| Machina said: I completely agree with most of what was said in the OP. It doesn't need to be accurate to inspire the imaginations of the main audience they're appealing to - as long as the actions you perform in real life are displayed with some degree of accuracy in the game then that audience will probably be satisfied. Wii Sports Tennis is a good example of this in my mind. You don't need to stand up and fling your arm around like you would with a real tennis racket to play the game; you can get the same results sitting down making minor flicks of your wrist. It doesn't matter to that audience - they probably didn't even notice. But the advertising inspired their imaginations, and the real thing measured up, despite the fact that for me the illusion was pretty much shattered once I'd worked out how to 'cheat' like that. I think Kinect has the potential to be the same - the advertising and mainstream hype could really create a buzz for the thing and, despite its apparent deficiencies to us, as long as it isn't broken then it could be a big hit.T |
Yes but the problem is that Wii Tennis was a new experience and people are now aware of what those moving experiences are : Kinnect Tennis will not be that different from Wii Tennis except that in one case you hold a controller but the basic moves are the same (IMHO best on the Wii because you've got sound and vibration feedback). And to get a "similar" experience as wii Tennis, you need to spend $350 if you don't own an XBOX. If, as I think, the Wii gets a price cut at 149$ this holiday, not sure that Kinect by itself will be incentive enough against the price factor.
