Decent combat. Say what you want about Halo-style fps vs. arena shooters or war sims but the fighting is tight, well balanced and enjoyable. This is a new thing in MMOs and I say bring on the clones.
Destiny did nothing new.. It stole the entire ohh look other plays can spawn into your world thing from pso2. Besides that its just another hub world fps.
Decent combat. Say what you want about Halo-style fps vs. arena shooters or war sims but the fighting is tight, well balanced and enjoyable. This is a new thing in MMOs and I say bring on the clones.
sounds like the fans of Destiny need to decide if this is an MMO or not. Many here are saying that its not.
If its not then I will pass because I played this game 10 years ago and I am ready to move on.
(what do I mean by I played it 10 years ago? I mean the game is the same as shooters from 10 years ago best I can tell)
Destiny sold well, not because it is Destiny but because it was made by Bungie who created Halo - Gamers buy into the past success of a company as much as anything else and that is not true only of the gaming world but any product.
The shine will wear off it soon enough imo but by then they will of made a ton of money - I find it to be a ok game but nothing special
sounds like the fans of Destiny need to decide if this is an MMO or not. Many here are saying that its not.
If its not then I will pass because I played this game 10 years ago and I am ready to move on.
1) It does not need to decide anything. Labeling is just for convenience, and even when the devs said it is not a MMO, some industry sites (and probably reviews) will call it so anyway.
2) Wait .. what? You decide whether to play a game by looking at the label? For the *same* game, you will decide not to play (or to play) just because they are classified differently? It makes no sense.
At least for me, if a game is fun to me, i will play it whether it is labelled as a MMO or not.
sounds like the fans of Destiny need to decide if this is an MMO or not. Many here are saying that its not.
If its not then I will pass because I played this game 10 years ago and I am ready to move on.
1) It does not need to decide anything. Labeling is just for convenience, and even when the devs said it is not a MMO, some industry sites (and probably reviews) will call it so anyway.
2) Wait .. what? You decide whether to play a game by looking at the label? For the *same* game, you will decide not to play (or to play) just because they are classified differently? It makes no sense.
At least for me, if a game is fun to me, i will play it whether it is labelled as a MMO or not.
dude!
one fan is calling it an MMO another fan saying its not an MMO and shocker I never said it was or wasnt. So it appears the problem of labeling exists only amoung its fans.
I personally would not be interest in a game that already exists in my library from friggin 1999.
I think there is a misunderstanding among the fans of Destiny.
1. some say its an MMO some say its not despite that fact that really nobody asked in the first place.
2. nobody goes 'oh its an MMO? that is DOPE I gotta get it now' in short nobody really gives a flat fuck if its an MMO or not. We gamers look at the game play and features and go from there. This game doesnt appear to have anything interesting in it that doesnt already exist in my gaming collection.
I personally would not be interest in a game that already exists in my library from friggin 1999.
I would .. update of graphics. Update of physical effects. Update of polish. Update of scripts.
I was playing Wolfenstein The New Order and had a lot of fun. You can say it is the same as the first wolfenstein ... cause you just shoot nazis. But hey, 15 years is a lot of time to get the old idea new fun implementation.
I personally would not be interest in a game that already exists in my library from friggin 1999.
I would .. update of graphics. Update of physical effects. Update of polish. Update of scripts.
I was playing Wolfenstein The New Order and had a lot of fun. You can say it is the same as the first wolfenstein ... cause you just shoot nazis. But hey, 15 years is a lot of time to get the old idea new fun implementation.
I have no plans to do such.
as a gamer I played a fuck ton of shooters and I am very tired of it now.
I don't know if it's the future, so much as a GIANT beacon of where we already are. Allow me to elaborate.
Destiny is currently a very polished, very refined shooter with a loot system and an online PvP system. While generally hollow presently, it is easy to see the potential and the promise that the game may one day possess. There are grandiose promises, cash-backing into the game, grand visions, etc.... but they're not there yet. What Destiny DOESN'T present is any innovation. It's more of the same. It was an over-hyped game that essentially plays like Halo meets Borderlands.
That is one of defining aspects of nearly every game that was supposed to be amazing in the past few years.
1) Huge budget
2) Huge hype
3) Huge promise and guarantees of what will come (but for whatever reason, isn't in at release)
4) Average game at release with little staying power.
And not just with MMO's; with console games in general. Look at games like Watchdogs, Titanfall, The Elder Scrolls Online, and now Destiny. Games that look amazing, sound amazing, promise amazing... and then are just generally forgettable experiences. On the contrary, it's Kickstarter that's bringing out the best games (in my opinion, anyway; how amazing was Divinity: Original Sin?!?)
What Activision, Blizzard, EA, and whichever other major publishers are failing to do is realize that a huge budget doesn't make a game memorable. Good questing, innovative combat systems, unique playstyles, complex storylines, interesting characters; this is what keeps you coming back for more. Simply re-presenting what has already been done before with better graphics isn't going to keep players coming back for more, and for all it's flair and hype, Destiny is more of the same with promises of being revolutionary. Personally, for me, the games I remember the most in the last year or two weren't games that I was even initially interested in, but titles like X-Com, The Last of Us, State of Decay, Wasteland 2, Hawken provided me far more enjoyment than all of the AAA titles.
Also, I simply refuse to believe what a game MIGHT be in time. Sure, it happens in some cases (Path of Exile was great, Diablo 3 got better though it NEVER did introduce the PvP that made it memorable in the first place) but for the most part, games that are all hype and glitz simply never deliver, or at least not in a timeframe that matters.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
I sincerely hope not. I hate FPS games . Definitely hate action orientated MMORPGs. I also do not like console navigation with the dual thingy that makes navigation in game horrible.
It is still just a FPS on console. It would have sold a ton even without any connection to the mmo world. Even Bungie doesn't call it an mmo. This site only carries it because of it's recent coverage expansion into more rpg-like games along side mmo.
I will never call this game an mmo ... ever, because it isn't one. It is an online shared fps and will not attract many cross overs from mmorpg players who do not normally play fps. It may be the the new direction for fps and console gaming but it is has little to do with mmorpgs.
Decent combat. Say what you want about Halo-style fps vs. arena shooters or war sims but the fighting is tight, well balanced and enjoyable. This is a new thing in MMOs and I say bring on the clones.
sounds like the fans of Destiny need to decide if this is an MMO or not. Many here are saying that its not.
If its not then I will pass because I played this game 10 years ago and I am ready to move on.
(what do I mean by I played it 10 years ago? I mean the game is the same as shooters from 10 years ago best I can tell)
I always argued that Guild Wars was an MMO so I can't claim that Destiny isn't.
Decent combat. Say what you want about Halo-style fps vs. arena shooters or war sims but the fighting is tight, well balanced and enjoyable. This is a new thing in MMOs and I say bring on the clones.
sounds like the fans of Destiny need to decide if this is an MMO or not. Many here are saying that its not.
If its not then I will pass because I played this game 10 years ago and I am ready to move on.
(what do I mean by I played it 10 years ago? I mean the game is the same as shooters from 10 years ago best I can tell)
I always argued that Guild Wars was an MMO so I can't claim that Destiny isn't.
It really isn't though. I have always referred to it as an mmo to because it feels a lot like one. I bet Destiny feels similar. But one thing that got me playing LotRO and EQ2 was because GW1 didn't have all those mmo trappings. After a while I really missed seeing others in the landscape, node harvesting, persistent world zones, and those sorts of traditional mmo traits.
I think Destiny is an example of how gaming is evolving to integrate online more seamlessly like Phry said above. In that way I do think it will contribute to future titles having a more natural online component. I don't think it will affect what we consider traditional mmos in any significant way that you could point and say it was because of Destiny. For one thing both Defiance and Firefall have already done it, so it wasn't a Destiny thing.
I guess other than having an immutable definition of what an MMO is good enough to record in this history books it really doesnt matter one bit if Destiny is or is not an MMO.
That conversation really has no impact on the game at all.
I always argued that Guild Wars was an MMO so I can't claim that Destiny isn't.
It really isn't though. I have always referred to it as an mmo to because it feels a lot like one. I bet Destiny feels similar. But one thing that got me playing LotRO and EQ2 was because GW1 didn't have all those mmo trappings. After a while I really missed seeing others in the landscape, node harvesting, persistent world zones, and those sorts of traditional mmo traits.
I think Destiny is an example of how gaming is evolving to integrate online more seamlessly like Phry said above. In that way I do think it will contribute to future titles having a more natural online component. I don't think it will affect what we consider traditional mmos in any significant way that you could point and say it was because of Destiny. For one thing both Defiance and Firefall have already done it, so it wasn't a Destiny thing.
I guess other than having an immutable definition of what an MMO is good enough to record in this history books it really doesnt matter one bit if Destiny is or is not an MMO.
That conversation really has no impact on the game at all.
The original question was framed with reference to mmo development so it absolutely has relevance. The topic isn't about impact on the game. I never said the genre category would affect the game so I'm not sure why you said that. I also answered the question the OP posed so I don't really see your point or what you're trying to say.
I agree greatly.
This entire conversation is about symantics that have nothing to do with anything at all other than the OP bringing it up and in this conversation. Outside of this conversation it has zero relevance on anything.
I think there will be more First Person mmos and I think there will be more sci-fi mmos as well because of its popularity. Lastly I think there will be more mmos coming to consoles also and even mmos that are exclusively made for consoles as well just like how there are a lot of action adventures, shooters and rpgs that are exclusive to consoles.
No. The game is not good enough. It's like one of those blockbuster movies that everyone imagines is good - and every goes to check out but it sucks - so second weekend sales tank.
Across genre - I think Skyrim and Borderlands 2 and Minecraft are more inspirational for future MMO developers. Skyrim for its AI and sense of exploration and wonder, Borderlands for its AI and fun shooter mechanics, and Minecraft for its procedural content..
The three ingredients of ground breaking MMOS will be procedural content generation, advance AI to tune content to players, and fun combat. It's tough to do because no one has found the right combo yet. I have little faith in kickstarter games because I don't think the budgets are big enough.
Games with the biggest impact area always 'surprises'. If you spend a lot on advertising you can rope in some sales - but its not self perpetuating.
No. The game is not good enough. It's like one of those blockbuster movies that everyone imagines is good - and every goes to check out but it sucks - so second weekend sales tank.
Its cool if you and others dont like it, there is no game that literally "everyone" will like but there are plenty of people that are enjoying it and think its a great game. This game is getting the same type of hate WoW always gets because of its popularity. Everyone always hate on the cool new popular kid in school.
The devs made back its 500 million on day one than another 325 million off of customer sales within 5 days
No. The game is not good enough. It's like one of those blockbuster movies that everyone imagines is good - and every goes to check out but it sucks - so second weekend sales tank.
Its cool if you and others dont like it, there is no game that literally "everyone" will like but there are plenty of people that are enjoying it and think its a great game. This game is getting the same type of hate WoW always gets because of its popularity. Everyone always hate on the cool new popular kid in school.
The devs made back its 500 million on day one than another 325 million off of customer sales within 5 days
Value of boxes shipped to retailers has nothing to do with how much money Activision gets from retailers. Total gross sales is the value of all boxes sold, not how much money activision gets from the sales. Total budget for the game isn't cost for making the game.
Its typical of Activision and other big publishers to use inflated numbers to generate more hype, and it works. However, no matter how you try to spin numbers it doesn't tell how good the game is, and that's why the blockbuster analogy fits perfect. The only thing I disagree with is that all blockbusters are bad, some of them can be really entertaining.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Even Angry Joe admits the multiplayer is good. I think this is where most players will be invested in. The DLC part really they all are making money by splitting games up so they can give it to you in installments to maximize the profits and this I hope will not be the future and I also cannot play FPS and was hoping this game might spot a third person view. I get ill playing FPS I wish I could but I cannot so sue me if I pray this is not the future of MMORPGs.
Comments
Cus that's exactly what we need. More broadening and diluting of what used to be a fantastic game genre...
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Decent combat. Say what you want about Halo-style fps vs. arena shooters or war sims but the fighting is tight, well balanced and enjoyable. This is a new thing in MMOs and I say bring on the clones.
sounds like the fans of Destiny need to decide if this is an MMO or not. Many here are saying that its not.
If its not then I will pass because I played this game 10 years ago and I am ready to move on.
(what do I mean by I played it 10 years ago? I mean the game is the same as shooters from 10 years ago best I can tell)
Destiny sold well, not because it is Destiny but because it was made by Bungie who created Halo - Gamers buy into the past success of a company as much as anything else and that is not true only of the gaming world but any product.
The shine will wear off it soon enough imo but by then they will of made a ton of money - I find it to be a ok game but nothing special
Move onto the next game, and remember that he has a fun week?
"fantastic" is subjective. To me, it is a lot more "fantastic" when it is broadened. It was pretty bad games (for me) before.
1) It does not need to decide anything. Labeling is just for convenience, and even when the devs said it is not a MMO, some industry sites (and probably reviews) will call it so anyway.
2) Wait .. what? You decide whether to play a game by looking at the label? For the *same* game, you will decide not to play (or to play) just because they are classified differently? It makes no sense.
At least for me, if a game is fun to me, i will play it whether it is labelled as a MMO or not.
dude!
one fan is calling it an MMO another fan saying its not an MMO and shocker I never said it was or wasnt. So it appears the problem of labeling exists only amoung its fans.
I personally would not be interest in a game that already exists in my library from friggin 1999.
I think there is a misunderstanding among the fans of Destiny.
1. some say its an MMO some say its not despite that fact that really nobody asked in the first place.
2. nobody goes 'oh its an MMO? that is DOPE I gotta get it now' in short nobody really gives a flat fuck if its an MMO or not. We gamers look at the game play and features and go from there. This game doesnt appear to have anything interesting in it that doesnt already exist in my gaming collection.
I would .. update of graphics. Update of physical effects. Update of polish. Update of scripts.
I was playing Wolfenstein The New Order and had a lot of fun. You can say it is the same as the first wolfenstein ... cause you just shoot nazis. But hey, 15 years is a lot of time to get the old idea new fun implementation.
I have no plans to do such.
as a gamer I played a fuck ton of shooters and I am very tired of it now.
I don't know if it's the future, so much as a GIANT beacon of where we already are. Allow me to elaborate.
Destiny is currently a very polished, very refined shooter with a loot system and an online PvP system. While generally hollow presently, it is easy to see the potential and the promise that the game may one day possess. There are grandiose promises, cash-backing into the game, grand visions, etc.... but they're not there yet. What Destiny DOESN'T present is any innovation. It's more of the same. It was an over-hyped game that essentially plays like Halo meets Borderlands.
That is one of defining aspects of nearly every game that was supposed to be amazing in the past few years.
1) Huge budget
2) Huge hype
3) Huge promise and guarantees of what will come (but for whatever reason, isn't in at release)
4) Average game at release with little staying power.
And not just with MMO's; with console games in general. Look at games like Watchdogs, Titanfall, The Elder Scrolls Online, and now Destiny. Games that look amazing, sound amazing, promise amazing... and then are just generally forgettable experiences. On the contrary, it's Kickstarter that's bringing out the best games (in my opinion, anyway; how amazing was Divinity: Original Sin?!?)
What Activision, Blizzard, EA, and whichever other major publishers are failing to do is realize that a huge budget doesn't make a game memorable. Good questing, innovative combat systems, unique playstyles, complex storylines, interesting characters; this is what keeps you coming back for more. Simply re-presenting what has already been done before with better graphics isn't going to keep players coming back for more, and for all it's flair and hype, Destiny is more of the same with promises of being revolutionary. Personally, for me, the games I remember the most in the last year or two weren't games that I was even initially interested in, but titles like X-Com, The Last of Us, State of Decay, Wasteland 2, Hawken provided me far more enjoyment than all of the AAA titles.
Also, I simply refuse to believe what a game MIGHT be in time. Sure, it happens in some cases (Path of Exile was great, Diablo 3 got better though it NEVER did introduce the PvP that made it memorable in the first place) but for the most part, games that are all hype and glitz simply never deliver, or at least not in a timeframe that matters.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
It is still just a FPS on console. It would have sold a ton even without any connection to the mmo world. Even Bungie doesn't call it an mmo. This site only carries it because of it's recent coverage expansion into more rpg-like games along side mmo.
I will never call this game an mmo ... ever, because it isn't one. It is an online shared fps and will not attract many cross overs from mmorpg players who do not normally play fps. It may be the the new direction for fps and console gaming but it is has little to do with mmorpgs.
You stay sassy!
I always argued that Guild Wars was an MMO so I can't claim that Destiny isn't.
I guess other than having an immutable definition of what an MMO is good enough to record in this history books it really doesnt matter one bit if Destiny is or is not an MMO.
That conversation really has no impact on the game at all.
I agree greatly.
This entire conversation is about symantics that have nothing to do with anything at all other than the OP bringing it up and in this conversation. Outside of this conversation it has zero relevance on anything.
I agree with that.
destiny is just an average online shooter in my opinion.
can anyone make better games than soft ware and miazaki,i don't think so.
the dark souls games are the best.
No. The game is not good enough. It's like one of those blockbuster movies that everyone imagines is good - and every goes to check out but it sucks - so second weekend sales tank.
Across genre - I think Skyrim and Borderlands 2 and Minecraft are more inspirational for future MMO developers. Skyrim for its AI and sense of exploration and wonder, Borderlands for its AI and fun shooter mechanics, and Minecraft for its procedural content..
The three ingredients of ground breaking MMOS will be procedural content generation, advance AI to tune content to players, and fun combat. It's tough to do because no one has found the right combo yet. I have little faith in kickstarter games because I don't think the budgets are big enough.
Games with the biggest impact area always 'surprises'. If you spend a lot on advertising you can rope in some sales - but its not self perpetuating.
Nope http://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-destiny-has-grossed-more-than-325m-in-f/1100-6422378/
Its cool if you and others dont like it, there is no game that literally "everyone" will like but there are plenty of people that are enjoying it and think its a great game. This game is getting the same type of hate WoW always gets because of its popularity. Everyone always hate on the cool new popular kid in school.
The devs made back its 500 million on day one than another 325 million off of customer sales within 5 days
Value of boxes shipped to retailers has nothing to do with how much money Activision gets from retailers. Total gross sales is the value of all boxes sold, not how much money activision gets from the sales. Total budget for the game isn't cost for making the game.
Its typical of Activision and other big publishers to use inflated numbers to generate more hype, and it works. However, no matter how you try to spin numbers it doesn't tell how good the game is, and that's why the blockbuster analogy fits perfect. The only thing I disagree with is that all blockbusters are bad, some of them can be really entertaining.
Angry joes review it spot on
I haven't been on the game for 2 days now, sick of going out of the game to find groups, and the same ol on rails gameplay