Kinect 2, while improved over its predecessor, still has a lot of latency, which makes it an uphill battle for certain types of experiences. I don't think the lag for Fighter Within is entirely all on the Kinect's (Ubisoft seems to be queuing up moves or something I think(?), which just makes it looks worse), but getting the lag to acceptable levels for certain games might be pretty difficult, if not impossible, given the specs/limitations of the camera. Still can have some great time I guess (some games are more tolerant of input latency), but I'm not sure it could easily handle 1:1 movement in a fighting game for example (especially if you wanted something like 60 FPS). Needs better tech for that I think.
Makes me wonder if it would work better, for this type of experience in the short-term, to create basically mo-cap-type sensors to work with something like the Kinect. Like, if a person could wear gloves, elbow pads, and knee pads that all had sensors on them, it would be a lot easier for a camera to quickly track the movements of those sensors than trying to interpret someone's body movements cold. But then of course, what would those sensors cost? Who knows. Could be cool, I just don't know if it's practical / cost-effective for this generation or not.
I don't know much about camera tech, and how much of this is software driven vs hardware driven (i.e., can the latency ever be less than 60ms, even with much simpler input/recognition?). The Kinect is pretty accurate/precise (I know it can "easily" track hands, fingers, etc.). But I guess it is accurate because it takes so long to process the image (hence the large latency). As you said, maybe some sensors could allow the Kinect to be "dumber" but quicker. Don't think the sensors would be that bad.
Motion tracking sensors and cameras that can read them would not just involve sensors on the body. It would involve cameras all around the subject in the ceiling of the playing area or living room. Yeah the technology exists. Several film schools across the nation have them. I have taken several special effects and cinema classes so I have been able to see them first hand. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TboSe_0zJGA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Would it make Kinect better? It would make it perfect. But people are having a hard time spending an extra $100 on the Xbox One so I doubt many will want to invest thousands and thousands of dollars on rigging up the living room for this set up. Its not even feasible to give something like this thought because its pointless for Microsoft and consumers. With that said, that's why the Kinect is so impressive. Because its a camera. One that is more impressive than both the Wii mote and the PlayStation sailor moon wand. The Kinect is doing something that costs over thousands and thousands of dollars in equipment. No it does not do it better but it does an incredible job for the price. No need for bulky shoulder pads or gear. It is reading your body and acting as a mirror via both hardware/software to control the game. My understanding is that Kinect is just simply a high def camera and the amazing breakthrough is the software. With all of that said^^.... The Kinect 2 is freaking crazy impressive by the looks of it so far. Wont know until someone figures out how to use the technology and apply it to the right game. I will say this. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens sooner than later. Even fighter within may be that game. I'm pretty confident the final release is going to be pretty interesting and accurate.
Accuracy isn't really the problem (well...it is a problem, but Kinect does seem to be doing fine there). Latency is what is a problem, at least for certain games. Wiimote and PS Move are a little better with latency IIRC (not perfect, but better). They're dumber/less accurate, but for some games, lower latency might be more important.
Well yeah, there's no way I believe paying for and setting up true film-quality motion capture in your living room is something that's going to appeal to the average consumer. I agree with you there. That was why I was wondering aloud if it would be feasible to develop a limited number of wearable sensors that would make the Kinect, or any other single-camera system, function without such god-awful input delay. With a limited number of sensors and only one camera, you would have the problem of losing sight of several of the sensors at a time... but perhaps those limited number of sensors could be combined with accelerometers so the system has some idea where those sensors are until they become visible again. But even that set-up, I think would not sit well with consumers. What I'm saying is I'm not 100% sold on the Kinect being where it needs to be yet to do a fighting game like this. I would love it if it proved me wrong, though.
that fighting game looks terrible. a bunch of people just throwing punches towards the screen...lol do you know how tiring that is anyways? after 2 games, turn off kinect, use controller is what's going to happen.
But it would be great for Tae Bo training, haha. I dont think we will really see the capabilities of the Kinect for at least 3 more years...I do think that developers will be able to come up with some cool things for it though. At least, that's my hope.
Kinect by itself only works well with certain games right now, but the potential is there to go farther. Where I think it will do best is in games that involve a controller as well.
I don't think the input delay or latency is caused by the hardware or software. I honestly think that its caused by the fact that this is a new system and game creators are having to figure out something that is 1. Not easy 2. Never been done before. They are having to program body movements as virtual buttons. I think the problem is the software recognizing the right movement with the right button and or action and for them to come up with a the precise points on the move so that anyone can make it. I doubt its that the camera is losing the subject or the software losing track of an arm or leg. Getting this to work flawless takes time and experience. Problem is we will never reach it if people don't give it a chance and call Kinect just simply a gimmick. Its not. This actually works. And while some cry that its going to be too tiring. I completely disagree that's a bad thing. If anything this is a great thing. Every game is for an audience and for different situations. You wouldn't sit down to play Bioshock Infinite with a group loud friends talking over the story line. You also wouldn't try to play Wii Sports when you are all alone. A fighting game like this is perfect for a group of friends to just simply have a good time despite the situation. Maybe some are too lazy to throw a punch into thin air but I guarantee you that if you feel too lazy to do that this game is actually helping you more than hurting you if you sit on a couch eating potato chips all day with a controller in hand. I get it, some of us work a lot and just want to come home and play a little. That's great, nobody ever said all games will be on Kinect and require you to move. Sometimes you feel like going paintballing or going to laser quest. Sometimes you are too tired for that. Same thing here. These games are opening up a new genre of some sort. Interactive gaming.
Think Kinect 2 has ~60ms of latency (not sure if that includes additional processing), which is on the higher end I believe (not super knowledgeable on this, but Carmack also said Kinect 2 has a lot of latency, so I'll take his word for it). Software devs figuring things out is part of it too (they can "predict" movements better despite this latency), but there are just some limitations/trade-offs to this kind of tech.
PS4 because of MLB The Show, Last of Us, and Uncharted. I will get an Xbone if Microsoft really shows me something with the kinect camera. If MS doesn't show me something amazing with kinect and Halo, I ain't getting it. I am not a big fan of Halo, but if MS cannot work the kinect into that game in a meaningful way, I won't expect any other company to use it either. I am really curious to see what MS does with kinect and Halo.
I told myself I wasn't going to get either but he more I think about the more I think I will pressure myself into buying a Xbox-One but I am still torn between buying neither, Xbox-One or ps4. I just don't know. I will have to look at the exclusives since I haven't followed gaming intently in like 3 or 4 years.
I may get both once prices drop. I'll also pick up a Wii U to play the next generation Mario/Zelda/etc. I haven't followed these two consoles since their debut. I heard MS pulled a 180 on the XBOX regarding its controversial features. If that's true, then I should be purchasing it. If not, then PS4 a year after launch to iron out the hardware kinks.
With the specials between Live and Office 365 it isn't horrible to just buy a live subscription. I'm so in the ecosystem I have to get an XB1. I have Xbox music pass, live, and office 365. It connects all to my surface and my wp8 and I don't have to worry about any of it. The PS4 seems cool, but I've been happy with my 360 and my Wii U. Upgrading the xbox just seems like the logical move...
How do you like your Wii U? I heard horror stories about how the console has flopped, how developers won't make games for it anymore, how it will be pulled from shelves, etc. Any truth to that? I don't want to buy another Sega Saturn or Dreamcast.
The games from Nintendo for it are great... other developers are hit and miss. It's ok. Honestly, when MarioKart and other staple games come out I think the console will pick up, but the problem I have with it right now is I'm buying into a lot of potential. The xbox 1 will have 23 titles on launch day, the Wii U had 9. Of those 9, I think 3 were xbox 360 ports like Wipeout that are pure garbage. I think the potential is there, I just keep wondering when the hell do I get a new MarioKart or Zelda or something other than Mario Brothers Wii U and Nintendoland?
