Destiny requires online connection, even in single-player
Even if you're playing Destiny single-player, you will need an online connection. "To play Destiny, you need to be connected," Bungie's Pete Parsons succinctly noted.
Bungie's upcoming Destiny will feature a highly crafted narrative experience, one that you can experience as a traditional "campaign." However, even if you're playing the game single-player, you will need an online connection. "To play Destiny, you need to be connected," Bungie's Pete Parsons succinctly noted.
The online requirement will undoubtedly be a barrier of entry for those who don't have their consoles connected online, and crucially, for non-Gold members on Xbox 360. However, Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg says that the game needs to be online because "that's the only way to realize the vision of the game. The vision of the game is a shared world first person shooter. In order to make the world shared, you need to be connected."
Although the game will require an always-on connection, Bungie promises that solo players will have a complete experience. "We want to be able to give you that strong narrative, you as a solo player. We want you to have that. If you want to do it by yourself, that's totally okay," Parsons said.
You will still see other players in your game, but you can choose not to interact with them. A key difference between Destiny and most MMOs is the scale, which allows you to take the lone wolf approach. "It's not about stuffing as many people into a space as possible," Parsons pointed out. "The amount of players you see is design-controlled." Destiny's unique approach to online connectivity is why we compared the game to Journey--among many other eclectic games.
-
Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Destiny requires online connection, even in single-player.
Even if you're playing Destiny single-player, you will need an online connection. "To play Destiny, you need to be connected," Bungie's Pete Parsons succinctly noted.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Worse: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/17/destiny-not-coming-to-pc-bungie-deny-reality/
That quote is the 2nd dumbest thing I've read all day.-
-
-
-
-
this is what you all sound like to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ohthkOzewdQ#t=19s
-
-
-
-
So, in list form:
Two weapon system: Rainbow Six
Automatic saves: Half-Life
Regenerating health: cop-out shortcut to avoid placing health pickups and actually balancing the campaign enemy placement, weapon strength, armor pickups
"Nobody wants to play shooters on a mouse and keyboard": Jason Jones shouldn't even think of setting foot into the BYOC sections of PAX East, QuakeCon, or PAX Prime, lest he be bashed upside the head with a WASD Cherry Blue and a SteelSeries Sensei.-
-
-
It helps if you know what you're talking about. Halo had health packs and non regenerating health, just a recharging shield. Even if it didn't, to claim it's avoid balancing the game when Halo is consistently one of the best balanced games across difficulty levels without just pumping stats is even more absurd. You also conveniently left out the impact of vehicles, multiplayer on a console, off hand grenades, good campaign co op, and probably a few others (I'd mention AI but few even try to match it)
-
other games did all that first, there were vehicles in mp games before halo, there was good co op campaigns before halo, there was multiplayer fps before halo, there was better AI in other games. I feel like because halo was the first really popular console fps (ignoring goldeneye64) that it has created this bullshit mythos about itself and all these apparently "new features" even though they were all done on PC games first years before.
-
I feel like because halo was the first really popular console fps (ignoring goldeneye64) that it has created this bullshit mythos about itself and all these apparently "new features" even though they were all done on PC games first years before
I feel like this is what PC gamers who missed the boat say. I never owned a console prior to the original Xbox, hated Goldeneye for controlling like shit compared to PC shooters, etc. Halo did a lot of things extremely well and better in both parts and as a whole than a ton of other games.-
Missed the boat? Its not like a lot of us didn't play Halo...I'll admit that its a significant game...but a lot of folks have this attitude that if you don't worship the thing you just don't get it and are completely wrong. That attitude wrt HL1 annoyed me as well. A game can be amazingly good and still overrated...and a game like Halo can have a significant impact and do a lot of important things while still not setting everybody's world on fire. I mean for me the Quake games had better DM and CTF...always have...always will...they were faster and more responsive and more what I was looking for. For the big scale vehicles game...Tribes 1 & 2 did that better IMHO...but again I'm not knocking Halo.
It was the first game that controlled adequately on consoles (Goldeneye came close if you used the Turok style control scheme or used two controllers at once (one in each hand))...but I always felt that it was "good enough" at best and given how many great FPS games there are on the PC I don't have to put up with "good enough". I've bought and played all the Halo games...each time giving them a ton of time to try and get into them...but I just never enjoyed them that much. I get that a lot of people enjoyed Halo and I give it credit for being a good game...its just a good game that I don't generally enjoy and I keep trying to appreciate. I'd add that I felt the same way about Counterstrike...lots of people liked it but I felt it was a step in the wrong direction from other games that I enjoyed more (like Quake and Tribes)...but I don't see it as a bad game...just a game that I didn't like. -
how did i miss the boat when i was playing games with the features YOU listed but in pc games way earlier? Halo wasn't an amazing game to me (yeah i actually did play it on release) because i had played shooters like half life, quake, jedi knight, tribes, ww2 online etc. that had all done it before and IMO in better ways. It seems to me its the console gamers who picked up an xbox and a copy of Halo and blindly think it did everything first, when it actually did not.
And for the record i think time splitters was better than halo.
-
-
-
Other games did some of those things...Tribes had vehicles, lots of games did multiplayer on console, Team Fortress did off hand grenades (as did a number of Quake mods as I remember...think other games did it too)...not saying it didn't do those things well...but that could be why he didn't mention them...not to mention the article in question didn't...and these posts seem to be dealing with the RPS article...not "how great is Halo". I don't get the whole "how dare you not list ALL the reasons Halo is great and have a big throbbing hard on for it like I do" thing.
The article also mentioned recharging health...which makes me question if you know WTF you're talking about...I wouldn't take this tone with you if you hadn't taken a nasty tone in your response...but when the original article specifically mentions RECHARGING HEALTH it's fucking pertinent to the fucking conversation!!!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't get why some developers aren't satisfied with just saying "sorry, not on PC", and take the extra step of talking trash about the platform. I mean, why burn your bridges like that? What business sense does it make to just gratuitously piss people off who want to be your customer? It makes no sense.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It's because of articles and responses like this that Jason Jones rarely comments publicly on his thoughts anymore and is also why the .plan updates from the id software of yore are gone. You can hate the changes Halo made to FPS games and many do, but the Halo way was a fun (and arguably necessary for consoles) alternative to the standard FPS method.
-
And now nobody plays shooters the way they used to play them before Halo ’cause nobody wants to.
http://i.minus.com/iDA9k2VtG0CZ.gif -
Eurogamer is saying PC is possible.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-17-destiny-requires-an-internet-connection-to-work
On the possibility of a PC version, (Bungie COO) Parsons said: "We would absolutely love to be on the PC. If you talk to the people upstairs, we play it on all platforms. So, stay tuned."
Activision Publishing boss Eric Hirshberg added: "Until there are official announcements from the first parties obviously we can't comment on any platforms that might be forthcoming, but what we can say is we are building Destiny to be wherever gamers are." He later insisted Activision's approach is "platform agnostic". -
-
Not that I agree with the quote, I think it's inaccurate, but Halo is hardly a "blip" on the radar.
The Halo series has sold over 47 million units, not including Halo Wars (~2M). That's a very successful franchise, and that doesn't happen just because someone got lucky. That happens because Bungie created an entertainment product that had value. It's true, Microsoft provided the funding they needed, but they had the ability to make quality games, and it was a huge success for both Bungie and Microsoft. It would be more accurate to say that without Microsoft, they did not have the resources necessary.
Marathon came out for the mac in 1994. Few games weren't shitty for the mac. But, it was Bungie who made some solid games for the platform. Before Microsoft stepped in, Halo was going to be for the Mac, not PC. It was quite the fiasco when Microsoft got involved and took that away, but it worked. Halo would have been nothing but a blip on the radar if that hadn't happened. I'm happy about that because I have enjoyed the Halo series quite a bit in all of its iterations.
-
-
-
-
-
And I didn't really know about Marathon until it went freely distributed in 2005. http://source.bungie.org
-
Also, Myth II Uninstaller. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1999/01/06
-
-
The levels were boring as hell though, like the raw design and layout looked as if a failed architecture student was shooting for real world stuff. Also, by the end it was ridiculously hard so you had to cheese it by trying to scavenge ammo for the one shot kill gun then get headshots, just like 40K: Fire Warrior (ha, nobody remembers THAT piece of shit).
-
-
I believe you're right, and that's what made the levels so boring and utilitarian.
Also, sorry but no dude. Ducking behind cover back and forth over and over, praying for ammo soon, and having to use the one overpowered weapon that could damage the guys at the end, because they would fuck you hard if you tried kung fu or any sustained fire weapons, was just bad design and balancing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hey there console gamers, aren't you glad that a bunch of bullshit hasn't penetrated your platform yet? Like key codes and online-all-the-time drm? Oh, right. Well, at least you have to buy your games from the store (well, 360 gamers at least) and don't have the convenience of Steam. But thanks for beta testing Brutal Legend for us!
-
So I got blocked by Rock, Paper, Shotgun's Twitter account for this tweet: https://twitter.com/Dontdrop/status/303359800799006720
Was it really that bad? I don't think I'm so far off the mark calling their statement stupid. I guess saying I don't read them anymore (or how I phrased that) is wrong? -
-