Comments on: ExitReality

By: Michael Chui

Michael Chui — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:33:52 +0000

Mixed media is what it is always going to be.

That’s really not true. We don’t use stone tablets anymore. It is conceivable that Web3D can fully replace Web2D: if it does turn out that the 3D pundits are right and people do feel more natural in a 3D space than a 2D one, in large enough amounts and with sufficient utility, yadda yadda.

But I personally don’t think so. At the very least, I’m pretty sure I won’t live to see it, so I’m not really burning up navel-gazing hours on the subject.

By: geldonyetich

geldonyetich — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:20:05 +0000

These days, it seems to me that we’re seeing a resurgence back to 2D mechanics.

3D was a cool hack in 1993, with the Nintendo 64 fresh released and Wolfenstein 3D wheting our whistles. These days, it’s becoming clear that 3D is merely a different – and often quite difficult – way of presenting things.

The question is no longer, “can make it 3D?” Now, it’s “is it actually a better product in 3D?”

Looking at the demo reel of this, it looks like the implementation is to present web pages as flat panels in a 3D world, or perhaps with a bit of VRML. I have a hard time saying it’s actually a better product.

Of course, a lot of us are thinking of Cyberspace from William Gibson’s Necromancer or the Matrix. I’m not sure if we’ll ever reach the point in which 3D is a better way of doing things, if only because 2D is a lot easier to grok.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:24:05 +0000

Mixed media is what it is always going to be. It’s not like we ever talked about video replacing text on the web. It is simply another medium that can be used for some things effectively just like 3D can. ExitReality certainly doesn’t claim to replace the 2d web, rather it lowers the barrier for people to enter the 3D web. I think the major difference is people are use to producing video so understand how to use it effectively. But Interactive 3D is a new medium that has a lot of unexplored depth and we have a long way to go before it becomes as well understood as video.

By: Raph

Raph — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:29:33 +0000

That’s right, IQPierce, but it was years ago — like 2003 — and the idea was more like that combined with PMOG. The web was the landscape, and a central server tracked avatars and objects. Sites were just zones or rooms, so to speak.

So it was much more of a game metaphor.

As to why I don’t think about it this way anymore — because I have become convinced that 3d is a terrible way to see lots of sorts of content. It is a great way to see other sorts, but that leads me to think of a mixed-media web.

By: IQpierce

IQpierce — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:25:50 +0000

Raph, did you say this was actually one of your early ideas about overlapping MMOs with the web – making a “3D web”? That it would procedurally generate 3D spaces based on websites’ content? What makes you now feel the exact opposite, that this isn’t the right way to go about things?

By: Kerri Knight

Kerri Knight — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:39:14 +0000

Most people (those few who’s radar it actually registered on, anyways) feel this is frivolous, wasteful, and a downright turn-off.

Most fears voiced are about advertising and the hassle of navigating a 3d space to find their sought-after product rather than clicking a few familiar links.

By: F. Randall Farmer

F. Randall Farmer — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:41:58 +0000

Ugh. Three (!) seperate components installed. Crashes both my browsers. MTBF: 30 seconds. The URL protocol hack is totally broken if you use two browsers. Total hacky crap. A solution without a problem. The web will not become "Web 3[.]D" Randy

By: Liz Dorland

Liz Dorland — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:33:04 +0000

Raph!

Mac OS???
= Chimera Cosmos

P.S. Enjoyed your Metaverse U talk. You guys got me onto Facebook, and it kinda exploded. hehe