From: jdavis@husc13.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Virtual Reality Survey
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:52:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc13.1992Jul26.185204.14200
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.games
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


!!  Note:  An actual followup to the initial question follows this flamefest.

#define FLAME 1

In article <7695@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, molloy@catalina.janet.ucla.edu (Stephen Molloy) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.113234.14057@husc13.harvard.edu> jdavis@husc13.harvard.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.174623.22414@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, sjked@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>>> Virtual Reality is far from being a reasonable system for
>>> playing computer games. However, it is becoming 
>>> increasingly easy for anyone to experience virtual reality.
>>> 
>>Could you define "Virtual Reality?"  From your post, I take it that you're
>>using the now-popular "real-time polygon rendering tied into body motion in
>>a realistic manner so that the user feels like s/he's 'really there.'"
>>This is an extremely narrow definition.  Virtual Reality refers to any
>  --------------------------------------
> But one of the few "useful" definitions.
> 
>>system that simulates some realm of reality.  Infocom was actually one of
>>the early pioneers of VR, and games like Wizardry IV are VR too...
> 
> They are not. These "all-encompassing" definitions of VR are going to
> doom VR to the same fate as AI. 
> 

When last I checked, AI was doing quite well.

> Television fits your definition of VR, not mine. If this keeps up
> VR is just going to be the latest buzzword (if its not already) that
> will be applied to any and every game of the future, trying to jump
> on a VR bandwagon.
> 

Television does *not* fit my definition of VR.  You chose not to quote
the next sentence of mine after the last one above, but that's not my
fault.  Television is not first person, it is third person.  Besides that,
the user has no control over what happens on television.  Your assertion
is ludicrous.  Please don't define my terms for me.

> How many games have stickers on the outside claiming "AI" in the
> computer opponents? We've just begun to see games claiming that
> you receive a "VR" experience.
> 

So are you attempting to state that the only true AI is a machine that
passes the Turing Test?  A lot of AI researchers would not be too happy
with that definition.  Why must you read any more into "AI" than "a machine/
program that performs intelligently in a given domain" or something
similar?

> Your broad definition is just going to lead to useless discussions of
> "what is reality" and the like, while we could be working on the
> technology.

Right.  Instead of sitting here posting this I could be spending these
valuable ten minutes pushing forward the frontiers of hardware design.

#define FLAME 0

My initial query, as you may recall, was for a clarification of what the
original poster meant by the term "Virtual Reality."  I'm sure there are
thousands of MUD players (I am not a MUD player) who would be upset when
told that they couldn't call their artificial worlds "virtual realities."
I browsed down a few messages from the one I'm following up, and I see
that the original poster has indeed clarified his definition.  I am
satisfied with that.

So, in answer to the survey question (what was it again?), there are a
few games out there that are tending toward what you want to see.  I think
it remains to be seen whether there is enough of a market out there to
make designing a game for the Power Glove cost-effective.  I'd say that
when the slowest standard color Mac is the LCII, we will start to see a
number of games with real-time (first-person) graphics.  Once that starts
happening, manufacturers may see a market for realistic i/o hardware like
the Power Glove, special goggles, etc.

(I say LCII because it's pretty hard to do decent real-time polygon rendering
on the LC.  God knows I've tried...)

Jason Davis
jdavis@husc3.harvard.edu