@Blazen702 It does make sense as every gamer is different.
Microsoft are trying to bridge the gap between PC, TV set top box and games console, and if they want to do that then getting basic USB keyboard/mouse support across the board (games as well as web browsing/dashboard) should be just as important as Kinect.
You see PC and console as two disparate devices, that's fine. The way things are headed though, convergence means that not having support for input devices that predate console motion sensors and touchscreen devices (phones/tablets) by decades is pretty silly. Especially when they would make many games easier/more fun to play.
If you don't ever need keyboard/mouse support, then you don't plug them in and never need know it's there. For other gamers this feature would enhance their gaming experience and be a key selling point. It would also save time for developers planning to do a PC port of a console game: theywould already have a working keyboard layout going forwards, saving test time later on.
@noirtenshin Nintendo tried that years ago with the Power Glove. It was... not a success which is why you haven't heard of it. Look for the Angry Video Game Nerd on YouTube, he did a series of videos explaining why it was terrible.
Chances are this idea would work better with more modern motion sensing controls, but who really enjoys those things when the novelty wears off? Only a fairly small percentage, my guess is around 10%. Again, YouTube the Zero Punctuation video about the inaccurate and frustrating nature of the Kinect.
@Blazen702 I already explained that. An "official Microsoft keyboard peripheral that attaches to the controller" will a) cost more than a generic USB keyboard/mouse set and b) still not be as accurate because there's no proper mouse.
Also there are plenty of smaller form factor keyboards, this isn't the 1980s any more where every keyboard is wired, weighs three kilos and has big clanking keys. Combined track pad/small keyboard units that are wireless and work well on a couch are easy to come by and would still likely be more accurate than a gamepad for games requiring precise aim.
@wicked_laugh Not all games NEED it but that doesn't mean they shouldn't all HAVE it. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, as the saying goes.
So what Microsoft are saying is that the current Xbox One SDK doesn't already have game based keyboard and mouse support as a feature? That's ludicrous.
USB ports have been a feature since generation six (PS2/Xbox), generation seven is just about to end as generation eight begins yet this is still an issue because once again console makers are assuming they know what their end users gaming habits are. All that time spent putting in instant switching between gaming and live TV steaming that most gamers do not care about and yet still not able to get basic human interface device support right.
Every new game should have this alread - PS3 and X360 are more than capable of it - but they don't. The fact is, the politics are making this an issue because PC hardware makers would be challenged if their expensive new graphics cards weren't being bought as the console experience took away the one remaining big advantage, the accuracy of mouse and keyboard. Where the gamer sits -couch or desk - really makes no difference and is just a BS excuse.
If the Xbox One was a true convergeance device as Microsoft keep insisting it is, little annoucements of this nature would not be necessary - the requirement would already be that all games must have basic mouse/keyboard support before being certified for release. Like I said, it is all politics, and I find it mighty hypocritical that a company who still makes a huge percentage of it's revenue from PCs haven't already planned for better keyboard/mouse support this time around. Perhaps they are worried they also won't sell enough overpriced controllers if any generic keyboard/mouse set half the price will do the job twice as well.
Whatever the reasons, it is truly stupid through and through.
You know, maybe people should start looking at it the other way round: how many violent acts have been PREVENTED because violent video games exist? Granted there isn't really a statistically provable way to definitively verify this, but my guess would be A LOT.
The amount of times I've thought about going out and tearing someone's head off by starting a fight at a bar after work which have been calmed by me doing some puzzle solving, air combat or plain old first person shooting in a video game has happened so many times I can't count. All my violent intent will be channeled into that video game and I'll tend to enjoy it more than usual because it's an outlet - a safe, controlled outlet no less - for the aggression that could easily have been manifest in real life in ways that would result in people getting injured and me getting jail time. At the end of a good gaming session where I can vent a bit in that way, I tend to feel much calmer and controlled. Although I will admit I'll also be a little more hyped-up because of the adrenaline, obviously!
So yeah. These moral guardians crusading for votes should:
a) keep that in mind
b) stop making stupid sweeping generalisations which let the foolhardy and lethal actions of a select minority of people who are violent AND also happen to play video games speak for those that know they are just entertainment and shouldn't go out and perform actions depicted in the games.
In fact why don't we dredge up the classic "I play Mario games all the time and I have no desire to go out and jump through plumbing and search old castles for Princesses" argument. :D
A good game is one that balances all the elements: graphics, sound, control method and of course the gameplay itself. And the great thing is, there aren't limits or restrictions on what a leading example of any of those four main factors is: if it works for the title in question then it really doesn't matter how similar or different they are to other games of any type.
Case in point, I've been having a lot of fun tracing some of the finest titles of the seventh generation on Xbox 360: Condemned 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Red Dead Redemption, both the Batman: Arkhams, Oblivion, Fable II, GTA IV, Forza 4, Fight Night 4, goodness knows what else. And while they've been great as always, I decided to play the old SNES port of the original Wing Commander on the ZSNES emulator and was surprised how much fun it is and how well it holds up... great control method, immersive gameplay. Sure, the sound design is a bit dated (the score is still catchy as hell though) and the psuedo-3D graphics are blockier than Minecraft but it's still a memorable and entertaining experience because everything fits together so well.
Graphics will improve, there's no doubt about that. But it's only one of the key factors which makes a game great not just at first but later when it's easier to judge if it has stood the test of time or not. Relatively speaking GTA IV is superior graphically to San Andreas and Vice City and is fun, sure, but the two older titles offer more variety and are better overall because everything fits together so well and the core driving physics are unrealistic in a way that makes more sense from an escapism point of view.
Hey, I'm always up for more fighting in the Arkham City game world, and I guess because the HQR DLC was included in the GOTY version I picked up for a fair price pre-owned I suppose I'm not as harsh as people who plonked down ten bucks and felt cheated.
Yes it is too linear and the story is underwritten (Paul Dini was clearly not involved) but playing as Robin in a story not a Challenge Map is fun, and I personally loved the end fight. When I first saw the busted up old Guardian robots and zoomed in on the posters, I wondered if I could fight them. And in HQR, you can, and they're stupidly tough.
But it does highlight a problem with DLC - undercooked and not up to the standards of the main game in too many cases. Maybe if the developers are going for maximum value in order to get more money from people, the DLC should be made and brought to completion at the same time the main game is. Otherwise DLC will forever be synonymous with the short phrase "tacked on".
This was painfully unfunny and uninformative, I only watched it (well about two minutes before skipping ahead) because it said something about a Bully sequel, but appeared to contain nothing of that kind anyway.
Just stick to reviewing games in a factual manner lads, don't try to be comedians, because if your Guitar Hero timing is as bad as your comic timing then I doubt you've ever finished one song. Harsh, but true.
Agree with this post - it's the same reason a lot of people won't move away from the broadcast TV model, they like the feeling they are simultaneously watching the same thing as millions of others, although it does lead to odd habits like Live Tweeting.
I suppose it really depends on how you look at gaming in terms of social aspects: personally I've always seen it as quite anti-social except in rare cases of games like Mario Party which can actually provide a shared group experience really well. I'm not sure I'd play it at an actual party with booze and women present, but still, not a bad effort! Online gaming to me is like online social networking - I don't see it as social because there's no face-to-face-in-the-same-room meaningful interaction, it's one of the lesser things I can do with tech, but then I am firmly an action adventure guy who values an immersive single player experience. I'm not trashing anyone who does a lot of it because yeah, it can be wicked fun, but it just doesn't do much for me personally.
So as it's a decent single player experience I value and a lot of DLC/online stuff is locked I'm more than happy not to pay for XBL Gold and don't mind waiting a few months to buy great titles. On the other hand, I don't think just cos I'm like that that it's fair for those who want all the content etc to be gouged by the expense of the new game, then the DLC, then again for the online features. Especially when the DLC is weak anyway - anyone actually think the Catwoman part of Arkham City wasn't annoying as f**k and didn't make the game worse?! Definitely should have been free, not "pay for DLC or buy GOTY edition" territory, and I shouldn't have to tell the game "CONTINUE WITHOUT BLOODY CATWOMAN" every time I load my save.
zekepliskin's comments