Forget VR! Microsoft MIXED REALITY HoloLens is the Future & I HAVE IT

[Keatah]

The real room is not graphics, not video. Hololens overlays graphics. Again, like a heads-up display.

[Punisher5.0]

Oh you are referring to the 2nd camera? I had two additional cameras to capture me walking around the room and then I just added that in post in the corner to give people context

Keetah answered my question but for the sake of understanding this is what I meant: When you are using the headset is the only thing the computer displaying on the two internal screens the additional characters.

[Metal Jesus]

Keetah answered my question but for the sake of understanding this is what I meant: When you are using the headset is the only thing the computer displaying on the two internal screens the additional characters.

 

 

Ok. Sorry about that...

 

If you ever visit a Microsoft Store...definitely do yourself a favor and give it a try. I let Kelsey wear it on Friday and it really blew her mind. It's something you need to experience yourself... And again, no motion sickness ever. It's great!

[Punisher5.0]

It's cool

 

Yeah I'm going to have to stop by a store and check it out. I always have concerns when it comes to stereoscopic devices because I'm heavily right eye dominant. Gear VR works good for me though so this might too.

[+phoenixdownita]

It's cool

 

Yeah I'm going to have to stop by a store and check it out. I always have concerns when it comes to stereoscopic devices because I'm heavily right eye dominant. Gear VR works good for me though so this might too.

Maybe this would fully explain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality

 

In VR everything you see is generated (and a headset is almost mandatory aside Cinerama kind of deals), while in AR what you see is the real world with an overlay of synthetic content (and HUDs are not mandatory).

3DS shipped with a couple of AR games-things but didn't go anywhere after that, HoloLens fits the HUD category but that's not all AR is.

[Jim Pez]

I think it is really cool but the consumer version might be way more expensive than VR.

Edited July 17, 2017 by jim1174

[Metal Jesus]

I think it is really cool but the consumer version might be way more expensive than VR.

 

 

All new tech starts off stupid expensive... but I think we could see this get down to the $300 range in the future. I remember when Blu-ray player was $1200 and it was incredibly slow to turn on...

[zzip]

Or maybe a mix of D&D, where the DM has a top view on the table and the rooms and corridors...but the players see it in first person traditional VR? The possibilities are pretty amazing.

That's kinda missing the point. You played D&D because it was the closest thing to going on a fantasy adventure. But now we have 3D RPGs and MMORPGs that allow us to do that with immersion. These will come to VR. I'd rather play an RPG in VR than watch a slow-paced D&D game unfold on a table.

[4Ks]

I think it is really cool but the consumer version might be way more expensive than VR.

 

And considering VR is already ridiculously pricey for even the low end stuff like PSVR I'm betting HoloLens is going to be at least $600, probably more. Somehow I don't think this new Conker game (where they appear to have removed all the aspects of the original that people like and remember) is going to ease the sting any.

[Flojomojo]

I'd rather play an RPG in VR than watch a slow-paced D&D game unfold on a table.

It probably depends what you're into. When I was younger, I was all about the first person experience, twitch controls, really feeling like being there. Now, I'm older ... my reflexes are "OK," but that style of gameplay doesn't always fully fun me. I like having perspective from higher up, seeing the map, the players, your statistics -- I think I've become a little more strategic (or at least tactical) in the types of games I enjoy.

 

When you're the grunt on the ground, movement and a shoot button are all the verbs you need. When you're a general in the map room, things look a little different. VR helps a lot with the first scenario, but not the second.

[+phoenixdownita]

Me personally, all the RPG sessions I played were always made fun by the friends involved.

I remember been the dungeon master for one group of easy-going, silly people and man their adventures were a lot of fun, we literally couldn't get past 2 or 3 rooms in the dungeon but the laughter. silliness, were so compelling nobody gave a crap.

I was also dungeon master for a second group of people, this time they were really into the game (the pros), leveling up etc... and although they played a much "better" RPG I could tell they were having a lot less fun in general.

 

In the end cooperative party games (like RPG should be) do require more than one person playing in the same room ... yes controlling a whole party is fulfilling in its own right but dealing with the chaos of real undisciplined, fun searching, lighthearted friends can't be beat.

 

In so telling I leave you with this:

The evolution of trust

http://ncase.me/trust/

 

If you've never seen it it's a fun way to understand some applied game theory

 

Forgot to mention, the first group of friends never back-stabbed each other, the second one (the pros) were not so cooperative when it was time to split rewards, assigning powerful weapons and the like (they actually could escalate quickly into a "each man for himself" behavior).