kotaku.com: You won’t be shocked to learn that watching Bernie Sanders shout about email is not virtual reality’s killer app. I watched Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate on my Gear VR, using Next VR in the Oculus store, and the aesthetic experience was markedly worse than watching the debate on TV, like a normal person.
18 comments:
I commented on a previous article predicting how virtual reality would work with the Democratic Presidential Debate, and I'm sort of disappointed to say that I was right. I wanted the virtual reality to out-cool my expectation of it, and I agree with the author of this article, that virtual reality is a hugely interactive medium. If you're just going to watch a show without movement, then perhaps it's better to just watch it on television and get the benefits of semi-multitasking. What is cool, though, is that people using virtual reality before the debate started could choose to be flies on the walls. I wonder if the people at the debate were told in advance that there would be certain people watching them from virtual reality, or if they had no idea that others could read their text messages from thousands of miles away. I hope that there can be more of a future for virtual reality at other events, perhaps like Broadway -- I'd love to have a one on one personal experience with a show from my bedroom.
I remember commenting on the article about watching the debate over virtual reality and I was really hopeful that it would work out. I’m surprised that they stuck the camera in stationary spots and didn't let the viewer move the camera around after the debate started. There are these omnidirectional cameras that they sometimes use for virtual reality that have a bunch of cameras pointing in all directions that blend together so as you “turn” around it switches between cameras giving you the feeling of on continuous pan. It’s weird that they didn't use those for the whole debate and give you the choice between which spot you wanted to be in. Also, I know this technology is really new, but I would have thought the video quality would be better than it was. Maybe it has to do with putting a fisheye-d camera view that works when you have the goggles on and making it flat, but nothing is defined in any of those pictures.
I do not understand why someone would go about doing this in the first place. This democratic debate is not really exciting so much as they are interesting. Being in the action of the moment, virtually, is not really worth setting all up and frying your phone. But I guess this writer agreed with me. This all made me ask myself, well, what would I like to see in virtual reality? Is this where the future is heading? So if I watched a show like Grace and Frankie on Netflix in 50, 100 years, would I be in the living room with these ladies? As funny as that sounds it seems unnecessary. I think the more action filled shows or movies will do better with this platform. Yes, seeing details of an event that is happening live, that is cool, but again it still seems like a waste of time and effort.
I did not expect much from this VR broadcast. So few people were going to tune in to the broadcast and even fewer were not going to get annoyed wearing a headpiece the whole time that it isn’t totally worth putting a ton of effort into the production. There must have been poor resolution and apparently awkward camera placement. The author made a point in one of his descriptions “when the novelty wore off.” Although I think there is a place for VR in this world and I know there is a lot of technology that still needs improving, it is definitely a novelty that could ware off. I can’t really see it becoming a replacement for TV because it is just not as simple. A TV frames what you are supposed to see and shows you the good stuff. With VR, as is described in the article, you could see the production equipment, people’s texts and O’Malleys bald spot, these are not all great things to see while trying to focus on the ideas of our possible future president.
I agree with some of the previous comments in the thread. The virtual reality platform was not really designed for something like the presidential debate, much like 3D was not designed for watching everyday television. People originally designed these platforms to watch action packed movies, television shows, or video games. You do not really need to interact on this level with a presidential debate, and in a way, I think it takes away from the political platforms that are being discussed. When people are distracted by the quality of what they are seeing or the technological impact of what they are doing, they are not discussing the issues at hand, and they are less likely to make informed decisions based on the debate itself. That being said, the technology is new, and maybe the impact will be there at some point in the future. For now, I think that the impact of virtual reality has will exist in a realm that has nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with what we consider mainstream television.
Huh. I didn't really think that people thought Virtual Reality had non video game applications. And I had absolutely no idea that the Presidential Debate was "VR Capable". As far as TV goes, Virtual Reality kind of falls into the same category as 3D video in my mind. It's a cool trick, but falls into the gimmicky range when the content or execution falls flat. In the case of the presidential debate, the author points out that it would be really freaking cool if you could walk around in VR! Except that's nowhere near practical, so in reality you could pick from one of three positions to look around from. Conversely, in a video game, it is highly possible to let the VR user walk around and experience the whole environment at their choosing. I honestly think that Virtual Reality really is one of those technologies that will work and be successful in certain markets, but not in others. Perhaps there are limited successful applications for VR in TV and broadcast markets, in the same way that 3D has managed to scrap by on the margins successfully. Oh well, probably won't be experiencing either technology any time soon..
Virtual Reality, in this situation, makes no sense as a medium of broadcast. Firstly, as the article stated, virtual reality is definitely better suited to video games, where interaction is key. But I do feel that in some situations television could transfer over to virtual reality really well. The Democratic Debates however are not one of those situations. Virtual Reality is meant to bring the audience into the world of the story. It’s meant to be completely immersive and to help the audience suspend disbelief. None of these components are necessary in a presidential debate. You aren’t being transported into another reality (although sometimes it feels that way) and I should hope you don’t need to suspend your disbelief when watching (we do, we shouldn’t have to but we do). This was entirely the wrong event to use VR, and kind of seems like a terrible ploy to appeal to the millennial audience to be honest. Now, give me an episode of Game of Thrones in VR, and then we’re talking.
Hmmm...I can see how applying Virtual Reality to a situation like this would be really cool. Why wouldn't you want to be in the moment as if you were actually in the audience?! Doesn't that sound super cool? I think this article really answered that questions really well in the last paragraph : "For VR to take off, it needs to transport people’s bodies into virtual spaces, not just their eyeballs." The one extremely addictive quality about VR in relation to video games is it's ability to physically and mentally transport an audience into another world (while still feeling 100% engaged and in control). In the presidential debate, the VR view wasn't completely being controlled by the user so it didn't feel authentic enough. Since it wasn't a virtual space, it wasn't possible for it to be programmed into having a free motion 360 degree view. After considering all of that, it really makes me think-- I don't believe it'll ever be possible for VR to be successful in live television like this because at this point in time it's impossible to have that 360 degree view in VR in real life time.
My main problem with this article (Kotaku is a rough site in general) is that the author is talking in a blanket state about VR while having used a GearVR to watch the debate. The GearVR isn't a "true" VR headset, in that you aren't seeing full 3D visuals mapped to two lenses from a particular rendering chip. Instead, you stick your compatible Samsung phone in to the headset, and the glasses inside adjust your viewing to make the screen appear farther away. The sound is as good as your headphones can provide, while most full VR platforms such as Playstation VR or Oculus Rift have headphones and specific sound mixes that are built to immerse. This is also the problem with the whole venture. Immersion is a tough factor, especially if you want to be able to glide around and view the debate from all angles. If you take that approach, you lose immersion, as the true experience would be from a fixed point in the audience from which you would watch the debate and comment in real time with other viewers, whose comments would be represented visually in the 3D space with chat bubbles. This is using google earth and google street view, not making you transcend reality.
Why would anyone want to do that in the first place? I think VR has a very interesting future in the world of gaming and immersive media, but is that really what you want for the Democratic debate?
This was just a really bizarre choice to me. The Oculus Rift is still not very popular or accessible to the general public (it's very expensive, causes dizziness, headaches, etc) so the decision to film the debate to be viewed on one just seems like a waste of time, money, and energy. I wish there was less focus on gimmicks and more focus on the actual content being put out.
I happy to know there is a company out there that is willing to take risks. Sure the plan the company implemented to watch the Democratic Presidential Debates was a flop, but they tried and know anyone looking into further this technology has a standard they can build off of. There is without a doubt a need for this kind of technology. And sure ten years ago when Nintendo first tried introducing the concept of interactive virtual reality video gaming with Virtual Boy it was a disaster in sales because people just weren’t ready for it yet. Now people want to be more immersive with their entertainment. As a society we have always been pushing the limits of technology. Looking at my parent’s generation they were completely blown away by stop motion Claymation and were terrified by seeing it in movies. Compared to my generation that now expected heavily realistic to the setting computer generated images timed perfectly to the sound for it to immerse us. And I really liked the fact that the author pointed out that Virtual Reality entertainment needs to have the same liberties as viewing control in video games because the days of letting producers controlling our view is very boring and over.
Virtual reality is a great new forum of viewing entertainment and knowledge. But in regards to someones choice in using it for the purposes of debate broadcasting it does not add to the experience. Debates are something that are highly factual and depend on what the audience listens to and takes in that matters. I think virtual reality takes away from this and distracts a person from what is really important about a debate. At SATE this year there was a discussion about virtual reality in themed entertainment. A german theme park has implemented virtual reality on an unpopular roller coaster. By putting the virtual reality on the coaster they were able to transport their guests to wherever they wanted without having to change the physical means of the ride at all! they therefore enhanced the ride using the technology to tell the story better. Speaking from an audience standpoint I don't feel like i want to get up close and personal to the politicians while they are in a debate.
Having never watched something in VR I have a hard time understanding what it would be like to watch something in it. However I do think that watching something as technologically boring as the presidential debate is probably not the best way to go when it comes to VR. I am really excited to see what kind of new technology helps us enhance our watching experience for more interesting things, and hopefully eventually simple things like the democratic debate.
So… looks like I’m not the only person who don’t understand why they try to adapt VR into political debate time. I was so confused at first when I read it I questioned myself if this is part of American President election process that they have to also hold reality debates like game shows or like other entertainment programs to gain more votes and attention from people (Also since this is my first time being somewhat surrounded by politics atmosphere and it’s quite fascinating to see what’ve been happening so far). My point is just like everyone else, I don’t quite understand why can’t they just keep it simple and broadcast the debate in a normal fashioned way. I mean, yes people love technology and people love trying new things but I think there’s some other circumstances where it is more proper to play around with this gadget than this… 3D video games or other entertainment show for example.
So as intriguing as it was to watch the debate, (which I didn’t get a chance to watch.) From what I hear it was a good debate, and I guess if you weren’t able to be there, and wanted to try to get an immersive experience. So it seems like there was an actual downside to doing the whole virtual reality experience, and that was in fact that the cameras only gave you three angles. So you couldn’t really look to the left or the right because of the fixed angles. That’s just unfortunate for anyone who would have actually wanted to get a figure on seeing from various perspectives besides what the cameras had to offer. Maybe wait a few more years before technology is able to develop a little further, and then hopefully the experience would be a bit better. I think that something like this would be better for more interactive shows, something that will allow for more camera angles, to be able to develop a more immersive experience like some people were hoping for.
So, this is interesting. I think it was definitely a cool idea to make the debate VR-capable, but I wonder whether the real issue stemmed from the quality of the VR or the fact that the cameras were fairly stationary in an already static "performance." The beginning sounds very interesting, being able to be a part of the audience and look around the stage and everything. I think it would have been a more immersive experience if it had had that sort of quality throughout. For instance, if there were cameras that allowed you to walk onto the stage and actually "stand with Bernie Sanders." The other issue the author brings up is that watching through VR is not a social experience. At first, I sort of recoiled from his desire to be on social media during the debate, but then I realized that this is a very social event that really should be talked about amongst friends and family. He's definitely right that it should be a group experience. This is something that the virtual reality world is currently dealing with as a whole. At the SATE conference a few weeks ago, there was a man from Europa explaining how they are attempting to build VR into one of their rides, but do not want to cut off families from what should be a very valuable bonding experience. It's a struggle that the virtual reality community has to face, but I think they may be able to achieve this through augmented reality in the future.
I think what this article sums up is that the newest technology isn’t necessarily the best for every application. The strengths of virtual reality (immersing someone in a world) doesn’t help the goal of the debate (to convey the stances for the candidates on various issues). In the same way that some stories are still told as novels even though we have the ability to tell them through movies, virtual reality shouldn’t be expected to replace everything currently broadcast on a screen. In general, it is easy to get caught up in cool new things, and there is no harm in seeing what the debate is like in VR simply because we can, but in the end, it is important to think about what medium best conveys a story/ message, whether or not it is the latest and greatest method. When it comes to theater, I often see productions overuse media. Though these productions tend to include many good uses of media, I often find when media is used, I’m pulled out of the show by a media decision that, though cool, feels more about the novelty of media and less about telling the story of the show.
Virtual reality is such an amazing field that is constantly developing. As amazing as it is, I'm not sure a presidential democratic debate is the best platform for it. However, I think as it continues to develop and be used for more entertainment purposes, it can be a very effective medium. It's interesting to test it out on things like a democratic debate to see how it can be used, but I'm sure it will become more useful in the future.
Post a Comment