I owned a Kinect, played with it twice, and traded it in within the same week. Motion controlled gaming is NOT what the majority of gamers want, and I continue to wonder why they stress this so damn much. If this is the case, and the console won't function without motion controlled devices then I may look elsewhere and avoid Microsoft's console this time around. Something about being connected online with a camera on me at all times makes me nervous, i'm not paranoid but you can't tell me that MS can't link into it and watch you randomly if they want to. It's like when Aarons was renting out computers and taking photos of the people using them through their system when people weren't paying their bill. It's a violation of privacy, regardless if this is the intention of MS or not, it's intrusive.
If they want to watch me at all times whenever I'm not using the Kinect I'll point it at a picture of a giant middle finger. Enjoy. Really if it bothers you that a camera is pointed at you (a reasonable concern) unplug your ethernet cable. At least that's always an option.
Motion controls have so much potential. I think the Wiimote was what got it off the ground and it was done right. It had a pack-in game that worked as a proof of concept (necessary) and the advertising was perfect. Microsoft took it one level up with full body control, which is the kind of thing every kid-gamer who is now grown up should remember as something we all imagined, were teased with, but never got. Now we have it. It's clunky (though not as clunky as I expected) but it's still amazing. The clunkiness will kill the immersion when you aren't playing naturally, you're both playing the game and thinking about controlling it. When you hold a controller you aren't consciously thinking about what buttons to press, you just hit them. When you play Kinect you're always conscious of the slight delay and multiple ways the camera can go wonky (lose sight of you, too close or too far, etc.). If that gets ironed out, you've got an absolutely insane piece of hardware. Futuristic type of stuff.
Problem is no one is utilizing it properly right now. Just like the Wii. It has such potential. But in addition to the problems above, no one is making fun games that use it. I could go on and on but I'm supposed to be working right now lol. I'll just say that I envision a good combination of controllers and motion sensing. Let me hold a controller while playing Halo, and sway my body to peek around a corner. Something like that. Give me a reason to bark orders. I think part of the blame lies in the fact that gaming is hugely so risk-averse. The big guys with the moolah only want cookie cutter games in terms of creativity. I don't think it's that we can't, but that those who can aren't allowed. Hence why indie gaming is bursting at the seams ready to blow, if it isn't already.
I also think shovelware for new innovative hardware has to be limited. Sometimes it's necessary (like the NES) because it can kill the credibility of your product. It almost did with the Wii and may have.
D takes a ton of skill and even more instinct. No one plays a structured game, assignments and whatnot so you have to read and react all the time. Always be prioritizing, improvising, lots of words that end with ing lol.
If you can poke check and stay in position you should be OK. But if you really have the ability to utilize the poke, not spam, but truly maximize it then you can throw entire teams off their game. If you can poke the puck and stay exactly where you should be, you'll never have to hit or scramble. It's not easy but it's not impossible. It's to me the toughest position since it's the closest to requiring actual hockey instincts. Forward you can juice up your puck handle and agility and just wiggle the right stick, you don't need any skill. Or you can cherry pick or have your teammates carry you. In goal you can camp the crease and rely on your team. On D, you really are on your own. You need to know what to do, and be good at it.
The one argument I see is that it'd take out a few rows of expensive seating, but you don't remove the expensive front row seats, you just move prices back a few rows each and remove the less expensive closest seats to the concourse.
...it's not losing front row seats, it's losing far back row seats.
Wrong. There is absolutely no place in hockey for a move like that. No place in team sport of any kind. No justification whatsoever. Nobody needs to know the story, because none of them end like that except the "He's af****** idiot" story.
If you don't agree with what is going on, or if you feel you have been wronged, let them know why you will not be suiting up.
No thanks, I'd rather wait to make my judgment. I'm not so blind and arrogant as to assume that because I don't see something, it isn't there.
Truthfully, I don't really care what the story is. I don't care if he was the worst coach in history. The kid doesn't make the coach look bad, he makes himself look bad. If he was that terrible, the players could have reported it to the Administration. They could have left the team.
I can't stand attitudes like this. All of this is easy to say from behind a keyboard. And maybe they did, we don't know. It's just fun to judge so we're judging. Like I said it's probably just him being a stupid kid but we don't know. I just know that it's not always cut and dried and sometimes roles can reverse and actions can become justified with a little more info.
Whine all you want about Franzen, but he produces. Just because he doesn't put forth his all in every game doesn't mean he isn't valuable.
Blah blah same ol' justification I see every time someone wants to defend him. He scores so he's allowed to do whatever he wants. I'll take hard work and a little less skill over floating and a little more skill any day. The Nashville series was the entire Franzen argument in a nutshell-worse team beats the pants off of a super skilled team because they worked harder. We've "lost goals" before (a silly argument anyway) and survived. This sounds like a beaten wife defending her husband because after abusing her he buys her a nice necklace or something. Or because deep down he's a good guy. Whatever.
The production that makes him untouchable to some, is overrated anyway.
Any competitive athlete thinks about the team first, themselves second and wants their own team to win over the opponent. He's a spoiled, worthless piece of s*** and hopefully the school administration punishes him accordingly. Here's a tip, douchbag...if you want playing time, be the better goalie.
Not wrong on most of this but maybe he was the better goalie. I'm not justifying it but we don't know the whole story. It's easy to judge and condemn without hearing both sides. Odds are we're right but still.
What is there to know? Holland signed an aging veteran for multiple years when the team already had a glut at forward. What is Samuelsson's role when he comes back? He's not fit for the bottom six and he's a plug at best with Datsyuk and Filppula, just like Bertuzzi and Cleary are playing there. I liked or was neutral on the guys Holland brought in over the summer, but the Samuelsson move is puzzling and IMO pointless still.
What's there to know? Exactly. We wouldn't know everything, we don't see everything Holland sees and we sure as hell don't take everything into account when we overreact to something our entitled asses don't agree with. All we see is HAHA LOGO KILLER and we love that, so we lean towards it. We don't bother to think about the fact that we just lost Jiri Hudler and Brunner wasn't a sure thing at all. Not to mention Sammy doesn't take bad penalties, he's pretty disciplined. He also can put up 40-50 points, work the PP, and has experience. He's proven himself, on a team where we were about to bring up a lot of kids who haven't yet. Better to sign Sammy and let them work their way up gradually. What if they didn't work out? There's also the intangibles that we pretend to care about in other scenarios but really don't when it denies us our new toy-how he works with the team, how good it makes the team look that we'll take a guy back, etc.
If we traded for him, that'd be one thing. But we signed him. All it did was deny one AHL kid a spot for the majority of one season, maybe two. What it got us was a proven smart, good player with experience who can score well and plays better in the playoffs. And it's 3 mil, it's not a lot. Look at some other players making that much (I don't mean young underpaid guys due a raise). Joel Ward. Nah no thanks. Chris Kelly, Tomas Kopecky, and a few others. Then you have some decent guys like Dustin Brown, Radim Vrbata, Weiss, Jokinen, etc. You can debate who is better but none of them are leaps above Sammy. We just can't admit that part of the hate came from his undeserved status as whipping boy. And we don't like ex players coming back who we didn't like before, that's boring. You combine those two things and Sammy didn't stand a chance. But it's not a bad deal.