Destiny.

The soft headed one has a point.

While you were all arguing about cutscenes, Bungie released a viddoc with more art, in game footage, and some of the soundtrack. It's probably on Youtube. Discuss.

Put a link if your going to ask us to discuss it.

I did find this interview that came out Feb 25th while looking for Piedudes mysterious vidoc. (which I could not even find on their own damn site)


"We’re going to be able to throw in a whole bunch of adventure and a whole bunch of competitive moulteeplayir"



We knew there was going to be some form of fighting against each other somehow but at least this confirms it.

I'm on my phone so I'm not sure if that'll work.



*edit* fixed by Your Humble Lord God High Mighty Pheonix

Also apparently they are accepting Preorders for Destiny on 360 and PS3.


Personally I can't see why someone would pay $60 before seeing more than 5 consecutive seconds of game play or anything that is indicative of how the game plays.

Some people are just hyped I guess.

That video came out on the 17th. And it was from the PS4 announcement.


Your video even says "Reveal Trailer". That was the first we'd all seen of the game.




But that video in 720p does make the in game character models at about 2:35 look nice. Hell, everything in game after that point looks damn nice and polished. Probably because it's the reveal and they worked hard to make those parts look good. Or they are the starter worlds and everything else still isn't done.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:First example to pop into my head is Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. Even if you claim that MoH:AA didn't have a deep enough story (which, relative to HL2, I'd agree with), it's not really 'innovation' if you're just combining things which other games have done before and saying you're the first to do both at the same time. With that attitude, every game is innovative.

You seem to have forgotten which game we were talking about, because MoH:AA was released four years after Half-Life. It also benefited from us all knowing ahead of time what the plot was.

We talking about HL2 or 1? I was talking about 2.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:And, of course, you've already admitted that System Shock did it before HL.

That System Shock did something closer before Half-Life. You still haven't named a game which used scripted events in the way Half-Life did to create a deep plot. System Shock was a step in the right direction, but it wasn't the same, either.

I barely played games before the original Half Life, so I'm not a good candidate to ask. Again, I think we're talking about different games.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:And... I quite agree with dragoon's comments on the HL2 cutscenes. Again, Half Life 2 was a fantastic game, but not because of innovation.

A cut scene is when the game cuts in order to display a scene. Hence the name. The idea of using scripted events to avoid disrupting the flow of the game and immersion was practically unheard of in a story-driven game. By dragoon's definition, story-driven games are just one big cut scene.

His point was that it still locks you in to force-feed you story, regardless of whether or not you have control of the camera most of the time.

"For the next 10 years"

*groans*

I do think we should keep this thread on topic.

If someone wants me to move take all the posts and put them in their own thread(or one of the twenty three mods on this site wants to get off their lazy ass and do work) then say so and it shall be done.


Otherwise this thread is about Destiny.

http://www.bungie.net/en-us/View/bungie/userresearch/index


You can sign up for beta currently on their site.


I doubt they will actually accept anyone for a long ass time but it's up.

Lord Pheonix wrote:I do think we should keep this thread on topic.

If someone wants me to move take all the posts and put them in their own thread(or one of the twenty three mods on this site wants to get off their lazy ass and do work) then say so and it shall be done.


Otherwise this thread is about Destiny.

This debate has to do with whether or not Destiny needs to be innovative to be a good game.

It had been going in so many circles I had forgotten what the debate was even about.

That is usually the point where the thread needs to move on.

Fair enough

When was this about Destiny needing to be innovative? I was simply saying that Bungie was not God's gift to mankind, had been somewhat of a let down the last couple games, and were using a lot of extremely vague, bold claims about their upcoming game, and that it was therefore unreasonable to assume either that Destiny would be the most amazing and innovative game to ever exist or that if any company could pull off the most amazing and innovative game ever, it was Bungie. While I was making this point, Civ asserted that Half-Life was not innovative at all, and I was bound by my life-debt to Bias Gaben, God Emperor of Steam, to defend Half-Life's honor.

Lord Pheonix wrote:It had been going in so many circles I had forgotten what the debate was even about.

That is usually the point where the thread needs to move on.

Civbase wrote:This debate has to do with whether or not Destiny needs to be innovative to be a good game.

Rotaretilbo wrote:When was this about Destiny needing to be innovative?

^my Point

Rotaretilbo wrote:When was this about Destiny needing to be innovative? I was simply saying that Bungie was not God's gift to mankind, had been somewhat of a let down the last couple games, and were using a lot of extremely vague, bold claims about their upcoming game, and that it was therefore unreasonable to assume either that Destiny would be the most amazing and innovative game to ever exist or that if any company could pull off the most amazing and innovative game ever, it was Bungie. While I was making this point, Civ asserted that Half-Life was not innovative at all, and I was bound by my life-debt to Bias Gaben, God Emperor of Steam, to defend Half-Life's honor.

Which in a nutshell is why this discussion was completely and utterly pointless, as nobody was saying that Bungie were infallible, they just said given their track record, they have the ability to do it, not that they will do it. I've been preaching cautious cynicism a lot lately in this section, as it's the best way to avoid disappointment.

My argument was, and still is that there is a significant difference between what Molyneux says and delivers, and what Bungie says and delivers.

Molyneux has always made claims that have been either flat out lies or massive exaggeration, as what he claims just was not possible technically by his studio. He has always made claims with no evidence to back it up and has freely admitted as such.

Bungie on the other hand, while they have made some outlandish claims in the past in some of the VIDOCS (Which is used the example of some the language used in the Halo 3 ones which compared it to Return of the King.) The difference is, Bungie has a better track record on delivering on what they set out to do. Tell me, when you remember the advertising fluff they say, and get down to core gameplay decisions and proposals they ever said, name me one they didn't achieve.

The idea of them making an always online first person shooter with MMO-trappings isn't that out a stretch for them, as they have already proven with every game since Halo 2, they can make a game with relatively reliable, stable multi-player component that had some of the best matchmaking on a console. The Technology for subtle drop-in/drop out co-operative play exists in games like Journey. The Technology for an always online world where people can join others on a consoles in the way they've been suggesting exists in the Test Drive unlimited games. None of what they said is a technical impossibility.

Now I am suggesting they will succeed because of this? NO. Many games have made very lofty claims, especially in the last few years and come up as massive disappointments. Bungie could very easily be among them when Destiny ships, as it's quite a challenge for them or any company to achieve what they've set out. I just feel, given their history they're capable of doing what they've set out to do.

Also it's funny to accuse some of us of being too biased towards Bungie, when you have a self-confessed massive bias towards Valve and everything they do. It also amused me that you claimed Bungie hadn't done anything innovative for 6 years, when Valve hasn't made another Half-Life game in over that amount of time.

I want this game for my computer.

But I feel like if they were going to announce it for PC then they would have already. I don't see a reason for not releasing it for PC or delaying the announcement for it if they were unless MS is also going to announce a new version of Windows Live along with the new Xbox (god willing so we don't have to deal with the shit we have now)

Not announcing it for the new xbox is obvious since officially there isn't one yet.

Also I will try to make my Character look as close to a S.T.A.L.K.E.R as possible.

And speak in a Russian accent at all times.

Vigil wrote:Which in a nutshell is why this discussion was completely and utterly pointless, as nobody was saying that Bungie were infallible, they just said given their track record, they have the ability to do it, not that they will do it. I've been preaching cautious cynicism a lot lately in this section, as it's the best way to avoid disappointment.

There were a few people who seemed quite confident based on almost nothing. PiE comes to mind.

Vigil wrote:My argument was, and still is that there is a significant difference between what Molyneux says and delivers, and what Bungie says and delivers.

Molyneux has always made claims that have been either flat out lies or massive exaggeration, as what he claims just was not possible technically by his studio. He has always made claims with no evidence to back it up and has freely admitted as such.

Bungie on the other hand, while they have made some outlandish claims in the past in some of the VIDOCS (Which is used the example of some the language used in the Halo 3 ones which compared it to Return of the King.) The difference is, Bungie has a better track record on delivering on what they set out to do. Tell me, when you remember the advertising fluff they say, and get down to core gameplay decisions and proposals they ever said, name me one they didn't achieve.

Molyneux is known for promising the moon and then delivering mediocrity. While Bungie may have compared Halo 3 to Return of the King, I feel like they've never been this outlandish before in a ViDoc. They work for Activision, yet they claim that they are in a place where they can literally do whatever they can imagine and that there are no technological boundaries for this game? That's pretty fucking grandiose. It's a promise that is simply impossible. I mean, fuck, they've promised us that the game will be alive, and that there will be procedural events that they didn't even plan for! The last time I was promised an amazing procedural AI by a company owned by a major publisher, I bought Spore and it was a disaster. Now Bungie, who left Microsoft (arguably one of the nicest of the major publishers) to join Activision (arguably second only to EA) is promising us not just the moon, but the sun and stars? I think it is fair to say that they are acting like Molyneux. If they deliver, we'll make a new verb to describe someone who promises and then delivers the moon, but until then, I feel that it is hardly unfair to compare the two.

Vigil wrote:The idea of them making an always online first person shooter with MMO-trappings isn't that out a stretch for them, as they have already proven with every game since Halo 2, they can make a game with relatively reliable, stable multi-player component that had some of the best matchmaking on a console. The Technology for subtle drop-in/drop out co-operative play exists in games like Journey. The Technology for an always online world where people can join others on a consoles in the way they've been suggesting exists in the Test Drive unlimited games. None of what they said is a technical impossibility.

Destiny will be alive, remember? What kind of technology exists for a completely procedural event system? Because you'd need a pretty fucking ballin' AI to boast that your game was "alive".

Vigil wrote:Also it's funny to accuse some of us of being too biased towards Bungie, when you have a self-confessed massive bias towards Valve and everything they do. It also amused me that you claimed Bungie hadn't done anything innovative for 6 years, when Valve hasn't made another Half-Life game in over that amount of time.

And if Valve were out there saying they were going to create a game that was going to redefine gaming and that their game would be "alive", I'd be saying the exact same damn thing. And Valve has been a lot kinder to me than Bungie has.

Bungie's last two games were disappointments, one of which was specifically designed to tell people like me (people who liked Nylund's writing) and Nylund himself, to go fuck themselves, and that Bungie would rather feature some of the worst writing the franchise had ever seen, that they would rather break with the Halo Story Bible, than to abide by the canon that Nylund established. Somewhere in Bungie, a team of writers were so bitter about Nylund for no reason that they must have set out to intentionally break from all three of his major books, if for no other reason than to be dicks.

Meanwhile, Valve has yet to disappoint me. However, every time we come up for another Valve release, I expect failure. Sure, I was excited when they announced Portal 2. But I was also terrified that the game couldn't hope to live up to all the hype. I expected the game to fail miserably. And when they announced Left 4 Dead 2, I was livid just like everyone else.

And my mind is filled only with doubts about Half-Life 2: Episode Three and/or Half-Life 3. Do I hope the game is good? Sure. Valve hasn't stabbed me and the audience I represent in the back any time recently (and no, I don't count taking their sweet time as stabbing one in the back), so I'm going to be cautiously optimistic until I see something that worries me, the same way I was for all the Halo games (except Halo 4, of course). But every year, every month, every day that we go without any word on its progress is just a little more doubt that we'll ever get to see the conclusion of Half-Life. I'm probably a bit less doubtful now, because I can take examples of other times I doubted them and demonstrate that my doubting was baseless and that they delivered, but that doesn't put my mind entirely at ease.

I will defend Valve's past games to the death, because they were good. Anyone who claims that Half-Life wasn't innovative is just retarded. The same way that anyone who claims that Halo: CE wasn't innovative is retarded. That is where I took issue with Civ. I admit that many of the past Halo titles were innovative. Halo: CE is still among my favorite games. For him to try and make a bullshit claim like that Half-Life wasn't innovative as a retort to my calling into question Halo Reach's innovation was offensive.

What did I do?

Rotaretilbo wrote:When was this about Destiny needing to be innovative?

When I was talking about innovation and said "Half Life, Team Fortress, Mass Effect, and Skyrim are hardly innovative games, but they're great because they were very well developed."

Rotaretilbo wrote:I was simply saying that Bungie was not God's gift to mankind, had been somewhat of a let down the last couple games, and were using a lot of extremely vague, bold claims about their upcoming game, and that it was therefore unreasonable to assume either that Destiny would be the most amazing and innovative game to ever exist or that if any company could pull off the most amazing and innovative game ever, it was Bungie.

I'd agree with all that up till the end. I still think Bungie is pretty good about achieving their visions when they make a game.

Rotaretilbo wrote:While I was making this point, Civ asserted that Half-Life was not innovative at all, and I was bound by my life-debt to Bias Gaben, God Emperor of Steam, to defend Half-Life's honor.

I listed off a number of games which were widely accepted as great and not particularly innovative. I'd still contest that HL2 belongs in that list. HL2. Not the original.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Meanwhile, Valve has yet to disappoint me.

Not to drop in on the discussion between you and Vigil, but....

The WarZ was a disaster for Steam, yet it's still a nightmare for much better developed small-team or indie games to get in their market (even with Greenlight).

Half Life 2 and all of Valve's games since have required the Steam platform to run on PC. We give EA and Ubisoft crap for doing this now, but Valve undoubtedly did it first.

Like you mentioned, Valve promised a lot of DLC for L4D and, instead, they released a sequel with what content which could have easily been implemented as DLC for the original.

Portal 2 was a pretty fun game, but its gameplay dragged a lot in the middle when they took us through the old Aperture Labs and, frankly, it was not worth $60 even with the co-op. It wasn't near as great of a value as Portal: Still Alive was.

DOTA 2 didn't even come with a tutorial. A DOTA-style game without a tutorial? Who thought that was a good idea? Also, DOTA should not be a $60 game. Almost ever other DOTA-style game is free to play, so at least put it at $30 or less.

Finally, Steam's tiered pre-order scheme is probably one of the worst possible things for the game industry right now. We have a big enough problem with titles like Duke Nukem: Forever and now Aliens: Colonial Marines; do we really need more emphasis to pledge money to something we can't even sample?

I like Valve a lot as a company, but they certainly don't have a spotless record. Bungie isn't perfect, but their record is pretty good for a triple-a developer and that's enough for me to be interested in anything they're working on (same goes for Valve).

Oh, and Spore had a lot of great procedural technology in it. It was very innovative in that regard. The gameplay was just crap. In fact, Spore is another game which nicely illustrates my point about innovation.

blah blah blah, rant rant rant, half-life, halo, bungie, paragraphs i do not wish to read...nothing about destiny.

That's because there's nothing left to say about Destiny. We been given almost no information at all about the game itself, so we're left speculating on Bungie's vision and capacity to see that vision through.