Non-interactive VR is what game developers call a "track ride". You're locked to a path. You can look around, and maybe stop, start, shoot at stuff, and solve puzzles, but you can't get off the track.
For a long time, game developers struggled with how to tell a story while not locking the player into a track ride. A movie is a story. A good game today is a place you visit. VR track rides are somewhere in between.
Getting a story line into a free play game is hard. But it's been done many times now. GTA V is a good example. The GTA games are open, free-play worlds. You're free to just drive around and sightsee, which is fun all by itself. The gameplay "missions" give the player goals and achievements, but there are many ways to achieve a goal. (Amusingly, the way to make the most money in GTA V is to speculate in the stock market, not steal cars. Score one for realism.)
The VR crowd now has to face that problem. Otherwise, they'll go down the same rathole as 3D TV and movies. (Yes, Avatar in 3D was good. That's because Cameron is very good at visual world-building. Almost every other 3D movie didn't need 3D or overdid it.)
Yes! I think that's a really good insight. I wonder if VR's "killer app" for consumer entertainment will be more closely related to travel than to movies. It's interesting that open world games, like GTA and Skyrim, are increasingly popular. At the same time multisensory-art-experience festivals like Burning Man are increasingly popular too. Being able to explore immaculately crafted worlds, enjoying beautiful sights and sounds, and getting the thrill of dicovery that comes with going some place new would be pretty awesome.
Non-interactive VR is what game developers call a "track ride". You're locked to a path. You can look around, and maybe stop, start, shoot at stuff, and solve puzzles, but you can't get off the track.
Kids a generation hence will think about games like this like we think of "classic" books. (One of them will reinvent the Mark Twain about a classic book being a book everyone says is important, but no one has actually read.)
We will further perfect an artistic and intellectual language of interactivity. (What we now call the medium of games.) On top of that, we will start to develop a language around emergence as well. The Minecraft generation will be the first generation starting fully down the path of emergent-world literacy.
This sort of thing was a big issue in game development about 10-15 years ago. It was just becoming possible to build immersive, big worlds, and Everquest-like games were seen as the future of gaming.
Then came "mobile", with casual gaming and much less immersive games.
Now the game industry has the Hollywood sequel problem. Looking at the list of AAA titles for 2016, there's a Doom sequel, an XCom sequel, a Borderlands spinoff, a Deus X sequel, a Mirrors Edge reboot, two Tom Clancy things, an Uncharted sequel, yet another Street Fighter, a Crackdown sequel, a Dark Souls sequel, a Gears of War sequel, and, inevitably, Final Fantasy 15. A big question is whether those will be better in first person VR than in the usual backed off camera view. Playing those in VR will involve a lot of head turning.
You make a great point about Avatar. After all these years, it is still the the only real 3D movie. It seemed like we were on the brink of great 3D, but no one else could even match Avatar.
But even these open world games are track rides, story wise. Sure you can get off the tracks at any time, but if you want to advance you gotta get back on the tracks.
Consider a game like Skyrim: oh no the world is ending very very soon! You gotta hurry and go save the world. Oh, you want to just do side quests for a couple of in game years before saving the world? All right then.
Games that can tell stories without using any "tracks" are really rare- think Dwarf Fortress.
Depends on what do you call the "story". In Skyrim in particular, I considered the main quest only a small part of overall game story, and not the most important one. Side-quests, random NPC dialogue, even books — they all build up the story of althe world together, and your experience with it is unique and definetly not a track ride. On the other hand, sequence of building a fortress in DF feels like a track ride after a while: first depot, first bedrooms, first food production, crafts, caves, military, trade, then CLOWNS and CIRCUS (as they're talked about to avoid the spoilers) if you're lucky enough. Procedural generation is fun for a while, but it has a limited amount of variety in it.
> A movie is a story. A good game today is a place you visit. VR track rides are somewhere in between.
I've always looked at it as a sort of spectrum of interactivity/freedom [0], and I suspect that as VR tech. and people's understanding/usage of it improves we'll see games across the full range - from movie-like experiences where the player doesn't even get camera control, to fully open worlds where the player can do basically anything.
I'd agree that the problem is largely the same as with 3D movies - designing a game that takes advantage of VR without it feeling gimmicky, or that it adds nothing to the experience, is a HARD problem; one that I'm not yet 100% convinced will be overcome.
[0] Something along the lines of (from least to most interactive): Traditional books/movies ; Choose-your-own-adventure books/visual novels ; Narrative/adventure games (something along the lines of Gone Home or the Telltale games) ; Story-driven open world games ; "Exploration" games (not sure of the right term, but something along the lines of Minecraft)
I would disagree that Avatar was particularly good. It did lots of annoying things that work for movies, but don't work for 3D (i.e. depth of field, fast-moving action). It also didn't seem to understand it's own medium at points - if you put a stand in for a polaroid photo in a 3D movie, it looks really tacky if the polaroid also has a perfect 3D effect to it.
It breaks my heart every time I see yet another VR Roller Coaster Demo, which seem to be all the rage with self-defeating VR evangelists trying to excite and educate ordinary people about its possibilities.
VR Roller Coaster Demos are the epitome of what VR is NOT about. It's the equivalent of setting a movie camera up in front of a stage to film a play. It's the antithesis of interactive simulation: No sidepaths. No exploration. No freedom. [1] It's literally railroading. [2] The worst thing that often happens after a VR roller coaster ride is that you take off the VR headset and say "thank God that's over!"
VR experiences with sidepaths, exploration, freedom, simulation, social interaction, and artistic content creation, gives you a much better impression and understanding of VR's capabilities.
You don't need to explore every place in GTA or Minecraft to realize that it's an open world. It's good VR if you walk away with the feeling that you haven't already been everywhere, done everything, there's more to see, things you still haven't tried, ways to create things, express yourself, interact with other people, and affect the outside world, so you want to come back later to see more.
It's not just about throwing in a bunch of navigable locations that are interconnected in a more interesting graph than a linear hallway. It's about simulation, where objects and characters in those places have rich interesting behaviors that interact with each other and the players, as opposed to a museum you can wander around but not touch or move anything or interact with anyone else.
The other sadly common VR demo that's the epitome of what VR is NOT about is literally the equivalent of setting a movie camera up in front of a stage to film a play, only worse: VR home movie theater simulations, like the Netflix app.
Sure, in some minor ways, watching a movie in VR might be better than watching it on a flat screen, but it's much worse in many other ways. How can you possibly win when you're using a VR headset to SIMULATE watching a movie on a flat screen? You can't see where your popcorn and soda are, you dip your chips in the ash tray, and you knock over your bong when reaching for your peppermint paddies!
> I hadn't thought about virtual concerts, plays, ballets, operas, symphonies, etc.
I've watched many made-for-VR surround video productions and several of them have the strong feeling resembling that of a play.
Then there's Will Smith's (formerly of Tested) new gig, The Foo Show [1][2] which is like standing on the set of a talk show. It also shows that Max Headroom was even more prescient than we thought ;)
> I live far away from most cultural events, and would absolutely adore being able to catch a ballet again without having to get on a plane.
VR won't replace going there. Instead, it will replace not going there. That's a big deal.
I recall reading about cinemas that were experimenting with streaming live operas etc from major stages around the world. Filmed such that the screen became a stand in for the stage.
I think the issue is there's no one else at the theater. At least in SF they've been trying that for years. I've never been but I'm just guessing attendance is low. Being in a 200-400 person theater with 10 other people watching a concert is not remotely the same experience as being at the concert with 200-400 screaming cheering singing people around you.
I pay to chill and have an expert give me an exact and defined experience when watching movies.
If I want stress, I'll play computer games and get the added benefits of making (stressful) decisions.
We've have recorded vision for a century. Yet mp3's still have their massive market. Video changed the radio star, but didn't kill it. Same will happen with VR.
VR experiences will necessarily lose a lot of cinematography (particularly that regarding shot composition and framing) because the viewer is in control over the camera, and they almost completely lose the ability to do editing too (because cutting between scenes will make the viewer nauseous). Modern films might seem superficially similar to non-interactive VR experiences because they are both throwing images at screens, but there is a huge world of cinematic techniques that everyone has grown up with (and most people won't notice), that will be severely constrained in VR, and it'll be a jarring experience (at least for the people making this stuff, if not the consumers) for a lot of them to be gone.
Perlin is likely right that what's likely to happen is that the scenes in non-interactive VR will seem more like theatre than cinema. Sure, the people putting this stuff together will probably come out of VFX houses but people won't be relying on cinematographers, editors and film directors in the same way. I suspect that it'll take a while for both the artistic problems of living with the new constraints, and the technological problems (such as taking live-action 360 footage with parallax) to be ironed out satisfactorily.
Interactive VR still looks much like video games, though, and while there will be some measure of constraints with the new medium, other constraints will be lifted (FPSes and flight simulators, for instance, won't need clumsy workarounds to simulate head movement), so the games industry will probably hit the ground running.
Agree with everything you're saying here. But the argument reminds me of a similar one, where the established industry leaders try and define what skills and processes go into cinema. Such as no sound vs sound, or film vs digital. The fact that it's story telling on a screen is what in my mind defines cinema.
There is cinematography in current virtual storytelling, such as firewatch, life is strange, and grand theft auto. While none of those are VR, they could be adopted to that medium as well. Cinematography is much more than camera angle, and lens choice, imo, especially in the digitally generated world. There are other techniques to lead the viewers attention, not so different than techniques used on a well made imax.
This author only considers the active kind of VR. Where the user participates by looking around or controlling some aspect of the environment or story.
Why can't I just sit back and watch events unfold before me? Why does everyone assume I want to look around or interact with the story?
I agree with these thoughts based on the current state of 360VR (or non-interactive, if you will) but I'm optimistic about the future changing this perspective. 360VR for narrative storytelling is in a very early, experimental stage. It's difficult in part because it feels inherently gimmicky. A lot of the traditional elements in the craft & technique of filmmaking are unavailable to the storyteller (or, rather, need to be rethought). Closeups, stylized editing, etc.
VR directors are slowly figuring out the best ways to draw attention / guide the viewer, transition between shots and, most importantly, keep you immersed in the STORY. But, there's a lot of room for improvement in the technology as well. "Simple" things even — such as tracking the viewer's orientation so that the following shot can be focused where the director wants regardless of where the viewer has "travelled" to. Right now, the mass distribution system's for VR (such as YouTube 360, Vrideo, et al which use Cardboard or GearVR tech), don't currently allow for this.
I'd love to see the interactive tools of VR currently used in gaming (like Unity) made available for narrative storytelling. Specifically, it's more of an issue on the distribution side. The explosion in 360VR feels like it was largely due to the ease and accessibility brought on by Google (Cardboard & YouTube 360), now we need these tools to evolve.. and they are, slowly.
tl;dr; 360VR for storytelling is a bit gimmicky currently because it's in a very early stage. I'm optimistic about a new wave of cinematic narratives in VR as the technology evolves allowing for more direction/expression of the craft.
It's a good point, but on the other hand, maybe it will inspire extra features such as "Pause, and walk around the scene." You could have virtual interviews with actors or people on the set, linked to the timestamp you paused at.
I can imagine it being a great way to experience cinema, but I take the author's broader meaning.
A common illusion in films is that in one scene, you think you are watching a fixed space/acting/events from just several different cameras.
In fact, it is often the case that acting, positioning of actors, backgrounds or even locations, are adjusted for each shot. The acting you see in a master shot is different from you see in a close-up shot in the same scene. It's amazing what editors can do to build a coherent illusion from pieces of footage.
So I agree on the original article; VR experience would be similar to plays rather than films. Maybe future films would employ stage-play like effects more (especially if you need to shoot a shot with cameras that allow VR walkthrough, the whole new technique of film shooting need to be developed.)
I don't know if I would call that the opposite of cinema, but it's certainly a huge difference.
I wonder what this would mwan mean for all the actors who prefer stage to film. Would they shoot up in demand? What would that mean for theater in general?
What I like about acting on stage is immediate, live reaction from audience. Film acting largely lacks that, though there are techniques to compensate it. I'd imagine "VR film shooting" would be similar to film acting in that regard. (Except in the case that VR becomes live and bidirectional---that would be interesting.)
Right, recording non-proscenium theater plays would be interesting contents. I like to watch (and often perform) round- or three-sided stages in a small theater. That kind of shows are difficult to capture in traditional camera for it loses the feeling of space surrounding audience.
Ken's blog is a consistently refreshing and insightful read. I had the pleasure to meet him last fall and his enthusiasm for and perspective on the future of how we experience art (and everything else, really) is energizing.
those 360deg videos suck. I can't believe what content authors would like that.. you have a total lack of control over the narrative, because you can't control what the viewer sees.
I can't help but liken this sort of attitude to a statement like "why bother crafting beautiful game environments, the player could just stare at their own feet"
Sure, you no longer have control of where the viewer is looking, but you do have control over the entire environment in which they now exist in. Changing scenes and guiding the viewers attention are obviously new challenges, but they are hardly insurmountable, and implying that they are enough to destroy the value of the medium is just lazy.
There are tricks you can do to draw attention to things. The Portal and Half-Life 2 Episodes developer commentaries include quite a few discussions of how they designed their environments to nudge players into noticing stuff.
For example, in HL2 Episode 1 there's a scene where you're walking across a bridge and a huge helicopter comes up beside you. To ensure that players were looking the right way to be surprised by it, they put an enemy in the distance firing (ineffectually) at the player to attract attention.
This is not new, this is exactly the same friction that already existed between 2D movies and 2D games.
That extra dimension--the sensation of depth--doesn't change the fundamental rift between passive/interactive camera control. Just close one eye while watching/playing to see why...
I think you're right that the tension between passive/interactive and storytelling/agency isn't new. But the tension is heightened in VR.
What's new is that filmmakers and game makers are building VR experiences for the same audience and hardware. They're on the same turf. Outside of VR, filmmakers create for TV/cinema, and game makers create for PC/console/mobile.
I think Ken Perlin is suggesting that new discoveries will be made as this collision of worlds happens. The friction you mentioned becomes more visible to a larger number of people with a wider variety of skills and goals.
For a long time, game developers struggled with how to tell a story while not locking the player into a track ride. A movie is a story. A good game today is a place you visit. VR track rides are somewhere in between.
Getting a story line into a free play game is hard. But it's been done many times now. GTA V is a good example. The GTA games are open, free-play worlds. You're free to just drive around and sightsee, which is fun all by itself. The gameplay "missions" give the player goals and achievements, but there are many ways to achieve a goal. (Amusingly, the way to make the most money in GTA V is to speculate in the stock market, not steal cars. Score one for realism.)
The VR crowd now has to face that problem. Otherwise, they'll go down the same rathole as 3D TV and movies. (Yes, Avatar in 3D was good. That's because Cameron is very good at visual world-building. Almost every other 3D movie didn't need 3D or overdid it.)