I like how the host makes it sound as if controllers are elitist and are some conspiracy to keep the common man from playing video games.
Excuse me, but how does requiring the player to physically exert themselves make it MORE accessible? What if I'm injured and just want to play some video game to pass the time for recovery? What if I play in a room where space is at a minimum and I can't afford to flail my arms about? Not exactly "equal opportunity entertainment".
I would go on to ask how this technology can even begin to distinguish between multiple players, let alone you and the cat sitting on your couch, but I'd rather not. Maybe I'm just the kind of person who gets angry at episodes of CSI (you know, like the ones where they use technology that DOESN'T EXIST?).
"Ya know what folks? Video game systems seem to real barrier to the player. It's time those elitist consoles step aside and stop keeping us non-gamers down! Our solution? Get rid of the console! I am pleased to announce the next generation of games: YOUR IMAGINATION!! No cables, no fees, no limits!"
Seriously, I could could keep going with this, so I will...
"Ugh... TV remotes are just too complicated! I wish I could just waggle my arms and it would work..."
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go bang my head against my desk for a while...
Nintendo still has the market of looking like an idiot while playing a game cornered. I'm surprised that MS is squeezing so many peripherals into a middle-aged console. It's like a little botox to keep firm and attractive. Guess this means we won't be jumping over to another version of the Xbox anytime soon, which is fine by me.
ReplyDelete