×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kinect Based Whole Building Breakout

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the blinken-blinken-lights dept.

Games 46

mikejuk writes with a light piece in I Programmer about a neat Kinect and gigantic projector hack. From the article: "If you remember Breakout — rows of blocks a the top of the screen and a paddle to bounce a ball into them to destroy a block — then you might not feel nostalgic about it. After all, it was a very limited sort of game. However, take one Kinect and one building and you have something quite different when you use it to create a Breakout game. The bricks, ball and paddle all projected onto an old building and the player moves from side-to-side to control the paddle. The player's position is being detected by a Kinect, is there no end to the fun you can have with this gadget. The really clever bit, and you might not notice it unless you look closely at the video, is that the ball bounces off real architectural features of the building — like the windows, for example."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

46 comments

Stupid (3, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319274)

Thought it might have incorporated the building architecture or something sort of cool. Instead, this is just a 80s video game projected against a blank wall at night. Instead of pressing the button to go left, you lean to the left to go left, the same as every other Kinect game but much simpler. Totally unimpressive.

Re:Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319344)

Lazy. Should've made the player run to where they want the paddle to be.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37320090)

Seriously. I was expecting to see someone running suicide sprints at the base of the building with their arms outstretched as the paddle, but instead we get some tool standing in front of camera leaning back and forth like a stoner at a Phish concert.

Re:Stupid (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37321040)

yea it was disappointing.. also i was hoping the person's body was the paddle.. so not just some flat thing to bounce off of up rather you could stick your arms up and it would bounce off the angle of your body

Re:Stupid (3, Informative)

denaje (1170715) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319454)

Did you even read the summary or watch the video? "The really clever bit, and you might not notice it unless you look closely at the video, is that the ball bounces off real architectural features of the building — like the windows, for example." Maybe you think it's unimpressive, but many people would find this really cool. And face it...if you walked by a building that was playing a giant version of breakout, you wouldn't walk by without looking twice.

Re:Stupid (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#37321070)

There was a dark spot on the wall that the ball went right through. Aside from the dimensions of the playing field corresponding to the dimensions of the building, there wasn't a building-game correspondence. Even if there was, it still wouldn't be impressive, but the story summary and the website talk like this 80s video game projected against a wall is really something amazing, when it simply isn't.

This isn't nearly as impressive as those displays on the ground where there's a projected soccer ball field where the ball can be kicked. And that is cheesy shit that has been around for five or ten years.

Maybe the video didn't help, with the focus problems and the music video feel.

Re:Stupid (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37323142)

There was a dark spot on the wall that the ball went right through. Aside from the dimensions of the playing field corresponding to the dimensions of the building, there wasn't a building-game correspondence. Even if there was, it still wouldn't be impressive, but the story summary and the website talk like this 80s video game projected against a wall is really something amazing, when it simply isn't.

This isn't nearly as impressive as those displays on the ground where there's a projected soccer ball field where the ball can be kicked. And that is cheesy shit that has been around for five or ten years.

Maybe the video didn't help, with the focus problems and the music video feel.

The ball bounced off the circular window at the top. I dare say that is what it was supposed to do.
If they wanted it to bounce off every "dark spot" they could but it'd get pretty ridiculous.

Are you always this negative?

Re:Stupid (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37321540)

Sorry, I gotta agree with kamapuaa, I didn't see it bounce off a damned think, yet saw it pass through numerous obvious windows and such. This seemed to be more about their fancy projector than the actual game. The guy barely leaned form left to right to move it. I'd rather have seen the padded EXACTLY where the player stood, and the player having to run from one side of the building to the other in order to move the paddle.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319514)

"The really clever bit, and you might not notice it unless you look closely at the video, is that the ball bounces off real architectural features of the building — like the windows, for example"

Re:Stupid (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319626)

"The really clever bit, and you might not notice it unless you look closely at the video, is that the ball bounces off real architectural features of the building — like the windows, for example"

Except that it doesn't actually do that from what I can see in the video. It bounces off the /sides/ of the building, but it goes right through the window.

Re:Stupid (1)

wondafucka (621502) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319968)

Thought it might have incorporated the building architecture or something sort of cool. Instead, this is just a 80s video game projected against a blank wall at night. Instead of pressing the button to go left, you lean to the left to go left, the same as every other Kinect game but much simpler. Totally unimpressive.

I can see how moving might be a turnoff for you. Rest assured, there are many other people who like to move around.

Re:Stupid (1)

Nialin (570647) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319984)

Like you, I had hoped for more. Despite the summary and any visual proof, I still find the whole "bouncing off the architecture" less than exhilarating. Walking past it, I would likely have a double take and watch for maybe a few minutes.

What I had in mind was something like a crossover over of 2 different games:

* Ricochet [youtube.com] - Breakout style game play with a better aesthetic
* Curve Ball [funny-games.biz] - 3D-styled Pong
.

Those two ideas combined with the idea of destroying a building would be kind of cool. Now exactly sure how it would play out, but I'll leave that to the Engineers.

Re:Stupid (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319990)

Exactly. The building should be the target. How about a kinect game where you control the ball of a demolition machine by swaying around? Or better yet a pong implementation for two players, where one tries to knock out the building of the other player. Although it would just be a 70s video game in essence. Maybe we should have some birds there to modernize it.

Re:Stupid (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37322334)

Jesus Christ, I could not agree more how underwhelming this video was. The intro credits took 20 seconds, there was probably only 30 seconds of actual "game" video and the whole thing has a really annoying soundtrack.

For anybody who hasn't watched it yet, skip it, or at least turn down the volume and crank up the contrast because I could barely make anything out. The last minute or so was just pointless artsy animation. Meh.

...grumpy because I'm working late

Really? (1)

AkaKaryuu (1062882) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319280)

"The player's position is being detected by a Kinect, is there no end to the fun you can have with this gadget." There is a definate limit when playing on an XBox.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319414)

There's a definite limit to someone's spelling ability, too.

Nostalgia fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319316)

If I remember it, I won't be nostalgic about it?
 
So if I don't remember it what? Journalist nonsense.

Re:Nostalgia fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319482)

Right... the author was pointing out that the original game was kinda boring. If you remember much about it, you probably could care less that someone has made ANOTHER implementation. That is, until you realize that it's an implementation that uses your body as the controller, and a building (with the features on the building acting as virtual boundaries) as the display.

Dull game is dull (1)

deains (1726012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319508)

The only way they could have made this less fun is by using Solitaire instead of Breakout. Both rank very very low on the gameplay meters.

I really hope someone comes along in a few months and does this properly; using a decent game and at least a little imagination thrown in!

Re:Dull game is dull (1)

poodlehat (919902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319710)

What, the original Breakout involved Steve Jobs, and you know everything he ever touched is absolutely perfectly designed... *rolls eyes*

Compound fucking modifiers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319666)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compounds#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives

Projected Gameboard? Lame... (1)

sureshot007 (1406703) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319734)

I was really hoping that the "bricks" where the office lights turning on/off. Having control of the buildings lights would have made for a much cooler display.

Re:Projected Gameboard? Lame... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319786)

Yep, to add bonus points, the player could be sensed as the paddle (perhaps the player could hold a surfboard or some other large object) and the ball could be projected using a spotlight. Now THAT would be cool.

Nostalgia (1)

mybecq (131456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319760)

If you remember Breakout ... then you might not feel nostalgic about it

Spot on. I DO remember Breakout, and I absolutely feel NO nostalgia for it.

If you've never heard of Breakout... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319780)

If you've never heard of Breakout [wikipedia.org], you might have heard of its more well-known clone, Arkanoid [wikipedia.org].

Re:If you've never heard of Breakout... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37319896)

Arkanoid is not MORE well known than Breakout.

Alternative Control Interface? (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319914)

I was hoping the paddle would be more directly controlled. Say, with a glowing fluorescent tube. Bonus points if it showed the movements of the person as well, so you could end up with a pretty awesome shadowdancing display.

Re:Alternative Control Interface? (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319922)

Darn it, it ate an edit of mine. SWINING a fluorescent tube, I meant.

Re:Alternative Control Interface? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37320692)

1) swinGing

2) Mmmmm.. mercury and phosphors...

Pffft (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 2 years ago | (#37319974)

If you're going to play a whole-building game, I still prefer Blackout Fire Alarm Beancounter Pinball.

The classics are, well, classic!

and in this thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37320034)

a bunch of people whining about how it's not cool enough and how they would have done it better while continuing to sit in the basement and do nothing.

It's too easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37320152)

Kinect SDK and XNA now prowide wide range of ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mVkWBJDaQ

Yikes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37320396)

I couldn't make it through the video because of that awful music. Sounds like a warped audio cassette.
Did anyone else have that problem?

Re:Yikes... (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 2 years ago | (#37320686)

Yep, and the magazine-style editing of the clip with cuts so close together that it was more like a slide show than a video. Nearly unwatchable.

Wh... what? WHY?! (2)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#37320538)

Why would Kinect construct a building just to base the whole thing off a game of "Breakout"? Won't the building just be demolished? Why did Microsoft create an entire venture out of Kinect, anyway, when it was doing just fine as a product? God, corporate suicide is all over the news, these days. What's wrong with people?!

Missed opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37324732)

I was hoping the breakout game's ball would correspond to a Kinect-controlled wrecking ball...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...