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

[RandyT]

You are just being a prat.

And you are being pedantic.

And if the Wii was so much fun you'd play it more.  Period.  I know there are good games on the Wii.  And yet . . . here we are, rarely playing our Wiis.  It's not rocket science.  You don't play the Wii because it tends to suck.  That's not to say nothing is good on it.  It's just not good enough to keep bringing you back.

The Wii doesn't suck.  I know it can do good things and I do still go back to it.  If the rich folks can have a bowling alley in their home, I can afford the space for a console which gets me as close as possible with the medium, even if I don't use it for much else.  I stopped buying new titles because most of them don't have the value I expect.  It just costs too much money to sift through the hastily thrown together titles which don't truly take advantage of it's unique capabilities, for which I overlooked the sub-par system specs.  I think that the real reason people don't play their Wii's boils down to high priced, low return software.  If the titles were $10, one could be more forgiving and be happy with a $10 experience.  The problem is that with most of the software, you get a $10 experience from a $30 price tag.  There's much more "bang for buck" in a $20 PS3 or 360 title from the "pre-owned" rack, so that's where the focus goes.  Fun, yes.  Value, no.

[shmokes]

And you are being pedantic.

Oh . . . I don't know.  I don't think rhetorical questions are above the comprehension of the common man.  I think you're just being a prat.

BTW, more bang for buck = less suck . . . true story

[RandyT]

BTW, more bang for buck = less suck . . . true story

Jeez, make up your mind.  Not fun or no value?  If you said the latter in the first place, we wouldn't be here now.

[shmokes]

Fun seems like a fairly important part of the value calculation . . .

[Mikezilla]

Why dont you just rent games instead of buying them? Most games you can beat when you rent them anyway. In that regard you get the most bang for your buck, and if the game sucks, you dont feel robbed of anything.

And man Shmokes, you can tell youre a lawyer. Jesus. 

[RandyT]

Fun seems like a fairly important part of the value calculation . . .

Those $50 a seat rides at the amusement park are fun for about 5 minutes too.  If you chance to observe the length of the lines for those, I think you would conclude that the "fun level" of something tends to be a secondary concern in the value calculation.

[shmokes]

What in god's name are you talking about?

[RandyT]

What in god's name are you talking about?

*sigh* really?

Consider this scenario then...

Mom: How come you aren't playing that game I bought you a couple of days ago?

Billy: I played it already.

Mom: But it cost $40.  I thought you said it would be fun.

Billy: It was.  

Mom: So you don't want to play it any more?

Billy: Not really.


How much value will Mom find in that "fun" game?

[shmokes]

Mom: Why aren't you playing that game I bought you a couple days ago?

Billy: Because it was lame.

Mom: But it was expensive.

Billy:  . . .

How much value will mom find in that "not fun" game?


Shmokes:  Who cares?  What's your point?  That the Kinect is a great value proposition even if it's not fun?  That it's super fun even if it's not a great value proposition?  Or substitute Kinect for Wii in those sentences?  Or PS3/360?  I honestly have no ---smurfing--- idea what you're talking about.  And if you're saying any of those . . . well . . still . . . what in god's name are you talking about?

[RandyT]

I honestly have no ---smurfing--- idea what you're talking about.  And if you're saying any of those . . . well . . still . . . what in god's name are you talking about?

Fun seems like a fairly important part of the value calculation . . .

The cost is the primary consideration in determining value.  It's the thing all other things are weighed against.  This lack of value in much of the software, not the hardware, is the thing that is, IMHO, killing the Wii.  If MS allows the same thing to happen with the Kinect, by allowing developers to release games which don't use the technology well, or which provide a gimmicky and substanceless gaming experience that might be fun at the onset, but without real replay value, then the Kinect will follow the path you have predicted for it.  MS appears to be savvy enough, and concerned enough about the reputation of the product, to prevent this from happening.  But only time will tell.

[shmokes]

If MS allows the same thing to happen with the Kinect, by allowing developers to release games which don't use the technology well, or which provide a gimmicky and substanceless gaming experience that might be fun at the onset, but without real replay value, then the Kinect will follow the path you have predicted for it.  MS appears to be savvy enough, and concerned enough about the reputation of the product, to prevent this from happening.  But only time will tell.

Well, I haven't played it so take this with a grain of salt, but the launch lineup doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  I have the impression that Dance Central and maybe Kinectibles are the only games offering much more depth than, say, Wii Sports.  And even with those, it's not like we're talking Mass Effect or Mario Galaxy levels of depth.  So not only does Microsoft seem plenty content to release shallow, quick-fix experiences, but it seems that developers are struggling with the same box that I seem to be unable to see beyond.  How to make great games with only gestures and no need to move characters from point A to point B. 

[RandyT]

Well, I haven't played it so take this with a grain of salt, but the launch lineup doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  I have the impression that Dance Central and maybe Kinectibles are the only games offering much more depth than, say, Wii Sports.  And even with those, it's not like we're talking Mass Effect or Mario Galaxy levels of depth.  So not only does Microsoft seem plenty content to release shallow, quick-fix experiences, but it seems that developers are struggling with the same box that I seem to be unable to see beyond.  How to make great games with only gestures and no need to move characters from point A to point B. 

I have the same concern at the moment, but probably not to the same extent.



Compare this title to Wii Fit, and there's no comparison.  No $70 add-on required either.  There's just a lot more to work with for this type of game / application.  And that may be the key to a richer experience.  The Wii, and even the Move, can really only sense what is happening at the controller.  The Kinect is able to map your entire body into the game.  This gives designers a lot more input to deal with, which can lead to richer experiences in motion control type games.  Whether it will, remains to be seen.

I'm willing to be more forgiving with release titles.  Not all of them are great and much of the reason for that is probably due to tight time constraints.  But the depth and focus upon user experience of a good portion of the release titles is pretty impressive, and I think it has a lot to do with MS's influence upon developers.  It's reasonable to expect that things will improve more as developers get better with the hardware, and can move at their own pace.

[shmokes]

I actually agree with pretty much all of that.  Except that I don't expect developers to do much until the next gen Xbox.

[Malenko]

can you guys stop now?

[shmokes]

We could.  Although I'm not sure we should.  What we are writing appears to be so compelling that you are unable to resist coming in this thread to read it.

[Necroticart]

I actually agree with pretty much all of that.  Except that I don't expect developers to do much until the next gen Xbox.

I agree with shmokes not many developers are going to take the Kinect seriously. For one it's a major risk on their part, and the reason for that is the software is bound by the hardware and it would be impossible to port titles over to the other platforms. This is were the Move has the advantage because all those WII games like No more Heroes, and Dead Space Extraction can be ported over with no real cost to the developer.Also the kinect has no viable control control scheme, Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy. So basically as I see it now microsoft is after as much money as they can get once the holiday ends expect a few more titles then lots of clones and shovelware.

[shateredsoul]

I hate moving!

[amendonz]

i have one, its fun.

and very interested to see what is gonna come out.

[RandyT]

Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy.

No, they didn't.

[Necroticart]

Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy.

No, they didn't.

The original PS2 Eyetoy was a controller less interface that failed miserably. On the PS3 the new eyetoy has a ton of added features and the most important part with Move a way to precisely interact with any object on screen. With the Kinect it does not have that level of precision. hence, it is basically a glorified original PS2 Eyetoy, and don't expect anything on the same level control wise as Killzone 3.

[versapak]

Sony already went down that path with the original Eyetoy.

No, they didn't.

The original PS2 Eyetoy was a controller less interface that failed miserably. On the PS3 the new eyetoy has a ton of added features and the most important part with Move a way to precisely interact with any object on screen. With the Kinect it does not have that level of precision. hence, it is basically a glorified original PS2 Eyetoy, and don't expect anything on the same level control wise as Killzone 3.

The Eyetoy was a camera, and nothing more.

To say that Sony already tried what MS is trying is like saying that someone wrote a greeting card, so they already tried writing a book.

Kinect isn't just a camera, and it is controller free gaming.

Anyone that thinks that the two are even kind of the same hasn't played Kinect.

[Necroticart]

I've actually played Kinect. I'm not impressed, while it's a nice motion tracking camera again it is not precise. Simply falling into the same category as the PS2 Eyetoy a nice motion tracking camera that was imprecise. Basically you need a device to interact with the camera (Move) to give you a needed level of precision and a way to interact (buttons).   

[versapak]

I've actually played Kinect. I'm not impressed, while it's a nice motion tracking camera again it is not precise. Simply falling into the same category as the PS2 Eyetoy a nice motion tracking camera that was imprecise. Basically you need a device to interact with the camera (Move) to give you a needed level of precision and a way to interact (buttons).  

You need a device to interact with the camera why?

For any hardcore games the standard gamepad is better than any of the motion controls. Playing a FPS with a wiimote or move is just as worthless as Kinect in comparison to a dual analog controller or mouse/kb.


The problem that everyone seems to have is that they think of them all as just motion controls.

When you think of gamepads as controls, do you only think of d-pad and buttons like a SNES controller, or do you think of dual analog sticks, a d-pad, some triggers, and a bunch of buttons like the 360 or Dual Shock controllers?

Not all gamepads are the same, and one that is good for one type of game will not be good for another. The exact same can be said about Move and Kinect. There will be similar games on both, but where they will shine is in games that cater to their different strengths.

[RandyT]

I've actually played Kinect. I'm not impressed, while it's a nice motion tracking camera again it is not precise. Simply falling into the same category as the PS2 Eyetoy a nice motion tracking camera that was imprecise. Basically you need a device to interact with the camera (Move) to give you a needed level of precision and a way to interact (buttons).  

The Eye Toy is a webcam.  Logitech used to pack in silly little "bounce-off-your-outline-as-long-as-you-were-well-lit-and-aptly-contrasted-to-your-mostly-plain-background" games with their PC webcams many years ago.  Whoever thought that was worth marketing as a full fledged gaming control should have been drawn and quartered.

The difference between interaction with a 2D outline and a real-time 3D construction of whatever portion of your body the game needs, not to mention the eventual ability to include in the game what you happen to have in your hand (a capability that was always intended for the Kinect, but not being used by release titles), is tantamount to the difference between playing Green Beret and Call of Duty 4.

And I don't know what game you played (you didn't say), but the release titles don't all take great advantage of the controller.  This is a learning curve thing for the developers to overcome.  When one does play a title that utilizes it well, it's capabilities become obvious to anyone but the most ardent of fanboys.

[Necroticart]

The release titles don't all take great advantage of the controller.  This is a learning curve thing for the developers to overcome.  When one does play a title that utilizes it well, it's capabilities become obvious to anyone but the most ardent of fanboys.

Unfortunately, What was illustrated in the release titles is probably evident of what we will continue to see in future titles. The Kinect is extremely laggy and imprecise. Basically the Kinect can discern large mass and shape but any complex shape (your own Hand) or extremely large mass (couch) around confuses the device hence the need for alot of space. As seen in this video the individual fingers are lost in the movement and become one large mass. Also the camera is having trouble following any fast motion without a delay as you apparently see with the IK skeleton.



I Almost forgot the game I experienced was Kinect Sports

[RandyT]

Unfortunately, What was illustrated in the release titles is probably evident of what we will continue to see in future titles. The Kinect is extremely laggy and imprecise. Basically the Kinect can discern large mass and shape but any complex shape (your own Hand) or extremely large mass (couch) around confuses the device hence the need for alot of space. As seen in this video the individual fingers are lost in the movement and become one large mass. Also the camera is having trouble following any fast motion without a delay as you apparently see with the IK skeleton.

I play with my sofa directly behind me.  It doesn't even come into the situation, because it's mapped in 3D, the device knows where in space it is (behind me) and it's stationary.  The IK skeleton is also mapped in 3D space.  What you see in the image is just a fraction of the information available to the system.  And if you are thinking finger position is important, you aren't thinking about the device correctly.  That kind of capability is probably a decade away...at least.

Also, don't get hung up on the real-time "what the camera sees" videos.  The tiny amount of lag is not the problem you think it is.  With this amount of data, the programs can use predictive algorithms to compensate for it.  I.e. if your arm is in a trajectory that would put your hand in a specific position 20 ms later if that trajectory were continued, and that position is the correct one, it would be exactly the same result as a "lag-less" system.  You don't have the ability to significantly alter trajectory of your heavy, slow body parts in such a small amount of time.

I Almost forgot the game I experienced was Kinect Sports

There are about 30 different gaming experiences in that title.  Which one(s)?

[amendonz]

I play with heaps of crap behind me in my room . no problems. although I did smash my lightbulb with my hand playing volleyball lol

[RandyT]

Randy, why do you have such a boner for this thing?

I don't.  But there's a special place in hell for fanboys who malign really cool technology, which they obviously don't understand, that will most likely be an important stepping stone in the evolution of how we interact with computers in the future.

It takes hundreds (if not thousands) of extremely talented people and untold resources to put something like this into the hands of average people.  It takes much less effort to make sure that it never happens again.

[shmokes]

And if you are thinking finger position is important, you aren't thinking about the device correctly.  That kind of capability is probably a decade away...at least.

This sort of sounds to me like saying, "If you are thinking accurate, reliable motion tracking is important, you aren't thinking about the Wii remote correctly."  But, again, it seems like the real question is, "Is it fun?"  And when it comes to motion games on the Wii the answer is almost invariably, "No."  Almost every fun Wii game that utilizes an innovative control scheme uses the pointer, rather than the motion control, because the motion sensors are too crude to provide an experience that isn't totally frustrating and obnoxious.

The Xbox Kinect needs to be exactly sensitive enough to provide the experience that it should provide.  And, importantly, you've said that it's designed to implement in-game what the user has in his hand, but what good is this if the camera cannot tell when you manipulate the thing?  Doesn't it need to know when you pull the trigger or whatever?  Or do you mean that in order to play these types of games you will need to buy specialized game-pads with electronics and wireless transmitters inside them?

[shmokes]

Oh yeah . . . and the lag evident in the video of that fighting game you posted earlier appeared to be serious.  Maybe that's just a bad developer, though.

[RandyT]

And if you are thinking finger position is important, you aren't thinking about the device correctly.  That kind of capability is probably a decade away...at least.

This sort of sounds to me like saying, "If you are thinking accurate, reliable motion tracking is important, you aren't thinking about the Wii remote correctly." 

It does.  And you'd be correct.  It's all about managing expectations.  If MS said it could track finger movements, then it had darned well better.  But they didn't.

The Xbox Kinect needs to be exactly sensitive enough to provide the experience that it should provide.  And, importantly, you've said that it's designed to implement in-game what the user has in his hand, but what good is this if the camera cannot tell when you manipulate the thing?  Doesn't it need to know when you pull the trigger or whatever?  Or do you mean that in order to play these types of games you will need to buy specialized game-pads with electronics and wireless transmitters inside them?

That is absolutely true.  What it should provide is a fun, innovative gaming experience.  I have seen that it can and does do exactly that. 

You know those plastic golf clubs, tennis rackets, steering wheels, swords, bowling balls, etc... everyone likes to stuff Wii controllers into?  Those are the kinds of things we are talking about, not an M-16 with a functional forward assist, bolt latch and safety switch that you expect the visual system to recognize you operating.  This is akin to saying that we shouldn't even be gaming because we are (*gasp*) trying to simulate real world activities with joysticks and buttons.  Ludicrous, isn't it?

But even though it does those other things well, I would also like to see it augmented with some electronics.  There's plenty of time for that.

Oh yeah . . . and the lag evident in the video of that fighting game you posted earlier appeared to be serious.  Maybe that's just a bad developer, though.

Probably more rushed or inexperienced than "bad".  Pretty much the case with all of the developers for this technology, with the possible exception of MS, who has been exposed to it for much longer.  Probably explains why the first party titles are better.

[shmokes]

That is absolutely true.  What it should provide is a fun, innovative gaming experience.  I have seen that it can and does do exactly that.  

I'm not talking about something so abstract.  I'm sure it does provide a fun, innovative gaming experience.  Wii Golf and Wii Bowling both provided fun, innovative gaming experiences.  But the Wii (and those games) still didn't do many things that it should do.  When players tried to make a short put in Wii Golf they expected their movement to be registered and not have to try over and over again until suddenly it over-registered and sent what should have been a 1-foot put 18 feet across the green.  

I'm not just talking about managing expectations.  Nintendo couldn't have resolved the issue simply by running a public awareness campaign to let people know beforehand that the putting game would suck.  Because what the game should do is not 100% tied to expectations.  The putting game objectively sucked, and expecting something to suck can only go so far into making a sucky product enjoyable.

There's only so much managing of expectations MS can do, anyway.  If people try and do something with Kinect and end up saying, "Oh . . . that's dumb.  They should have made it so it could do _______," that's what it should do for that person.  And if enough people are saying the same thing, that's what it should do, full stop.  

Sometimes it's not about managing expectations, it's about anticipating and meeting them.

[RandyT]

I'm not talking about something so abstract.  I'm sure it does provide a fun, innovative gaming experience.  Wii Golf and Wii Bowling both provided fun, innovative gaming experiences.  But the Wii (and those games) still didn't do many things that it should do.  When players tried to make a short put in Wii Golf they expected their movement to be registered and not have to try over and over again until suddenly it over-registered and sent what should have been a 1-foot put 18 feet across the green.  

I think that's my biggest point regarding this technology.  You aren't dealing with accelerometers which have minimum g-force requirements to even register that something has happened.  The only question is whether the depth information being made available by the Kinect is adequate to register the granularity you expect.  From what I have seen from the tech demos, it is.

I'm not just talking about managing expectations.  Nintendo couldn't have resolved the issue simply by running a public awareness campaign to let people know beforehand that the putting game would suck.  Because what the game should do is not 100% tied to expectations.  The putting game objectively sucked, and expecting something to suck can only go so far into making a sucky product enjoyable.

IMHO, the over exuberant Wii marketing is what led to your expectations of being able to putt with some sort of predictability.  Now that just about everyone owns one, it's clear to most that it's capabilities were a bit overstated.  From a marketing standpoint, it's "mission accomplished".  But it may work against them the next time they try it.

Sometimes it's not about managing expectations, it's about anticipating and meeting them.

True that.  BTW, how's that 75mpg flying car working out for you?  

[Dartful Dodger]

True that.  BTW, how's that 75mpg flying car working out for you?  

It's like the Kinect.

Looks like it could be cool, but in reality it's very disappointing.

[RandyT]

It's like the Kinect.

Looks like it could be cool, but in reality it's very disappointing.

So, not terribly unlike your attempts at pithiness?

[AtomSmasher]

The technology is very cool, but I've yet to see any games on it that I have even the slightest bit of interest in.  Frankly I think the games will mostly suck this generation, but the next generation of the technology should be capable of truly great things. 

One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360.  This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).

[RandyT]

One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360.  This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).

Got any references for this statement?  I'm not doubting that it will take a fair amount of horsepower to get meaningful control data for a specific game, but that number is much higher than anything else I have seen cited.

[AtomSmasher]

One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360.  This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).

Got any references for this statement?  I'm not doubting that it will take a fair amount of horsepower to get meaningful control data for a specific game, but that number is much higher than anything else I have seen cited.

The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect.  Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.

[RandyT]

The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect.  Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.

Why do you doubt that?  When the libraries are first developed, they are very "dirty" and designed only to get the job done and be in the hands of developers at the earliest opportunity possible.  If you are saying that the 1% figure is a lie, then it's going to be a hard one to contain.

Or are you referring to this particular developer's control engine?

[versapak]

One of the biggest limitations on the current hardware is how the kinect uses close to 1/3 of the processing power of the 360.  This means we're unlikely to see any games too complicated to become available for it (they'll have to make sacrifices on things like AI, physics, number of characters on-screen, etc.).

Got any references for this statement?  I'm not doubting that it will take a fair amount of horsepower to get meaningful control data for a specific game, but that number is much higher than anything else I have seen cited.

The engine lead at my last job (I was a videogame programmer) as he was working on the 360 engine to support the Kinect.  Granted this was around 6 months ago, so it's possible they've further optimized their software, but I doubt by much.

No.

"Tsunoda also said that in the end, Kinect only uses "less than one percent" of the 360's processing power."