I don't think motion controls would work for a fighting game with moves like this, they need to stick with boxing. I understand what you are saying but a lot of people don't have room to do kicks and all of that where they play games, plus even though kinect has a very fast response time I don't think people could get their bodies to move fast enough to get it to translate to the game in time to make it fun to play. I think it's best to keep MK with a standard controller or an arcade stick. I won't lie I hate motion controllers of all kinds Wii, Move and Kinect all are wastes of time IMO.

I think Kinect needs to make a fighting game, thats the only reason I would want it other than dodgeball.

But not Mortal Kombat. If they made a totally 1:1 move ratio sensor and had you vs somebody else, kind of like "the island". I would lose my mind in how much I would play that game.

I still hope the rumors of Killer Instinct 3 being jump-started with Kinect isn't true.

I don't know why people think the 1:1 thing means anything, it's just sony marketing. Kinect can track 2 people at the same time so it could in theory do a game like someone here mentioned where you fight each other but I don't think many people would buy it. First of all I'd feel like an idiot trying to do kicks and punches and jumps or throwing fireballs infront of my tv and I think most other people would too, not only that but a lot of gamers play in their bedrooms and not the living room and they don't have space to be able to do all of these things. I think it's another one of those things that sounds good on paper but would not work well during execution.

Like I said before though I am kind of biased because I think motion control is silly no matter who makes it, Kinect, Move and Wii can all go away for all I care.

honestly kinect is just a rip off of the eye toy for the playstation and the move is just a rip off of the wii thing y is everybody copying of things that dont sell

What "1:1" means, I believe, is how fast the sensors respond to your motions. If there's even the slightest delay at all on the controls of a video game, it makes the game harder and not in the fun "more of a challenge" way.

It makes it harder in the "This is usually the biggest thing wrong with most of the ancient Atari and NES games AVGN reviews" way.

And that's why motion controls and fighting games really don't mesh. A fighting game simply needs to respond to your button presses immediately, reaction times are everything.

I seriously hope something like this never happens. It was bad enough MKA went on the Wii.

no

I think it'd be awesome

Move still has lag, you can see that in the videos, 1:1 means mostly that it's just tracking that one motion. Did you guys see the tiger woods demo at E3? it was AWFUL and there was lag in every game they showed to varying degrees. Why would someone play a fighting game with just a stick in their hand? what about legs? as far as kinect it's not a rip off of eye toy it's much much more than eye toy, unfortunately the games they showed off don't get that to come across. Kinect is the most impressive out of the new motion technologies but really I think they are all a waste of time, if I wanted to pretend I was playing football I'd just go outside and really play it.

It's to do with the amount of movement you make vs the amount shown on screen.

For example in a tennis game, if the motion was 1:1 to do a powerful swing you'd have to play as though you really were playing tennis. So they adjust it eg 3:1 so the avatar's movement on screen is exagerrated by 3 times compared to what you do. So to do the same powerful swing you only need to move your arm 40cm.

It's a great concept for fun party style games, but I can't see it ever taking off for anything more "serious', whether it's FPS, fighting, racing or whatever else.

kinect looks sooooo stupid what a waste of money....
i'm not even a fan of move....
although the nintendo 3ds is a great idea.