That's all fine and good, but that's a business argument, not a gaming argument for Kinect, which is what I'm discussing. Again, I'm glad to have the game because it looks good and I'll probably get it. I'm merely challenging whether Kinect really adds something as an interface. Ideally, I'd like to be proven that it does, but it does not appear to be the case that Crimson Dragon will do that, baring features I haven't seen.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Crimson Dragon (XBLA/Kinect) - New game info + videos [Project Draco renamed]
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
- Status
That's all fine and good, but that's a business argument, not a gaming argument for Kinect, which is what I'm discussing. Again, I'm glad to have the game because it looks good and I'll probably get it. I'm merely challenging whether Kinect really adds something as an interface. Ideally, I'd like to be proven that it does, but it does not appear to be the case that Crimson Dragon will do that, baring features I haven't seen.
...´cause its about gaming, and this is supposed to be about fun. I think its hard to measure fun in any objective way. (thats also why I prefer to read game reviews and ignore the numeric score)
MightyHedgehog
Member
Well, we cannot know that until after the game is available to play. Given the mix of preference for Kinect controls in CoE, I'd say that I'm among those who would have a 'half-glass full' tilt on this title due to its similarity. However, like traditional rail shooters where there is no player character or avatar on-screen to evade attacks and environmental hazards with, the control in CoE lacks any reason for Kinect specificity, as its focused primarily upon accuracy/timing...things better suited for controller play. Panzer Dragoon, allows for on-screen player character maneuvering to facilitate evasion in addition to the aim- and shooting-focus of screen-collision-based rail shooters, like CoE. Because of the theme, leaning in place to mimic the mounted dragon rider's control, if done right, should feel justified. Sure, dual analog control could be here, too, but the experience would be the same, on a fundamental control level, to everything else out there, and that is the important thing that separates the large numbers of entries from each other in so very few genres and gametypes. So, instead of featuring traditional controls as a focus of the experience, as seen in CoE and others, Grounding/Land Ho and Microsoft tailored the experience for Kinect just as Treasure and Ninty did for Sin & Punishment 2 on the Wiimote. And, hopefully, as they themselves state, the decision for focusing on the motion control is one that comes from wanting something new and not just more of the same from before. CD is not PD. Exclusivity should mean that the control scheme is necessary to the value found in the final game implementation, but we won't know enough until it's out. All of this posting is just because it's too early to know for sure.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Plus Dance Central, fitness games and some mini-games in Happy Action Theater which take advantage of Kinect's depth sensing capabilities to create something that is not really replicable with simple 2D cameras and/or wands.
You introduced that subjective metric with the assertion that you could play some Kinect games as well or better with the controller.
Alx
Member
Because the goal is a subjective one ? The point when you buy a kinect (or a console, a game, ...) is not to get something objectively new. It's to be entertained, which is something completely subjective, some people won't like what others people do. Novelty is only a way to make something entertaining, and that too won't work on everybody.
Anyway, if people find playing with a kinect entertaining, then it's a good device because it does what is expected from it. No need for arbitrary "hey guys stop having fun" metrics.
shinobi602
Member
Kinect vindicated.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
That's also true. A different input method results in a different experience, even if the core of the game remains the same across different devices. An FPS played with a controller is very different to an FPS played with a mouse and keyboard or with a wand controller. Like I said in another thread, in theory most modern games could be played with a d-pad, but some are just more comfortable with an analog stick. It doesn't have to justify its existence by providing an experience that is impossible with a d-pad, a different and (to some people at least) more enjoyable experience is more than enough. The same thing applies to Kinect.
I think you may be mistaken, I'm not accusing anyone of being too finicky at all. I can completely understand why anyone would not want a kinect (or any motion controls). I can also understand how most of the games would not be appealing to some, hell I don't care for 95% of them myself.
However I still think it's silly to complain about the device when appealing games finally do arrive. You choosing not to buy kinect means you also choose not to play any kinect games. IMO it would be no different if someone purchased a PS3 only but complained they couldn't play a 360 exclusive, which would be silly.
Outside of augmented reality games, I can't think of many cases where a controller wouldn't be able to replicate motion controls to some level of success. I'm not saying a controller would work as well but it could still work. So your point is kind of a stretch IMO.
My point is, if you're going to question motion games that could be played with a regular controller, you must question 99% of the motion games out there.
Which do you guys think would be a stronger argument for the importance/impact of the interface: (1) Kinect lets you play the exact same games you've always played; some people prefer playing them with Kinect and some people prefer sticking with the controller; or (2) Kinect lets you play games you previously couldn't play with just a controller.
First of all, given how (2) subsumes (1), it is by definition a stronger argument. Second of all, you could still enjoy the games that you might enjoy in (1) if the Kinect never existed. But you could not enjoy the games you might enjoy in (2) without the Kinect. Third of all, even though the ultimate goal is a subjective one, critiques should be based on objective properties. Specifically, if a game can be controlled with a controller instead, then whether Kinect actually makes the mechanics better is entirely debatable and subjective; it is not an objective property. However, if a game cannot be played without a Kinect, then you know for a fact that the mechanics benefitted, because the mechanic is contingent on the interface.
Yeah, I agree that exclusivity should mean the control is necessary (or necessary in any practical sense) to the value found in the game and I agree that we can't know for sure right now. As I said in my first post, there might be more to this then there seems, but based on what I've seen, I'm not seeing a need for Kinect so far.
I'll give you Dance Central. Not my style of game, but is valid. Fitness "games" aren't really games though and so I wouldn't include them discussion of the worth of Kinect to gaming. Minigames contingent on Kinect exist as well and I've said as much already, but as I indicated, my arguments here are concerned with full fledged hard core games for the interface.
No I didn't. My metric is the ability to create game mechanics not otherwise possible in any practical sense, which is completely objective. When citing that you can play a game as well or better than a controller, it's just a demonstration of how *badly* a game fails to satisfy my objective metric. I'll give an example: consider Zelda Skyward Sword. This is one of the few hardcore motion control games that seems to satisfy the metric I proposed (I can only say seems because I have not played it, but from what I can tell it does), because you simply cannot replicate the one-to-one control of a sword, which affects the outcomes of the game world in any of those one-to-one states, with a normal controller. Zelda Twilight Princess, on the other hand, fails to satisfy this criteria because motions are just singular gestures than can be equivalently replicated with button presses (and in fact were).
I do question 99% of the motion controlled games. Very few have demonstrated a need for motion and most are just button replacement gestures. The overal failure of motion controls doesn't excuse a new interface for them though. Honestly I think that's sad, because I think there are avenues not yet tried that might justify the interface. Oh well.
By questioning them, I believe you are overlooking the technical, design, and financial challenges developers face when creating these games.
You may be expecting a bit much in an industry that's pretty risk-averse.
Edit:
Know that I don't necessarily disagree with this line of thinking, I've questioned a number of motion games in a similar way, but in the end it's pointless to fight it. If I want to play this game, I'll be playing it on a kinect.
I understand the difficulty in doing them and the financial risk of trying something new. But I can't ignore the outcome of how things stand. To be clear, I'm not trying to boycott the game and it will probably good as it stands. These are just my thoughts on the worth of Kinect as an interface and how I'd like to see exclusive games that justify it in this way. When I first heard of this game I had hoped it would do that, but it looks like I'll just have to settle for a good game
MightyHedgehog
Member
Looks like a few new screens and a longer video, too. That Saori Kobayashi music...so very PD-like. Can't wait.
NoirVisage
Banned
this game would never have been made if kinect didn't exist, i'm happy for the titans of the former team andromeda getting to stress their skills again, i wish it were on something i could actually play, as it stands i have an aversion to the kinect i will probably never get to play this game
I don't think this is a valid comparison, most people complaining about the game not having also traditional controls already have the platform that the game comes to but they will not be able to play it because a 100e+ peripheral is required...is spending 100e worth it to play just two three games? well that depends on whether you can spend this amount of money AND if your gaming room is big enough to get one and work properly since MS has done nothing AFAIK to fix the space problem with Kinect.
I know that I may be in the minority but the room where all my gaming set-up is it's not big enough so in a way it's really frustrating to want to buy the damn thing but not being able to because of the peripheral's limitations.
Either way the game looks amazing and I'm really curious to see how the game will do sales wise since the audience for it is limited and it's a niche genre...hopefully the game will do well.
PopfulMail
Member
- Status