I didnt see one, but I think Kinect deserves its own really seeing as its pretty much a separate thing from XBox.

 

I picked it up today and have had a quick play around on Kinect Adventures. The first thing I've realized is I need more room and because of this, it was a bit glitchy so be warned, if you are putting it in a bedroom which is small, or a living room like mine which is arranged in a way where the TV works width ways rather than length ways of the room, your in the shit. I'm going to have to rearrange the living room which is a huge pain in the ass.

 

Got a bunch of games to try though, looking forward to it. So far, so good!

Tried it, hated it. Like every other motion sensitive controller it's unimmersive and just a gimmick.

Adventures is the worst of the lot I've played, although Rallyball isn't too bad. Probably get Kinect Sports in a couple of weeks, it's better than anything Wii.

 

 

Very immersive.

I very much hope it works well, I'd like to see more innovation in gaming and this oculd be the push needed. Assuming it lives up to its promise.

moving and game playing don't go well.

Adventures is the worst of the lot I've played, although Rallyball isn't too bad. Probably get Kinect Sports in a couple of weeks, it's better than anything Wii.

 

 

Very immersive.

 

I'm going to have a go on Sports tonight, have you played it yet? If not, I'll let you know what I think tomorrow.

Yeah, played all the events bar boxing but it was just a play mode, no extra modes tournament modes anything like that. Microsoft disabled Kinect Sports for the testers last week along with Joyride. We got Adventures free yesterday with achievements though, but it's meh.

I very much hope it works well, I'd like to see more innovation in gaming and this oculd be the push needed. Assuming it lives up to its promise.

This isn't an innovation in gaming, it's like a detour. Games should not be about controllers, they should be about the games.

No, its not an innovation, but it could lead to one. And controllers are part and parcel of gaming, each type lends itself to enchancing or ruining games regardless of plot or anything else.

This isn't an innovation in gaming, it's like a detour. Games should not be about controllers, they should be about the games.

 

Nonsense. Games experiences change depending on controllers. Some games can only be played with certain controllers. Try playing Steel Batallion with a NES pad.

Nonsense. Games experiences change depending on controllers. Some games can only be played with certain controllers. Try playing Steel Batallion with a NES pad.

You know very well that's not the point I was trying to make. Nor did you even do a good job calling me out on nonsense. Nor have you even made a point! Steel Battalion was about the game, the controller was just a way to connect you to the game. Even then the controller was a gimmick that offered nothing in terms of advancement for gaming.

 

Look at the Playstation. Until the introduction of the sixaxis the controller was exactly the same (And still pretty much is). Yet for 16 years we've gone from games like Ico to Heavy Rain to Gran Turismo all using the exact same controller and the game experience was still different. Games need to be about games, controllers are just a way to connect you to the game. Explain to me how the hell something like the Heavy Rain experience is going to be improved with PlayStation MOVE. Is the story suddenly going to make sense?

If controllers and control methods dont matter then explain the family appeal of the very simple Wii Sports. There are better bowling sims (for example), but its the method of interaction and control that makes the appeal.

Its no less or more a gimmick than any other control pad. Some people will like it, some wont, but to say its not about the control pad etc is completely stupid because the appeal of it that adds to the games is the fact you dont use a control pad.

If controllers and control methods dont matter then explain the family appeal of the very simple Wii Sports. There are better bowling sims (for example), but its the method of interaction and control that makes the appeal.

 

It's a Wii Game it has no appeal :lol

 

I would be joking but I really don't like these game. I'd really like to go out and bowl with other people as opposed to relying on a piece of technology.

Ah, are we going to have another thread full of Dante's personal preference disguised as a technical point?

I'd really like to go out and bowl with other people as opposed to relying on a piece of technology.

This type of f*cking stupid comment gets on my tits, its as if you are saying that people who play Wii bowling for example, do it because he dont have real mates to go and do real bowling with, or something equally as retarded, and before you say "I didnt say that", the insinuation is there.

 

Thats like saying "I'd prefer to to go Afghan and actually shoot insurgents rather than having to rely on Call of Duty", its bent.

You know very well that's not the point I was trying to make. Nor did you even do a good job calling me out on nonsense. Nor have you even made a point! Steel Battalion was about the game, the controller was just a way to connect you to the game. Even then the controller was a gimmick that offered nothing in terms of advancement for gaming.

 

Look at the Playstation. Until the introduction of the sixaxis the controller was exactly the same (And still pretty much is). Yet for 16 years we've gone from games like Ico to Heavy Rain to Gran Turismo all using the exact same controller and the game experience was still different. Games need to be about games, controllers are just a way to connect you to the game. Explain to me how the hell something like the Heavy Rain experience is going to be improved with PlayStation MOVE. Is the story suddenly going to make sense?

 

You are making no sense though. Video games are a blank canvas, there is no set rules of what a game should be, nor should there ever be. The playstation one controller wasn't even the same at all, so you've already lost your point. There was no analogue stick when it was first released. The controller changed to suit the evolution of games at the time.

 

You ask how move will improve games that weren't originally designed for move in the first place? What do you want me to tell you?

 

Kinect is a skeletal tracking system, that lets you play a different style of game that would be impossible on a control pad. There are no older games coming out for it that are adapting the new control system. It's where developers get creative and think differently to a pad, and therefore new experiences are invented. It's been out a week, where games that used control pads have been out for about 40 years.

 

Who's forcing you to play anything with a Kinect or a Move anyway?

When did Move come out and how much is it? Do you get 2 of the wand things or just one?

 

Anybody remember when Natal was first mentioned the price people were stating was £30 quid? :lol

Move came out ages ago, months anyway. 2 move controllers will cost you £60, the 2 navigator (nunchuk) are £60 and the Camera is £30 with a game.

Ah, are we going to have another thread full of Dante's personal preference disguised as a technical point?

Well I could shut up and just hop on the bandwagon of lathing Kinect with tongue baths because it's impressive technology or I could talk about my on experience with Kinect and why I was unimpressed.

 

This type of f*cking stupid comment gets on my tits, its as if you are saying that people who play Wii bowling for example, do it because he dont have real mates to go and do real bowling with, or something equally as retarded, and before you say "I didnt say that", the insinuation is there.

No I say it because I can;t wrap my head around creating a game when it's perfectly simple to go out and do the actual activity without any sort of penalty. And you're creating the insinuation in your own head, so I can say "I didn't say that" because frankly I didn't, you are trying to make it seem like I did.

 

Thats like saying "I'd prefer to to go Afghan and actually shoot insurgents rather than having to rely on Call of Duty", its bent.

No it isn't. Stop using reductio ad asurdum.

 

You are making no sense though. Video games are a blank canvas, there is no set rules of what a game should be, nor should there ever be.

I understand this, and I love video games that abandon conventions, like Shadow of the Colossus. I just don't like where this motion sensitive thing is going. Yes it's an alternative now but look at the PS3, it's incorporated the sixaxis which is more or less a weak, restricted motion control and the bloody thing is nauseating. Motion control is appealing to casual gamers who couldn't have given a damn about gaming until it got all family friendly and started to ignore the fan bases. That and it is unimmersive. Defend this all you like but by getting up and moving around apstically you will be dran to the fact that you are playing a game as opposed to sitting there playing on a controller and having your brain shut down and focusing only on the game. Game technology needs to be moving towards making simpler movements so you remove or simplify the process between thought and on screen action and raise immersion.

 

And I will stand by this. Games need to be about the games. Any medium should be about the story it's telling rather than the medium. Would To Kill a Mockingbird become better or different if it was etched in stone?

The playstation one controller wasn't even the same at all, so you've already lost your point. There was no analogue stick when it was first released. The controller changed to suit the evolution of games at the time.

My Playstation one controller had an analog stick, iIve never seen one without it. alright, that's still over a decade of the same controller and vastly different game experiences

It's a Wii Game it has no appeal :lol

 

I would be joking but I really don't like these game. I'd really like to go out and bowl with other people as opposed to relying on a piece of technology.

 

And? YOU dont OTHERS do. This isnt about opinion its about facts and your argument is based on what you like rather than what actually is.

 

 

No it isn't. Stop using reductio ad asurdum.

 

 

If you must try to be a smart arse at least try to spell the Latin right.

 

 

I understand this, and I love video games that abandon conventions, like Shadow of the Colossus. I just don't like where this motion sensitive thing is going. Yes it's an alternative now but look at the PS3, it's incorporated the sixaxis which is more or less a weak, restricted motion control and the bloody thing is nauseating.

 

And its used in a huge minority of games. In fact I cant remember the last game I played that used it.

 

 

Motion control is appealing to casual gamers who couldn't have given a damn about gaming until it got all family friendly and started to ignore the fan bases.

 

Oh no! More people getting into gaming! The world will end!

Seriously, this is a stupid point from you Dante, of course they want more people to get into gaming. And how it 'ignored the fan base' is beyond me.

 

That and it is unimmersive.

 

Wont that depend oon the game?

 

Defend this all you like but by getting up and moving around apstically you will be dran to the fact that you are playing a game as opposed to sitting there playing on a controller and having your brain shut down and focusing only on the game. Game technology needs to be moving towards making simpler movements so you remove or simplify the process between thought and on screen action and raise immersion.

 

And doing the motion and having it copied on screen will be less natural than doing something totally different? Talk about a total lack of understanding of how the mind works.

 

 

And I will stand by this. Games need to be about the games. Any medium should be about the story it's telling rather than the medium. Would To Kill a Mockingbird become better or different if it was etched in stone?

 

And some people will say its better in film form than as a book.

 

 

You're wrong. Simply wrong, no 'opinion' no arguments, you are wrong.