From: lishka@dxcern.cern.ch (Christopher Lishka)
Subject: INDUSTRY: Short Critiques of Three Virtuality Games
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 11:45:16 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics


In <1992Jun22.164119.16754@u.washington.edu> t9114209@phillip.edu.au writes:

	>Some things I would like to mention are, that alot of the
	>problems I expected weren't there. The lag of the polhemus
	>tracking wasn't bad enough to ruin the game play, it was fine
	>as long as you weren't rapidly trying to find your opponent.
	>The problems I have heard about double images and focus were
	>not as obvious as I assumed, it was easy to get accustomed to
	>the HMD. The resolution didn't deter the game play and the
	>field of view (although small) was just like the movies,
	>after a while you didn't notice the black borders.

I had a go at three virtuality games in London while on vacation there
(in April).  I played a flight simulator, a driving simulator, and a
BattleTech-like robot simulator.

The visuals on the flight simulator and driving simulator were
horrible.  The images were rather blurry, but not enough to be
unplayable.  Even worse, the controls used were also lousy.  The
flight simulator had two joysticks, with one having bizarre overloaded
functions which I simply couldn't figure out in the five minutes I had
to play.

The driving simulator had more conventional controls, but they were
poorly implemented.  The steering wheel could *not* be rotated
continuously, and the foot pedals had such a short range of movement
they were almost digital in nature.  I spent most of the time simply
trying to get back on the road.  Being a fan of "Hard Drivin'" and
"Race Drivin'", I was very disappointed.  It is sad to see a decent VR
game system saddled with unusable controls.

Alas, the BattleTech robot simulator was much better.  It used the
same cockpit and controls as the driving simulator, but the game did
not require fine movement of the pedals and steering wheel to be
played, so the controls worked well enough.  Oddly, the visuals were
*MUCH* better on the robot simulator, and I could see everything
clearly.

The game play on the robot simulator was more fun as well: it was you
against three other players, and all you had to do was hit your
opponents the most times.  The game play took place in a city, so
there were virtual skyscrapers blocking your shots.  When you were
hit, you started with a new robot and were dropped down into the
playfield.  The 3D graphics were nice and the animation was fun.  This
is the only game of the three that I would play again.

Maybe the headsets on the first two games were misadjusted, but there
did not seem much in the way of fitting them to your head.  The
attendants did not do much in the way of adjusting either.  One real
problem was the weight of the headsets.  There was a lag in tracking,
and the refresh rate was a little slow, but it wasn't bad enough to
detract from the game play.

In the end, it just goes to show that gee-whiz hardware is not the
only thing that makes a good game.  I would take "Race Drivin'" over
the Virtuality driving simulator anyday, simply because the controls
feel more real and the game play is better.

Human factors design in the controls and a good game must also be
present or people like me won't want to spend another 2 pounds to play
again.

						.oO Chris Oo.


--
                                                           Christopher Lishka
 Never drive a car when you're dead...			   PPE Division, CERN
				-- Tom Waits		 lishka@cernvax.cern.ch
							     vxaluw::lishka