[Sage]

Does anyone here remember the "Virtual Reality Goggles"? A great idea that was hampered by the primitive imaging technology of the time. The screens inside them could barely manage wireframe, let alone anything approaching realism in a conventional sense.
However, the development of modern LCD cell phone displays has made tiny, high-resolution screens that will fit inside a pair of goggles a common and (relatively) affordable fact of life.
Of course, these screens would have to be adjustable since the distance between the eyes varies from individual to individual, but that's a minor problem at best. Perhaps you could turn a knob on the side of the goggles until a series of cross-hairs lined up on the screens inside.
But just imagine how cool it would be to see 3-D games, not on a flat screen in front of you, but in actual 3-D!
Then there's the problem of programming. Well, graphics space within the program would double because there would now be separate "left" and "right" channels with different images on each, but since the majority of games are created entirely in a computer anyway, it shouldn't be a hardship to have two viewpoints of the same scene 3 1/2 inches apart recorded at the same time.
There is one other way in which the original VR Goggle's reach exceeded their grasp: When you turned your head, the scenery was supposed to to turn accordingly. This never worked right, and I say it's an idea that should be shelved for now. Just let the goggles be a true 3-D display only, and keep the mouse/joystick/controller as it is. The hand in "Myst IV" and the skeleton claw in "Zork-Nemesis" provide an excellent interactive interpretation of a real hand, so nothing more is really necessary...right now. After all, how often does anyone actually look at their controller once the game starts?

So, does this idea appeal to anyone else?

[insane_cobra]

I think one of the biggest problems with those goggles was motion sickness and and the fact that the eyes would tire very quickly. So until those issues are resolved, the new hot buzzword (buzzphrase?) is augmented reality. There were some speculations Wii would make use of the concept, but it was Sony who showed some simple demos during their E3 conference.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

In the future we'll all be implanted with nano chips that will project the games into our heads and eyes and ears.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I think one of the biggest problems with those goggles was motion sickness and and the fact that the eyes would tire very quickly.

True. Improved imaging would help the eyestrain problem, and removing the "virtual motion" component from the equation should solve the motion sickness problem...for most*.
*I was amazed to find that the reason some people don't like first-person games is because the constantly-shifting perspective triggers motion sickness. I'm one of those lucky people who can read fine print in the back seat of a moving car without any ill effects at all, so this possibility had never even occurred to me.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

So until those issues are resolved, the new hot buzzword (buzzphrase?) is augmented reality. There were some speculations Wii would make use of the concept, but it was Sony who showed some simple demos during their E3 conference.

Perhaps I overstated my case. Basically, why doesn't someone introduce an electronic stereopticon-like display for computer games? This page tells me I'm not the only person who's given the idea some thought.

[Huz]

I'm amazed that the idea of 'virtual reality' hasn't made a comeback. It seems it was one of those ideas that was ahead of its time, like all that 'information superhighway' rubbish from the mid-90s, where the technology just wasn't up to the task. Today, technology is at the point where all of the practical problems of virtual reality - the realism of the graphics and the ability to sense motion - are all but solved.

The only real barriers that remain are human ones - the fact that people suffer motion sickness when they see motion but do not feel it, as Cobra says, and the fact that any such technology would be expensive and probably have quite a niche market.

We're definitely moving gradually in this direction, though. The Wii controller adds immersiveness by sensing movement and incorporating a speaker (enabling a poor man's "surround sound"), and the Sony stuff Cobra mentions... er, exists I guess? (News to me, I'll have to read up. )

By the way, if it's a truly 3D gaming experience you're looking for - and you don't mind looking like a plonker - you can already download special 3D drivers that render a stereo image from certain games that support them. You wear special 3D glasses (one eye red, the other green) as you play to see the 3D image, and it works just like ye olde 3D cinema.

[kuze]

Heise c't (a well-known German computer magazine) had a review of several VR goggles a few years ago. They concluded that usable devices were way beyond being affordable (>5k if I'm not mistaken), whereas cheap googles had tiny screens and video quality of a portable video player from the '80s. In my opinion VR goggles have no future. It seems like the next big step will be the transition from tv screens to implants, or on-eye projection.
VR isn't just about the graphics or the input devices, though. VR worlds already exist, and some are quite a success (Second Life). In NerdTV #5 O'Reilly states that he is absolutely confident about the next "big thing" after the success of the internet: it will be the virtual reality.