Simian Revolution The Evolution of a Code Monkey

Augmented Reality: Real World 2.0?

I recently watched this video on the state of Augmented Reality technologies, courtesy of the Escapist (featured below). Robert Rice, CEO of Neogence Enterprises, walks us through the state of AR and what the future holds in terms of its integration in the IT landscape at large. For those who are too lazy to Google it, Neogence is a startup developing various AR technologies, namely for mobile and telecom. So, go ahead and give the video a watch. Don't worry, I'll wait.

So, take a video stream, apply some Computer Vision algorithms to analyze the environment, throw in a 3D graphics engine and Presto! You have Augmented Reality!

When they see tech demos like the ones presented in this video, every video game nerd starts squealing in excitement over all the potential applications in their favorite pastime (I know I did). What crazy game concepts can game development studios come up with to get us outside? And, more importantly, what are the effects of prolonged exposure to sunlight on the standard gamer? Perhaps there is some insight to be gained from a sister technology, Virtual Reality.

The difference between AR and VR can sometimes become ambiguous. Milgram's Reality-Virtuality Continuum (image below) exposes the difference within a spectrum, with reality and virtuality at polar opposites. AR is closer to the real world, while VR is closer to the virtual one. Different concepts can fall anywhere within this continuum, depending to some extent on the ratio of real-to-virtual content presented to the viewer.

Although the validity of this representation of the concepts is subject to debate, it illustrates the opposite nature of the advantages and limitations of AR and VR. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that one of the major game platform manufacturers releases a gaming helmet that alternately supports AR and VR. VR environements can be crafted in every detail, giving infinite creative potential. However, since the layout of the game world cannot overlay the real-world environment, players are likely to bump into walls, shin-height coffee tables and trees alike. And not the virtual kind, the painful kind. AR environments, on the other hand, must exist within a real environment, compromising design flexibility. So, either your games have a limited design range or you need to use the DNA-rearranging ray gun in your basement that will allow to see your living room furniture without using your eyes.

Ultimately, the greater freedom of interaction and movement of AR gives it the mainstream edge. We can adapt and expand modern game design principles to fit AR, just as they are beginning to for casual games, community games, the Nintendo Wii's approach to controls, etc. Even though it currently mostly only crops up in academic/industry tech demos and novelty-based marketing campaigns, those first steps have only scratched the surface of this technology's potential. Part of BMW's marketing campaign for the Z4 encouraged users to print out a visual marker on a sheet of paper and put it into view of their webcam on a flat surface. The AR software would then render a 3D model of the Z4 where the marker appears. Even cooler, you could then drive it around your desk or wherever using your keyboard. That gets your mind racing, doesn't it? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to battle virtual enemies in your backyard or have a magical duel with a friend, casting spells at your buddy's face using complex hand movements?

What kind of games can we make with this technology in hand? And, more importantly, what kind of games will people actually want to play? If we place a player in a true first-person perspective, what implications does this have for immersion and the kinds of game experiences people want to have? Would these be arguments in favor or against the validity of the sensorial immersion paradigm that Clint Hocking wants people to steer away from? Does the fact that the player is playing in a real-world locale improve or impede his ability to immerse himself in a game experience? It's one thing to flail like an idiot in front of friends and family while playing the Nintendo Wii. It's quite another to be chased down the street by virtual orks only I can see. In any other circumstance, this kind of behavior would earn me a padded cell with people in white coats for friends.

If we cannot get truly immersed for any reason, then the point is moot. However, if we can in fact get more immersed in an AR game world, what are the psychological implications of experiencing sword blows, bullet wounds and similar grim occurences so common in traditional video games from a true first-person perspective? I think I'd rather leave those experiences to my virtual avatar and play hero vicariously.

Again, these kinds of questions only matter if we try to apply current game design principles and themes to this kind of technology. It's probably a mistake to think about AR video games in this manner, as they would likely be in genres all their own.

Still, the true gaming nerd benchmark will always be whether or not AR can give a better Jedi duel simulator. Adam out.