Pokémon GO's use of location-based tech and Augmented Reality has led many to dub it "anti-VR" in that it pulls us out of an immersive world and forces us to move around the real world, interacting with others and potentially forging social relationships face-to-face.
However, it's easy to guess at how certain "VR-style" technologies can potentially enhance this experience - and one Microsoft HoloLens user has created a bare-bones tech demo which gives us what could be a glimpse of Pokémon GO's future.
It's a very simple demo at present, and merely places 3D-rendered Pokémon in the environment around you. While the user in the video is carrying a Pokéball, it's just for show (as is evidenced by the rather lame attempts to throw it and capture Pokémon) - but it does hint at where the concept could be headed; you could either use a "virtual" Pokéball mapped to a motion-sensing glove or actually hurl a ball which the headset could track (although this might be hard to retrieve in certain locations).
Given the rumours that Nintendo has delayed NX in order to factor in some kind of VR component, it's tempting to ponder if the company will produce this kind of game in the future. For now, all we have is this tech demo; an intriguing view on what Pokémon GO could be like in a few years.
I hope NX has nothing to do with this.
VR is pointless and expensive... AR is where it's at! So glad that Ninty have capitalised on it, they should keep down this road and forget about VR! Game of Zelda Go or Mario Kart Go anyone?
v.r. means anchoring yourself to a single controlled location. the thing with p-go is to get people going out in the real world with augmented reality - coz in a year like this, reality needs some augmenting. the v.r. component would have nothing to do with p-go. it would, if it were indeed to come to pass, be something entirely different.
It is weird seeing Mewtwo doing Capoeira
Walked down into my town centre yesterday and was bumped into by a high number of Pokemon Go players. Walked down by the river side and witnessed many more collectively looking for 'Mon.
Replied to a text message on the way back and had to stop to do this as I can't multitask. Someone shouted out of a car window 'Pokemon' at me in what I regarded to be an aggressive way.
I have never used the app, nor do I intend to. I kind of resent that sort of activity.
This has clearly become something of an epidemic in the UK I think, if not everywhere the game is available. It won't last forever of course but right now it's kind of scary.
So, rubbish, shallow, and gimmicky again (just like pretty much every single thing I've seen in AR to date)?
Some people think AR is ultimately going to be much better than VR. Are these people morons or something?
If you ignore the social aspect of Pokemon Go for a second, which ultimately has nothing to do with the AR part of the game (as you could still be made to walk to real locations and interact with other people while viewing only a computer representation of the area on your phone, just like the map part of the game or the times where you see the Pokemon on a rendered background rather than floating over the real world camera footage), we've seen very little done in AR that's actually anything other than a total gimmick. It almost entirely amounts to little more than some graphics floating over some camera footage.
VR is going to crap all over AR, if you actually care about quality games and entertainment experiences that go beyond the gimmicky aspects of the tech itself.
Seriously. I mean, Pokemon Go is clearly a really fun social experience, but it's not the AR part of the game that makes it so much fun; it's going out and meeting other people and sharing similar experiences that's made this a worldwide phenomenon. And it could basically all be done without AR; it's actually really about having a ubiquitous mobile device in this case, which gives you the chance to both get outside and meet other people with the same device.
Now, while not really getting you out the house and meeting other people, the actual amount of stuff you can do in VR, and the kinds of magical experiences you can have, is just on a different order of magnitude from what AR can offer, which, by its very nature, will always be limited by having to be stuck in the real world in some form or another—hence "augmented reality".
Basically, as an analogy (and reality), AR is Pokemon Go (hugely popular but ultimately gimmicky fluff, that's successful more because you can socialise with people than for the actual game itself), and VR is a main Pokemon game like Pokemon Sun & Moon (hugely popular because the actual game itself is stellar quality and brilliant fun to play for hundreds of hours in and of itself).
Just wanted to put that out there, because so many companies are really trying to get this whole AR hype train running, and many big names are claiming AR is actually where the future of gaming and entertainment is at; and it's really all a bunch of bullshot and junk for the most part, certainly if we're talking about genuinely high quality gaming and entertainment experiences here (that aren't just shallow gimmicks), and especially with where current AR tech is at.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid!
@SLIGEACH_EIRE 3DS can already do AR, albeit limited by processing power and the 2MP rear cameras.
I can name numerous examples, like Face Raiders, Spirit Camera, the Agnés intro in Bravely Default, and so on and so forth.
@Kirk If AR can bring me a good HUD that makes my everyday life look cool, then I say AR >>>>>>>>>>> VR. (Take, for instance, an HUD much like what Persona 5 has. I'd go further than that, but current technology is limited.)
I'm already immersing myself in delusions too much as is, after all.
@TheWPCTraveler From everything I've seen and know, AR is going to be largely gimmicky shallow junk for the most part. I'm not arguing it can't be huge—just look at Pokemon Go, and that's only using AR in a pretty typical way—but it's not the same as it actually offering amazing games and entertainment in and of itself. It would be like mistaking a crappy TV as being awesome because it's showing your favourite movie of all time, when the vastly-superior-in-almost-every-single-way TV right next to it is showing your least favourite movie of all time, so you assume it's a worse TV. Just put your favourite movie on the other TV and you'll see which is actually the much better TV.
And this AR "HUD" you speak of can still really only ever be a few graphical elements floating over some typical real world location—because that's basically all AR is, by its very definition.
Something like Pokemon Go is now being used by these marketing men as a way to convince the ignorant masses that AR is going blow everyone's minds. But the AR aspect isn't what makes Pokemon Go so great (or, more precisely, so popular). It's a false correlation.
Also, in a VR device like the Vive, you could be virtually-literally standing inside a full size/scale virtual Pokemon world that's wrapped all around you in 360 degrees, holding a virtual Pokeball in your hand (the controller), and with a proper throw gesture (not just a swipe) you could actually throw your Pokeball at that Pokemon to catch it. It's Pokemon on a whole other level; who seriously gives a crap if you're looking at a boring real-world building in the background when catching that Pokemon, when you could be looking at an awesome true-scale virtual representation of a building from the actual Pokemon games?
AR might be great for the corporations, who can churn out gimmicky junk (fitness tracking Apps, popup Ads over real-world locations, "social" Apps, a real-time weather display floating in front of your face, Pokemon floating/sliding over some camera footage of your kitchen sink) and sell it in huge numbers to the masses and make a tidy profit (which is why they're pushing it so hard), but I'm talking about what's going to actually give the end users the best gaming and entertainment experience here.
It comes down to this: Do you really value a real-world backdrop to your game (which inevitably limits it too in many ways) as more important than an entire game world than can be literally anything the developer can imagine with no limitations?
Fighting Metwo in front of your local McDonalds (which McDonalds has paid a lot of money to make sure its locations are being used and force-advertised as such) . . . or fighting Mewto in front of [insert some totally awesome Pokemon location that you've actually always wanted visit almost literally directly]. . . .
I lol'd at the Raichu rockin' out at 0:25.
Ah, 'gimmick', such a strangely used word.
@TheWPCTraveler Seriously, you made that whole list and left off Pokemon Dream Radar, the 3DS Pokemon AR game that predates Go by 4 years? It was even called "Pokémon AR Searcher" in Japan.
Nintendo probably should be marketing this now to kids who don't have a smartphone. Who knows, maybe it would even renew interest in B2W2?
There is no 'gimmick' vocabulary to describe about Pokemon GO. It just UNIQUE and Simple. 'Gimmick' sounds like the game is too complicated.
@Jamotello "...in a year like this, reality needs some augmenting."
Best slogan ever! 😂
@Kirk I prefer AR simply because it's cheap, shallow, and what I want from it doesn't even need all the bells and whistles of AR headsets available now.
That said, I agree with you that VR provides a superior experience from the get-go. It just doesn't give me what I think I want.
@rjejr I forgot about it completely. Then again, I've forgotten practically every 3DS Pokémon spin-off, so it might be me getting old.
I prefer AR to VR... I can't find anything attractive about shutting yourself off the world with all the headsets I've seen for VR. I want to play, but be able to interact with other players - either physically or online.
That said, someone leaked the pokestops in my country, and there is one in a new cafe near my house. Now I have an excuse to try it out when it finally releases here!
I certainly hope Nintendo doesn't jump on the silly VR fad bandwagon.
so what's the difference? you see it in the glasses instead of on the phone. AR is certainly the future but glasses are a problem. The reason is why VR sucks, because people don't want to put stuff on their heads. VR is the worst because it's an uncomfortable helmet and you're stuck in your house/basement.
So there is a need to have something really convincing to switch from the mobile phone to glasses, because people will prefer to walk around without/with contacts/with their own glasses.
@TheWPCTraveler Well, that I can understand. I can totally get how some people prefer smartphone/tablet gaming similarly. Not me personally, but some people.
This is the future!
Just imagine this: Two people in a stadium, surrounded by millions of people. Everyone is wearing one of these headsets.
You're one of those two people. You've trained hard for this moment, but you've finally made it to the Pokemon League. Your opponent is your best friend and rival, Jack, who's trained just as hard.
The match starts, you throw out your digital Pokeball and Charizard comes out of it. Your friend has a Onyx. You yell at your dragon pal: "Flamethrower!" and you watch your friends Onyx slowly burn, and faint.
-Okay, let's stop here. Just imagine that. Imagine how awesome that would be! Maybe it's a little over dramatic, but Pokémon would basically be real. Nintendo, take this VR/AR idea and do something with it, please.
@Snow-Dust Hhahaha my first thought was "is Mewtwo doing capoeira's moves?"
People need to stop trying to. I parents AR/VR and understand that they are two different things.
VR is about immersing you in a digital environment.
AR just adapts your existing environment. Both are good but have different goals. I like them both. I own a gear vr and an Oculus Rift and VR is absolutely stunning.
AR looks good to be the mobile VR... Which is not bad... I can see Nintendo going this direction with their portable parket. But VR on the other hand... needs to be cheap and more immersive to work. A device that allows FULL 360° movement (ALL the body) in a stationary place is needed to really even call it VR. Algo the whole lens in Head displays can be soled with a free form screen that covers the eyes and maybe part of the face... basically AR backwards!
I'm down for this. I especially like how HoloLens can detect surfaces in 3D so it could much more accurately decide where a pokemon is standing and where a pokeball can be thrown
I think this kind of feature is actually inevitable for the future of Pokemon Go. Obviously Nintendo/Niantic aren't going to be working with Microsoft since they're already working with Google. But Google does have Google Glass, seems like they could create a version of Google Glass specifically just for Pokemon Go to keep the cost of the accessory more affordable, and a wearable accessory for this title is nothing new thanks to the Pokemon Go Plus bracelet.
I think that Bracelet could be perfect for this idea as well. By wearing the AR glasses and looking at your hand/wrist that your bracelet is attached to, the glasses would be able to simulate where you'd be "holding" the pokeball based on where it recognizes your pokemon go plus bracelet as existing in the 3D space. And then the two could work in conjunction to recognize when you're making the throwing motion to try and catch a pokemon. Seems very logical to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see it in the not too distant future.
@Kirk Oh, I don't plan on using AR to play games. I'm fine with it being in games, just make it optional or - at the very least - integrated in a way that it at least makes sense.
I completely forgot about mentioning that.
Who in the right mind will walk around town wearing that AR helmet?
Also, there are billions of smartphone in the world vs a few thousand Hololens. That device is expensive, it's a niche experimental gadget.
I know this is a fan-made demo, but geez louise the animations they gave some of the Pokémon is terrible!
Tap here to load 28 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...