cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) (04/26/91)
Recently I had the chance to see the promotional videotape for a virtual
world wargame similar to BattleTech, but intended to produce a more
inclusive visual and audio experience -- W Industries' "Virtuality" (a
term which W Industries has trademarked).
I won't go into the details of the Virtuality game (which Harry Fearnham
has done ably here, before), except to remind readers that it permits
users to shoot down airplanes that are either machine generated or
"piloted" by other players. The price for use is approximately one pound
sterling for two to five minutes of play.
When the videotape was shown, at the recent "In Cyberspace" conference
held in Munich, the German audience was outraged. W Industries founder
John Waldern was unmoved by the criticisms that his machine called forth
the worst in human behavior and made a mockery of the technological
promise inherent in virtual worlds systems. He responded to these
attacks by asserting that appealing to the market (in this case, to
teenage boys) is necessary to produce the revenues for more serious work.
Many of the criticisms directed at Waldern were a product of the style of
his tape, which was filled with dry-ice smoke, lots of loud rock music by
Queen ("I want it all!", surely an ironic statement here turned on its
head), and people apparently screaming inside their Virtuality visors.
But there was also a concern, which I shared and expressed, that beyond
any moral questions, such presentations run the risk of distorting, once
again, public perception of virtual worlds technology. Having finally
outlasted the "electronic LSD" phase of press interest, are we now going
to have to fend off claims that VWT somehow aids and abets warrior
instincts and is, after all, only returning to the military roots from
which it sprang -- never to mature into civilian applications? Of course
we know that there is more to this than just more weaponry, but do the
shoot-em-up's -- BattleTech and Virtuality -- help or hinder our field?
My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but
merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that
leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames?
Bob Jacobson
Moderator
(in a rare public appearance,
because this really matters)leech@cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.072659.17771@milton.u.washington.edu>, cyberoid@milton. u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: |> My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but |> merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that |> leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames? We heard similar things during the video game boom, but it's settled down to a (relatively) quiet industry without tainting other computer graphics uses. Calling it an 'aberration' suggests PC lurking in the background to me. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Scientific progress goes "Boink"?'' - Hobbes
shebs@Apple.COM (Stan Shebs) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.072659.17771@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton. u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: > >My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but >merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that >leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames? As a one-time toiler on nuclear cruise missiles, a basically non-violent person, the author of a popular wargame (xconq), and a strong disapprover of our current adventures around the Gulf, I believe that the existence of virtual wargames is a non-issue. Yes, you could say that VWs would encourage violence etc., but on the other hand, they could also be a way to provide the "total combat experience" that makes pacifists out of veterans. If "Dr. Strangelove" is anti-war, then wouldn't a virtual reality where the viewer *plays* Jack D. Ripper or the President send an even more compelling message? Would the (virtual) experience of having a leg blown off by a mine or walking through a field of decaying peasants' corpses encourage a teenager to go out and shoot people, or instead encourage her/him to make sure that such things never happen in real life? Sure, somebody might build a VW where all the killing is "clean" and at a distance, but then we're talking about good vs bad game designs, not about whether virtuality has anything to do with this. In fact, I would claim that virtuality is better than the current state of affairs, since it requires less abstraction than does mapping situations to character terminals or bitmap screens, and it's that process of abstraction that takes away much of the detail that our moral judgement depends on. It's very disconcerting to see a game player casually click an icon to start a simulated nuclear exchange that would surely result in millions of deaths in real life; I would much prefer a simulation environment that could also convey the tensions leading up to such a decision, and the hellish aftermath. Stan Shebs Apple ATG System Software shebs@apple.com
mkelly@cs.uoregon.edu (Michael A. Kelly) (04/27/91)
> >promise inherent in virtual worlds systems. He responded to these >attacks by asserting that appealing to the market (in this case, to >teenage boys) is necessary to produce the revenues for more serious work. > I have to agree with him on that point. The fastest way to get the public's attention (and money) is through entertainment. While his company is making big bucks off teenage boys, it can be working on 'real' applications with the revenues. And when the public gets a taste of VR through games, it will be more likely to warm to the technology in the board room. >we know that there is more to this than just more weaponry, but do the >shoot-em-up's -- BattleTech and Virtuality -- help or hinder our field? > There will always be those who will find something wrong with some of the ways a new technology is being used. Perhaps a less violent game should be developed to promote VR, but it probably wouldn't sell nearly as well. >My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but >merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that >leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames? I say let them be. We may be in for another media-bashing, but we'll win in the end, and will have gotten a lot of free advertising in the bargain. (E.g. Virtual Reality Encourages Violent Behavior in Children - Aids Surgeons in Heart Transplants) Mike. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Michael A. Kelly America Online: Michael792 mkelly@cs.uoregon.edu Compu$erve: 73567,1651 _____________________________________________________________________________
crispin@csd.uwo.ca (Crispin Cowan) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.072659.17771@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: >Recently I had the chance to see the promotional videotape for a virtual >world wargame similar to BattleTech, but intended to produce a more >inclusive visual and audio experience -- W Industries' "Virtuality" (a >term which W Industries has trademarked). >[Virtuality is a violent wargame, and academics at a conference didn't >like that] >My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but >merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that >leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames? I feel that telling other people that what they're doing is wrong just because it isn't to your taste is being judgemental. In a free and democratic society, we should not sit in judgement of someone else's choice of subject matter. If W Industries can make money doing this, more power to them. Crispin ----- Crispin Cowan, CS grad student, University of Western Ontario Phyz-mail: Middlesex College, MC28-C, N6A 5B7 E-mail: crispin@csd.uwo.ca Voice: 519-661-3342 "If you want an operating system that is full of vitality and has a great future, use OS/2." --Andy Tanenbaum
jcs@crash.cts.com (John Schultz) (04/27/91)
In <1991Apr26.072659.17771@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: [stuff deleted] >which it sprang -- never to mature into civilian applications? Of course >we know that there is more to this than just more weaponry, but do the >shoot-em-up's -- BattleTech and Virtuality -- help or hinder our field? >My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but >merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that >leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames? There is a time and place for everything. It's far better to relegate human destructive instincts into the domain of fantasy in VR, than to play out these games in standard reality (SR). The most popular games on home computers are "shoot-em ups" and combat flight simulators. Of late, driving games have become popular (some with weapons of destruction). Has this affected the way we use personal computers? Does the fact that an i486 with an i860 can play Wing Commander or Red Baron (etc) make the device any less useful for productive work? If there is worry that games are going to negatively influence the future of VR, then the solution is simple. Waste no time finger pointing, but spend time wisely _creating_ what *you* think is *right* for VR. The beauty of VR is that there are no defined limits. No rules. No right or wrong. Do what you believe. John
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/27/91)
I think my respondents on this topic mistake my meaning. It's true that I am saddened that this year's major new applications of virtual worlds technology emphasize warrior behavior. But my main concern is a professional one, that if these are the >only< major developments of 1991, it is going to affect our collective ability to attract funding and to regain credibility as a nontrivial field, after the fiascos of recent years. Am I overly anxious? Or does the arching of the back I perceive among some potential supporters suggest a tiring with the bizarrie that is passing for "useful" endeavor. Bob Jacobson Moderator --
B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) (04/27/91)
>Re:[Bob's judgements and Sheb's fears]
So much seriousness. Life may be just a videogame for all God's children.
The existence we know might be a VR set up for cosmic reality. Our short
6000 years of history, 70 year life spans, and one planet sure don't call
for so much gravity.
As for the thread, less passive TV, more interactive media, lets get the damn
computer off the desk and out into the real world. I like the idea of a Sony
Cyberman. Just not one that channelizes the mind to a few scenarios. I want
eyephones like sunglasses, and a keyboard with embedded sensors like a racing
glove. I want to run through a real forest with virtual arrows showing the path.
And I want to fly through a sphere representing all the worlds languages,
reflecting the very structure of mind.
Sure there are going to be virtual couch-potatoes and virtual-deviants, real
problems to be planned for, in the mean time let's get on with making
virtual reality real.
_Stephen T._ <b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu>--------< FREE CALIFORNIA! > <NY Too!>robertj@uunet.UU.NET (Young Rob Jellinghaus) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr26.072659.17771@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: >I won't go into the details of the Virtuality game (which Harry Fearnham >has done ably here, before), except to remind readers that it permits >users to shoot down airplanes that are either machine generated or >"piloted" by other players. The price for use is approximately one pound >sterling for two to five minutes of play. .... >My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but >merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that >leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames? Your posting uses a lot of very negative terms to describe what seems to me to be a simple arcade game using VW technology. Would any of us argue that Space Invaders glorifies xenophobia and inter-species warfare? Electronic blips are, in the end, just electronic blips. But that's not relevant to sci.virtual-worlds; maybe soc.something would be more appropriate. The reason wargames are and probably will always be popular applications of new technology revolve around the realities of keeping the virtual voyager involved and engrossed. An airplane simulator that's designed as a game, a toy, doesn't need to meet any standards of interactivity. If you just put someone in a virtual room, and let them run around, they'll quickly begin to run up against all the places it's "not real enough". But if you define the space as a game, they'll go into it with a wholly different set of expectations; what was cumbersome and limiting will become dazzling and exciting. Games only need to entertain, they don't need to imitate reality. (In this sense, games are more "cinematic" than more plebeian (sp?) applications of VR, and therefore more conducive to the tricks that make movies so enjoyable. Game programmers are way ahead of the reat of the computer industry in terms of using tricks and hacks to get people involved in a system.) A game is designed to suck you in, to be fun to play. A "real application" is boring by comparison. Although walking through a VR building may be mind-blowing if you've never seen anything like it, after a while you'll grow tired and start to notice the shortcomings. But a game keeps you on the edge, reacting to what's happening to you, and you don't have time to notice how slow the frame rate is. >From my perspective, the more game-like and entertaining a VR system is, the more fun I'll have using it, and the more likely I am to enjoy it. If more VR designers took hints from the game designers, VR would thereby grow and prosper. And anyone who sincerely believes that wargames are "creations of the Devil" is living in a different sort of artificial reality altogether. >Bob Jacobson -- Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or Autodesk, Inc. | a bad decision being made out of sheer robertj@Autodesk.COM | ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext." {decwrl,uunet}!autodesk!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_ [MODERATOR'S NOTE: To save the space of an additional Re:, I refer back to my subsequent comments regarding virtual wargames and their practical implications for fundraising and corporate support. The moral issue exists but is not my central concern. I encourage Rob to actually see the presentation for Virtuality, rather than speaking in generalities about games. (I play wargames myself, Rob, but portraying screaming users -- apparently in either agony or bloodlust -- is another game, entirely, and that is what W Industries is doing in its demonstrations and videotapes.) It's really weird. [We do live in different realities, those of us who get to tinker in laboratories and those of us who have to go out and raise the bucks for the tinkerers. It would be useful to hear from others who are laboring to market virtual technologies and what they hear, in turn, from people outside the field. Could be I'm all wet. I hope so, but it hasn't been my experience. The legacy of "electronic LSD" hangs on. -- Bob Jacobson]
hibbett@prcs3.decnet.philips.be (04/28/91)
Bob writes:- >But my main concern is a professional one, that if these are the >only< >major developments of 1991, it is going to affect our collective ability >to attract funding and to regain credibility as a nontrivial field, after >the fiascos of recent years. Am I overly anxious? Well it seems to me that this is just marketing. You address the largest *single* marketable group, and satisfy their needs (or create new needs they hadn't thought of before!). Then, when the technology is cheap enough and the potentials well known, expand into the other smaller (and probably more useful) areas. Otherwise no one, bar the military, would be able to afford to "dabble" in this wonderful application of computing. Personally, I am happy that virtual reality can provide stimulating experiences such as war games. The more realistic adrenalin producing these simulations get, the less likely we are to do the same things in reality (IMHO). I despise blood sports, but would be happy to go Virtual Deer Hunting. The thrill of the chase, where the prey is as crafty as I like, and I can choose any landscape/climate combination. Far more satisfing that spending a day driving up to the hills only to find all the Deer wiped out by previous generations of blood thirsty idiots. The only negative tendancies I can think of is the development of a society used to expressing anger and aggression towards machines... I wonder what Asimov would think? Anyway I'm going Virtual Fishing now... Mike. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Hibbett | Philips RCS Ltd, England. ----------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Philips DECnet: PRCS3::HIBBETT | EUnet: hibbett@prcs3.decnet.philips.be --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robertj@uunet.UU.NET (Young Rob Jellinghaus) (04/29/91)
Yes, after posting and seeing some of the other followups I realized
you were speaking more specifically about the negative effects of a
wargames == VR association in venture capitalists' minds.
Personal computers started out as toys too, though.
I would go so far as to assert that anyone who dismisses a technology
because it seems to be useful only for games is shooting themselves
in the foot. As I said in my post, games require low bandwidth, and
have always been the favorite hobbies of many of the truly bright,
capable people in the computer field. Nothing is more natural than that
a new technology should get explored with games first.
And a little later, when the technology has evolved further, when it
becomes _possible_ to write really sound applications where the bandwidth
demands are higher and standards of "realism" are raised--well, at that
point VR will no longer be seen as a toy, no more than a modern 386 PC
is considered one.
(Not, of course, that more computer games than ever before are available
for the 386 PC--just check any Egghead's and watch your jaw drop!)
I stand stoutly behind my defense of toys.
Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or
Autodesk, Inc. | a bad decision being made out of sheer
robertj@Autodesk.COM | ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext."
{decwrl,uunet}!autodesk!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_robertj@uunet.UU.NET (Young Rob Jellinghaus) (04/29/91)
I didn't realize when I made my first posting that the game includes images of graphic deaths of the other players in the game. I can see why the reaction has been so severe to it if it's actually graphically violent (as opposed to, say, Lucasfilm's _Their_Finest_ _Hour_, which is basically a minor-leagues flight simulator). I had been thinking it was something like a multi-player flight simulator, which didn't seem all that controversial to me. (Inter- esting: flight simulators on PCs are considered "just toys", but dedicated flight simulators are anything but... and a new flight simulator that pilots can use for training was just released for color Macs... it would seem that the difference between a game and a useful tool is degree of realism, when it comes to simulating aircraft.) It's very interesting that the creators of this game seem to have crossed one very subversive psychological boundary. Games are one nthing, but really shooting someone is no longer fun... and maybe for some, this VR game crosses that line where the illusion becomes too real. If this is in fact the case, there is a lot of interesting research to be done concerning the reaction of the VR community to this game. And though I do see why some might feel this is a regrettable blot on the annals of VR, I think that much is to be gained by open discussion of cases such as this VR game, that push the boundaries of convention. And VR doesn't have to worry about being written off as a toy. Though I applaud the desire of the VR community to spread and flourish, it would be a shame if this happened at the expense of stifling novel and thought-provoking work--especially when there are so _many_ yet- unexplored possibilities in that mad pursuit known as virtual reality. Rob Jellinghaus [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Actually, I hope not to mislead anyone. The actual Virtuality game, so far as I have seen, does not feature graphic gore. But the PROMOTION of this game does press on the edges. One observer at the Munich conference remarked, "This will really turn on the Brits, who seem to have the hots for air combat if the Gulf War is to be believed; but it will really sour the Germans, who are trying to learn to live without military violence." Whatever. It's a good argument for cross-cultural sensitivity in the design and marketing of tomorrow's VR technology. The fine distinction between what a game offers and what it is purported to offer, by the marketeers, may be lost on the general public and on potential investors in our technology...particularly those from other cultures. IMHO. Thanks to Rob for a good dialogue. -- Bob Jacobson]
adlacy%unix2.tcd.ie@UWAVM.U.WASHINGTON.EDU (04/30/91)
Indeed games are often used to test out a machine's capabilities. How fast, what are the graphics / sound like etc. The same principle applies. Also, there will be more interest in VR due to the widening of it's scope. Cheers, Andy!
lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) (05/01/91)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes: >But there was also a concern, which I shared and expressed, that beyond >any moral questions, such presentations run the risk of distorting, once >again, public perception of virtual worlds technology. Having finally >outlasted the "electronic LSD" phase of press interest, are we now going >to have to fend off claims that VWT somehow aids and abets warrior >instincts and is, after all, only returning to the military roots from >which it sprang -- never to mature into civilian applications? Of course >we know that there is more to this than just more weaponry, but do the >shoot-em-up's -- BattleTech and Virtuality -- help or hinder our field? I think that VR might first become really popular in arcades and realtime gaming. There are many simulators out there, including the BattleTech and Virtuality game systems, that are on the fringes of VR. However, not *ALL* of them are destructive. For example, Atari's "Hard Drivin'" and "Race Drivin'" car driving simulators simply offer the player a chance to race around at high speeds and flip the car over without damaging anything. Note that the virtual plane battle is nothing new. Aircraft simulators have been on PCs since the Apple II (and probably before), when the precursor to the SubLogic Flight Simulator showed up. The Flight Simulator included a battle mode, where the player fought against WWI biplanes (this may have not been in the original, but was in later versions). VR plane battles are nothing new. >My own inclination is to call these systems devices of the Devil, but >merely bashing technology doesn't get to the ideas and persuasions that >leads to such aberrations. How do you feel about the virtual wargames? As are all arcade games? Chess is based on a very stylized form of battle, but noone seems to complain about it. There are countless people out there (and throughout history) who have played board-based wargames. And as mentioned above, driving and piloting simulators have been around for at least a decade on PCs, with varying levels of realism. Just because the popular forms of VR currently seem to be in arcades does not mean that VR cannot progress beyond this. However, what will be needed are ideas and implementations that will be useful and exciting to a large group of people, not just "computer-weenies" (like myself ;-) who have read W. Gibson and want to duplicate the experience in real life. Contrary to some opinions expressed in this group, I don't think that the level of realism brought on by fantastic peripherals that a person straps to their body is going to drive VR into a popular experience. Rather, good ideas and implementations on *available* hardware systems that draw the attention of many people will make VR profitable, which will likely lead to more research into VR. .oO Chris Oo. P.S. Even W. Gibson (the VR fiction "king") himself wrote a short story about an arcade game cowboy. It appears in _Burning_Chrome_ ... the last story, I believe. -- Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485 It is not safe out here. It is wonderous, Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene with treasures to satiate desires both lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu subtle and gross. But it is not for the uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka timid. -- Q
lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) (05/02/91)
mkelly@cs.uoregon.edu (Michael A. Kelly) writes: >There will always be those who will find something wrong with some of the ways >a new technology is being used. Perhaps a less violent game should be >developed to promote VR, but it probably wouldn't sell nearly as well. Try for car driving simulations. The ability to speed down a complex highway at high speeds in a virtual environment would probably appeal to many people. There are quite a few arcade and computer games out there already devoted to this. -- Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485 It is not safe out here. It is wonderous, Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene with treasures to satiate desires both lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu subtle and gross. But it is not for the uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka timid. -- Q