I asked the cutie at the booth if the game would allow more cars this time, she told me when you play single player it will be a maximum of 12 cars, but if you play online multiplater then it would be a max of 16 cars. Subject to change I suppose but that's what she said. The guy that was playing the game in one of those funky sitdown cockpits had 12 cars in his game. The game looked really good though and was buttery smooth even with lots of cars on screen. The had kinect head tracking working which was cool, although there was a bit of lag on it.
Microsoft E3 Conference 2011
- Thread starter Arwin
- Start date
I asked the cutie at the booth if the game would allow more cars this time, she told me when you play single player it will be a maximum of 12 cars, but if you play online multiplater then it would be a max of 16 cars. Subject to change I suppose but that's what she said. The guy that was playing the game in one of those funky sitdown cockpits had 12 cars in his game. The game looked really good though and was buttery smooth even with lots of cars on screen. The had kinect head tracking working which was cool, although there was a bit of lag on it.
I'm OK with a steady evolution as long as it leads to better games over time. Each one of these new techniques for using the sensor is a building block that can be used in future projects. Maybe at some point these building blocks will be put together by someone to do something completely new and different. Maybe not.
I would argue that the "wand controller" type motion controls aren't really introducing any new game concepts either past the initial few concepts that were seen on the Wii before the innovation there seemed to dry up. A lot of the Move implementations are just different ways to control the same games. That's fine, but not really revolutionary.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, but I'm guessing by your previous statement regarding, "...introduced latency and didnt feel intuitive at all." that you have spent more time with the game than me which suggests I should simply defer to you in this case.
Believe me, I have been telling my old colleagues in windows phone that I want to use my phone as a controller for a while now. I have no idea if they listened or not.After watching Nintendo conf I think that you should let slip some words at your job about how cool would be a compliant "pad station" for windows mobile devices
Something like a pad casing where you insert your phone.
Maybe the Nintendo reveal will light a fire under their asses.Thank you, we've done a lot of work reducing CPU usage and making the feature easier to use and more accurate. I think it's not necessarily the "evolution" though, it's just that speech is easy to justify, relatively easy and cheap to add, and can provide spectacular results if done correctly. However, in my opinion, "Lightsaber on!" is not the correct way to incorporate speech into your title...
The Bing search coming in the dash update is pretty incredible. It's a _lot_ faster than trying to use the on screen keyboard, and it's orders of magnitude better than attempting to browse the individual apps. Since it returns results across the entire catalog, it makes it much easier to see if a movie is available on Netflix, Hulu or Zune in a single search.
I'm a big fan of this feature.
As am I, assuming the excellent (for the most part) parental controls aren't broken by this implementation.
It isnt just about new concepts. It is that it is having a hard time even on existing concepts and simple actions that we take as granted
The good thing about a motion tracking controller is that it tracks motion and incorporates buttons so where one method of control fails the other compensates and compliments. Of course there it ignores any other type of body movement
Kinect opened the doors in perfecting motion control games with the depth camera. If only it was complimented by a controller so that developers had the option when they found the limitations of the camera only based method. That would have offered much freedom. But ofcourse the "You are the controller" slogan is stronger and sells the thing by the bucketloads. MS dont want to sacrifice that. At least not now
It was apparent during the demonstration
Coincidentally thats also what Digital Foundry reported as well. You can defer to them instead
Yeah using voice recognition to find what you want was one of my most favorite announcements. I applaud that! Extremely practical! :smile:
You're at the show, joker?
I went yesterday, I get bored really quick now so I only need a couple of hours at the show and I'm done. Yeah good old June gloom weather, LA is weird like that. June is a great month for weather in most places but it's one of the worst here in LA because of the gloom, even January has better weather than June sometimes.
We have controllers for those.
Which has so far manifested in retreads or evolutions of concepts from the various Wii XXXX games and games where you can alternately use a regular controller.
Except that they came up with a dedicated branding in "Better with Kinect" for games that do just that. That kinda contradicts your supposition doesn't it?
Ofcourse we have controllers for those. Since Kinect cant do the work properly. Which is the point? Thats why Ghost Reckon demonstrated the limitations?
The Wii controller is the first entry in the motion control gaming, was imperfect and was the sole option to play games with. But it worked better in areas that Kinect fails.
Not it doesnt because "Better with Kinect" games:
Either give you the option to play solely with a controller or solely with Kinect which is supposedly better because "you are the controller". These games are either already on rails (Child of Eden) or they transform into on rail experiences (Forza 4). Or they are controller based games designed for controllers (Mass Effect 3) that incorporate very few and minor Kinect features (that sometimes can be negligible). You will not see a Kinect game where the controller compliments Kinect in its motion controlled gameplay.
There is no point. You shouldn't use Kinect for things it doesn't do well. And, fortunately, you don't have to.
And Kinect works better in areas that motion wands fail. What of it?
That is why they came up with the seperate branding for "Better with Kinect". There's nothing preventing a company coming up with a "Better wirh Kinect" game where there is significant additional gameplay that is motion w/ controller. It just hasn't been done yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately what you are saying is that Kinect should be given a pass for its limitations and inability so far in providing a broader experience in motion gaming and in some cases better experience, hence the lack of variety and quality games. But at least you agree that the reason the came with a "better with Kinect" functions slapped on some big controller based titles is because of its limitations and MS's reluctance to use buttons and analog stick as a part of the real Kinect experience. They instead use it as a slapped feature on control based games. It shows that a Kinect+Wand would have been a complete and perfect motion based solution. This is where the real potential open up. If I want to be able to shoot a gun accurately in a motion based game I want to be able to do it. Not isolate me away from motion gaming because thats supposed to be the job of a traditional controller. They can work together. Make it work and dont tell me excuses
Indeed far it shows again and again that a Kinect only support is atrocious with application only to a very particular type of experience compared to Move and the typical controller even when taking into consideration their own limitations and the type of games they cant do. And I am not referring to Hardcore games. Until they come up with something that proves the opposite this is what they showed us. The developers and gamers would have loved to get their hands on the broader possibilities of motion control gaming.
Why? Because kinect and wand combines the benefits of body tracking and fast button response while giving the developer the choice to select what control features to use? Developers would have came with controller free games, and motion control based games that use tangible layouts when required by certain experiences
What I'm saying is that one shouldn't criticize an economy car for being a poor drag racer or a dragster for having poor fuel economy. Kinect isn't intended to replace traditional controls in traditional games. I don't see the point in criticizing the product for this. If a developer makes poor use of the device, that's on them.
As for "Kinect" vs "Better with Kinect", it's branding. MS went to great lengths to define Kinect titles as "controller-free gaming" and deliberately created new packaging with a new color scheme so those experiences could be easily identified by consumers who were either looking for those experiences or had no interest in those experiences. It would be counter-productive to then blur the distinctions between Kinect-branded and non-Kinect-branded titles.THAT'S why they have the "Better With Kinect" branding for more traditional games that have Kinect support.
I fail to see this massive group of "Hardcore" gamers clamoring for any type of motion controls in their games that are being poorly served by MS's implementation of Kinect. Quite the opposite, in fact. Until I see evidence of Move-enabled traditional titles selling primarily because of their Move support or Move-focused titles selling at all I don't even see the two approaches as being worth comparing.
Here is food for thought
Why shouldnt I be able to play a Star Wars game with Kinect that shows my own movement on screen and isnt on rails?
Why cant I use my body movement to change weapons in Ghost Recon as demonstrated in the conference, and also be able to target and shoot fast and accurately?
What is it so wrong to be able to play a Fable game where I choose to move my character where I want him to go?
Why are these very basic things associated with hardcore only? Why should a company not care to provide quality and these basic features simply because they know they will sell like crazy based on concept and good marketing alone? Why is the "Wii approach" what we should expect and accept?
Who says a combination of a motion controller+Kinect cant sell and appeal to casuals when Wii was selling faster than anyone with a simple wand?
It is not just a matter of being able to provide Hardcore games or not. This isnt my complain.
I want variety and choices
What we are disputing (at least from what I understand) is not whether controller is more immersing than performing physical actions. It is whether Kinect alone can perform adequately and should be considered enough in motion based games
