Are "Wavy Wavy" Controls The Future Or A Misguided Movement (Ho Ho!)? - The Bear and Badger

Vela

Yossarian wrote:

World of Goo works brilliantly on iOS. It's like it was designed for touchscreen.

I played it on iPad upon release and found it to be not all that good. Maybe it was a result of my experience with the Wii version which was tactile and responsive beyond all measure.

It literally felt like keepy-uppy or whatever you call it with a table tennis paddle and ping pong ball when you needed to work fast, flinging goo balls into the air and catching them with the "sticky" grab mechanic.

I think that's a good way to describe it.

The wiimote as a pointer is basically a mouse where the pad is the 2D plane of space facing the TV. Incredible accuracy and fluidity of control; in my opinion second to none.

dynamiteReady

Vela wrote:

The wiimote as a pointer is basically a mouse where the pad is the 2D plane of space facing the TV. Incredible accuracy and fluidity of control; in my opinion second to none.

Hence the thread.

I think it's dropped in prominence way to soon.

Yossarian

Vela wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

World of Goo works brilliantly on iOS. It's like it was designed for touchscreen.

I played it on iPad upon release and found it to be not all that good. Maybe it was a result of my experience with the Wii version which was tactile and responsive beyond all measure.

It literally felt like keepy-uppy or whatever you call it with a table tennis paddle and ping pong ball when you needed to work fast, flinging goo balls into the air and catching them with the "sticky" grab mechanic.

I think that's a good way to describe it.

The wiimote as a pointer is basically a mouse where the pad is the 2D plane of space facing the TV. Incredible accuracy and fluidity of control; in my opinion second to none.

To be fair, I never played it on Wii, but without that to compare it to, it seemed fine to me.

And I've yet to hear a single argument for the OR offering anything other than the same experiences with more immersion, but I'm going to stop going on about it now because every time I mention this the response seems to be 'but it's so immersive'.

LazyGunn

Yossarian wrote:

World of Goo works brilliantly on iOS. It's like it was designed for touchscreen.

I played it on iPad upon release and found it to be not all that good. Maybe it was a result of my experience with the Wii version which was tactile and responsive beyond all measure. It literally felt like keepy-uppy or whatever you call it with a table tennis paddle and ping pong ball when you needed to work fast, flinging goo balls into the air and catching them with the "sticky" grab mechanic. I think that's a good way to describe it. The wiimote as a pointer is basically a mouse where the pad is the 2D plane of space facing the TV. Incredible accuracy and fluidity of control; in my opinion second to none.

To be fair, I never played it on Wii, but without that to compare it to, it seemed fine to me. And I've yet to hear a single argument for the OR offering anything other than the same experiences with more immersion, but I'm going to stop going on about it now because every time I mention this the response seems to be 'but it's so immersive'.

Did you not read this:

LazyGunn wrote:

If you cant tell the difference between looking at a game on a screen and looking around your living room then i'd say your eyes/brain were fucked but your imagination was fine, if you can tell the difference then your imagination isn't considering the difference between looking at a game on a screen and looking around your living room

?

If you can't understand the analogy then indeed stop talking about it until you've tried it then come back to the conversation with the understanding that almost everything you say on the subject is irrelevant (It's not like you're wrong or anything you're just saying a fish smears like an igloo or something, it makes no sense), or you're trolling which is just childish

Yossarian

Yes, I read that.

LazyGunn

And you can't tell the difference? I'm not saying 'its so immersive', that is not the point, i'm saying thats the difference. If you can understand the difference between you looking around your living room, and you looking at a tv screen in your living room, then that's a really simple starting point to work from. If the difference isn't quite obvious then i think you may be an alien, from a different dimension or a one eyed robot or all of these

LazyGunn

To continue from that starting point you can use a controller, since obviously you can't walk, to move out of the door by the tv, go down the stairs, get into a giant robot and stomp around the future, then get bored of fucking about being a human and go and do imaginative things, your tv being somewhere far far away

Yossarian

Which are all things I can currently do on my TV.

LazyGunn

You can walk out of the door by your tv on your tv?

Diluted Dante

Yes, if you had the required software.

LazyGunn

Ahh that explains it then, no need for vr then really i guess, i'll go google it this sounds ace

Yossarian

I could do so if someone created a virtual representation of my living room and put it on my TV, yes. Presumably someone creating a virtual representation of my living room would also be a prerequisite for me to be able to do so on OR.

dynamiteReady

LazyGunn wrote:

You can walk out of the door by your tv on your tv?

Have you not played Persona 4 Golden!!?

monkey

I don't know what you're hoping to get form this Yoss. There's apparently a huge qualitative difference in the experience than previous VR or 2D screens. It's fine to be sceptical but at the moment it seems like you're saying that a difference is impossible, like there's nothing to be gained from your entire field of vision being entirely encompassed within a virtual world.

LazyGunn

No, if someone created a virtual representation of your living room and put it on your tv, you'd be looking at leaving your virtual living room on your tv. If you had it on the OR, then you'd be perceptually akin to actually leaving your room, as your living room and your virtual living room would be occupying the same space (perceptually).

The improvements to the VR experience currently reside in making the experience of the virtual living room occupying exactly the same space more refined, the fact that they are occupying the same space (perceptually) cannot be argued, which is why Facebook thought it was worth 2 billion dollars and a load of very wealthy companies full of very intelligent people are spending a lot of time with it

Sony have been making HMDs as you describe for years, loads of years, whereas Project Morpheus is openly stated innovation for them. Morpheus is Oculus Rift with Sony-researched technology (More or less the same thing with different components and software, since you're not allowed to outright copy patented technology unless you're Samsung, Apple or Google)

Vela

dynamiteReady wrote:

Vela wrote:

The wiimote as a pointer is basically a mouse where the pad is the 2D plane of space facing the TV. Incredible accuracy and fluidity of control; in my opinion second to none.

Hence the thread. I think it's dropped in prominence way to soon.

Indeed. I think the pointer and IR aiming with motion+ were both full of potential with only a limited number of games that took advantage of them, but when they did the superiority to traditional controls was obvious. Some of the implementations were easy to get to grips with (Metroid Prime), others required investment of time to grasp (PES Playmaker) and a few really made them sing (Skyward Sword, Red Steel 2, Tiger Woods and that EA Tennis game).

The backlash to wavy wavy waggle was led in part by a misinformed campaign by whingers for 6+ years of endless complaints in magazines, websites and forums by petulant tossers who hung their hat on an argument based on shovelware.

Yossarian wrote:

To be fair, I never played it on Wii, but without that to compare it to, it seemed fine to me. And I've yet to hear a single argument for the OR offering anything other than the same experiences with more immersion, but I'm going to stop going on about it now because every time I mention this the response seems to be 'but it's so immersive'.

I fully recommend trying World of Goo on wiiware if you get the chance. It would be interesting seeing someone come from iOS controls to see what they think (which was the opposite for me).

~~~~~~~~~~

Now, for Virtual Reality.

I'm convinced it can make for some fantastic immersive games. Of that I have no doubt.

However, I'm concerned it will have limited commercial success. Like 3D, Virtual Reality has come and gone every 20 years in cycles when it is heralded as "finally viable". The thing is, it was viable as tech back in the 1980s/90s when they had the 3D Pterodactyl game touring around the country. I loved that brief bit of play, 10 minutes and I was sold on the concept. Same with 3D gimmick films in the 1980s and red/blue cellophane glasses.

But 3D films in recent years are, post-Avatar, not really breaking out beyond the normal market and will not succeed in the home market. VR will meet a similar fate. There will be some great content for the home, but not enough for the mass market to pick it up and run with it.

Personally I think augmented reality (AR) will have more potential.

Instead of having VR glasses blocking out the rest of the room and players, AR would instead be more socially active in a room/house where the base console/unit can project in AR space the game world so that people can engage with it. Imagine being able to scan a 3D model of your entire house like that orb in Prometheus, and then turning it into a ghost hunt co-operative AR game? All it would take is a local network and a 3D scanner pod which works on the same principle as the software for a robo vacuum cleaner. And AR glasses per person. ...

On second thoughts that might also be prohibitively expensive.

Yossarian

monkey wrote:

I don't know what you're hoping to get form this Yoss. There's apparently a huge qualitative difference in the experience than previous VR or 2D screens. It's fine to be sceptical but at the moment it seems like you're saying that a difference is impossible, like there's nothing to be gained from your entire field of vision being entirely encompassed within a virtual world.

I wasn't particularly hoping to get anything from this.

FTR, I do think VR has potential, but I'm highly sceptical of us having reached that potential yet. There are a couple of major obstacles that need to be overcome, chief among which is a way of interacting with the world without a controller. Until that happens, I don't see how it will make a huge difference to gaming.

Brooks

The hope is it makes a difference by establishing a new subspecies. That's good enough for me, I'm very unlikely to ever play a trad FPS again.

stonechalice

Yossarian wrote:

I don't know what you're hoping to get form this Yoss. There's apparently a huge qualitative difference in the experience than previous VR or 2D screens. It's fine to be sceptical but at the moment it seems like you're saying that a difference is impossible, like there's nothing to be gained from your entire field of vision being entirely encompassed within a virtual world.

I wasn't particularly hoping to get anything from this. FTR, I do think VR has potential, but I'm highly sceptical of us having reached that potential yet. There are a couple of major obstacles that need to be overcome, chief among which is a way of interacting with the world without a controller. Until that happens, I don't see how it will make a huge difference to gaming.

Why is interacting with the world with a controller a major obstacle? Just being inside my favourite game, feeling like i'm really in it, would be enough for me at this point. I'd rather do it with a controller I know first before waving my hands about and all that shabizzle.

I think you might be ignoring the interim before we actually get to that point. Are you saying that, for instance, waving to your friend across the way, in a beautiful virtual world, before setting out on an adventure together, with that world wrapped completely around you, totally immersed, that would be the same feeling as it would on a standard TV?

You're saying that won't make a difference to gaming?

Get out.

Yossarian

You mean pressing a button to initiate the waving gesture? Or, even better, fumbling around to find the D-Pad which you can't see due to your headset blocking your view in order to find the right direction to push in in order to initiate the waving gesture to wave to your friend?

Sounds amaze.

stonechalice

I can't remember the last time I've had to look at my controller to know which button I'm pressing!

Do you have that problem?

Yossarian

When switching between analogue and D-Pad, yes, I do.

LazyGunn

Vela wrote:

Personally I think augmented reality (AR)

VR is one of several technologies that make AR viable. AR will very likely (I cannot see it not doing so, whatsoever) incorporate the technology or technology inspired by/descendent of the technology that makes VR what it is. 80s VR is still being sold now, you can buy it on Amazon, look up Sony HMD or something.

Everything you said about AR is correct but it would incorporate VR anyways so talking like they're mutually exclusive is moot.

An explanation: The problem with AR as it stands, say you look at Google Glass, is that it cannot overlay your vision without being completely distracting, as you have to look at your display, your eyes converge on the glass itself, which is a few cm away from your eyes. This is Rubbish and completely impractical for AR to be anything at all. The way round it is exactly what VR does, it incorporates the GUI into your perception of 3D space, it places computer generated information in your eyesight accurately based on your orientation and lately very local position and with increased accuracy of positional methods, position on earth, and can place any 3D information regarding static locations with absolute accuracy.

A simple vision of AR is cheap, extremely light eyewear that covers your field of vision and displays information as an overlay, which is projected into real world space by *insert VR technology here*, it gets all its information wirelessly from your mobile phone which does all the heavy lifting, the eyewear just displays stuff and has a few sensors in it (gyro, accelerometer etc). You buy them for a fiver at the garage, your phone is very hard to nick cause its in your pocket and you could operate it as a surface to navigate the overlay through your pocket, although it could take other input, like voice, or going by cocko's point about pupil tracking, if it could track your pupils and hence exactly where your eyesight converged (and therefore exactly what you were looking at) then you could select stuff in your field of vision by looking at it and staring or tapping your mobile or something, wether it existed or didnt

stonechalice

Yossarian wrote:

When switching between analogue and D-Pad, yes, I do.

Well I'll be. I thought most seasoned gamers would know their way around a controller without having to look at it.

Besides, switching between pad and stick wouldn't be a problem with the control method I described earlier.

Vela

LazyGunn wrote:

Vela wrote:

Personally I think augmented reality (AR)

VR is one of several technologies that make AR viable. AR will very likely (I cannot see it not doing so, whatsoever) incorporate the technology or technology inspired by/descendent of the technology that makes VR what it is. 80s VR is still being sold now, you can buy it on Amazon, look up Sony HMD or something. Everything you said about AR is correct but it would incorporate VR anyways so talking like they're mutually exclusive is moot. An explanation: The problem with AR as it stands, say you look at Google Glass, is that it cannot overlay your vision without being completely distracting, as you have to look at your display, your eyes converge on the glass itself, which is a few cm away from your eyes. This is Rubbish and completely impractical for AR to be anything at all. The way round it is exactly what VR does, it incorporates the GUI into your perception of 3D space, it places computer generated information in your eyesight accurately based on your orientation and lately very local position and with increased accuracy of positional methods, position on earth, and can place any 3D information regarding static locations with absolute accuracy. A simple vision of AR is cheap, extremely light eyewear that covers your field of vision and displays information as an overlay, which is projected into real world space by *insert VR technology here*, it gets all its information wirelessly from your mobile phone which does all the heavy lifting, the eyewear just displays stuff and has a few sensors in it (gyro, accelerometer etc). You buy them for a fiver at the garage, your phone is very hard to nick cause its in your pocket and you could operate it as a surface to navigate the overlay through your pocket, although it could take other input, like voice, or going by cocko's point about pupil tracking, if it could track your pupils and hence exactly where your eyesight converged (and therefore exactly what you were looking at) then you could select stuff in your field of vision by looking at it and staring or tapping your mobile or something, wether it existed or didnt

Right so I think what you're saying is that my scenario (AR ghost hunt) wouldn't work with, say Google glass or its successor tech because of the focal point issue, but a set of VR goggles with an accurate 3D map and the player walking around the house would? I'm guessing you would need markers in each room to serve as relays/spatial correction but the principle is there.

If I understand correctly then yeah, point taken.

LazyGunn

For the record a gamepad is the standard input for VR use, mouse and keyboard is a shitfest for a bunch of reasons (losing where your hands are, mouse movement making you feel sick etc), and i've never had a problem knowing where the buttons are, and the shortfall of using a controller over actually walking somewhere has never for one moment distracted from the enjoyment of being somewhere that couldnt exist

If I had to literally walk around the island of Dear Esther I just couldnt be arsed! I'd get knackered! And then there's that 100+ ft fall? No thanks. Okay I guess fps games are fucked since if you get shot in a realistic way you actually die, the end, and you cant survive buildings falling over when you're in them, whatever the games tell you. How do you get into a falling over building irl while wearing a helmet looking at another reality? No more bombastic action games for you, VR gamers! (Although I must admit all the bombastic action games ive attempted on VR have been complete wank, the falsehood of games like COD becomes overbearing. HL2 on the other hand... I've just realised I havent completed Half Life 2 on the OR yet, and episode 2 would be the fucking tits on it and I havent even touched it! Okay the afternoon = Finish this thing with Unity so I can pimp it and get more special treatment from clever programmers and then tryptamines and Half Life)

Brooks

Yeah, we've covered this earlier, a fair few times - VR requires a total change of pace and challenge. This is a very good thing.

Brooks

Honestly my strongest suspicion is that the most successful VR games are going to more neatly resemble text-adventures/IF than most other formats.

LazyGunn

Vela wrote:

Right so I think what you're saying is that my scenario (AR ghost hunt) wouldn't work with, say Google glass or its successor tech because of the focal point issue, but a set of VR goggles with an accurate 3D map and the player walking around the house would? I'm guessing you would need markers in each room to serve as relays/spatial correction but the principle is there. If I understand correctly then yeah, point taken.

I think the markers could be placed via GPS, if the game software knows exactly where you are and can geolocate you, it can put information at any arbitrary point in space relative to you. If it's a static location like a house it could be just information relative to any relevant local positional methods, be it GPS, wireless, whatever. Also you should separate what VR actually is from its current implementation (Oculus Rift is just an implementation of the concept). AR would be Google Glass or whatever, just a visual overlay, not a set of 'VR goggles', VR wouldnt be called VR, people would just think of it as that really clever thing their glasses do that puts their smartphone into their world. VR gaming would then be an extension of AR, when you feel like getting a break from the world, your glasses would go totally computer generated and off to some faraway place, it would be seamless from something that integrated with (and would probably become) normal everyday life

WorKid

Gunn types so fast.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories