I was an early adopter to the Kinect and I got it, as well as a 250GB XBox 360-Slim and picked up a couple games. One of these games was Sonic Free Riders, one that I was kind of excited about. But I'm here to tell you, if you end up getting a Kinect in the future, avoid it. Because it was the worst 50 dollars I ever spent on a video game.
It is virtually unplayable. I mean, you could play it, but if you did, you would probably get severe back problems. You play by standing sideways, and to turn, you lean back to go left, forward to go right, but it will only turn when you get to the point where you're literally bending over to the point that you get off balance and, in some cases, fall on your !@#$ing face.
Not to mention that while some points recquire you to jump, it will not recognise the jumping. This is not a problem with my Kinect- I've had to jump and lean in other games, like Kinect Adventures. That went just fine. Sonic Free Riders, however, is so bad that I wonder if it was ever tested at all.
But what can you expect when their making 2 games that are supposed to come out in the same month? Makes me wonder how Sonic Colors will turn out.
Sounds like pretty much every Sonic game made then. =D
Uh, shouldn't this go in the actual Free Riders topic. Also, I've heard from Ian Flynn that while it did take awhile to get use to it, he did eventually get use to it though still not perfectly.
Uh, shouldn't this go in the actual Free Riders topic
IMO South Island is too topic condensed anyway. It's sensible to have different topics for pre-release and reviews.
They should redo it as a normal controller game. That probably would not make it particularly good, but at least it would be playable.
This is the only traditional genre game the Kinect has, AFAIK. Which makes the capabilities of the Kinect even more questionable. The Wii introduced radical control schemes but can handle controller games too.
I agree with that- having it be a normal controller game. But if it was, I most certainly wouldn't have shelled out 50 bucks for it. Sonic Riders games were never particularly interesting AT ALL, but I thought the motion controls were intriguing. Of course, I ended up disappointed.
And, Veckums, it sounded like you were disappointed that Kinect didn't do regular controller games, but if you have a Kinect, then you have an Xbox 360, so there's really no point in having controller games for Kinect...
Uh, shouldn't this go in the actual Free Riders topic
IMO South Island is too topic condensed anyway. It's sensible to have different topics for pre-release and reviews.
Oh, well, uh, whatever floats your boat; you're da boss afterall! 
And, Veckums, it sounded like you were disappointed that Kinect didn't do regular controller games, but if you have a Kinect, then you have an Xbox 360, so there's really no point in having controller games for Kinect...
Well, it suggests that the library will be quite small if most of the titles have to be new genres. Game companies are usually quite bad at that. They also like to stereotype motion gamers, which means that even if Kinect can handle precise controls and Sonic Free Riders is a fluke, rather than taking it as a way to apply revolutionary controls to high quality titles they will read it as an opportunity to sell mini-games.
Yeah. Kinect is going to have the exact same problems that Wii has- a strictly casual audience, with a relatively small game library that consists largely of sports, party, and compilation games. But then, there will be that rare jewel that just shines compared to all the others on the shelf.
Although, Kinect has the advantage of knowing what kind of mistakes Nintendo made, so they won't make them. For example, Nintendo had problems branching out to 3rd party developers for awhile, which held it back. Microsoft will know not to do that, and they'll also know to make a wider variety of games, instead of just the same things over and over again. I think Kinect is definitely gonna come out on top.
My personal opinion is that one way or another, some of those high-ranker employees get sick of all the problems, complaints and competitions that someone's going to eventually nuke the world. That's about it in a nutshell.
I know video games are an important part of many of our lives, but that doesn't give them enough influence in our society where they have access to nuclear weapon stockpiles.
Be sort of a bad idea to do so, anyway. I think more nukes are used willy-nilly in video games than in any other form of media. Doesn't give you the impression that they know the meaning of not hitting the big red button.
The Wii has a "problem" with being aimed at a casual audience? Considering their overall success with the Wii, despite the shovelware, I'd say that's one of its selling points. But I guess it depends on if being a "hardcore" gamer is more important than having fun. Also, the Kinect is stationed on a current-gen system, and the next generation of consoles should be coming out in the next year or so if they follow their usual pattern. If it gets ported over to the new generation, then maybe it will have success in the longer run, but right now the Kinect is held back by an extremely limited game library and not being out long enough for many people to acquire it.
I'll give points to Microsoft for their massive advertising binge to promote the Kinect, it's hard not to see it out there in Burger King and Wal-Mart ads.
the next generation of consoles should be coming out in the next year or so if they follow their usual pattern
Given how the economy is, the HD consoles still being too expensive to develop for, Sony just starting to make a profit, Nintendo's correct belief that consoles had skipped a generation by going from PS/N64/Saturn to Dreamcast only to PS2/GC/XBox, the Kinect just coming out, and no rumors of next systems yet, I expect it to take a bit longer.
By skipping they made game development costs shoot through the roof, and that is some of why Nintendo is so profitable.
Nintendo's correct belief that consoles had skipped a generation by going from PS/N64/Saturn to Dreamcast only to PS2/GC/XBox
I'm intrigued, what's this all about?
Nintendo's correct belief that consoles had skipped a generation by going from PS/N64/Saturn to Dreamcast only to PS2/GC/XBox
I'm intrigued, what's this all about?
I was confused as hell too, but now I think I get it: PS, N64, and Saturn were one generation, PS2, GC, and X were another, and DC was... somewhere in between. One console doesn't exactly qualify as a 'generation' I suppose. It WAS meant to be the first of the latter gen, and perhaps still is (because Nintendo apparently doesn't consider it), but died because nobody believed it would do well, so nobody bought it, and hey guess what it didn't do well, because nobody bought it. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
WAY TO GO, YOU JAGS.
For all your lightgun shooting needs and some other insanity too.
Either Iwata or Miyamoto said in an interview that is proving elusive to Googling that with PS2/GC/XBox, consoles skipped a generation, dramatically increasing cost of development, and that an extreme climb and emphasis of system specs was bad for consoles long term.
The jump in console graphic capability was completely spurred on and necessitated by the PC hardware-accelerated 3D graphics card industry, which had begun to emerge during the PS1/Saturn/N64 era. They raised the bar continuously until it completely eclipsed what any console was capable of achieving and then went beyond (all hell broke loose when OpenGL hit). By the time the Dreamcast had hit retail it was already lagging behind the latest cards, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo would have to up the ante in order to compete. It's been spiraling out of control ever since.
Nintendo was the first to take a stand with the Wii, suggesting that the Gamecube-level tech (which was pretty incredible when it first came out, easily trumping the PS2 in graphic fidelity and going toe-to-toe with original Xbox at a much cheaper price point) was still perfectly viable for the day's game development needs. They've been taking flak for that stand ever since.
Flak is a word that means piles of money right?
Anyway, that is another reason I expect this generation to be slightly longer. GC is pretty much enough for console tech, at least with SD resolution. With HD resolution, PS3 is enough that it would be hard to make any compelling case for PS4, perhaps until 3D TV becomes common.
Well, the Playstation spanned the course of 11 years. The PS2 has just about hit 10, and is still going. And I do recall reading somewhere (probably a Game Informer) that Sony plans to have the PS3 live a nice long life before they retire it. Granted, a lot of that has to do with success, as all of the other systems competing with the predecessors fell short of these ranges. Then of course, once someone makes the first step... But on that note, I think we've already gone quite a while without even hearing any serious talk of successor systems.
Why this is happening? Financial reasons is a good guess. Why drop money on making newer stuff when you can just ride the (very profitable) wave of current specs? Well, okay, more money, but still. Or maybe the people making consoles now have all owned several consoles in their life and understand that players don't want to buy more and more. Let me paint a picture: right now, I have a Genesis, SEGA CD, Saturn, Dreamcast, XBox 360, Wii, and PS2 (because my PS3 YLOD'ed... boo) hooked up to my TV. Where am I gonna put another one? Okay, so I highly doubt that the companies care about our wallets and space, but I can dream.
For all your lightgun shooting needs and some other insanity too.
And I do recall reading somewhere (probably a Game Informer) that Sony plans to have the PS3 live a nice long life before they retire it.
Yeah, that's what I've heard on GameFAQs several times that Sony and MS wants to make their consoles last for 10 yrs.; course, I have no idea how true that is.
