Problems with what I've seen so far:

• Gunplay looks uninspired and uninteresting, players were just shooting healthbars.
  
• Levels for players and enemies is a huge gamble and ripe for problems relating to difficulty
  
• Cinematic events that leave questions about static-ness of the gameworld - for example the shot of a Fallen spacecraft jumping nearby which causes two towers to collapse. The next time you come through that area, do those towers stay collapsed, or are they upright again? If they stay collapsed, then what if you're not the first person through the area? What if you join your friends as they're going and the towers just collapsed and now that's permanently done on your profile and you never got the chance to see it?
  
• Unlockable leveled abilities implies grinding.
  
• Hollow level design, wide corridors, nothing to really interact with.
  
• Mini-boss fights that aren't any more engaging than "shoot it a lot".
  
• Speeders seemed pretty bleh. I couldn't really see myself caring at all for them.
  
  
  Recommendations:
  
• Introduce interesting methods of killing various enemies. Halo had this in spades, so I was surprised to see it lacking so much. As an example: Hunters are mini boss fights when you encounter them, but they have certain behaviors and abilities that make them dangerous but counterable with the right strategy or weapons. Nothing like this was shown in the demo beyond shooting the legs on the spidertank and it's not even clear if that was necessary.
  
• Make the environment interactive! It's not just a matter of cover, it's a matter of interesting things to see and find, buttons that can be pushed to open up new avenues of attack or defense, loot that can be acquired, dangerous environmental hazards, books, video or audio recordings. STALKER did this really well with anomalies, mutants, humans, stashes of hidden loot, audiologs and related material on NPC's and scripted blowouts and other events. ODST did it to a lesser degree but still in the right direction. Even Halo 2 had dangerous environments with the train on Terminal. This is absolutely vital for an RPG-esque game. Make the players THINK.
  
• Lose the healthbars and introduce some other visible mechanics to indicate that an enemy is nearing death. Elites had this with their shields bursting and their battlecry animation before charging. Actually, thinking on it, most of the Covenant in Halo had such AI behaviors; clear indicators of imminent death are MUCH more immersive and interesting than healthbars!
  
  
  Other Comments:
  
• Competitive multiplayer needs to be more than a tacked on effort. It's what kept Halo alive, and in more ways than just 4 on 4 MLG team slayer: Hogball, Cat and Mouse, Infection/Zombies, Griffball, Forge. If Destiny lacks in this department, it will kill the game.
  
• What I've seen so far really isn't selling me. I see potential, but it's unmet. The demo did a poor job of revealing anything interesting or solid about the game. It basically showed us what we already knew or expected. Which either means gameplay is still largely being worked (and so criticism has a good chance of changing things) or Bungie is being their usual obtuse selves about revealing anything about the game.

Problems with what I've seen so far:

• Gunplay looks uninspired and uninteresting, players were just shooting healthbars.

they seemed to be shooting heads making them pop, sliding into and slicing necks, powering up and one shotting, using grenade like magical abilities to crowd control

[*] Levels for players and enemies is a huge gamble and ripe for problems relating to difficulty

agreed, while the public events look great for having a few 20s rubbing shoulders with a 7 and a 3 while the whole of the enemy force could handle the disparate levels, I'm curious how the encounter IN the wall goes with a 20 running with a 3

[*] Cinematic events that leave questions about static-ness of the gameworld - for example the shot of a Fallen spacecraft jumping nearby which causes two towers to collapse. The next time you come through that area, do those towers stay collapsed, or are they upright again? If they stay collapsed, then what if you're not the first person through the area? What if you join your friends as they're going and the towers just collapsed and now that's permanently done on your profile and you never got the chance to see it?

I'm wondering if this will be a flag set for every guardian who witnessed that making it so you only getting matched into public areas with guardians who have had that flag set and the environment is in that new state.

this becomes an issue when you circumvent the matchmaking by joining a fire team with people who have different flags set, they may resolve this by having a master player who's flags are canonical for the whole fire team

[*] Unlockable leveled abilities implies grinding.

ugh, yeah, screw grinding

[*] Hollow level design, wide corridors, nothing to really interact with.

it's a bungie shooter, the things you interact with are co-op players and interesting enemies. The environments should lend themselves to that type of interaction.

[*] Mini-boss fights that aren't any more engaging than "shoot it a lot".

I'm thinking the difficulty level of the demo has really affected your perception of what they showed us. The spider tank had numerous states that it went in and out of demonstrating various forms of attack showing already a few strategies that I picked up from the demo. A coordinated fireteam would have to manage to stay out of it's main cannons focus while focus firing on specific legs to then applying their efforts against the core. As we learn more about the types of weapons and their effect on different elements of each monster (I imagine some weapons will be better against the armor on the legs and some will have a better effect on the core).

Oh and the Archon Slayer boss would have probably been much more interesting if Player 1 wasn't invincible.

[*] Speeders seemed pretty bleh. I couldn't really see myself caring at all for them.

they looked like an AWESOME form of transport. I saw how they physically interacted with each other and it looked like a lot of fun. Bungie always does a great job with the physics of their vehicles and they already have shown a glimpse of that in their demo.

Recommendations:
[*]Introduce interesting methods of killing various enemies. Halo had this in spades, so I was surprised to see it lacking so much. As an example: Hunters are mini boss fights when you encounter them, but they have certain behaviors and abilities that make them dangerous but counterable with the right strategy or weapons. Nothing like this was shown in the demo beyond shooting the legs on the spidertank and it's not even clear if that was necessary.

some of the later playthroughs showed some very creative ways for killing the enemies, especially loved the slide slice I saw in one of the demos

[*]Make the environment interactive! It's not just a matter of cover, it's a matter of interesting things to see and find, buttons that can be pushed to open up new avenues of attack or defense, loot that can be acquired, dangerous environmental hazards, books, video or audio recordings. STALKER did this really well with anomalies, mutants, humans, stashes of hidden loot, audiologs and related material on NPC's and scripted blowouts and other events. ODST did it to a lesser degree but still in the right direction. Even Halo 2 had dangerous environments with the train on Terminal. This is absolutely vital for an RPG-esque game. Make the players THINK.

scavenging isn't much a "THINK" thing. I'm all up for environments that are available for a player's analysis pre-battle that allow a thoughtful player to choose the best points of attack. I'm also for environments that move/can move that create a dynamic play space for players to explore/fight in.

scavenging though? boy was that one of the worst parts of bioshock infinite. I wasn't exploring the environment so much as vacuuming it.

[*]Lose the healthbars and introduce some other visible mechanics to indicate that an enemy is nearing death. Elites had this with their shields bursting and their battlecry animation before charging. Actually, thinking on it, most of the Covenant in Halo had such AI behaviors; clear indicators of imminent death are MUCH more immersive and interesting than healthbars!

yeah, I'm all for visible mechanics to indicate the enemy is nearing death. I believe though that some of the enemies are going to have such high amounts of HP to account for the number of guardians that may be firing on them that imminent death could be a very debatable concept. I've found it frustrating sometimes having popped an elite's shield and pumped a ton of bullets into them that I had no idea whether I almost had them or not. At the lower difficulties this was no worries as they'd keel over shortly after popping their shields.

I'd prefer there not to be health bars, but I think the wide variety of enemies and difficulties that Bungie is ambitiously going for requires them. I hope they're optional.

Other Comments:
[*]Competitive multiplayer needs to be more than a tacked on effort. It's what kept Halo alive, and in more ways than just 4 on 4 MLG team slayer: Hogball, Cat and Mouse, Infection/Zombies, Griffball, Forge. If Destiny lacks in this department, it will kill the game.

oh boy I can't wait to hear about what Bungie is going to bring to the table in this regard. I'm excited that they haven't said almost ANYTHING about it. I'm anticipating something clever from them.

[*]What I've seen so far really isn't selling me. I see potential, but it's unmet. The demo did a poor job of revealing anything interesting or solid about the game. It basically showed us what we already knew or expected. Which either means gameplay is still largely being worked (and so criticism has a good chance of changing things) or Bungie is being their usual obtuse selves about revealing anything about the game.

the demo did an AWESOME job about showing what is interesting about the game. We know that bungie can deliver on really interesting moment to moment gameplay. What we haven't seen from them or really almost anyone else, is how a shooter can provide you that awesome bungie experience while seamlessly allowing you to play with your close friends or randoms. They communicated VERY clearly to me the potential these "cross roads" will have.

Without revealing too much about their enemies that they are no doubt fleshing out and balancing, they were able to show us the core of what they're working on.

Here's to the future of shared shooters.

Am I the only one who likes health bars?

" especially loved the slide slice I saw in one of the demos"

Where can I see this?

No, I find them very useful. When the combat effectiveness of an enemy is not linked to their remaining health, it's helpful to find weakened enemies quickly, if only to get their attacks out of the fight.

/video game survival 101

[*]Introduce interesting methods of killing various enemies. Halo had this in spades, so I was surprised to see it lacking so much. As an example: Hunters are mini boss fights when you encounter them, but they have certain behaviors and abilities that make them dangerous but counterable with the right strategy or weapons. Nothing like this was shown in the demo beyond shooting the legs on the spidertank and it's not even clear if that was necessary.

I don't think Halo was as interesting as you remember. Bungie's Halo games had the golden triangle, with the only real 'flair' coming from what you could create yourself. Sure, that's interesting, but it doesn't deserve some pedestal above Destiny quite yet.

Also, regarding Hunters, c'mon now. Halo CE had that pistol trick. After that, unless you had a power weapon or tank, was it ever not 'shoot and grenade the hunters a lot' and 'don't get punched in the face?' Hell, a lot of Hunter encounters have been jokes, literally and figuratively.

[*]Introduce interesting methods of killing various enemies. Halo had this in spades, so I was surprised to see it lacking so much. As an example: Hunters are mini boss fights when you encounter them, but they have certain behaviors and abilities that make them dangerous but counterable with the right strategy or weapons. Nothing like this was shown in the demo beyond shooting the legs on the spidertank and it's not even clear if that was necessary.

I don't think Halo was as interesting as you remember. Bungie's Halo games had the golden triangle, with the only real 'flair' coming from what you could create yourself. Sure, that's interesting, but it doesn't deserve some pedestal above Destiny quite yet.

I think Destiny gameplay will look even more like Halo's once the main presenters aren't invincible and blessed with unlimited ammo. So much of Halo was figuring the best way to come out swinging so you could kill as many enemies as possible before they got through your shield. This guided you into using more interesting tactics and having to make more interesting decisions. I expect Destiny will be very similar, and it just isn't good showmanship to have all the players hiding behind a box for most of the duration of the gameplay reveal.

- No text -

[*] Cinematic events that leave questions about static-ness of the gameworld - for example the shot of a Fallen spacecraft jumping nearby which causes two towers to collapse. The next time you come through that area, do those towers stay collapsed, or are they upright again? If they stay collapsed, then what if you're not the first person through the area? What if you join your friends as they're going and the towers just collapsed and now that's permanently done on your profile and you never got the chance to see it?

I can't recall where, but I read in an article that came out this week that things of that nature are based from whoever's game you're in. If you join with someone else, it'll be based on what they've experienced so far, so if they haven't done that sequence, everything will be fresh. Now, it didn't mention if when you went back to your game it would be accomplished or not. I would imagine that it would be, but who knows?

As for the rest of your points, I just happen to disagree. I thought it looked like a lot of fun, on all counts. Looked a lot like Halo, to be honest, and that's not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

The leveling and such doesn't bother me. Seems like Borderlands, and that seems to work pretty well. Nothing to do but wait and see, I guess.

I come from the "Base opinions on what has been shown, not what we hope will be shown" line of thinking.

A lot of us have been gamers our whole lives. We've seen generation after generation after generation of developer promises and reveals. We are concerned about what has been shown because what has been shown is a very very strong indicator of what the game will be like, and what the game will be like is not impressing a number of people - the points of contention which have been discussed earlier.

Simply put: If Bungie wants to outdo themselves with Halo, they need to be doing a better job with Destiny than what they've shown so far.

Now, when you say "Wait and see! Have hope! Believe in these guys!" You're basically asking for opinions to be made on phantoms, for players to place a religious amount of trust in the developer, but you can't form a real opinion on something that you haven't seen and don't know exists. It's an empirical vs religious way of thinking, and when you go down the religious path, what you end up with are people, days from release going "I know they haven't shown any of feature X, but they just wanted to keep it from us to discover in the game itself!" followed soon after when it isn't in the game with: "Well, it's not a feature that was really important anyways, the game is still fantastic!".

That is why I say people should temper their enthusiasm for the game. Do not expect Bungie to make a perfect title. Go by what they show. What they have shown has been relatively lackluster in a number of areas, so concerns are being voiced. Unless and until we see improvement in later gameplay reveals, these criticisms will remain completely valid. (And if the criticism turns out to be invalid, it's win/win.)

I don't think Halo was as interesting as you remember. Bungie's Halo games had the golden triangle, with the only real 'flair' coming from what you could create yourself. Sure, that's interesting, but it doesn't deserve some pedestal above Destiny quite yet.

Also, regarding Hunters, c'mon now. Halo CE had that pistol trick. After that, unless you had a power weapon or tank, was it ever not 'shoot and grenade the hunters a lot' and 'don't get punched in the face?' Hell, a lot of Hunter encounters have been jokes, literally and figuratively.

And I think Halo is quite as interesting as I remember. So much so that I was able to specify exactly several issues that Halo had done better - such as AI behaviour and response to low health.

It is, frankly, very concerning to me that this far through the development process and they still don't have a solid flair to the fallen. Their main gimmicks appear to be crawling on walls, close-range knife attacks, and evaporating when they die. It's really not that impressive - I would flat out say the Prometheans in Halo 4 are more engaging and interesting than this. The Fallen have four arms, and yet you don't really even see how they put that to use. They're a very hierarchical group of nobility, and yet you hardly see how that effects their behaviour in-game.

In regards to your comments about Hunters, I'm honestly puzzled by how much you think they sucked. They were always one of my favourite enemies in Halo; yes they had telegraphed attacks - that's a good thing, it helped make them different and engaging. They had a certain way of being dealt with: Heavy weapons, or close range combat dodging their melee attacks. Just because they could be easily eliminated with the pistol has no bearing on how interesting they were to fight, and frankly even the inclusion of the pistol backshot instakill made them interesting in their own way. You don't fight anything else like you fight a Hunter.

As for the rest of your points, I just happen to disagree. I thought it looked like a lot of fun, on all counts. Looked a lot like Halo, to be honest, and that's not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

I won't be surprised if it feels more like Halo than current Halo.

In regards to your comments about Hunters, I'm honestly puzzled by how much you think they sucked. They were always one of my favourite enemies in Halo; yes they had telegraphed attacks - that's a good thing, it helped make them different and engaging. They had a certain way of being dealt with: Heavy weapons, or close range combat dodging their melee attacks. Just because they could be easily eliminated with the pistol has no bearing on how interesting they were to fight, and frankly even the inclusion of the pistol backshot instakill made them interesting in their own way. You don't fight anything else like you fight a Hunter.

Hunters were great. They didn't suck. What I'm taking issue with is why you're putting them up there as an example, stating that they're behaviors were the most interesting part, and somehow you can already tell their better than Destiny's tank thing. As you'll see, a lot of those behaviors got boiled down pretty hard to where they really weren't behaviors at all, and, there's a lot that goes into making encounters interesting, some of which we saw in that Destiny video.

Story time!

Halo CE hunters are pretty intimidating, but with a rocket launcher or the pistol trick, they are easily handled. Esspecially the pistol trick. How does that not play into how fun they are to fight? After a while, it gets boring, because it takes two seconds to dispatch them. Anyway, there's no fight there, at all, after a time. Heck, how many times did you run into a rocket launcher right before a Hunter showed up? It's shameful, really. Haha.

Halo 2's introduction of Hunters sucked. You had a machine gun that dispatched them easily. Yippee. Some later encounters were interesting, because the pistol trick was gone, but once you learned they could backhand you, it was all solved relatively quickly. I don't remember weapon placement as well as Halo CE, but I bet it was generous. Someone feel free to correct or affirm that.

Halo 3 turned Hunters into jokes. There's always plenty of firepower around to shoot them until they died, and there's that part with the tank, 'Tank beats hunter!' where two hunters are literally there to get shot with a tank. They're part of a punchline (a hilarious punchline at the time, but for Hunter lovers, eventually sad face :( ). The couple Hunters you fight with Arbiter are kind of tough, but there's so many Elites and weapons around, but it's essentially the same dance we've had since Halo 2.

Then comes ODST.

Remember when we first had Hunters in ODST? We. Shat. Bricks. It was amazing. It was awesome. 'Holy shitballs, Hunters are scary again!' How many of us ran in a building, and the gorram thing followed us? More shat bricking! Ecstasy and omgomgomgomgrunawayyyy! If you spend any significant time away from Halo games, this Hunter encounter will likely be the most challenging and rewarding one of all (I should know, I just did this recently, and it was grrrrreat, but don't take my word for it).

Now why is this?

I think ODST struck the perfect chord with Hunters. You had an interesting environment (exploding cars, woo!), limited weapons, the chance to get better weapons via luck/exploring (but not overpowering, and you could miss easily with the fire grenades), the reduced abilites of ODSTs (this might be the most important part, Chief was a real Ubermensch by Halo 3), and that you had two different kinds of Hunter to deal with. They were also bullet sponges, which played into the hands of the other design decisions around that encounter.

Story time over.

I guess after all that ranting what I'm trying to get at is that, yeah, we saw a Destiny enemy that can take a lot of punishment and wasn't really dancing around a lot, but we also saw an interesting enviornment, various weapons and powers to deal with it, random players hoping in to help, and probably a ton of other stuff they're just not ready to reveal yet or we were unable to notice, which is fine, cause it's early yet and few, if any of us, have played the game. It's good to point out what we've seen, but don't lose the forest for the trees, either. Bungie's got a track record of building on what's come before, so, they deserve at least a little benefiting of doubt.

I come from the "Base opinions on what has been shown, not what we hope will be shown" line of thinking.

I come from the "Don't form opinions about a thing until you've actually played/seen/read/heard it line of thinking." :)

A lot of us have been gamers our whole lives. We've seen generation after generation after generation of developer promises and reveals. We are concerned about what has been shown because what has been shown is a very very strong indicator of what the game will be like, and what the game will be like is not impressing a number of people - the points of contention which have been discussed earlier.

Huh, I've seen a lot of excitement for the game. The only big negatives I've noticed is people complaining that they don't know enough about the game. But I don't think that's the games fault - I think it's culture that sits on computers, addicted to an accelerating stream of content aimed to keep themselves constantly distracted (I know I do this, at least). We've got to keep gobbling things up until we're sick of them; there's no room for patience. We get weekend opening box-office numbers for movies before the weekend is barely started these days, hah.

That is why I say people should temper their enthusiasm for the game. Do not expect Bungie to make a perfect title. Go by what they show. What they have shown has been relatively lackluster in a number of areas, so concerns are being voiced. Unless and until we see improvement in later gameplay reveals, these criticisms will remain completely valid. (And if the criticism turns out to be invalid, it's win/win.)

I'm not expecting them to make a perfect title, and never expect anybody to make a perfect anything - but I've loved what they've shown and even if I didn't, I don't think I know enough about the game to form any concerns for Bungie to improve on. I'll have no idea what Destiny really IS until I actually play it and see and experience this whole experiment for myself, so I'm in no place to decide what is wrong or right for it. And I'm also happy with not knowing everything about the game before it comes out. Half the time the games that do show a lot and make me like what I see turn out terrible.

Destiny is a brand new game, and I hope people don't chain it to Halo's legacy. I don't think everybody's going to like it - and that's okay.

It is, frankly, very concerning to me that this far through the development process and they still don't have a solid flair to the fallen.

Pre-alpha state is far into development?

It is, frankly, very concerning to me that this far through the development process and they still don't have a solid flair to the fallen.

Pre-alpha state is far into development?

Uh. I would really hope they are not in a pre-alpha state one year away from release.

According to DeeJ that is what they currently at.

Here's the video if you're curious (12:10 is where he mentions it):

I also want to point out that Joe Staten did mention that the he had no damage turned of for himself, and you can clearly see they had infinite ammo. If I had those two things in Halo, it would be a much easier and much more boring game. That does need to be taken into account.

One thing I did appreciate that was pretty Halo like is when the one Dredge runs away when the players quickly dispatched his comrades. Also the Devil Walker experience seemed a lot more interesting to me than people seem to notice. They keep using the bullet sponge term when it's clear that you can at least immobilize the tank to force it to reveal it's weak point. That's pretty close the strategies required in other Bungie games.

I wonder if that meant the game itself is in a pre-alpha state, or if what was being shown off at E3 was a pre-alpha state of the game.

Now, when you say "Wait and see! Have hope! Believe in these guys!" You're basically asking for opinions to be made on phantoms, for players to place a religious amount of trust in the developer, but you can't form a real opinion on something that you haven't seen and don't know exists. It's an empirical vs religious way of thinking, and when you go down the religious path, what you end up with are people, days from release going "I know they haven't shown any of feature X, but they just wanted to keep it from us to discover in the game itself!" followed soon after when it isn't in the game with: "Well, it's not a feature that was really important anyways, the game is still fantastic!".

First, let's just drop your use of "religious" as a pejorative for everyone's comfort. I think you're implying that some of us have blind faith in Bungie, and it may look like that, but it's not for a lot of us. Bungie has made 11 games since I've been following them, and of those, only two disappointed me--Halo 2 and Oni--and despite their problems, they were both a hell of a lot of fun.

You raised a lot of valid concerns based on limited information. (A lot of them were mentioned in the ASE podcast, so you're not alone.) I don't begrudge you mentioning them; I share some of the concerns you have. I do think I have more faith that Bungie won't make a lot of the mistakes you bring up. (And some of them I don't consider mistakes.) It's not blind faith, though. It's based on having been in place before and having great expectations, and then having those expectations met, and often exceeded.

Then comes ODST.

Remember when we first had Hunters in ODST? We. Shat. Bricks. It was amazing. It was awesome. 'Holy shitballs, Hunters are scary again!' How many of us ran in a building, and the gorram thing followed us? More shat bricking! Ecstasy and omgomgomgomgrunawayyyy! If you spend any significant time away from Halo games, this Hunter encounter will likely be the most challenging and rewarding one of all (I should know, I just did this recently, and it was grrrrreat, but don't take my word for it).

I laughed out reading this, because I recently replayed it, too, and was amazed.

I wonder if that meant the game itself is in a pre-alpha state, or if what was being shown off at E3 was a pre-alpha state of the game.

I'm not sure. Pre-alpha means they're just putting concepts together, and haven't actually decided on how the game is going to work. It implies all they've got are the engine, development tools and concepts.

And it releases a year from now. I'd have expected Alpha right now - concepts are implemented, general design is solid, music is nearly ready, cutscenes are being worked on etc.

So I'm getting conflicting stories here, because by all rights it looks like they're in alpha, but they say they're in pre-alpha and still formulating the game's concepts.

Pre-alpha is good, that means they're going to be more open to tweaking things based on feedback, which means they have more room to change things than if they were in Alpha.

But, pre-alpha is also bad - they only have a year until launch. The time for pre-alpha should've been a little further back than right now. Destiny's been in the works for how long? Concepts since ODST in 2009; finished with Halo in 2010. Let's say a year to transfer from support of Halo Reach to development of Destiny - that's still two years of development to still be in a pre-alpha stage.

That doesn't sound right to me.

First, let's just drop your use of "religious" as a pejorative for everyone's comfort. I think you're implying that some of us have blind faith in Bungie, and it may look like that, but it's not for a lot of us. Bungie has made 11 games since I've been following them, and of those, only two disappointed me--Halo 2 and Oni--and despite their problems, they were both a hell of a lot of fun.

You raised a lot of valid concerns based on limited information. (A lot of them were mentioned in the ASE podcast, so you're not alone.) I don't begrudge you mentioning them; I share some of the concerns you have. I do think I have more faith that Bungie won't make a lot of the mistakes you bring up. (And some of them I don't consider mistakes.) It's not blind faith, though. It's based on having been in place before and having great expectations, and then having those expectations met, and often exceeded.

'Religious' wasn't used or intended to be used as a pejorative, it was used to express a concept of faith. What else is that than religion? Fanboys, religion, political affiliation, it's the same psychological framework. People associate and trust and believe in concepts and ideas, partly because not everyone can be completely informed about everything and sometimes it's good to just put blind faith into your belief in something, particularly with a proven track record.

I do however, think that such faith in Bungie, or any other developer, is misplaced and should never free them from criticism. That it's wrong to nod along to everything they say.

The point of my post is to bring these issues up, to make it apparent that no, there are some things that players are finding questionable. If all Bungie hears in feedback is a resounding string of "YES!"'s, but those comments are largely attributable to fanboyism rather than actual appreciation of the game concepts, then they don't refine their game to what works best - for their fans just say "this is good!" no matter what it is that Bungie shows.

How many guns can you have on you?

I only ask, because if the guns are supposed to be personalized, and upgradable, and something you want to keep, then hwo will that affect level design?

Like, in a regular FPS game you can go nuts with designs and encounters, knowing the player has a diverse arsenal to deal with the situations presented, or they have to ability to pick up and such weapon needed.

But if players are supposed to keep their guns, and you haven;t been keeping and upgrading say, a sniper rifle, then what do you do in a situation where you'd need a sniper rifle because the level has been designed that way? Do you have to rely on someone else who does have one (lame)? Are the enemies and levels just designed so they can be done with any weapon (lame)? Or does this not matter too much and we can pick up weapons we need (good)?

But if players are supposed to keep their guns, and you haven;t been keeping and upgrading say, a sniper rifle, then what do you do in a situation where you'd need a sniper rifle because the level has been designed that way? Do you have to rely on someone else who does have one (lame)? Are the enemies and levels just designed so they can be done with any weapon (lame)? Or does this not matter too much and we can pick up weapons we need (good)?

I'm not sure, but I think the game is design around the premise that the team is prepared for anything, while individuals might be unbalanced.

For instance, using your example: we reach a point in a mission where there are lots of enemy snipers, somewhat few covers and I don't have ANY long-range weapons. Now, if I were alone, I'd be pretty much shit out of luck. But we're a team. I don't have any long-range weapons exactly because you told me you had a wicked sniper.

Now I can run from cover to cover, drawing out enemy fire, while you ping them, or at least potshot them long enough to keep me alive while I move in for the shotgun kills.

I can only hope they script the seamless matchmaking to take my weapons and encounter into account so such situations are always possible. The potential is there, but true, no word has been given. Mail sack anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTfhrONAp-c

This video actually feels a bit more engaging than the reveal demo did. Some things did stick out a bit more - I saw one of the Fallen leaders using some kind of shield, the walker seemed a little more difficult to kill, there was more interactivity from the enemies, critical hits seemed to apply every time a fallen was shot in the head, rather than randomly as I had thought previously.

I wonder if that meant the game itself is in a pre-alpha state, or if what was being shown off at E3 was a pre-alpha state of the game.

Yeah I wondered the same thing, that seems most likely, but then again I've seen games be in alpha up until 6 months before it comes out so who knows.

Are the enemies and levels just designed so they can be done with any weapon (lame)?

Done right, that's the opposite of Lame. See: Dues Ex.

Are the enemies and levels just designed so they can be done with any weapon (lame)?

Done right, that's the opposite of Lame. See: Dues Ex.

Uh, did we play the same game? There's tons of stuff only doable if you have certain weapons and augmentations, it's just that the levels were designed to have routes tailored to whatever you decided to play as.

Are the enemies and levels just designed so they can be done with any weapon (lame)?

Done right, that's the opposite of Lame. See: Dues Ex.

Uh, did we play the same game? There's tons of stuff only doable if you have certain weapons and augmentations, it's just that the levels were designed to have routes tailored to whatever you decided to play as.

Exactly!

So for your example of the sniper alley, either the player has a sniper, and they can handle the situation that way or it could be designed with a series of cover allowing crafty players to close the gaps and complete it without sniping.

How many guns can you have on you?

If you look at one of the reveal videos (any of them really. it looks like he is carrying 6 weapons, and if you look at the grid that fans out it appears you can carry a LOT more.

In this video it's around 8:05

'Religious' wasn't used or intended to be used as a pejorative, it was used to express a concept of faith.

Sorry, but what "concept of faith" would that be exactly?

You're basically asking for opinions to be made on phantoms, for players to place a religious amount of trust in the developer, but you can't form a real opinion on something that you haven't seen and don't know exists.

Immediately followed by...

It's an empirical vs religious way of thinking, and when you go down the religious path, what you end up with are people, days from release going "I know they haven't shown any of feature X, but they just wanted to keep it from us to discover in the game itself!" followed soon after when it isn't in the game with: "Well, it's not a feature that was really important anyways, the game is still fantastic!".

Given the context, it sounds like you were equating religious thinking with something like irrational and/or blind faith. So, yes, you were using the word "religious" as a pejorative in actuality, whether it was intentional or not is kind of irrelevant.

So, I'll echo Kermit's statement here, please use a different word for that particular "concept of faith" you're trying to get across. :)

That awkward business out of the way, I agree that we should temper our expectations, but I'd recommend not doing it to the point of constant doubt and negativity. (Which is an attitude you can so easily slip into.)

I also find it interesting when you recommend to take the "empirical" approach, and in another post state...

People associate and trust and believe in concepts and ideas, partly because not everyone can be completely informed about everything and sometimes it's good to just put blind faith into your belief in something, particularly with a proven track record.

and...

I do however, think that such faith in Bungie, or any other developer, is misplaced and should never free them from criticism. That it's wrong to nod along to everything they say.

Firstly, I want to point out that believing in something "particularly with a proven track record" falls into the realm of the empirical approach.

Secondly, if people have placed faith in Bungie because of their past experiences with them or their products (track record), there's nothing wrong about that, nor would their faith be necessarily misplaced.

Thirdly, I agree that you shouldn't nod along with everything anyone says. And, yes, just because you have some faith in a company, that shouldn't make them beyond reproach. But again, those kinds of rationale don't inherently follow from just putting some faith in a company.

Personally, I'm intrigued and excited about what I've seen so far. I have a good amount of faith that Bungie will deliver an amazing experience...something that might even surpass their Halo games. (In fact, I find that scenario more likely than not given their track record, the amount of planning put into it, and how excited/passionate they seem to be about it.)

How many guns can you have on you?

If you look at one of the reveal videos (any of them really. it looks like he is carrying 6 weapons, and if you look at the grid that fans out it appears you can carry a LOT more.

In this video it's around 8:05

Makes sense. It's like you have an inventory, and a certain amount of quick-access equip slots to put those items in. Kind of like Dark Souls' inventory and equip screens, but with less clutter.

(Here's a video that shows off the menus I'm talking about.)

Then comes ODST.

Remember when we first had Hunters in ODST? We. Shat. Bricks. It was amazing. It was awesome. 'Holy shitballs, Hunters are scary again!' How many of us ran in a building, and the gorram thing followed us? More shat bricking! Ecstasy and omgomgomgomgrunawayyyy! If you spend any significant time away from Halo games, this Hunter encounter will likely be the most challenging and rewarding one of all (I should know, I just did this recently, and it was grrrrreat, but don't take my word for it).

I laughed out reading this, because I recently replayed it, too, and was amazed.

Haha. I'm glad. That was probably the best part of that word salad I threw up there. I remember those threads, man, back at HBO.

Good times. /Urdnot Wrex

The point of my post is to bring these issues up, to make it apparent that no, there are some things that players are finding questionable. If all Bungie hears in feedback is a resounding string of "YES!"'s, but those comments are largely attributable to fanboyism rather than actual appreciation of the game concepts, then they don't refine their game to what works best - for their fans just say "this is good!" no matter what it is that Bungie shows.

I could totally understand these posts from folks AFTER Destiny comes out, in the vein of making Destiny 2 better, and stuff like that...

But right now, for every known, even if it seems troublesome to you, there's 100 unknowns none of us know that could completely shift our perspective and understanding of how the game works and flows. Because Destiny is not Bungie's Halo 4 (or 5 or whatever). It's a whole new game.

Imagine trying to criticize Halo CE before it came out - none of us knew how vastly different it was from all FPSs before it until we played it. They changed the rules, and what might seem strange or weird in a bulletin list on a piece of paper worked out wonderfully with every other element they poured into it. BUT, leading up to Halo 2, we COULD actually really discuss how Halo worked and have some idea on how new elements could change it for the better or worse.

I'd like to just wait and try it. And if I like it, awesome. If I don't, then maybe it's not the game for me, and I hope the people who do love it will see it only continue to improve from their feedback.

So, I'll echo Kermit's statement here, please use a different word for that particular "concept of faith" you're trying to get across. :)

A passive-aggressive smiley and charged vocabulary to instigate me into an angered response.

I'm not interested in continuing this line of discussion on the forum. If you wish to speak further on it, I'm open to talking via other means.

The rest of your post is basically just... repeating what I already said. So I only surmise that the entire point of it was to directly jab at me.

I could totally understand these posts from folks AFTER Destiny comes out, in the vein of making Destiny 2 better, and stuff like that...

But right now, for every known, even if it seems troublesome to you, there's 100 unknowns none of us know that could completely shift our perspective and understanding of how the game works and flows. Because Destiny is not Bungie's Halo 4 (or 5 or whatever). It's a whole new game.

Imagine trying to criticize Halo CE before it came out - none of us knew how vastly different it was from all FPSs before it until we played it. They changed the rules, and what might seem strange or weird in a bulletin list on a piece of paper worked out wonderfully with every other element they poured into it. BUT, leading up to Halo 2, we COULD actually really discuss how Halo worked and have some idea on how new elements could change it for the better or worse.

I'd like to just wait and try it. And if I like it, awesome. If I don't, then maybe it's not the game for me, and I hope the people who do love it will see it only continue to improve from their feedback.

The best criticism of the game is going to be after it launches, but criticism before then is also good.

After seeing the behind-the-scenes demo, I actually felt like I was a little too harsh on some of my points.

So, I'll echo Kermit's statement here, please use a different word for that particular "concept of faith" you're trying to get across. :)

A passive-aggressive smiley and charged vocabulary to instigate me into an angered response.

I'm not interested in continuing this line of discussion on the forum. If you wish to speak further on it, I'm open to talking via other means.

The rest of your post is basically just... repeating what I already said. So I only surmise that the entire point of it was to directly jab at me.

Look, my statement wasn't trying to instigate or be passive-aggressive. I'm sorry if it came off that way. (I was being assertive though.) From your response, I'm not entirely sure you read my post, and the gist of it was to say that you should consider not associating a certain word with a certain concept as it may make you appear to be bigoted. It also talked about how I agree with some of what you said in regards to tempering expectations, but I added some of my insights to it. (Actually, that was the majority of my post.)

So I hope you see where I was coming from, and we can just move on now.

yeah, I suggest watching at least a few more of the demos. They all show off different bits that I think should put your mind at ease.

- No text -

But, pre-alpha is also bad - they only have a year until launch. The time for pre-alpha should've been a little further back than right now. Destiny's been in the works for how long? Concepts since ODST in 2009; finished with Halo in 2010. Let's say a year to transfer from support of Halo Reach to development of Destiny - that's still two years of development to still be in a pre-alpha stage.

That doesn't sound right to me.

IIRC, they've been working on this puppy since ODST (pre-planning and such) so it's more like 4 years pre-dev and dev time. To be fair, I'm not surprised pre-alpha took this long, they're architecting on platforms they've never developed for, building a , what has been described as, huge MMO sized world(s), and as well as story they will no doubt have plans for constantly updating this persistent world.

They have come a long way, but this game definitely sounds like a much bigger task than putting out a AAA game in the past. In a way, development never ends, especially if this turns out to be updated and persistent as they want it to be.

Is there going to be enough to do in Destiny? And I don't mean "hanging out on Mars".

Creating content and designing encounters is tough. I mean, look at Reach. You got nine levels of crafted spaces and encounters, and that game took more than 2 years to make, and took most people somewhere around 15 hours to finish.

From what I see in MMOs, there's enough content only because it all takes a long time to do because:

1. You have to travel around a lot to get to the quests.
2. The enemies take a relatively long time to fight
3. You need to grind your way to the required level

Has Bungie really been working on Destiny long enough, and with enough people that when it ships we'll get more than 15 hours of encounters? Or are they going to use any of the three methods above to slow us down from completing it?

Because I can easily see a good player sitting down and beating Reach in a long day. Maybe Destiny will take an entire weekend. But due to the nature of combat in first person shooters, and the time required to make compelling spaces and encounters, what is going to keep me in this world other than them having a shit ton of levels?

Are there going to just be a shit ton of levels? Are we going to be slowed down MMO style? Will the shit ton of levels be designed well with care and attention to them?

Is there going to be enough to do in Destiny? And I don't mean "hanging out on Mars".

Creating content and designing encounters is tough. I mean, look at Reach. You got nine levels of crafted spaces and encounters, and that game took more than 2 years to make, and took most people somewhere around 15 hours to finish.

From what I see in MMOs, there's enough content only because it all takes a long time to do because:

1. You have to travel around a lot to get to the quests.
2. The enemies take a relatively long time to fight
3. You need to grind your way to the required level

Has Bungie really been working on Destiny long enough, and with enough people that when it ships we'll get more than 15 hours of encounters? Or are they going to use any of the three methods above to slow us down from completing it?

Because I can easily see a good player sitting down and beating Reach in a long day. Maybe Destiny will take an entire weekend. But due to the nature of combat in first person shooters, and the time required to make compelling spaces and encounters, what is going to keep me in this world other than them having a shit ton of levels?

Are there going to just be a shit ton of levels? Are we going to be slowed down MMO style? Will the shit ton of levels be designed well with care and attention to them?

Quote embellishment by me.

The way you talk - it's almost like you have never played a Bungie game before. They actually intend to have this game last 10 years (instead of by accident). Do you really think that they are just going to announce their intentions only to gimp it later on? Its madness. They wouldn't let themselves do such - its why I - nay - WE are fans of Bungie. They know what they are doing and are going to do the best they can. It will NOT - I repeat -WILL NOT be perfect the first time through (if at all). As they have stated - the ENTIRE studio is focused on Destiny.

They aren't going to meet all your expectations - nor should you expect it. At least try to have fun with the possibilitys this new world can bring. Don't look too much into the table scraps and wait for the main course, then you can spew on how under-cooked the meat is (presuming it is).

Freaking out on what-ifs will only lead to madness. It is known.

I think a lot of this will come down to a few things:

1. There team is considerably bigger than when they made Reach. Around 160 employees were working at Bungie at the time of Reach, which we now know some of them may have been working on Destiny. Now over 300 are working on Destiny.
2. The main reason why the game has to be constantly connected is so they can constantly be adding content.
3. Random encounters could be added pretty easily if really needed, though I am not sure if this is what Bungie is going for.

There are probably more ways Bungie will make this work, but I honestly don't know what they are.

Do you really think that they are just going to announce their intentions only to gimp it later on? Its madness.

Dude, Halo 2.

Do you really think that they are just going to announce their intentions only to gimp it later on? Its madness.

Dude, Halo 2.

I knew that was going to be brought up. I was hoping it wouldn't be - since as a overall rebuttal it is out of context. Sounds good sure, but it loses scope the more you look in to it in the now. At that time they were more dudes in a Chicago basement (though not literately) than "professional" video game creators. They had much less people too.

I imagine that they are having a much better "After E3" week as well.

So let me restate the rhetorical question, DO you really think they want to repeat the developers HELL that was Halo 2?

Yay Learning.

I think there will probably be a main storyline that could be beaten in a weekend, but there will be a ton of side missions to play for a long while, and they could add more over time, maybe as DLC.

Do you really think that they are just going to announce their intentions only to gimp it later on? Its madness.

Dude, Halo 2.

I knew that was going to be brought up. I was hoping it won't be - since as a overall rebuttal it's stupid. Sounds good sure, but it loses scope the more you look in to it in the context of now. At that time they were more dudes in a Chicago basement (though not literately) than "professional" video game creators. They had much less people too.

I imagine that they are having a much better "After E3" week as well.

So let me restate the rhetorical question, DO you really think they want to repeat the developers HELL that was Halo 2?

Yay Learning.

If it was so obvious, why didn't you bring it up pre-emptively? You left Halo 2 open when you admonished Cody, saying he acts like he's never played a Bungie game before - or was this just hyperbole?

Anyway, I'm just asking for balance and maybe a little less hyperbole. You're pushing too far in the 'benefit of the doubt' direction.

If it was so obvious, why didn't you bring it up pre-emptively?

Anyway, I'm just asking for balance. You're pushing too far in the 'benefit of the doubt' direction.

(Bah! Grabbed my post before I could finish my edit. Stupid was much too strong a word.)

Because. . . I thought it . . . was . . . . . . Obvious? >_>
I am posting on a Bungie fan site right? Of that I did give the 'benefit of the doubt'.

But this - is much less of such. I'm just going off what we are aware of. Asking questions that amount to WHAT IF IT SUCKS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?11111 Is ultimately pointless. Putting one self into an emotional tizzy more so. Alot of the questions asked don't have answers right now.

Exsample:

Are there going to just be a shit ton of levels? Are we going to be slowed down MMO style?

Only DeeJ (well - most likely) could answer them and I doubt he could to a degree that would be wanted. In the terms of discussion all it really does is conclude in its self that a current unknowable something is wrong - but we have nothing. These questions are in the end fruitless. What IF Destiny Sucks!?!?! OMG BUGiE t3h worst.

It's just maddness.

It's not that I'm not against a harshly critical eye - just things that lack some semblance of basis. Just act on the data - not what if. At least - not here.

If it was so obvious, why didn't you bring it up pre-emptively?

Anyway, I'm just asking for balance. You're pushing too far in the 'benefit of the doubt' direction.

(Bah! Grabbed my post before I could finish my edit. Stupid was much too strong a word.)

Because. . . I thought it . . . was . . . . . . Obvious? >_>

It looks like you assumed it was obvious. To some, it may not be. It's alright to give that opinion a voice.

I am posting on a Bungie fan site right? Of that I did give the 'benefit of the doubt'.

What do you mean here? I hope it doesn't mean certain expectations about what is and isn't said. That would be silly.

But this - is much less of such. I'm just going off what we are aware of. Asking questions that amount to WHAT IF IT SUCKS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?11111 Is ultimately pointless. Putting one self into an emotional tizzy more so. Alot of the questions asked don't have answers right now.

To this point, I haven't seen anything remotely resembling this. It's just folks talking about what comes to mind, as far as I can tell. Sure, it might just be based on the slimest of information, but that's all the fun at this juncture.

If it was so obvious, why didn't you bring it up pre-emptively?

Anyway, I'm just asking for balance. You're pushing too far in the 'benefit of the doubt' direction.

Because. . . I thought it . . . was . . . . . . Obvious? >_>

It looks like you assumed it was obvious. To some, it may not be. It's alright to give that opinion a voice.

I am posting on a Bungie fan site right? Of that I did give the 'benefit of the doubt'.

What do you mean here? I hope it doesn't mean certain expectations about what is and isn't said. That would be silly.

Ugh. Silly me for thinking fans of Bungie knew about Bungie. No assumptions here - more like hope. Silly silly hope. You can rebut if you would like - no doubt you will. Question is - am I hoping you will or assuming you will? Aye, there's the rub.

But this - is much less of such. I'm just going off what we are aware of. Asking questions that amount to WHAT IF IT SUCKS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?11111 Is ultimately pointless. Putting one self into an emotional tizzy more so. Alot of the questions asked don't have answers right now.

To this point, I haven't seen anything remotely resembling this. It's just folks talking about what comes to mind, as far as I can tell. Sure, it might just be based on the slimest of information, but that's all the fun at this juncture.

Ok. As you choose.

Do you really think that they are just going to announce their intentions only to gimp it later on? Its madness.

Dude, Halo 2.

Also Oni with its eventual lack of multiplayer.

But then of course if you look at what either of those games did deliver neither one fits with the bigger implication that Bungie is going to give us a bad game. Both Halo 2 and Oni were amazing. Halo 2 in particular set the tone of the rest of the series with its wide ranging well told story, it brought us Xbox live multiplayer, and it had great gameplay and level design. If the Destiny E3 reveal is to the final version of Destiny as the Halo 2 demo was to Halo 2 then I don't think any of us have anything to worry about, and we're in for an extremely awesome ride.

- No text -

- No text -

Is there going to be enough to do in Destiny? And I don't mean "hanging out on Mars".

Creating content and designing encounters is tough. I mean, look at Reach. You got nine levels of crafted spaces and encounters, and that game took more than 2 years to make, and took most people somewhere around 15 hours to finish.

From what I see in MMOs, there's enough content only because it all takes a long time to do because:

1. You have to travel around a lot to get to the quests.
2. The enemies take a relatively long time to fight
3. You need to grind your way to the required level

Has Bungie really been working on Destiny long enough, and with enough people that when it ships we'll get more than 15 hours of encounters? Or are they going to use any of the three methods above to slow us down from completing it?

Because I can easily see a good player sitting down and beating Reach in a long day. Maybe Destiny will take an entire weekend. But due to the nature of combat in first person shooters, and the time required to make compelling spaces and encounters, what is going to keep me in this world other than them having a shit ton of levels?

Are there going to just be a shit ton of levels? Are we going to be slowed down MMO style? Will the shit ton of levels be designed well with care and attention to them?

I think Bungies kind of been hinting about the fact that Destiny is going to have a ton of content. There's a reason they've focused on things like "look how quickly we can generate content in Grognok!" http://youtu.be/vUxRTCTr7ic?t=28m52s The rapid creation of geometry is *very* impressive, and it appears that a fully lit textured scene can be assembled rapidly.

I'm actually more worried about the ability to fill all this space with variety. How many different objectives, how many different types of encounters can come about? Will this content be *interesting*

Imagine trying to criticize Halo CE before it came out - none of us knew how vastly different it was from all FPSs before it until we played it. They changed the rules, and what might seem strange or weird in a bulletin list on a piece of paper worked out wonderfully with every other element they poured into it.

This, for me, is the key. And it wasn't just Halo CE. Every Bungie game has changed the rules in some way or another (well, every first-in-the-series game) - I have no reason to believe that Destiny will not follow this pattern. In fact, I could justifiably be called obstinate if I argued that Destiny WON'T follow this pattern, simply because I haven't seen enough of it yet.

I don't have faith that Destiny will be perfect. There have certainly been parts of Bungie's games I haven't enjoyed. I DO have faith that they'll make the game they want to make - and I am STRONGLY encouraged by the enthusiasm that many of the old-timers are showing. When Jason Jones waxes poetic about a project... I sit up and take notice. When Chris Butcher says this is different than anything he's ever done before... I listen. They may not be willing to tell me HOW this game meets their idea of 'new' or 'different' yet - but I have enough experience with their work and their opinions up to this point that I am willing to hold off on my judgements until I see enough to make my own decisions.

That's not blind faith - it's firmly rooted in proven track records.

The Guardian interview with Pete Parsons that came out today actually directly addresses your concerns. Obviously they aren't specific yet, but it does let us know they have a plan to directly address the desire to have things to do constantly.

Here's the quote:

A storyline is finite while a persistent MMO-style game is infinite. How do you reconcile those two things?

Story in games is quite a bit different in linear media. A story in a movie will never change. While we can only have so many chapters inside of the game, we can still give you things to do day on day, week on week, year on year.
The story becomes just one of the many activities that are valuable. We hope the stories that people will tell won't necessarily be about the fiction, but will be about the things they've done together. That's not a bullshit answer. We are going to give you new things to do every single day, every single week even if it's not storyline in the traditional sense.

- No text -

That's not blind faith - it's firmly rooted in proven track records.

This, especially.

That's not blind faith - it's firmly rooted in proven track records.

Unless you count their last 3 games… the ones that didn't really do anything to advance their genre? Maybe It's just the fact that they were tired of Halo (hence your 'first in the series' qualifier), but their track record has only really been what you describe from 1993-2004.

It would be nice to enter a new Bungie golden age again with Destiny!

Unless you count their last 3 games…

That's exactly what he said.

This, for me, is the key. And it wasn't just Halo CE. Every Bungie game has changed the rules in some way or another (well, every first-in-the-series game) - I have no reason to believe that Destiny will not follow this pattern. In fact, I could justifiably be called obstinate if I argued that Destiny WON'T follow this pattern, simply because I haven't seen enough of it yet.

This, for me, is the key. And it wasn't just Halo CE. Every Bungie game has changed the rules in some way or another (well, every first-in-the-series game) - I have no reason to believe that Destiny will not follow this pattern. In fact, I could justifiably be called obstinate if I argued that Destiny WON'T follow this pattern, simply because I haven't seen enough of it yet.

Let me bold this for you:

Unless you count their last 3 games… the ones that didn't really do anything to advance their genre? Maybe It's just the fact that they were tired of Halo (hence your 'first in the series' qualifier), but their track record has only really been what you describe from 1993-2004.

tired of Halo

That. Right there. Biggest selling point for Destiny.

Imagine trying to criticize Halo CE before it came out - none of us knew how vastly different it was from all FPSs before it until we played it. They changed the rules, and what might seem strange or weird in a bulletin list on a piece of paper worked out wonderfully with every other element they poured into it.

This, for me, is the key. And it wasn't just Halo CE. Every Bungie game has changed the rules in some way or another (well, every first-in-the-series game) - I have no reason to believe that Destiny will not follow this pattern. In fact, I could justifiably be called obstinate if I argued that Destiny WON'T follow this pattern, simply because I haven't seen enough of it yet.

I don't have faith that Destiny will be perfect. There have certainly been parts of Bungie's games I haven't enjoyed. I DO have faith that they'll make the game they want to make - and I am STRONGLY encouraged by the enthusiasm that many of the old-timers are showing. When Jason Jones waxes poetic about a project... I sit up and take notice. When Chris Butcher says this is different than anything he's ever done before... I listen. They may not be willing to tell me HOW this game meets their idea of 'new' or 'different' yet - but I have enough experience with their work and their opinions up to this point that I am willing to hold off on my judgements until I see enough to make my own decisions.

That's not blind faith - it's firmly rooted in proven track records.

While a lot of that does it for me, along with my natural love and excitement for Bungie related things, reading posts like this from you actually gets me way more excited and ready to love what's coming from Bungie than a lot of the interviews and general buzz around the internet.

- No text -

While a lot of that does it for me, along with my natural love and excitement for Bungie related things, reading posts like this from you actually gets me way more excited and ready to love what's coming from Bungie than a lot of the interviews and general buzz around the internet.

Now THAT'S scary. :)

- No text -

That's not blind faith - it's firmly rooted in proven track records.

Unless you count their last 3 games… the ones that didn't really do anything to advance their genre? Maybe It's just the fact that they were tired of Halo (hence your 'first in the series' qualifier), but their track record has only really been what you describe from 1993-2004.

It would be nice to enter a new Bungie golden age again with Destiny!

I don't think the Marathon or Myth sequels advanced the genre much more than the Halo sequels. I think you're focusing on this so you could slag on the last three Halos, as is your want.

I'd say that there are aspects of all three that are better than the ones that came before. Perhaps they didn't shake up the ground rules like the first in the series games, but to me the last two especially were more mature than their predecessors.

Kermit