potato_hamster said:
My example is fine. The way Virtual Reality systems were defined when the Virtual Boy came out meant that at the time it was widely considered to be one. You even admit that. It doesn't really matter why it was considered a VR system. It doesn't change the fact that it was. Just because the bar has been raised since then that devices with similar feature sets are not considered to be VR today doesn't mean that the Virtual Boy wasn't a VR system. If you made a similar device today it almost certainly wouldn't be, but at the same time, when the Virtual Boy was released, it was.
"Virtual Reality" is STILL a buzz word. Do you know there's people that do not consider any VR system that doesn't completely hijack your senses (think Matrix style) to NOT be "real VR"? To this day Virtual Reality's definition is still evolving as technological boundaries push the boundaries of what's actually possible. Who knows, perhaps in 100 years we will have the ability to hijack our senses and people on message boards will be whinging "The PSVR wasn't really VR! Sony just used "Virtual Reality" to market the PSVR because there wasn't people like me around telling them they're wrong!"
Jim Sterling would have a field day with your comment.
|
Atleast ppl in the future will have to recognize that a tangible definition was established for VR during this time. I imagine a revolutionary next step like audiovisuals and maybe more senses being induced into your brain will get a new word, like "induced sensual reality" or sth like that.
As I said before, stereoscopic 3D was an established and well defined entity in 1995 and the VB doesn't differentiate itself from that in any way, meaning the vague "virtual reality" moniker wasn't it's "definition", s3D was.
