6 - Directed / Refracted Light

Two manufacturers have created screens that by having a panel of directed / refracted light you can get 3D images as you can create an image that is unique to the left and right eyes. Works well but prices starting at $4,000 it's a little on the expensive side.

7 - Motion Tracking

Not true 3D in a sense but tracking a person moving left and right and altering the screen so you get a 3D effect works well for one person at least... also requires a large screen, generally plasma or projection so several thousand dollars at least...

8 - Lasers

The main problem is getting decent coloured images as well as having enough computer power to do a true 3D image. A few prototypes of Laser Holographic displays have been built but they run in to many tens of thousands of dollars... Still a way off...

So the Revolution will have gyroscopes, well whoopie do... wonder if there will be a waiter game... 3D holographs are a little way off yet...