Just to keep up the Internet roundups:

Activision and Bungie’s Destiny reveal: Big on hype, low on details

I answered frankly: The little I'd seen seemed promising, but it's hard to get excited about a game that's still pure hype and concept [...]

Oxford nodded and empathized with my reluctance, before reiterating the silly company stance; that this event was meant to “drive excitement” about Destiny—whose now-official promises of first-person shooting and always-online play matched months of rumors. [...]

The game's admittedly thin reveal made the alliance's motives perfectly clear: to crack the review score matrix wide open. And they're not scared to set those expectations shamelessly high.

This dynamic reminds me of Halo 4 (though it's not as bad.) Now that we have actual data, I guess Bungie just isn't as good of a contrast against 343i's failings as it used to be... ;-)

Just to keep up the Internet roundups:

Activision and Bungie’s Destiny reveal: Big on hype, low on details

I answered frankly: The little I'd seen seemed promising, but it's hard to get excited about a game that's still pure hype and concept [...]

Oxford nodded and empathized with my reluctance, before reiterating the silly company stance; that this event was meant to “drive excitement” about Destiny—whose now-official promises of first-person shooting and always-online play matched months of rumors. [...]

The game's admittedly thin reveal made the alliance's motives perfectly clear: to crack the review score matrix wide open. And they're not scared to set those expectations shamelessly high.

This dynamic reminds me of Halo 4 (though it's not as bad.) Now that we have actual data, I guess Bungie just isn't as good of a contrast against 343i's failings as it used to be... ;-)

Not sure what you mean by data or by 343i's failings.

As a guess, I'd say a next gen game trying to be sold with stone age marketing.

News Flash:

Gamers Not Yet Sold On Game Available For Preorder

Bungie loyalism aside, that article is not really a high water mark for Ars, which is a shame, since I like the site quite a bit. The author starts out by trying to mock Activision executives for their shallow devotion to Metacritic scores, and then goes in for the reductionism of "World of Halocraft". I wonder if Ars has a section where one can discuss the relative light reflectivity of vessels used for boiling water.

No gameplay in a game at least a year out from release? Heaven forfend!

We know some classes, but not how many there are or how they are different or the number of weapons or what their specs are... my goodness, how can we all expect to begin min/maxing our way through World of Halocraft without all the necessary information? Some people need to start building spreadsheets, dammit!

I hope games development isn't as joyless as games journalism, because it sounds like this guy is not having fun, and it'd be awful to think that Bungie is having even less fun than that.

I haven't preordered Destiny. I don't tend to preorder games, even Bungie ones; I may have preordered one of the Halo titles, I'm not sure. Nobody is being forced to do so. Some of Destiny's stuff leaked, and as a result, Bungie put together a neat little slideshow, a couple interviews, some music and some concept art. A lot of it looks neat. We don't know much, but I'm intrigued.

Why is the very existence of a preorder prompting multiple responses of "I'm not sold yet"? Good for you-- who cares?

Gaming sites are quick to pounce on leaks and slather their watermarks all over them-- and when the developer responds a short while later with some very preliminary stuff, it gets labeled "hype" because they don't throw the doors open and let us see everything?

Good grief.

Why is the very existence of a preorder prompting multiple responses of "I'm not sold yet"? Good for you-- who cares?

Well this is the first official "announcement" related to the game. Traditionally these involve some kind of teaser or trailer upon which everyone can speculate.

Instead, Bungie released a ViDoc. While that satiates the initiated, it doesn't come across as exciting to the rest of the game industry.

Honestly, I found it an odd choice to do a reveal with a ViDoc... Everyone knows by now that your reveal needs to be "epic" or at least cryptic!

I think Adam Sessler did a great job of summing up what I imagine was the standard journalist experience:

Truth be told, I have to agree with most gaming news outlets on this. I don't really know how to feel. I think the crux of this whole being "sold" rhetoric stems from the fact that no one really knows how to feel.

No one is willing to say it's "good", nor is anyone willing to say it's "bad". Gaming sites make their bread and butter on being able to make definitive statements on the quality of something... "The Halo trailer was awesome! Read on to find out why!" -- "The Wii U is shit! Read on to find out what went wrong!"

With Destiny it's... just there.

And quite frankly, the gist of this information was "there" a year ago. We have a few more details, but otherwise, we're not sure what to expect. Okay it's some kind of MMO but we're not calling it that. Okay it has some phone integration. Okay there are some player classes.

What will the player be doing exactly?

Maybe I missed the train on that one, but it seems like Ars did too. Time to play the wait-and-see game.

Gaming sites are quick to pounce on leaks and slather their watermarks all over them-- and when the developer responds a short while later with some very preliminary stuff, it gets labeled "hype" because they don't throw the doors open and let us see everything?

Good grief.

Where's the Like button?

-Matt

Gaming sites make their bread and butter on being able to make definitive statements on the quality of something...

The fact that so many other developers end up legitimizing this is not really worth defending, is it?

Kickstarter... yes, because obviously Bungie and Activision need the pre-order money to keep developing the game.

This is why I don't buy those who say this reveal was all pre-planned. I think it's a response to the leaks, at least in part, or perhaps Activision is getting cold feet and wants there to be more hype.

And quite frankly, the gist of this information was "there" a year ago. We have a few more details, but otherwise, we're not sure what to expect. Okay it's some kind of MMO but we're not calling it that. Okay it has some phone integration. Okay there are some player classes.

What will the player be doing exactly?

Shooting things. It's a shooter.

Maybe I missed the train on that one, but it seems like Ars did too. Time to play the wait-and-see game.

Actually, it's not even that time yet. When they announce a release date, then it's time to start waiting. Until then is just the fun part, guessing what it's all going to be like.

Gaming sites are quick to pounce on leaks and slather their watermarks all over them-- and when the developer responds a short while later with some very preliminary stuff, it gets labeled "hype" because they don't throw the doors open and let us see everything?

Good grief.

Where's the Like button?

-Matt

Whoah there Matt, let's not go nuts. I mean, come on... we've moved from Perl to PHP.

I figure in another decade we'll get Facebook integration :)

I figure in another decade we'll get Facebook integration :)

Don't count on it. :)

I swear I'll never do that again.

- No text -

- No text -

This is why I don't buy those who say this reveal was all pre-planned. I think it's a response to the leaks, at least in part, or perhaps Activision is getting cold feet and wants there to be more hype.

I think this is the most likely explanation. The game isn't complete enough to show content worthy of a video game announcement, but leaks put Bungie (via Activision) in a tough spot.

I'm guessing that the vidoc was a compromise of Bungie not being ready to announce the game quite yet, and Activision wanting an announcement in response to the leaks.

On HBO, people used to (and occasionally still do) criticize 343i, saying (or sometimes implying) that Bungie would have been more transparent, friendly, etc. It was basically a comment on the vibe in this thread.

After reading Claude's reply, I felt like a bit of an idiot, and decided I should go back to writing user scripts until I have enough information to know what I'm talking about. Well... except for this post.

(When writing that original post, Cody Miller was ringing in my head. Their over-analyzing/misinterpretation here reinforced that feeling. Shame, since Ars is generally awesome.)

No one is willing to say it's "good", nor is anyone willing to say it's "bad". Gaming sites make their bread and butter on being able to make definitive statements on the quality of something...

No major gaming website or magazine will ever take a stance and say Destiny is bad. None. It can't happen.

Gaming sites and magazines do not make their bread and butter on reviews, but rather exclusive looks and first reveals or other inside information. Nobody takes reviews seriously since it's common knowledge that they are universally terrible on such sites and magazines. Why?

Because these publications make their money from people clicking to see reveals, and from ad revenues for games, they need to not piss off the publishers or developers. Gaming journalism is not like real journalism. You don't go out and investigate and create a story yourself. If you want an exclusive sneak peek, the publisher has to give you the material. So short of espionage, you need a relationship with the publisher to get material to print.

If you were Activision, would you give exclusive info to say, Game Informer, if Game Informer has been writing negative impressions of Destiny? Their readers are now disposed to thinking of Destiny in a critical light, so why do your reveal there? Why not give it to Kotaku, who has been writing positive things about Destiny, whose readers will be more excited with the info you give them?

What's worse is if a publication trashes Destiny, Activision probably won't be as keen to give them info about all their other games. And Activision has some pretty hot games that people will want to read about.

Only amateur sites, sites like Arstechnica on which gaming articles generate a tiny fraction of the site's revenue, or sites that make their money other ways like Penny Arcade can give games like Destiny an honest look.

Remember Gamespot's Kane and Lynch review? A bad review (which was charitable really), got the reviewer fired. Remember the Mass Effect ending controversy? You know, the game which was built on your choices changing the story, that had an ending that was basically the same for everybody? Players were unhappy. This is a legitimate criticism of the game. Did any major reviewers mention this? When players mentioned this, why did the gaming publications defend the developer? Did any major publications criticize blizzard real ID?

This is why the gaming press is highly critical of Zynga, yet give Bungie Aerospace and Certain Affinity a pass when they themselves clone games and release a game with the Farmville business model respectively. Who cares if you piss of Zynga? Nobody reading gamestop is the market for Zynga games. But don't piss off Bungie.

I figure in another decade we'll get Facebook integration :)

Don't count on it. :)

Didn't you say the same thing about an HBO twitter? :-p

Because this reveal of Bungie, provided on a Sunday of a holiday weekend, pretty much dominated gaming news. No competition. And I can only imagine how many pre-orders were thrown in. And the people who didn't pre-order but most likely spoke of this reveal and let this info travel word of mouth leading to people becoming more curious and giving people to keep an eye on something. Regardless of who was expecting what, I'd say the ViDoc and release of official info was a success. Granted, I have absolutely no numbers to back that up.

No one is willing to say it's "good", nor is anyone willing to say it's "bad". Gaming sites make their bread and butter on being able to make definitive statements on the quality of something...

No major gaming website or magazine will ever take a stance and say Destiny is bad. None. It can't happen.

Based on a ViDoc? I hope not.

Based on a complete release?

Destiny, in that respect, is no different from any current AAA title from a major developer/ publisher. Although perhaps the Aliens: Colonial Marines kerfuffle will adjust that. The game's metascore is in the 40s on all three platforms it's been released on so far.

EGM gave them a 90, so perhaps they're proving your point.

If you were Activision, would you give exclusive info to say, Game Informer, if Game Informer has been writing negative impressions of Destiny? Their readers are now disposed to thinking of Destiny in a critical light, so why do your reveal there? Why not give it to Kotaku, who has been writing positive things about Destiny, whose readers will be more excited with the info you give them?

Actually, I would. I would give inside information to Penny Arcade, because they tend to only advertise or endorse games they generally like. So if they hype the thing, it's because they like it.

What's worse is if a publication trashes Destiny, Activision probably won't be as keen to give them info about all their other games. And Activision has some pretty hot games that people will want to read about.

Only amateur sites, sites like Arstechnica on which gaming articles generate a tiny fraction of the site's revenue, or sites that make their money other ways like Penny Arcade can give games like Destiny an honest look.

I would not lump Ars in there, but since PAR essentially bought their game reporting from Ars by hiring Kuchera away from Ars, I can see your point. I would certainly not call Ars "amateur". They are mainstream tech press just like Game Informer is mainstream game press, and there is some overlap.

Remember Gamespot's Kane and Lynch review? A bad review (which was charitable really), got the reviewer fired. Remember the Mass Effect ending controversy? You know, the game which was built on your choices changing the story, that had an ending that was basically the same for everybody? Players were unhappy. This is a legitimate criticism of the game. Did any major reviewers mention this? When players mentioned this, why did the gaming publications defend the developer? Did any major publications criticize blizzard real ID?

I think you're completely wrong about ME but that's an argument for another day.

This is why the gaming press is highly critical of Zynga, yet give Bungie Aerospace and Certain Affinity a pass when they themselves clone games and release a game with the Farmville business model respectively. Who cares if you piss of Zynga? Nobody reading gamestop is the market for Zynga games. But don't piss off Bungie.

There's some truth to that. Entertainment journalism is not investigative journalism. A fundamentally confrontational approach is not only not necessary, but in many cases, undesirable. Many mainstream outlets retreat even further from that, to a point where they cannot provide honest reviews.

I figure in another decade we'll get Facebook integration :)

Don't count on it. :)

Well, who knows, maybe Facebook won't exist in ten years :)

This is why the gaming press is highly critical of Zynga, yet give Bungie Aerospace and Certain Affinity a pass when they themselves clone games and release a game with the Farmville business model respectively. Who cares if you piss of Zynga? Nobody reading gamestop is the market for Zynga games. But don't piss off Bungie.

When did Bungie Aerospace or Certain Affinity make games in the "Farmville business model" must've missed that... and if you're going to say Crimson, Crimson is NOT the Farmville business model, one has 2 or 3 DLC that could be considered expansions, the other pesters everyone to help each other or, if you don't want to be an annoying a-hole, you can pay to do it instead, only the opportunities to pay NEVER END.

I would not lump Ars in there, but since PAR essentially bought their game reporting from Ars by hiring Kuchera away from Ars, I can see your point. I would certainly not call Ars "amateur". They are mainstream tech press just like Game Informer is mainstream game press, and there is some overlap.

The comma makes a list dude.

Amateur sites COMMA
Sites Like ars COMMA
Sites that make their money other ways.

Three different things. Didn't call ars amateur since they most definitely are not.

I figure in another decade we'll get Facebook integration :)

Don't count on it. :)

Didn't you say the same thing about an HBO twitter? :-p

There's an HBO twitter?

Next thing you'll be saying there's a front page...

There's an HBO twitter?

Next thing you'll be saying there's a front page...

Oh, hush, you.

The comma makes a list dude.

Amateur sites COMMA
Sites Like ars COMMA
Sites that make their money other ways.

Three different things. Didn't call ars amateur since they most definitely are not.

Sorry about that. Was skimming and read it wrong.

Well, who knows, maybe Facebook won't exist in ten years :)

It probably will. LiveJournal turns 14 in two months... and MySpace technically still exists, too. (But sadly, not Friendster.)