Reader feedback on Kinect has been varied and interesting. Some seem to think Microsoft's new motion control video game technology has potential, but that it's still in its early stages of evolution. Another suggested that the tech won't flourish as an add-on, but that it may come into its own if Microsoft's next system is designed around it. Still others wondered whether Microsoft can crack Nintendo's massive lead in motion control gaming.
I can get behind these comments. They put forward well considered ideas that prompt further thought and discussion. Others, however, seem to be ready to simply dismiss Kinect prior to any first-hand experience.
"Looks like Microsoft has, yet again, copied/stolen someone else's brilliant idea," wrote one reader, prompting another to say: "Some people lead and some people follow, and it's clear who is who in this business." These thoughts were echoed by yet another: "Sorry but Wii sets the standards the others just follow. When was the last time MS had an original idea?"
And apparently Nintendo isn't the only victim of Microsoft's alleged pilfering. Wrote another reader: "Anyone who knows games knows this is nothing new. It's just the PlayStation 2's failed EyeToy being rehashed and repackaged by Microsoft."
These comments suggest that Microsoft simply ripped off the Wii's remote and Sony's EyeToy camera. This simply isn't true. That readers can't agree on which of these technologies-which are fundamentally different-were supposedly stolen demonstrates that Kinect is dissimilar to both.
Try Kinect for even a moment and you'll understand that the lack of any physical controllers distinguishes the experience from that of a Wii game. Kinect games aren't about what's in your hands, they're about moving your body. Even a simple kart racing game like Joy Ride demands far more physical movement than the vast majority Wii games I've tried.
And even a cursory look into Microsoft's technology-three cameras that detect depth and can identify more than twenty parts of the human body, plus an array of microphones for voice control-proves that it is well beyond PlayStation2's aging monocular EyeToy. It shares a little more in common with the new PlayStation Move, which uses the PlayStation Eye to find a controller's position in 3-D space, but Sony's controller is just that: a controller, not a system that recognizes and interprets human movement. We're talking about deeply different technologies.
What's more, to say Microsoft has "ripped off" Sony and Nintendo is like saying Call of Duty ripped off Doom. It makes the argument that competitor evolution is an invalid form of technological progress, that only the first company to market is allowed to innovate within a given category. That's just crazy. It screams of blind brand loyalty.
Other commenters, seemingly worried that Kinect poses a threat to hardcore gaming, went to bat for their hobby. Wrote one reader: "Gaming used to be this mind-bending, fascinating thing to do. Now it's being stupidified for the masses. I mean, if you want to jump around and so forth take aerobics or go to the gym."
As someone who strongly favours traditional games over those controlled by movement, this argument resonates with me. I've often written about how many Wii games just don't appeal to me based on their style of control, and when Kinect was first announced in June of 2009 I flatly declared that I was tired of all this motion control nonsense and just wanted to sit on the couch and clasp a standard controller.
I now regret these remarks to some degree.
I'd still choose to play Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or Battlefield over Boom Blox, Sports Champions, or Kinect Adventures. However, I've slowly come to understand that motion control will not erode development of the games I most enjoy playing. Shooters, RPGs, action games-these traditional, controller-based genres aren't going anywhere. They will simply exist alongside motion control games developed for wider and more casual audiences.
Some commenters criticized Kinect not because it is copying other technologies or destroying gaming as we know it, but simply because they think it is deficient in some way.
One reader wrote: "The biggest problem with Kinect is the lack of buttons. It really only captures you doing one thing at once effectively due to that lack. So there's a lot of stuff where this type of control is simply useless, unlike something like [Sony's PlayStation]Move."
Another picked on its performance. "The technology is fundamentally flawed. The camera can't pick up the motions properly at all. Way too much interpolating and guessing what the user is doing...You'll see in actual demonstrations (not put up by Microsoft or companies that are trying to suck up to Microsoft), how the characters' movements lag behind the user's motions and got half the motions wrong."
I agree with some of these criticisms. The lack of buttons does make some kinds of games seemingly impossible (though, as another reader pointed out, nothing is stopping developers from making games that use both Kinect's motion sensors and a traditional controller). And lag, as I noted in my review, can be an issue in games that require precise timing.
However, I think people in this mindset are expecting the wrong things from Kinect. Again, Microsoft's new platform isn't here to service hardcore gamers and their need for exacting precision, but rather casual players who don't play games that require pinpoint timing. I've got 30 years of avid video gaming experience behind me, and while I clearly noticed Kinect's lag and missed the utility of a gamepad in a game like Sonic Free Riders, I wasn't bothered while playing games that took these limitations into account, like Dance Central and Kinectimals. Buttons wouldn't make either of these games any better, and the mechanics were such that Kinect's lag had no noticeable impact on playability.
It's all about managing one's expectations. If all you want to do is play hardcore games, Kinect isn't for you. However, it might be suitable if you want to have fun times with your kids, get off the couch and get some exercise, or play new kinds of games that simply aren't possible with other platforms. Perhaps none of this appeals to you. That's fair enough. But it will appeal to some, and it makes no sense to decry a technology simply because its applications don't suit your tastes.
Think of it as freedom of religion. Assuming they're not imposing upon you, would you deny others their beliefs simply because you don't agree with them? Everyone is entitled to play the sort of games they want to play. Some people will want the simplicity and accessibility of the Wii (not to mention its large library of great first-party motion control games). Others will crave the amazing precision of PlayStation Move. And some people will want to get into the game with their entire bodies by using Kinect.