All this time, it was supposed to be Killzone. Could it turn out to be Destiny?

DBO should prepare the funeral arrangements.

All this time, it was supposed to be Killzone. Could it turn out to be Destiny?

DBO should prepare the funeral arrangements.

If so, this appears to support that idea that it's the developer (individual on up), not the IP, that's worth following.

time and greed 'ended' halo, will never die…

Destiny just works quickly, and quietly.

RIP Flappy.

One of the most boring articles I've read in a sea of boring gaming articles.

I think Halo's still got enough juice to carry it through Halo 6. After that, I don't know that I'll care.

I'm bored by everything that isn't the Last of Us at the moment, though, so my perceptions are probably screwy.

Halo was sort of a "first of its kind" game and got out of the gates early in being established. It was quality from the beginning but has since changed developers and the jury is still out on whether or not 343 can maintain such quality.

CoD is super simple and plays to lowest common denominator so it won't be going anywhere.

Since I STILL can't log into the Titanfall beta I can't attest to how great it is, but everything I've read online is that it's amazing. So far, I've been super blown away by what I've seen from Destiny. I've never played Borderlands but I've watched friends play it...and it looks the same as Destiny. (Please show me why I'm wrong.)

Either way, there's plenty of room for all these games. Will Titanfall and Destiny kill Halo and CoD? No. If Halo or CoD fall it will be because the developers mucked it up.

The End.

I've never bought into this notion of "_______ killer" games.

Killzone was touted as the first* "Halo Killer" and has since failed in that regard. Instead it exists as an enjoyable alternative to the science fiction giant.

Battlefield 3 was thought of by many, EA executives and gamers alike, to be a "Call of Duty Killer" and has since failed miserably. Instead it has thrived as an enjoyable alternative to the insanely popular military shooter.

Forza Motorsport was [likely] anticipated to be a "Gran Turismo Killer" and has since failed splendidly. Instead it has become an in-depth, yet casual enjoyable alternative to the long-running driving simulator.

Titanfall won't kill Call of Duty, Destiny won't kill Halo, and Snape could never possibly kill Dumbledore.

Killzone was touted as the first "Halo Killer"

;)

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

I understand where they're coming from. Titanfall, in many ways, is the true sequel to COD. It plays like COD, but with... you know.... more?

This is what the COD series really needed in a sequel, not dog killstreaks and whatever, but actual innovation on the gameplay.

In the same way, Destiny seeks to do this with Halo. From here, people seem to connect the dots to mean Destiny is new Halo, no need for Halo anymore. Not true.

There is still a place for Call of Duty as there is Halo and Destiny and Titanfall, because black and white evaluation of games as good-better-best doesn't align with actual player trends.

Example: A million and one FPS's have been spawned out of CounterStrike and thus their sequels, have more and iterative features and gameplay must be better and will be played instead of CS... expect that people still play CS, exclusively and over all other choices. Just the same way people play Pokemon Red still (with 70,000 hands on one controller) or how people chose to stay with Halo 2 after Halo 3 came out, up until Halo 2's death date.

So I don't believe is truly a "killer", unless the game is so indistinguishable from the one it killed that people often forget they aren't playing the one before.... So, really, the same game.

So I don't believe is truly a "killer", unless the game is so indistinguishable from the one it killed that people often forget they aren't playing the one before.... So, really, the same game.

I definitely agree with your premise, I don't think CoD or Halo will completely die any time soon, but I think most news writers don't mean it as killing off the franchise with Halo or CoD as much as they mean taking its crown. If Titanfall sells more than CoD (both the one before and the one that comes after the release of Titanfall) then I think people would call Titanfall the first real "CoD killer."

I understand where they're coming from. Titanfall, in many ways, is the true sequel to COD. It plays like COD, but with... you know.... more?

This is what the COD series really needed in a sequel, not dog killstreaks and whatever, but actual innovation on the gameplay.

I can't agree with this enough.

I think Cody's point was more about how every other claimed "Halo killer" has fallen in disgrace, as if cursed. One can then assume Destiny is henceforth cursed, since it was claimed to be a "Halo killer" by someone.

I think Cody's point was more about how every other claimed "Halo killer" has fallen in disgrace, as if cursed. One can then assume Destiny is henceforth cursed, since it was claimed to be a "Halo killer" by someone.

AHAH! I went back and read my post after looking at it from your perspective, and now it would seem to imply that I was asking DBO to prepare Destiny's funeral arrangements!

I was joking DBO should prepare for HALO'S funeral. After all, from looking at HBO you'd think it was already dead.

AHAH! I went back and read my post after looking at it from your perspective, and now it would seem to imply that I was asking DBO to prepare Destiny's funeral arrangements!

I was joking DBO should prepare for HALO'S funeral. After all, from looking at HBO you'd think it was already dead.

Well, in that case, call Avateur! =ppppp

This is what the COD series really needed in a sequel, not dog killstreaks and whatever, but actual innovation on the gameplay.

In the same way, Destiny seeks to do this with Halo.

This aroused me. Thanks.

AHAH! I went back and read my post after looking at it from your perspective, and now it would seem to imply that I was asking DBO to prepare Destiny's funeral arrangements!

I was joking DBO should prepare for HALO'S funeral. After all, from looking at HBO you'd think it was already dead.

Well, in that case, call Avateur! =ppppp

lol - Calling it now: he'll be the one Wu kicks out when the light finally goes out.

- No text -

In the same way, Destiny seeks to do this with Halo. From here, people seem to connect the dots to mean Destiny is new Halo, no need for Halo anymore. Not true.

There is still a place for Call of Duty as there is Halo and Destiny and Titanfall, because black and white evaluation of games as good-better-best doesn't align with actual player trends.

Example: A million and one FPS's have been spawned out of CounterStrike and thus their sequels, have more and iterative features and gameplay must be better and will be played instead of CS... expect that people still play CS, exclusively and over all other choices.

They may still play CS, but they don't buy it, and nobody's making a monthly fee from people playing it. (Well, except maybe server hosts.) From an industry perspective, CS might as well be invisible. (In places that eschew dealing with Steam for various reasons, the popular version of CS is still 1.6 and not CS:Source, for instance.

When industry pundits talk about a "CoD Killer" or a "Halo Killer" I don't think they really care about who is playing what. They care about how who is playing what determines which studios get to keep pumping out titles that cost tens of millions of dollars to make, and which ones get shut down.

There's every indication that there is a limited space in the console market for highly anticipated military/sci-fi shooters. Sony and MS consoles had their big exclusives (Halo, Gears, Resistance) and then there's the multiheaded hydra that is CoD, which gobbled up all the other WW2 shooters before absorbing splinter cell and then aping both Halo and Gears. If the leading positions are taken over by Titanfall and Destiny, it remains to be seen if future iterations of the Halo and CoD franchises will be as popular or as profitable as they have been in the past. If so, there may come a point where the publishers and developers of those franchises decide that they either need to become cheaper or stop being made. (Or perhaps one decision leads to the other.)

I'm sort of amazed that by this point the games industry hasn't adopted a more Hollywood-like model, where companies are formed specifically for the purpose of making a single title, and a re-formed if there's enough interest to make it a franchise. As it stands, it's sort of like riding a mechanical bull: you get a hit and then you keep trying to stay on top until something knocks you off. You become a prisoner of success, forced to keep doing the same thing over again because it made money last time, and only crazy people say no to steady money. Another way Bungie is doing things a bit differently-- leaving a franchise near the peak of its popularity and choosing to do something else that's just as expensive and risky to make without any guaranteed market or known intellectual property hooks.

AHAH! I went back and read my post after looking at it from your perspective, and now it would seem to imply that I was asking DBO to prepare Destiny's funeral arrangements!

I was joking DBO should prepare for HALO'S funeral. After all, from looking at HBO you'd think it was already dead.

Well, in that case, call Avateur! =ppppp

lol - Calling it now: he'll be the one Wu kicks out when the light finally goes out.

And one month later, Vagueness will get around to commenting on it.

Do you have a Wii? The 360 has been losing my interest beyond multiplayer lately, but the Wii has actually been holding my attention quite well with mostly campaign-only single player experiences. Oh and my Nintendo 3DS has been grabbing up a nice bit of time, too.

If you have a Wii, there are a lot of really great games out there, and some have some really well written and awesome stories that only make the gameplay so much more fun and engaging/emotional (depending on title).

If you have a Wii, there are a lot of really great games out there, and some have some really well written and awesome stories that only make the gameplay so much more fun and engaging/emotional (depending on title).

I hesitate to ask because I can't imagine buying a Wii, but some examples?

I totally agree with the 3ds, especially since you can get a refurbished one from nintendo with a year warranty for just north of $100.

Pokemon was an obvious get and wonderful, then when I got a little burnt out on it I moved to any one of their decent collection from the past 2 years. This is the advantage of waiting. I am now knee deep in Super Mario 3d land and it's the most fun I've had with Mario in many years.

In many ways, it's rekindling my love for nintendo franchises... which is good and bad. It reminds me of the swan song sega wrote when the Dreamcast was floundering. Now, Nintendo isn't nearly in that deep of shit, but it definitely seems they could move away from the console market, or at least hardware.

Next on my 3ds list are:

Mario Kart 7, Luigi's Mansion, and Starfox 64 3d

Best part? These are all games my younger sibs played new and now I get to catch up for free.

As for the Wii U, it all depends on how much better Smash Bros will be on it. I'm already tipping toward it, as Super Mario 3d world is effin' amazing and I need some pikmin 3 eventually.

They definitely have their niche cut out for them.

I hesitate to ask because I can't imagine buying a Wii, but some examples?

Haha. The Mario Galaxy games, from just a gaming standpoint, are really fun and can get really screwed up challenging. Donkey Kong Country Returns is awesome (best played with someone else if you ask me, and also screwed up crazy challenging as you continue to progress). Kirby's Epic Yarn is great. The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword is just amazing.

The Wii even has Resident Evil 4 and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.

Those are your classic Nintendo titles in the modern age, of course. Then there's The Last Story, Xenoblade Chronicles, Okami (was also on PS2, so glad on the Wii), Rayman Origins, Muramasa: The Demon Blade.

And then there's the crazy large Nintendo Virtual Console that gives you access to practically all of the classics and more from the NES, SNES, N64, Game Cube, and Sega systems. I just played through A Link to the Past last month. Great times!

Which leads to the 3DS. Padraig already spoke its praises, but somehow left A Link Between Worlds off his list. For shame.

The Wii is definitely my main console of choice as of the past half a year or so. I've had it for years and years, and I've always found time to play it, but it's just taken over. Just got a 3DS in December, and so far I'm loving it.

Both the Super Mario Galaxy games are incredible.

I think Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is one of the best games I have ever played. It has bad points, of course; it is overly long and the pacing could be much better at the beginning, but once the game opens up it has a lot of really cool mechanics and a beautiful, engaging world.

I bought LoZ: Skyward Sword and I just couldn't get into it. I don't like the art style (totally a personal opinion, obviously), I didn't like how juvenile the beginning of the game seemed. It was different for me than in Ocarina of Time, where you start out as a youngling, but in OoT there was a great sense of mystery that engaged my imagination. This felt lacking in SS. Anyways, I tried to get into a few times and it just never stuck.

So, what am I missing? I got the impression online people liked it, maybe even more than Twilight Princess. Help me like it.

I bought LoZ: Skyward Sword and I just couldn't get into it. I don't like the art style (totally a personal opinion, obviously), I didn't like how juvenile the beginning of the game seemed. It was different for me than in Ocarina of Time, where you start out as a youngling, but in OoT there was a great sense of mystery that engaged my imagination. This felt lacking in SS. Anyways, I tried to get into a few times and it just never stuck.

I felt that the art style really fit the game, and was really wonderful. Definitely different than I'm generally used to with Zelda games. The beginning of the game was extremely juvenile, but I think that was the point. In the grand timeline of it all, this is supposed to be the first Zelda.

The game is really masterful, and while the gameplay can be somewhat linear from going from one point to the next, the gameplay as a whole is really fun, gets challenging, and the story really goes places. I don't think I've cared as much about characters or things happening in the world since Majora's Mask.

Really all I can say is stick with it. I was sucked in completely by the time you get introduced to the world below.

Also, they really make getting the Hylian Shield a challenge. Just a heads up. And some of those boss battles, sheesh.

So, what am I missing? I got the impression online people liked it, maybe even more than Twilight Princess. Help me like it.

Different style and type of story than Twilight Princess, and while the world itself isn't as open, the entire journey is really wonderful. I think you'd like it a lot if you're a Zelda fan.

I'm sort of amazed that by this point the games industry hasn't adopted a more Hollywood-like model, where companies are formed specifically for the purpose of making a single title, and a re-formed if there's enough interest to make it a franchise.

The games industry is dead set against unionizing, and a model like this would pretty much only be feasible if folks working on the project were protected through union labor agreements, benefits and retirement, etc. If it moved to this, it would happen because it would suck even more than it does now if it were non union, and I don't think that those in the industry now would want a step down.

As it stands, it's sort of like riding a mechanical bull: you get a hit and then you keep trying to stay on top until something knocks you off. You become a prisoner of success, forced to keep doing the same thing over again because it made money last time, and only crazy people say no to steady money. Another way Bungie is doing things a bit differently-- leaving a franchise near the peak of its popularity and choosing to do something else that's just as expensive and risky to make without any guaranteed market or known intellectual property hooks.

I'm not sure I follow. If as a development studio you don't want this, then you could simply NOT sign a contract that says you have to work with the same IP for 10 years, publish a certain amount of sequels, and offer DLC. Or do what Valve does and what Bungie did, which is self publish.

I was joking DBO should prepare for HALO'S funeral. After all, from looking at HBO you'd think it was already dead.

Well, in that case, call Avateur! =ppppp

lol - Calling it now: he'll be the one Wu kicks out when the light finally goes out.

And one month later, Vagueness will get around to commenting on it.

I LOL'd
I'm looking forward to E3 and any game-killers it brings (which everyone else in thread will have to wait months to see).