So, I'm curious. When Sony announce games that will have Move functionality (e.g Killzone 3, Resistance 3, Virtua Tennis 4) people  generally roll their eyes and say "whatever!" but when Kinect does it with ME3, Ghost Recon (really amazing btw), the reception is generally more positive. Again, I state how impressed I was with Ghost Recon...but apart from that... not much had me gasping with glee.

Questions is, why does it feel like the Move always has to go that extra mile to please everyone, when Kinect just has to turn up?

Really? I've only seen middling or negative reactions for the Kinect integration. Where are you looking?

Not the Microsoft E3 thread obviously.

umm have you seen Fable kinect? Its going to be crap because its on rails. Sure it might be fun throwing magic and that might work well but this is 2011 and on rail games are not the games we play anymore, if it is it has to be really different like child of eden.

Anyways it doesn't matter about the move because the move can be integrated into the game with ease and no real problems but kinect is an different story because no one has yet managed to integrate 3D movement without controller which i believe most the gamer population wants to see, and i am yet to see it.

It seems to me like there are more negative responses to Kinect than Move, but that's just me.

And the Kinect implementations so far look more innovative and fascinating than the various Move implementations, which might explain it. I haven't seen a single Move implementation that excites me like the Kinect implementations do.

I keep forgetting I don't only post on VGC, so I always fuse together all the opinions I get from elsewhere into one.

thread over!

It could be due to the "been there, done that" mentality, while Move is more or less a complex wii motion controller Kinect is trying controls a different way. The problem with Kinect, since you can't control your characters movement, everything is on-rails.

Just let them celebrate- its all they got