I honestly, 100% no joke believe that an MMO game designed to be played without saving would be a major improvement over the ones that currently exist.

Based on your experience of not actually playing MMOs.

Any why am I expected to play games in a bad genre?

because you're talking about them like you understand them

I'm not feeling great about seeing all those infinity symbols.

It could just be a dev build option so they don't run out of ammo while trying to test things.

http://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=13624

Another perfect example, where he a. assumes that a throwaway quote about drawing inspiration from other games implies that this game is primarily influenced by one particular named example, b. isolates a single feature of that game, c. states that without said feature Destiny will not be as good.

It's utter nonsense.

Which quote are you talking about? Also, the conclusion is nothing new, he's always been for as much of the game world as possible being reachable by the player character, something I agree with.

What this forum doesn't need any more of: people defending Cody for his unwarranted and evidenceless negativity.

He wasn't even being that negative this time, he basically said he didn't like how it looked like they were going to handle weapons and what he'd prefer.

You might want to dismiss my half-serious retort as a lack of reading comprehension, but even if it's not a wholly accurate reflection of what Cody said, it is a completely accurate assessment of Cody's game design analysis posts on Destiny to date which can be summarised as: we don't know much about this game, and I in particular don't know much about the games that this game takes inspiration from, but I'm going to negatively criticise every game behaviour I can infer, even in a relatively detail-sparse pre-release environment.

Well if it's just as much a joke as it is serious and it not totally accurate (and you know that), why shouldn't anyone and everyone dismiss it?

It's boring, it doesn't contribute (positively) to the debate, and if I didn't know better I'd assume if was trolling.

You do know better though, and you don't have to read his posts or his threads or replies to him.

"Cody's worried this game that is not like Vanquish or Gears of War at all will suck"

Oh my gosh Cody never said the word suck or even implied that it will and never even said he's worried about if it will or won't suck!

He did on other occasions, which I think is where the comment about Gears of War and Vanquish came from.

Look at you putting words into his mouth and contorting his intent, that sole intent being comments on the weapon system in a comparative situation as opposed to even discussing the game as a whole or even combat in general!

The intent seemed negative. Thinking back now it actually wasn't that negative, but it seemed that way, and I bet it did to kapowaz too. I think you're right about overreacting though.

It is exactly the argument you made. Why can't you acknowledge your own assertions? I think there is space for criticism or concern over how the weapons system will work, but comparison to completely different genre games isn't how you go about it.

I'm mostly interested in how things like ammo will work. Will we be constrained from overusing our special/heavy weapons, and if so how? Will we be able to chop and change in combat, picking up discarded weapons from our foes? How easily can we swap our weapons around with those we've stashed from previous forays?

Because God dammit that's not what I said. I said the system they put in place would be more restrictive than GoW or Vanquish. I never said it HAD TO HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM OR IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD. It could have a different but BETTER system. Point to the sentence where I said it will suck because it doesn't have the specific system GoW or Vanquish had?

Reading comprehension. Do you people have it?

Do I have to lay out what I said symbolically?

A
A>B
Therefore rather A than B
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T BE C, OR THAT IT MUST BE B!

Idiots.

I'm not familiar with the symbol system you're using or the logical vocabulary (therefore rather...?)-- and yes, I know symbolic logic.

I'm not feeling great about seeing all those infinity symbols.

I have a feeling that's just there for Dev convenience while playtesting.

The many assault rifles:

The real question I have is how much of this (if any) is customizable by the player? Also what is the 114? Maybe just a dev screen thing, maybe distance to objective?

If you look closely, I think these might all be the same rifle. And the different permutations are all player customization.

Different sights, skins, ammo counters, ect. All customized by the player.

Seriously guys, nobody mentions this??? Possibly the largest selling point of the game!

Is it? While I hope multiplayer is good I'm much more excited about a huge coop matchmade world than any competitive multiplayer.

Yeah I look forward to almost ignoring it completely when there's so much more exciting cooperative activities they've put on the table.

"Ah, those poor Guardians stuck in their endless wars. When our real problems are out here in the Wild..."

*EDIT: Changed my wording in the first sentence as it sounded like I was originally saying I was going to ignore the competitive mode along with everything else, which is definitely not the case. :)

IDK, it would be nice to play as something besides Guardians in competitive multiplayer. I look forward to a new equivalent of "aaagh stupid dinos!".

The weird thing about this gun is that, despite having "Assault-1" and "A-1" written all over it, it's been named as the "Monitor S-11"...

Probably just another manufacturer then I would guess.

I think we've seen this symbol before, I think it says Act?

Actually, I think it says "A-1"; short for "Assault-1", which is also written on the side of the weapon.

Ah, good catch!

Some kind of dash attack and a grenade. Also notice he has 3 assault rifles in his slots, maybe just a dev thing, or maybe you can potentially put assault rifles in any slot?

On closer examination, it looks like the Primary slot has an AR, but the Special slot has a Fusion Rifle & the Heavy slot has a Sniper.

HAAKEN? Gun maker possibly?

Exactly what I thought... I still haven't figured out what the character(s) to the right of it are, though... They kinda look like "BS".

I think we've seen this symbol before, I think it says Act?

Actually, I think it says "A-1"; short for "Assault-1", which is also written on the side of the weapon.

I just really like this image.

Agreed 100%... Shots like this make me pray that Bungie will include a Theater mode for the game.

I guess it'd be the far Cry games then? Even the first lets you play in more than 2km^2 of space.

Ah yes, Far Cry is a much much better example. I always did envy its large beautiful islands.

Those things do not have to come at the cost of world building. As I said before, if I see a loading screen it always takes me out of the world. If it's all seamless, then it's much more immersive.

What if a loading screen seamlessly continues the story as in this Mass Effect 3 cutscene? At 9 minutes in it goes from an in engine cutscene, to a prerendered loading screen (starting with the first exterior shot of the escape pod) and then back to in engine (starting with the pod crashing through the wall) all very nearly seamlessly. It would even seamlessly transitions from that second in engine cutscene to regular Mass Effect gameplay at around 11 minutes if it weren't a cutscene only video.

While loading scenes like that can't be used often, since they have to be in between events that only happen once, I'd say immersion was very well preserved.

It is technically possible. I brought up Crash Bandicoot 3 a while ago, since that game had larger playable spaces than Destiny, and it was running on a system with 2MB of RAM clocked at 33mhz.

A few of problems here:

1. Neither you nor I actually know how big Destiny's play spaces will be. We have some vague description from Bungie employees but nothing solid.

2km^2 are the map sizes. That was stated specifically.

Simple comparison to past Halo games may also not tell the whole story either. Things like multiple floors and vertical spaces could potentially give Destiny significantly more play space packed into the same square footage as a Halo game for instance.

This is very true, and I hope it happens!

2. I'm watching the right Crash Bandicoot on youtube right now (Crash Bandicoot 3 Warped correct?) and I find the claim that it has more play space area than Destiny or even a Halo questionable. It's looking like a narrow corridor platformer to me. You could run a ton of small narrow corridors up and down the Warthog run of The Pillar of Autumn, or any other of the larger levels throughout the Halo series. I seem to recall you providing more detail on the claim that Crash was bigger, could you refresh my memory on that?

There's a bunch of levels later on that let you free roam, and even in the straight path levels, you can see actual geometry up to 3km away.

3. Even if there is more narrow corridor space than there is playable space in Destiny equating the two is dubious at best. They are such different games that comparing any stats or figures between them is very nearly meaningless. Surely there is a more comparable shooter you could compare Destiny to? Half Life 2 seemed to have pretty big spaces for instance.

I guess it'd be the far Cry games then? Even the first lets you play in more than 2km^2 of space.

In the end I'm not sure you're even arguing in good faith here. Comparing wildly different game types, clouding the issues by brining in system specs while not mentioning graphics quality or online multiplayer, and making said claims without having any actual data from or experience with Destiny makes your arguments seem almost intentionally murky.

Those things do not have to come at the cost of world building. As I said before, if I see a loading screen it always takes me out of the world. If it's all seamless, then it's much more immersive.

It is technically possible. I brought up Crash Bandicoot 3 a while ago, since that game had larger playable spaces than Destiny, and it was running on a system with 2MB of RAM clocked at 33mhz.

A few of problems here:

1. Neither you nor I actually know how big Destiny's play spaces will be. We have some vague description from Bungie employees but nothing solid. Simple comparison to past Halo games may also not tell the whole story either. Things like multiple floors and vertical spaces could potentially give Destiny significantly more play space packed into the same square footage as a Halo game for instance.

2. I'm watching the right Crash Bandicoot on youtube right now (Crash Bandicoot 3 Warped correct?) and I find the claim that it has more play space area than Destiny or even a Halo questionable. It's looking like a narrow corridor platformer to me. You could run a ton of small narrow corridors up and down the Warthog run of The Pillar of Autumn, or any other of the larger levels throughout the Halo series. I seem to recall you providing more detail on the claim that Crash was bigger, could you refresh my memory on that?

3. Even if there is more narrow corridor space than there is playable space in Destiny equating the two is dubious at best. They are such different games that comparing any stats or figures between them is very nearly meaningless. Surely there is a more comparable shooter you could compare Destiny to? Half Life 2 seemed to have pretty big spaces for instance.

4. Bringing in technical specifications of the consoles each game runs on is also very nearly meaningless and only serves to cloud any points you are trying to make. It is likely trivial to find games with technically bigger play spaces that run on less powerful systems than Destiny, I can think of a few favorites off the top of my head, but by doing so you are likely ruling out things like improved visuals, AI complexity, and online networked gameplay that Destiny has that other games may lack. Again it would be better to keep the comparison as close as possible to judge wether Destiny is making good use of resources or not.

In the end I'm not sure you're even arguing in good faith here. Comparing wildly different game types, clouding the issues by brining in system specs while not mentioning graphics quality or online multiplayer, and making said claims without having any actual data from or experience with Destiny makes your arguments seem almost intentionally murky.

I challenge you to do better.

I just know that as a whole Cody has been on a thing about actual playable space and distance as far as what you can see and if you can actually play on all of it, and he's been on that without using Borderlands as an example. I think he wants 2km+ playable space that's all playable as a personal want, and I think he thinks it's absolutely technologically possible.

It is technically possible. I brought up Crash Bandicoot 3 a while ago, since that game had larger playable spaces than Destiny, and it was running on a system with 2MB of RAM clocked at 33mhz.

If you are creating a world like Bungie wants to, then I think no loading is a must. It's so immersive to be able to wander huge spaces without ever encountering a loading screen. Jak and Daxter was amazing at this.

Another Naughty Dog game. Hmmmm....

I honestly, 100% no joke believe that an MMO game designed to be played without saving would be a major improvement over the ones that currently exist.

Based on your experience of not actually playing MMOs.

Any why am I expected to play games in a bad genre?

Those two posts are better examples of things to take issue with, not the one you responded to. I don't understand where all the Borderlands comparisons are coming from (not just from Cody, btw. Others have been throwing those out). Maybe it's because I never played Borderlands? Not sure what's being implied.

It's pretty much entirely that Borderlands has two things that Destiny will: a lot of guns varied by color and slight variations to style, and emphasis on co-op play.

I think that is a poor reason to be afraid of what Destiny will bring, but others disagree.