Interesting approach, but I'm not sure if I like it.

Heh - I guess you don't remember the gaming press in 2001 very well. To those guys, Halo was just another shooter - like every other shooter out there (except that it was on a console, which meant it already had 3 - no, 4 - strikes against it). There was nothing original about it - what was the point?

You are right, I don't remember it well. I took a break from Bungie after the MS buyout and didn't come back till 2003 when I actually finally played Halo. So I really DON'T have any recollection of how it was initially received by the press prior to release. Interesting angle thanks for sharing.

The Titan continues to woo me. Risk death by charging into foes? Me? Never...

And the Hunter continues to woe me, knives, hand cannons, and sniper rifles, sounds awesome!

both via the spirit of Phisto

The Tower is the Guardians' central base and the social hub for the game. Glimmer buys > weapons, and it sounds like the developer is ranging as far as it can from the notion > of micro-transactions.

"We're focusing on the core sixty dollar experience," Green replies when asked directly. "Trying to keep the game away from needing a subscription or anything like that. It's not something we're really focusing on at all."

Found an 3 page article that hasn't been posted yet. Most of the information we are aware of now, but feels well reported.

Nah. They wrongly called the gun "Some Good Advice." I kid. That was really good. I loved Urk's comments at the end.

The needle hasn't moved much for me over the last 36 hours or so. That said, I am firmly convinced that they are driven to deliver something special. I'm also coming to believe that what makes it special might not be apparent after only a few hours of game play. I expect I'm going to be spending a lot of time in campaign and patrol modes.

Yet they don't expect to gain universal praise whatever they deliver; they're aware they're going to alienate some of their audience. This isn't their Halo 4.

I'm trying to figure out if this is intended to be played straight, or if there's a "zing!" subtext at the end.

The maximum number of players in one public area is still being tinkered with; currently it's around seven to nine. Not a mammoth number for multiplayer, but it's a figure suitable for a cooperative experience, and neatly disables the break of immersion that'd come if fifty fireteams were milling around the same spot waiting for enemies to spawn. If you want to participate in what others are doing, sink a few bullets into their attackers (we experience only two of the races in Destiny - see ‘The Races' box out). The game will immediately sync you into a shared mission.

Link

Heh, even if it isn't, "boring" has truly never turned me off of anything. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, 30-minute Pink Floyd songs with 10 minutes of dogs barking...

But those things are unique. Kotaku's point was that Destiny is not unique, and does not carve out an identity for itself, but is rather an imitation of so many things that end up lacking what the originals had without having a feel of its own.

From a company that is known for unique games with a strong identity / style / feel, this is not good news.

Marathon? No other game like it.
Myth? No other game like it.
Oni? No other game like it.
Halo? No other game like it.
Destiny? Like tons of games.

Heh - I guess you don't remember the gaming press in 2001 very well. To those guys, Halo was just another shooter - like every other shooter out there (except that it was on a console, which meant it already had 3 - no, 4 - strikes against it). There was nothing original about it - what was the point?

In hindsight, you can write 'no other game like it' next to it (and not be wrong). That's a pretty substantial shift.

Heck Halo STILL sits in a spot for some of the games press where it is "still Halo, a mainstream shooter" and that is what is bleeding into the coverage of Destiny. It really has no effect for me since I think "oh, well I hold Halo on a very high pedestal and maybe you don't agree with me but I understand how it's not for you".

So when I process an article like the one in the subject, I'm picking out the differentiators that they pick up and take their boredom with Halo as a sign that it'll feel REALLY good for me.

Heh - I guess you don't remember the gaming press in 2001 very well. To those guys, Halo was just another shooter - like every other shooter out there (except that it was on a console, which meant it already had 3 - no, 4 - strikes against it). There was nothing original about it - what was the point?

In hindsight, you can write 'no other game like it' next to it (and not be wrong). That's a pretty substantial shift.

Yeah, if I recall correctly, I actually thought Halo looked pretty boring and full of sci-fi tropes before I played it. "Space marines" and aliens were overdone in my mind and I didn't care for FPSs back then (I never owned one until Halo: CE). I didn't pay it much attention and wrote it off.

And then someone handed me a controller at a friend's sleepover and after an hour I was amazed just simply splashing around in a waterfall on Halo and in need of an XBox and a copy. :)

(Also, regarding Cody's original reply to me - I wasn't talking about the intent of the article, simply the use of "boring" as a descriptor, and how it has no negative connotation to me.)