Kinect is Actually Fun

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Furburt:
Like I've said quite a few times before. Kinect is fun. Of course it's fun, how could it not be fun? But what it isn't is deep. You can't make deep, complex games using Kinect. It just won't work with today's technology.

That's okay though, because, you know, fun? Fun's pretty cool. I don't remember the last time I played a deep, complex game. At least, deep in the artistic sense. I've played plenty of 4X games that are deep in the sense of "there's a lot of stuff in here that you don't really need to know, because one tactic trumps all."

JEBWrench:

Furburt:
Like I've said quite a few times before. Kinect is fun. Of course it's fun, how could it not be fun? But what it isn't is deep. You can't make deep, complex games using Kinect. It just won't work with today's technology.

That's okay though, because, you know, fun? Fun's pretty cool. I don't remember the last time I played a deep, complex game. At least, deep in the artistic sense. I've played plenty of 4X games that are deep in the sense of "there's a lot of stuff in here that you don't really need to know, because one tactic trumps all."

Well, we'll have to differ on that one, but as for it being fun, yes, fun is cool, but when I say Kinect will have no depth, I mean it, it will have none. I don't need to play it to know it, it's just impossible. Now, no matter how you feel about depth in games, it's a fair bet to assume that even that most mindless game you play has depth in it. For example, Doom is pretty lacking in depth. You have guns, you kill aliens, that's about it. There's a plot in there somewhere, but nobody ever paid any attention to it.
However, even that game is way too complex to work on Kinect. Kinect has amazing technology, but it's being applied the wrong way. Video games are mental escapes, not physical. The closest you can get to a physical escape in a videogame is something like Guitar Hero, and even that doesn't require much movement, or some of the less obnoxious Wii games. It's not going to advance that far beyond Kinectimals, unless there's some hidden feature that changes everything that we haven't seen.

So fun, yes, but fleeting, flash in the pan fun, not engrossing, memorable fun. If you like the first, good for you and enjoy your purchase, but I myself am very worried that on the 360 at least, the first is going to slowly but surely push out the second.

Looks like some Awesome Tech - Not my kinda Gaming so i will pass on it, but for some people its going to be monumental. Hope they enjoy

I have no doubt that the Kinect can be fun. The problem is, it doesnt sound like they have or are planning to release anything worth paying full price for. As for the device itself...it still sounds overpriced to me, although that's kind of less so after that comparison pricing thing got me comparing it to other things. Still, doesn't really matter...I won't be buying it, but my parents will. I'll be helpfully reminding them to wait until a price drop though.

Again, the problem is mostly the games. Maybe in a year or so something great will come out for it, but all I see that interests me now is Child of Eden (why have they not been showing it off more?). I would love to get the chance to design a Kinect game though...so many potential deviations from normal game forumas without copy-pasting party game ideas.

redmarine:
When will we be able to control zombie arms to rip people apart?

Like this, for example.

I just wanna be able to navigate through the dashboard like Tony Stark.

fun for causal gaming? Yes, fun for hardcore gaming? NO!

as per usual this type of technology is for the casual gaming audience and not for those who play hours on end requiring the most accurate/effective means to play

Even if the motion controls are perfect, from a gameplay standpoint, the games on show are boringly basic and dated. The dashboard control is also pointless while I have a working controller.

Uh oh, someone has fun with Kinect. I can feel the gamer rage coming en masse. How dare you have fun with motion control!

"No way, I've never used Kinect and my mind is made up! There's no changing it now!"

I read this kind of thing too much. Horses for courses! When one wants to play precision shooting, then pick up a controller. When one wants to play something active (heavens forbid gaming be allowed to experiment with such things! On the couch or die! Though literally, it will probably be the other way around in the end), use Kinect. I realised this easy dichotomy.

And anyone fear mongering about Kinect taking resources away from 'serious' games, really needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In no other media form which cater for wide ranges of consumers, does this fearful thing trully occur. In fact, what happens is that the developers get richer and they spread that wealth to all the other products they make. That's why a movie director can make a kids movie and then make a horror film right after. Was the horror film compromised? No, not at all.

I really don't get the fear and panic espoused by so many gamers. I wager that for more than a few, the distaste for motion controlls comes at least a little from a misguided sense of betrayal or displacement. Now the pasttime that used to differentiate them from the crowd has BECOME the crowd. Deal with it. It's juvenile to think that way. Just like metal heads and Britney fans can coexist, so can all gamers.

GeneticallyModifiedDucks:
I hate Kinect because Mircosoft forced Rare, they forced RARE to make Kinect Sports. I repeat they forced RARE to make Kinect Sports. HATRED! Rare of all people, how about making, oh I don't know, a new Killer Instinct, instead of a fucking sports game?!

As if anyone is surprised about that. Rare hasn't made a single quality product since they were "acquired" by Microsoft.

redmarine:
When will we be able to control zombie arms to rip people apart?

Now that is a whole new way to play stubbs the zombie.

OT: I really cant say that i wont like it but i dont have the money to.

Furburt:
Like I've said quite a few times before. Kinect is fun. Of course it's fun, how could it not be fun? But what it isn't is deep. You can't make deep, complex games using Kinect. It just won't work with today's technology.

I don't think you can rule out any game having a deep or complex story based on the controller it uses, Silent Hill Shattered Memories is a great addition to the series and motion controls don't cheapen it at all.

Sapient Pearwood:

Furburt:
Like I've said quite a few times before. Kinect is fun. Of course it's fun, how could it not be fun? But what it isn't is deep. You can't make deep, complex games using Kinect. It just won't work with today's technology.

I don't think you can rule out any game having a deep or complex story based on the controller it uses, Silent Hill Shattered Memories is a great addition to the series and motion controls don't cheapen it at all.

Yes, but Silent Hill Shattered Memories is on the Wii, which has buttons. Kinect does not have buttons, Kinect has a camera. You couldn't make a Silent Hill game on Kinect unless you massively simplified it, because for a start, how would you move? Walk in front of Kinect? That would get incredibly tedious and totally break the atmosphere. This is why the Wii and to a lesser extent, Move, at least are able to create reasonably complex games, annoying as they may sometimes be. They have buttons. Movement buttons, action buttons, stuff like that.

Dragonforce525:
Kinect sounds like a lot of fun if you're 8, I refuse to pay $150 to talk to my xbox, stomp around like Godzilla and fight imaginary men, I'm struggling to think of something more embarrassing then what Kinect is asking you to do.

Maybe someday it'll have... 'adult' games, if you know what I mean.

Sorry but i'm not really sold on your description.

"Holding your hands up as if you're holding a steering wheel" - That makes my arms hurt after like 10 seconds, there's no way i could play through a game pretending to hold something. I'd end up holding a plate or something as a controller, which i'd just rather not do.

worthless, expensive f-ing gimmick that actually takes us in the wrong direction for gaming. We need to make movements smaller and more precise, not more exagerated.

Scrumpmonkey:
Yeah well so is a cup and ball and that don't cost $150. balls of yarn are fun. I've had great fun with cardboard boxes. Going outside and playing sport is fun. You can have a lot more fun for a lot less than $150 (as i leanred on my last trip to amsterdam)

After a while it will get OLD fast. It's like most things, the gimmick is fun for a few hours then you become used to it and you are just waving your arms like a headcase and playing a sub-standard knock off of a 3 year old 'casual' mini game collection.

Also does plaing kinect look as foolish as i imagine it does? Kind more like this;

image

oh my god i think i love you for that dr cox gif!

Greg Tito:
Snip

You didn't have any times where the game read your slight turn as "crash into the street light the opposite way I am turning" or anything like that?

Wasn't this the guy who had Wii Sports Resort on his top 5 games list of 2009?

what the hell is with the suddenn demand for 3D and motion sensors?

it's really not that hard to beat the Wii at its own game baha
but hey, I'm not gonna argue or judge the Kinect
motion sensing overall maybe
but really I just don't have the money saved for it
(I still haven't bought the entire Rock Band 2 set, last summer my friends and I just borrowed it from a friend)

Wow, you give people an honest opinion based upon actual hands on experience and they are still more willing to hate than to open their minds to the possibility that their blind disdain for a technology still in its infancy might be misplaced. Well, I think the article made good points, and Kinect sounds like a lot of fun.

Again this is a thread that has quickly become full of misinformation and suppositions ("You can't make deep, complex games using Kinect"? Really? So you've explored every design opportunity available? Of course if Bioware want to use it then it can't possibly be capable of games with depth :P).

No way in hell I'm paying $150 to fail my arms around like I'm possessed and look like a complete idiot.

A lot of this feeling was exactly the same when the Wii first came out. People were novel with the idea of motion controls, now people don't have to fumble around for buttons and we can move our bodies for a more natural way of immersion in games!

But eventually everyone stopped caring, and started labeling it a gimmick. There were no "hardcore" games and playing "Wii Sports" for weeks on end gets boring. Most if not all the games that implemented motion control did so very poorly. Now, I won't comment on the current situation, but suffice to say that most people I know with Wiis and many other people testify this on forums like this barely play with their Wiis anymore.

I bought both a Wii and DS and I hardly play them. I haven't touched my Wii for months and my DS only gets play on long plane rides. I got suckered in to the Wii because I thought "Whoa! Motion control! That's so friggin awesome!" and bought it as an impulse buy. Soon, nothing came out that interested me and most of the motion controls that were used were used poorly.

This is why I'm skeptical of Kinect. It's the same "Whoa, no controllers! This will allow for more immersion in games!" thing that happened with the Wii, and that sticked with "casual" gamers. Again, I won't comment on the current situation, I'm observing the original release of it.

So, I have a challenge for you, Greg Tito, or anyone else who is planning on buying Kinect. If you do purchase Kinect, play the games for it nonstop for maybe a week or two (let's make it 2), nothing else. Just play Kinect non-stop, nothing else, no regular 360 games, no PS3, no PC, just Kinect. If you are still having fun jumping in the rafts or playing with your Kinectimal, then that's awesome for you. If, however, you're already tired of playing with it after 2 weeks then Kinect is essentially just a reformated Wii at the time of release.

Does Kinect have potential? Of course, and I would love to see it's potential used. But part of me can't help but feel extremely skeptical after the horrendous E3 showing that Microsoft put out for Kinect and the $150 price tag. And don't think I'm not thinking the same with the Move, while I admit I'm more partial to the Move simply because I have a PS3(Interest by association I guess, it's apparantly focusing on a more "hardcore" audience, supporting games like Heavy Rain, Killzone 3, LBP, and SOCOM 4) that doesn't mean I'm not skeptical of it as well.

As Furburt said before, Kinect games may be "fun" but what they are not is "deep". "Fun" games are fun for a little while, but you'll get bored of them. "Deep" games are both fun and continue to entertain well past its due point.

It's hard to believe, "It's nothing like the Wii," when every introduction to a game was "Then I saw Kinect game X, which is like Wii game Y." I dunno, just seemed odd. And the damn thing still isn't worth $150. Not when it comes with one casual game and has no hardcore release titles.

As stupid as this sounds I'm seriously considering getting this just so i can get some use out of my avatar.

Of course it's fun. The Wii was also fun. The problem is can this translate into the sort of A title that will sell a lot or will people who purchase Kinect just fiddle with the pack-in game at parties, like many did with the Wii?

On the one hand, the hardcore gaming audience is dead set against motion controls, which is why they whole reactionary bunch can go fuck themselves. There was a time when hardcore gaming had one button and a joystick. Change happens whether you like it or not. Especially when it's not.

Innovation is a gimmick that becomes the norm. As it stands, I'm not sure if motion controls will become an innovation or not. It could be, but I think the Wii has soured many people's taste for them with all the shovelware.

Aside: interesting that Nintendo allowed such shovelware to go out since many cite the glut of inferior product as a cause of the video game crash of 1983. Nintendo combated this with their "Seal of Quality" when they launched the NES, although that seal was a sham and they gave it to whoever would pay the licensing fee. But they understood this is a potential problem enough to deal with it on a marketing level in the late 80's. To actively engage it now seems like a fucking stupid move.

One of the biggest complains I've seen of motion controls is that they don't work all the time. As in the controls don't always register your movements or register them properly. That gets a big yawn and a condescending pat on the head from me. Complaining that the controller doesn't work is as old as video games themselves. I'm sure that someone playing Spacewar on a DEC PDP-1 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology bitched the panel switches didn't register properly when they got blown to bits or sucked into the sun. So this is nothing new. It's just history repeating itself. Players always blame the controllers when they fuck up. That is the first commandment of video game playing. Never admit fault. Find someone or something else to blame.

That said, there may be more to it with the Wii. For my money, though, I'll be the problem is less the motion controls themselves so much as that they're wireless. Maybe I'm just old but I can't believe that wireless controllers will have the same precision timing as those hard wired into the console. Wireless transmissions can be iffy with various things causing interference which can be annoying on a phone call and detrimental in a game. I may be wrong about this as I'm no tech wizard and maybe Bluetooth runs on liquid jesus or something. But maybe one of those hackers out there can rig a Wiimote to attach to the console with wires and see if performance is any different.

But all of this is pointless without looking at what you can do with motion controls. That is, what does this technology bring to the table that regular controls do not. There's a reason why the Dvorak keyboard layout did not replace QWERTY.

The first thing it brings is it gives players a reason to get up off the couch and work off some of those Cheetos they've been eating all day. Far be it from me from giving two shit and a bag of rusty screws about the general heath and well being of the world's youth, but with news reports about the growing trend of obesity in ragamuffins, wouldn't incorporating more physical activity in their typical pastimes be a positive step towards stemming the tide?

I'm overweight and I don't exercise much because I don't have an excuse to exercise all that much. Maybe with a motion control video game, I would move around more and possibly prolong my life.

Oh wait. That's a horrible idea.

I do find it interesting that one of the games mentioned in the article was bowling. Bowling? Really? Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah! Wii Sports. Now, I've played the Wii version and it was fun, so it's hard to imagine the Kinect version not being fun as well. But this really don't show us anything new. Bowling games are almost as old as video games. It was a launch title for many systems in the early 80's/late 70's. Sure the motion controls are different. But in the end, you're still just bowling. You could also go to a bowling alley so you could wear uncomfortable shoes, eat greasy fried food from the lunch counter as well. Is the best thing for motion control video games to recreate pastimes that the nation's youth have lost interest in? Maybe they could also make a drive-in movie simulator that's like watching a movie from the cramped confines of your car while listening through a staticy speaker.

So far, I'm unimpressed with what developers have been using the motion controls to do. It's possible that motion controls will remain just a gimmick. It's also possible that this is the last real innovation in video games:

image

Look at it! Marvel at it. The action comes off the screen and into your living room!

I was looking at Dance Central and Child of Eden. Stuff like that does a good job with your "expected use" of motion controls. I would hope they would add headtracking to FPS, and Racing games, that would be a way to give something to the hardcore gamers to pick up a wider audience that cares about the thing. The article does feal a bit, "well duh". Aside from the squeeling "stroke my ego" 'ardcore gamaz I doubt many people thought they we're going to sit in front of a kinect and not be able to have a little fun.

Valid concerns are raised by the Wii. Nintendo is not just blowing smoke when they say the third parties "didn't get it". Making good use of motion controls is no small feat but a few games have done it well.

For me the biggest letdown of the Kinect, pre-release, is it's apparent limit to two players. The camera should in theory be able to track any number of players but the hardware lacks to muscle to track the extra skeletons.

Furburt:
Like I've said quite a few times before. Kinect is fun. Of course it's fun, how could it not be fun? But what it isn't is deep. You can't make deep, complex games using Kinect. It just won't work with today's technology.

So while what it does will always be fun, it won't be engrossing, or deep. It won't be able to tell stories in games, draw you in, create a world, because you can't do that when you're continually breaking the suspension of disbelief.

If we we're making bets here I would side with you on "won't BE used to tell deep stories or improve immersion". But I don't really believe that it cannot be used for these things. Think about how often you've been immersed in a game world with the most rediculous of controls. I know PC gamers may not realize this but pecking away at a keyboard and mouse really isn't much like running down corridors chasing vortagaunts and belting away with your submachine gun. But by appropriatley utilizing the control scheme they draw you into the world and gradually you stop thinking about the control device itself. The keyboard was certainly not originally designed for games.

If somone utilizes Kinect's precision properly and gives you wide ranges of "inputs" with subtle movements they can make something other than the party game. For me the big limiter is, say movement in an FPS, I'd still prefer a stick under my thumb, and a trigger under a finger, which would be getting us closer to the Wii or Move again.

The price is too high for a day one buy in from me though. I'm certianly not going to shell out $150 in the hopes that enough devs will "get it" to make my purchase worthwhile. $100 was my limit on this thing, especially if it's a 2 player max.

hyperdrachen:
snip

I suppose you have a point, it wouldn't be impossible, per se, but it would require a lot more effort. You see, with PC's and consoles, your body is mostly sedentary. The only things that are really moving are your fingers and hands, everything else is mostly still. What's really working is your mind. However, with Kinect, pretty much every movement is going to be full body. Full body movements have a nasty habit of essentially breaking your link with the TV screen and making you realize that you're just playing a game. As you said, it wouldn't be impossible to utilize that for deep games, but it would be incredibly difficult and time consuming, and realistically, most developers are going to shirk that challenge because they'll make just as much money churning out shallow minigames, if not more. Pretty much the same thing that happened with the Wii.

I can't think of a single game on the Wii that utilized only the motion capabilities, none of the buttons, and managed to be as deep and complex (sorry I keep using those words) as an equivalent game on any other platform. The best Wii games in my opinion, and there are quite a few, all have one thing in common. The motion part of the controller wasn't the primary control method. Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, No More Heroes, Monster Hunter 3, things like that.

I refuse to believe the Kinect is even a thing, let alone that it's fun.

OK maybe it would be fun, but it's still a gimmick.

"Snake, to climb a ladder you... uhh..."

Help colonel finish this sentence, keep in mind that this installment of Metal Gear Solid is on the Kinect and remember that ladder climbing scene in MGS3.

I look forward to your replies.

I'm interested, but I would never buy it at $150. Besides I have a Wii that does the same thing that just sits uselessly in my room.

It may be fun, but I want immersive games with a stunning atmosphere and a strong narrative.

Kinect won't provide those, nor will anything motion control based - they're immersion breaking.

I am forced by this to remember that game consoles are not just for hardcore gamers such as myself, and are also for little kids. I personally accept kinect from microsoft because I understand that this is microsoft's effort to steal back nintendo's market - and I believe that kinect is a very nice piece of software, regardless of whether I like it or not. So I hope Microsoft gets their child market back from microsoft, even though I shall never touch kinect.

Yvl9921:
Wasn't this the guy who had Wii Sports Resort on his top 5 games list of 2009?

Hey that game is fun as hell, I still play it when I want to shoot baskets or blow off some steam slicing up dudes. Just because a game doesn't fit into your tastes doesn't mean it's not fun for anyone.

I, for example, don't like modern JRPGs for the most part, but I can still appreciate that the John Funks of the world will.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here