Billy Idol
Legend
It seems that you are 100% certain that the mediocre experience is the fault of everyone else and not the fault of the device. I am not so sure about this...
The hardware in Kinect 2.0 looks to be amazing where is the software to show it off?
- Thread starter onQ
- Start date
It seems that you are 100% certain that the mediocre experience is the fault of everyone else and not the fault of the device. I am not so sure about this...
That Molyneux quote is a real backpedal after Project Milo. From 'this is the future' to 'I don't see the point'. Also, saying random things at your voice controller isn't the point. You're supposed to say the right things to get the desired results. If I was to press random buttons on my TV remote, I wouldn't get the TV experience. Though Molyneux may have said 'random' incorrectly.
Fault lies with: publishers, developers, middleware makers, users, expectation makers (e.g. reviewers, marketers) ...
Fault does not lie with: device.
The device does what it does. Just like a pad. Just like the touch screen on a phone. If the software is bad, or if an untrained user tries to wave a conventional pad in the air to make Sonic dodge left or right (lol dad), then it's not the devices fault. It's simply doing what it does and registering what it registers.
Yep, I don't like to get on the Molyneux bash train because he's made some really good games and his enthusiasm and public daydreaming about what his products will do is endearing. But ... Project Milo was an enormous deception because it never had the back end to make it work. And either the idea had merit or it didn't.
And for a game designer to seemingly not understand that random inputs won't equal successful operation ...?
Heh, the worrying thing is that he might not.
Billy Idol
Legend
I agree: the fault lies in the expectation makers, i.e. marketers...they set expectation which cannot be reached by this device.
I would not say devs: they really try their best imo but just can't reach satisfactory results it seems (see Ryse and Crytek).
Publisher: they are always guilty...independent of everything
Not to mention that the Wii was easily bought at $249.99 (lower price than both consoles at the time), and automatically came with Wii Sports as a free pack-in to demonstrate its motion controls for gaming off the bat.
Kinect Sports Rivals? Not offered as a free pack-in with the console, the console costs more than the competition (or equal to in special cases), and doesn't offer the best example for the Kinect's gaming applications.
That's not to say Kinect is useless as Microsoft has a two-point approach for it as a utility and gaming device, but that there's not many good examples for it on the latter end of the things. Kinect Sports Rivals should've been a pack-in if they wanted to establish Kinect's gaming ties early, or offered something more separately for its asking price (if not a lower price overall).
I can't disagree more. As mentioned in the alternative controllers thread, devs don't really explore alternative inputs by-and-large. They try weak-sauce tack-ons that don't cost too much to implement and don't affect the game in case users don't want to use the alternative stuff. Without the devs backing a feature 100% and designing specifically with it in mind, to the point that they may alienate gamers who only want traditional controls (or at least think they only want traditional controls - they may love the new ways once they've learnt them), a new control scheme is never going to be fairly represented. Like a bad defence lawyer who thinks their client is guilty but is paid to represent them in court, who puts in a lacklustre effort and doesn't convince anyone of his client's innocence. Alternative inputs just don't have the backing of the mainstream developers outside of first-parties told to develop for it. Who even then may not do a great job if they don't believe in it. We see Peter Molyneux's true colours perhaps now that he's independent. When he had to work on Kinect, it was wonderful and the future. Now he's free, he can call it a bit pointless. Did he think that when working at MS? Did he really back it 100%? Has Rare really backed the project 100%, or are the developers wishing they could be making some twin-stick FPS but MS is paying them to make Kinect games?
I've never been a great fan of the ideal of motion control in terms inducing a massive change in the way the mainstream games. Full body motion control games will always be niche in my opinion.
But I love Kinect and mostly for its passive functionality, which I hoped will be focused on and expanded.
I wished the XB1 could be programmed so that at the times when my favorite show (this season it was HBO's True Detective) is about to air and it sees me sit down alone with remote in hand it automatically tunes in.
I would like it to register that I am picking up the controller so the last game I played is readied in the background before I say a word or push a button. Making time to play that much faster.
I wouldn't mind if it noticed I have accidentally fallen asleep on the couch and makes attempts to wake me, so I won't have a sore neck in the morning.
Automatically mute sound when it hears ringing or sees I am answering the telephone.
Automatically increases the volume when it hears my mother in law call out my name. LOL.
Automatically pause video or game when it notices someone about to cross my line of sight.
There are a ton of things Kinect can do to add value to a console.
But I love Kinect and mostly for its passive functionality, which I hoped will be focused on and expanded.
I wished the XB1 could be programmed so that at the times when my favorite show (this season it was HBO's True Detective) is about to air and it sees me sit down alone with remote in hand it automatically tunes in.
I would like it to register that I am picking up the controller so the last game I played is readied in the background before I say a word or push a button. Making time to play that much faster.
I wouldn't mind if it noticed I have accidentally fallen asleep on the couch and makes attempts to wake me, so I won't have a sore neck in the morning.
Automatically mute sound when it hears ringing or sees I am answering the telephone.
Automatically increases the volume when it hears my mother in law call out my name. LOL.
Automatically pause video or game when it notices someone about to cross my line of sight.
There are a ton of things Kinect can do to add value to a console.
Kinect could track where they appear and if they'll occlude your line-of-sight, so it's certainly possible. I think dobwal's ideas very much in tune with the Smart Home concept that MS has been poking around with for a decade or three, although I'm not sure the console is the place for it. It really wants an open based camera system, compatible devices running a SmartHome protocol, and a controller box which should be dedicated to the job, IMO. The problem is Kinect in games is, like motion control, it seems to be approached with an all-or-nothing mentality. It doesn't have to be a full body tracking implementation to add value, as many ideas on this board have suggested.Since it already can register dogs and lamps as people, do you really want this?
Still, with indies being more openly supported on XB1, and presumably Kinect support being a value-add feature that will add more chance of one's game being accepted, maybe we'll see indies show the value in Kinect?
Since it already can register dogs and lamps as people, do you really want this?
If they are moving across my line of sight, sure. However, we don't have dogs or lamps that stroll around the living room so I am not worried.
Well dogs do stroll. My point was false positives, no matter how small, will kill the user experience and make Kinect a laughing stock when the stories hit the net.
steveOrino
Regular
Kinect does nothing to solve the issue of interacting with imitated 3D environments on a fixed 2D display. You have ZERO tactile feedback coupled with latency and error rates. It makes for an inconstant, awkward frustrating experience as a gaming controller.
How do you attempt to have any interactive software function well on the Z axis? How do I walk directionally in a fixed sized room? Do I walk in place? How do I interact with objects? How far do i reach with my hand in front of the screen how can I be sure my reach is far enough? Also, is my body close enough to the object when I reach? When I attempt to grasp an object do I have to guess how wide I spread my hand? Will the detection be good enough if there are multiple object close together or will i accidentally grab the wrong object? What if I want to rotate the object in my hand using my fingers and thumb?
I could keep going on but the fact that software touching on some of these questions doesn't exist yet is pretty telling. I mean all the killer apps for motion controls involve the display telling me where to locate my limbs relative to my body. Anything beyond that becomes really difficult to develop and even IF the hardware is capable but the SDK is lacking then no 3rd party is ever going to bother devoting time and money into solving the problems.
Billy Idol
Legend
Hm...I don't know Shifty...sounds a bit like the 'lazy dev' argumentation.
I don't know P Molyneux, I don't know Rare or other Kinect devs...so all is pure speculation.
But we know that Crytek, a respected third party developer, decided to make their MS exclusive game Kinect only. No weak-sauce tack on.
But after a substantial time, they decided that the end result is not satisfactory, so they switched to traditional gamepad control. This is even more surprising, as the released Ryse doesn't really shine in the gameplay department and hence one has to wonder what the Kinect version played like.
We also have Kinect on PC with myriads of indie devs...is there a really good game with Kinect?
Imo, no innovation is needed. No fancy stuff. Just one word: boxing. The new Kinect is perfectly suited for a hardcore AAA Boxing simulation. Do it MS. Do it.
Not wanting to try something doesn't mean one's lazy. A person may not want to try rock climbing because they dislike heights, but they may still go on to run triathlons and build homeless shelters and write books and invent teleportation. Devs not wanting to invest in Kinect come, IMO, from not believing in it, or rather, not having ideas for games that are a good fit. There is a HUGE legacy of game design that is influencing game developers. Many grew up playing arcadey games and isometric games and puzzlers, and those games inspired them to create their own, in which case they are following in the pioneer's footsteps.
Because they're mindset and objectives were very much a conventional game for conventional gamers with a view to selling it, I imagine.
What's the setup and adoption for Kinect on PC? AFAIK it's there as a toy to poke around, but not as an interface. It's not like mainstream gamers with their beloved KB+M are going to be an ideal target to spend developing some hand-wavy interface.
Except it's not because there's no tactile feedback. Gamers would end up waving their arms around, punching when the opponent's fist is in their way, stoic and stable when getting a pummelling. To be realistic, you'd need to not have direct control, but instead be an intention for the on-screen boxer. You'd move your arms to hit, and he'd respond only if he could. That sort of indrect control went down really well with Lair...
An ideal Kinect game has to do something completely original and fluid and avoid the issues of virtual reality body control. How's about a boxing management game where you stand at the corner and shout instructions? The louder you are, the more realistic and 'in the zone you are' the better your effect on the boxer. And you could do training where you hold up the pads for the boxer to hit - how well you move and balance the challenge affects how well your boxer levels up.
Kinect is just one piece of the puzzle. You can add gloves with small vibration motors inside them and ir lights on them for better tracking in Kinect and feed back.
There is the Omni tread mill for moving around in 3d space. Works very well with vr head sets. And like I said create a pair of gloves.
Time solves all issues. Look at how far regular controllers have come since the nes or even the first pong machines.
Think of the dozens of controllers we've had in the last 30 years or so. We had the early stuff , then the nes controller but we needed more buttons so we went from 2 to 3 with the genesis then the super nes had 6. Then the N64 added an analog stick in which the ps2 added 2 anlog sticks. Now what we have 8 buttons , 2 anlog sticks and a d pad ?
Each time we added stuff it made the game play more enjoyable but most of the time we had games out that really needed the added/new buttons/sticks and they just weren't out at the time.
Bad performance will kill any product and you don't have to negate the chance of a false positive to zero to make it feasible. Consoles aren't invunerable to games crashing, but are hardly a laughingstock even though those type of events are far more intrusive than Kinect pausing your game from time to time unnecessarily. From my own personal experience I've seen nothing that makes me believe its a feature that Kinect can't handle. It doesn't seem such feature would require much from Kinect.
Plus, I think if there were a performance issue with the feature it would come from Kinect not being responsive enough like pausing a little too late or not pausing at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
@Shifty: true, feedback is s problem...but this is an integral part of the Kinect experience. On the other hand, you get visual and audio feedback...if done right (you hit and without lag(!) you get visual and audio feedback of your punch) I don't think it is much of an issue. But who knows.
Wrt Crytek and Ryse and innovation: maybe Shifty you are demanding a bit too much from devs at the moment....a completely new game mechanics a new game type? Which was the last new game type and when was it invented?
What if Kinect is just not well suited as a gaming device? In theory, this could be a possibility. We know it is good tec as an interface for multi-media control...but we still wait for a proof that it is good for gaming.
Maybe in connection with VR...who knows.
Wrt Crytek and Ryse and innovation: maybe Shifty you are demanding a bit too much from devs at the moment....a completely new game mechanics a new game type? Which was the last new game type and when was it invented?
What if Kinect is just not well suited as a gaming device? In theory, this could be a possibility. We know it is good tec as an interface for multi-media control...but we still wait for a proof that it is good for gaming.
Maybe in connection with VR...who knows.
There are lots on mobile where the interface required it. Same with DS. It doesn't need to be a completely new game idea, but the game design has to start with the input method and build from there, rather than starting with a game idea and trying to map that onto an input method. In the case of Ryse, it was a combat game set to a Roman story, which Crytek tried to map onto Kinect, which is where they went wrong. Don't start with boxing and try to get boxing working with Kinect; take what Kinect can do well and turn that into a game. This is what indies should give us, I hope.
That's an impossibility as long as it's not technically broken. Human beings can and do make games out of anything, and a flexible input to the versatility of software is going to result in games. Whether they are games people want to play is another question. Let's not forget that Kinect 1 did fabulously well. People did want to wobble about and knock balls around with flailing limbs. That fad may be over, but Kinect is not limited to those experiences - it's just no-one's innovating with what else is possible.
