XBOX 360 Natal?

[Squeek]

I want to know what you all think about the XBOX 360's Natal!

>>Check it out!<<

I think that if it works like they say or show it does, it'll be freaking awesome..

I've tried playing racing games on the wii, and I couldn't do it b/c I need
resistance to be able to tell how far to turn and such...
so I don't think removing the controller altogether will help racing games at all...
But my favorite part is the social advantages
I've heard that they had it set up at E3,
and it worked just like it shows..

here's another vid they created: Meet Milo
and one more vid that shows some possible bugs
(esp with the avatar's movements..): Live demo

if this does work the way it's showing...imagine the games to come!
I don't think XBOX will limit themselves to only making family-friendly games, either!

[alphatroll]

ok, i'll say it right here:

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT.


i do still have my atari tho!

[Squeek]

watch them vidjas by golly! and be amazed!

[Slinker]

[williamthebloody]

ok, i'll say it right here:

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT.


i do still have my atari tho!

um, yeah... i'm with this guy. never heard of it.

and also still have a working atari. YAR'S REVENGE 4 ever!!

[snemmy]

As I've said, cool tech.

Revolutionize gaming?
Nope... Game companies are too scared as is to venture out with new IP and anything too innovative/far reaching. Until they pull their heads out and see that people WILL buy new and shiny stuff, it'll be regulated to gimmicky mini-games that are uber cheap to crank out, much like the Wii.

[PeonChrist]

As I've said, cool tech.

Revolutionize gaming?
Nope... Game companies are too scared as is to venture out with new IP and anything too innovative/far reaching. Until they pull their heads out and see that people WILL buy new and shiny stuff, it'll be regulated to gimmicky mini-games that are uber cheap to crank out, much like the Wii.

Blame the people who buy games, not the developers. Taking risks in development is all well and good, but people don't always go for innovative games.

Ask Tim Schafer.

[The Flying Dracula Hair]

Unfortunately I number among those who've never played Pyschonauts :/



On that note, for some reason, I've never heard of all of this either. But now I have!

To be honest, I'm impressed with the technology, but how I feel at the moment is:

1) Little too perfect to be true - I think the spasms in the live demo will be tip of the annoyance iceberg on first launch, judging on my experience with the Wii and general results of entertainment campaign promises

and

2) I think it's certainly the future of home media, but similar to Snemmy's sentiment, how long until it's the official next generation of video games is something we'll have to ponder when we see an actual decent game built for it. The fare in the commercial teaser and demo were, WOW, blaaaaand looking, and their novelty will wear off soon (especially since they resemble "interactive" games I saw at a participatory demo at ComiCon four years ago, for some presumably flopped stand-alone system).
I think it'll be a bit until they get over their accomplishment and construct a game that isn't COMPLETELY based on the way you manipulate it.

And seriously, I liked the Milo video... but sci-fi writers and movies NEVER imagined it? The sort of perspective this guy was putting out completely annoys me.
I'm fine with a controller being the barrier between me and rassling with Koopas, I'm happy movie screens don't rap around the theater and connect into my brain so the threat of a totally awsum explosion feels scary. Does it really benefit us to make our entertainment more real? Do we need to actually mess about with Milo after he's done, when we know other hoomahn children would thrive on that same sort of attention?
Wouldn't education, exploratory, and news gathering goals be better? No? Well it's where all this advancement is going to find it's eventual use down the line - because, AT BEST, it will merely be an era of games that we play, along with Alpha Troll's Atari (by the way, if it did change games forever, in terms of history, it would mean the Wii did it - sorry guy).
It may change the landscape of a parent and child's interaction with the stars, or ocean life, though. School outings to the observatory may never be the same again! (Sorry laser ball!) But we'll have to wait for that, I guess.

Milo is the dumbell, not anything worth being the end product.
Shit looks like Myst, though. Sequel like that would be pretty sweet.

Thanks for the thread and news, Squeek!

[Slinker]

Personally I can see many limitations and games that will be quite difficult to handle if you control them with your body. Like for exampel a simpel adventure game, how are you suppose to make your character run forward? By waving your arm? Or to walk out of the room? The rally thing they showed on the trailer seemed ridicules for me. Did they even mention how to make vechials stop?

This might not be a big thing but the games I like are the games with a good story and intresting characters. The Wii showed many of it flaws right at one of it's first games, Twilight princess. I played it on Gamecube and then on Wii and while many mini games were a lot better on Wii the main game stod a lot better out on Gamecubes controller. Same goes with Resident evil 4.

This is just something that will appeal to a lot of people at the beginning but as some mention it wont probably be many games for it. The Wii is going throw this right now. And it has all the potential in making some very intresting games but it doesn't really do that because simpel mini-games sells more. Why should people who never played games like Zelda be intrested in it just because they have a Wii?

I think it is better to adopt new technolgy to game ideas and not the other way around. I also think that a developer that makes a new intresting concept for a game like this improves the gaming industri a lot more than a exercise game about kicking balls on a wall.

Look for exampel at Guitar Hero, that succed cause it was a good game with a well designed controller for it. If someone had a good idea for a game to this body moving thing form the beginning it might had made me more intrested. But for now it's just a way for Microsoft to get people who don't play games to buy a 360.

[snemmy]

As I've said, cool tech.

Revolutionize gaming?
Nope... Game companies are too scared as is to venture out with new IP and anything too innovative/far reaching. Until they pull their heads out and see that people WILL buy new and shiny stuff, it'll be regulated to gimmicky mini-games that are uber cheap to crank out, much like the Wii.

Blame the people who buy games, not the developers. Taking risks in development is all well and good, but people don't always go for innovative games.

Ask Tim Schafer.

I might not know Tim Schafer, but I DO know a lot of people in the industry.

I should also correct myself, I actually meant PUBLISHERS are afraid, developers would love to have crazy games to work on.

Their opinion is 'this sold 2.5 million copies, lets make it again!' Much like with movies (sequel/reboot #405897340) it is easier for them to go with established IP rather than try to create/boost a new one that has no built in audience. And people buy what they know. For example, the Transformers movie game sold 5 million copies despite being a very poor game.

I read in an interview with the creator of Tetris, for Natal to be successful to the average person, it needs to have a 99.9% success rate. The first time you wave your hand and Netflix doesn't go to the next movie, you've just lost a chunk of buyers.

If MS can bring it, and bring it HARD, then they can change the face of gaming.