Destiny.

they just went what?

Look em up. Made fable. Promised Grandiose things. Then made Fable.


Pretty sure he's the one that showed off the Natal as well.

well the pic cuts off for me so i dunno what it says

all i see - yeah, th-
just went
Molyne-

Right Click and View Image

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/destiny-bungies-follow-up-to-halo-is-always-online-social-and-it-could-be-t


First time reading these Penny Arcade Reports and I gotta say I like em. Intelligent people writing good reviews.

The server and render farms require cooling equipment the size of mobile homes on the building’s roof; we were told they had to be picked up and installed using cranes."

That's pretty cool

/pun

I think Virtual Shackles were a little harsh calling Bungie pulling a Molyneux.

Mainly because all the things they actually said they wanted to do in the game when you remove the over dramatic advertising fluff (Which I remind you, has been in every Bungie Vidoc they've every done. Remember when they said Halo 3 was their version of Return of the King?) all the things they've proposed are clearly doable as existing models of what they're trying to do are within the gaming industry already and well they're within Bungie's ability as a studio and the technology they have to make it.

Molyneux claims have always been outlandish and completely out of proportion, being things that just weren't possible and focus on drama.

If we're going to accuse anybody going full Molyneux, I'd say Randy Pitchford has gotten some real credibility to that title, with the fallout to both Duke Nukem Forever (Where a year later he still fervently defended it, and compared it to HL2.) and Aliens Colonial Marines.

Bungie can back it up some as they've changed the game since Halo 2.


They were the first to make 2 weapon maximum weapons you were allowed to hold and rechargeable health without mudpacks. New and innovative shit for the time and now no game around can imagine making a game WITHOUT implementing that.

They also pretty much invented the current matchmaking systems to the best of my knowledge since they came out the gate with live and Halo 2.


If Bungie says they are going to change the way gaming is then i'm more inclined to believe them then not. Still skeptical of course but usually i'd be 85 to 15 skeptical. Bungie says it with their record, 40 to 60. I'll believe them more but I still take a lot of it as fluff at this point. We'll see when actual gameplay comes out.

But when was the last time Bungie changed the way we look at gaming? Nine years ago? Sure, they made two-weapon limit (didn't Counter-Strike do this like two years before Halo: CE?) and regenerating health (there were plenty of titles pre-Halo: CE, let alone Halo 2, which included regenerating health) popular, and their matchmaking system in Halo 2 was phenomenal, but what have they contributed to the industry since then? What major, industry-changing innovation did we see in Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, or Halo Reach?

And on top of all of that, instead of Microsoft, who does not have a reputation for ruining games, they are now being funded by Activision, second only to EA in the ruining of games? And no, Forge doesn't count. That shit's existed forever. Even on consoles (TimeSplitters 2, for example)!

Its not making new things its making them work together. Forge isn't revolutionary because its a map editor its revolutionary because you don't have to sit there for five or more hours to make a usable map like in Farcry. It allows minor-major changes at the leisure of the player.

Counterstrike doesn't let you replace your sidearm, Your more or less operating with three weapons Your Primary, Knife and secondary and only one of those can be switched out. Which is understandable because of game balance. (Dual AWP's would be hilarious though).

Trueskill was what made Halo 3's moulteeplayir truly more revolutionary. No other shooter even went to the effort of trying to match you to players of the same skill level. Hell Modern Military shooters STILL don't do it. It made playing without dedicated serves survivable as you didn't get thrown in via matchmaking into the same game over and over again.

dragoon9105 wrote:Its not making new things its making them work together. Forge isn't revolutionary because its a map editor its revolutionary because you don't have to sit there for five or more hours to make a usable map like in Farcry. It allows minor-major changes at the leisure of the player.

Counterstrike doesn't let you replace your sidearm, Your more or less operating with three weapons Your Primary, Knife and secondary and only one of those can be switched out. Which is understandable because of game balance. (Dual AWP's would be hilarious though).

Trueskill was what made Halo 3's moulteeplayir truly more revolutionary. No other shooter even went to the effort of trying to match you to players of the same skill level. Hell Modern Military shooters STILL don't do it. It made playing without dedicated serves survivable as you didn't get thrown in via matchmaking into the same game over and over again.

This.

Also the fact none of you brought up Theater mode is shameful. Sure replays are not a new thing to games, but they were to this genre of game, and it allowed players to share clips of their exploits and see what they did wrong in games like never before, all with a simple interface and neat set of tools that allowed you to look at the game from multiple perspectives at the touch of a button.

There's a reason why shootshootbangbang and other shooters have adopted it.

dragoon9105 wrote:Its not making new things its making them work together. Forge isn't revolutionary because its a map editor its revolutionary because you don't have to sit there for five or more hours to make a usable map like in Farcry. It allows minor-major changes at the leisure of the player.

TimeSplitters 2's MapMaker didn't require hours, and Garry's Mod was thrice as versatile and tons easier to use. Forge was "revolutionary" because it was in Halo 3, and a large majority of Halo 3's playerbase didn't know you could play games on PC, and were too young to have played games like TimeSplitters 2.

dragoon9105 wrote:Counterstrike doesn't let you replace your sidearm, Your more or less operating with three weapons Your Primary, Knife and secondary and only one of those can be switched out. Which is understandable because of game balance. (Dual AWP's would be hilarious though).

...You do realize you could swap out your sidearm, right? You had your primary, your sidearm, and knife (which was effectively a melee attack). You just couldn't buy two primaries at round start.

dragoon9105 wrote:Trueskill was what made Halo 3's moulteeplayir truly more revolutionary. No other shooter even went to the effort of trying to match you to players of the same skill level. Hell Modern Military shooters STILL don't do it. It made playing without dedicated serves survivable as you didn't get thrown in via matchmaking into the same game over and over again.

I stand corrected, then. I had thought Halo 2 included some kind of ranking system in its matchmaking system as well. So I revise my statement. What has Bungie done in the last six years that revolutionized the industry?

timesplitters 2 mapmaker was definately a HUGE forerunner to forge. but the big pull of forge wasn't that it was easy to use or just because it was in halo 3, its because it was able to be easily used by ANYONE and also the ease of sharing over Live, it IS easy to share PC maps too, but the bar to playing a game on a PC is also higher. Also the fact that you could play and edit at the same time, which had happened before, but as far as I know of not in a console FPS game.


remember... before you go saying things like "half of the people on halo 3 didn't know you can play games on PC" you have to remember the fact that not everybody can afford a computer to play PC games well, a console costs $300 tops, less if you buy used, then the price of the game and the Live subscription. thats $500 at the most. which is half the cost of even a cheap new PC + game.

Halo didn't really bring... well anything new to the table, it simply popularized already present concepts.

Halo: CE did manage to have the smartest AI of its time, fluid controls, excellent vehicular integration, strong story (not much of a point) and so on. None of those concepts are new in any way, just improved (and it's expected that a new game would have improved features).

Halo 2 didn't do much to matchmaking either, they simply automated it.

As for True Skill, to be fair, Shadowrun (2007) used hidden True Skill before Halo 3. By a few months

I'm not sure if Halo 2 used true skill, but just by googling it apparently they didn't.

My point is simply that what Bungie did wasn't necessarily innovative. They took ideas that already existed elsewhere and put them into a very popular AAA console title, and then all the other AAA console titles said "ermegawd Halo was successful" and adopted all of those ideas. Bungie had the good fortune of combining good ideas and good design with a platform that was practically guaranteed to be successful, initially because it was one of the only exclusive AAA titles launching with Xbox, and after that because of the massive success of said initial title.

Bungie's games have been good, but their recent games didn't change the way I looked at gaming, and they've left Microsoft, arguably one of the friendliest publishers, in exchange for Activision, the people directly responsible for Shootshoot Bangbang. Destiny might be good, but I'm definitely not going to be optimistic this early when we're talking purely about hypotheticals and vague phrases that aren't properly defined.

I'm still loving those word filters


I would have preferred if they had stayed with Microsoft as well.

Imagine if you will Bungie as a spoiled child. It enjoyed a certain amount of freedom to be allowed to do what it wants as long as the people giving them money got a say in certain things such as DLC and Map packs. Fair enough. But once Bungie said they were tired with their toy (Halo) and didn't want to play with it anymore Microsoft decided to give the toy to someone else and Bungie got all mad that someone else has it now so it ran away from home. Now it's with an abusive foster family but it's that beginning period where they just moved in and the parent can't beat them yet since it doesn't have the psychological trapped feeling in it yet (which tough shit for Bungie since they signed a FUCKING TEN YEAR CONTRACT).

Either this game comes out awesome and we're all going to have fun in it together, or Activision see's it as a failure and shuts down Bungie's project.

Rotaretilbo wrote:My point is simply that what Bungie did wasn't necessarily innovative. They took ideas that already existed elsewhere and put them into a very popular AAA console title, and then all the other AAA console titles said "ermegawd Halo was successful" and adopted all of those ideas. Bungie had the good fortune of combining good ideas and good design with a platform that was practically guaranteed to be successful, initially because it was one of the only exclusive AAA titles launching with Xbox, and after that because of the massive success of said initial title.

Rotaretilbo wrote:They took ideas that already existed elsewhere and put them into a very popular AAA console title, and then all the other AAA console titles said "ermegawd Halo was successful" and adopted all of those ideas. Bungie had the good fortune of combining good ideas and good design with a platform that was practically guaranteed to be successful, initially because it was one of the only exclusive AAA titles launching with Xbox

Rotaretilbo wrote:and then all the other AAA console titles said "ermegawd Halo was successful" and adopted all of those ideas. Bungie had the good fortune of combining good ideas and good design with a platform that was practically guaranteed to be successful,

Rotaretilbo wrote: Bungie had the good fortune of combining good ideas and good design with a platform that was practically guaranteed to be successful,

This is where you're wrong.
Yeah, it's a great thing for the ugly half of Halo that Bungie got their game published on a console that eventually had Xbox Live.

The thing is, Halo wasn't popular because it was on the XBox. It was a killer app. People were willing to risk money on an odd console made by an untested (in the console market) company for this game.

Even if Bungie hasn't been super innovative with Halo 3 and Reach, they have done a great job of figuring out how to genuinely improve the experience. They didn't invent forge, theater mode, or map voting but they put out a system that is easy to use and works amazingly. They are a company which learns from its mistakes and recognizes their shortcomings.

Innovation isn't necessarily a great thing - just look at what Nintendo's been up to with their consoles. Half Life, Team Fortress, Mass Effect, and Skyrim are hardly innovative games, but they're great because they were very well developed.

half-life was a fairly innovative game civ, give it its credit

I can't really think of anything it did that hadn't been done before.

Didn't it make good ragdoll and physics engine?

Wasn't Half-Life arguably the first shooters that had a deep plot without holding you down and vomiting it into your face with cut scenes the way Metal Gear Solid did?

What Half-Life did was provide a good story backed by solid game play. I'm not sure any other FPS had managed that before it. Those qualities don't necessarily make the game innovative; it's more like it's just put together very well with a lot of good choices from the developers.

Every single idea you put into a game does not have to be original to make it great, they just have to do it well or better than everyone else.


Their were other characters who acted similar to Glados before, but Portal did it so much better that it's great because of it.

Resident Evil 4 wasn't the first over the shoulder shooter but it played well enough that it's arguably(a whole of a fuck lot) one of the best Resident Evil's made (not to mention one of the best games on the gamecube)

Alyx wasn't an original character being the tough independent woman she is but they portrayed her so damn well that we all love her.

Halo wasn't the first game with aliens who are more technologically advanced and wiping our shit out but they told the story and had the gameplay in it to make us love it.

Arkham Asylum wasn't the first game with that fighting style but they did it so god damn well that we love it.

Starcraft wasn't the first RTS but it took the ideas it had and continually patched and built on what it had to make it the top RTS in history.


It's recognizing what makes a good game and doing it better than others even if it means incorporating other ideas. Just trying to do your own thing while not taking notes from other games is a shit move. You take something that's good and improve upon it while adding your own things and supporting everything with a ton of features which are all good in their own right to make a good game.

Just having 1 great thing that you invented with everything else being lack luster usually turns a game into shit.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Didn't it make good ragdoll and physics engine?

Yes, it made a good physics engine, but it wasn't the first.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Wasn't Half-Life arguably the first shooters that had a deep plot without holding you down and vomiting it into your face with cut scenes the way Metal Gear Solid did?

Yes, it had a good story, but it wasn't the first.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:What Half-Life did was provide a good story backed by solid game play. I'm not sure any other FPS had managed that before it. Those qualities don't necessarily make the game innovative; it's more like it's just put together very well with a lot of good choices from the developers.

This is what I'm talking about. A game doesn't have to redefine the industry to be great. Bungie hasn't done that with any of their titles from the last 6 or 7 years, but that hasn't stopped them from putting out great games.

That's all I'm hoping for from Destiny right now, a great game. If they make some good innovations along the way then power to them, but it's not what makes me interested in Destiny. Right now, I just want an epic-scale shooter with rock-solid gameplay, captivating environments, motivating story, and a game I can go to when all we've seen from AAA shooters for the past decade has been MMS garbage and series after series falling flat on its face. I say all this as though it's easy to do, but if nothing else, Bungie has done a pretty good job of it for as long as I've known them (aside from the story of Halo: Reach, but I image that had more to do with Bungie trying to finally leave Microsoft and Halo).