Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitsunexus
I've never bought into the whole "Matrix brain-jack" theory of gaming's future. Sure it sounds cool, but there's many problems IMO.
Firstly, no one's game will be the same because everyone's mind is different. Like, if you were to see a red apple, and I were to walk into the scene and see the red apple, we could both agree that we are perceiving the sensation of seeing said red apple. However, your perception of red may be different than mine, and wouldn't that cause problems for the game?
What about a man who was born blind? How can he perceive anything in the game? How is someone from a remote country that is less educated in our culture to perceive a generic American city (if that was the setting)? Sure you could define everything (instead of just suggesting what to perceive), but sensation data for the mind would OBVIOUSLY be a lot larger than even point cloud data, and your brain wouldn't slow down like a digital computer, the rush of data would just simply overload your brain and kill you.
There's also topics like what if someone who was mentally impaired was to play the game, what if your body woke up somehow, simulation fatigue/post-traumatic stress syndrome, etc... but I think that if you thought a bit about it, you would agree that it's impossible and very dangerous.
|
um, if you give people the same inputs, they should respond to it the same way they already do.
it seems like you have a very specific (and flawed) perception of how such a thing could work, despite having no experience with any comparable technology, and are arguing against the mythical beast you've constructed in your head. this is also pretty much how you're responding to the OP, so no surprises there.
"However, your perception of red may be different than mine, and wouldn't that cause problems for the game?" - again, this seems to work in real life, idk how it'd throw off a game. Our "perception of red" holds true for the existing RGB system of displaying colors and I've yet to hear a complaint.