That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that you would never watch tv again if you took up an interest in jogging. What does time spent doing one thing have to do with the other?
"You don't see TV station making people get up and run to watch sports, why should I have to do it to play a game? "
- Because people who opt for motion controlling in games, generally aren't too concerned with such self conscious thoughts as having to "move like an idiot..." People who choose to use motion controls, tend to not be bothered by them - it's actually part of the fun, especially for games fully designed around the aspect, rather than just banking n the gimmick.
What are your thoughts on virtual reality or holograms? What if we had technically advanced forms of this for games - like the Holodeck from Star Trek - would it still be a case of moving like an idiot? I'm not really seeing how "acting out" in front of a TV screen to interact with a game is much different from acting out in a setting where you essentially are the game - it really just comes down to technology barriers.
why does not wanting to use kinect make you a sony fanboy? We allow you to like it. It s fine with us what you prefer. Its yours so have it. But allow others to dislike kinect if we wish.
- People like what? People that propose hypothetical questions concerning real-world future tech and use examples from a sci-fi show that bases a lot of its tech on potential real-world possibilities, to work as a more detailed description or mental image to what is being proposed? Yeah, those people need to be jump of a cliff en masse... By your reaction, you'd think I just used flying dragons and unicorns that poop cupcakes for the basis of my argument...
It really was a fad. Wii Sports was a fun diversion, but no one really wants to deal with motion controls anymore. They've learned how imprecise the motions are and how weakly the controls are integrated into the games. They're just tacked-on, auxiliary distractions that no one wants to use anymore.
That makes it all the more surprising that Microsoft is STILL trying to push Kinect this hard, especially after all the criticism that practically EVERYONE has given them about it.
The reason Microsoft still continues to push Kinect is simply because it sold like hotcakes, regardless of what people say against it. And it keeps selling.
No matter how much we, as consumers, speak against something, in the end, we all vote with our wallets.
I'd like to know where its selling. No one I know with an Xbox has a Kinect except for a family and a few kids that don't even have it hooked up anymore. Supposedly when it was selling amazingly well, every store I went to still had it in stock. People buying Xbox One don't seem too thrilled to be forced to have it either.
I say that about Kinect and PS Eye. I know a few people with Move, but not many, and nobody uses it anymore.
I don't think its so much it selling well as its simply just MS pushing it. They do that with all their products, even Zune seemed hip for a while and look how terrible that sold.
A huge mistake people make when discussing Kinect, is labeling it it as a motion controller. The device is designed for more than just motion controls. Hell, a person could use the Kinect everyday while gaming, and never once use motion controls. The stigma of the Kinect being nothing more than gimmicky motion controller really needs to end, because it works to discredit everything else the device is capable of.
I understand your POV but there is a difference between regular games with the 'tacked-on, auxiliary distractions' and those that are specifically built with no traditional control scheme.
Take Ms or sony or Nintendo out of the picture and we would still find the inevitable result of traditional controls coming to a head with the only logical notion being to find a more interactive means to add to those old ways.
where the majority of people find fault is the approach that motion is out to replace traditional. Maybe that would happen somewhere down the line but for now there needs to be that blending of motion with traditional controls. A hybrid approach that makes the person playing want to become more interactive using other means than simply their thumbs and fingers to press buttons.
A company that people can get behind and understand from their taking the initiative can lead many to believe their approach is the best one. The creativity is out there. i think they really want it to be in your living room.
I liked how the move controller can double up as a gun just like the wii mote could.
I also liked Lights out. The game is garbage at first as it doesn't feel 1:1 but after investing time into it the game rocks. I am hoping Danny Trejo does a sequel to it.
Isn't this what Nintendo did though? It worked for them, and showed where motion control would work...more or less. Doesn't mean it's a replacement or a supplement.
Motion controls aren't bad, just not really up to par with game input. The technology will get there I'm sure, but that doesn't mean it has to be forced on those that have no interest in it.
For me, and I can only speak for myself, I am not that active anymore. When I play games, I play them sitting on the couch, or laying in bed, and the traditional controller is just fine.
Forgot the major one, I don't want to move like an idiot when playing games. If I wanted to do that, I'd go back outside or back to work.
You don't see TV station making people get up and run to watch sports, why should I have to do it to play a game?
It really was a fad. Wii Sports was a fun diversion, but no one really wants to deal with motion controls anymore. They've learned how imprecise the motions are and how weakly the controls are integrated into the games. They're just tacked-on, auxiliary distractions that no one wants to use anymore.
That makes it all the more surprising that Microsoft is STILL trying to push Kinect this hard, especially after all the criticism that practically EVERYONE has given them about it.
I understand your POV but there is a difference between regular games with the 'tacked-on, auxiliary distractions' and those that are specifically built with no traditional control scheme.
Take Ms or sony or Nintendo out of the picture and we would still find the inevitable result of traditional controls coming to a head with the only logical notion being to find a more interactive means to add to those old ways.
where the majority of people find fault is the approach that motion is out to replace traditional. Maybe that would happen somewhere down the line but for now there needs to be that blending of motion with traditional controls. A hybrid approach that makes the person playing want to become more interactive using other means than simply their thumbs and fingers to press buttons.
A company that people can get behind and understand from their taking the initiative can lead many to believe their approach is the best one. The creativity is out there. i think they really want it to be in your living room.
Number 4:
The coffee table
Yeah, I'm never going to get into motion gaming until I can see a hologram of the gun or sword that I'm holding in my hand.
That'd be sweet, but I'm most likely not going to live to see it :P