• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
3Ddreamer

Augmented Reality: The Future Tech Leader of Gaming?

27 posts in this topic

Hello,

 

 

Please share what you know about the current state of augmented reality technology and how you see it growing in game development of the future.  This should be fascinating.   smile.png

 

 

Clinton

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
omni + occulus rift has some serious potential.

edit: completly missed the augmented reality, thought u were asking about thse future of gaming in general. as for augmented reality, I think google glasses has the most potential. Edited by slicer4ever
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try to give a shot on the AR...

 

Lecture - What is Augmented Reality and Why it emerged?

 

Augmented Reality is quite misunderstood concept IMHO. I have been involved with design and implementation of quite many different kind of VR and AR systems over the years. And I always felt uncomfortable with the technology and what emphasis people put on the tech instead of for what purpose this tech is used.

 

One big problem for me personally was that none seemed to be able to explain why VR/AR are useful. Intuitively everyone has such fascination and awe, but when it comes to explaining things everyone went mute. Hence I started to try answer that question my self. This being only my personal point of view on things, more of and hypothesis over some 5+ years of empirical observations smile.png

On that basis, I gave lecture on Augmented Reality, introducing framework how I see VR/AR when developing different kind of systems mostly for industry. In more general sense the principles of this framework are also applicable to whatever kind of applications you develop. Even VR/AR games and where you put the challenges or push your player to the limits, for example Cymatic Bruce experience in Portal 2 when jumping off the cliff down to grab a box etc. Or when it comes to the use of Google Glass in comparison to Meta 1 for some GPS based adventure game or educational app.

I hope this lecture provides some structure when you try to understand what makes VR / AR games or applications either fun and engaging or from serious games point of view what makes them useful (Since you can do basically everything but that does not warrant value for industry).

In the recent Augmented World Expo 2013, many of the key players in AR field debated whether Google Glass is AR solution at all, or if Meta 1 is the true AR system. This debate also revolved around work conducted by Steve Mann on the perceptual enhancements. And I hope if you see my lecture it should become obvious that this starts to look like apples vs oranges kind of debate, hence not very constructive or useful arguments.

Please feel free to throw feedback. As I say in the video description this should also stir some discussion within the AR community what we are trying to achieve with our technology.

- Sauli

Edited by Cromfel
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about people focus on making games with better graphics and story,and forget making games that you can play in some glasses while walking to work?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about people focus on making games with better graphics and story,and forget making games that you can play in some glasses while walking to work?

 

Why not both?

 

It's not like AR and good graphics and story are mutually exclusive. In fact, I don't really understand why one would have any effect at all on the other.

 

Personally, I think AR is very interesting as a concept, but I'm constantly disappointed by any demo trying to implement it in practice.

Seems we need way better sensors and a lot more image processing power before it becomes really usable in game development, more then just a fancy tech demo that is fun to play around with for a while until you get frustrated with it losing synch with the physical world all the time.

Edited by Olof Hedman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we stuck on the google glasses or are we looking past them to the potential in the industry and for the end user even without glasses?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm in the camp where I hardly define google glass as AR at all.

Sure, some context aware information overlay, but it's mostly just a transparent screen in the corner of your eye right?

 

In my imagination, proper AR would seamlessly integrate 3D objects in your surroundings. In the perfect future it would even take in account the lighting in the scene you are looking at, and make sure the 3D object is properly lighted.

It would be rock solid and not feel "floating" at all.

I would like to at least have 2D information bubble popups that does not "float about" but properly attach to objects you look at.

 

With such a system, you could do all kinds of cool stuff, but with the "bad synch" with the physical world, I find the AR-stuff I've seen to be mostly nausea-inducing and frustrating.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when you play games, you should play games.  AR games have narrow scopes, and are only usable in limited environment like laser tags or board games, and it only serves as an enhancement.  You obviously don't want to be playing Frogger while crossing real streets.  You will only have one life there, and there's no princess on the other side of the street.

 

Google glass itself is already a huge distraction to the person wearing it, and the people around him.  It has limited practical purposes, but far usable as a video gaming console.

 

Oculus Rift is the only thing that I think has some potential as a gaming platform.   It's something you wear while you play games, and play games only.  You are not eating while wearing that.  You are not taking a shower while wearing that.

 

I don't think you should not be doing anything else while playing games.

Edited by alnite
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my previous posts were about what I know about the current state.

In this post I will dream a bit more.

 

I don't think AR gaming has to mean gaming "while doing something else".

It could drastically enhance dedicated gaming too.

And I think it really comes to shine when you combine it with multiplayer (with people at the same physical location, and beyond, they could be present by avatar)

 

What you would have in a "perfect" AR system is more or less the ability to have a screen "anywhere", and it wouldn't even have to look like a screen.

 You could erase the border between classical board games, and computer games, and have shared multiplayer experiences on any table. (or maybe park)

It could be pretty sweet to play your sim game in your living room and walk around in it, instead of on a flat screen.

How about an educational game that teach kids about nature using a small flying creature telling you about the things you encounter while playing outside? (ok that one was "while something else")

You could make incredibly scary horror games...

 

Just a few things off the top of my head.

All though needing way better AR then is available today.

 

I'd like AR that is so good that you don't even have to have a classical screen anymore.

(and preferably no explicit glasses either, maybe just a dot you glue on the side of your nose that project the images on your retina).

You could just conjure up pictures wherever you needed them. on any surface, or hanging in the air...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when you play games, you should play games.  AR games have narrow scopes, and are only usable in limited environment like laser tags or board games, and it only serves as an enhancement.  You obviously don't want to be playing Frogger while crossing real streets.  You will only have one life there, and there's no princess on the other side of the street.

I don't think you should not be doing anything else while playing games.


this reads very neophyty. You don't have to be doing other things when you're playing an AR game. All it is is placing game objects in your world. There's nothing forcing you to do anything while playing an AR game.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I feel the same as all of you about the potential and the disappointment so far in AR.

 

Cromfel echoed the debate that is happening out there as to whether implementations are really AR or not and how making comparisons is challenging.  This reminds me of other technology advances which also had a lot of obscurity about future uses.

 


Personally, I think AR is very interesting as a concept, but I'm constantly disappointed by any demo trying to implement it in practice.

Seems we need way better sensors and a lot more image processing power before it becomes really usable in game development, more then just a fancy tech demo that is fun to play around with for a while until you get frustrated with it losing synch with the physical world all the time.

 

I did some research last night and found a company working for over a year on solving the AR processing issues directly - Euclideon.  Notice the previous limits processed in a laptop have been multiplied beyond estimation by direct reading of data from a drive instead of memory middle management:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls

 

Isn't this technology going to allow an extremely realistic scene to be the surroundings for an AR player?

 

 

Clinton

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I did some research last night and found a company working for over a year on solving the AR processing issues directly - Euclideon.

 


Euclideon

 

I stopped reading there. Those guys went to subzero credibility with their "unlimited detail" claims. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything coming from them.

 

That said, AR is certainly interesting and I'm looking forward to the next few years. I think we'll see a lot of cool stuff by 2020. A lot of the technology already exists but there's still a lot of work needed to make it accessible to the general public.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I stopped reading there. Those guys went to subzero credibility with their "unlimited detail" claims. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything coming from them.

 

That said, AR is certainly interesting and I'm looking forward to the next few years. I think we'll see a lot of cool stuff by 2020. A lot of the technology already exists but there's still a lot of work needed to make it accessible to the general public.

 

Even though I can see where you're coming from, did you watch their new video? It's pretty impressive. The guy that does their voice over still sounds like a douche, but the actual tech was pretty impressive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that we have heard wild claims like "will revolutionize [this or that industry]" many times and were disappointed (Remember the hype about the Segway?), but I feel that we are really overdue for the next giant leap in computer and/or software technology.

 

Clinton

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omni was mentioned earlier in this thread. For those too lazy to look it up, here's the kickstarter that was launched 2 days ago (and already way surpassed the goal).

It looks very interesting, and will perhaps provide a practical way of physically moving around to navigate a non-physical/virtual space. It'll probably take a few versions before it becomes really polished and functional, but it seems like it has great potential. If it works well, it'll be the great stepping stone between physically moving and some kind of mental hook.

 

(This is virtual reality rather than augmented reality, as already mentioned)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cromfel echoed the debate that is happening out there as to whether implementations are really AR or not and how making comparisons is challenging.

 

 

Thats how you can interpret the situation if you perceive the AR from its legacy point of view. My opinion being that such question as "Is Google Glass AR or not" is simply wrong question. I would apreciate if you took the time and watch the youtube lecture. It looks long but I encourage you to watch it smile.png

 

In classical sense, where you can pose such questions, you see Augmented Reality in every game already. User interface is contextualized information perfect example of it is TF2 with Oculus rift and how "ARish" the UI actually is (The UI elements in such case are that of Google Glass type and fall under abstract reasoning). Take for example Battlefield 3 and start to analyze what is going on when you play. Your squad members are being overlaid with graphical indicators that are spatially correct and give you enhanced awareness (This is now concrete reasoning AR, where your spatial and temporal parts of brains are tapped into even if the name tags for example are abstract, the main added value is of the spatial reasoning). That is Augmented Reality in Virtual environment right there, in two different games representing 2 of the modalities.

 

This very thing allows for example me to use Virtual Reality to prototype Augmented Reality applications without developing any real technology. Thats right, for our industrial VR/AR applications we use virtual reality to prototype real systems, for example product or even virtual reality systems themselves (For example use of HMD to evaluate powerwall / cavesetups) and use of VR to prototype any kind of AR application you can imagine without bothering yet with technical development and risking that your application is not actually useful. Mind boggling? No not really. People have just technology oriented fascination and hype on AR without bothering to too much understand what is actually going on with VR and AR.

If you want to create augmented reality game, it would mean that your perception of reality is augmented with synthetic stimuli for the purpose of entertainment. Where as this stimuli would be of gaming nature. Be it solving some kind of puzzle, compete for scoring etc. I suppose you are augmenting visual perception. Now, what kind of game you want the player to experience?

Lets say you wanted to create augmented reality MUD? Google glass would be sufficient for that. You capture the basic components of what makes a good MUD and incorporate the physical presence in specific location to your gameplay. Incorporate google maps to it or whatever. And you make the action as just text based adventure. Future of LARP? Anyway, thats tapping to your abstract reasoning whereas your physical presence at specific spot gives you context. Game content is purely based on your abstract reasoning while being contextualized with concrete reasoning. No, Im not any kind of MUD expert just using it as example to widen the mindset.

Now, I suppose we stick with so called classic AR with overlaying graphical content to real world. Such as 3D objects, say monsters etc, one needs such device that have optical see through (very challenging) or video see through. Google Glass or Meta 1 and such devices will not do. They are still too primitive for the task. Say you had Oculus rift and 2 HD cameras that could provide you with video see through. Then you combine it with some tracking solution like ALVAR from VTT or Metaio pick whatever. Now you can start to overlay graphical content to your field of view s there was monsters crawling etc. Thats pure concrete reasoning right there while you are running away from the zombies that haunt you on the streets. Watch out for reality while you are at it. Dont be fooled by the nice technology demos you see like Meta1 etc. They are appealing only for the audience and not for the user itself. They use optical see through without any benefit of the see through capability. It is even counter intuitive actually due technology limitations. Its exactly same effect what allowed Johnny Lee to demonstrate head tracking. That is tapping to your concrete reasoning even when the medium is normal display. FOr the actual user the AR demos on those videos is not actually delivered. Thats still on the dreaming state.

What I want you to understand that Augmented Reality as technology will not be giving you much cues what kind of game is fun or meaningful or engaging. First of all you must envision the game and what kind of gameplay you want to achieve. Then you go and pick the relevant technology to implement it and be totally objective what you actually want to achieve with your technology. Some games could be just fine with smartphone providing you with the graphics overlay while the GPS and other sensors provide you with contextualization in case you plan to make some geo-tag game. Some games could actually use your visual sense to be overlaid in Oculus Rift kind of way so that you feel immersed by the monsters.

Thats the downside of VR & AR at large. They allow you to do everything. Yes, I mean it, everything you can imagine. But the technology will not make up the lack of meaningful content. Understand your medium. Pick your target audience and then develope a game that respects the medium and the audience. This is for example the reason why "true VR" claim of Oculus rift falls short. The wide field of view is not any more or less VR than some old z800 HMD. In given application the z800 is perfectly fine. It is not about technology when it comes to VR/AR. Sure, good tech widens your scope and gives you higher propability to succeed with your application. (DOnt get me wrong, I love rift Its awesome!)

I feel almost dirty to try make people to see the lecture and try to understand it, maybe over time it will happen. It may be all confusing at large but I promise that you will appreciate understanding these things when you actually want use AR outside of dreaming and hype scenarios, and you are trying to figure out what is exactly the added value of AR in your game.

 

Historical reasons are what they are and they derail a lot of attention from us, humans, and our perception of reality. Technology is the enabler for us to do all those fancy and nice tricks, but its nothing but technology that we try to harness for specific purposes. When it boils down to design of systems that deliver you ought to understand for what purpose you use what set of technologies. Its not easy for sure, been there done that, failed many times among few successful systems.

We are only starting to get slight understanding what AR actually is, no matter how many experts you see, with perfect confidence, telling you about head mounted displays and floating 3D objects etc. I make a bold claim that these people simply dont know in full widht what they are dealing with ;)

Edited by Cromfel
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try to give a shot on the AR...

Lecture - What is Augmented Reality and Why it emerged?

Augmented Reality is quite misunderstood concept IMHO. I have been involved with design and implementation of quite many different kind of VR and AR systems over the years. And I always felt uncomfortable with the technology and what emphasis people put on the tech instead of for what purpose this tech is used.

 

Interesting, I look forward to finding some time to watch this.

 

I've been involved with a number of AR projects for clients and frankly I fail to see the appeal or relevance, certainly with the current technology, but also in general. There are maybe a handful of AR or AR like projects that I've seen which actually provide some tangible benefit.

 

The problem I have is that so far in nearly all cases, the overall result of using AR could have been accomplished without using AR at all, the only thing that has been gained is a degree of 'coolness'. For example many AR applications or games involve overlaying 3d models into the world, or usually on top of a specific marker. This model then animates or you can move around the marker to view it from different directions etc. None of which ever needed AR to function, the same results could just as easily be achieved by displaying a model on screen and using gyroscope or accelerometer or even just traditional input methods. So I find myself asking, why bother? What is the point other than shouting hey look at how cool we are using this new technology. Which ultimately makes me feel rather sad.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely a coolness factor to all this and it can certainly enthral and inspire people, but ultimately it just seems completely superfluous. However I wouldn't claim that AR as a technology is completely pointless, just at present the vast majority of uses of it seem to be. I'm desperately hoping this will change over time and that clients will understand the medium better to enable more interesting applications to be created.

 

Here is a great example of the most pointless use of AR I've seen to date. It was for some kiosk piece for Shell (a global group of energy and petrochemicals companies), where they stick an AR marker onto a turntable, so that users can rotate it whilst watching themselves on a screen and view a 3d model of a 'Gas to Liquid Plant'. Its utterly pointless in my mind because not only is the marker card superfluous (same result could easily be accomplished with a turntable and 3d accelerometer), but the final display of placing a model in front of a video of the person standing behind it is also superfluous. Sure it has a slight element of coolness to it, but the AR enhanced interactivity and the AR of combining virtual with real world leads to no tangible benefits or results.

 

Of course i'm making some generalisations here and part of it is definitely out of frustrating with working for clients that end up imposes artificially silly restrictions on what AR is being used (which I wouldn't be at all surprised is why the Shell AR project above turned out like it did). For example one project i'm working on has a collection of iPads to view the markers, but they are tethered, completely removing the ability to move around the markers with them!

 

I think there are some genuinely good uses of AR. I like the fact that it can be utilised to provide a 'understandable' means of controlling movement through a space. For example using a mobile device to view a virtual environment, where the relative position of the mobile to the AR marker controls the viewable position of the environment, allowing users to navigate through or around a space without having to use gamepads, mouse/keyboard etc. Its the simple aspect that the user is essentially holding a 'camera' into a virtual world that makes this interaction natural and understandable. I think these are the sort of elements where AR can shine.

 

 


Thats the downside of VR & AR at large. They allow you to do everything. Yes, I mean it, everything you can imagine. But the technology will not make up the lack of meaningful content.

 

Pretty much sums up a large amount of the AR work I've seen and been involved with. To a degree the act of using AR can give some extra depth to content, but it can't replace the need for good content and I'd go further and say it requires meaningful content that benefits from being displayed within an AR system.

 

 


We are only starting to get slight understanding what AR actually is, no matter how many experts you see, with perfect confidence, telling you about head mounted displays and floating 3D objects etc. I make a bold claim that these people simply dont know in full widht what they are dealing with ;)

 

Very true. I feel that everyone sort of has an instinctive knowledge or understanding of what AR is, but when you actually get down to it and start looking for more meaningful ways to utilise the technology and go beyond just adding some cool factor, this knowledge breaks down dramatically. I've seen it my own client projects where quite often I realise they are simply trying to mould a touchscreen delivery of content into AR and it just doesn't work.

 

As such i've started to jot down what I feel are the benefits of AR, what use cases make the most sense of the technology, where does it fail, what other interactions should it be mixed with or not, how do people interact or expect to interact with AR, AR Markers, or the display (e.g. handheld devices) etc. All in order to heopfully help guide potential future clients into developing a project that has better value than previously.

 

 

 

I'd love to discuss this further and to have had time to properly collated my thoughts in order to write and explain them better than I have above, but as ever i'm in a bit of crunch mode for coincidently an AR project ;) So I just wanted to put done some initial thoughts and viewpoint on the matter. Hopefully i'll be able to return to it in a week or so and after i've had time to watch the video posted.

 

Oh i'm also interested in the whole definition of AR as it could be as broad or as narrow as you want. As such I wonder if the term AR is a little meaningless now since at its most basic it could include anything and everything where by information is overlaid on top of a real or even virtual video stream. That's not really AR to me, its a subset, basically a HUD. However defining and naming these things can cause huge arguments, so i'm unsure how beneficial it is to bother ;)

Edited by noisecrime
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example many AR applications or games involve overlaying 3d models into the world, or usually on top of a specific marker. This model then animates or you can move around the marker to view it from different directions etc. None of which ever needed AR to function, the same results could just as easily be achieved by displaying a model on screen and using gyroscope or accelerometer or even just traditional input methods. So I find myself asking, why bother? What is the point other than shouting hey look at how cool we are using this new technology. Which ultimately makes me feel rather sad.

 

This is indeed one of the plagues haunting AR. On top of the exploitation of how camera Point Of View content shown on youtube videos of marker based tracking with some 3D object floating. This is how people would first of all like to experience things. Per the framework for concrete reasoning when the POV is correct the content looks very appealing for obvious reasons. But it is not how you experience it in reality unles you have proper HMD with video-see-through. And even then the added value is nonexistent if the product is not such as evaluating visual appearance that is of suitable scale for such visualization. And exactly as you said, this very thing could be implemented using other sensors also. Tracking is tracking and its totally detached from the AR experience if you use image based tracking or something else. This is also one of the things people dont distinguish. AR tracking using image is separate thing than using video overlay. Even if they happen to come in same package. One can use magnetic tracking for position and orientation and still use video see through just to give obvious example.

 

As such i've started to jot down what I feel are the benefits of AR, what use cases make the most sense of the technology, where does it fail, what other interactions should it be mixed with or not, how do people interact or expect to interact with AR, AR Markers, or the display (e.g. handheld devices) etc. All in order to heopfully help guide potential future clients into developing a project that has better value than previously.

 

This is what should be done more. And it is not simple task to find good way to categorize what exactly makes specific case valuable whereas exactly same application is completely useles in some other case. For me the experience of utilizing VR, as an example, boiled down to fact that the cases where it was most useful was when we had multidisciplinary group of people with various backgrounds who needed to discuss new design of machines such as mining loaders etc. So when I tried to narrow down what was causing this specific setting to be useful was the fact that the concrete experience what the drivers of such machine had was only becoming relevant when they could communicate upon the setting where they would be working. But now in controlled VR experience.  Same phenomena was visible where much of the VR utilization was on the sales and most important thing in that situation was outside of the abstract reasoning and product specification, but actually to be sitting inside machine what you are going to buy. Evaluate how it would feel to be inside and do specific job task.

 

Now when it comes to the usual AR with floating 3D objects. The only differentiating factor was the utilization of physical world in conjunction for a specific purpose. It can be for example that the machine design is at such phase that physical cabin construct is already being built. Now only the dashboard and final button / UI screen layout is being finalized. There it is more useful to utilize the physical structure to provide somatosensory experience, some would call it haptic, and visualize through AR the alternative button layouts and screen configuration where the physical presence in the cabin helps to get feeling of space... Now from what sense point of view this is AR? Again this becomes interesting question when we get rid of the traditional AR view and not only focus on the visual feedback :)

 

This all will become much more clear to you when you watch the lecture video. Many of these things such as using 500 000$ haptic supermegahyperglove with your VR visualization becomes solved when you just grab a replica of the object being manipulated. My point being that model and simulate only when its necesary. NEVER when it is just because of the coolnes and due "Because I can" setting. This seems very obvious on hindsight... But not so obvious when you go and see some very expensive haptic demo being used for completely irrelevant purpose.

 

I'd love to discuss this further and to have had time to properly collated my thoughts in order to write and explain them better than I have above, but as ever i'm in a bit of crunch mode for coincidently an AR project ;) So I just wanted to put done some initial thoughts and viewpoint on the matter. Hopefully i'll be able to return to it in a week or so and after i've had time to watch the video posted.

 

I am looking forward to get some feedback on the framework. It is something I have been coining around for some years but only now got some breathing room from work to put something down in form of presentation. Not even to think about any kind of publication yet. I already see good insight in what you have been saying and much reflects the experience I have had during the years. And it always amazes me how little attention people pay to objectively analyze the situation and squeeze out what is valuable and what is just cool.

 

Oh i'm also interested in the whole definition of AR as it could be as broad or as narrow as you want. As such I wonder if the term AR is a little meaningless now since at its most basic it could include anything and everything where by information is overlaid on top of a real or even virtual video stream. That's not really AR to me, its a subset, basically a HUD. However defining and naming these things can cause huge arguments, so i'm unsure how beneficial it is to bother ;)

 

This becomes also somehow bizarre if you adopt the framework. I mean in a good way. It takes away the mystery what many people are trying to build around AR. It does not make AR irelevant, null or void. Quite opposite for me atleast. It removes a lot of unnecesary noise and brings clarity where you can focus on essential. But time will show if other people will perceive the situation in same manner.

Edited by Cromfel
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cromfel,

 

Digesting the aspects of this subject and this conversation is going to take me a little while.   I twice watched the video of your lecture.  Most of it I have read or heard from various sources but I have never experienced a presentation like that on the related issues. It occurred to me that many of the most popular video games utilized all of the modalities.  Some games with amazing visual appeal failed to become popular because of lacking in one or more of the modalities. I agree about the evolution of AR depending on developers being conscious of the modalities and designing future AR games accordingly.  The challenge of getting beyond 1st and 2nd modalities is obvious with AR.

 

More study in this subject is needed by me.

 

Thank you for your work in this area.

 

Clinton

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have already been many such apps for cell phones and tablets. I remember one augmented reality game that relied on GPS in your smart phone along with Google Maps to turn your city into a virtual pac-man game. You could hold it up and see the big pac-man pellets hovering over the roads you have not traveled.

There was another game that turned your city into an AR-shooter that you could play with anyone who was connected. You could see where they were on the Google Map display, and once you were close enough and along a line-of-sight on the map you could tap your phone and it would virtually shoot the other player.


Like all new technology advances, it expands the field of what can be done with games. It enables new games to be written.

New games and new technology does not threaten old games. People still clone and sell games that originated from the 1970s. The fact that people can still sell (and profit from) pong clones, asteroid clones, space invaders clones, and so on show that genres don't die as the field expands.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until i can play a game completely virtualised in my mind (using electrodes or something), i won't be satisfied!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frob,

 

Yes, indeed-that is true and clear to see.

 

 

Clinton

Edited by 3Ddreamer
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until i can play a game completely virtualised in my mind (using electrodes or something), i won't be satisfied!

 

 

With augmented reality, it will become increasingly possible to take actual display of a real environment and interact with the image on your screen.  Companies are working on more efficient ways to "scan" the real world data into a game.   It may become possible and common for AR games to have only a fraction of the content be virtual and most of it AR.

 

Entering your actual brain to work in your mind is a long way in the future, in my opinion.

 

 

Clinton

Edited by 3Ddreamer
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cromfel,

 

Digesting the aspects of this subject and this conversation is going to take me a little while.   I twice watched the video of your lecture.  Most of it I have read or heard from various sources but I have never experienced a presentation like that on the related issues. It occurred to me that many of the most popular video games utilized all of the modalities.  Some games with amazing visual appeal failed to become popular because of lacking in one or more of the modalities. I agree about the evolution of AR depending on developers being conscious of the modalities and designing future AR games accordingly.  The challenge of getting beyond 1st and 2nd modalities is obvious with AR.

 

More study in this subject is needed by me.

 

Thank you for your work in this area.

 

Clinton

 

 

It is good to try wrap your head around these things. You always figure out something new when you iterate around some consepts.

 

What you say about games utilizing these modalities. Thats very true. Big problem have been the display paradigm what have derailed thinking of many individuals. Actually it is rather funny now on hindsight to look back and think what kind of dramatic effect our display devices have had on shaping our perception and expectations of visual simulation and for exampe games from entertainment point of view. What Oulus VR is doing is quite remarkable "Why do we have to see this world as a box?" I feel almost sorry for all those companies who have been in the HMD business and who have been stuck on the boxed-view-to-virtual-worlds paradigm. Ok, its easy to say now. But lets say half of the problem was compatibility issues and legacy support and that none wanted to take the risk, yet this very issue could have been the problem preventing VR getting on earlier considering the money burned (Even how much Sony burned money on their personal "video viewer"). Palmer Luckey literally thought outside of the box ;)

 

What we earlier discussed about Battlefield 3 and the ingame AR in form of minimaps and visual indicators of your team mates position. A lot of that stuff what we see in games could be directly adopted to real life AR (Given that we had sufficient technological level). I think there is huge amount of different well honed application "templates", if you will, what we can adopt only by evaluating 3D games and how problems have been solved there. Specifically when it comes to navigation support. I cant emphasis enough the importance on being critical on what you want to achieve with the technology in respect to AR.

 

Take for example this picture:

 

Battlefield-3-Gulf-of-Oman-Gameplay-Trai

 

You see representation of all 3 modalities in same screen. As soon as we throw all this to such display device as Oculus Rift, the whole illusion of user interface being somehow related to the boxed world view experience is shattered. Suddenly google glass makes perfect sense also. One style of AR being merely localized according to eyes while other localized according to hear or rest of the body (Kinesthetic mental model).

 

Modality 1 - Concrete reasoning in form of Caudell AR by spatializing indicators of friends passing by,  while you were not perfectly sure if it was your schoolmate from 10 years ago but as your smartphone pulled his name and visualized through optical see through HMD floating name around his head you were sure it was John Snow.

 

Modality 2 - Abstract reasoning in form of HUD type AR (Google Glass) showing your vital state. For example heartbeat when you are joggin, blood sugar level for someone with diabetes or just showing contextualized information of your location and whatever may be interesting to you such as history of the specific street you walk.

 

Modality 3 - You have transformational reasoning modality by utilizing GPS and showing dynamic minimap with view from above you on the city giving you situational awarenes on nearby vehicles. Also showing red boxes on nearby parking places that dont have room while blue ones have slots left, combining abstract and concrete reasoning for making the sensory data compatible with you.

 

So as you said, big challenge is the Modality 3 since modality 1 and 2 are mostly for the purpose of distinguishing between information for the purpose of communication and that of tacit knowledge. The challenge being how to transform the vast amount of data we have available throughour gadgets and networks and servers and utilize them for something meaningful. And how that information is transformed to Modality 1 or Modality 2 for maximum impact and usability. Again the ongoing fight over "This is AR thats not AR" what many people are conducting is in my humble opiniontotally counter productive. The arguments on either side just does not hold when you have slightly wider view on the feedback you try to provide to human being. No matter what is the context, what is the application, what is the purpose. (Additionally one should remember that outside of how we are used to perceive and understand this world the Modality 3 can help us greatly on understanding phenomena and concepts that could previously be only understood by reading and having deep theoretical background).

 

One good thinking excerise is handy to perform: Imagine situation where you are fully immersed into virtual world through all your senses. That being the state where people in Matrix movie are. What happens to "VR" or "AR" in that situation from the classical boundary point of view? All the concepts fall apart. Just as I gave the example of using VR to prototype Caudell type AR applications. One can substitute reality with virtual sensory stimuli or augment something new to reality. But at the point when user is not ablel to distinguish between roadsign that is real from the roadsign that is just overlaid with translated writing, from the user point of view both are real. One is merely more dynamic technology than the other. Both serve same purpose. A: To indicate where you should go given this sign points to desired location and B: Communicate the abstract term attributed to the given place. Mind bending? Confusing? From traditional AR point of view yes.

Edited by Cromfel
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about people focus on making games with better graphics and story,and forget making games that you can play in some glasses while walking to work?

 

Why not both?

 

It's not like AR and good graphics and story are mutually exclusive. In fact, I don't really understand why one would have any effect at all on the other.

 

Personally, I think AR is very interesting as a concept, but I'm constantly disappointed by any demo trying to implement it in practice.

Seems we need way better sensors and a lot more image processing power before it becomes really usable in game development, more then just a fancy tech demo that is fun to play around with for a while until you get frustrated with it losing synch with the physical world all the time.

 

 

 

Google is obviously one of the most innovative companies on the planet.  Regardless of the size of the corporation, the entity was highly innovative in the top several hundred or less even while it was a young business. They have goals long term targeting AR, for sure.  I believe that using their world data and specifically the global positioning data will be the basis of games connected to the internet while using HMD, for example a contest to walk downtown and solve mysteries.  Clues could be available to the end user of the google HMD only as they walk over a certain exact GPS location.  They must for example speak at the HMD to answer the riddle.  If they get the answer correct, then they get a coupon for the store or restaurant at that location but must first watch an advertisement and play a video game that's purchased cheap.  This concept would utilize all 3 modalities, be a thrill to the end user to get the reward, and provide business traffic to both Google and the local business - synergy in a very effective implementation. I feel that these types of games are inevitable by some corporation if not Google. smile.png

 

Clinton

Edited by 3Ddreamer
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0