Neowin.net

No, no they don't. You need to Google the Natal demos.

I dunno if its on any tv's but I think it sucks for regular control. Its nice to have the option but I don't wanna flick my wrist or have to speak clearly to do something. I'm perfectly happy lying on the couch and pressing some buttons. I don't really want this type of control to become mainstream.

Using it for control is just one part of a bigger puzzle though. Since it can sense if you're around, why not have it pause automatically if you leave the room? Or stop if it sees you fell asleep so you can resume a movie later?

There's lots of ways this tech can be tapped, and judgging it before you've had a chance to even try it doesn't count.

Indeed. Just because we added the mouse to computers doesn't mean we threw away the keyboard...

Yes they do, I'm not talking about Natal, I'm talking about the concept for tv remote via gestures

just did a quick search for this

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22860/

not one of the production models but first search result that I could find fast

Both the remote and natal have their pros and cons like everything else in life.

Or die...

"Hm... He died 17 minutes into Golden Girls... It must have been... YOU!"...

...and then using "gestures" to "play".
------------------------
I'm pretty sure this technology exists already...let me see, oh that's right....ITS CALLED REAL LIFE! Get off your butts you lazy gamers and step outside. There's a whole world out there that cant be controlled with an XBOX controller but rather with "gestures"

Don't forget the possibilities with a "force" feedback controller...

So all the Grand Theft Auto players out there should go out, buy some real guns, and do a few drive-by shootings for kicks?

Yeah, see, what you've forgotten is there are things you can do in games that you can't do in real life. Killing sprees is one example, questing across the open plains of Tamriel is another, puzzle solving in the lost cities of the D'ni, etc. I think you get the picture.

Sex Industry is usually always one of the 1st to embrace new technology.

Are you serious? If so, you have problems. It is no longer 1990.

You misunderstood my point. My point is if its "reality" you're looking for in videogames...in other words, use your hands to control things rather than a controller...then its ridiculous 'cause the real world already offers that.

And GTA was inspired by real life, there are already idiots out there acting like GTA characters...and I still dont know what is the appeal of GTA. If anything it validates real life criminals. As in if its cools to do all those things in GTA. And finally, im quite sure some idiots did go out there to play GTA in real life.

Anyhow, my point is videogames try so hard to be real with better graphics and controllers but reality is already real. If you want real go play sports outside...go do some paintball if you like shooting, etc

I think you misunderstand why so many people like gaming... escapism. Most games on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 aren't games even slightly linked to what the vast majoriy of sane and sensible ordinary people can act out in real life.
Doing something you can't do in real life - for whatever reason - in a game doesn't mean you should stop trying to make it feel/look/sound as realistic as possible. Whilst people do act out / have acted out what you can do in GTA, doesn't mean that I can. I know I can't and obviously wouldn't want to do it in real life... however it's different, sureal, safe and fun to act out that simulation in games such as GTA because you can't do it in real life.

The same way that I won't be playing for Manchester United anytime soon against Chelsea. (FIFA)
And indeed, whilst our troops are our in Iraq, Afghanistan and various other countries, the likelihood of me joining them is very slim.
Not to mention be in a special ops unit... (Modern Warfare 2)

Making games more realistic enhances the escapism many people enjoy as part of gaming. That's the way things have been going since the first games were developed.

In the same way that watching a sci-film or horror film in high-def 3D with 7.1 surround sound is somewhat more appealing than watching it on a mono CRT from 1974.

For many people, gaming (and for others movies) is about escaping from the mudane everyday life. Making it more realistic is what gamers want.

Natal won't be for everyone, nor for every game. I wouldn't want to use it in AC2, COD MW2 or Left 4 Dead 2... but for games like Skate, or using it to navigate the 360 dashboard and pick a movie it enchances the experience.

Sure, if you're a young, able bodied person who can engage the real world your comments make sense.

My son has cerebral palsy, and I am looking forward to the day when he can experience the things you take for granted, through Natal.

I understand why people play games like GTA, I just don't think Natal controls add to that experience, especially when you still have to do it in front of a screen. When we have full blown VR, with the imagery surrounding you, and with pressure sensitivity, things may be different. But with Natal you're just mimicking things and that's just tedious.

The selling point for Natal and even Wii controllers seems to be more things like sports games anyway, where the idea is its fun to act out movements to hit balls, as well as it being marketed to parents as a healthier way for children to play games. In which the point is right: if you want to be active playing sports, just play outside. I'd also encourage people obsessed with Guitar Hero to learn to play a real guitar. You'll be spending your time better.

I think all of this is cool technology and all and can be put to use better in future technology.. right now I think its sort of a gimmick.

Good point Brianshapiro, but also consider this:
While you could learn a guitar and get a bunch of friends and you could rock it like a rockstar, but often people play such games to BE the rockstar. Is easier to pretend to be a rock star playing air guitars than horrible guitar skills, I tell you that. And I guess pressing buttons makes it a step better.

Equally, you probably can't do a Federer forehand if your life depends on it, and to "swing it" to the corner of the corner is better than pressing it and easier than real life. And I think in today's problem with obesity, anything that gets people moving is a plus. Get active message had been repeated till it got out of fashion (like don't pirate), people these days are lazy. If you could bring the actvity to in front of their TV, is a plus no matter how stupid it may seem.

And Wii didn't really appeal to many hardcore gamers, instead it got a bunch of casual gamers. If the weather is not nice, why not a good Wii? Or feel like a mini work out before bed. Or hold a party at home but there is nowhere to play anything outside. And that it is very easy to set up a Natal game than a paintball game or a tennis game with bookings, money, weather, etc. Video games ideally is alternative entertainment, and this is certainly alternative entertainment.

I can see it as an alternative to getting a gaming wheel, first person shooters as well as use in strategy games. But in the end, I see it better as an addition to a controller, than by itself. That is why I see more potential with what Sony is doing even if it looks half as cool as what Natal is as it uses a controller.

But as a remote? Maybe not. Is much easier to press channel 1 or AV than waving hands in a certain way, provided you can FIND THE BLASTED REMOTE. I guess that is one problem solved.