Does it matter if Kinect works right?

[ZenfoldorVGI]

I think we're doing it again guys.

I think we are missing the point. We are viewing this from a hardcore gamers perspective.

The issue: Kinect doesn't work right. It's not precise. It has latency. It might require very specific conditions to even turn on for most games. IE: Standing, lighting, space requirements.

I don't think it matters even in the slightest.

Why, you may ask? Well, ladies and gentlement, Kinect, and to a much lesser extent Move, is not a product that core gamers are supposed to want to buy. Just look at the games. Dance games, ball bouncing games, hardcore games? None that interest me. In fact, the entire Kinect E3 presser was pretty much casual dedicated. So, let's examine what that implies:

The Wii: has never really "worked right." When we first saw the trailers for Red Steel we were thinking 1:1 motion, precision, greatness. Right now, the Wii has pretty unimpressive precision. It really doesn't have 1:1 like we imagined it even with WM+, and it has tons and tons of missed motion control attempts per gaming session. Just look at the Zelda portion of Nintendo's presser this year. That, to me, is what the Wii acts like in reality, even if there was some issue with their setup. Game developers are forced to stick with the most basic movements to combat the imprecise controls. It's just not very precise and it doesn't really "work right." It was and is a great idea, but its value lies more in its ability to interest consumers and to present a new experience, than it does in actual core gameplay.

Obviously, the Wii is a huge success with casuals and core gamers(however I'd argue that though the Wii itself is a coregamer success, the Wii-Mote itself is a failure with coregamers. It's interesting that we so rarely seperate the two). You'd be hard pressed to find a true exclusively casual gamer who would even know what 1:1 meant. They are, generally, blessedly ignorant of electronics, and buy the Wii because it has games that appeal to them, and a differentiating factor to get their attention and grab their interest(I hesitate to use the term gimmick because it implies the popularity wouldn't have longevity, which it obviously has, though I would also argue that said implication is a misunderstanding as I define a gimmick without longevity-in-popularity as a fad).

THAT is what the Kinect is. It's a new thing to grab the public-casual interest. It has games they can play. It is new and different. The specifics don't matter to them. They would never know the difference. To them, it's a toy. They are barely invested in it. To us, it's a way of life.

I think there is one reason why Kinect will eventually best Move. Move isn't a new thing meant to grab the public-casual interest. Move is a new version of an existing thing meant to improve upon the original.

The Kinect is not meant for us. We aren't supposed to be impressed by our token Star Wars game, and we shouldn't even care about the device in the first place, anymore than we should care about Titanic 2. We went into this under a misassumption, which was, "Because Microsoft is releasing it, it is meant to appeal to core gamers too!" This device is meant for the casual gamer. The kind that would play standing up in a bright room even if they didn't have to. The kind that wants to play Dancing Fever instead of Gears of War. The kind that would be shocked to hear cursing in a game. I don't think they care if the machine is a little less precise than it was in their dreams, because it offers them a new and different experience and that is what they will buy it for.

That is also why non-gaming publications will praise the machine, while gaming publications will despise it...just like the Wii-Mote before it.