It will likely require some messing about to pull off, but to my mind the true value of kinect enabled indie games will be low budget motion capture. The device builds a wireframe of the user. Custom written xna "games" will allow that wireframe to be exported to a txt file or equivalent, and we'll have motion capture. Probably not great motion capture, but motion capture all the same, and vastly cheaper than other options. The motion capture produced can then be used to develop other games with more realistic movements.

It doesn't bother me that they want to make a game with world wide appeal. I'm all for it. What bothers me is when they make stupid design choices / edits based on cultural stereotypes. This was in vogue back in the 90's and I thought we'd moved beyond it. Why the sudden backtracking?

Start:
Once I entered a contest that required me to write about an incident from my life. I chose to write the following:
goto Start

I'd incorporate the knowledge into the game I'm making with Microsoft's XNA. Currently my AI methods could use improving.

Artificial Intelligence for Games

I agree with a large part of this article. However, it is worth noting that once you figure out what's going on in the game, things begin to speed up considerably. In a remarkably short period of time random battles swing from white knuckle tension to vaguely annoying. The problem is that the game doesn't offer anything near an adequate tutorial, something the internet community has likely already rectified. Personally I found the game to be a surprising and engaging take on the space opera genre, and recommend it.

You have summed up my thoughts on this article succinctly.

@Xav, since I can not, it seems reply directly to him. Perhaps a lot of dlc was free, but some of it was not, and the ability to access it has been lost.

No doubt the license agreement does allow them to terminate whenever they wish. Freedom of speech laws allow people to be very rude as well, but others generally get upset when they do.

This article is telling, because it shows, in short that the fears of many dlc opposers are ... well ... correct. Lacking the item in physical format does give the selling company ultimate control over the purchase, and should they decide they no longer wish to support the purchase ... it's the buyer that suffers. If anything the nature of this shutdown is the greatest argument against dlc I have seen. Microsoft does not appear to have made any arrangements whatsoever for people who purchased their products. Why should we believe that the next generation of consoles will do any different. Similarly, why should we pay for multiplayer access to a company that shuts down servers? Users pay subscription fees on a monthly basis, surely that supports the servers?

As we move more and more to a digital distribution model, content providers seem increasingly interested in manipulating that model to deny their user's abilities. In trade the offer us ... nothing, and limit our access to the content we paid for. Denying me from ever selling my games or add-ons is fine, but only if I can always play my games or add-ons. But that's just my opinion.

"With Super Street Fighter IV proposing to add eight new fighters to the already content-rich SFIV experience, we could easily see Capcom charging top dollar for the title..." I say this half in jest, but are you aiming to protect existing Capcom marketing revenue, or opening a new stream?

Some I'll keep and some I'll sell. It will largely depend on going market price and how much I liked the game.

I suppose I'm in the minority here, but I thought it rather sucked that they'd decided to switch vocal talent. To put things in perspective, what if George Lucas had decided that Mark Hamil didn't fit his initial vision of the character and swapped him out after the first film for someone else. Wouldn't the disconnect be jarring to viewers?

The reasoning that I've heard most is that the characters have "gone in a new direction" and the voice talent will be doing the same. Well that's great, but if the characters are now so unrecognizable that they require a new voice it sounds a great deal like it's an entirely different character who you've chosen to give a familiar name too. Simple solution? Make your new character a new character, and don't try to shoehorn them into a role.

"Ah but characters are dynamic and they can cha-". I hear you cry. Stop right there. If you hadn't been told that Raynor was Raynor, would you know? Voice actor continuity would have been a way to let the gaming public identify with a now vastly unfamiliar character.

In the end its a moot point. Blizzard has made their choice. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else, has to like it. It seems entirely strange to me that website devoted to reporting the minutiae of video games would wonder why people would care about a ...video game.

Jar Jar Binks

Obviously the evolved form of Ewoks. His mere presence is enough to act as a permanent taunt effect, causing others to attack him constantly. This is convenient, because he is an illusion and is thus immune to all physical attacks.