drkohler said:
No, the only point is whether you act or react. In a game like table tennis, you always see the white ball coming, and after a short while trying, you learn to precompensate because you know what is happening in the next second. You are therefore acting, by learning to precompensate the processing delay of the system. I've seen many people trying table tennis and everybody missed the shots in the first minutes until they automatically precompensated the lag by acting early (lag which was very noticeable for an outside observer, in the range of 250-300ms, but completely irrelevant to the player(s)). Kinect's table tennis, by the way, is a thoroughly enjoyable game - for about 20-30 minutes until you see how very simple and repetitive the game engine is performing. Now the problem is games where you have to react, or in other words, you don't know what happens in the next second. Say a shooter where an enemy pops up from behind a cover. There is no way to precompensate a reaction with an early action here, because you just don't know. This will be Kinect's achilles heel, but we already knew that, didn't we? |
The shooting example is a very poor one. Theres a reason why bad guys in shooters jump out of cover and then act dumb for a second or two before acting. It is to allow the player to react and then shift the cross hair over. In this case the time it takes to reposition the pointer is analogous to the Kinect delay because it represents a delay in processing a physical movement input. Games are already built with this latency in mind. Theres no effective real difference between repositioning the crosshair with an analogue stick and performing a physical movement. This is the reason why Move for instance is able to get away with one analogue stick. Where Kinect fails is in comparison to buttons because it is a comparison between something with a 0/1 digitial input against something which is more analogue in nature.
Tease.
