Future Of Video Games: 3D vs. Mind-control.

[Less Ashamed Of Self]

I got into a rather fruitful discussion recently about what the future of gaming holds. The way we saw it it basically came down to one of two options for the 'next big turning point'

1) 3D within the next year or so

or

2) Mind controllers within the next 10.

E3 showed us that 3D is obviously coming next. On the 3D side of things we have new tvs, the 3Ds, and now there's rumors of this. In short; the article theorizes that sony might be looking at two people looking at the same screen and seeing two different 3D images altogether. The technology could be here already and it would potentially revolutionize multi-player. 10 years from now, if enough people buy the technology, we may look back at split screens and laugh. Maybe everyone is going to jump on and embrace 3D, but considering how much I've seen 3D flop in theatres lately, 3D tvs might turn out to be similar to big, expensive virtual boys. I for one just wall-mounted a 47" flatscreen Sony Bravia and you can bet that it's not getting replaced any time soon.

But brainwave reading headset technology is developing too. Controllers in production now have gotten within only a few hundred dollars to buy and are not nearly as difficult to put on or calibrate.

There's still a lot of troubleshooting going on but the implications for gaming could be unprecedented.

In addition to potentially limitless controls (there could be as many actions as there are... well... actions! No button limitations on a brain!) we're talking about horror games that respond to fear, puzzle games that respond to stress, role-playing games that respond to emotion, and educational games that actually intimately monitor and nurture real education. The possibilities are great but the R&D required would be incredibly expensive too...

...and any finicky peripherals out of the gate would be painful, and likely priced as steep as a console itself. Imagine how bad the shovelware would be (WiiThink presents whack a mole minigame #8!). We've got a long way to go, and it's not like the mind is as easy to control as a controller either. There'd be no hand-eye co-ordination element anymore. I think there would optimally be a combination, but a lot of companies could lose a lot of money before any great contributions are made to gaming.

So my question is this;

Which technology do you think is going to impact gaming more effectively? 3D or mind-controllers, and why?

[Bleck]

which gimmicky gimmick is more gimmicky

[Hyperion5182]

Neither are gimmicks 3D is a bit overdone but its a step towards holograms so i'm interested in it. But the mind control aspect is the first phase of a far bigger stage of mental manipulation over computers. And i think you're putting too much a time frame on them already.

Mental manipulation is already being employed sparingly. When someone can adapt a fighting game to match that level of control we're going to see battles most people can barely conceive of. Movies will be forever put to shame when you see Mitsurugi going after Taki with a pair of mental controllers. My money is on the Mental controllers. The old PS2 commercials where they went to the PS10 and full VR arent as farfetched as they were back then now are they?

[EC2151]

No they're still pretty far-fetched.

In mental controllers you're just once again substituting the format of the actual controls.

Thinking "punch" is not that big of a step up from pushing "A" and that's what just about EVERY single one of those games would boil down to. And the ones that wouldn't? They'd try to be 'artsy' and would suck dick to play.

Emotions? Great, this tepid JRPG plot now responds to my emotions of frustration and boredom!

There's no point, and like bleck said, it would just be a gimmick.

Oh, and by the by, 3D sucks and will always suck if it ever tries to be the 'next big thing'.

[Less Ashamed Of Self]

You don't get to work in marketting.

It's not the 99 out of 100 games that I'm interested in. As I commented, the shovel-ware will undoubtedly be horrible. What I'm interested in is if calibration of the controllers becomes so realistic that fear is accurately labeled fear, and stress stress etc... if everyone stood the chance of being read correctly...

...then my theory is that it could, and should, open another dimension of gaming not yet possible.

Don't think of this like it's only limited to shitty family friendly wii-ware titles. Think of it as a very risky shot at an interactive experience completely awesome and unlike anything before it. Here's some concepts off the top of my head.

-A horror game with a very necessary magic flashlight that is controlled only by your bravery.

-A multi-dimensional puzzle game that collapses in on itself and turns into something new once it indicates boredom.

-Telekinetic putty building blocks.

-Games with conversation that require you being able to lie convincingly.

-Flying with your 'virtual ki'

-Magic with effectiveness based on concentration.

Sure I understand that brains are not going to be as exact as a hand held controller, and it's not going to replace a controller any time soon... but think about it; right now we've got basic controls pretty well nailed. It's probably only a matter of months until someone calibrates a NES pad and someone officially 'Beats mario bros with his mind.'

[The Derrit]

Neither are gimmicks 3D is a bit overdone but its a step towards holograms so i'm interested in it.

not really to be honest

3d technology is simply put an optical illusion it has nothing to do with holograms and whatever technology is used to produce holograms will be 100% different

[EC2151]

You don't get to work in marketting.

It's not the 99 out of 100 games that I'm interested in.

See, I am, because those 99 games regardless of quality set the standard for the use of the interface in the minds of the consumer. The consumer will get just as bored with "think 'A' to punch" as they eventually will with 3D.

Which leads to a pretty fruitless generation of gaming, much like the current blase attitudes towards motion controls (at least MY blase attitudes towards motion controls).

Besides, with some of your ideas it would needlessly complicate the experience. Sensors, ESPECIALLY mass-produced brain sensors, would never be able sense the subtleties of human emotion unless at its most broadest forms. How scared can I be once I realize that nothing can harm me? Or, the reverse, what if the thing reacts too much to my fear, causing actual psychological damage? Would any company be willing to tamper in the risk of MESSING with the consumer's BRAIN? They'd say hell no.

It's probably only a matter of months until someone calibrates a NES pad and someone officially 'Beats mario bros with his mind.'

A matter of months?

What world do you live on, Dune?

[Less Ashamed Of Self]

A matter of months?

What world do you live on, Dune?

You watch that video link? People are controlling wheelchairs right now. And they ARE testing video games.

[Rozovian]

3d technology is simply put an optical illusion it has nothing to do with holograms and whatever technology is used to produce holograms will be 100% different

You mean volumetric displays.

Or, the reverse, what if the thing reacts too much to my fear, causing actual psychological damage? Would any company be willing to tamper in the risk of MESSING with the consumer's BRAIN? They'd say hell no.

How do you mean? Reading brain activity isn't gonna tamper with your brain. if I'm reading you right (lol), that's like saying reading a text is gonna tamper with the text. Doesn't happen.

But back to topic, 3d is first. The technology has been around for long enough to be mass produced easily, and it doesn't require creating new control schemes and stuff. Elaborate mind controlled controllers is still a long way to go before they're practical and commercially viable in the vg market. 10 years is quite optimistic. It might take 10 years before enough screens/tvs will be 3d so there's not much point yet in doing home console/computer games for 3d displays... besides the 3ds. Mind control controllers are even further away, it'll be medical research and handicap coping, probably military use first. It'll be years before console manufacturers are comfortable with using the technology, and then there's r&d on their part, followed by the same by the game developers themselves.I'd say 10 for 3d, 20 for mind control.

[Palpable]

Sensors, ESPECIALLY mass-produced brain sensors, would never be able sense the subtleties of human emotion unless at its most broadest forms. How scared can I be once I realize that nothing can harm me? Or, the reverse, what if the thing reacts too much to my fear, causing actual psychological damage? Would any company be willing to tamper in the risk of MESSING with the consumer's BRAIN? They'd say hell no.

I'm skeptical whenever anyone says technology will never be able to do something, but I have complete confidence this technology will exist, probably well within our lifetimes given that prototypes are already there. And if anything, I think this technology will result in a less traumatizing experience for people because it'll be able to sense when something has become too scary or too stressful for someone and react accordingly. Whereas now, a game has no way of knowing the effect it's having on its players.

[Less Ashamed Of Self]

Let's not forget too that technology is developing with near exponential acceleration. Look at cellphones and computers in a decade; we went from brick-sized devices barely capable of keeping a phone signal to virtual computers in your pocket capable of just about anything we can think of.

And how small are microchips now? Were injecting people with nanotechnology to treat conditions with near full confidence! We're growing biological tissue from scratch. Would you assume we would be here 10 years ago? We're picking up speed.

I think rozovian has a point though. I think it will be medical, handicap, and military first... I would hope educational before military... But I would expect that mental control's affect on gaming is inevitable, whether in 10 years or 30.

Provided humanity isn't extinct by then.

[PriZm]

i think of gaming as a kind of discussion between the developers and the gamers. for me, 3DTV adds vocabulary to the discussion whereas mind control as you explained it (reacting to your fear, etc.) puts too much emphasis on the user point of view and not enough on the developer's. interactivity is important but narrative also. for example i want silent hill to tell me a story, where every monster is important and significant and not something randomly created to stimulate fear in my brain.

also i do not think that mind control devices could work in the next 10 years, for financial and ethical reasons. if game companies are struggling to develop stuff in HD, and even moreso in 3D, can you imagine how much it would cost to develop a game that can react to every customer brain impulses ?

and i keep reading that people are not interested in 3D because they don't want to wear silly glasses. is that an internet meme or something ? what's wrong with wearing glasses to improve your experience ? is that more silly than holding a controller ? have you ever looked at someone playing video games who looks cool while doing so ? i do not understand

[The Dual Dragons]

Mind control would be awesome. It would function as focus training on the highest level. Imagine how many who would think something randomly then the character does something you don't want him to. Because you can't control your own mind. Hahah. Would be fun to see random Youtube videos of that era of game nerds going nuts over this.

Anyway, 3D hmm.. I like the effect of 3D. I hope I am not forced to buy a new 3D tv just to be able to play the new games. That would suck.

I don't find it necessary. Developers should spend more time making great games than getting more advanced at this point I think.

I guess soon I'll be spamming forums saying: 3DTV is overrated! LOL!

[The Dual Dragons]

and i keep reading that people are not interested in 3D because they don't want to wear silly glasses. is that an internet meme or something ? what's wrong with wearing glasses to improve your experience ? is that more silly than holding a controller ? have you ever looked at someone playing video games who looks cool while doing so ? i do not understand

I got Arkham Asylum with 3D glasses.. I thought the colors weren't close to the colors without them. It was blurry, annoying, and glimmering.

Also, a looot of people use glasses.. Getting a pair of glasses on a pair of glasses can get really annoying lol

[Newt]

3d is a gimmick primarily pushed by hardware manufacturers which doesn't add much to the experience of a game. As the technology stands now, you don't really get any better fidelity with the 3d (quite the contrary, actually, as the machine must do 2x the work). It's a fad that I hope will run its course, much to the dismay of said hardware manufacturers.

The thought controllers suffer the unfortunate need to calibrate specifically for each action. This means that games can not adapt to your 'fear' unless you can show it 'fear' at will. It's neat for tech demos where you levitate rocks, but I doubt an expensive and fragile headset will replace tried and true controllers. For some games, such as fighters, some (myself among them) would argue that the experience would be dulled if you didn't have the tactile feel of controllers.

Both of these are gimmicks, and neither seem entirely appealing for my gaming experience. I put these on the same unfortunate level as the 'tactile feedback vests' for FPS and the like that make you feel getting shot. They're entirely irrelevant and help little with immersion if at all.