Why do all game sites keep gushing over Kinect's voice commands?

[Howard_Casto]

I've noticed this trend on nearly every gaming site I've visited recently, with editors writing love letters about how you can navigate the 360's dash via voice command.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a tech head I see the appeal in the novelty of it all.  Of course then common sense kicks in.  I'm pretty sure the device won't turn on your tv or set it to the correct hdmi input, so when you start up your 360 you are going to have a remote and/or controller in your hand already.  So you are telling me it is more convieniant to set these responsive, quick navigation tools YOU ALREADY HAVE IN YOUR FRIKKIN HAND down for some merely decent, slow, and round-about voice control?

I mean yeah, if m$ had designed the do-dad to controls everything in your house or at least everything in your entertainment center I could definately see the usefulness and appeal, but as-is it appears to be a exercise in "rube goldberg-ism."

[SNAAKE]

voice command thing is just a stupid gimmick...

[Necroticart]

and here I thought kinect was the stupid gimmick

[SNAAKE]

that too but it has potential. I dont have kinect yet so I really dont know how it works but if there is wiimote type of controller then we'll see better games in the future.

for example, wiimote made resident evil 4 a new game. yeah I want more of those.

[northerngames]

They just may be geeked becuase it actually works correctly for a change.

[massive88]

I've noticed this trend on nearly every gaming site I've visited recently, with editors writing love letters about how you can navigate the 360's dash via voice command.

There are times when I am watching TV, and want to switch to streaming netflix through my Xbox.  My setup auto switches when the xbox turns on, so not having to get the xbox controller out to make all that happen could be ok.

But yeah, mostly a gimmick.

[Howard_Casto]

Not that I'm aware of, but I don't follow it that closely.  Yeah it seems odd to me that the 360 is the least hackable console out there.  I mean yeah it's possible, but it's a rather silly hardware jimmy-rigg to get it working and then you can never really use live or update your console ever again without difficulty.

I agrre with snake in that I think kinect itself might have some potential.  The thing is it'll be a very limited set of games and right now the tech is too expensive.  (150 bucks for a glorified web cam so I can pet a tiger or dance like an idiot).  Ironically I think that sony and microsofts entries will be qutie suggessful NEXT gen.  Right now they are about as worthless as the wii motion plus, in that, while it's an impressive piece of tech, there aren't any games to use it with.  Of course nintendo will fix this problem later next year with the new zelda game.

[ahofle]

Zzzzz on this one until they invent a force feedback controller with suction.

 

Seriously.  If ever there was a window of opportunity for adult game making companies like Mystique it would be now.

[shmokes]

I was playing virtual drums by standing in front of a camera and waving my arms around 20 years ago.  The Halcyon had voice control.

Zzzzz on this one until they invent a force feedback controller with suction.

The product you seek exists.  Rather than suction it uses conveyor belts, but it plugs into a USB port and is syncronized with porn.  I read an article about it on Gizmodo (prob linked to Fleshbot) and the IIRC the writer pretty much said it was pretty effing amazing.  It was super expensive, though.  Like 2 or 3 hundred dollars or something.  Also, it was probably a PITA to clean.

edit: It's called Real Touch.  (That link is SFW so long as people can't read your screen.  No bad pictures or anything.

[Malenko]

all I know is that you'd be inhere bitching how it doesnt have voice commands if it didnt have them.

[DJ_Izumi]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a tech head I see the appeal in the novelty of it all.  Of course then common sense kicks in.  I'm pretty sure the device won't turn on your tv or set it to the correct hdmi input, so when you start up your 360 you are going to have a remote and/or controller in your hand already.

\

Actually it could, since all hardware these days is half-awake when turned off anyway.  The PS3 and other hardware for example can send a 'Hey you, wake up and switch to me' command over HDMI to the TV as it powers on.  So you just turn the PS3 on and the TV turns on.  Of course assuming the TV supports this.

It'd be easy enough to have the 360 sit half asleep dedicating a minute ammount of CPU power to processing audio it hears in the room untill it hears 'Xbox, turn on' and brings the machine to fully boot while telling the TV over HDMI to turn on.

[SNAAKE]

The product you seek exists.  Rather than suction it uses conveyor belts, but it plugs into a USB port and is syncronized with porn.  I read an article about it on Gizmodo (prob linked to Fleshbot) and the IIRC the writer pretty much said it was pretty effing amazing.  It was super expensive, though.  Like 2 or 3 hundred dollars or something.  Also, it was probably a PITA to clean.

edit: It's called Real Touch.  (That link is SFW so long as people can't read your screen.  No bad pictures or anything.

order one right now

[RandyT]

If you don't think the Kinect is a fun and innovative technology, then you either A) are a Sony / Nintendo fan boy, B) Haven't played the games, and/or C) are one of those poor kids in gym class who couldn't do a proper jumping jack, but can occasionally convince both thumbs to do your bidding, so your videogaming life revolves around that basic limitation. 

It's pretty amazing stuff.  I like the PS3 Move as well, but it's a very Wii like experience.  Just one the Wii was aspiring to be, but never quite made it.  The Kinect is a new gaming experience that really needs to be tried before one jumps to conclusions about it.

[shmokes]

I think the Kinect looks pretty dumb, but I might just not be thinking outside the box enough.  The dance game looks pretty damned cool, actually, and demonstrates a ton of potential.  But in terms of the types of games that interest me, adventure / narrative heavy games, I think people will have a tough time making games with much depth to them.  It seems like something that is going to be used primarily for party games or maybe adding a cool feature or two to a game that is primarily controlled with a traditional gamepad.

[RandyT]

I think the Kinect looks pretty dumb, but I might just not be thinking outside the box enough. 

I'm pretty sure that this is what will give the technology the biggest challenge to being accepted.  Yes, you will probably look silly to others while playing.  You are, after all, interacting physically with something that isn't physical.  The most amazing thing about this, after playing a while, is the very real disconnect with the physical, which counterintuitively provides a more immersive experience.  Would it be improved with true physical feedback?  Sure, but a vibrating box in your hand doesn't really provide the feedback necessary to enhance the experience, and therefore becomes more of a distraction, serving to draw you out. 

Obviously, this type of control will not lend itself well to all genres of gaming.  I agree that it will be most effective as an augmentation device for many of them.  I also agree that the potential is one of the most attractive things about the technology.  It's a first step, by a company who has the resources to make the necessary commitment to properly advancing it.  There's no reason that a physical item could not be used in front of the system, and to have that item be recognized and used for control, just like any body part. 

Still, there is something incredibly satisfying about being able to accurately navigate the innovative menu system in Dance Central, without even speaking of the great entertainment value present in the game itself. 

Shmokes's device already takes care of the other end.

[shmokes]

The main problem I see with making a Kinect game with much depth is it's inability to control character movement.  It can see gestures, but not sustained movement.  Because, of course, if you keep moving you end up walking/running out of the room.  How do you make a Zelda or God of War or Mass Effect or Grim Fandango or Mario or Halo or . . . you get my drift.  I suppose you could take a step forward and the character will keep walking forward till you step back to the dead-zone, like you're standing on an invisible DDR pad.  But then you're getting into Power Glove levels of suck.  

Thus, I think the device will be used almost exclusively for party games.  And party games can be cool.  But they're usually pretty shallow.  

Also, the living room requirements for the Kinect are bombastically stupid.  You can't have a coffee table?  You need 8-9 feet for multiplayer, and if you don't have at least 7 you simply can't even use the device at all?  That's just . . . are they serious?  Who wants to move the coffee table every time they play videogames?  In fact, that's just one more thing that will lead this device to be used exclusively for party games.  Cos after the novelty wears off you're probably only going to move the coffee table out of the way for this thing when you have a bunch of friends coming over.

[shmokes]

Only thing I can conceive of is some kind of giant trackball that you stood on.

The product you seek exists.  Rather than suction a giant trackball it uses conveyor belts, lol.

It's called CyberWalk.  The good news is that it doesn't require any more space than the Kinect. 

[RandyT]

The main problem I see with making a Kinect game with much depth is it's inability to control character movement.  It can see gestures, but not sustained movement.

Yeah....um...it's not a "holodeck".  Gestures are all that are needed, so long as the hardware can keep up.  Walking in place is as good as walking.  If it can recognize complex dance moves, it can sure as hell interpret movement gestures.  Running, jumping, ducking, reaching for objects, climbing ladders, etc, are all well within the realm of  this technology.

Because, of course, if you keep moving you end up walking/running out of the room.  How do you make a Zelda or God of War or Mass Effect or Grim Fandango or Mario or Halo or . . . you get my drift.  I suppose you could take a step forward and the character will keep walking forward till you step back to the dead-zone, like you're standing on an invisible DDR pad. But then you're getting into Power Glove levels of suck.  

It's obvious that you have some pretty narrow definitions for how a game must be controlled, or even what types of games are worth playing.  I think it's safe to assume that the Kinect, or anything like it, will not be your "cup of tea".  But it's capable of a lot more than you seem to be convincing yourself is the case.

Also, the living room requirements for the Kinect are bombastically stupid.  You can't have a coffee table?  You need 8-9 feet for multiplayer, and if you don't have at least 7 you simply can't even use the device at all?  That's just . . . are they serious?  Who wants to move the coffee table every time they play videogames?  In fact, that's just one more thing that will lead this device to be used exclusively for party games.  Cos after the novelty wears off you're probably only going to move the coffee table out of the way for this thing when you have a bunch of friends coming over.

Meh.  I think this is similar to saying "Who's going to bother to put on all that cold weather gear, just to go outside and ride a snowmobile?", or any other rhetorical question involving an activity which requires any sort of preparation.  The fact is, this type of gaming is much more active, and therefore requires space in which to be that.  It's not going to be something that will work well in a child's small bedroom, or a studio apartment.  Likewise, a lot of jumping about or other physical activities wouldn't be very safe to do in such small confines either.  It doesn't require much more space than one would normally need to be "physical", and that is what is important.  Comparing it to the space required to twiddle a joystick is like comparing the space required to play tiddly winks and throwing a frisbee.  They are distinctly different types of activities.

[shmokes]

Randy, I don't mean to start an argument with you.  I'd love to be proved wrong and I already said that I may simply be not thinking outside the box.  However, I think you are being WAY too optimistic about what this thing can do, and you may also be flirting with confusing what it can do with what it is reasonable to expect it to actually do.

As far as walking in place to control, say, a third-person action game . . . that only sounds good at first blush.  How do you gracefully handle turning?  How do you run your character in an arc?  How do you strafe an enemy?  How do you turn around to face someone behind you?  What you are describing would actually be unusably clunky in all but the slowest, simplest games.

As for the living room thing, it's not the same as having some thing to use outside.  Cos it's not outside.  It's meant to incorporate with your existing living room.  That's a whole different dynamic.  When someone sells you something that has to be used in your living room, you typically want it to be compatible with your living room.  People do not like rearranging their living room furniture.  And they don't like doing it over and over again every time they want to play a game.  Of course some people will, but A LOT of people won't.  This will hurt the Kindects adoption rate severely, as will the fact that people with small living rooms can't use it at all.  I sure hope there aren't many people in the 18-35 year old range (largest demographic for videogames) who have small living rooms.  Wait . . . where do college kids live again?

[shateredsoul]

how do you walk in place? does it come with a mini treadmill too?

seriously that sounds awkward, it would be cool to see a fighting game take advantage of this.  A basic fighting game without those special moves, just kicks, punches, uppercuts, and whatever a real person can do.

[RandyT]

how do you walk in place?

In the military, it's called "marking time".  It's marching without going anywhere.  You can do it in "double time" as well (running).

seriously that sounds awkward, it would be cool to see a fighting game take advantage of this.  A basic fighting game without those special moves, just kicks, punches, uppercuts, and whatever a real person can do.

...and you may also be flirting with confusing what it can do with what it is reasonable to expect it to actually do.

If it can do it, why is it unreasonable to expect it to?

As far as walking in place to control, say, a third-person action game . . . that only sounds good at first blush.  How do you gracefully handle turning?  How do you run your character in an arc?  How do you strafe an enemy?  How do you turn around to face someone behind you?  What you are describing would actually be unusably clunky in all but the slowest, simplest games.

I don't expect full displacement of a traditional controller of some sort for those, or similar scenarios.  But you sound like you have a need for the "gesture" to fully mimic the real-world act.  It does not have to be that way at all.  For example, you could turn right at a predetermined rate by simply turning your body at a 45 degree angle.  It can actually pick this up.  Strafing could be as simple as an arm extension in the direction you want to strafe.  I'm not saying that these would be the best gestures, only that it's possible with the hardware.  It sees in three dimensions, so extending an arm across the body, crossed legs, hands in front of face, etc, are all recognized.  Realistically, a controller of some sort would help, though.

As for the living room thing, it's not the same as having some thing to use outside.  Cos it's not outside.

No, it's not.  Not sure why or how you connected the outdoors with the discussion.  It's about preparation for a pastime.  If you want to do something, you go through the steps required to do it.  Saddle the horse, put on the B-Ball shorts and shoes and drive to the court, etc, etc..  Moving the coffee table is a small deal compared to what folks do for fun.

When someone sells you something that has to be used in your living room, you typically want it to be compatible with your living room.

While I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, honestly, if you don't have the space, move on, nothing to see here.  But if the space can be "made" and someone wishes to "join the party", then that is exactly what they will do.  How many people have the space for a video projector?  That must kill projector sales, right?  But it doesn't seem to be an issue for those who want one.  The same will apply here.

[shmokes]

While I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, honestly, if you don't have the space, move on, nothing to see here.  But if the space can be "made" and someone wishes to "join the party", then that is exactly what they will do.  How many people have the space for a video projector?  That must kill projector sales, right?  But it doesn't seem to be an issue for those who want one.  The same will apply here.

Unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely), that's not really how it works.  Kinect is incompatible with pretty much all of Manhattan.  It's incompatible with every dorm room on the planet.  It's incompatible with most college kids' apartments.  It's incompatible with the living rooms of most poor people.  But those people don't stop being relevant to Kinect.  They matter because Kinect needs critical mass in order for developers to take it seriously.  In order for Kinect development to be taken seriously, developers/publishers need to see that those games can be profitable.  When Microsoft makes a product that necessarily splits the 360 market, but then voluntarily splits it again, and substantially, by making it simply incompatible with a huge chunk of potential customers living rooms . . . it hurts sales.  Clearly.  Obviously.  There is simply no way you could seriously deny that.  And this doesn't just have implications for those people who can't use Kinect.  It has serious consequences for people who can and do use Kinect.

[shmokes]

If it can do it, why is it unreasonable to expect it to?

Because it's not elegant.  It may be capable of controlling a character in a 3rd person game by having you march in place and run in place and turn quickly 45 degrees to make the character, I don't know, turn around or turn 90 degrees or turn at a pre-selected speed until you face forward again (which would be awful, of course).  And maybe you could run in place and then point your arm at the floor in a 45 degree angle to strafe, etc.  But it's not graceful.  It would be clunky and imprecise.  What if you're holding a shotgun?  How many other gestures must you learn that are entirely arbitrary (e.g., pointing at the floor has nothing to do with strafing).  On a controller you have a set number of buttons and on-screen actions can be mapped to any one of those fixed buttons.  On a person you have an infinite number of potential gestures.  A game must use gestures that are either intuitive, like a frisbee throwing motion in order to throw an in-game frisbee, or they need to limit the gestures to what can be realistically learned and remembered by the average purchaser.

In other words, maybe it can be done.  But if it's not a good idea, then it won't be done.

[RandyT]

Unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely), that's not really how it works.  Kinect is incompatible with pretty much all of Manhattan.  It's incompatible with every dorm room on the planet.  It's incompatible with most college kids' apartments.  It's incompatible with the living rooms of most poor people.  But those people don't stop being relevant to Kinect.  They matter because Kinect needs critical mass in order for developers to take it seriously.  In order for Kinect development to be taken seriously, developers/publishers need to see that those games can be profitable.  When Microsoft makes a product that necessarily splits the 360 market, but then voluntarily splits it again, and substantially, by making it simply incompatible with a huge chunk of potential customers living rooms . . . it hurts sales.  Clearly.  Obviously.  There is simply no way you could seriously deny that.  And this doesn't just have implications for those people who can't use Kinect.  It has serious consequences for people who can and do use Kinect.

Shmokes, I have a small living room, I own a Kinect, and I have about 5 hours on it so far.  All this "needs too much space" idiocy almost kept me from buying one, but it turned out to be a total non-issue.  It does help that I recently re-arranged my living space (to make playing the Wii more reasonable) and mounted the plasma over the fireplace, so the TV is literally on the wall.  If I had my old 3-tube HD projection monster, it might have been a bigger issue. But probably not, as the distance required starts at the sensors.  It's trivial to put small shelf on the wall, just above the TV, to gain the distance required.

I have seen complaints about the space all over, and they are primarily from the Wii and Sony fanboys who don't own one and don't care about reality.  Did you know that the PS3 Move also has a camera?  Did you also know that Sony recommends a distance of 5 - 9 feet from the camera for games that need to see your whole person?  So there is no difference here.  You are dealing with a camera, so physics necessarily come into play.  Not everyone will be able to take advantage of this type of technology due to that, just as not every species on the planet will be able to fly under their own power.  That's the breaks.

If it can do it, why is it unreasonable to expect it to?

Because it's not elegant.  It may be capable of controlling a character in a 3rd person game by having you march in place and run in place and turn quickly 45 degrees to make the character, I don't know, turn around or turn 90 degrees or turn at a pre-selected speed until you face forward again (which would be awful, of course).  And maybe you could run in place and then point your arm at the floor in a 45 degree angle to strafe, etc.  But it's not graceful.  It would be clunky and imprecise.  What if you're holding a shotgun?  How many other gestures must you learn that are entirely arbitrary (e.g., pointing at the floor has nothing to do with strafing).  On a controller you have a set number of buttons and on-screen actions can be mapped to any one of those fixed buttons.  On a person you have an infinite number of potential gestures.  A game must use gestures that are either intuitive, like a frisbee throwing motion in order to throw an in-game frisbee, or they need to limit the gestures to what can be realistically learned and remembered by the average purchaser.

In other words, maybe it can be done.  But if it's not a good idea, then it won't be done.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but reality isn't too elegant either.  In "real life", you will never have the twitchy mobility you are capable of with a thumbstick.   Again, you are applying the artificial limitation of real word analogs.  Still "thinking in the box", so to speak.   What is important in games is that all players are on equal footing, which they will be.

As for what can "realistically be remembered", it seems like you might be suffering from a little that yourself.  Remember all those combos in virtually every fighter for the last 10 years?  That hasn't slowed the sales of those games.  If you can do that, you can remember a few motion gestures.

At this point, you are really just digging for reasons why not, rather than why to.  It is unfortunate that some won't be able to use it, but that really doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done.  Folks in wheelchairs can't play soccer either.  Does that make Soccer bad or not worth playing?  Should the game be hobbled for all so those in wheelchairs can play as well?

[shmokes]

Sigh . . . you take everything so personally, Randy.  I don't want Kinect to fail.  And I don't particularly want a Move (though I do have a PS3), certainly not enough to buy one.  My comments about the space necessary for play come from Joystiq, Gizmodo and IGN reviews.  Joystiq in particular wrote in-depth about it in their mostly-positive Kinect review.

By the way, a 5-foot minimum between camera and sensor is not the same thing as a 7-foot minimum.  Particularly since it's actually an 8-foot minimum if you want to play multiplayer.  There are very few people who have less than 5 feet between their tv screen and the front of their sofa.  There are very many people who have less than 7-8 feet.  The difference is that very few people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Move, while very many people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Kinect.  That's hardly "no difference".

In any case, even if there was no difference, and the Move had an equivalent limitation, that would just mean that both systems were absurdly limited.  I don't see how flaws in the Move can nullify flaws in the Kinect.

A huge percentage of the obvious market for Kinect have living rooms that are incompatible with it.  I would not describe the percentage of wheelchair-bound people in the soccer market as huge.

What is important in games is that all players are on equal footing, which they will be.

No.  what is important in games is that they are fun.  And frustrating controls is not a recipe for success, even if the controls are equally frustrating for everyone involved.  I simply think that rather than attempting to make an action/adventure game with frustrating controls, developers will simply make all such games for gamepads (as far as current hardware is concerned) and develop party games for the Kinect.  And that just doesn't interest me much.

Also, you don't have a small living room.  I don't care whether you have 8 feet between sensor and sofa or 800 feet.  You have a living room that meets the requirements of the Kinect.  Many people don't.  What more is there to discuss?

[RandyT]

Sigh . . . you take everything so personally, Randy.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I'm not the only one engaged in this "back and forth"

By the way, a 5-foot minimum between camera and sensor is not the same thing as a 7-foot minimum.  Particularly since it's actually an 8-foot minimum if you want to play multiplayer.  There are very few people who have less than 5 feet between their tv screen and the front of their sofa.  There are very many people who have less than 7-8 feet.  The difference is that very few people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Move, while very many people have living rooms that are incompatible with the Kinect.  That's hardly "no difference".

You still aren't grokking the limitations to camera based technology.  These are going to be an issue regardless of the manufacturer, as it's a physics issue, not a design issue.  The "5 feet" number which you are attaching to the Move, is the absolute minimum distance.  This does not mean that you can play all of the Move games at a 5' distance.  It's the same with the Kinect.  If you are playing a driving game, or table tennis, or any game which does not require seeing the interaction your feet have with the floor, then the distance requirement shrinks considerably.  You can't take the minimum for one type of game and apply it as a gauge for different one.  But the "killer app" for the Kinect right now is Dance Central.  So understandably, people want to play this title and more space is required.

In any case, even if there was no difference, and the Move had an equivalent limitation, that would just mean that both systems were absurdly limited.  I don't see how flaws in the Move can nullify flaws in the Kinect.

It doesn't...unless you believe the insane chatter in the interwebz....

No.  what is important in games is that they are fun.  And frustrating controls is not a recipe for success, even if the controls are equally frustrating for everyone involved.  I simply think that rather than attempting to make an action/adventure game with frustrating controls, developers will simply make all such games for gamepads (as far as current hardware is concerned) and develop party games for the Kinect.  And that just doesn't interest me much.

If you mean "wouldn't interest you much if what you are predicting comes to pass", then that's fine.  That's still an unknown, even to you.  But your arguments indicate that you really don't see the true potential in the device, even though you say you do, and have damned it to "just party games".    My experience with the device tells me something else.

Developers will make games for the Kinect, even if Microsoft has to pay them to do it, and you can be certain that a very watchful eye will be on the developers to make sure your concerns are, mostly, unfounded.

Also, you don't have a small living room.  I don't care whether you have 8 feet between sensor and sofa or 800 feet.  You have a living room that meets the requirements of the Kinect.  Many people don't.  What more is there to discuss?

I have a narrow living room which just meets the requirements lengthwise, and have modified the layout, as I have already stated, to better suit the Wii.  No further changes to my space were necessary, other than moving the coffee table.  The living room is small, but I adjusted the layout to support this type of activity.  I did the same for my video projector.  I also re-arranged a room so the pinball machine had a reasonable spot to reside.  These are things you do if want to participate in these types of activities.  If you don't wish to, then there really is little more to discuss.....but the discussion is meandering pointlessly on, regardless of that fact.

[shmokes]

The Move camera doesn't track your skeleton.   It tracks a glowing orb.  It doesn't need to see your feet.  Sony's published minimum is 5 feet.  MS's published minimum is 7 feet.  That's not the same.  That's actually a huge difference.  There's no more reason to think that Sony is lying than there is to think that Microsoft is lying.

Here is an example of the "insane chatter on the interwebz"

It doesn't sound that insane, actually.

[RandyT]

The Move camera doesn't track your skeleton.   It tracks a glowing orb.  It doesn't need to see your feet.  Sony's published minimum is 5 feet.  MS's published minimum is 7 feet.  That's not the same.  That's actually a huge difference.  There's no more reason to think that Sony is lying than there is to think that Microsoft is lying.

Here is an example of the "insane chatter on the interwebz"

It doesn't sound that insane, actually.

So, there's a whole slew of possibilities on the Kinect for the added distance that you will never see on the PS3 Move.  Yet the Kinect will work in the same distance for those games Sony will be offering.   You are correct.  There is a huge difference, but not in the way you think.  BTW, you haven't really played with either of these devices, have you?  There's a 5' cord on the Move unit at my local BestBuy.  I made the mistake of entering the calibration screen before trying a round of table tennis.  I literally could not get far enough away from the machine, with the unit in hand, in order to complete calibration, and ended up stuck in the menu.

As for that space study, with the exception of maybe two of them, every one of those rooms could be altered to be more conducive to this type of entertainment.  A good handful shown are larger than mine.  This is exactly what I am talking about.

[shmokes]

So, there's a whole slew of possibilities on the Kinect for the added distance that you will never see on the PS3 Move.  

Of course there are.  And vice versa.  They're wildly different products.  But the fact is, you need the extra space for Kinect and I think that will substantially hamper its success.  And I think nearly every game released for the Kinect will be a party game, or something similarly shallow.  There will be the occasional game with depth that can be achieved within the Kinect's limitations, like the Harmonix's dance game.  But most will have little depth.

I really don't think that Kinect (or Move) will be very successful as peripherals, and frankly I don't think they're meant to be.  I think Nintendo dramatically changed the face of the videogame market with the Wii and Sony and Microsoft can't afford to go up against Nintendo's second-generation product with first-gen stuff.  Just compare Live with PSN if you have any doubt as to what happens when you try to do that.  I think the point of both products is to gain technical legitimacy in the market, not market success.  So when Xbox 3 and PS4 come out they will be coming at Nintendo on a level playing ground.

And, of course, you know how it goes.  If it's not successful, developers support it less, which makes it even less attractive to consumers, which makes developers shy away even more, which makes consumers shy away even more, etc.  I guess we'll see.

[RandyT]

Sony's published minimum is 5 feet.  MS's published minimum is 7 feet.  That's not the same.

See, now you are just making stuff up.....

[RandyT]

I think Nintendo dramatically changed the face of the videogame market with the Wii and Sony and Microsoft can't afford to go up against Nintendo's second-generation product with first-gen stuff.  Just compare Live with PSN if you have any doubt as to what happens when you try to do that.  I think the point of both products is to gain technical legitimacy in the market, not market success.  So when Xbox 3 and PS4 come out they will be coming at Nintendo on a level playing ground.

My opinion is that the Wii hit a brick wall with the technology.  When you start seeing clones of clones in the software catalog, it's officially over.  I also think Sony and Microsoft thought they had finally managed to squish Nintendo, and they pulled this stuff out of the bag.  The Wii only made it because of the novelty of the technology.  As an overall gaming system sans that novelty, it surely would have died.  Both of the "big two" have made a stride into those waters that I think they hope will crush Nintendo once and for all.  They now have technology that not only competes, but is better, and it's attached to a superior hardware platform.  If anything keeps Nintendo alive, it will be price.

[Howard_Casto]

I think Nintendo dramatically changed the face of the videogame market with the Wii and Sony and Microsoft can't afford to go up against Nintendo's second-generation product with first-gen stuff.  Just compare Live with PSN if you have any doubt as to what happens when you try to do that.  I think the point of both products is to gain technical legitimacy in the market, not market success.  So when Xbox 3 and PS4 come out they will be coming at Nintendo on a level playing ground.

My opinion is that the Wii hit a brick wall with the technology.  When you start seeing clones of clones in the software catalog, it's officially over.  I also think Sony and Microsoft thought they had finally managed to squish Nintendo, and they pulled this stuff out of the bag.  The Wii only made it because of the novelty of the technology.  As an overall gaming system sans that novelty, it surely would have died.  Both of the "big two" have made a stride into those waters that I think they hope will crush Nintendo once and for all.  They now have technology that not only competes, but is better, and it's attached to a superior hardware platform.  If anything keeps Nintendo alive, it will be price.

And with one fell swoop you just proved that you have ZERO insight into the gaming industry.  Nintendo will NEVER fail.  They might have slumps from time to time but they have single handedly created every single innovation in modern video gaming.  When m$ and sony finally surpass them on the motion controls department, they'll simply invent something new that blows them away.  And the fact that you are calling the wii, one of the best selling consoles in gaming history with some of the best selling and highest rated games in history a gimmick shows that you might just be biased against the nintendo.

Let's be blunt here... the ps3 and wii are 4 years old, the 360 is 5.  They all all getting a little old and it's about time for new consoles.  Nintendo is at the point to where they make actual full-length games that integrate motion controls. The 360 and ps3 are still at the "glorified tech demo" level with their motion devices right now, with the 360's lineup in particular looking really weak. Eventually they will get the hang of it, and by then nintendo will have released a new console and it won't matter.  Nintendo is incredibly smart about only using the needed technology and not the newest technology.  Their success in the handheld department is proof of that.

[Howard_Casto]

Regarding schmokes arguments, I agree 100% with him.  Kinect sounds great on paper... hands free gaming! Until you realize that in practically every gaming scenario the activity you are doing won't be hands free and you'll have to navigate across a map in some way. 

Let's take a look at some major gaming genres and see how they apply to kinect. 

Dance Games:  While these aren't very popular, kinect is practically made for this  1 to 1 body tracking is perfect for the genere.  The wii simply doesn't have the tech to deal with this.  But hold up, the ps3 does!  The move camera is just as good at tracking 2d as kienct so it could do this as well.  Winners?? Ps3 and 360

FPS:  OK you need to hold a gun... yes kinect could probably track a dummy gun, but you'll still need to pull the trigger.  With the wii and ps3 setups you have controllers with triggers and gun shells to put them in with kinect, you'd have to either by a expensive accessory to go with your already expensive 150 dollar accessory to stand in as a gun or do some stupid motion gesture to indicate you want to fire that harkens back to the power glove.  Also there is the problem of movement across the map.  The 360 and ps3 are NOT equipped for this, but the wii's nunchuck if perfect for it.  The metroid prime games and red steel 2 have proved that it works as well.  Winner??  Wii.

Boxing games:  Fails all around.  The wii's motion tracking is too slow, ps3 doesn't handle multiple targets well and by all accounts the kinect does just as poorly.  Winner?? Nobody.

Platformers:  Here's the thing, aside from fps, platformers are the most popular genre of all time.  If you can't use your motion controls with them, then your motion controls need work.  Platforming requries fine movement on 3 axis which means full on motion controls are impossible.  That being said nitendo has integrated motion control elements in all of it's most popular franchises with it's unique control layout (wiimote pointed at screen for jumping and motion movement and nunchuck for traditional movement across the map).  The kinect doesn't even have a controller so it's out, the move can't be held sideways (but you can get some very limted motion control via the sixx axes).  Winner?? Wii.

Rock Games:  You need physical controls, sorry.  Motion controls just won't work because you need buttons.  That being said, the wii gets bonus points for making it's plasic instruments shells for the wiimote.  Winner?? Tie.

Fighting Games: Kinect has a grown up fighting game.  I was all excited about this until I saw the demo video.  It's (UGH!) realistic fighting and the 360 has a hard time tracking the movement.  "Marvel as you can sloppy punch your oppoenent with the speed and skill of an 80 year old man!" That aside fighting games are all the proof we need that full immersion motion control is NOT ready for prime time.  Besides that, the best fighting games are totally unrealistic, and special guestures for moves is going to get into power glove territory again.  That being said, the wii's unique nunchuck/wiimote layout has had MILD success integrating some motion control into the traditional fighters like brawl and Mk. Again, you can't hold the move sideways, so it's out. Winner?? The wii, barely.

Racers:  First off let me confess that I think motion controls for racers is dumb.  We've had wheels and pedals since the 16 bit era and they are the proper controls for racers.  That being said..  Kinects lack of a controller doesn't let you control acceleration so it's out.  The wiimote does a really good job as a mock steering wheel.  It feels comforatble in your hand sideways and you can grip it like you would a wheel and the buttons are there for easy access to use as gas and brake.  The move again, can't be held sideways.  Again though the sixx axes can be used like this and it has the beneft of analog triggers.  Unfortunately the grips on a playstation controller make it akward to twist.  winner?? IMHO the wii because of how crappy the ps3 controller is, but in the interest of fairness we'll call it a tie between the Wii and Ps3.

Sports Games:  First of, understand when I say sports games I mean sports mini games.  With the possible exception of golf (which all three should handle quite well anyway) too much movement is involved to do a full fledged sports title.  That being said, all three systems have a "sports" title or two.  They all fair pretty well.  Of course having the sensors in the virtual object you are holding makes for a more accurate swing so for most genres the ps3 and wii do better, but I can see where the kinect could accel at others.  Winner?? Three way tie.

"Lightgun" games:  Straight out, the move and wiimote are built for this.  They both have lightgun titles and they both do well with the genre.  The kinect simply can't do this.  They aren't flawless though.  The wiimote is often accused of accuracy issues.  The move gun, according to recent reports, is a tad sluggish to respond.  Winner?? Tie for the Ps3 and Wii.

What about genre breaking games like kinect animals?  Well the thing is they aren't proven genres yet.  Usually experimental genre games get critical acclaim but rarely sell well.  Just look at seamen for the dreamcast.  We can only go by what we now know and for now the kinect just plain sucks for most genres of gaming.

So to close, it's quite quantifiable in terms of determining which system is the best controller.  The kinect is dead last.  Going over every game genre of note, the kinect only out-performs the move and wii on one occasion and in most instances it performs much worse (or not at all).  Yes the kinect is fun, yes the kinect could be a top seller, but is it an innovative controller?  Well if you thought the power glove was innovate and by that I mean barely functional for controlling games then yes it is. 

[shmokes]

Both of the "big two" have made a stride into those waters that I think they hope will crush Nintendo once and for all.  

Sony and MS are not delusional.  Nobody in their right mind could even entertain the suggestion that Sony or MS could beat Nintendo in this generation, particularly with an add-on peripheral 4-5 years into the product cycle.  It's taken Nintendo 4 years to sell this many Wiis and they've been selling at an alarming rate throughout that entire 4 years.  Either the move or Kinect would be an astronomical success if they managed to get even 10-20% of their users to buy the device.  For christ's sake, we're talking about a $100-$150 add-on.  I've seen a brand-new Xbox 360 arcade retail for that much!!!

Of course these products cannot compete with the Wii commercially.  That's absurd.  There are like 75 million Wii's in the wild.  You think in the last couple years of the product life cycle Sony or Microsoft are going to be able to compete with that?  You think Sony or Microsoft think that?  You're mad!  They just needed their engineers to catch up to Nintendo, and they needed consumers to see them going  against the Wii 2 with a Move 2 and a Kinect 2 rather than with 1st generation products.  That is all.

[RandyT]

And with one fell swoop you just proved that you have ZERO insight into the gaming industry.  Nintendo will NEVER fail.

 

As much as you love them, Howard, wishing something like that won't make it so.  They bet the farm on the Wii, and were lucky.  If it didn't succeed, and there was no guarantee that it was going to, it would have been it for them.  The PS3 Move performs the way Nintendo would have liked the Wii to have.  It's not Nintendo's fault, Sony has the benefit of seeing what worked and what didn't, not to mention better technology to play with now.  But the Nintendo catalog is filled with copies of copies of the same kinds of games.  And many of them are still overpriced for what they are.  

If Nintendo has another surprise up their sleeve (they don't) then maybe they can eek out one more generation.  But if they can't keep up with the next generation platforms from Sony and MS, well, the writing will be on the wall.  They will no longer have the motion technology to differentiate them.

[RandyT]

Sony and MS are not delusional.  Nobody in their right mind could even entertain the suggestion that Sony or MS could beat Nintendo in this generation, particularly with an add-on peripheral 4-5 years into the product cycle.  It's taken Nintendo 4 years to sell this many Wiis and they've been selling at an alarming rate throughout that entire 4 years.  Either the move or Kinect would be an astronomical success if they managed to get even 10-20% of their users to buy the device.  For christ's sake, we're talking about a $100-$150 add-on.  I've seen a brand-new Xbox 360 arcade retail for that much!!!

Of course these products cannot compete with the Wii commercially.  That's absurd.  There are like 75 million Wii's in the wild.  You think in the last couple years of the product life cycle Sony or Microsoft are going to be able to compete with that?  You think Sony or Microsoft think that?  You're mad!  They just needed their engineers to catch up to Nintendo, and they needed consumers to see them going  against the Wii 2 with a Move 2 and a Kinect 2 rather than with 1st generation products.  That is all.

I see.  So you are saying that neither Sony, nor MS introduced these technologies to leverage the success of (i.e. compete with) Nintendo?  That has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.  If what you are positing were true, there is no way either of them would have bothered.  You don't need to release technology to the masses at an astronomical cost "just to get their engineers up to speed".  That's just silly.

[RandyT]

Regarding schmokes arguments, I agree 100% with him.  Kinect sounds great on paper... hands free gaming! Until you realize that in practically every gaming scenario the activity you are doing won't be hands free and you'll have to navigate across a map in some way.  

I see you haven't played with one either.

Where to start.....

Let's take a look at some major gaming genres and see how they apply to kinect.  

Dance Games:  While these aren't very popular, kinect is practically made for this  1 to 1 body tracking is perfect for the genere.  The wii simply doesn't have the tech to deal with this.  But hold up, the ps3 does!  The move camera is just as good at tracking 2d as kienct so it could do this as well.  Winners?? Ps3 and 360

Well, until you consider that they are popular, just probably not on the Wii.  And Kinect maps in 3D, using a specific technology designed for that task, not 2D, so there's a comparison fail on your part.

FPS:  OK you need to hold a gun... yes kinect could probably track a dummy gun, but you'll still need to pull the trigger.  With the wii and ps3 setups you have controllers with triggers and gun shells to put them in with kinect, you'd have to either by a expensive accessory to go with your already expensive 150 dollar accessory to stand in as a gun or do some stupid motion gesture to indicate you want to fire that harkens back to the power glove.  Also there is the problem of movement across the map.  The 360 and ps3 are NOT equipped for this, but the wii's nunchuck if perfect for it.  The metroid prime games and red steel 2 have proved that it works as well.  Winner??  Wii.

You could literally stick a current controller out in front of you and do the same thing.  It doesn't have to be "all or nothing" with the Kinect.  But I do see an add-on of some nature in it's future, for these types of situations.

Boxing games:  Fails all around.  The wii's motion tracking is too slow, ps3 doesn't handle multiple targets well and by all accounts the kinect does just as poorly.  Winner?? Nobody.

Played boxing on the Wii and on the Kinect.  Kinect is easily much better.  Not perfect, but much better.  Doesn't that equal a "win" for Kinect?

Platformers:  Here's the thing, aside from fps, platformers are the most popular genre of all time.  If you can't use your motion controls with them, then your motion controls need work.  Platforming requries fine movement on 3 axis which means full on motion controls are impossible.  That being said nitendo has integrated motion control elements in all of it's most popular franchises with it's unique control layout (wiimote pointed at screen for jumping and motion movement and nunchuck for traditional movement across the map).  The kinect doesn't even have a controller so it's out, the move can't be held sideways (but you can get some very limted motion control via the sixx axes).  Winner?? Wii.

I love a good platformer as much as the next nerd, but really?  In nearly 2011 we are going talk about "platformers"?  Ok, Wii can have that one, regardless of how simple it is for any console to have a dozen decent ones in the library, and how the motion tracking stuff is really out of place in this genre to begin with.

Rock Games:  You need physical controls, sorry.  Motion controls just won't work because you need buttons.  That being said, the wii gets bonus points for making it's plasic instruments shells for the wiimote.  Winner?? Tie.

   Really, Howard?  I have every game in this genre for multiple systems.  It's one of the simplest in terms of system requirements and dedicated controls are always better than a plastic shell meant for something else.  And you don't need buttons...you just "think" you do because that's all you currently know.  Imagine a game where you "strum" with the right hand and create "notes" by moving your left hand (as though holding a guitar) various distances from your body.  And just for fun, get extra points by avoiding beer bottles thrown by the crowd when you start doing poorly.

Fighting Games: Kinect has a grown up fighting game.  I was all excited about this until I saw the demo video.  It's (UGH!) realistic fighting and the 360 has a hard time tracking the movement.  "Marvel as you can sloppy punch your oppoenent with the speed and skill of an 80 year old man!" That aside fighting games are all the proof we need that full immersion motion control is NOT ready for prime time.  Besides that, the best fighting games are totally unrealistic, and special guestures for moves is going to get into power glove territory again.  That being said, the wii's unique nunchuck/wiimote layout has had MILD success integrating some motion control into the traditional fighters like brawl and Mk. Again, you can't hold the move sideways, so it's out. Winner?? The wii, barely.

Then it's not really "motion control fighting" on the Wii.  And if you want to compare real fighting games for the PS3 and 360 to what's on the Wii, well, that's just not going to end well.  As I stated above, the "release day" boxing on Kinect is much better than boxing is on Wii.  The fighting game might take a couple tries to get it right.  To me, that game looked very rushed, even from a graphical standpoint.

Racers:  First off let me confess that I think motion controls for racers is dumb.  We've had wheels and pedals since the 16 bit era and they are the proper controls for racers.  That being said..  Kinects lack of a controller doesn't let you control acceleration so it's out.

Well, no.  I like a real steering wheel better as well, but as the Kinect tracks in 3D, acceleration can be done by pushing your virtual wheel away from your body, and braking by pulling it toward you.  You could even reach down and shift up or down a gear with similar, somewhat realistic motions.

"Lightgun" games:  Straight out, the move and wiimote are built for this.

Meh.  All of them will do poorly with this.  I have yet to see a good implementation, meaning one which doesn't end up as a free air cursor control.  I bought one of the "hunter" games for the Wii with the orange shotgun and regretted the purchase on the first play.  If you want to "tie" PS3 Move and Wii with a "poor" mark for both, I am in full agreement.  But the nod should probably go to the PS3 for this genre, specifically because it has the Guncon so you don't need the Move here.

What about genre breaking games like kinect animals?  Well the thing is they aren't proven genres yet.  Usually experimental genre games get critical acclaim but rarely sell well.  Just look at seamen for the dreamcast.  We can only go by what we now know and for now the kinect just plain sucks for most genres of gaming.

My daughters loved the Dreamcast game.  But I can't see someone moving their coffee table so their kid can pet a virtual critter.  Still, in the right setting, I can see kids getting into interacting with "virtual toys" through Kinect.

I'm too tired to bother with the conclusion based on your heavy Nintendo bias.  That really says it all.

[shmokes]

If Nintendo has another surprise up their sleeve (they don't) . . .

Well . . . um . . . they have Miyamoto.  And . . . sort of . . . an incredibly valuable stable of IP like Mario and Pokemon and Zelda and Metroid.  They've turned these into crazy popular franchises like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers.  They also have a money printer that sometimes goes by the name of DS (and now 3DS, which is pretty damned cool actually).  Also, they are the richest company in Japan.  So . . . yeah . . . I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere any time soon.

More to the point, how the ---fudgesicle--- do you know that Nintendo doesn't have another surprise up their sleeve.  Don't get me wrong.  I have a Wii that I never, ever turn on (even though it's modded and I have free access to any game I want).  I hate the Wii remote.  I consider it a defective product.  The Wii Motion Plus should be the result of a recall, not something from which Nintendo makes more money.  But how could you possibly know that Nintendo has no more surprises up their sleeve aside from sheer fanboy faith? 

You really love this idea you've cooked up in your head that the Kinect and Move are going to eat Nintendo's lunch . . . that's just cute.

[RandyT]

Well . . . um . . . they have Miyamoto.  And . . . sort of . . . an incredibly valuable stable of IP like Mario and Pokemon and Zelda and Metroid.  They've turned these into crazy popular franchises like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers.  They also have a money printer that sometimes goes by the name of DS (and now 3DS, which is pretty damned cool actually).  Also, they are the richest company in Japan.  So . . . yeah . . . I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere any time soon.

And that's about it.  How many times can you repackage / change the color of / slap another screen on / use a lenticular grating on (like the "holographic" DVD covers) / etc.  These aren't  new technologies, they are repackaging and rehashing.  That runs out after a while, and eventually you have to do better, especially when the the "dogs of war" are gnashing at your kiester.  They were literally down for the count and they came up with the motion technology.  They were saved because they struck a popular chord at the right time, and it was enough for consumers to overlook the limited power of the system.  It also helped that they orchestrated a trickling rollout to manage machine demand, thus perceived value.  If they can do that again, then my hat is off to them.  But that type of event in the modern gaming marketplace would be like lightning striking twice in the same place.

More to the point, how the ---fudgesicle--- do you know that Nintendo doesn't have another surprise up their sleeve.

Of course I don't know.  Take a valium  It's purely my opinion, based on the state of current / breaking technology.  The chips Nintendo leveraged for the Wii don't have a Nintendo logo on them.  They have never been known for that particular kind of innovation.  They also didn't particularly surprise anyone late in the game.  It was talked about quite some time before the release, and what was delivered, didn't exactly live up to expectations.  It was and still is nifty for the time, as it was first to leverage what is now very commonplace technology.  But I haven't seen anything like that coming around the bend, and probably unlike you, I am always looking.

Don't get me wrong.  I have a Wii that I never, ever turn on (even though it's modded and I have free access to any game I want).  I hate the Wii remote.  I consider it a defective product.  The Wii Motion Plus should be the result of a recall, not something from which Nintendo makes more money.  But how could you possibly know that Nintendo has no more surprises up their sleeve aside from sheer fanboy faith?

Console gaming is not an important enough aspect of my life to be any kind of "fanboy" for any system.  I don't have to very carefully choose which system to buy, and then steadfastly commit to backing it for any reason whatsoever.  I have them all and I know which ones impress me, and which don't.  I know which ones I play, and like you, I almost never turn on my Wii anymore.  I bought a bunch of games, but few had me coming back...except for one of the bowling games.  It ended up being the only one I played on the system with any sort of regularity.  Even bought the fancy "dual digital scale" peripheral (Wii Fit).

I like the idea of what Nintendo did with the Wii, but the results never really clicked with me.  And I know I'm not alone there, based on your comment above, and the fact that you also own a PS3.  Obviously they aren't meeting your gaming needs, and the big question is will they be able to in the future without another (unlikely, IMHO) "hook".

. . . that's just cute.

I always knew you were sweet on me.  

[RandyT]

I also want to add that I just spent another hour or so with Kinect Sports, and I do have a couple of things that are not sitting well with me.  Maybe it's just because it starts you out on the lowest difficulties, but the sports games seem to be big on affirmation.  By that, I mean, they feel like they want you to do well, and it could be an intentional masking of the controls to make them seem better than they may actually be when used for these types of games.  For example; I do miss in table tennis and I can't just do anything and succeed, but it seems like I should be doing not as well, more often.

I also don't like not having a single "release" button for some of the games.  It assumes a "best case" release that removes what I feel is an integral part of a "sports" challenge.  It's not something that is necessary for a number of genres, or adaptations of genres, but just like shooting, you need to be able to control a release when you throw something.  At minimum, you should be able to use a normal controller to provide this input.

Something else is interesting;  every time I've turned on the system (once a day for the last few days), either the console, the Kinect, or the game needed to go get an update.  This tells me that there are a lot of busy folks at MS right now in Kinect development.  I hope they are planning an "action" button .