"future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w..

"AirRaid" <AirRaid1500.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167420784.624812.187570@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> found by Zonar on GAF
>
>
> http://www.datarealms.com/devlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fog.gif
>

LOL, that's awesome! I love the "Radio" checkers/chess.
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

Miles Bader wrote:
> getrich.DeleteThis@1upandup.com writes:
> >> LOL, that's awesome! I love the "Radio" checkers/chess.
>
> Well... if you give them a bit of leeway, wifi is radio after all.
>
> [It's hard to believe they actually meant the games' radio transmitter
> would transmit hundreds of miles -- that's obviously silly. Presumably
> they had some sort of staged communication in mind, although maybe
> radio->phone-modem or something.]
>
> -miles
> --
> (\(\
> (^.^)
> (")")
> *This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.

And if you think of celular phones? I think he was thinking walkie
talkie things. Shortwave radio can go long distance.

Problem with long term predictions is some other innovation comes along
and that becomes the means by which the proposed solution in the
prediction takes instead of the idea originally in mind.

What is interesting is, 2006-2007, we don't have TV quality videogames
in a handheld. The PSP is not there yet.

- The Rich
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

"AirRaid" <AirRaid1500.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167420784.624812.187570@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> found by Zonar on GAF
>
>
> http://www.datarealms.com/devlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fog.gif
>

Meh. I'm still waiting on my flying cars and nuclear-powered vacuums ^_^.

New version of an old favorite!
The Briefcase Fulla Rant!
http://briefrant.com
It'll grab you and won't let you go ^_^!
New Rant: Racism and Prejudice!

My Selling Page:
http://briefrant.com/Selling/Selling
Wide selection of American Comics and Manga at Bargain Prices!
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

getrich.TakeThisOut@1upandup.com writes:
>> LOL, that's awesome! I love the "Radio" checkers/chess.

Well... if you give them a bit of leeway, wifi is radio after all.

[It's hard to believe they actually meant the games' radio transmitter
would transmit hundreds of miles -- that's obviously silly. Presumably
they had some sort of staged communication in mind, although maybe
radio->phone-modem or something.]

-miles
--
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

getrich DeleteThis @1upandup.com wrote:

>
> Apparently something like the "Internets" wasn't on their mind in 1976.
> Maybe they should of

http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html

HTH,
-joe.
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

On 29 Dec 2006 18:56:43 -0800, getrich.RemoveThis@1upandup.com wrote:

>
>Brenden D. Chase wrote:
>> "AirRaid" <AirRaid1500.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167420784.624812.187570@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > found by Zonar on GAF
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.datarealms.com/devlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fog.gif
>> >
>>
>> LOL, that's awesome! I love the "Radio" checkers/chess.
>
>Apparently something like the "Internets" wasn't on their mind in 1976.

IIRC, they were developing ARPANET at that time.

>I will say the rest is somewhat in the ballpark

Only the left-hand side was accurrate. On the right, we don't have
supercomputer-style games - usually you see the TV, handheld or
personal computer games instead.
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

Raymond Martineau wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 18:56:43 -0800, getrich.RemoveThis@1upandup.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Brenden D. Chase wrote:
> >> "AirRaid" <AirRaid1500.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1167420784.624812.187570@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > found by Zonar on GAF
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > http://www.datarealms.com/devlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fog.gif
> >> >
> >>
> >> LOL, that's awesome! I love the "Radio" checkers/chess.
> >
> >Apparently something like the "Internets" wasn't on their mind in 1976.
>
> IIRC, they were developing ARPANET at that time.
>
> >I will say the rest is somewhat in the ballpark
>
> Only the left-hand side was accurrate. On the right, we don't have
> supercomputer-style games - usually you see the TV, handheld or
> personal computer games instead.

Massive multiplayer online games would be somewhat close to that, with
the Internet being the connection medium. The article was written
before client-server technology came into being.

- The Rich
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

Jonah Falcon wrote:

http://www.datarealms.com:80/devlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fog.gif

> Let's dissect this:

> 1. A TV game with a very large memory will be able to
> reconstruct detailed pictures of, say, the Battle of
> Waterloo or a space battle, and the players will be
> able to control far more of the details in the picture
> than they can today.

Is there some peculiar (British?) usage of the word
"pictures" here that I'm missing? This seems to suggest
to me something other than a real-time game.

> Okay, let's change "TV" to "monitor". The image looks
> like Sid Meier's Gettysburg -- and basically, that's
> what Real Time Strategy Games are. Funny, but people
> tend to desire LESS "control" over "far more of the
> details". Ah, micromanagement

Back then, I don't think there were any "strategy"
videogames or computer games at all. There were
board games, and I think miniatures wargames. I
think the comparison is being made between a "TV game"
versus a miniatures wargame. In both cases, we're
talking about static "pictures" of a battle rather
than real-time animation.

I'll say this prediction is a miss. It fails to
anticipate the development of "real-time" strategy
games.

> 3. Powerful computers will be able to create adventure
> games infinitely more complex than those you can play
> on a micro today. To help the human player there will
> probably be a board and counters to plan and keep track
> of their moves.

> WHAT adventure games? Heh. Well, let's dissect this...
> Using a board and counters to plan their moves?

The closest I can think of was an old board/computer
game hybrid called Chivalry.

> I did that with The Bard's Tale to map out
> those levels. That was 10 years after this article in 1986. And frankly, I
> still think the text-based adventure games by Infocom late in their
> existance are superior to anything done today. Of course, in 1976, adventure
> games were ALL you could play. "GO EAST".

The article seems to be refering to "text" adventure
games specifically (although by this time some graphical
"adventure" games existed). This prediction is simply
wrong all around. Text adventure games are dead as
the dinosaurs, and computer graphics made any sort
of board/counters unnecessary. Graphical "adventure"
games did in fact get a little more complex (with
some notable innovations like multi-character parties),
but not much--certainly not "infinitely" more complex.

And most significantly, today's "adventure" games are
still hand-crafted by humans in detail. Back in the
'80s, there was a lot of optimism about computer AI,
and it seemed perfectly reasonable that computers
could create RPG stories. But that hasn't come to pass,
yet, and we may have to wait a long time for it.

> 4. At present, most computer games are only for one
> or two players. More powerful computers, though,
> will be able to cope with instructions from a
> number of people playing at the same time, either
> as teams against each other, or against the computer.

The text is remarkably prescient, but the associated
image is utterly laughable.

> 5. Hand-held electronic games will still have
> liquid crystal displays, but they will probably be
> in full colour (love the Brits!) and wll be as
> detailed and realistic for a TV programme (love
> the Brits Part II!) today.

This is perhaps the most impressive prediction.
Yes, it's just an Etch-a-Sketch with some extra
"fiddly bits" added on, but the general appearance
with its large screen and horizontal layout is
very modern looking. Most impressive is the
choice of display technology--color LCD.

> 6. By the year 2000 you will be able to challenge
> someone hundreds of miles away to a game. The games
> will contain miniature radio transmitters and
> receivers which will transmit your moves and receive
> those of your opponent with very little time delay.
> Your opponent's moves will be automatically
> carried out in the liquid crystal display.

> Several things: 1. call WiFi "radio", and it's close.

Not really. The image is of a game like Chess, or
possibly Checkers. These sorts of specific-purpose
portable games still exist, but not with wireless
capability. This one's mostly a miss.

> And what's with this
> LCD obsession? Plasma is where it's at, baby.

At the time, portable and handheld games had three
different display technologies--LCD panels, VFD panels,
and LEDs (crude blinking lights). It's actually
somewhat interesting that this article correctly
predicts which one would survive.

Note that LCD panels at the time weren't pixelated
displays, but rather used fixed images. The only
technology available to produce a "TV-like" video
display was CRT. What few portable TVs existed
used small CRT tubes. It's impressive that the
predicted handheld correctly uses an LCD display.

> 7. The ultimate game will be a super-realistic
> computer simulation which takes place all around
> you in a special games cubicle. The game, perhaps a
> space invasion or adventure game (yeah, RIGHT!),
> will have three dimensional effects, laser lighting
> and quadrophonic sound.

Pretty good, with the minor detail that the "special
games cubicle" is something which you custom build
yourself. Hardcore computer gamers who put together
all-around multiple display setups are treated to
a level of immersion unavailable with a single
traditional display.

Even the seemingly strange prediction of "quadrophonic"
sound is accurate. While 5.1 surround sound is most
popular in the living room, for computer gamers an
essentially quadrophonic setup is more common.

And let's not get into a debate about whether a
multi-thousand dollar computer or a multi-hundred
dollar console provides the "ultimate" game
experience.

Isaac Kuo
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

> Back then, I don't think there were any "strategy"
> videogames or computer games at all. There were
> board games, and I think miniatures wargames. I
> think the comparison is being made between a "TV game"
> versus a miniatures wargame. In both cases, we're
> talking about static "pictures" of a battle rather
> than real-time animation.
>
> I'll say this prediction is a miss. It fails to
> anticipate the development of "real-time" strategy
> games.


Failing to miss a genre is not the same as a miss. This prediction is
dead on with games like Company of Heros, Master of Orion (few years
old), etc. The idea of being in charge of the types of TV shows that
were broadcast in the late 70's has in fact come true.


> Not really. The image is of a game like Chess, or
> possibly Checkers. These sorts of specific-purpose
> portable games still exist, but not with wireless
> capability. This one's mostly a miss.

Bypass the image for a second. The idea is that you will not have to
be with someone to play a game. This was almost unheard of in the
70's, adding to that the infrastructure of the internet was not common
place. I think that DARPA's network was being used to transmit chess
type games, as it wasn't that hard to send moves using Algebraic or
Standard naming conventions. The ability to sit down and play someone
in another country at a game is exactly what the article was
predicting, and it has happened. Leave the details out of it.



> > 7. The ultimate game will be a super-realistic
> > computer simulation which takes place all around
> > you in a special games cubicle. The game, perhaps a
> > space invasion or adventure game (yeah, RIGHT!),
> > will have three dimensional effects, laser lighting
> > and quadrophonic sound.
>
> Pretty good, with the minor detail that the "special
> games cubicle" is something which you custom build
> yourself. Hardcore computer gamers who put together
> all-around multiple display setups are treated to
> a level of immersion unavailable with a single
> traditional display.

At the local Dave & Buster's, they have BattleTech gaming simulators
that do exactly what the article stated, minus the extra screens. The
biggest problems with multiple screens is the graphics engine needed to
drive them. The main reason they are not in everyone's home right now
is cost, but with technologies such as VR Headsets, this is totally
possible.

All in all, I think the article is dead on with predicting the next 20
years of gaming from the 70's. I shutter to think what our next 20
years will bring.





IsaacKuo wrote:
> Jonah Falcon wrote:
>
> http://www.datarealms.com:80/devlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fog.gif
>
> > Let's dissect this:
>
> > 1. A TV game with a very large memory will be able to
> > reconstruct detailed pictures of, say, the Battle of
> > Waterloo or a space battle, and the players will be
> > able to control far more of the details in the picture
> > than they can today.
>
> Is there some peculiar (British?) usage of the word
> "pictures" here that I'm missing? This seems to suggest
> to me something other than a real-time game.
>
> > Okay, let's change "TV" to "monitor". The image looks
> > like Sid Meier's Gettysburg -- and basically, that's
> > what Real Time Strategy Games are. Funny, but people
> > tend to desire LESS "control" over "far more of the
> > details". Ah, micromanagement
>
> Back then, I don't think there were any "strategy"
> videogames or computer games at all. There were
> board games, and I think miniatures wargames. I
> think the comparison is being made between a "TV game"
> versus a miniatures wargame. In both cases, we're
> talking about static "pictures" of a battle rather
> than real-time animation.
>
> I'll say this prediction is a miss. It fails to
> anticipate the development of "real-time" strategy
> games.
>
> > 3. Powerful computers will be able to create adventure
> > games infinitely more complex than those you can play
> > on a micro today. To help the human player there will
> > probably be a board and counters to plan and keep track
> > of their moves.
>
> > WHAT adventure games? Heh. Well, let's dissect this...
> > Using a board and counters to plan their moves?
>
> The closest I can think of was an old board/computer
> game hybrid called Chivalry.
>
> > I did that with The Bard's Tale to map out
> > those levels. That was 10 years after this article in 1986. And frankly, I
> > still think the text-based adventure games by Infocom late in their
> > existance are superior to anything done today. Of course, in 1976, adventure
> > games were ALL you could play. "GO EAST".
>
> The article seems to be refering to "text" adventure
> games specifically (although by this time some graphical
> "adventure" games existed). This prediction is simply
> wrong all around. Text adventure games are dead as
> the dinosaurs, and computer graphics made any sort
> of board/counters unnecessary. Graphical "adventure"
> games did in fact get a little more complex (with
> some notable innovations like multi-character parties),
> but not much--certainly not "infinitely" more complex.
>
> And most significantly, today's "adventure" games are
> still hand-crafted by humans in detail. Back in the
> '80s, there was a lot of optimism about computer AI,
> and it seemed perfectly reasonable that computers
> could create RPG stories. But that hasn't come to pass,
> yet, and we may have to wait a long time for it.
>
> > 4. At present, most computer games are only for one
> > or two players. More powerful computers, though,
> > will be able to cope with instructions from a
> > number of people playing at the same time, either
> > as teams against each other, or against the computer.
>
> The text is remarkably prescient, but the associated
> image is utterly laughable.
>
> > 5. Hand-held electronic games will still have
> > liquid crystal displays, but they will probably be
> > in full colour (love the Brits!) and wll be as
> > detailed and realistic for a TV programme (love
> > the Brits Part II!) today.
>
> This is perhaps the most impressive prediction.
> Yes, it's just an Etch-a-Sketch with some extra
> "fiddly bits" added on, but the general appearance
> with its large screen and horizontal layout is
> very modern looking. Most impressive is the
> choice of display technology--color LCD.
>
> > 6. By the year 2000 you will be able to challenge
> > someone hundreds of miles away to a game. The games
> > will contain miniature radio transmitters and
> > receivers which will transmit your moves and receive
> > those of your opponent with very little time delay.
> > Your opponent's moves will be automatically
> > carried out in the liquid crystal display.
>
> > Several things: 1. call WiFi "radio", and it's close.
>
> Not really. The image is of a game like Chess, or
> possibly Checkers. These sorts of specific-purpose
> portable games still exist, but not with wireless
> capability. This one's mostly a miss.
>
> > And what's with this
> > LCD obsession? Plasma is where it's at, baby.
>
> At the time, portable and handheld games had three
> different display technologies--LCD panels, VFD panels,
> and LEDs (crude blinking lights). It's actually
> somewhat interesting that this article correctly
> predicts which one would survive.
>
> Note that LCD panels at the time weren't pixelated
> displays, but rather used fixed images. The only
> technology available to produce a "TV-like" video
> display was CRT. What few portable TVs existed
> used small CRT tubes. It's impressive that the
> predicted handheld correctly uses an LCD display.
>
> > 7. The ultimate game will be a super-realistic
> > computer simulation which takes place all around
> > you in a special games cubicle. The game, perhaps a
> > space invasion or adventure game (yeah, RIGHT!),
> > will have three dimensional effects, laser lighting
> > and quadrophonic sound.
>
> Pretty good, with the minor detail that the "special
> games cubicle" is something which you custom build
> yourself. Hardcore computer gamers who put together
> all-around multiple display setups are treated to
> a level of immersion unavailable with a single
> traditional display.
>
> Even the seemingly strange prediction of "quadrophonic"
> sound is accurate. While 5.1 surround sound is most
> popular in the living room, for computer gamers an
> essentially quadrophonic setup is more common.
>
> And let's not get into a debate about whether a
> multi-thousand dollar computer or a multi-hundred
> dollar console provides the "ultimate" game
> experience.
>
> Isaac Kuo
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

Andrew wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2007 09:21:28 -0800, "IsaacKuo" <mechdan.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Back then, I don't think there were any "strategy"
> >videogames or computer games at all.

> Perhaps you should do some research into gaming history then. By 1982
> I had played loads of games on teletypes via 300/75 acoustic coupler,
> arcade machines and home computers.

How many of those games were "strategy" games? I guess
I went too far to say they didn't exist at all, but what ones
did exist were obscure, at least. Certainly, any game played
on teletype via 300/75 acoustic coupler would have been
very obscure!

In contrast, 1982 would have been during the heydey of board
wargaming, before the eventual proliferation of home videogames
virtually killed off the hobby.

Isaac Kuo
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

chris.nebinger.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> > Back then, I don't think there were any "strategy"
> > videogames or computer games at all. There were
> > board games, and I think miniatures wargames. I
> > think the comparison is being made between a "TV game"
> > versus a miniatures wargame. In both cases, we're
> > talking about static "pictures" of a battle rather
> > than real-time animation.

> > I'll say this prediction is a miss. It fails to
> > anticipate the development of "real-time" strategy
> > games.

> Failing to miss a genre is not the same as a miss. This prediction is
> dead on with games like Company of Heros, Master of Orion (few years
> old), etc. The idea of being in charge of the types of TV shows that
> were broadcast in the late 70's has in fact come true.

The comparison isn't being made with TV shows in this
prediction (that comparison is made in the handheld
game system prediction). This prediction is talking
about static "pictures" rather than any sort of video.
The wording is confusing unless you put yourself in
the mental mindset of someone in 1982. Back then,
wargames were a hobby involving either counters or
miniatures. The spirit of the prediction is that future
wargames will be like the popular painted miniatures
wargaming hobby of the day--except on TV with much
greater detail.

> > Not really. The image is of a game like Chess, or
> > possibly Checkers. These sorts of specific-purpose
> > portable games still exist, but not with wireless
> > capability. This one's mostly a miss.

> Bypass the image for a second.

The image helps explain what the text means.

> The idea is that you will not have to
> be with someone to play a game. This was almost unheard of in the
> 70's, adding to that the infrastructure of the internet was not common
> place.

Well before the Internet was commonly used outside the US
government and universities, modems were used for CompuServe,
BBS's, and even modem games. This was relatively obscure
stuff in 1982, of course.

Still, play by mail games existed for a long time (not computer
related). It seems that this prediction is aware of play-by-mail,
because of its explicit reference to "time delay". With modem
games, there really wasn't any time delay worth speaking of
(not for a turn based game like Chess). But play-by-mail Chess
was a long term commitment!

> I think that DARPA's network was being used to transmit chess
> type games, as it wasn't that hard to send moves using Algebraic or
> Standard naming conventions. The ability to sit down and play someone
> in another country at a game is exactly what the article was
> predicting, and it has happened. Leave the details out of it.

The details explain the spirit of the prediction.

> > > 7. The ultimate game will be a super-realistic
> > > computer simulation which takes place all around
> > > you in a special games cubicle. The game, perhaps a
> > > space invasion or adventure game (yeah, RIGHT!),
> > > will have three dimensional effects, laser lighting
> > > and quadrophonic sound.

> > Pretty good, with the minor detail that the "special
> > games cubicle" is something which you custom build
> > yourself. Hardcore computer gamers who put together
> > all-around multiple display setups are treated to
> > a level of immersion unavailable with a single
> > traditional display.

> At the local Dave & Buster's, they have BattleTech gaming simulators
> that do exactly what the article stated, minus the extra screens.

Yes, but those arcade machines were never the "ultimate"
game experience even when they were new.

> The
> biggest problems with multiple screens is the graphics engine needed to
> drive them.

Yes, only a few computer games support it--but it's still the
"ultimate" computer gaming system hardcore devotees of
those games aspire to.

> The main reason they are not in everyone's home right now
> is cost, but with technologies such as VR Headsets, this is totally
> possible.

Decent quality VR Headsets cost more than multiple displays
and video cards, and provide an inferior gaming experience,
overall. This is actually an example of good prediction on the
part of the old article. Back in the '80s I personally predicted
virtual reality goggles would take over videogaming during the
'90s. I was wrong.

> All in all, I think the article is dead on with predicting the next 20
> years of gaming from the 70's. I shutter to think what our next 20
> years will bring.

I thought it was surprisingly better than one could expect, but
not at all "dead on".

I don't have a reference, but I remember an old Popular Science
article from the early '80s which predicted that the ultimate
future videogames would use fancy 3d vector graphics, and
had an accompaning picture with a 3d wireframe rendering
of an X-Wing fighter. That's right--wireframe graphics! I
remember finding that prediction perfectly plausible at the
time. But in what couldn't have been more than two years,
Tron's shaded polygon computer graphics showed that no
matter how cool wireframe graphics looked, they were hardly
the "ultimate"!

I find this article from 24 years ago most notable for not
underestimating what future computer graphics would
be capable of someday. In 1982, there was no such thing
as a "photo-realistic" computer rendering of anything.
Computer and videogame graphics were very obviously
"digital" looking and pixelated. It took prescient vision
to even contemplate that someday "TV games" would
be able to create "realistic" pictures which could compete
with painted miniatures.

I mean, at this time we have TV advertisements touting
the amazing "arcade quality" Intellivision videogame
graphics compared to the Atari.

Isaac Kuo
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

AirRaid wrote:
> found by Zonar on GAF
>
>
> http://www.datarealms.com/devlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/fog.gif

What magazine was this article from, and when?
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w.. 

On 2 Jan 2007 09:21:28 -0800, "IsaacKuo" <mechdan.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Back then, I don't think there were any "strategy"
>videogames or computer games at all.

Perhaps you should do some research into gaming history then. By 1982
I had played loads of games on teletypes via 300/75 acoustic coupler,
arcade machines and home computers.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
 >> Stay informed about: "future Games": a 24 year old artical predicts how games w..