Pretty embarrassing.

There's nothing to defend. There was not a single piece of software during the entire lifetime of Kinect 1.0 (though an argument can be made for Child of Eden) that justified its existence or necessity to gamers. Period. To date, Kinect 2.0 appears to be instant-replay of Kinect 1.0's lifetime and software library. Mediocre Kinect games and middling implementations of insignificant features in games that do support a little functionality.

It has the same issue Kinect always had: reliability. You know the reliability you get when you press B on your controller? It works 100% of the time, and if it didn't you'd throw it away, wouldn't you? For the same reason you'd toss that controller is the same reason why developers can't use the device seriously or liberally in games. If you can't reliably offer 99.99% reliability of input recognition from Kinect, it's largely useless for modern games, most of which require timing, precision, and reliability.

You know, maybe if Kinect came with some sort of gloves that Kinect can see each of your fingers and movements in with 100% reliability, we'd see some interesting things. But with what we have right now...Kinect seems to have no future for core gamers. It can't be defended. Back in 2010 or whenever Kinect 1.0 came out, it was fair to defend it because we didn't know what to expect. It deserved a shot. But we've had 3 or 4 years of Kinect to digest and analyze...

...and what we've seen is nothing worth talking about for core gamers. Sorry, there's no debating or defending it. As I said earlier, MS has between now and E3 to develop a brilliant game or two that justify the existence and investment of Kinect 2.0. If they can't by then, they better be making plans for an SKU that doesn't include it.

@SerOlmy: we'll agree to disagree on this one. No problem. I found their presence neither boring nor tedious nor a chore. Further, your suggestions for changing them feel very near-sighted.

In short, I think maybe you didn't play the game enough to figure out how to interact with them in the flow if a match. Your suggestions shows me you failed to understand that and how to utilize them in a march without breaking a stride. That's all I see. But I played for about 20 hours, so I feel like I have a better grasp than most regarding the more subtle nuances of the game and how the things add up and into the whole.

It's okay if you don't like or appreciate it. Not every aspect of every game has to be enjoyable to you. Not every game is for you. Doesn't mean they aren't great; just not for you.

Well, it certainly won't lose any points for graphics. Damn.

WTF at this thread. Yo lemmings, take the L on this and move on. The reality is that Kinect has no meaningful games implementation to sell it to gamers. Not right now, and maybe not ever given how little MS or their partners have shown us to date. It's a nice piece of hardware, but if no developer can think of a way to use it that actually improves upon the gameplay experience, it will always be underutilized.

For those with kids, the Kinect Sports line is always nice. For those who just don't want to get a gym membership like everyone else, Kinect Fitness is an option. But those are very nice software options that provide very limited entertainment after a few sittings. Sadly, for gaming it ends there.

We can hope for something like a sequel to Child of Eden or similar titles, but given how it sold on the 360, that feels unlikely too. But really...if MS can't think of an implementation for it in games that appeals to the core gamer...if they can't create a game that stands up as a brilliant implementation of Kinect for gaming that really serves as the benchmark for what Kinect can be and mean to gaming...well, how can you expect us to convince anyone of its value? How can MS convince its partners to invest extra time or developers into games to add Kinect features?

Right now, all Kinect is good for is auto logging me in and accepting voice commands. I think that's pretty sad for an expensive inclusion in a box that came out at $500. Either they show us between now and E3 why a gamer should care about Kinect, or they will launch a Kinectless SKU before the end of the year. The clock is ticking. Sony is already pulling away in sales and word travels fast.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of their purpose. The bots aren't there to kill you. They're there to help you reduce the time of your titanfall drop. Also, some weapon attachments are linked to you # of bot kills.

Think of the bots as an entity in the game filling a role like minions or creeps do in League of Legends or Dota2. They're a means to a very specific end. In LoL and Dota2, their purpose is to get you faster access to items that increase your killing potential. In Titanfall, their purpose is to get your oversized friend onto the map, get certain burn cards and scopes and silencers. I don't think anyone would suggest LoL and Dota2 aren't "competitive" games because of the presence of bots, right? Neither should you here. You just need to understand what they're there for and how you should interact with them over the course of a match.

===========================================

As for score, it'll be a 9. Because it should be a 9. It will get docked a little for not having a SP campaign and for it's very "cross-gen" graphics (read: very unremarkable). It will score highly for the overall gameplay, speed and fluidity. Gunplay felt great in the Beta and we only had access to like 6 primary weapons. The soundfx and musical score are also all head-of-the-class stuff, only equaled by Battlefield 4. Depending on how good all of the stuff not in the Beta fleshes out the game, it could have been something like a 9.4 (if they still used decimals).

Honestly, after 20 hours playing only 1 mode with 3 classes and 1 Titan, I never really got bored and still want more at this very second. The rush Titanfall can provide is something I haven't felt in an FPS game since...UT99 and Halo 2. It feels like a blast from the past...the best years of competitive FPS gaming, but with 2014 upgrades. I've been trying to go back to BF4 and KZSF since the Beta ended and they're just not as fun anymore. They're still fun mind you, but the excitement and exhilaration found in damn near every TF match is largely absent from those 2 games, for varying reasons. Their camp-ey nature as games, the small irritations (like things that obstruct your path that the game should simply allow you to step over without jumping), the poor net code, the countless glitches, or the dumb respawn placement systems. It all adds up to siphon life away from my ability to enjoy those games.

So yea, that's my opinion. TF is about an order of magnitude more *fun* than BF4, KZSF or CoD. It's not really even a debate in my eyes. It plays faster, it's more entertaining, it's more intense, it's more exciting. The inclusion of MOBA-style AI to farm (thus, always something to do), burn cards, post-game evacuation and Titans breathe a breath of fresh air into the rather stale chemistry of FPS games post CoD4. It's not as pretty as KZSF. It won't have the unnecessarily large weapon selection or 64 players like Battlefield. But it controls like a dream, its soundfx are to die for, and entertains better than both of them put together.

9 (9.4, old system), and our first GoTY candidate.

Good post. And yet it's conclusion is somewhat nearsighted. Part of the experience you want from a console purchased is affected by framerate, resolution and effects. Lower than native resolutions introduce blur, artifacting and problems recognizing distant objects. Lower framerates need no explanation. Lowered effects take away from the ambiance and look that the developers hoped to give their audience. These are objective truths and problems that affect the One more than the PS4...and by no small measure. And it's only year 1.

As one who owns all 3 nextgen systems and a gaming PC, my One is now basically a Wii: I'll buy exclusives on it. Games I can't get anywhere else. Otherwise, everything is going to be bought on the PS4 or PC. Because as you said...it's about the experience...and some parts of the experience are measurable and objective.

I don't know either, my friend.

I really don't know how they failed to properly target 1080p in a world where 1080p is the standard.

Both matter, thank you very much. And it matters because we're all still trying to figure out what we can or should reasonably expect from the One for output resolution. This is a game I simply would have assumed would be 1080p, like Strider. 900p makes me want to ask why. It's not running on Frostbite 2 with levolution. It's pushing a cinematic experience like Ryse. So what's the problem?

It means that the game renders at 900p before being upscaled for 1080p displays using the One's internal scaler. Every One game that is below 1080p is upscaled to 1080p by a scaler to fill the entire screen.