|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 1:28:58 GMT
Post by Balls on Sept 30, 2010 1:28:58 GMT
Fairly major, to be released soon, warrants its own topic.
Plus, I played it today.
Very mixed feelings.
Will go into much more depth tomorrow.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 10:43:23 GMT
Post by Alex on Sept 30, 2010 10:43:23 GMT
Although I'm very tempted to splash out on it to go with my imminent shiny new Xbox, I think it's fair to say that the launch line up is what kills it for me right now. Kinectimals looks like it'd be the cutest thing in the entire world ever - but it's not really enough to justify the cost of Kinect itself for now.
I probably will pick one up, and I would still like some opportunity to play around with it at some time - but I think I'll leave it for a few months to see if anything a bit more interesting comes out than Kinect Adventures. Child of Eden (that cool music visualisation thing from this year's E3) would almost certainly qualify for that, methinks.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 11:59:08 GMT
Post by ShayMay on Sept 30, 2010 11:59:08 GMT
Too expensive, too many other things I want to buy, and to be honest, I've had more than my fill of motion controls this generation. I'll pass.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 14:42:38 GMT
Post by Samface on Sept 30, 2010 14:42:38 GMT
I maintain the same opinion I had when it was first revealed: it's a very interesting bit of tech, but I expect it'll take a year or two before developers really get a handle on it and some properly worthwhile games start coming out.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 14:53:30 GMT
Post by Sam on Sept 30, 2010 14:53:30 GMT
I doubt anything worthwhile will ever come out. The only thing I'm slightly interested in is using it to navigate the dashboard in a Minority Report kind of way. But after doing that for five minutes I'd have had my fill.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 16:21:11 GMT
Post by Baron Canier on Sept 30, 2010 16:21:11 GMT
Too expensive, too many other things I want to buy, and to be honest, I've had more than my fill of motion controls this generation. I'll pass.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 18:34:38 GMT
Post by Nam on Sept 30, 2010 18:34:38 GMT
Too expensive, too many other things I want to buy, and to be honest, I've had more than my fill of motion controls this generation. I'll pass.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 19:38:31 GMT
Post by madhair60 on Sept 30, 2010 19:38:31 GMT
See, I'd like to say that the above two posts are really just awful wastes of time for people to scroll past, but then, as yesterday, this one pointing that out is useless too.
[censored] it.
Come on guys, don't just quote someone else's opinion. It's so boring! Elaborate!
Now, in order to contribute something myself:
I have major beef with Kinect on principle, but mainly because it killed Rareware.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 19:43:15 GMT
Post by L. T. Dangerous on Sept 30, 2010 19:43:15 GMT
Waste of money, no games worth buying for it, obscenely expensive, vapid rip-off of Nintendo's ideas, I'm yet to see a developer of a franchise I truly care about give it a serious thumbs up (Sonic Riders doesn't count, Sonic Riders is always terrible and Sega will put him in anything for money), a sad grab for the fans Nintendo have won over.
No, sir, I'm not buying it.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 20:05:05 GMT
Post by Samface on Sept 30, 2010 20:05:05 GMT
vapid rip-off of Nintendo's ideas That seems a bit harsh. Fair enough for Move, but Kinect is offering something a bit new. After all, the Holodeck Law (which I just made up) dictates that controller-free gaming was going to arrive at some point - heck, it's already been attempted in basic form as the Playstation Eye. (Just occurred to me you possibly mean the games as opposed to the tech itself. Never mind...)
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 20:44:28 GMT
Post by Nam on Sept 30, 2010 20:44:28 GMT
See, I'd like to say that the above two posts are really just awful wastes of time for people to scroll past, but then, as yesterday, this one pointing that out is useless too. [censored] it. Come on guys, don't just quote someone else's opinion. It's so boring! Elaborate! Now, in order to contribute something myself: I have major beef with Kinect on principle, but mainly because it killed Rareware. To expand then. Kinect is too expensive. It's the price of a console, I don't have that kind of money to just throw around, especially on a product which currently has zero appeal for me (I can't even really see how it's a new thing, Sony did, as far as I can tell the eact same gimmick with it's Eye-Toy, and that was on PS2 for much less). Motion controls simply don't interest me. Aside from novelty gimmick mini-game compendiums, I've seen maybe one game* that's design benefited with motion control over regular d-pad/analogue stick/keyboard and buttons/mouse. Most other motion based games generally seem to have motion tacked on, and serve no reason to use motion in a beneficial way over regular standard controls. Finally, frankly I'm just not even seeing any decent games on Kinect. The release titles are bland, boring, and uninteresting to me, and I'm not seeing anything scheduled in the future that changes my opinion. I can't honestly see anything here beyond a novelty gimmick trying to cash in on, and then one-up the Wii's success. If I'm wrong, and it does indeed become awesome, I'll eat my own words, but for now, as of today, I don't see anything to make it worth purchasing it for. Sure it has potential, like every other new device that exists, but I can't see it happening. *Hue Pixel Painter, a game tacked onto the DS release Tony Hawk's motion, the former working like a marble maze game, the latter a shining example of how taking motion controls onto a game doesn't make it a good game.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 21:13:09 GMT
Post by L. T. Dangerous on Sept 30, 2010 21:13:09 GMT
vapid rip-off of Nintendo's ideas (Just occurred to me you possibly mean the games as opposed to the tech itself. Never mind...) The games I absolutely meant, the fitness one in particular, but the control system, I must profess, I meant too. MS would not seriously be even contemplating this unless Nintendo had done it. Now, I will grant them this much, "using your body as the controller" is a clever idea, however that doesn't mean it's a good one or the right one. Remember VR helmets and how everyone was sure we'd all be walking around our little gaming worlds (I know you do, of course, I'm not trying to sound patronising)? It seems MS have seen Nintendo's sales and thought not "games for all audiences are what has made them money" but, instead, "games with motion controls are the best because the Wii is the best console because it sells the best". While Kinect is the next evolution of motion controls, it's the very basic "home console motion control thing" idea that has been pilfered from Nintendo. I'm not trying to stick my head up Nintendo's bum here, I've found myself steadily losing touch with them in recent months as they've made it clear I'm not their target market any more- and that's fine, because I know I will be again one day when they move on to the next big thing. However, I certainly don't want MS and Sony to start copying Nintendo because, quite frankly, if I want to play a Wii game, sales figures suggest I probably have a Wii to play it on. All three consoles used to be able to offer different things, to see them move towards the same point is disheartening. EDIT: ALSO, I forgot this one: there's pretty big evidence it doesn't bloody work. The big conference where they unveiled it was all a sham, there are numerous times the motion simply doesn't match up. On top of that, I've seen people flailing like an inbred trying to get it to do the simplest thing. No, thanks.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 21:13:16 GMT
Post by Baron Canier on Sept 30, 2010 21:13:16 GMT
See, I'd like to say that the above two posts are really just awful wastes of time for people to scroll past, but then, as yesterday, this one pointing that out is useless too. Come on guys, don't just quote someone else's opinion. It's so boring! Elaborate! Well, I was going to add "Ditto" or "What he said", but that seemed somewhat redundant when Shay's post summed up my thoughts in the first place. Basically? I'm sick of motion controls. They're essentially a misrepresentation of what people consider "futuristic"; having a specialised controller that can interpret/translate a tiny button press, almost instantaneously, into a desired action is already far more advanced and immersive than the cumbersome nature of motion controls. Even getting a 1:1 reaction out of motion controls wouldn't really improve matters, since you'd still be forced to make a huge motion in order to get something to register. That's the opposite of what video games try to achieve. Furthermore, motion controls - despite being branded as a revolution - haven't really earned that title. Most of the time the addition of motion gimmicks just drag a game down, with some sort of crosshair being the best you can hope for. But, despite the Wii being largely a disappointment for me, I could easily abide all the motion control stuff because I reckoned it'd be over in due time. Now Sony and Microsoft are trying to ride their success (and really, what marketing department wouldn't try?), which is going to prolong everything. Some paranoid nook at the back of my mind keeps saying "If this keeps up we're going to undo all the progress we made in the previous generation". No, sir. I don't like it.
|
|
|
Kinect
Sept 30, 2010 21:17:55 GMT
Post by Mark on Sept 30, 2010 21:17:55 GMT
I want to try Sonic free riders, but I'm not buying a kinect.
That's the be all and end all of it for me.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 0:57:13 GMT
Post by Warped‽‽‽ on Oct 1, 2010 0:57:13 GMT
I'm simply not interested in what it has to offer at the current moment in time. Show me a 'killer app,' or in fact, anything at all that actually looks like it will intrigue me enough to spend that amount of money, then I might consider it. (But probably not)
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 9:39:50 GMT
Post by Baxter on Oct 1, 2010 9:39:50 GMT
Basically? I'm sick of motion controls. They're essentially a misrepresentation of what people consider "futuristic"; having a specialised controller that can interpret/translate a tiny button press, almost instantaneously, into a desired action is already far more advanced and immersive than the cumbersome nature of motion controls. Even getting a 1:1 reaction out of motion controls wouldn't really improve matters, since you'd still be forced to make a huge motion in order to get something to register. That's the opposite of what video games try to achieve. Furthermore, motion controls - despite being branded as a revolution - haven't really earned that title. Most of the time the addition of motion gimmicks just drag a game down, with some sort of crosshair being the best you can hope for. But, despite the Wii being largely a disappointment for me, I could easily abide all the motion control stuff because I reckoned it'd be over in due time. Now Sony and Microsoft are trying to ride their success (and really, what marketing department wouldn't try?), which is going to prolong everything. Some paranoid nook at the back of my mind keeps saying "If this keeps up we're going to undo all the progress we made in the previous generation". No, sir. I don't like it. ^ this. Needlessly protracting the thought-to-action process is progression, alright -- the "off a cliff" sort of progression. That's been my perspective on the Wii since... well, forever; and I can't envision Kinect nor Move altering that stance. What I have always liked, however, are the DS' touch-screen features. Inobtrusive, responsive and always appropriate. More o'that sort o'thing, please.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 9:43:18 GMT
Post by ShayMay on Oct 1, 2010 9:43:18 GMT
What I have always liked, however, are the DS' touch-screen features. Inobtrusive, responsive and always appropriate. More o'that sort o'thing, please. Sorta' agreed - the DS has a far higher hit-to-miss ratio, but there are still those games where touch screen features are implemented where they shouldn't be, and aren't where they should. Although I can't think of any examples, my brain's frazzled this morning. So yeah, agreed, but I wouldn't call them "always appropriate". Responsive, certainly.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 10:02:40 GMT
Post by Baxter on Oct 1, 2010 10:02:40 GMT
True; but I'd say most or all of those fall quite early within the DS' lifespan. Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow's probably the worst instance of poor implementation, and that was a 2005 release.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 10:03:09 GMT
Post by madhair60 on Oct 1, 2010 10:03:09 GMT
I'm not trying to stick my head up Nintendo's bum here, I've found myself steadily losing touch with them in recent months as they've made it clear I'm not their target market any more- and that's fine, because I know I will be again one day when they move on to the next big thing. I can't speak for you, since I don't know what you look for from Nintendo, but did you see E3!? They even won me back. Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow's probably the worst instance of poor implementation, and that was a 2005 release. Whoa, not even close. I agree, the tacked-on stylus crap was awful, but it gets a LOT worse. Edit: To fix accidental double post.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 10:40:00 GMT
Post by Nam on Oct 1, 2010 10:40:00 GMT
What I have always liked, however, are the DS' touch-screen features. Inobtrusive, responsive and always appropriate. More o'that sort o'thing, please. Sorta' agreed - the DS has a far higher hit-to-miss ratio, but there are still those games where touch screen features are implemented where they shouldn't be, and aren't where they should. Although I can't think of any examples, my brain's frazzled this morning. So yeah, agreed, but I wouldn't call them "always appropriate". Responsive, certainly. There's three kinds of touch screen use, essential, where the game is all about drawing actions, and using the ability of the stylus, like Wario Ware or Elite Beat Agents, non-essential, where the game doesn't need them, and can be played without but it's easier to use them, like Drawn to Life, and Pokémon*, and not required, for games like Sonic Rush and Pheonix Wright**. The problem is that touch screens have technically had years to be worked on. Since they work in pretty much the same way as a PC mouse, people have a rough idea of what could and couldn't work. We've all seen flash games which require you to navigate mazes without touching borders, or clicking on icons at just the right time, hence there's a good idea what you can do with the technology. Motion controls on the other hand almost always seem universally tacked on for the sake of it. No one game really stands out as a selling point for motion controls, despite the amount of time developers have had to try and create one. Every game which can be played with just motion controls gains no additional benefit over those you can play with a D-pad. Nobody has yet figured out quite how to make a game which is motion controls only that simply wouldn't work with the more precise D-pad and buttons combination. Every other technological improvement has either been useful, or has been discarded. Analogue sticks quickly became used by everyone once it was realised they allwed for more precise movement than a d-pad, shoulder buttons were added to consoles when it was realised you could use your fingers as well as you thumbs, and thus do more at once than just two buttons. Analogue shoulder buttons came about when people realised you could apply the analogue sensitivity to buttons, and this could be used for variance in actions, from a light kick to a hard punt, or from casually driving at 30mph, to accelerating full tilt. Likewise every advancement that didn't work was quickly discarded. The Virtual Boy came and went quickly due to it being a bad idea, the three pronged handsets of the N64 never took off, nor did the multiple face buttons of the original Xbox (pretty much all handsets, motion ones excluded now look like Playstation copies, that in itself looking a fair bit similar to the Snes one). The only reason Microsoft and Sony are aping the Wii, is because it has sold really well, but the reason it has sold well isn't because everyone wants motion controls, but because Nintendo did some exceptional marketing. How many Nintendo adverts have you seen since 2005 which haven't been family friendly, and haven't included a bunch of families/groups of friends/non-stereotypical gamers? It doesn't happen, cos Nintendo decided there was no point going after the Halo/GTA/COD audience, and instead went after an entirely new audience. The Wii, and the DS, have sold to people who would never consider buying Halo, have no interest in COD, and probably agree with the Daily Mail that GTA should be banned. Sure, Nintendo have remembered to release the odd Zelda, Mario, Metroid, so that the old school fans are still happy, but most of there focus has been families and people who don't particularly care for gaming. A good example is the recent adds for Dragon Quest IX. There are two I've seen, one which is obviously advertised to boys, and goes on about fighting monsters, using flaming tights (and the second boy in the add ripping into the guy for choosing tights, until the irst guy proves there effective), the other obviously aimed at girls, which shows them discussing how good there characters look dressed in various things, and showing a fight with one of the games cuter monsters. This is what Nintendo have been doing right, they've been mass marketing there product. There are far more adverts now for the Wii & DS than there ever were for the Gamecube or the GBA. They've gone out there, found a bigger, more profitable market, and have got the right kind of games to make this market part with there cash. leaving Microsoft and Sony to go "Why didn't we think of that?" Which is why we now have the Move and the Kinect. Neither of which have had the same kind of marketing. Nintendo knew this market would never walk into GAME, or CEX and see the adverts there, and spent a fortune on TV adverts and Mall promotions, which would be seen, and thus tried by people who normally just walk past Gamestation without a secon thought. If Sony and Microsoft want the Move and Kinect to sell, they need to go out and promote it to the people who would otherwise not be fussed by videogames. The people who don't play games, but would be tempted to give Guitar Hero or DDR a go if it was on at a party after having one or two, for example. But the problem still stands either way. While millions of people bought a Wii, how many of those bought more than Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and a couple of other games? It's all well and good selling the consoles, but the profits come from software sales, and I'd bet half the Wii's bought three christmases ago have been forgotten about, or sold. Other than those who genuinely like the console, and those who bought it for kids and now just give there kids Wii games for Christmas without too much thought over what the games are, or whether they're any good, how well are Wii games are actually selling in terms of percentage of people who own the console? How many Wii owners have more than five games? And how many Wii's get regularly played? I've gone off on a tangent fro my original point, but it still stands to question, what good is it to be able to sell millions of hardware units if they're going to be abandoned just as quickly? If the Move and the Kinect are to be ore than just novelties they need some genuine killer apps that will be played properly. Maybe the online support for both consoles will help prolong it slightly, if people are up for performing lots of body motions against an unseen opponent doing the same, but I can't imagine there'd be that much demand for virtual ping-pong online. If the killer apps arive, and show that a game can actually be fun to play in single player, and multiplayer, with the same levels of depth as a traditional handset led game, then the Kinect and Move might just been fine, but otherwise the devices will sell on the gimmick if Sony and Microsoft copy Nintendo's marketing strategy, but whether or not people will want to be using them six months after purchase, and whether the games that come out for them are actually worthwhile, is yet to be seen. Since the Wii has had several years, and has still failed to do anything spectacular or revolutionary (aside from maybe changing the perception of gaming as an activity), I can't see either the Kinect or Move doing either, and thus both will simply be expensive add-ons that were promoted as the next big thing, but turned out to be a failure. tl;dr Motion controls aren't what made the Wii a huge success, marketing it to non-gamers did, and Sony and Microsoft will fail with Move and Kinect if they don't see that for themselves, or come up with a game actual gamers would want to play with motion controls. *Pokémon can be played from start to completion without a stylus, but generally there are a few minigames that require the stylus, and generally navigating menus and using certain items is made much easier with the stylys. Similarly, it's possible to draw on Drawn to Life with the D-pad (a requirement if you want pixel perfect sprites), but it's much easier to scribble with the stylus. ** With the exception of case 1-5 in the first one, the stylus has minimal adantage over the d-pa, and it's entirely possible to beat the games without ever using the stylus.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 10:50:53 GMT
Post by Warped‽‽‽ on Oct 1, 2010 10:50:53 GMT
Since the PS Move is pretty much a direct copy of the Wii (Albeit, from what I've read, I think a better version), I think that it's actually less likely to fail than Kinect. Still not great, mind (I mean, Wii already has that back catalogue of motion sensitive 'games' anyway.) but the chance is there, people are already partly aware of the stuff it's going to be able to do.
For Kinect, everything seems too vague at the moment. Yes, so it tracks your movements, how is that going to be used in a fun way? Every video I've seen of someone using Kinect has you flailing about even more than someone playing a Wii, just to be doing exactly the same sort of stuff the Wii can do. If I have to sit and play Half Life 3 by flailing about, on my own, in my lounge then kindly [censored] off.
At least with the Wii pointing lazily still works.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 11:01:28 GMT
Post by madhair60 on Oct 1, 2010 11:01:28 GMT
Can't wait for Milo, so I can groom children in the comfort of my own home without legal redress.
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 11:05:30 GMT
Post by Nam on Oct 1, 2010 11:05:30 GMT
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 11:09:55 GMT
Post by madhair60 on Oct 1, 2010 11:09:55 GMT
well that's an onion in the nonceing ointment
|
|
|
Kinect
Oct 1, 2010 12:23:37 GMT
Post by Alex on Oct 1, 2010 12:23:37 GMT
Where Kinect stands out from the crowd for me is the fact it offers genuinely new possibilities. Unlike the Wii Remote and the PS Move, using Kinect is automatically hands free. Now, that not only offers the possibility of exploring new ways of interacting with games, but also because it means that it's the only one of the three that can also be combined with traditional controls.
This means that it's completely possible for Kinect to augment existing control schemes with its own features - headtracking in an FPS, for example.
Sadly, none of these possibilities have been demonstrated yet (and that is why I'm in no rush to get one), but I think it's a very underestimated device in being able to provide that 'core' gaming experience while still being capable of expanding it and exploring new territory. It just needs the software and the developers to take advantage of it.
|
|