I can't fathom how this isn't Kinect's fault. The technology just straight-up isn't good enough for anything that interests the market that's still around and willing to buy those games. Natal was introduced in 2009 and we've been through a second iteration of this tech now, and it still isn't satisfactory.
People can hold up the voice commands as the beacon of "the future" all you like, but the fact remains that you don't really need a giant shitty camera to accomplish that. The PS4 allows you to use voice commands by plugging any old microphone into the audio jack on the controller, and presto, you have "the future." Nothing fancy required. Presumably Microsoft could allow the same flexibility to their commands for those who wished to use them.
And seeing developers on twitter subtly lash out at people for being happy they no longer have to spend a lot more money on an inherently flawed device they never wanted in the first place? I just think that's childish. It shouldn't be my responsibility to prop up that market just so people can keep trying to release games year after year that turn out to still not be that interesting. The fact that consumers have basically been asked to beta test these devices for several years, over a second iteration, at our expense, and we still have so little to show for it, is bananas. Average consumers have done way, way more for that device than any developer has thusfar.
I agree entirely. I will say that Kinect itself is an interesting technology with lots of potential - but not for anything particularly mass-market, and especially not remotely as a gaming device, for many (simple and obvious) reasons. Trying to sell it as a gaming device was always a non-starter.
Why has JS Joust guy not made a great must-have game for it, if he likes it so much and is bitter about people celebrating its demise? The reason is that it's a terrible gaming control method, that simply never worked properly.
And 'physical play'? Just play a sport. Far more fun and satisfying and exhilirating and rewarding than any weird indie game designed around a bad control system can ever be.
@patrickklepek Out of an abundance of pedantry, I'll point out that PEGI isn't the ratings board for all of Europe, despite the name. There are a couple of countries which still use their own systems in some way (Germany, most famously, has much stricter rules than PEGI on certain matters, which is why some games are censored or banned altogether in Germany, but not for the rest of Europe).
Might be interesting to know what the USK's methodology is on this, though I doubt it'd be any different.
Surely this is the case in the UK as well, unless I'm to believe that you've got London, Manchester, Liverpool, and then nothing but quaint country villages the instant you leave the city?
So I think the two extremes you suggested are an oversimplification, and aren't really the factors that led to the widespread adoption of automatic in North America.
Oh it's definitely an oversimplification, but I like my oversimplifications! :D
England is quite densely packed but yes, there's countryside. Roughly the same size as Florida with a population about three times as much. Scotland, where I am, is a bit different, very empty (2/3rds the size of England, 1/10th the population, or in American terms, basically South Carolina (but with like half of it being taken up by mountains). Not much outside the populated section in the middle but hilly and twisty. We have motorways between cities of course but they're not exactly like American highways or the glorious German autobahns.
@cale: In the UK you can only drive automatics if you pass your test in one. Pass in manual and you are ok in whatever.
I've only ever driven automatics a half dozen times amd have never felt safe doing it. I need a clutch.
Were all six times during incredibly adverse weather conditions, or recklessly high speeds? I'm not aware of other situations where the differences between automatic and manual are particularly relevant to your safety.
Engine braking is one such circumstance where you are certainly 'safer' with a manual, everything else being equal. At least in Scotland, where everything is so hilly that it's one of the first things you get taught, but I gather that isn't the case everywjere. You can't really do it with an automatic, obviously. Going up steep hills is also a bit easier to do safely as well.
I assume Americans mostly drive automatics because they have two types of road - long, empty straight roads that go on for 100s of miles, or choked-up inner-city traffic at 2mph. In both cases, manuals are a nuisance. In most cities in Europe (even the less 'progressive' UK) there is no need or desire to do much driving in city centres very often unless you are flamboyantly rich and like walking long distances from a parking space you had to kill someone for. Also our roads are the bendy, hilly pleasures Americans only see in video games.
I can happily drive both but an automatic is always less engaging and more frustrating. The automatic I drive most often has dangerously slow acceleration.
Cheap, easy shorthand which players understand. It worked well within limitations of older hardware and games, but feels old-fashioned and overdone now, can break immersion, and should stop. I found it hard to suspend disbelief in Gone Home because the existence of the audio log-like narrative sections didn't really make much sense.
@mracoon: I've got to second Tone Control, it has been very good. Even a lot of Patricks interview dump trucks have more of a developer lean to them.
Idle thumbs get really deep into some of the more minor aspects of what makes games interesting. Although unless you really like those guys and their discussions it might sometimes sound a bit pretentious.
Idle Thumbs can swing wildly between absurd hilarity, interesting deep analysis of game design, and occasionally tedios navel gazing. It seems to depend greatly on what they're playing. They have been on good form lately, though.
It's $40 in the UK. Indefensible price and the gaming Stockholm Syndrome on show with people defending it ("if you play it through 4 times it is 5 hours long, amazing value") is quite bizarre and depressing.
If this is a success, EA, Ubisoft, Activision will all decide to do the same thing.