...and halve the frame rate....
Though supporters of the idea might be willing to trade off one for the other.
Wait until DirectX supports it though, eh.
Edited by - MikeD on 2/2/00 8:38:25 AM
Next generation games
Author
Hmm... personally I''m little skeptic (uh... spelling) about VR-glasses, because I have been hearing that those are giving BAD headech (argh !!! spelling !!!)... uh... Bad crack into head or something cool 
Hmm.. english... Ok, anyway, I have been wondering about this too:
Lets think about comment "Monitors are not 3D". Lets ignore the idea that our eyes are show image actually so called "Fake 3D", because eye, after all, is "flat" (actually I cannot even think what being REAL 3D CREATURE would be, we should be able to see "everything", I think ... Maybe Albert Einstein would understand this stuff. We see a monitor that shows us whats happening on the screen, but actually it''s just putting layer over layer.
Now, is there some way to produce hi-tech next generation monitor ? First I thought, OF COURSE ! Let''s create hologram monitor... but darn, actually with hologram, you cannot see further than the area where the hologram is showing... You will understand when you see the StarWars movie, where Chewie and R2D2 are playing futuristic hologram chess. So would anyone have idea how to produce something that is emulating 3D world some other way ? Just fun idea
Hmm.. english... Ok, anyway, I have been wondering about this too:
Lets think about comment "Monitors are not 3D". Lets ignore the idea that our eyes are show image actually so called "Fake 3D", because eye, after all, is "flat" (actually I cannot even think what being REAL 3D CREATURE would be, we should be able to see "everything", I think ... Maybe Albert Einstein would understand this stuff
. We see a monitor that shows us whats happening on the screen, but actually it''s just putting layer over layer.Now, is there some way to produce hi-tech next generation monitor ? First I thought, OF COURSE ! Let''s create hologram monitor... but darn, actually with hologram, you cannot see further than the area where the hologram is showing... You will understand when you see the StarWars movie, where Chewie and R2D2 are playing futuristic hologram chess. So would anyone have idea how to produce something that is emulating 3D world some other way ? Just fun idea
I don't think they have anything out yet that has much depth as far as "hologram monitors" is conserned. I did see one on TV that's being used in the medical field that's similar to the chess board on Star Wars but it's VERY expensive.
Oh, wait, I just remembered one. They have one where you put on a pair of polorized glasses to see a different image from the monitor in each eye. It's not as good quality as VR glasses but a group of people can see the same thing from one monitor. (I think the monitor's a bit big too. I think they have two monitors hooked up with a polorized screen, then they combine the images with mirrors.)
VR glasses can cause headaches if they're not adjusted for the user's eyes (width and focus). For the most part, they're just like looking at any other monitor. Or like looking at the eye piece of a video camera. Also, if it's used with "Doom" type games, you can get headaches from motion sickness. I don't see the frame rate being a problem, most games could be drawn with fewer special effects and get full animation speed. Also, if you used two graphics accelerators, a lot of the processing time would be split up on different CPU's. Some of the VR equipment I've seen before uses two standard computers networked together (or a motherboard and a daughter board) to split up the processing time that way. Many new computers come with multiple processors.
E:cb woof!
Edited by - dog135 on 2/2/00 1:32:16 PM
Oh, wait, I just remembered one. They have one where you put on a pair of polorized glasses to see a different image from the monitor in each eye. It's not as good quality as VR glasses but a group of people can see the same thing from one monitor. (I think the monitor's a bit big too. I think they have two monitors hooked up with a polorized screen, then they combine the images with mirrors.)
VR glasses can cause headaches if they're not adjusted for the user's eyes (width and focus). For the most part, they're just like looking at any other monitor. Or like looking at the eye piece of a video camera. Also, if it's used with "Doom" type games, you can get headaches from motion sickness. I don't see the frame rate being a problem, most games could be drawn with fewer special effects and get full animation speed. Also, if you used two graphics accelerators, a lot of the processing time would be split up on different CPU's. Some of the VR equipment I've seen before uses two standard computers networked together (or a motherboard and a daughter board) to split up the processing time that way. Many new computers come with multiple processors.
E:cb woof!
Edited by - dog135 on 2/2/00 1:32:16 PM
Concerning the multilevel hybrid games, I had this idea a long time ago, and I thought a lot about the design of that type of games. Let''s take strategy games for example, how about a hybrid of starcraft and quake, where certain people are fighting, other people are commanding. Why don''t we take the idea a step further. U start as a private, and play in a first person shooter. Then u move up, up, up, up, and then hopefully u become a general.
The design... Yeah, that''s would be hard. But what if Blizzard and ID had a strategic alignment. Each company would hire a designer, then they would select a lead designer, and two companies together would design and implement a game.
Some other ideas... I wouldn''t mind seeing the computer get a lot smarter. Even neural networks, fuzzy logic, etc. don''t give the PC enough brains. I wouldn''t mind seeing the PC talking to me, and understanding me... I am actually working on something like that right now. It''s not as complex as I would want it to be, but who knows...
The design... Yeah, that''s would be hard. But what if Blizzard and ID had a strategic alignment. Each company would hire a designer, then they would select a lead designer, and two companies together would design and implement a game.
Some other ideas... I wouldn''t mind seeing the computer get a lot smarter. Even neural networks, fuzzy logic, etc. don''t give the PC enough brains. I wouldn''t mind seeing the PC talking to me, and understanding me... I am actually working on something like that right now. It''s not as complex as I would want it to be, but who knows...
An idea that I would like to see would be a game where you have, let''s say 3-4 people on each side giving orders to the "grunts", and the grunts would be fighting the battles (kinda like c&c, but on a larger scale, and perhaps with a limited amount of raw materials to build vehicles and weapons of)
Hmm, first person fighting in an outer space scenario. That''d be interesting. If you could get enough people together at the same time that is. The comander would have to learn the strengths and weaknesses of his people and decide who should lead/follow/hold back. He could draw up a battle plan and share with his people. The only knowledge he''d have before hand is the layout of the other ship, and his knowledge of how good his people are. (As well as the enemy if he''s faught them before)
There could also be a "holo-deck" on the ship where you can train and practice with fake injuries.
That would actualy be pretty cool. It''d take a lot of cooperation between a lot of people and a lot of 2 hour meetings online.
E:cb woof!
There could also be a "holo-deck" on the ship where you can train and practice with fake injuries.
That would actualy be pretty cool. It''d take a lot of cooperation between a lot of people and a lot of 2 hour meetings online.
E:cb woof!
About the VR glasses.. They are never going to be good enough for the public because they give headache. But I''ve heard about technology that can display an image right in your eyes so that there is no monitor and no glasses. Just direct laser beams in your eyes.
And smelling games wouldn''t be that good actually, think of what you usually smell in real world: nothing. Maybe in quake you could smell dead corpses but I wouldn''t like that
Maybe the most important realistic step after voice control and laser image would be hand movement. I want to use my hands in a game to grab stuff and hold a weapon. "Data-gloves" have been reality for some years but no-one has started to sell them cheaply to mass market. Why, nobody knows..
As for design, Internet games aren''t going to be the whole future (even though the bandwitch gets to 100 terabytes/second and latency is microseconds). Online RPG''s don''t suite well for good plots. If you are just thrown in to a huge internet world where you can do anything, what will you actually do? Slay monsters and buy better weapons. Good game should be done so that plot (dynamic of course) gives the player always something clever to do. Players don''t really know what they should do, so they must be guided. For example, Half-life''s plot gives player always something to look at and to think about, so that the player doesn''t have to fiqure out himself what he should do.
As for the very first question: simulators can''t get any better without more senses involved (wind in your hair, 3d vision, even smell). Simulators are just already as good as they can be.
RTS games need something very orginal, maybe a global huge network playing arena, where you could have your own country to maintain. And you could hire guys for your side to maintain the system so you wouldn''t have to do everything on your own.
RPG games are going to evolve a lot. Dynamic plot that leads the way for player, billions of characters with their own backgrounds, a huge interactive world where everything is possible... As said before here, static plots totally suck.
-Hans
And smelling games wouldn''t be that good actually, think of what you usually smell in real world: nothing. Maybe in quake you could smell dead corpses but I wouldn''t like that
Maybe the most important realistic step after voice control and laser image would be hand movement. I want to use my hands in a game to grab stuff and hold a weapon. "Data-gloves" have been reality for some years but no-one has started to sell them cheaply to mass market. Why, nobody knows..
As for design, Internet games aren''t going to be the whole future (even though the bandwitch gets to 100 terabytes/second and latency is microseconds). Online RPG''s don''t suite well for good plots. If you are just thrown in to a huge internet world where you can do anything, what will you actually do? Slay monsters and buy better weapons. Good game should be done so that plot (dynamic of course) gives the player always something clever to do. Players don''t really know what they should do, so they must be guided. For example, Half-life''s plot gives player always something to look at and to think about, so that the player doesn''t have to fiqure out himself what he should do.
As for the very first question: simulators can''t get any better without more senses involved (wind in your hair, 3d vision, even smell). Simulators are just already as good as they can be.
RTS games need something very orginal, maybe a global huge network playing arena, where you could have your own country to maintain. And you could hire guys for your side to maintain the system so you wouldn''t have to do everything on your own.
RPG games are going to evolve a lot. Dynamic plot that leads the way for player, billions of characters with their own backgrounds, a huge interactive world where everything is possible... As said before here, static plots totally suck.
-Hans
- I know I''m new around here, but it sounds like many are wishing for a better forest and I have a question about a couple trees. For anyone with an opinion:
- I keep seeing "If we only had better graphics, , ," and "if we only had good VR glasses, , ,". How, exactly, would better graphics make any game experience more entertaining? What function do the graphics serve? Would Pong have been any better if it had been available in 32 bit graphics? Is there anything that you want to show on screen that there''s absolutely no way that you can do now? I like to look at pretty pictures too, but pretty pictures alone do not make for a satisfying game experience. They enhance a good idea, but won''t float a lamer for very long. Yes it''s true, someday we''ll be ray-tracing Riven worlds in real time but when that day comes, people will expect it as the norm and they''ll be bored with that, too.
- I also keep seeing references to multiplayer: hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of online players, participating at once. What exactly it the purpose of this? I have seen (other places) complaints that "so-and-so game engine only allows 16 multiplayers, not 32" or of coming engines that will allow dozens of players at once, but what does having 32 players bring to the experience above 16? Or 64 above 32?
--- What if we made a chess board of 500 x 500 squares, and tried to play a game? Likely due to problems of sheer management, most of both sides'' pieces would be quickly lost until only a small number remained close to each other, playing the same old strategies. That you had a huge number of starting pieces and a huge board to move around on wouldn''t end up mattering much, really. It would still end up the same old (small) game. - Lubb
- I keep seeing "If we only had better graphics, , ," and "if we only had good VR glasses, , ,". How, exactly, would better graphics make any game experience more entertaining? What function do the graphics serve? Would Pong have been any better if it had been available in 32 bit graphics? Is there anything that you want to show on screen that there''s absolutely no way that you can do now? I like to look at pretty pictures too, but pretty pictures alone do not make for a satisfying game experience. They enhance a good idea, but won''t float a lamer for very long. Yes it''s true, someday we''ll be ray-tracing Riven worlds in real time but when that day comes, people will expect it as the norm and they''ll be bored with that, too.
- I also keep seeing references to multiplayer: hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of online players, participating at once. What exactly it the purpose of this? I have seen (other places) complaints that "so-and-so game engine only allows 16 multiplayers, not 32" or of coming engines that will allow dozens of players at once, but what does having 32 players bring to the experience above 16? Or 64 above 32?
--- What if we made a chess board of 500 x 500 squares, and tried to play a game? Likely due to problems of sheer management, most of both sides'' pieces would be quickly lost until only a small number remained close to each other, playing the same old strategies. That you had a huge number of starting pieces and a huge board to move around on wouldn''t end up mattering much, really. It would still end up the same old (small) game. - Lubb
In answer to I-Shaolin''s first reply here,
when you say things are too linear with the point A to point B stuff - I don''t disagree, but if that is not the case people usually seem to complain about not knowing where the heck they are supposed to be going, or what they should be doing.
Put this down to bad design if you will, but it can be difficult to acheive a balance where the player is being manipulated into doing things a certain way, but they do not realise that the manipulation is there.
I hope I explained that well
Take it easy,
-Mezz
when you say things are too linear with the point A to point B stuff - I don''t disagree, but if that is not the case people usually seem to complain about not knowing where the heck they are supposed to be going, or what they should be doing.
Put this down to bad design if you will, but it can be difficult to acheive a balance where the player is being manipulated into doing things a certain way, but they do not realise that the manipulation is there.
I hope I explained that well
Take it easy,
-Mezz
Sorry, I haven''t read this whole thread yet, but I wanna say my idea. My Idea s a cutsey platformer game. ACK, don''t hurt me! Its more than that. It''ll be a detective game. A group of little Cristmas Lights have to solve a huge mystery in each game, with clues and all. This way, you can plop the player in your game and say "Find some clues, solve da mystery" instead of saying "beat the final boss". Heehee. The game would also be funny. I have idea''s for a 2D game called "The Case Of The Permenent Sticky." Someday, when I am able to, (IE: Have enough experience), Ill make it. Heehee, bye!
--BugSquash
Taeloid!
--BugSquash
Taeloid!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
