Profcrab said:
Squilliam said:
Profcrab said:
I think Move will ultimately be more successful due to the greater variety of games that can be played on it. Kinect lacks some sort of direct response device and that limits the commands you can give to the game. However, I think both will face the peripheral problem. Move is attached to what is already the most expensive console and will require the purchase of more controllers that are only useful with Move games. Not only that, the price goes up if you want to play group games. Kinect only requires one device but what it can do is more limited. Neat, but limited. Direct input from pressing buttons allows more options for the game and combined with the motion tracking, a more dynamic experience. Just motion controls by themselves mean that the developer will stick to simple and easy to express gestures.
I give this thread a 9.6.
|
I hope you realise that of the four most compelling pieces of software this generation, Wii Sports tennis doesn't need buttons, Mario Kart uses just one button IIRC and Wii Fit doesn't even use a controller whilst NSMB just has a standard pad. None of these games remained niche. Actually the more buttons a game uses the more niche it is, not the other way around.
|
I don't now about compelling, but yes they were big. I think Mario Kart used 2, brake and look behind, but I could be wrong. Either way, lets look at that for a second. Something simple like looking behind wouldn't work well without a button. How would you tell that to a game in Kinect? Are you going to actually look behind you? Would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? You need buttons for things like that in games. One of the big control problems facing motion game designers is making is what to control with motion interpretation and what needs more direct input.
With Kinect, they've opened up the developers possibilities for motion control input but removed the direct. So, now you face these problems. How do you look around in a car in a racing game? Using voice commands is a pretty slow way to do what you do naturally very fast. Sure you can tell the game you want to walk, but forward and backward are a problem. What it leads to are games that actually have less avatar freedom. Sure that avatar can express lots of actions that the player does but some of the simplest are out of their reach. How about walk right and walk left? Are you going to have a screen on rollers that shifts as you do so you can turn around in a circle and explore a game world? Look at the Star Wars game. It's a rail shooter with a light saber because there is no way for the player to actually run around.
So, while Kinect opens up a few doors, it shuts a few also. Those that it shut are pretty damn important though. The Wii does not survive off of Wii Sports and Wii Fit alone. Kinect needs to show that it isn't a one trick pony. It needs to show that it has the ability to not have everything be on rails. While I think Kinect is neat and is possibly an important contribution to the evolution of motion control games, it is missing something that will limit it. This missing component will reduce the diversity of the games and limit it's market acceptance. Also, being a peripheral attached to an existing system, the consumer needs to not only be sold on the Kinect, they need to be sold on the $300 system the $??? Kinect. The Wii was $250 and came with Wii Sports and a controller. Granted you still needed to get the $20 Nunchuk and more controllers, but the control scheme came with the system. Firmly entrenched in that casual market, the Wii Fit board sold well. I don't think it would have sold half as well on any other system.
I love my 360, but I just don't see Kinect taking the world by storm. Part of it is trying to appeal to the people that already own Wiis, then there are some of the game limitations and it is a peripheral. I hope it's a good beta test for the next xbox control options, but I think that Sony made the better choice here in sticking with the controllers, even if they don't have some of the cool "whole body" interpretations. Not that I think Move is going to do a whole lot better. It is an expensive peripheral setup on top of the HD console pricing (the same issue that affects Kinect), but I think the games will be more diverse and we'll see HD versions of many Wii style games because the control scheme is similar enough.
I give that post a 9.3.
|
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.
Like I said in a previous thread I made, Kinect isn't targetting the Wii Motion level of functionality. I already picked it as a challenger to the original Wiimote design (no nunchuck) and Wii Fit (motion camera) with additional functionality (like media interface). Way back in 2009 I posted a video of the NXE being controlled by a gesture interface. You could say that I was insightful!
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.
Kinect! 
who needs video games!
(Former) Lead Moderator
