why kinect won't work for hardcore games
Published Wednesday 7 Jul 2010 11:20pm |
11
Tags: kinect, xbox 360, microsoft, motion sensing
Many a time have I heard xbox fanboys hail kinect as the next evolution for game control and that the ps3 move and wii will seem inferiior because of its superior tech. I am here to point out that although kinect does have many amazing features, hardcore games are not going to work unless a whole new type of game is invented using an incredibly innovative control scheme (highly unlikely seeing as this would cost the developers of such a game a lot of money with no guarantee of success).
First off seeing as first person shooters seem to be a large part of the hardcore market these days, how would it work on kinect? Would you hold your arms out like you are pretending to hold a gun and move your arms to aim? If this was the case, how would you move? Some people would claim you could pretend to run in this case how would you control the direction of which way you are running if you are already turning your body to aim? None of this takes into account more complex controls like shooting. One such control option could be moving your finger like you are pulling a trigger, although I highly doubt kinect could detect finger movements of a couple of centimetres , especially when there is another hand in front holding the rest of the gun(if kinect can detect this consistently I commend Microsoft making for a brilliant piece of technology). Then there is reloading, hiding behind cover, changing to a secondary weapon, throwing grenades, using a scope, changing between a run and a walk and many other controls that need to be incorporated into the game. I just cannot conceive how such a complex control scheme can be incorporated into a system with no buttons. I realize this is just one genre and for many others it may work but for shooters and 3d action games I cannot conceive how this could possibly be deployed in an easy to use yet very accurate control scheme. Both the wii and the move have countered these problems with motion sensing by adding it onto more conventional button and analogue stick control schemes, essentially adding another dimension to the controls. What I see Microsoft doing is essentially throwing away old tried and tested schemes in an effort to seem different from the rest when all they seem to be doing is alienating their system from the rest of the market. Would the dualshock have been as successful as it is today if Sony had removed the face buttons and the d-pad and given us two sticks and rumble?
Another hole I see in the kinect system is how long periods of gameplay will work. For the wii and move it is possible to just sit down relax and control your games using motion sensing at the same time, but from early reports kinect has trouble with people sitting down. I’m not sure about you but if I get into a game it is not unreasonable for me to spend 2+ hours in one session. I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND 2 HOURS STANDING UP. Just standing for two hours may be borderline acceptable but from the looks of early games (nothing to get excited about) controlling will involve excersise and movement. To be honest if I wanted to spend two hours moving I would go for a bike ride or walk but when I want to play games it is usually to relax and for me jumping up and down and waving my arms around just isn’t relaxing.
I have heard some people say that “iphone games looked like they would have control scheme problems but look at them now”. This is a valid point but most iphone games work because they incorporate BUTTONS into the touch screen controls, some examples of this are GTA: CW, N.O.V.A and COD: Zombies. This is the approach taken by the wii and move by using both motion control and old school controls in one hybrid controller a greater experience can be achieved.
On a related note many fanboys are raving about the menu control options kinect will open up. First of all menu control still sees you scrolling through and selecting virtual on screen BUTTONS. Also the wii has had motion controlled menus for years now, although I admit their menus are a lot less complicated and overall a bit on the simple side, it still proves that kinect is really doing nothing new other than putting a fresh lick of paint on exitsting technology.
This is about the end of my rant, it is my opinion only and feel free to make your own and point out holes in mine, by criticisising others work you can only make it better. On a side note I do know that I seem and probably am a bit biased having never owned an xbox 360 and being a big fan of both Nintendo and sony.
COMMENTS (11)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ms-insists-you-can-sit-with-kinect-article
but I think most Kinect gaming experiences will involve standing as your movement is obviously restricted when sitting and unlike the other motion controllers, as you say, you haven't got gyroscopes, tilt sensors and buttons to supplement the camera based motion sensing. There's not going to be many "core" games that fully rely on Kinect because of this. For these games you need buttons. Wii (and I assume Move as it's so similar) only barely have enough as it is for most "core" games. People have said "but you can use a real controller while using Kinect". There's two problems with this approach. One, you need a controller than can split in two (like the wii-mote / nun chuck) or you have limited scope for movement while holding the controller and are limited to maybe heading tracking or the occasional hand signal/gesture. Two, the price, it hasn't been 100% confirmed yet but if it is even in the region of the (rumoured) USD150 it's a lot to pay for something that just supplements your controller with limited extra features. If you're paying that much you're gonna wanna being buying it for the games it's good at, like Harmonix's Dance Central.
Second, I don't think I've ever heard another 360 user "hail" the coming of Kinect... normally it's quite the opposite. If anything, discussions about Kinect are usually accompanied by rolling of eyes, groans, and impatient questioning on the release date of unrelated high-calibre games and products that people would actually, you know, like, WANT.
Anyhow,
"there is reloading, hiding behind cover, changing to a secondary weapon, throwing grenades, using a scope, changing between a run and a walk and many other controls that need to be incorporated into the game. I just cannot conceive how such a complex control scheme can be incorporated into a system with no buttons."
The answer is: it won't work. If a dev ever makes it work, I'll eat my own ass.
If devs found a clever way to incorporate Kinect features into games, say alongside normal controllers, the core likely wouldn't mind it as much - for instance, using specific hand motions in rpgs to launch different magics would be kinda interesting, aside from the fact you've now lost pad control with one hand. And the whole "you have to stand" thing shows just how little about their primary demographic they really know.
What's also unnecessary is the pointless incorporation of Kinect features for the sake of Kinect features (the Forza-Kinect demo was a fantastic example of why it won't work). I expect that that would be a semi-friendly "suggestion" from the bigwigs at MS to make sure that their shameless Wii cash-in isn't a complete financial disasater - "your yet-to-be-released game for our console must utilise Wii, I mean, Kinect, features, or else".
First of all, interesting, writing a heated blog about a peripheral for a console you don't own - do you ever use one? I'm not slamming you here man - it's just kinda funny, is all.
Second, I don't think I've ever heard another 360 user "hail" the coming of Kinect... normally it's quite the opposite. If anything, discussions about Kinect are usually accompanied by rolling of eyes, groans, and impatient questioning on the release date of unrelated high-calibre games and products that people would actually, you know, like, WANT.
Anyhow,
"there is reloading, hiding behind cover, changing to a secondary weapon, throwing grenades, using a scope, changing between a run and a walk and many other controls that need to be incorporated into the game. I just cannot conceive how such a complex control scheme can be incorporated into a system with no buttons."
The answer is: it won't work. If a dev ever makes it work, I'll eat my own ass.
If devs found a clever way to incorporate Kinect features into games, say alongside normal controllers, the core likely wouldn't mind it as much - for instance, using specific hand motions in rpgs to launch different magics would be kinda interesting, aside from the fact you've now lost pad control with one hand. And the whole "you have to stand" thing shows just how little about their primary demographic they really know.
What's also unnecessary is the pointless incorporation of Kinect features for the sake of Kinect features (the Forza-Kinect demo was a fantastic example of why it won't work). I expect that that would be a semi-friendly "suggestion" from the bigwigs at MS to make sure that their shameless Wii cash-in isn't a complete financial disasater - "your yet-to-be-released game for our console must utilise Wii, I mean, Kinect, features, or else".
Expensive peripherals are always a gamble - didn't those guys who released that skating game which came with a skateboard controller sell approximately no copies of it? I could be mistaken but that's what I remember.
I mean one of their biggest titles is little more than Ninten(Big)Cats(?). You know you get a big cat, like a tiger, and pretend to pat and play with him/her. They had Cirque Du Soleil do like interpretive dance to try and sell their product, where all Nintendo had was their product... On display. I think Move is pretty much bang on, but even then I can't see how essentially the same experience is going to sell, especially in a market saturated by Wii's.
So yeah, its pretty clear, for this gen at least, Nintendo had it bang on the first time. I'm looking forward to what the 3 bigs bring to the table next round.
In terms of use... this should kick some serious @$$
(but only if you like motion controllers... i personally do not)
I think what that the suggestion is that the Kinect application of technology is newer, and therefore superior in that sense.
Move is an more technically proficient version of a concept that Nintendo started years ago.
I think that was the suggestion. It all depends on how you look at it. In terms of the ability of the two technologies to pleasure women, the Move is clearly superior.
;-)
Subscribe to the RSS Feed for this Blog
Find My Forum Content
Add garbagemuncher to your friends list
Log in to comment or Register now!