Its a matter of what matches what. When it comes to a large amount of genres, a controller works best, for some genres its mouse and keyboard or a fighting stick. Kinect isn't ideal for anything and is very limited with the genres it can work with effectively. And to turn your argument against you, playing NG with kinect would be like playing guitar hero with a standard controller. You can do it, but its impractical.

See, you don't understand what Kinect does, do you? How do you control the camera in FPS games? With an analogue stick, right? Analogue sticks don't move much, just about a centimetre in each direction. Now think about your head, you can move it more than a centimetre in any direction without losing sight of the screen and you can use it like an analogue stick but since it's your own head with eyes it's more realistic as you're actually looking around to some extent. Or take your hand/arm, you can move that around more, just like you're moving a big analogue stick instead pf moving a regular one with your thumb. In fact that's how Half Life 2 was being controlled in the leaked Kinect test, he was using 1 hand to look around and actually the other hand to move and interact with objects, I'm not sure how he shot as that wasn't in the footage. (I guess it could actually be using head tracking to aim and maybe making a fist with one of his hands to shoot or something.) You don't need a sliding circular mat that you can run in all directions on because you just have to take 1 step with 1 foot towards whichever direction you want or slide your foot (as in push your foot about a foot as in 12 inches) in that direction. DDR is a basic version of what I'm talking about because the mat acts as a d-pad and you step on whichever of the 8 directions you want. But you don't need a mat for my control method because Kinect is tracking you in 3D space and since it's tracking you in 3D space your movements on the "invisible mat" on the floor are like an analogue pad not a d-pad.

OK, I just looked up the paintball game (it's part of Deca Sports Freedom) and found a preview that gives you an example of controlling a FPS with Kinect. In it he moves his body and feet to move the character around and he uses his hand/arm to aim and makes a (in his words) "pew pew motion" to shoot. He says he got used to the control method in seconds and that it has sold him on Kinect. Admittedly the friend he was playing with posts in the comments that he had more trouble moving but maybe that's just an excuse since his friend beat him, lol! Also remember this is just part of a casual launch game made in 1 year so there's plenty of potential for a fully developed Kinect FPS to be at least as great as a traditionally controlled one. Here's the preview: http://gamerlimit.com/2010/06/e310-paintball-sold-me-on-kinect/

How do you know if a Kinect version of Ninja Gaiden would be impractical or not since not only has one not been made or even announced but you don't even seem to understand Kinect anyway? You could be right of course but so what? Ninja Gaiden is great but if there isn't a Ninja Gaiden game made for Kinect that doesn't mean that Kinect is the worse thing ever, lol! The point of Kinect isn't that it might not be suitable for some current games, the point is that it at least has the potential to be used in revolutionary new ones. Think of adventure games where you can just reach out and grab objects and use them more realistically. Imagine Shenmue 3 using Kinect?! Also you can combine Kinect with using a joypad too so if you don't believe that (non-QTE) fighting in a Shenmue game would be practical with Kinect then you could play all the other parts of the game with Kinect (the QTEs could be really cool with Kinect) then just use the joypad for the non-QTE fighting.

Would you agree then that a steering wheel and pedals are less efficient than a joypad for a driving game and a lightgun is less efficient than a joypad for a shooting game? If you agree (which you should since it's a fact if you're talking about efficiency as in moving less and using less energy) then tell me whether you have ever played games using steering wheels and lightguns and if you enjoyed playing them?

As for moving your head, I think you'll find that it's very easy and comfortable to move your head while keeping your eyes fixed on one spot. I'm talking about just moving your head a few centimetres, maybe an inch or 2, since that's all that's needed. Try it yourself. (In fact you probably move your head instinctively at times when playing regular joypad controlled games anyway.) And if you haven't quite understood and are about to reply "Well you need to move a lot to make the camera look around." then remember the analogue stick, you just keep it held in the direction you want to look and it's the same as your head, you simply centre your head when you want to stop or move it in another direction when you want to look in another direction. That's if you even have to use head tracking in a game, I just gave head tracking as an example, I'm not saying all Kinect games will use it as obviously not all will. In fact I don't know if any launch games use it apart from possibly the dancing games (and that's not for looking around) and the only game announced for Kinect that definitely uses it that I can think of is Forza Kinect.

Your completely out of track. Like said many times already, it depends of what your playing. Driving a car doesnt require you to do a 360 degree turn in 1 second like a FPS. How could a controller be faster or more efficient than a lightgun for a on-rail gun game?!? Wow, what are you thinking? FPS and on-rail lightgun games does not require the same types of control at all. Im not even loosing a second reading your other paragraph, talking with you, or should  I say talking alone, is completely useless...

You won't reply to my second paragraph because you've run out of arguments. You won't admit to the FACT that using a steering wheel and pedals is less efficient than a joypad because if you did you know you'd have to admit that you've lost the debate. And take for example Crazy Tazi or other free-roaming driving games, you often have to do 360 degree turns in 1 second in those don't you? Oops, forgot about that didn't you? (In fact most if not all racing games have tracks with tight hairpins which require you to do if not 360 degree turns in 1 second then close to 360 degrees.) Did I say joypads were faster than lightguns in shooting games? (Although technically they can be if the game allows you to make the aiming speed high enough but that would make the game much harder and probably only people with amazing joypad skills could play it like that.) I said a joypad is more efficient than a lightgun for shooting games, which it is since you have to move less and use less energy using a joypad as you only have to move a thumb and finger (or fingers if the game has grenades and/or the ability to switch weapons manually) wheareas you have to move your arm, including your hand, and finger/s with a lightgun. In fact you'd have to move your other arm too if the game had grenades and/or manual weapon changing and the button/s for them were out of reach of your fingers of the hand holding the lightgun. You're the one it seems useless to talk to as you won't accept the facts.

Very, very few developers are creative.  Most just slap a new coat of paint on old ideas.

Like I said, I didnt read it, why would I lie? Im not reading the rest of your wall of text either. Too bad I didnt remember that discussion was in this thread lol.