- Status
the problem is gaming has reached the point where its more of the same stuff over and over again, I honestly get bored so easily now when gaming (been there done that) just creating a new console because its new is not going to sell anymore
Antimatter79
Distinguished
- Jul 24, 2009
- 103
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]30 years ago VR was a sci fi theme of what people expected for the future. 30 years ago we had less than a thousandth of the computing power we have today. It might very well be the future because noone in recent years has tried to merge VR with gaming the way hes trying to do now. I believe Carmack's idea will spread across gaming in the next few years. And the same way our PCs keep getting faster, this VR system will only get better.[/citation]
VR can get as good as it wants to, I will never want to play a game with a peripheral resting on my face/head, or with displays emitting light mere inches (or less) from my eyeballs. I would rather see technologies for large sized curved panoramic widescreens that maybe have 210+ degree wraparound improved upon, and become more commonplace. That would be a more appealing virtual reality experience for me. I can't imagine most gamers would ever prefer goggles and/or headgear to that.
VR can get as good as it wants to, I will never want to play a game with a peripheral resting on my face/head, or with displays emitting light mere inches (or less) from my eyeballs. I would rather see technologies for large sized curved panoramic widescreens that maybe have 210+ degree wraparound improved upon, and become more commonplace. That would be a more appealing virtual reality experience for me. I can't imagine most gamers would ever prefer goggles and/or headgear to that.
@kcorp2003
its a working prototype. you are seriously ignorant.
Only an ignorant need to call names to prove their point.
And im sure you are much better than that.
its a working prototype. you are seriously ignorant.
Only an ignorant need to call names to prove their point.
And im sure you are much better than that.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom] 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]I am taking BF3 as an example because it is the only few games out there that push things other than graphics. and I am not talking about eye candy only. BF3 is not eye candy only. Blowing up walls are part of the strategy. If I play a fps, and going to kill a room with 5-6 enemy, I would prefer to have option blow up the wall with C4 from sidewall, instead of rushing in the main door with 5-6 guns deployed pointing at me. Air strike from plane should destroy the entire building, thats how the real world work. If a rocket fire upon a plane or Heli, it would kill them, not allow them to continue working flawlessly. And vehicle do not regenerate in real world.
the AI is the another story, How many games are there is smarter than ur pet? NONE. The AI are still as stupid as ever. We got 6 cores 3960X now, with 4 cores hitting mainstream. Thats lots of processing power for AI and physics alone.I dont see any reason not to push these 2 area.
the AI is the another story, How many games are there is smarter than ur pet? NONE. The AI are still as stupid as ever. We got 6 cores 3960X now, with 4 cores hitting mainstream. Thats lots of processing power for AI and physics alone.I dont see any reason not to push these 2 area.
IXfearlessXI
Distinguished
- Sep 11, 2009
- 9
- 0
- 18,510
Honestly I think Carmack has a small point that VR is the future. I desperately wish it could come to reality, but the technology still isn't at that point yet. We are getting closer but until 3D/VR makes me feel surrounded and immersed in what I'm playing it means nothing to me. GPU's are already far more advanced than software or developers can code for. Saddens me that I only think a small group of developers are actually pushing towards the future instead of milking every penny they can before enough people call them on their bullshit.
Developers IMHO just are not capable of pushing our current technology to the full potential we are capable of. At the rate we are going hardware technology is by FAR superior to the technology we are currently able to code.
Developers IMHO just are not capable of pushing our current technology to the full potential we are capable of. At the rate we are going hardware technology is by FAR superior to the technology we are currently able to code.
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]I am taking BF3 as an example because it is the only few games out there that push things other than graphics. and I am not talking about eye candy only. BF3 is not eye candy only. Blowing up walls are part of the strategy. If I play a fps, and going to kill a room with 5-6 enemy, I would prefer to have option blow up the wall with C4 from sidewall, instead of rushing in the main door with 5-6 guns deployed pointing at me. Air strike from plane should destroy the entire building, thats how the real world work. If a rocket fire upon a plane or Heli, it would kill them, not allow them to continue working flawlessly. And vehicle do not regenerate in real world. the AI is the another story, How many games are there is smarter than ur pet? NONE. The AI are still as stupid as ever. We got 6 cores 3960X now, with 4 cores hitting mainstream. Thats lots of processing power for AI and physics alone.I dont see any reason not to push these 2 area.[/citation]
what i mean by eye candy and actually mattering is this.
a single brick falls, and it can kill you, that matters, and needs to be tracked server side
a single brick falls, and it just interacts with the world, but not damage wise, thats eye candy and can be done pc side.
and the reason ai isnt pushed, is because of multiplayer... where most people spend most of their time. that and the cpu being used to power better graphics and bare minimum everything else.
what i mean by eye candy and actually mattering is this.
a single brick falls, and it can kill you, that matters, and needs to be tracked server side
a single brick falls, and it just interacts with the world, but not damage wise, thats eye candy and can be done pc side.
and the reason ai isnt pushed, is because of multiplayer... where most people spend most of their time. that and the cpu being used to power better graphics and bare minimum everything else.
daglesj
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2007
- 82
- 1
- 18,580
I really don't know what folks expect from a $400 console when they happily pay $400 for a GPU and $500 for a CPU.
Maybe MS and Sony should just give the machines away free with a $1200 spec of parts to match a high end PC and charge $300 a game to get the costs back?
Maybe MS and Sony should just give the machines away free with a $1200 spec of parts to match a high end PC and charge $300 a game to get the costs back?
kawininjazx
Distinguished
- May 22, 2008
- 292
- 0
- 18,960
I've always known that the only problem with VR technology is that the glasses werent immersive enough. They didnt cover your periphery. You always felt like you were staring at a tiny screen some distance away from your eyes, clearly able to distinguish the edges. What they always needed was a curved parabolic screen that sat so close to your eye that it basically wrapped around your face, so that you really felt like you were IN the scene.
That's what carmack is claiming to have done here. I'm really excited by this because even a game as old as Doom3 would still be fun as hell to play with TRUE VR glasses.
I'll also note that I agree with him as far as game fidelity goes. After seeing the Samaritan demo my mouth was drooling to discover what the UE4 engine would bring, and I was sorely disapointed. I appreciate the technology going into it, but there was really nothing that special that I cared to learn about. So they have finally pulled off global illumination, so what? The static lighting elements in UE3 looked fine to me, in fact they looked better in some regards. Allowing the artist to define how certain areas should be lit gives it a more cinematic experience.
That's what carmack is claiming to have done here. I'm really excited by this because even a game as old as Doom3 would still be fun as hell to play with TRUE VR glasses.
I'll also note that I agree with him as far as game fidelity goes. After seeing the Samaritan demo my mouth was drooling to discover what the UE4 engine would bring, and I was sorely disapointed. I appreciate the technology going into it, but there was really nothing that special that I cared to learn about. So they have finally pulled off global illumination, so what? The static lighting elements in UE3 looked fine to me, in fact they looked better in some regards. Allowing the artist to define how certain areas should be lit gives it a more cinematic experience.
John who? After Rage and the interviews leading up to it, Carmack burned most of his street credibility with me. Months before Rage he touted how great the game would be because of PC hardware being so much more than console and then at launch reversed it and saying he wouldn’t code for PC again.
20 years ago he was a genius and he’s trading on that past success with the flop of Rage and now this. I doubt in the next 20 years VR is going to be anything more than a niche. Look at multi monitor support today, horrible stretching, field of view issues, clipping.
20 years ago he was a genius and he’s trading on that past success with the flop of Rage and now this. I doubt in the next 20 years VR is going to be anything more than a niche. Look at multi monitor support today, horrible stretching, field of view issues, clipping.
RADIO_ACTIVE
Distinguished
- Jan 17, 2008
- 275
- 0
- 18,930
You should all not be so quick to judge this guy. After all, without him shooters would not be what they are today.
That being said, this is a HUGE leap. But it's not like he hasn't done it before.
That being said, this is a HUGE leap. But it's not like he hasn't done it before.
Are you kidding me? Look at his wikipedia? http
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._CarmackLook at his recent achievements. He is a pioneer of gaming and will always be. The games you see on the shelves nowadays were made possible because of Carmack.
Would you say the same thing about Bill Gates? Oh whoopity do he created Microsoft but hasn't done anything I've noticed in the past few years so we can entirely discredit his opinion, right?
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Help ants attacked my laptop ans went inside through ports and keyboard keys
- Started by mokolp3
- Replies: 3
-
Discussion Wireless earbuds for noisy commute & important calls - need advice!
- Started by miss_mystery_z
- Replies: 4
-
Question Can We Make App with the help of ChatGPT?- Started by Code3xpo
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Question FaceBook Feed Sends Me MAGA pages and notifications- how to block?
- Started by lynikins
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter