[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]He's partially right, but does he really think VR technology is anywhere near the point that it can be commercialized by any gaming company? We're still trying to work out the kinks of 3D ad get rid of the glasses. Any attempt to implement VR right now is nothing more than a sales gimmick. I'm all for innovation, but it would be way too soon for the big three to head down that road. And Nintendo went down the Virtual Boy road a decade and a half ago, with very dismal results. They'll wait for a bit more maturation.[/citation]
you are partially right... tv was a gimmik when it first came out too, so was hd, well also color, hay remember sound in movies...
what i'm saying is that a head set is an investment. yea it may be steep, and may be only 720p (it can be higher, but what he is experimenting with is 720p) and most likely 3d (screen per eye) and if i'm correct also has motion sensors on it so it knows you are moving your head.
the only people who would say no to a headset are people who never used one, once you do... its very hard to go back.
[citation][nom]yturk182[/nom]Carmack may well turn out to be the biggest fad boy imaginable, he certain hold little sentimentality or loyalty to his current interest. He made his money from PC gaming and discarded it like yesterday's toy for Consoles and now happy to move on to his next big thing VR gaming. Before you can say Slow Down Tiger, i am sure he will move on to whatever bright new toy he gets his hands on.If you follow him, then you are just setting yourself up to be discarded like yesterday's thrash as Carmack like all self absorbed narcissists do not do loyalty except to themselves.[/citation]
yea, because a 3d head mount display cant be used in EVERY GAME EVER MADE, it may not take advantage of the special crap inside for head tracking, and that would be a shame, but i have personally been waiting on an affordable head mount display for the last 9 years of at least 1280x720 quality.
if anything, he may bring the prices down during the "fad" stage, because god knows if these things sell in the 500k range a year, they wont cost more than a 60inch 1920x1080 120hz 3d tv.
[citation][nom]Pyree[/nom]VR is about bring realism in virtual space. When the graphics is not realistic, without mastering the graphics to look photo realistic, how can it deliver an authentic VR experience? VR in compromised graphic is IMO not virtual reality, just interactivity of virtual space through input other than keyboard and mouse, because it simply lack the visual realism and not reproducing realism.[/citation]
you dont understand immersion.
imagine a raceing game, i know i bring it up allot, where it has full head tracking, you have a wheel, you look the yor right, you see a car, you look to the left and see people, you look behind you and you see more cars, you look at the dash, and that is now your hud, 3, 2, 1, go, you are raceing, the game is tracking your head movement, you look a little to toyr right and it looks with you...
just imagine that, my god... i want it now.
[citation][nom]bemused_fred[/nom]Frankly, lower graphics are better in those situations. No matter how efficient your engine is, creating a large, HD, 3d game requires a lot of effort from highly skilled artists and a lot of money.[/citation]
no, it doesn't.
sure hd means better textures,
higher resolutions, mean more detail,
more powerful cards mean more graphics.
but we hit a point where we already make uber models of everything, and scale them back to work on consoles, the next gen wont increase cost by much to make a AAA game. and adding 3d to it? it takes that mindset from the get go to do it right, not more money, or even making it harder to do.
[citation][nom]Bloob[/nom]It's not just about graphics, it's AI & physics and general gameplay mechanics also that can benefit from next gen consoles. It's a pity that "the great" Carmack can't think of any uses for some extra power. IMO just the fact that you wouldn't have to spend that much resources on optimizing stuff makes next gen worth it.[/citation]
physics... if its a major gameplay element, they implement it, if its just eyecandy bs they dont. tell me a game play mechanic that cant be done today, lets say its a mechanic that can be done on the pc, that isnt on the consoles. ai? most publishers NEVER add anything to ai, because they want to push the better graphics, its sad, that most of the time, normal and hard dont make the enemies smarter, just you do less damage, and can take less hits. a next gen wont solve that problem.
[citation][nom]doorspawn[/nom]I'm actually quite surprised at the hate here. This guy was the god of PC gaming in the 90s, he pioneered tons of graphics techniques that are part of pretty much every game you play. He releases the full source of his games after a few years. He has built many games that were loved by the gaming community. He has helped tell the video card makers know what they need to prioritize.In short, right now your games are faster and prettier due to Carmack.Is this negativity all from young people that only know about a couple of the most recent of Carmack's years and have no idea what he has actually achieved?[/citation]
no its morons who decided "he makes games for consoles, and left the pc, lets hate EVERYTHING HE DOES now because its not pc and about giving us better graphics"
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Calling me young? I been around that time and I respected him for that but that was in PAST. You cannot overlook his recent shenanigans.[/citation]
making a grate engine that glitched for some people in the beginning? trying to make enemy ai the main feature of the game while still giving grate graphics? or are you just saying because he made a game that was ALSO on a console that everything he does now is crap?
[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom]it appears so. the audience here don't know much about game development just completely ignorant with the attention span of a 4 year old.[/citation]
i know him as basically a coding savant.
[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]And I should care about what YOU think is the future of gaming because...? I don't want "virtual reality", I really don't. I LIKE being detached from the game.Precisely. I don't care that he was "a god of gaming" in the 90s, that was then - this is now. Tell me guys, what did Carmack work on recently that deserves my attention as a gamer?All that said, besides the graphics, they seriously need to come up with better ideas for games. Military shooter crap got boring, BF3 or not, it's all the same boring BS. Haven't seen a worthy RTS since Dawn of War 1 (but that's just me, I guess, I have very high demands from an RTS). More or less innovative and entertaining series get overtaken and stomped into dust by EA. I'm literally at the point where I have money for a graphics card upgrade and don't care, because for what? Consoles or PC, originality is what really suffers nowadays.[/citation]
with rage he tried to make enemy ai the focus of the game, something no other company seams to ever focus on in the right way.
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]I'm not entirely sure about this, but wouldn't an LED screen 1 inch(or less) from your eyeballs be bad for you? anyway, the thing looks lik a cool idea. Definitely possible that it can be the future of gaming as far as the console cycle after this next one. But, I'm a pc guy, and I really love using my mouse for FPS games. I would not enjoy games using a controller as is most definitely needed to unlock the full potential of this headset. I imagine that after an hour using this headset your eyes would be freakishly bloodshot...[/citation]
not really, the good ones make you feel very comfortable looking into them.
[citation][nom]doorspawn[/nom]1. So you seriously think his recent shenanigans are a bigger negative than his early contributions were a positive, enough to say he "shafted PC gaming".2. This guy is still been working on improving graphics for us. He is still pioneering new graphics techniques for us to consume - for example, he recently explored how to bypass the CPU when loading textures from HDD. He currently works to find ways to reduce latency between game engine and monitor - in fact he advocates for gamers' interests with monitor manufacturers (ie, reduce your in-built hardware latencies plz).He's currently working on trying to improve the quality of what is currently niche gaming hardware. No matter how much you're personally not interested in VR, making VR better can not be a negative. Not to mention that his current work on VR also has benefits for non VR gaming.[/citation]
thank you. just have to say that.
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]VR is the future? lol? whos gonna wear that heavy spec while gaming.Carmark should be putting heavy focus on Games physics and AI. These 2 thing arent any near realistic enough. BF3 pushed the destructable walls but still quite static. The AI arrent even near the intellegent of my dog.[/citation]
because battle field 3 is a multiplayer game, you think they focused on ai enough to make it better than cod?
physics... all it would do for the most part would be eye candy and require FAR more out of the servers than currently. predetermined with pc side eye candy is better than real server side physics.
and lastly i would. even if it weighed 20lbs... i would just build up neck muscles.
[citation][nom]Afrospinach[/nom]He is in essence saying game play evolutions like new ways to interact with and experience the game environment are the way forward not more pretty and I agree with him, how could anyone not.[/citation]
because i believe most people who play games are morons who only care about graphics and don't ever think about the possibilities, and its proven in all the thumb up people who hate him get.