It be interesting to see what the baseball game would have looked like without the projections. Imagine the empty room with the cast and extras all in there with holohelmets or something, acting as if they are at the game (because to them they are) but that we see what the holosuite is doing. Might be interesting.
that would be interesting. T'Girl's point above is interesting, too. Did/would the holodeck create a wall because Data mentioned it? To what extent would that be part of the experience? If someone was on a simulation of, say, a 20th century street, and the person said "I'd like to have an ice cream cone.", would the holodeck then "squeeze in" an ice cream shop?
I gather there would be different flavors of program that would follow different basic rules. If you are just enjoying your mud bath with Lwaxana, it's okay to ask for a bit more alcohol and a bit less light in a circumspect way: the computer gets the hint while staying true to the simulation, and there's a convenient cloud and the waiter just happens to wander by... But if you are hacking your way through a zombie army, you have to specifically ask the computer in formal language to get your axe swapped for a chainsaw all of a sudden, because that's cheating. And if you play the Alamo, you have to halt and perhaps restart the program every time you want to adjust the parameters, because the very point is that it's history that happens in a certain way and you don't alter it lightly. Timo Saloniemi
I don't know...I just don't see holodecks (however they supposedly work) as being particularly healthy. You can't lose (unless I suppose it's a combat scenario with the safeties off). Other that that, you win. It'd be like playing Trivial Pursuit with little kids who don't know anything yet. What normal person enjoys that?! And how sucky would life seem in contrast? Portraying Barclay as an irresponsible goof-off, I think, is actually a bit strange. In a way it would make him probably the most normal person on the ship. But I suppose as a story-telling vehicle for the shows, it would be irresistible, and some good stories were told...so I guess it's not really worth thinking about.
I don't understand what you mean. How is it any different from playing a video game? Nobody expect to actually die or be hospitalized if they lose a round of World of Warcraft. Holodeck safeties are designed to prevent actual injury, but they wouldn't prevent simulated injuries in a game scenario -- for instance, if shot by a holographic gun in a Dixon Hill hologame, you'd have to play dead, and would probably be edited out of the simulation so that the game characters and objects wouldn't respond to you anymore, but you wouldn't actually be hurt. (Remember, when Whalen was shot in "The Big Goodbye," the others initially believed he was playacting, so clearly that's what they expected would happen in a situation like that.) And we know that holodeck safeties do not protect against minor, non-life-threatening injuries, like O'Brien's repeated shoulder injuries in his kayaking program, or the diving injuries sustained by Liz Vassey's Kristin in "Conundrum." Spraining an ankle or tearing a ligament and having to go to sickbay would certainly constitute losing (or at least forfeiting) a game, just as it would out on a real sports field. So I really have no clue where you get this bizarre notion that holodeck designers would have to let people actually die in order to give them a satisfying gaming experience. I think maybe you're taking games a little too seriously there. Are you actually a Klingon or something?
Holy throwback, Doom Guy! "Corpsehumping is without honor!" I'd be down for a holodeck FPS (quite literal in that case!).
I'm not really sure I said quite that, Christopher, but you're the writer, so I'll take your word for it that it's implied. You did say something interesting, because I never, ever play video games, so maybe I have a personal perspective on it I didn't realize. Though I got a good chuckle from the mental image of somebody being hospitalized from playing World of Warcraft. When I said 'you' can't lose, I'm just suggesting it's not a mentally healthy thing. As Hollow Pursuits suggested, the whole thing can get out of hand. I'm amazed it's not much more common (that we saw, anyway). But if you're in a non-combat setting, such as Riker was in 1101001, it could be unhealthy. There was basically zero chance of Minuet spurning Riker, or slapping him in the face, or getting the club bouncer to throw him out in the street. That to me makes it me to seem normal to want to be in there as much as possible. Remember back when, when our parents used to tell us not to sit too close to the television? Good Lord, how would futuristic parents deal with the holodeck? I accept the stories as told, and enjoy them. I liked Dixon Hill, Captain Proton, the science and research applications (reconstructing dreams could be a wild diversion!), and, well, Janeway's dry-as-dust scenarios are another matter, but that just comes down to personal taste. But the technology does make one wonder of its implications, that's all.
I'm not sure why anybody should consider entertainment from the competitive viewpoint. Star Trek doesn't defeat us when we sit and watch - are we in danger because of that? A walk in the park doesn't defeat us, either: we win over the scenery and the scents and the cute little squirrels every evening, and we even triumph over the rain if we remember our umbrellas. Is our mental health going because life is too easy on us? I understand some enjoy getting out of their comfort zones with some regularity. But most don't - comfort feels good, and being human is all about being able to get comfortable. Really, the great achievements of mankind haven't come from people deciding life was too easy and inventing complications; they come from us getting as comfortable as possible, even if it takes some doing. Timo Saloniemi
Of course there's nothing wrong with entertainment or relaxing! But even the Talosians cautioned against the power of illusion becoming to great. That's all I'm saying. I can envision some people in Star Trek never using a holodeck. Maybe even Dr. Pulaski could have held that view, instead of being leery of transporters. It would've lessened comparisons to Bones, maybe.
I can think of a number of computer games that would be sweet as holodeck versions FPSes and FPS RPGs are obvious choices, flight simulators, driving games, anything else that has a first person type perspective Even things like Baldur's Gate style RPGs could translate fairly well
Well, I assume it depends on how the simulation is programmed. Lots of people want to be challenged. I think there are such things today as dating simulation games where if you don't say or do the right things, your prospective date will reject you. Most people, I think, find it more satisfying to have obstacles to overcome than to just be able to get whatever they want on command. Certainly Starfleet officers would. And Minuet isn't a great example, because the Bynars programmed her specifically as a distraction for Riker. So his "success" with her was built into the program for ulterior reasons. If Riker chose to run a dating sim himself (although he probably wouldn't need to since he had no trouble getting dates in real life), he might've chosen one where there was a realistic chance of failure. First off, that analogy makes no sense because it was a warning about prospective eye damage, not about getting too immersed in unreality. Second, that warning was medically invalid anyway; sitting close to the screen causes no damage beyond temporary eyestrain or fatigue. That's what people have been saying about every technology since fire.
I didn't say the analogy about sitting too close to the tv bore the same potential consequences, I just said it happened - generalized parental worry, you know how they can be. I know full well about the supposed 'eye damage' aspect. Besides, it seems to me that if the holodeck isn't damaging in any way, then that would sort of make the analogy an apt one. If I were to metaphorically liken a shuttlecraft trip to an automobile ride, would that be a poor analogy because shuttles don't run on gasoline? Since people have been questioning technology since fire, then I'll just do my part and keep on questioning. Otherwise I'd be just as stupid as Hollywood thinks we all are.
What Bashir and O'Brien do in the holosuite in the laster seasons of DS9 would be considered first person shooters and flight simulators in today's gaming terms. Battle of the Alamo? Battle of Britain? Being there in person and fighting.
...Although keeping within the historical constraints seems to be very important to them, too, so it's not pure FPS lure that drives these users. I guess holodecks cater for those types of MS Flight Simulator user who want to build actual cockpits around their computer, and never mind donning an accurate flight uniform, before they start the program. Of course, it may be that the duo in fact cheats: despite using proper paraphernalia for Battle of Britain, they may prefer entertaining scenarios over historical ones, and insist on flying a Sopwith Camel or a P-38 against those Bf-109s, or on having Me-262s carrying A-bombs towards London as their opponents. But that's not the impression I get about what is important to the duo and what is not. It's nuances, but gaming business thrives on those, and the segment that the guys here represent may benefit especially from the extras the holodeck tech has to offer. Timo Saloniemi
One of the most nonsensical things about holodecks happened on Voyager. When someone needed to access a computer while being stuck in there, they looked around a bit, determined that there was a terminal behind that wood panel, they opened it and out came the optic fibers and isolinear chips. Or when they exited the building, ran down the street, went into the subway, drove three stations to find an access point! Ok, exaggerating a bit with that last one, but still....