In response to "Doing the CrowdWave" from The Escapist Forum: Oh my goodness. This sounds amazing! I'm from Philly, and I was raised as a rabid sports fan. I'm also a huge fan of video games, so this sounds like the best of both worlds! I wonder if it only works in enclosed venues, like basketball and hockey stadiums, or if open-air stadiums would work, too. I can see football (American or international) really getting into this! Crowd sections tend to bond, and having them work together would cement that. I see CrowdWave being the future of halftime and between-period entertainment, instead of watching someone try to shoot a basket from farther and farther away or suchlike.

- runnernda


In response to "Make Room for Kinect" from The Escapist Forum: This sounds like entirely too much work for a new, unproven periphery. I say it dies a slow and drawn out death. The Wii did motion sensing first, it did it cheaper, and it did it a hell of a lot more conveniently than Kinect's shenanigans. Perfect lighting? 8 square feet? rearrange the room? To put it quite plainly, fuck that. I'd rather hit one button and flop down on the couch with a Wiimote than jump through all the hoops.

- ObsessiveSketch

Even supposing I was the target audience for the Kinect - which couldn't be further from the truth, I don't even own an X-Box - seeing the lengths urban residents would have to go to just to make the system work at all does indeed strike me as needlessly convoluted. And not just because I live in the suburbs in what I would consider a fairly small house - by typical urban standards it would probably be considered palatial, but out here it's pretty small.

Is the gimmick of button-less motion controls honestly worth all the extra effort and disruption it would take to experience? Again, I'm not a console gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but I look at Kinect marketing materials and it's like watching advertising aimed exclusively at extraterrestrial beings with minds fundamentally distinct from our normal human brains. I simply cannot comprehend why anyone would want one - all the games look like pointless fluff, sports/casual titles with the depth of a pencil line, fare fit only for the waggle-crowd of the Wii - and the control methodology itself seems to be ill-suited for titles that would actually be of interest for those of my mindset.

Put simply, if I wanted to jump around and flail my arms and generally look like a spastic idiot, I would go outside (no I wouldn't, I hate the outdoors). Motion controls are colossal steps backwards - economy of motion and efficiency are what is important when devising a control scheme, so injecting additional layers of abstraction and expanding the required range of motions leaves you with a control scheme that is objectively worse. We don't need motion controls to make better games - if anything, shoehorning in motion controls can only be detrimental - and the Kinect in particular all but precludes any possibility of there being any games that "gamers" will actually care about by virtue of its design.

So at the end of the day, I'm left wondering this: Unless they're buying it for exercise purposes, why the hell would the audience that frequents sites like this one even want a Kinect, let alone want to rearrange their lives to use one?

- Gildan Bladeborn


Comments on