This piece is designed to be easily used and at least partially understood by anyone.  The critique of the piece, however, is targeting a more specific audience.  The critique is aimed towards two major groups – casual gamers and those who thrive on achieving the impossible.  The first group, casual gamers, are a recent phenomenon in gaming (at least the huge surge of them is).  A casual gamer is someone who plays video games mainly for recreational purposes.  It is also characteristic for a casual gamer to play games that can be picked up and put down regardless of how much time is spent on them.  Bejeweled is a prime example of a casual game; it can be played for two minutes, or it can be played for five hours.  Regardless of the time spent on it, the fun factor is still there and remains mainly unchanged.  Another typical characteristic of a casual gamer is to play games known as “shovel ware.”  A game deemed shovel ware is a usually game that was quickly and carelessly developed by its development company and has no real value as a game.  It is a quick, messy, and usually buggy game that was only created to cash in on the casual gamers who will surely buy it (because they are unaware of its careless creation and will not realize the poor quality of the game because they don’t know any better).  While both shovel ware and casual gamer can sometimes be harsh terms, the facts remain.  Because of the surge in casual gamers recently, many video game companies have begun cranking out more and more poor quality games and less and less high quality games; they have stopped caring about quality of their product have started focusing more on making quick money.
            One major cause of the increasing number of casual gamers is the Nintendo Wii.  Over the years, the uniqueness of the Wii’s motion controls has grabbed the attention of the media and in turn those that see the media.  Now more than ever, people who had never before played video games are playing them every day.  However, because these people have never played video games before, they don’t really know what products to buy and what products to leave alone.  In short, they will buy some of the most ridiculous things simply because it looks cool and they don’t know any better.  Some examples are plastic wings that one wears on one’s hands; these wings are designed to be used in a single mini game in just one video game.  In other words, they will be used for a total of two minutes before losing their advertised purpose.  On top of that, they add nothing to the game; they are simply made to make the user look more like their onscreen avatar (who is flapping a pair of plastic wings).  Another example are some peripherals meant to be used with Nintendo’s Wii Sports games.  Wii Sports allows the player to play games such as tennis, bowling, golf, and baseball.  The peripherals for this game attach to the top of the Wii remote.  All they are are plastic attachments in the shape of the different equipment used in each game (head of a tennis racquet, head of a baseball bat, bottom of a golf club, and even a plastic bowling ball).  Again, these attachments add absolutely nothing to the gameplay; all of the motions required remain unchanged, and the results of the game session are exactly the same.  In fact, many of the attachments are so shoddily made, that when the excited gamer goes to swing for a homerun, then attachment comes right off of the remote and hits and breaks something (in many cases the HDTV a few feet ahead).  Yet despite this pointless product, people continue to buy them. 
            Who’s to say that people would not buy a product similar to my piece?  A product that requires one to strap on a multitude of uncomfortable, movement restricting pouches, each containing a sizably expensive device to track movement.  In addition, another expensive device is used on the ground.  But wait!  The product only works if you have at least 15 square feet open around you.  You also have to hang a 3x3x3’ cube from your ceiling.  Oh.  Also you need at least four projectors and four high-end computers.  But it’s all worth it because it’s the best and most immersive way to experience your game!  Absurd, right?  But if were advertised the right way (honestly pretty similar to that sans the sarcasm), it would likely sell, especially considering the present and forthcoming popularity in 3D technology and motion-controlled gaming.
            The second group of people is comprised of those who look at science fiction and do everything they can to make it a reality.  Within the past few hundred years, we have seen some mind numbingly incredible strides in science, so the question of science fiction becoming reality hardly rings false anymore.  However, regardless of the impossible eventually becoming possible, I feel there is currently and will be in the future a point where technology and/or the technology required to do something will be totally and completely ridiculous. 
For example, most 3D technology requires the use of glasses for the effect to work.  For people wearing glasses already, it can be very uncomfortable; for people with eye problems, the effect may not even work; for the majority of people, wearing the glasses for too long can cause eye strain/pain; a lot of the time, the effect of the 3D isn’t really even noticeable/doesn’t add anything to what’s being watched; and to top it all off, personal versions of these (used for home TV systems) are obscenely expensive, especially considering that everyone watching must have his or her own pair of glasses.
           As far as near-future technologies go, a good example is the recent facial motion capture system known as Depth Analysis.  It has been the dreams of those working in 3D computer graphics to create virtual graphics that are as true to life as possible; ideally so perfect that they cannot be distinguished from real life.  This technology certainly allows for a cutting edge realism in terms of digital facial movement, but the method of getting such accuracy is just a tad silly.  The setup contains 32 HD cameras (many thousands of dollars each) along with multiple large lights organized 360 degrees around the center of the light and sound proofed room.  The cameras are connected to nine high-end servers with a 45 terabyte buffer.  Even with that insanely large buffer, the setup can only record 50 minutes of footage per day.  In addition, the actor/actress being recorded can only move their heads within a 50-centimeter range before the system looses them and can no longer reliably record them.  Also, the actor/actress must wear a large orange poncho-like piece of clothing with three green balls attached to it.  If any of this set up is tampered with (for example the camera or lights are even slightly bumped), the whole system is ruined and can take many hours to accurately set back up.  Again, the results are incredible cutting-edge graphics, but is it really worth it?  Hour upon hours of preparation, extremely specific set up situations, not to mention its incredible cost.  One must admit, regardless of the outcome, the whole ordeal is ridiculous.
           Again, the same can be said for my piece.  Sure the outcome is pretty amazing, and with more work and financial resources, it could be even better.  But the setup and preparation required to use it reaches a level of ridiculousness that arguably outweighs the final outcome.  In the end, is it really worth it?  In this case, I see the limitations of the technology I’m using to drive the point home even more.  This incredible end result, using all of this cutting-edge technology, really doesn’t even create the optimal result.  It does the best it can, but it’s still nowhere near the ideal goal.  Still, people will work off of and use the technology simply because it does something or is advertised as doing something cool, a lot of the time regardless of the requirements to use it.