| Squilliam said: How do you look in a car racing game? Well in something like Forza 3 you could just look at the mirror or the wing mirror given that it has head tracking whilst a top down racer like Mario Kart is already in third person but I actually don't think being able to look behind you is that big a deal in that game really, they'll just blue shell you. Anyhow the important point I feel that I need to make is that the controller doesn't have to replicate the control pad. Whats the point in making a controller which is 90% identical to a standard controller in function and use wrist movements and motion controls to make up for the use of a right stick and buttons? It doesn't add nearly as many new possibilities compared to using a controller which adds completely new functionality to the system. Since both control systems can be used in tandem the fact you cannot walk with Kinect doesn't effect its value. Any missing functionality in Kinect is made up for by it being able to do things no other controller can manage due to software and hardware reasons. Whats the point in buying a peripheral with no real compelling unique selling propositions and ports of software you can use with your normal controller? At least with Kinect if nothing else you've got an awesome way to play ESPN, Netflix, Zune music/movies. Anyway the Kinect controller is targetting a broad swath of casual/non/not gaming people with some functionality which adds to the core gamer experience but doesn't generally replace it and a general purpose media interface. Because it doesn't do things that the original controller can do handily it adds more value to the unique Kinect experience. Microsoft wants to give people something they can't get with a controller. They wanted to make it both useful in a practical sense and you'll see various educational applications created/made/ported for the interface from adult education to child education (milo???) and basic but fun gameplay which uses a persons body as the control scheme. This isn't meant to be Kinect 2.0, its not the whole design concept brought to life because the technology simply isn't ready yet. Kinect is the pipe cleaner before the main event which is Kinect 2.0 with a standard physical controller designed to compliment Kinect and a true 3D visual interface where visual/physical interactions can be done in a way which makes sense.
|
Yes yes, I get that Kinect opened up some new input possibilities, however, the whole point is that without any form of direct non-interpretive input, there are many kinds of actions that you just can't convey to the system. In order to make the experience complete, Kinect needs that. I understand who Kinect is targeting but the big problem is, that target audience likely isn't going to run out and drop $400 or so on a system and Kinect. With the 360 Kinect, you are going to need the traditional 360 audience for it to be successful they have limited the type of games that can be offered to that audience because the lack of direct input means no non-rail shooters and no open world exploration (which, btw, I think is a big problem for any audience). Look at what is being offered so far. Do you really think it is a great idea to try to out casual the Wii this late in this generation with the Wii already so entrenched? If we are comparing to Move, Move is able to offer casual games as well as the more hardcore HD audience. Not only that, but they went with a style that allows developers to more easily design games for the PS3 and Wii. The PS3 version will be able to have the same controls as the Wii and also graphically upstage it. Of course, as I have said, I don't expect Kinect or Move to sell terribly well, I just expect that Move will sell better. The games will be more diverse and tap in to games that are already being designed for the Wii (that aren't shovelware).
I give that post a 9.4.
Thank god for the disable signatures option.
