Kinect .. Any Good ?

[Damien]

At the moment motion control has no real value beyond the novelty of moving your body to play a game. Kinect adds to this novelty by taking away the controller, but it has no real practical benifit. It is actually extremly limiting, you are limited by your own movements.

Motion control is all about moving your body and that in its self is a amazing idea to put into a game. The novelty is all about the movement and the potentail that brings to games in the next couple of months and years. Kinect fixs certain annoying aspects to games because some games are designed poorly and the sense of being involved is limited BUT with Kinect you are the controller , you are involved to the deepest level . The joy of seeing something move that you are controlling is a wonderful expierence. Kinect has the abilty of making you involved and makes you enter a new generation of gaming.

The Wii is a good console but it lacks the features of what the motion control generation needs. It needs to be wonderful , it needs to a expierence and most importantly it needs to fun and kinect is all these things.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

At the moment motion control has no real value beyond the novelty of moving your body to play a game. Kinect adds to this novelty by taking away the controller, but it has no real practical benifit. It is actually extremly limiting, you are limited by your own movements. For example imagine playing Devil May Cry on Kinect. Can you move like Dante. No, no one can. Simply running around the area, something most videogame charicters can do all day, is exausting.

the Wii is marketed to casual gamers with a few games for a more hardcore audience. the Move has Wii style casual games with improved graphics and motion based add-ons for hardcore games allowing you to play with the Move or stick with the traditional controller depending on your preference. The Kinect has only casual games because that is all you can really do with Kinect. Anything more would be basicly unplayable. Sure the technology can probably handle it but the player can't. with the Wii and Move things that the player can't do are done by pressing buttons. the Kinect dosen't have buttons. It's cool but not very practical.

I understand what you're saying, and I partially agree with most of your points that you have made. Allow me to make my own points, that are not going against the points you have made.

I'm supporting the future of motion control gaming, because I think it could be something quite epic. However, I agree that it does need to be worked on more. We could just call Kinect an early prototype of what they want the future of motion controlled gaming to be like. They really do need to develop it a little bit more. Essentially, they thought they had something great in their hands. And yes, they indeed did. But the fact that you are the controller isn't good enough. Simply due to the fact that you'd be playing the same type of games all the time. Games specifically made to be a little challenging, but achievable enough. They'd need to break out of the comfort zone, and start designing hardcore games.

As you've made clear about hardcore gaming, the Kinect has no hardcore games. I see where you are coming from. There are going to be gamers that want to really get into a game. And button smashing is sometimes quite fun. But with the Kinect, you don't get buttons. That's because you are the controller. However, if they designed certain console/controller add-ons (Such as a gun, sword or whatever) then it could really progress.

For instance, take CoD as we have mentioned before. I mean, all that running around forever. You'd get tired out, like you pointed out. But if there was a 'run' button you could hold on your gun then you could just hold that. You'd still have to move left and right, and avoid things (Which is where you would be using the motion control) and for the rest of it, you can shoot and aim yourself with the gun. You could also still run at points if you wanted to. Or crouch or whatever you wanted to do. But you wouldn't have to run everywhere, so it wouldn't be so tiring. And they would make the game challenging, but give moments where you have a break, as I previously said beforehand.

Personally, I think there are many ideas they could go with. I like the gun idea for games such as CoD and Halo. Think how cool it would be if they designed a few types of guns, and you had to swap between guns in your living room. For instance, if they released a new shooter to Kinect/360/PS3. And for the Kinect version, they added two guns with it. You'd be swapping the games in your living room/bedroom whilst playing. And that'd make it feel more real. So how cool would that be?

I think there are lots of ways Microsoft can take the Kinect. And I think people are just not sure how this is going to go, which is why there is a certain air of negativity. But honestly, the Wii was just the beginning. The Kinect has so much more to offer, with time. So just give it time, and I'm sure it'll work out and mould into a brilliant game console that pleases all fans.

Let's just wait and see ^_^

~LoD

 

[Damien]

I'm supporting the future of motion control gaming, because I think it could be something quite epic. However, I agree that it does need to be worked on more. We could just call Kinect an early prototype of what they want the future of motion controlled gaming to be like. They really do need to develop it a little bit more. But the fact that you are the controller isn't good enough. Simply due to the fact that you'd be playing the same type of games all the time.
^

The Wii was the early prototype because it could only use the controllers infra red signal to move the character and if you moved your leg to bit a ball nothing would happen. Since the Wii , playstation bought out the MOve in September this year and to be honest it wasnt anything different to the Wii as you hold a controller . But when Kinect came out , the joys of the Wii and Move faded into the shadows as it shows that you dont need a controller to move the character and you have complete control of the movement and you can user the Kinect features online in play , as a microphone ( so good to the annoying wired headsets) , as a camera to upload onto facebook , twiiter and more. Kinect is the must have essential that completes the X-box expierence .. You have the console , you have X-box Live , and now theres Kinect .

If it wasnt good then microsoft wouldnt of spent $500 million on the marketing adverts or the exclusive events in america. Mircosoft know this is a winner and just because some people on here dont like it doesnt mean it's not very good. The opinions of few members isnt something to cast an opinion on Kinect itself. Some people will hate it and other will love it and I love it.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

The Wii was the early prototype because it could only use the controllers infra red signal to move the character and if you moved your leg to bit a ball nothing would happen. Since the Wii , playstation bought out the MOve in September this year and to be honest it wasnt anything different to the Wii as you hold a controller . But when Kinect came out , the joys of the Wii and Move faded into the shadows as it shows that you dont need a controller to move the character and you have complete control of the movement and you can user the Kinect features online in play , as a microphone ( so good to the annoying wired headsets) , as a camera to upload onto facebook , twiiter and more. Kinect is the must have essential that completes the X-box expierence .. You have the console , you have X-box Live , and now theres Kinect .

If it wasnt good then microsoft wouldnt of spent $500 million on the marketing adverts or the exclusive events in america. Mircosoft know this is a winner and just because some people on here dont like it doesnt mean it's not very good. The opinions of few members isnt something to cast an opinion on Kinect itself. Some people will hate it and other will love it and I love it.

You've misunderstood my point. It's not the console or the technology that's the problem. To me, it's the line-up of future games. People don't want to see the same old games for the Kinect, with nothing new. Or else it'll just die out easily, because the games won't appeal any more. The same thing for the Nintendo Wii. No hardcore games, just the same sort of games released. Yeah, the exception of a few good games. But the majority of the games are based on the way in which you can play the game. With the Wii, it's using your hand to move the player and everything else. With the Kinect, it's moving your whole body. There is so much more Kinect can offer in the future, but we still have to wait.

We have to wait for better games to be released on it. Until then, it's just the starting out process. A line of similar games to get us use to being the controller.

~LoD

 

[darkslayer13]

I understand what you're saying, and I partially agree with most of your points that you have made. Allow me to make my own points, that are not going against the points you have made.

I'm supporting the future of motion control gaming, because I think it could be something quite epic. However, I agree that it does need to be worked on more. We could just call Kinect an early prototype of what they want the future of motion controlled gaming to be like. They really do need to develop it a little bit more. Essentially, they thought they had something great in their hands. And yes, they indeed did. But the fact that you are the controller isn't good enough. Simply due to the fact that you'd be playing the same type of games all the time. Games specifically made to be a little challenging, but achievable enough. They'd need to break out of the comfort zone, and start designing hardcore games.

As you've made clear about hardcore gaming, the Kinect has no hardcore games. I see where you are coming from. There are going to be gamers that want to really get into a game. And button smashing is sometimes quite fun. But with the Kinect, you don't get buttons. That's because you are the controller. However, if they designed certain console/controller add-ons (Such as a gun, sword or whatever) then it could really progress.

For instance, take CoD as we have mentioned before. I mean, all that running around forever. You'd get tired out, like you pointed out. But if there was a 'run' button you could hold on your gun then you could just hold that. You'd still have to move left and right, and avoid things (Which is where you would be using the motion control) and for the rest of it, you can shoot and aim yourself with the gun. You could also still run at points if you wanted to. Or crouch or whatever you wanted to do. But you wouldn't have to run everywhere, so it wouldn't be so tiring. And they would make the game challenging, but give moments where you have a break, as I previously said beforehand.

Personally, I think there are many ideas they could go with. I like the gun idea for games such as CoD and Halo. Think how cool it would be if they designed a few types of guns, and you had to swap between guns in your living room. For instance, if they released a new shooter to Kinect/360/PS3. And for the Kinect version, they added two guns with it. You'd be swapping the games in your living room/bedroom whilst playing. And that'd make it feel more real. So how cool would that be?

I think there are lots of ways Microsoft can take the Kinect. And I think people are just not sure how this is going to go, which is why there is a certain air of negativity. But honestly, the Wii was just the beginning. The Kinect has so much more to offer, with time. So just give it time, and I'm sure it'll work out and mould into a brilliant game console that pleases all fans.

Let's just wait and see ^_^

Basicly what you are saying is kinect could be improved by adding controllers. i agree, it would work very well... But the point of kinect is playing games with no controller. So improving it in that way would be considered a failure since it would be moving away from the no controller concept that makes kinect stand out. it would become a better version of the Move instead of just a better Eyetoy. improving on one Sony idea dosen't seem much different from improving on another one but the Move is new almost no one remembers the Eyetoy. as it is Kinect seems like a new idea even thought it's really not. but if they added controllers they would be obviously copying Sony and at the same time admitting that their "new" idea dosen't work as well as the said it did.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

Basicly what you are saying is kinect could be improved by adding controllers. i agree, it would work very well... But the point of kinect is playing games with no controller. So improving it in that way would be considered a failure since it would be moving away from the no controller concept that makes kinect stand out. it would become a better version of the Move instead of just a better Eyetoy. improving on one Sony idea dosen't seem much different from improving on another one but the Move is new almost no one remembers the Eyetoy. as it is Kinect seems like a new idea even thought it's really not. but if they added controllers they would be obviously copying Sony and at the same time admitting that their "new" idea dosen't work as well as the said it did.

Well we're looking at a high money making company, I don't really think they are going to be bothered to admit anything. By adding a game controller, it wouldn't be admitting failure. It'd just be saving their backsides when they had to release hardcore games. All the non hardcore games would just soulfully rely on motion control. And the hardcore games would rely on the motion control and the controller. They would fail if the hardcore games didn't include the motion control, because then all they have done is designed a new console with a controller for most of the good games. Essentially it'd make it a 'sit and play' console, like the Xbox 360 already is.

Instead, it's a 360 with motion control technology. Allowing us to do what we wish. But the need for a controller for those harder games is an essential. Because with all of the actions required, it'd be way too hard relying on the motion control.

~LoD

 

[ProtoTypeRaavyn]

One of my friends got it and she said that never befor had A game made her want to puke. So I dunno what to take from that.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

One of my friends got it and she said that never before had a game made her want to puke. So I dunno what to take from that.

I would take that as a very negative point. However, she only said the game made her feel that way. She never said it was anything to do with the console. And she never said it was every game. If we look at other games on different consoles, I myself could name a few that could make me feel that way.

 

[Dark Drakan]

I would take that as a very negative point.

Unless its from over-exertion from playing it to much or for long periods.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

Unless its from over-exertion from playing it to much or for long periods.

lol Could be

 

[ProtoTypeRaavyn]

Unless its from over-exertion from playing it to much or for long periods.

Yeah, I asked her About it, It's A dance Game and she played for like 6 Hours.

 

[Damien]

Basicly what you are saying is kinect could be improved by adding controllers. i agree, it would work very well... But the point of kinect is playing games with no controller.

So why would you want to add controllers if the point of kinect is not to have controllers ? That just completey contridicts the whole thing of motion control without controllers.
Please explain your point of that kinect would be better with controllers ?

I don't really think they are going to be bothered to admit anything. By adding a game controller, it wouldn't be admitting failure. It'd just be saving their backsides when they had to release hardcore games.

As the milo and kate demo showed thta kinect is possible to scan items from the real to the virtaul worlds so if we continue the idea of CoD for kinect then they could sell guns from the game and then you scan them into the game and then everytime you pull the trigger , the character pulls the trigger. And of course these guns arent real guns for safety :lol:
Microsoft would be very annoyed to add controllers because they spent years on making this tech and then to just add the thing they wanted to take anyway just seemes they are going back on the whole idea.

 

[aka958]

As the milo and kate demo showed thta kinect is possible to scan items from the real to the virtaul worlds so if we continue the idea of CoD for kinect then they could sell guns from the game and then you scan them into the game and then everytime you pull the trigger , the character pulls the trigger. And of course these guns arent real guns for safety :lol:
Microsoft would be very annoyed to add controllers because they spent years on making this tech and then to just add the thing they wanted to take anyway just seemes they are going back on the whole idea.

Will they not work as controllers? And to buy a guitar for guitar hero is costy, to buy guns and different stuff for each and every game to the kinect because they are different is outrageous. That is a waste of resources and is too costy for a game to always buy components. What would be good is if they had a standard item to be used for most of the games, like you know, a basic controller?

 

[Damien]

Will they not work as controllers? And to buy a guitar for guitar hero is costy, to buy guns and different stuff for each and every game to the kinect because they are different is outrageous. That is a waste of resources and is too costy for a game to always buy components. What would be good is if they had a standard item to be used for most of the games, like you know, a basic controller?

No because once you "scan" the item into the game then you still have fun by pulling your finger down and not by hitting a button.
Kinect wont be hard core gamers because the concept is to difficult to get right , but that doesnt stop people from buying kinect for motion control games and then buying games assassins creed botherhood ( which im getting ) for the normal way.. Everyone thinks thinks if you have kinect then you HAVE to play motion control games .. WRONG .. I played halo reach online with my kinect plugged in , i used as a micophone instead of having the headset.

Agreed controllers are what people play games with but I sure that people will look at kinect with less of an evil stare if they ACTUALLY played it

 

[V]

Damien, you sound like you're on Microsoft's payroll. Lol/jk

But yeah, I'll reserve final judgement for after I actually play with a Kinect. I wanna see.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

So if Microsoft were to add a gun for shooter games and such on Kinect, it'd be defying the point they were trying to make originally? Whereas it'd also mean they could make hardcore games for it. And also still have those games use the gun and the motion control anyway. Meaning they aren't entirely taking motion control away. And also they can still have all the normal games that just use motion control. I fail to see where they would be going wrong. In fact, it'd be more of a step forward.

I never said that you'd be buying different parts for every game. I just said a gun/sword/controller or whatever they wanted to go with, for all hardcore games. You'd get one gun as standard, plus one sword. And for new releases, they could release the same gun you get as standard but with halo effects on it. For instance, practically the same as the do for the 360 controllers. You get your normal standard white controller, and you get a black one. And you can also have one that is Halo orientated. Same scenario here, except it'd be for the gun. And that would only happen when they wanted to such a thing, which would be hardly ever. So I don't see how costly it'd be. Considering the gun could just come free with the game when pre-ordered or something. It'd be cool in my opinion.

~LoD

 

[Damien]

A star wars game is out next year and that prob wont have a lightsaber handle to hold onto so the idea of "scanning" things into the game ok was a lame idea but this highlights the reason why motion control is fantastic but also a very difficult thing to get right becasue one wrong ide and kinect is doomed with adding a controller. The whole point of kinect which has been mentioned millions of times beofre on here by me and other members , is to hands free. Now the launch games are good for basic introduction into the kinect way so to speak. But kinect will prob never have a hard core game on it because its not designed for hard core games and everyone knows that but still as mentioned before you can still have kinect and play normal games with a normal controller. Just because you have kinect doesnt mean all you can play is kinect games.

Its the same with the PS3 and move , just because you have move , doesnt mean all the games you play have to be move related. Its just silly to cast an opinion on something you havent played and thats the same for films, casting an opinion on films when you havent seen them. Who are you going to believe more someone who says that the for example the Christmas Doctor Who will be crap when they havent seen it OR someone who has seen it and then cast a opinion ?