Support NeoGAF

[aaaaa0]

That was pretty great!

Spoiler

Whoever said it's basically a show about a Bethesda game with glitches is hilariously correct.

 

[The Mule]

Both of these posts rely on the assumption that VR is now what VR will be ~100 years from now, and the assumption that future generations will place the same value on physical spatial interaction that an increasingly small number us do now. I mean there's always going to be nature oriented people, but as the populace increasingly turns to the digital realm for all their vices...I really don't see the concept of "wow, you actually go there!" to be that novel to the future of humanity. As a concept from what the '80s thought would be a cool idea for the future, written by a dude born in 1942? Much more believable.

While there is something to be said about the continuity of experience, I think that is something equally as solvable in VR through the usage of some kind of anesthetic that removes the memory of you ever booting up in the first place.

Also, I really don't get the "for the masses!" argument either. As production values ramp up and usage becomes more normalized, there will be a VR market for the 1% willing to pay insane amounts to experience a top end production just like there is now for people with Titan XPs.

If you're talking a completely digital world that guests can log their consciousness into, like The Matrix, I don't think the tech in the world is quite there yet. If they haven't yet developed sentient A.I., they haven't yet being able to digitally replicate consciousness, which means they wouldn't be able to host a human consciousness in a virtual world.

Of course, I'm just making shit up though. The easier explanation is that these are the plot devices the creators decided to use for this show because it suited their purposes for the story. There's bound to be inconsistencies between their vision for the show and our expectations for how technology will evolve.

 

[More_Badass]

Both of these posts rely on the assumption that VR is now what VR will be ~100 years from now, and the assumption that future generations will place the same value on physical spatial interaction that an increasingly small number us do now. I mean there's always going to be nature oriented people, but as the populace increasingly turns to the digital realm for all their vices...I really don't see the concept of "wow, you actually go there!" to be that novel to the future of humanity. As a concept from what the '80s thought would be a cool idea for the future, written by a dude born in 1942? Much more believable.

While there is something to be said about the continuity of experience, I think that is something equally as solvable in VR through the usage of some kind of anesthetic that removes the memory of you ever booting up in the first place.

Also, I really don't get the "for the masses!" argument either. As production values ramp up and usage becomes more normalized, there will be a VR market for the 1% willing to pay insane amounts to experience a top end production just like there is now for people with Titan XPs.

I think you're really underestimating the thrill and desire of "really being there", of a physical thing. Ebooks and video games have been around years and regular paper books and board/card games persist. People go actual skydiving even though there's a simulated option.

There's the prestige and awe of being in this man-made achievement of technology (much like how people go visit the Intrepid or Kennedy Space Center) and interacting with machines that act so lifelike. Like watching a Cirque du Soleil performance and marveling at the timing and skill needed to make the show go on seamlessly

Plus there's a sense of escapism that isn't the same as sitting in a chair and jacking in. This is a whole experience; going there, dressing up, taking the train in, and so on.

 

[Joyful]

The law?

just overthinking here
not sure if itll come up
just doesnt seem like the park owners watch guests only hosts
and like i said if you are in a place where robots are indistinguishable from ppl and you are free to murder them as it seems it could happen accidently

 

[aaaaa0]

just overthinking here
not sure if itll come up
just doesnt seem like the park owners watch guests only hosts
and like i said if you are in a place where robots are indistinguishable from ppl and you are free to murder them as it seems it could happen accidently

The robots are probably programmed to intervene if human on human murder is imminent.

Also maybe the guns aren't real and they only fire low velocity paintballs, and the robots have squibs embedded to simulate injury. So even if a human accidentally shoots another human, nothing too bad will happen.

 

[duckroll]

Both of these posts rely on the assumption that VR is now what VR will be ~100 years from now, and the assumption that future generations will place the same value on physical spatial interaction that an increasingly small number us do now. I mean there's always going to be nature oriented people, but as the populace increasingly turns to the digital realm for all their vices...I really don't see the concept of "wow, you actually go there!" to be that novel to the future of humanity. As a concept from what the '80s thought would be a cool idea for the future, written by a dude born in 1942? Much more believable.

While there is something to be said about the continuity of experience, I think that is something equally as solvable in VR through the usage of some kind of anesthetic that removes the memory of you ever booting up in the first place.

Also, I really don't get the "for the masses!" argument either. As production values ramp up and usage becomes more normalized, there will be a VR market for the 1% willing to pay insane amounts to experience a top end production just like there is now for people with Titan XPs.

This post replies on the assumption that society and human interests will go in the very specific way you imagine it. Even today, with the abundance of simulated entertainment options and virtual experiences in games, there is still more than enough of an audience for physical based activities. There are still very active communities for board games and tabletop RPGs. These experiences are already replicated in digital form, but it's not the same. Activities like Paintball won't go away just because you have virtual reality options of it, regardless of the level of immersion because the physical aspect of the activity is a part of the experience. I don't think that will change even in a hundred years unless humanity turns into a bunch of vegetables in vats.

Something like Westworld is akin to a theme park experience rather than a game experience. The game hooks in the setting are intended to be interactive experiences for the visitor, activities the visitor can partake in, but it is not the main reason someone would visit. People visit to see what it is. It's something to do with other people. You bring friends along, you bring your family along. No matter how advanced simulated realities are, they will remain peripherals. Things you can do at home, like a television at home versus going out to a movie. A meal at home rather than going out for a picnic. Ordering goods online rather than going out shopping. Social interaction demands we go out and -do- something with other people to bond. Westworld is for that.

 

[Aaron]

I own an Oculus and I'm bored with VR right now. Saying 'why isn't this vr?' Come off as absurd to me. It's an entirely different experience.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Both of these posts rely on the assumption that VR is now what VR will be ~100 years from now, and the assumption that future generations will place the same value on physical spatial interaction that an increasingly small number us do now.

I mean there's always going to be nature oriented people, but as the populace increasingly turns to the digital realm for all their vices...I really don't see the concept of "wow, you actually go there!" to be that novel to the future of humanity. As a concept from what the '80s thought would be a cool idea for the future, written by a dude born in 1942? Much more believable.

While there is something to be said about the continuity of experience, I think that is something equally as solvable in VR through the usage of some kind of anesthetic that removes the memory of you ever booting up in the first place.

Also, I really don't get the "for the masses!" argument either. As production values ramp up and usage becomes more normalized, there will be a VR market for the 1% willing to pay insane amounts to experience a top end production just like there is now for people with Titan XPs.

First of all, I don't buy the idea that future generations won't prize physical interaction, nor do I buy the idea that "an increasingly small number us" do it. This seems like incredible nerd-forum hyperbole.

Next, if you're talking about a totally digified world, a completely virtual reality that your entire consciousness can log into, I guess that's fine, but that doesn't deconstruct Westworld's necessity or appeal. It doesn't remotely deconstruct anything since there's nothing that clearly indicates that such a technology is present or even possible yet in the Westworld time-period.

And to the point of digital experiences, even if you can have a digital experience that tells your brain that it's smelling, hearing, seeing, tasting and touching certain things, that's a different experience than actually doing those things. Because even if you can convince your brain that you're doing those things, you're not physically doing them. And even in a VR-infused world (which again, we don't really have reason to believe Westworld's era is), people are going to prize the luxury and prestige of paying to actually go do these things.

I own an Oculus and I'm bored with VR right now. Saying 'why isn't this vr?' Come off as absurd to me. It's an entirely different experience.

I mean, I get the argument if you're saying something like "why isn't this VR like the Matrix" or whatever. But I still don't see how that would make Westworld "superfluous" when it seems like it would just become like even more of a novelty and a luxury.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

So what does everyone think this

Spoiler

critical failure from 30 years ago

is?

 

[VMAN01]

So what does everyone think this

Spoiler

critical failure from 30 years ago

is?

I think it's a nod to the events from the 1973 movie Westworld.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

I think it's a nod to the events from the 1973 movie Westworld.

But do you think it's just a nod to the movie or is it a hint at actual backstory, particularly for Ed Harris' character?

 

[duckroll]

But do you think it's just a nod to the movie or is it a hint at actual backstory, particularly for Ed Harris' character?

Nolan says it's just a nod. The actual backstory will be all original.

 

[Khoryos]

Nolan says it's just a nod. The actual backstory will be all original.

Those two things aren't necessarily contradictory - the event thirty years ago can be an important part of the backstory (which seems highly likely, given that it's referenced by the MIB and by people discussing Delores) *and* a nod to the previous film.

 

[kingocfs]

This was dope. Most fun I've had with a show in a while.

 

[Jag]

So Westworld is basically a LARP MMO and the Hosts are NPCs.

I thought it was funny how upset the programmer got when the player screwed up his big monologue. I guess the WoW guys feel like that when I click through their quest dialog without reading it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, just gimmie the reward and shut up.

 

[Calm Mind]

DIsney World for psychopaths.

 

[BattleMonkey]

They obviously know the hosts are dangerous if they need to send an armed tactical team to investigate a disturbance. And armed guards all around the droids

 

[mre]

I'll have to watch the episode again but towards the end, I thought he says something about wanting to go deeper and find out what's behind all of this or whatever. I just figured something like that would be a flashing red alarm for the people behind the scenes if they heard what he was saying or what he was after. Sounds like he would be doing stuff that could mess with everything they have going on there and I would be surprised if they were okay with that. Of course, this is all assuming that they can hear what he's saying/doing while he's there which I imagine they can. It sure looked that way, anyway.

I think that Harris' character is convinced that there's a "game within the game." After coming to the park for so many years and participating in the "public" offerings, he's grown disdainful of the normal attractions offered by Westworld, and is in search of this higher game which he believes the park designers have cleverly hid away. Kind of like an ARG within the Westworld world.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

I hope they bring Michael Wincott back.

 

[Gozer the Gozerian]

I think that Harris' character is convinced that there's a "game within the game." After coming to the park for so many years and participating in the "public" offerings, he's grown disdainful of the normal attractions offered by Westworld, and is in search of this higher game which he believes the park designers have cleverly hid away. Kind of like an ARG within the Westworld world.

Ed Harris is the GTA San Andreas player looking for Bigfoot

 

[Khoryos]

Ed Harris is the GTA San Andreas player looking for Bigfoot

Given that scalp, I'd say he's more of a GTAV player looking for Bigfoot.

(like I said up-thread)

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

I hope they bring Michael Wincott back.

That was Wincott right? My fiancee was telling me it was someone else.

 

[snacknuts]

Finally watched this last night and really, really enjoyed it. I love things like this that play with the ideas of existence, reality, self-awareness, etc.

 

[Arkeband]

I'm still confused over how James Marsden shot Ed Harris and he didn't sustain any injuries.

The hosts can clearly shoot each other - their bodies bleed, their faces get shot off, holes form in their abdomens. They aren't using paintballs or dummy rounds.

And the hosts are programmed not to harm newcomers, and it looks like they pathologically avoid them during conflicts.

So how did Marsden fire at Harris, a newcomer? It looked like bullets were physically hitting his jacket, but nothing happened? Wouldn't he be programmed to miss or simply not shoot?

 

[otapnam]

I'm still confused over how James Marsden shot Ed Harris and he didn't sustain any injuries.

The hosts can clearly shoot each other - their bodies bleed, their faces get shot off, holes form in their abdomens. They aren't using paintballs or dummy rounds.

And the hosts are programmed not to harm newcomers, and it looks like they pathologically avoid them during conflicts.

So how did Marsden fire at Harris, a newcomer? It looked like bullets were physically hitting his jacket, but nothing happened? Wouldn't he be programmed to miss or simply not shoot?

Lol. The rounds they fire at humans are duds. It was explained in the first few pages. The guns auto select ammo or something.

 

[Khoryos]

I'm still confused over how James Marsden shot Ed Harris and he didn't sustain any injuries.

The hosts can clearly shoot each other - their bodies bleed, their faces get shot off, holes form in their abdomens. They aren't using paintballs or dummy rounds.

And the hosts are programmed not to harm newcomers, and it looks like they pathologically avoid them during conflicts.

So how did Marsden fire at Harris, a newcomer? It looked like bullets were physically hitting his jacket, but nothing happened? Wouldn't he be programmed to miss or simply not shoot?

There's an interview that has been linked multiple times in this thread - It states that the guns smartly fire either bullets or simunitions depending on the target, although it doesn't say how it discriminates.

Of course, given that the next episode apparently takes you through the guest arrival experience, if you have some patience you may get some more complete answers.

 

[I Big JG I]

Very good 1st episode, what about Elise kissing the robot hooker? what kind of trouble will she get into?

 

[carlsojo]

I figured they were like high-tech BBs. When they hit another robot they do damage, but when they hit people it's like getting hit with a paintball. They'll probably explain the tech later.

And that tech will certainly start to fail.

Oh apparently it was already explained, sorry. Smart ammo certainly sounds like it could never fail.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I'm still confused over how James Marsden shot Ed Harris and he didn't sustain any injuries.

The hosts can clearly shoot each other - their bodies bleed, their faces get shot off, holes form in their abdomens. They aren't using paintballs or dummy rounds.

And the hosts are programmed not to harm newcomers, and it looks like they pathologically avoid them during conflicts.

So how did Marsden fire at Harris, a newcomer? It looked like bullets were physically hitting his jacket, but nothing happened? Wouldn't he be programmed to miss or simply not shoot?

Been answered before by the showrunners, but the ammo itself is "smart", it only smacks against a guest and won't kill them, it might sting a little only. So there is a "penalty" for being shot at, but a guest won't be killed. They also made a point of how bad the aim is, so it seems guests have two layers in their favor for protection.

 

[Arkeband]

Lol. The rounds they fire at humans are duds. It was explained in the first few pages. The guns auto select ammo or something.

There's an interview that has been linked multiple times in this thread - It states that the guns smartly fire either bullets or simunitions depending on the target, although it doesn't say how it discriminates.

Of course, given that the next episode apparently takes you through the guest arrival experience, if you have some patience you may get some more complete answers.

Been answered before by the showrunners, but the ammo itself is "smart", it only smacks against a guest and won't kill them, it might sting a little only. So there is a "penalty" for being shot at, but a guest won't be killed. They also made a point of how bad the aim is, so it seems guests have two layers in their favor for protection.

Thanks, sorry, I haven't been scanning every page in the thread because it's getting too big.

 

[lamaroo]

Very good 1st episode, what about Elise kissing the robot hooker? what kind of trouble will she get into?

Hopefully sexy trouble

 

[andythinkpad]

I just realized this is created by Jonathan Nolan, that let me cool down a lot. I am very sketical the cowriter of TDKR can write a cohesive story.

As far as the first episode goes, the shoot out action sequence is the most boring part of the show. Also, they don't try to show the viewers who are the robots and who are the real tourists. How am I supposed to keep myself interested in the exterior establish shots?

 

[hokahey]

I'm still confused over how James Marsden shot Ed Harris and he didn't sustain any injuries.

The hosts can clearly shoot each other - their bodies bleed, their faces get shot off, holes form in their abdomens. They aren't using paintballs or dummy rounds.

And the hosts are programmed not to harm newcomers, and it looks like they pathologically avoid them during conflicts.

So how did Marsden fire at Harris, a newcomer? It looked like bullets were physically hitting his jacket, but nothing happened? Wouldn't he be programmed to miss or simply not shoot?

Well, Harris is a bit off script here himself. I'm guessing it's unusual for a guest to pursue "good guy" hosts and attack them in that manner.

 

[Khoryos]

Been answered before by the showrunners, but the ammo itself is "smart", it only smacks against a guest and won't kill them, it might sting a little only. So there is a "penalty" for being shot at, but a guest won't be killed. They also made a point of how bad the aim is, so it seems guests have two layers in their favor for protection.

Well, in the scene where they reference aim notice that the robbers never miss a shot - they're deliberately decommissioning the updated hosts, so they can't have their shooters being taken out. Plus, it makes a degree of sense that the good characters would be worse shots - more chance for the guests to be the hero, after all.

 

[Blade30]

I hope they bring Michael Wincott back.

I didn't notice that was him, that voice should have given it away but yeah I hope they bring him back...

Spoiler

and add some core POI actors in the show even only for a bit, bear would be great too lol

 

[andythinkpad]

Id pay good money for a gif of dolores at the end when asked, "Tell me about your world."

The transition from stone dead expression to radiant joy is pretty striking, love that moment

Nah, he just keep coming back to rape Deloros over 30 years.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

I just realized this is created by Jonathan Nolan, that let me cool down a lot. I am very sketical the cowriter of TDKR can write a cohesive story.

As far as the first episode goes, the shoot out action sequence is the most boring part of the show. Also, they don't try to show the viewers who are the robots and who are the real tourists. How am I supposed to keep myself interested in the exterior establish shots?

He's also co-written The Prestige, Dark Knight, Interstellar and a tv show called Person of Interest. But you seem to know so many more writers that have better resumes in the last decade. This has to be in some alternate reality though, because it sure as shit isn't in this one.

 

[I Big JG I]

Hopefully sexy trouble

Yes indeed, That would make for a great episode.

 

[reminder]

Watched it as soon as it was available here (thanks to Sky Germany for showing it parallel to the US airing!) and man, i really love the concept. I'm so excited for the next episodes.

 

[Tugatrix]

I just realized this is created by Jonathan Nolan, that let me cool down a lot. I am very sketical the cowriter of TDKR can write a cohesive story.

As far as the first episode goes, the shoot out action sequence is the most boring part of the show. Also, they don't try to show the viewers who are the robots and who are the real tourists. How am I supposed to keep myself interested in the exterior establish shots?

There is a way, pay attention

Spoiler

They never blink

 

[Kai Dracon]

I think you're really underestimating the thrill and desire of "really being there", of a physical thing. Ebooks and video games have been around years and regular paper books and board/card games persist. People go actual skydiving even though there's a simulated option.

There's the prestige and awe of being in this man-made achievement of technology (much like how people go visit the Intrepid or Kennedy Space Center) and interacting with machines that act so lifelike. Like watching a Cirque du Soleil performance and marveling at the timing and skill needed to make the show go on seamlessly

Plus there's a sense of escapism that isn't the same as sitting in a chair and jacking in. This is a whole experience; going there, dressing up, taking the train in, and so on.

There is also the point that it's made clear Westworld is for the wealthy. A funny thing about the wealthy - they consider it a major status symbol to indulge in things that have become too expensive for the working class due to scarce resources or economic pressure.

It's like an observation I once saw - a lot of people still seem to think video games are an "expensive" hobby when they're actually not. They're one of the cheapest mass-market forms of entertainment per hour of content. Poorer people can't afford to race real cars, so they play racing video games instead. In fact a lot of people would say why bother racing a real car - it's dangerous and smells bad. Games/VR must be superior. But rich people absolutely will race the real car, engage in the real thing, purely because they can afford to do so.

One of the first things that struck me watching Westworld is that if the park is a famous institution, there are probably tons of videogame / VR competitors. There's probably even a licensed virtual Westworld MMORPG. (Or a Chinese knock-off, ha ha.) But there absolutely would be a profitable niche for a physical attraction aimed at the ultra-wealthy, because that is what the wealthy go for.

 

[andythinkpad]

He's also co-written The Prestige, Dark Knight, Interstellar and a tv show called Person of Interest. But you seem to know so many more writers that have better resumes in the last decade. This has to be in some alternate reality though, because it sure as shit isn't in this one.

Interstellar is also bad. I wilk give you Dark Knight.

How is the story of Person of Interest?

 

[awilliams213]

Great pilot interesting to see where this all goes. It reminds me a bit of Dollhouse.

 

[turtle553]

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Hari. It's hard to connect with a robot. I don't care how sentient it becomes. And what happens to said robot is inconsequential. At the end of the day it isn't human no matter how much it looks like a human. It's a talking toaster oven

Because no one ever sympathizes with robots

 

[andythinkpad]

I agree with the poster who said it is mussing audience surrogate. What we have here are basically theme park wage workers (hosts) and theme park management going at each other. I don't see why should the viewer care any of them.

 

[4jjiyoon]

There is a way, pay attention

Spoiler

They never blink

yes they do

 

[wesleyshark]

I just realized this is created by Jonathan Nolan, that let me cool down a lot. I am very sketical the cowriter of TDKR can write a cohesive story.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

So why are decommissioned ones stored underground? Why don't they just pulverize them or something?

 

[More_Badass]

I agree with the poster who said it is mussing audience surrogate. What we have here are basically theme park wage workers (hosts) and theme park management going at each other. I don't see why should the viewer care any of them.

Does a high concept sci-fi story always need a audience surrogate? Often dropping you in a weird world unlike ours is done on purpose to highlight the differences and challenge one to adjust and consider the rules of this setting. Like jumping into a pool instead of easing in, the jarring nature can make the less-normal aspecfs stand out in sharp relief.

 

[Khoryos]

I agree with the poster who said it is mussing audience surrogate. What we have here are basically theme park wage workers (hosts) and theme park management going at each other. I don't see why should the viewer care any of them.

I'm not really following you, here - why *shouldn't* the viewer care about any of them? What's stopping you?