[Someone Else]

What are you looking forward to with gaming in the future? A new Nintendo console? Microsoft calling a new world order? EA's downfall? Sony developing an invisible disc format that will be sold for millions of dollars and then people throwing it away saying it doesn't work? A particular game you think will be made? Discuss anything about the future of gaming here, from small scope to large scope. ANYTHING.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Sims 3 looks like. Yes, it's already being developed, though I don't know what the exact "stage" of development is. Also looking forward to Spore of course. Also looking forward to those cool virtual reality helmets. But then, we were supposed to have flying cars by now, too.

[Toasty]

Don't worry WD, when I make the first commercial flying car, I'll sell one to you for half price. :P

I'd like to see a nintendo handheld with holographic capability. And you'd be able to touch things in the holographic like you could with the touch screen.

I'd also like to see a virtual reality gameing environment. Like where you synch your body into some kind of port, and then you're brain recieves the information from the port as it would in real life from your senses.

Tom Clancy made a series of books where the characters had port thingies in the backs of their heads (they're medically inserted at a certain age for all citizens) that allowed them to synch into a virtual network, a lot like the internet. Can't remember the name of the series though.

[Aquamarine]

Can I ask you guys something? WHY would you want virtual reality helmets? WOULD that really make games funner and more interesting? Personally, I think that would be a bad thing. It would make games TOO realistic, and most games aren't supposed to be realistic since video games are supposed to be a way to escape the reality of our world. Also, virtual reality helmets would make people play games far too much.

As for holographic capabilities, I guess that would be cool. However, I am perfectly content with the games are being played today, and I think that shouldn't be changed too much. That's just my opinion though.

[Someone Else]

I'm not just thinking about video games in the Space Age either.

[Golden Legacy]

I remember reading an article where someone suggested a handheld gaming device that could be played with one hand. It may not sound like much, but imagine the next GameBoy having a large screen, a handle, just two buttons, and motion-sensing. One handed gameplay, that sounds like something Nintendo could go far in making games more "accessible" for people.

[Someone Else]

I have sometimes wanted to munch on cookies yet still play at the same time. To an extent you can play DS with only one hand; you put it on a surface and tap at the screen with one hand.

I'm not sure if I personally still want Nintendo to make games more accessible to people down to the last retard though...

[Golden Legacy]

Well, that's one question to ask - do you think Wii will be successful enough to make future consoles follow the same format? Will Nintendo keep up with the remote controller (or possibly a new interface), and Sony/Microsoft will stick with the traditional controllers?

It all depends on who wins out in the console wars, in my opinion. Personally, I can already imagine a glove controller like the one that was hyped for back in the days of "da RevOlution!!!11oneone"... real gesture based control would be awesome.

[Someone Else]

My justification for saying that is I feel like Nintendo hasn't been treating it's hardcore fans well as of late. It's taken Nintendo a while to actually release games pleasing to the hardcore fan for the Wii.

Anyway, I think something like that is available for the computer.

http://www.vrealities.com/P5.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P5_glove

Ooh, Minority Report. Whether or not it catches on is something else.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 7 2007, 10:50 AM, said:

Well, that's one question to ask - do you think Wii will be successful enough to make future consoles follow the same format? Will Nintendo keep up with the remote controller (or possibly a new interface), and Sony/Microsoft will stick with the traditional controllers?

It all depends on who wins out in the console wars, in my opinion. Personally, I can already imagine a glove controller like the one that was hyped for back in the days of "da RevOlution!!!11oneone"... real gesture based control would be awesome.

I believe there was a power glove for the NES or SNES. And as for a one handed controller, what about the wiimote? :P

And aqua, just think about the possibilities of what you could do with virtual reality. Imagine having COMPLETE control over how your character moves in say, SSBB. Or maybe in a game such as Soul Calibur. Imagine being able to fly through the world if Super Mario Galaxy, or fighting the space pirates in MP:3.
You see where I'm going with this?

But yes, some games shouldn't be virtual reality. And yeah, people would probably spend far more time playing games. Which is exactly why the gameing industry will try to impliment it someday.

[Someone Else]

Mr.T, on Aug 7 2007, 06:43 PM, said:

But yes, some games shouldn't be virtual reality. And yeah, people would probably spend far more time playing games. Which is exactly why the gameing industry will try to impliment it someday.

Didn't your first post in this topic say you do want virtual reality?

[Toasty]

Yes, but some games just wouldn't fit well.
But I still want virtual reality.

[Someone Else]

You indecisive *******. :P

[Toasty]

I said I want virtual reality!

[Aquamarine]

Mr.T, on Aug 8 2007, 03:43 AM, said:

And aqua, just think about the possibilities of what you could do with virtual reality. Imagine having COMPLETE control over how your character moves in say, SSBB. Or maybe in a game such as Soul Calibur. Imagine being able to fly through the world if Super Mario Galaxy, or fighting the space pirates in MP:3.
You see where I'm going with this?

Yes, I can completely see where you're going with this. Having complete control over your character in SSB would be interesting; you run and want to jump over a hole, but jump only halfway and fall into the gap, seeing as every character in SSB can jump at least twice as well as a person in real life.
You see where I'm going with this?

[Folcon]

I think eventualy, there won't be a need for controler, as it will all be a neural interface. It just won't show up in our time.

[Someone Else]

That's a part of virtual reality though. It's not real. Though, virtual reality is something we can barely grasp as a concept at this time, and that's a big reason that it's doubtful we'll be seeing it in our lives.

[Folcon]

I'd be happy with high end, interactive, holigraphic displays. Like the holodeck in Star Treck. That thing is so cool, andit could be used for more then just games...and porn.

[Toasty]

XD

But personally, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the beginnings of VR before we died. Scientists have already been able to decipher some of the electostatic (or whatever they're called) signals that our brain uses to control our limbs and muscles, and that means that they can translate our brains signals into commands that a video game could understand. Which they've already done. http://www.emotiv.com/ Look at the video in the bottom left corner of the page.

Aquamarine, on Aug 8 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

Yes, I can completely see where you're going with this. Having complete control over your character in SSB would be interesting; you run and want to jump over a hole, but jump only halfway and fall into the gap, seeing as every character in SSB can jump at least twice as well as a person in real life.
You see where I'm going with this?

You don't seem to understand how virtual reality works. It's like the matrix after you;ve been ejected. You aren't limited by your physical human body. Infact, in theory, there would be no limitations in a virtual world. you could jump as high as you wanted, run as fast as you wanted, or hit harder than anyone else. Basically, you have all the abilities of your SSB character, plus you can move in anyway that you could in real life.

[Caael]

I wants teh Brawlzorz

I want more of the same. Sony and Nintendo are trying to come up with new things, but you cant fix what wasn't broken. Why scrap an awesome idea like the touch screen, and make it 360 times more difficult with holograms? Why bother make motion sensing into virtual reality? It's pointless to try and make a great thing better, when they work. It's not worth the risk.

[Aquamarine]

Since when is Sony trying to come up with new things?

Mr.T, on Aug 9 2007, 04:48 AM, said:

You don't seem to understand how virtual reality works. It's like the matrix after you;ve been ejected. You aren't limited by your physical human body. Infact, in theory, there would be no limitations in a virtual world. you could jump as high as you wanted, run as fast as you wanted, or hit harder than anyone else. Basically, you have all the abilities of your SSB character, plus you can move in anyway that you could in real life.

I know, I understood you. I just couldn't think of a good way to counter what you said and still make it obvious that I think virtual reality would be quite a bad thing. So yeah...

[Toasty]

XD poor Aqua. You couldn't come up with something bad about VR because there IS nothing wrong with it.

Except for the possibility of hacking the virtual internet, or virtual games for that matter, to make the punches, kicks, and bullets more real, and therefore makeing them near lethal. Kinda like how if you die in the matrix, you die in real life. That, and I'd imagine it'd make breaking into a government system a bit easier, and enable the possibilities of uploading programs into peoples brains to make them mindless minions of an evil master's master plan of mastery.

Nope. Nothin' bad about it.

[Golden Legacy]

I can't imagine all those electric impulses emitted deep into your brain being healthy for you.

And besides, you just know that someone out there is going to fall off the stairs or run into a crowded city street with their helmet on. :P

[Aquamarine]

Exactly! Thank you, GL.

And Toasty, besides having many cons, I also think virtual reality wouldn't be good because it wouldn't be as FUN as today's games. Of course, you're going to say I'm not right, but I SO am...

[Someone Else]

That's an odd thing to say. Virtual reality isn't even a reality yet, but somehow you know it won't be fun?

[Lemontime]

Hands-free gaming.
Full stop :P

[Aquamarine]

Wind Dude, on Aug 10 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

That's an odd thing to say. Virtual reality isn't even a reality yet, but somehow you know it won't be fun?

... stfu. :P

[Toasty]

If VR ends up being like what Tom Clancy described it as in his novels, then you won't have to worry about running out into the middle of the street with your helmet on. And GL, of course it isn't! But is sitting on your duff for hours on end flailing your arms around with a stick in one hand and a curved joystick thingy in the other worse? That's debateable.

[TheEnglishman]

I'm waiting for Final Fantasy XXVI. :P
Seriously though I'm not great at imagining what will happen. I guess the gaming companies will just keep new consoles coming until they feel it isn't worth it. We'll probably be dead by then though.

[Caael]

Aquamarine, on Aug 9 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

Since when is Sony trying to come up with new things?

They're not, but before, and Nintendo, they just kept trying to better everything. DS lite, PS2 slim. They were good changes. Touch screen was good change. Motion sensing was good change. I just dont want them to make a huge jump into VR. It would make games so much more complicated. Hell, the touch screen confused me at first.

[Toasty]

The touch screen wasn't hard for me to get used to, it's no different from a touch screen display that you might find at a mall, on on a palm pilot, or anything like that. If anything, VR would only be easier to get use to since it would be just like doing he actions in real life.

[Someone Else]

Are some of you incapable of understanding that it may very well be that we won't see VR in our lifetimes?

Jesus!

[Golden Legacy]

^ You mean mainstream VR. I'm sure the technology for VR could be made within the next decade or two, we might even have the fundamentals of it down now. But it would only be a "novelty", and would be a future technology that is still being refined.

I agree that we'd never see the "Nintendo VR" in our lifetime (there's no way to bring that technology to the masses that soon), but I'm sure science will venture into it sometime before that.

[Caael]

I dont even see the appeal of VR. You want to know that you're playing the game, not in the game. And think of the costs. You have to be realistic. You'd have to have a treadmill so you know when you're running, gloves, a helmet. Maybe even a jacket. It's hardly likely that all the is going to be sold cheaply.

[Someone Else]

That's the old science fiction VR. How do we actually know it'll be like that when it could only be sold to the public more than 50 years from now? Don't knock it if you don't know it.

[My Best Wishes]

Wind Dude, on Aug 15 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

Are some of you incapable of understanding that it may very well be that we won't see VR in our lifetimes?

Jesus!

Do we want VR? How far do we plan to go with our technology anyway.

[Caael]

Wind Dude, on Aug 15 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

That's the old science fiction VR. How do we actually know it'll be like that when it could only be sold to the public more than 50 years from now? Don't knock it if you don't know it.

Well how else would they do it? I was just giving an example, it's not '' This is DEFINATELY what it's going to be''

[Toasty]

As far as the current technology for VR is, you don't actually have to move to interact with the game. All you have to do is think about the action. But usually, acually doing the movement is easier. Take a look at emotiv.com. That's where VR is heading.

And Caael, you can pretty much say that that's definately going to be how VR works. Unless everyone get's interfaces fused into the back of their brains and you can surf the internet virtually by "synching in," like in the Tom Clancy novels, you can pretty much bet that VR will consist of a pair of glasses and a helmet thingy.

[Split Infinity]

Wind Dude, on Aug 15 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

Are some of you incapable of understanding that it may very well be that we won't see VR in our lifetimes?

Jesus!

VR already exists. They use it in some government departments. At today's rate of technological development, I wouldn't be surprised to see it coming to gaming within two decades.

[Someone Else]

I know that, but it always takes a while for technology to actually be cheap enough to sell to the general public.

[Split Infinity]

Yeah, we'll probably be toothless old gits with the reflexes of a sloth before that happens. Speaking of VR, GameFAQs is running a poll about that now.

Vote!

[Caael]

It seems at the moment, companies are going for could, rather than should. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to. It's a big mistake which is noticable in lot's of third party Nintendo games, where you're constantly switching between stylus and buttons, which just ruins it.