So a $150 peripheral is worth having so you can utilize alternative methods to control a game? Ot's worth it because when you add those fractions of seconds you saved, together, you end up saving more time than you really thought? Come on. You're reaching.
The intrinsic nature of Kinect just doesn't fit Gears. Yeah, it sort of is a casual vs hardcore thing. I was trying to avoid that, or at the very least, make it less juvenile. Kinect is fine for games that aren't meant to be taken seriously or for games where precise input isn't required. Gears, at least to me, is the complete opposite of a game that would benefit or even be Kinect compatible. Then again, we have games like Mass Effect and Ghost Recon that have it. But do you really think they're better or rather, those games would be worse with it? That's a rhetorical question. I already know your answer.
I think you're underestimating the amount of time and work it takes to implement and test (emphasis on the latter) such a feature. I'd rather have a dev perfect standard features than to add a bunch of interesting, yet faulty and buggy ones. And let's be honest, there isn't enough time or money to make everything good. Sacrifices have to be made and corners have to be cut. Surely there are bigger things to worry about than small Kinect intergration. Still, at the end of the day, it's still something that doesn't really cater to the competitive fan base (of course, many exist, outside the confines of the "core" audience) and something that could, very likely take away from other features that could have been polished.
Yes. the $150.00 peripheral was worth it, for improved gameplay and amazing UI navigation of the Dashboard.
I love being able to search for a movie or show using voice and be watching it seconds and sometimes minutes faster than I would have to with a controller(even using the Gamepad keyboard I also own).
Playing Skyrim and being able to enjoy combat without having to use the "quick" menu 15 times in any given battle is a HUGE difference. As is being able to command your follower, and use the map without navigating menus. Etc etc.
Does that mean I would want to map every action the the Kinect and not use the controller at all? No. That is not what I bought the Kinect for. I bought the Kinect to augment my hardcore games. I want head-tracking in my racing games, I want voice commands in games that it can improve the flow of combat. etc.
When I am playing ME3, it helps a ton to be able to tell Garrus to take cover in a certain spot, then focus fire on a certain enemy, the use a power like overload, all without having to pause the game and use the power wheel. That makes combat more immersive, and more efficient. Again, there is no way around this, it is OBJECTIVELY better. It is OBJECTIVELY faster.
When I am playing Forza 4 it is much better to tilt my head turning corners than to move my fingers around, taking them out of place on the controller to free look. It makes me able to compete better, in the same way that "bumper jumper" in Halo allows players to Aim and Jump at the same time. It frees up and augments my ability to use the standard controller. Multi tasking in a way that is not possible with just the gamepad.
And no, as it was said, Kinect is designed to be able to be easily integrated into any 360 game. Microsoft has done all the brunt work, and the Kinect itself takes the strain off the hardware. Adding Kinect support would have no noticeable effect on game development by any competent dev studio.
Again, it is an optional feature that would enhance and make gameplay more efficient for MILLIONS of players, yet you don't want it because you have some stigmatized view that Kinect is ruining your hardcore titles. It is not, it is improving them.
Now if Gears 4 comes out and is a Kinect ONLY title, I will hop right on your little bandwagon, but for now and in the foreseeable future, that is not going to happen. So why not let players who can and want optional features have them?
