I'm surprised that I'm doing another Kinect blog so soon after the last one, but I read an article last night about Star Wars Kinect and it was just more frustration for me - read on to see why:
Apparently, the previews for Star Wars Kinect were less than stellar, due to the fact that the Kinect sensor bar can't read your arm movements fast enough to keep up with a fast-paced lightsaber duel. My question is: how in the world did the developers not realize this before they started work on this project? I could have told them that the first day I played with Kinect Adventures! Does that mean that Kinect is any less cool? I don't think so; the sensor does what it's supposed to do and what it does it "terrificly". The problem is with developers (or with Microsoft, if they've given them this edict), who can't figure out that "Kinect + Peripheral = Amazing".
So somebody please tell me why Star Wars Kinect doesn't come packaged with a lightsaber handle-themed controller that is wireless, features haptic feedback, and includes a gyroscope? Obviously it requires more money to package something like that and to manufacture it in the first place, but honestly - you're making a Star Wars Kinect game that is supposed to make you feel like you're the jedi for the very first time. Get it right.
With the above described controller, the controller would be able to tell the Xbox it's positioning with almost no lag whatsoever, plus provide the player with the tactile response needed when hitting an object with a lightsaber. Meanwhile, Kinect would be able to watch the player's body, handling all of those commands while the arm holding the lightsaber is controlled via the lightsaber's positioning. Voilah, now the game is extremely responsive, much more immersive, and can handle much more complicated inputs. And you don't think every Star Wars fanboy is going to want to have one of these? Clearly that would help mitigate the cost to include a controller with every game (besides increasing the package price to $59.99 or $69.99).
And better yet, if you had that controller, you could choose to be a jedi or a sith lord... if you chose jedi, you'd have one blade, if you chose sith lord you'd have two blades coming out either end of the handle. How cool would that be?
This whole "you are the controller" thing is becoming a pain. Seriously - people don't mind controllers. And the thing is, Kinect would be sooo much better if we could just have some type of peripheral for some of the games. Sure, there are games that don't require a controller at all, but there are some that make more sense with one. Like how about a Samba de Amigo game that comes with the marracas so it can be accurate with the beat, but also requires you to move in certain ways using the Kinect? See, that took me ten seconds to think of.
Dear Kinect,
You're awesome. I'm sorry that developers are underutilizing your abilties and trying to force you into doing something that is awkward. Just keep watching videos of you with the hackers on YouTube so you can keep your self-esteem up. You're still an awesome piece of equipment, even if most of your software is underwhelming.
Love,
A Kinect Owner
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Reaching the End: A Generation's Childhood and Harry Potter
As I was leaving the movie theaters Thursday night, I heard a college-age man say, "Well, I guess there goes my childhood." It was a poignant thought, probably echoing the feelings of many people in his generation as the curtains were drawn on the epic tale of Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling. I couldn't help but agree with him - although I'm old enough that Harry Potter wasn't a part of my childhood per se, I have watched as it enthralled children, teenagers, and adults alike for the past decade or so. And so when the conclusion was reached in cinematic form, it was as if a childhood adventure had drawn to a close, sealing the door into adulthood for the vast number of children who had grown up with the boy who lived.
One of the things that struck me so odd about this journey was that I don't recall a similar even occuring in the past. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles didn't ever reach adulthood and finally defeat their nemesis once and for all. My childhood favorite, The Ghostbusters, never grew up, had children, and ended their adventure. Yet for the generation just behind me, their legend - their heroes - had become adults along with them.
I suppose one of the weaknesses of the final Harry Potter movie comes in the final minutes. So... if you haven't read the book and you haven't watched the movie, skip on to the next paragraph. Now, for those of you still reading, the weakness was that Harry Potter and friends all became adults, had children, married (and stayed married), and were back to say goodbye to their children as they traveled back to Hogwarts. The problem is that it seemed as if all the fun had been left far behind - it seemed that Harry, Ron, and Hermoine had left their adventures to the past and lived on for years in blessed placidness. Yuck. Who wants that?
And so I am perplexed. Is it better to end the story, or is it better that the adventures go on infinitely? Should the Lone Ranger have finished his tale? Should Batman be done once he's done. And what of Indiana Jones? The way that Harry Potter finished left me feelng melancholy - yes, I was happy to see the ending and it was an absolutely terrific movie. In fact, it was appropriate for the extroadinary and epic series of novels Ms. Rowling crafted, and which will live on as some of the best tales ever written (whether you believe it or not). Children will read those books for decades to come if not for longer. Fan fiction will live on for as long as the fans do. Yet I found the ending bittersweet. For as much as a story needs a conclusion, a conclusion likewise means the story is over. There is no further tale, there is no additional adventure, and all will be well.
Perhaps "happily ever after" isn't so grand after all?
So while it was fun to see how the story wrapped up in cinematic fashion, it was also sad to say goodbye to the characters a generation had grown to love. They were just as real to them as their friends - they grew up with them, they connected with them, they even looked up to them. It can't be understated how important it was that Rowling created Hermoine with such great academic qualities for little girls to look up to rather than more unsubstantial attributes. Endings are supposed to be happy when they end in such fashion, but this ending was also a "farewell."
I have a hunch that just as James Bond lives on, and just as Indiana Jones' adventures will continue... just as superheroes live forever, and as legends never die... I have a hunch that Harry Potter is not finished quite yet either. The question for J.K. Rowling is not if the story is finished. The question is, did Harry Potter accomplish his greatest achievement in youth, never to do anything greater for the rest of his life? If so, I consider that the most sad statement of all... because surely the generation that grew up with Harry Potter is only beginning to find their potential. Shouldn't Harry and friends be the same?
- J Frazier
http://www.theworldbreaker.com/
http://www.twitter.com/bluelightningtn
One of the things that struck me so odd about this journey was that I don't recall a similar even occuring in the past. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles didn't ever reach adulthood and finally defeat their nemesis once and for all. My childhood favorite, The Ghostbusters, never grew up, had children, and ended their adventure. Yet for the generation just behind me, their legend - their heroes - had become adults along with them.
I suppose one of the weaknesses of the final Harry Potter movie comes in the final minutes. So... if you haven't read the book and you haven't watched the movie, skip on to the next paragraph. Now, for those of you still reading, the weakness was that Harry Potter and friends all became adults, had children, married (and stayed married), and were back to say goodbye to their children as they traveled back to Hogwarts. The problem is that it seemed as if all the fun had been left far behind - it seemed that Harry, Ron, and Hermoine had left their adventures to the past and lived on for years in blessed placidness. Yuck. Who wants that?
And so I am perplexed. Is it better to end the story, or is it better that the adventures go on infinitely? Should the Lone Ranger have finished his tale? Should Batman be done once he's done. And what of Indiana Jones? The way that Harry Potter finished left me feelng melancholy - yes, I was happy to see the ending and it was an absolutely terrific movie. In fact, it was appropriate for the extroadinary and epic series of novels Ms. Rowling crafted, and which will live on as some of the best tales ever written (whether you believe it or not). Children will read those books for decades to come if not for longer. Fan fiction will live on for as long as the fans do. Yet I found the ending bittersweet. For as much as a story needs a conclusion, a conclusion likewise means the story is over. There is no further tale, there is no additional adventure, and all will be well.
Perhaps "happily ever after" isn't so grand after all?
So while it was fun to see how the story wrapped up in cinematic fashion, it was also sad to say goodbye to the characters a generation had grown to love. They were just as real to them as their friends - they grew up with them, they connected with them, they even looked up to them. It can't be understated how important it was that Rowling created Hermoine with such great academic qualities for little girls to look up to rather than more unsubstantial attributes. Endings are supposed to be happy when they end in such fashion, but this ending was also a "farewell."
I have a hunch that just as James Bond lives on, and just as Indiana Jones' adventures will continue... just as superheroes live forever, and as legends never die... I have a hunch that Harry Potter is not finished quite yet either. The question for J.K. Rowling is not if the story is finished. The question is, did Harry Potter accomplish his greatest achievement in youth, never to do anything greater for the rest of his life? If so, I consider that the most sad statement of all... because surely the generation that grew up with Harry Potter is only beginning to find their potential. Shouldn't Harry and friends be the same?
- J Frazier
http://www.theworldbreaker.com/
http://www.twitter.com/bluelightningtn
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Potential of Kinect is being Lost
One of the things that irks me right now is the technological accomplishment of the Micrsoft Kinect sensor bar coupled with the lack of software putting it to proper use. It's so frustrating to me that a company like Microsoft (who usually takes others' good ideas and makes them better) was able to create a totally new, Minority Report-like product, and now that it's out it is becoming a paper weight because of the lack of inginuity and creativity within the games industry. It's like they are so set in their ways that they can't see past the controller and begin to see how to use a product like this to enhance the market rather than gum it up with gimmicks.
So, here are five ideas that I have which someone should have immediately put into action when Kinect came out.
1) Why do we have to put down the controller to play Kinect? The whole idea that you must play games exclusively on Kinect or exclusively on the controller is bogus, untrue, and being perpetrated by the vast majority of developers. I want a Halo game that allows me to remove my right hand from the controller and throw a grenade rather than waste a button on that. I want to reload the gun by flicking the controller up and down. That leaves other buttons open. That allows additional inputs. Why aren't people doing this?????
2) Dear SEGA: Kinect launched and you released a hoverboard game with Sonic. Okay. But why in the world didn't you realize, "Hey, this is perfect for NiGHTS"? The players hand could control an orb which the NiGHTS character chases through the map. The off-hand could be used to control acrobatics like an orchestrator. Closing one's hand into a fist would make NiGHTS go into the spinning turbo mode. This would all be better than using a controller. Or, hey, SEGA, why is there no Super Monkey Ball in which you hold the world in your hands and tilt it that way? Yeesh.
3) Kinect, you'd be flippin' spiffy if you could see my open hand close into a fist. Then I wouldn't have to wait for a circle to go around my hand to select items. See, if you could let me close my hands, then I could pick items in a quick and efficient way that makes sense. Even Kudo should know that one.
4) Where's my horrific killer app that involves me controlling my movements with the left hand while my right hand holds a flashlight? Turn the lights off at night and let me talk through Kinect to the local yokels in some sort of twisted, dark film-like experience. If my hand is the flashlight, do you know how creepy that's going to be due to the immersion?
5) The kids love Dora. The kids love Micky Mouse Clubhouse. Yet no matter how much they love 'em, it seems that Dora and Mickey can't quite see like they used to. Ever notice how when they tell the kiddos to reach up, even if the kids do or don't, Dora and Mickey say "Great job!" Well, with Kinect, they could see your kids. They could interact with them and the entire game could go along just like a regular episode. Heck, put four episodes on a disc in which the characters can actually see and interact with the kids. That'd be just groovy wouldn't it? I'd love to see the wee ones point to the blue object on the screen after being prompted, only to hear Mickey say, "Almost, but that's orange. Can you find the blue one instead?"
Let's go innovators!
- J Frazier
So, here are five ideas that I have which someone should have immediately put into action when Kinect came out.
1) Why do we have to put down the controller to play Kinect? The whole idea that you must play games exclusively on Kinect or exclusively on the controller is bogus, untrue, and being perpetrated by the vast majority of developers. I want a Halo game that allows me to remove my right hand from the controller and throw a grenade rather than waste a button on that. I want to reload the gun by flicking the controller up and down. That leaves other buttons open. That allows additional inputs. Why aren't people doing this?????
2) Dear SEGA: Kinect launched and you released a hoverboard game with Sonic. Okay. But why in the world didn't you realize, "Hey, this is perfect for NiGHTS"? The players hand could control an orb which the NiGHTS character chases through the map. The off-hand could be used to control acrobatics like an orchestrator. Closing one's hand into a fist would make NiGHTS go into the spinning turbo mode. This would all be better than using a controller. Or, hey, SEGA, why is there no Super Monkey Ball in which you hold the world in your hands and tilt it that way? Yeesh.
3) Kinect, you'd be flippin' spiffy if you could see my open hand close into a fist. Then I wouldn't have to wait for a circle to go around my hand to select items. See, if you could let me close my hands, then I could pick items in a quick and efficient way that makes sense. Even Kudo should know that one.
4) Where's my horrific killer app that involves me controlling my movements with the left hand while my right hand holds a flashlight? Turn the lights off at night and let me talk through Kinect to the local yokels in some sort of twisted, dark film-like experience. If my hand is the flashlight, do you know how creepy that's going to be due to the immersion?
5) The kids love Dora. The kids love Micky Mouse Clubhouse. Yet no matter how much they love 'em, it seems that Dora and Mickey can't quite see like they used to. Ever notice how when they tell the kiddos to reach up, even if the kids do or don't, Dora and Mickey say "Great job!" Well, with Kinect, they could see your kids. They could interact with them and the entire game could go along just like a regular episode. Heck, put four episodes on a disc in which the characters can actually see and interact with the kids. That'd be just groovy wouldn't it? I'd love to see the wee ones point to the blue object on the screen after being prompted, only to hear Mickey say, "Almost, but that's orange. Can you find the blue one instead?"
Let's go innovators!
- J Frazier
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)