Google Launches Ingress, a Worldwide Mobile Alternate Reality Game
allthingsd.com
allthingsd.com
There was a great anime series that sadly doesn't have distribution in the US called Denno Coil[1] that is required viewing for anyone interested in augmented reality.
The series follows a group of kids in a city that grow up with Google Glasses type functionality with virtual pets and software as "magic". The kids lead a life based upon this augmented reality laid over the real reality. If you like anime this show is worth tracking down a torrent for.
It's also worth checking out the Halting State series from Charles Stross if you're up for some reading.
I'll definitely give it a shot. Thanks!
Google has diverless cars, Glasses that overlay information on top of reality, and now is making a sort of game out of it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/138res/google_launc...
The possibility for alternate reality games will be immense, but I suspect that's just scratching the surface. We've only had this smartphone technology for what? 5 years or so? And so far all ours uses for this technology have been fairly superficial and mundane (by which I mean, if you'd gone back a decade and asked people "what would you make if you had a smartphone that could do x?" you'd probably get decent predictions of the present day). But in 10, 20 years I imagine it'll have evolved to something far beyond what we can currently imagine.
(Probably)
Ah, here we go: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-...
Ok, if "being in simulation" == "discreteness", than yes, "being in simulation" is meaningful. But why not just argue whether our universe is discrete? Why introduce the concept of simulation, which evokes a picture of some higher level universe with a big computer running our universe. Which is just an idea in our heads, nothing more.
"We're in a simulation" implies that our universe is discrete, nothing more, so it's meaningless in a sense.
(Other problem is that if we're in a non-discrete universe, we may be able to make non-discrete software. But that's not the main point of what I tried to say.)
If we live in a simulation, there may be experiments that would demonstrate the fact. There may be ways to 'hack' the simulation and break all kinds of physical laws.
Our universe could behave, in some ways, like a computer simulation (but the question is, in what specific ways?). But it is similar to light rays behaving like waves. Which is different from light rays being equivalent to waves.
Granted, speculation, but rather convincing.
>TL;DR: Whatever the plot's about, the point of it is to quickly and cheaply build an unrivaled corpus of pedestrian-accessible routes, locations and journey-times for the next generation of foot-enabled Google Maps and Navigation apps
Edit seems that user 'rescripting' somewhere above has already made a reference to that discussion.
It was like X-Files conspiracy theories meets The Game (the Michael Douglas movie). Sadly, it didn't last very long. I'm hoping this will do better.
I actually thought it was a pretty cool concept from at least what little I played of it.
I can't tell from the available material if Ingress gameplay provides for satisfying solo play, but if it doesn't they're going to hit the same issues Grey Area did originally.
There is so little shame in the industry anymore, but it is admittedly a very difficult task to be creative in a gaming startup.
Competition is a good thing I guess. I'd hate to be competing with Google though. Their fanboi base is suffuse with a devotion that borders on unquestioning faith which plays well in the gaming segment where the hard part is initially attracting critical mass for the underlying game dynamic to be fun.
Look at the other 2 games linked and you find they are not only disturbingly similar in game mechanics but the graphics are also fairly derivative.
The possibilities seem endless, not just games or gamification but public safety, education - all sorts of things.
I'm a bit disappointed to find that this project is invite only, but I'm certainly looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
Foursquare is close, but it doesn't feel like a game at all.
Plus, those were the only two game mechanics I saw - I could battle things, and then I could click on nodes, and neither really seemed to progress me anywhere.
I feel like that game should have had a much more thorough tutorial.
http://www.qualcomm.com/solutions/augmented-reality
https://ar.qualcomm.at/
These sure are interesting times. Its becoming too easy to go from sci-fi to just plain sci ..I've toyed with a similar ideas but the problem was that your GPS location doesn't guarantee you are really there. There are plenty of ways to spoof your location. So, my point is it will only be a matter of time until there are bots that walk around for you. If this is purely a 'single player' game then personally I think it's a neat idea but I don't see it being that entertaining.
Of course that only works up until people start sharing those codes online, even though you can tweak game mechanics to discourage players wanting to do that, it's impossible to prevent.
Precisely. Which is why I think this will have a tough time succeeding. Even casual gamers will eventually get frustrated. This is also the sort of thing that is difficult to repair once the damage is done.
I think I have a few invites to give out. Let me know if you'd like one.
P.S. I'm Resistance using the name drew
I'm rich.bradshaw on ye old gmail if anyone has any invites left!
peterk @ chykalophiagroup.com
Wonder if this works alright in the suburbs ...
Looking forward to the invitation code: sherjilozair@gmail.com
Thanks!
I would love to get one if you get more to give out! Thanks
Thanks,
Thanks anyone! :)
Thanks!
Getting shut-ins outside where they can be hit by cars may have net health benefits (and people can choose for themselves).
Can't wait to try it out if I get an invite from them.
With games like this you need to have both "sides" have an attractive "we're the goodies" pitch. I thought it was rather clever naming since I think I could argue myself into either camp quite easily.
Somewhat related... I'm not sure if you checked out my HN profile but I actually founded a gamification platform company called http://IActionable.com a few years ago. We started it before the word 'gamification' even existed got to watch in horror as people turned it into a cheap gimmick instead of properly implementing it. We actually don't like the term 'gamification' and the baggage that comes with it. Dealing with cheating was a high priority on our list when we initially targeted social applications but we eventually found the enterprise market to be the best fit for our technology. Basically, we were able to avoid the cheating problem because we made the 'game' involve people you really knew which naturally discouraged cheating.
Thank you for your comments, I'm definitely going to check out your firm's site and from a business and personal interest standpoint because frankly it seems like you've thought through at least several things we haven't quite gotten to yet. For example, I hadn't realized (although perhaps intuitive in hindsight) that the context of whom you are playing with/against can effectively curb anti-social behavior like cheating.
Not on the same scale of course, but that's the first thing that came to mind when I saw this post.
Thanks in advance!
thanks in advance!
You'll be shown specific ads on google based on it.
Deleted comment