Yossarian wrote:World of Goo works brilliantly on iOS. It's like it was designed for touchscreen.
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.
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.
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 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.World of Goo works brilliantly on iOS. It's like it was designed for touchscreen.
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
LazyGunn wrote:You can walk out of the door by your tv on your tv?
dynamiteReady wrote:Hence the thread. I think it's dropped in prominence way to soon.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.
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'.
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.
Yossarian wrote: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.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.
Vela wrote:Personally I think augmented reality (AR)
Yossarian wrote:When switching between analogue and D-Pad, yes, I do.
LazyGunn wrote: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 didntVela wrote:Personally I think augmented reality (AR)
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.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!