What baffles me most about human advancement is that no matter what point in history you happen to have been born, chances are during your lifetime you will be bear witness to mankind making great leaps in technological capability. This experience is fundamentally the same across generations, despite the apparent gaps in technology. It's near impossible to gain a relative sense of the entire curve because every generation is introduced to a different "standard" of mankind's achievements and thus has a different perspective on what is possible. They will all be fascinated by what is to come, regardless of how ridiculously impressive (or historically UNimpressive) their standard of technology was to begin with.
To think that virtual reality has been around since the 50s! And it's roots predate even further. To pioneers of this technology, this was THE state of the art. I can only imagine how laughable it would be to modern eyes. In video games too, every console iteration since the 80s has been improvement upon improvement. State of the art after state of the art. And we laugh at the NES's 8 sprite per scanline limit, forgetting that this capability blew every preexisting console out of the water.Even so, it wasn't always just about advancing the tech. There are several examples of consoles that pushed the limits yet failed commercially… the virtual boy and dreamcast come to mind. Were they just ahead of their time? Is there some secret Moore's law that dictates whether or not a technology will be accepted? Or were these just exceptions because of marketing, developer support, etc. Regardless, the market caught up with their capabilities in due time.And now here we are, in an age where computing power is abundant and display technology is only advancing. What does the future hold in store for us? It's hard to say, but if you ask me, we are at a new dawn of virtual reality simulation capability. Despite 3d display technology being just under mainstream, it's beginning to garner a lot of attention from a developer standpoint. I mean, even if you don't use it, chances are your graphics card on your computer already supports stereoscopic 3d functionality out of the box. The number of software titles that take advantage of it is only growing.Even if current-gen 3d displays haven't managed to hit the sweetspot just yet, it's only a matter of time before they are the norm. And now, with tech on the horizon such as Oculus Rift, it's pretty clear the direction simulation technology is heading. I've never used such a device, but if the accounts I've read regarding it are to be trusted, it is unlike anything current-gen display tech has to offer. The gap between reality and virtual reality have never been closer, and with modern processing power able to produce such convincing visuals and audio, it's almost frightening to imagine that one could be so immersed that they actually forget, if only momentarily, that they are still present in the physical world. (On the other hand, I wonder how many times that has been stated, historically speaking…)Maybe this is an exaggeration, and maybe it isn't all it's hyped up to be. But it is undeniably a step in that direction, of a seamless simulation that is so convincingly real it just may as well be. What is next? How long until we are just robot food plugged in at the spine, living simulated lives completely oblivious to the true reality? OR has this already happened and we are none the wiser? (conspiracy_keanu.jpg) I guess my final question is what are our actual limits? Obviously right now, the existence of a screen is a pretty clear indicator that we are still rooted in reality, no matter how immersive our games and display technology appear to be. But soon the screen will be an artifact of the past. Could we then one day produce holographic technology that is on par with physical appearances? What next, then? Will we be able to simulate sensations of touch, smell, even taste? I suppose the possibility is always there for future humans to uncover. I am yet doubtful that it should be achieved within any of our lifetimes, but at the same time I firmly believe I lack the necessary perspective to make such a judgement… After all, so has everyone else who has ever lived. I guess only time will tell.
Human minds take for granted whatever technology they familiarised themselves in the early age, and respond with awe to anything they consider new. For example, as a result of advertisements for "virtual reality just around the corner" and pictures of people with Daft Punk-esque things on their head prominently featuring in gaming magazines around 1995, I've become immunised to the Oculus Rift hype.
In fact, I got the impression that towards the late 90's every gamer and producer had widely agreed this kind of "virtual reality" would actually be totally misguided (much like hoverboards and flying cars), and I'm surprised someone went back to the whole idea. Then again, the same could be said about touchscreen controls.It's something of a fashion, I guess. Console producers set on a quest to make console controllers more and more ridiculous, so a group of Kickstaters thought, "Fuck it, we'll bring our dream way of controlling games back."Oculus Rift is the same kind of "advancement" as scoped rifles in the military - guns and telescopes had existed independently for centuries before someone thought about applying duct tape and combining them. In the same way, placing a screen in front of someone's head is hardly a technological breakthrough, the idea has been around forever, it's just that no one bothered to seriously invest in it (and perhaps 800x600 CRT screens constantly redrawing in front of your eyes wouldn't be a good idea).So I don't really see how any of this leads humanity closer to screens being artifacts of the past (unless you mean screen as in "monitor", in which case, sure - Google Glass, etc.) or simulating smell and taste, which are completely unrelated fields (there have been a plenty of "…with SMELLS!" film shows and likely even other media, none of them attracted any serious hype).I'm not even sure if virtual reality is useful as a goal and direction in itself (especially in areas other than gaming). Aren't touchscreen controls less "immersive" than mice? And all attempts at making computer interaction more like actually taking part in virtual reality have flopped spectacularly, see e.g. the infamous Microsoft Bob.I've thought of an apparent contradiction which amuses me slightly. It's obvious that human advancement has been increasing exponentially since at least the renaissance. You can look at the number of patents filed across time or computing power per cubed meter across time or blahdebladeblah.
On the other hand, Neal Stephenson points out the following. Imagine three people living in 1869, 1969 and 2013 respectively. Someone from 1869 who time-travelled to 1969 would not have the vocabulary to describe what they saw. Whereas someone from 1969 could easily describe 2013 in terms of tiny computers with tvs, telephones and typewriters attached.I just think it's interesting that we think we're advancing exponentially and yet in many ways we've become less interesting than 1969.@Cesque I would measure how effective a game controller is by how immersive it is and there are two factors:1. How accurate and expressive the controller is for performing actions in the game (visual feedback).2. How accurate the tactile feedback is for simulating what is happening in the game.So for instance, Kinect is good at 1, but provides nothing for 2, so that's why it sucks. Touch screens provide very little for 2 either, even though they're exceptionally good at 1.Whether touch control is better than mice is a tough question, because touch is better at 1 and mice are better at 2, simply because they have buttons on them.The main problem with oculus rift (+ omni treadmill) is that it causes more problems in 2 than it solves in 1. If I run into a wall, I now expect my entire body to feel the impact of that.@Cesque I was sort of playing devil's advocate in the first part of my comment to see what you had to say. My favourite analogy is when people say "nothing has replaced the Concorde or is likely to in the near future, therefore we have regressed technologically". In actual fact the Internet has made supersonic travel obsolete. The main customers were highflying (hehehe) business executives, who can now use video conferencing to not just do business with anywhere in the world, but everywhere in the world simultaneously.
It's still odd though.I agree that it's possible that VR as we know it could just end up a pile of wasted hype, but while the means might become obsolete, the ends might still become a reality. The same goes for holographic projection, which may not ever really be feasible to produce and use at a mass scale. But it's interesting to think that we will most likely end up with something in the middle. If Google glass is any indication, augmented reality will certainly play a role in the future connection between waking and digital life. But how will this progress in the future?
And furthermore, what if the technology evolves to be without peripherals, instead implanted directly into the nervous system, unable to be shut off? Augmented augmented reality. Would entire populations adopt the augmentation, not from being forced in any way, but voluntarily, simply because it would become so utterly disadvantageous NOT to?Eh, I'm just speculating out of my ass here. Suddenly I have the urge to finish playing through the Deus Ex series…