Bungie's Destiny Story Details, Concept Art Leaked - Polidicks

Concept art looks cool, but it really does look an awful lot like Halo. They're kind of stuck on that design.

[QUOTE=Delta616;38622915]Halo and Marathon take place in the same universe, perhaps Destiny does too.[/QUOTE] They don't actually, there were people who thought they did for a long time but Bungie struck that down. What Halo and Marathon do have in common aside from style and designs is this: [img_thumb]http://puu.sh/1vmwD[/img_thumb] [url=http://www.bungie.net/forums/posts.aspx?postID=70585296](Comes from here)[/url] Recon #54 is based on Count Roland and the Master Chief is based on Ogier the Dane. If they keep to this way of doing things, the protagonist and storyline in Destiny might be based on Charlemagne and his life. This is why I love the way Bungie does things.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38629308]Recon #54 is based on Count Roland and the Master Chief is based on Ogier the Dane. If they keep to this way of doing things, the protagonist and storyline in Destiny might be based on Charlemagne and his life. This is why I love the way Bungie does things.[/QUOTE] Uh, lots of studios name story elements according to a theme, often historical. I don't see any evidence that the Security Officer in Marathon is 'based on' Count Roland or that Master Chief is 'based on' Ogier the Dane, just a parallel that happens to come from an association with a name taken from a sword. A lot of what's in that thread you linked to is really seriously reaching for a connection, and I find it hard to believe that the developers would shackle themselves into a particular plot for the sake of a hidden theme. It's like Looking Glass/Ion Storm/Arkane developers putting '451' as an important number at the start of each game (System Shock 1, System Shock 2, Deus Ex, Dishonored). It's a neat theme across multiple games by the same people, but it's more on the level of easter egg than plot device.

[QUOTE=Unimaginative;38620094]looks awfully like halo IMHO[/QUOTE] doesn't look enough like halo don't get me wrong, I like the style, but not nearly as much as I liked halo's I loved the angular, broken-up surfaces and horizontal focus of the UNSC and the organic vertical orientation of the Covenant, and how everything was very clean and organized this art style is more haphazard almost, not everything fits together too well, but seeing as how most of it was leaked I'm hoping the final product is a lot more fleshed out and focused

Gives me a sort of Xcom vibe.

[QUOTE=Skyward;38621481]Milking would be if they copied and pasted the game each year, Cod-style, which they don't. The gameplay remains the same to an extant, it would be silly if it didn't, but you cannot deny that the formula has been far improved since Halo:CE.[/QUOTE] give me one new thing they put in single player over the past 4 games. something that really stood out in singleplayer as an addition to gameplay. and to be quite honest halo CE feels like any sequel gameplay wise. nothing's been tightened up really except removing the health bar. it's exactly the same. [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] also halo was always meant to be a trilogy? you know halo was also meant to be a mac exclusive? was meant to be an RTS? was meant to be a GTA style freeroamer? etc etc etc. and these people claiming it was meant to be a trilogy, can you actually back that up with developer interviews [B]filmed before[/B] halo's release saying it's gonna be a trilogy? halo was meant to be a trilogy? it's even not a trilogy anymore, it's a quadrilogy. was that planned? how come it was at first said halo 3 would be the end of MC's story arc? you guys really give bungie to much credit. it's blatantly obvious they're just doing it as they go along, at least concerning the halo franchise.

[QUOTE=catbarf;38625336]How is it set apart from most sci-fi? You could intersperse that concept art with Tribes concept art and not be able to tell the difference. That retro-gothic style a la Warhammer 40k is pretty well-used.[/QUOTE] How is tribes at all gothic? The only other big scifi series at the moment are halo and mass effect, and neither of them have gothic elements either. Well, I suppose there's also borderlands, but that's more dieselpunk than anything else.

[QUOTE=1STrandomman;38631065]How is tribes at all gothic? The only other big scifi series at the moment are halo and mass effect, and neither of them have gothic elements either. Well, I suppose there's also borderlands, but that's more dieselpunk than anything else.[/QUOTE] Compare [URL="http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2012/11/12.jpg"]Destiny[/URL], [URL="http://images.mmorpg.com/images/newsimages/132011/Tribes-DiamondSword1.jpg"]Tribes[/URL], [URL="http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/46/46119.jpg"]Hellgate: London[/URL], and [URL="http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110404035725/warhammer40k/images/f/fa/Eisenhorn6.jpg"]Warhammer 40k[/URL]. The futuristic sci-fi combined with medieval-esque armor is a pretty well-worn style. That's not a bad thing intrinsically, but I don't see anything in the concept art that stands out to me, especially since Bungie just finished a sci-fi series and can now make literally anything they want.

I can draw similarities between all of them, but I can't really say they're nearly the same, or anything.

[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38630704]give me one new thing they put in single player over the past 4 games. something that really stood out in singleplayer as an addition to gameplay. and to be quite honest halo CE feels like any sequel gameplay wise. nothing's been tightened up really except removing the health bar. it's exactly the same. [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] also halo was always meant to be a trilogy? you know halo was also meant to be a mac exclusive? was meant to be an RTS? was meant to be a GTA style freeroamer? etc etc etc. and these people claiming it was meant to be a trilogy, can you actually back that up with developer interviews [B]filmed before[/B] halo's release saying it's gonna be a trilogy? halo was meant to be a trilogy? it's even not a trilogy anymore, it's a quadrilogy. was that planned? how come it was at first said halo 3 would be the end of MC's story arc? you guys really give bungie to much credit. it's blatantly obvious they're just doing it as they go along, at least concerning the halo franchise.[/QUOTE] Halo was actually planned to be 2 games but since they had to rush Halo 2 out and cut a bunch of content they made a third game.

[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38630704] halo was meant to be a trilogy? it's even not a trilogy anymore, it's a quadrilogy. was that planned? how come it was at first said halo 3 would be the end of MC's story arc?.[/QUOTE] Halo wasn't going to be a trilogy. They've gone on record saying it was going to be 2 games, but due to poor development decisions, Halo 2 was massively cut down, and what didn't make it resulted in Halo 3. As for Chief's arc ending in 3, they said that Because as far as Bungie was concerned, it did. Why do you think the next two games they made where a prequel, and another set during Halo 2 surrounding a new cast of characters? Microsoft needed 2 more games out of them before their contract was up. Bungie, staying true to what they said about 3 being the end of his arc, made Reach and ODST. Then the torch got passed to 343, and what happened to Halo since has not been under Bungie's control. Halo 4 and the continuation of Chief's arc was 343's creation 100%. As for your claims about the gameplay, I don't see where you're coming from. It stayed in the same vein of FPS, but I mean, why wouldn't it? Its a sequel. No direct sequel to an FPS game makes any HUGE changes over the last. To use an example of a sequel that is widely considered superior than the predecessor, Half-Life 2 is WIDELY the same as Half-Life save for the graphical and technical improvements, as well as story. Gameplay wise, it plays the exact same way, yet its never criticized for it. And you totally lost me when you said CE feels the same as the rest, because it honestly doesn't. The newer one's feel far more polished. The gameplay's the same, but its far more refined. I don't get how that can be argued against.

[QUOTE=Skyward;38632648]I can draw similarities between all of them, but I can't really say they're nearly the same, or anything.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be exactly the same to be unoriginal. It just doesn't really stand out, which is disappointing coming from a team with a history of really original games that has just thrown off the shackles of being contracted to make epic sci-fi shooters and now, with total freedom to pursue any game they want, decide to make... more epic sci-fi shooters. At least they're sticking with what they know, I guess.

definition: game polish to halo fans more bloom and bigger bump maps. seriously, you still haven't said one thing they specifically added that made the gameplay better besides these vague meaningless points. how does it not feel like CE, just prettier, [B]at all[/B], if you openly admit they've been doing the same thing for years? game sequels normally do that, you know, add new gameplay elements. and surprise surprise, you can do that easily with FPS sequels. and then you go back on your claims that it was supposed to be a trilogy, retconned that little bit out and are now saying it was meant to be a two parter... all this only points more towards the fact that executive meddling and making it up as they go along are extremely present. and there are plenty of FPS franchises out there that actually add on new gameplay elements with sequels. halo is the CoD of the sci fi shooter universe whether you like it or not. it's the same game pumped out with the same exact single player and a few new multiplayer things (halo is better at adding cooler multiplayer things though) don't get me wrong. i don't think it's a bad series, hell, i don't even think CoD is a bad series. it's just so fucking over hyped and over rated it's like people have blinders and rose tinted glasses on. i could give a shit less about the single player because CE has the best out of all of them, hands down. plot, gameplay, mystique, everything about it. i can back that up positively because i have played CE and the sequels all quite recently except reach. but i don't mind a good game of coop or multiplayer at all. when it comes to multiplayer games i'd have to say the halo series is pretty much one of the premier multiplayer series of the shooter genre. I'm an OG Halo fan who got completely disgruntled by halo 2's single player when i realized how fucking stupid this whole game was considering it wasn't sent on earth and i was currently playing punchout with a midget in a hover chair. for anyone who's a fan of gunslinger girl, basically CE is the first season and the rest of the series is the second season. i really am not trying to pull anyone's chains here. when will halo fans admit that the series is incredibly overhyped and not nearly as great as they make it out to be. nothing groundbreaking in the series has happened for more than a decade. how is it not getting stagnant? actually the reason why i'm getting so butthurt about halo fans is that this game's concept looks mediocre at best. it looks fairly generic, almost fisher pricey

[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38634185]definition: game polish to halo fans more bloom and bigger bump maps. seriously, you still haven't said one thing they specifically added that made the gameplay better besides these vague meaningless points. how does it not feel like CE, just prettier, [B]at all[/B], if you openly admit they've been doing the same thing for years? game sequels normally do that, you know, add new gameplay elements. and surprise surprise, you can do that easily with FPS sequels. [/QUOTE] I've already said what I've had to, Its the same gameplay, just refined. New weapons are added, tweaks and balances are made to original weapons (No overpowered CE magnun for instance), new enmies, vehicles, new features (Dual-wielding, Armor Abilities, Perks, etc.), but the core gameplay remains the same. Is that bad? I would say no, but you clearly think its horrible. I don't know what to tell you about that. The truth is when it comes to the single player, the main draw is the continuation of the story. The Halo formula in terms of gameplay is tried and true. Could they do more? Yeah. Do they need to? Not really. I'd say if they did make some more significant changes, I wouldn't have minded it, so long as they were competent, but I'm not upset that they didn't. As for saying Halo is just as milked as CoD, its just wrong. On a technical standpoint, Halo has improved with each installation, CoD's been using the same engine since 2007. And a new Halo game doesn't get pumped out once each year. Not to knock CoD, really, its a good arcadey shooter if you're into that sort of thing. You wonder why its not worn out? Because it works. People just want more of what they like. Some people are in it just to see where the story goes. Some people are in it for the multiplayer. Some are in it for both, but no matter what you're in it for, each entry had something new to offer you. You wanna play singleplayer? Here's a whole new campaign that expands on the story you loved from the first, have some new weapons and enemies to boot. You like the multiplayer? Here's a whole bunch of different maps with new weapons and vehicles added to the sandbox, and even a mode to build your own maps, and options to make your own game modes. Groundbreaking or not, people enjoy it. Why knock em for it? Also, this claim: [quote]and then you go back on your claims that it was supposed to be a trilogy, retconned that little bit out and are now saying it was meant to be a two parter...[/quote] Is bullshit. I never said it was originally planned to be a trilogy, so no, I'm not retconning shit. You're just striking me as somebody who liked the first, but when the second came out, he didn't like it as much so held a personal vendetta against the series. The series isn't "bad", its not "worn out", you just don't like it. Its subjective. Why you're still trying to put up your fight is beyond me. At the end of the day, you're gonna tell me the series is boring, and I'm going to say I fully enjoy it. Different strokes for different folks.

Okay lets move this to the Halo thread. This is about Destiny, not Halo.

[QUOTE=Delta616;38634372]Okay lets move this to the Halo thread. This is about Destiny, not Halo.[/QUOTE] It'd probably be for the best it didn't get dragged there. Should just end here. Let him get his rebuttal in and I'll drop it.

[QUOTE=Delta616;38619243] [t]http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2012/11/61.jpg[/t] [/QUOTE] I knew I had seen that picture somewhere before [IMG]http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3531/planetsn.jpg[/IMG]

rebuttal? it was over with the post before yours.

[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38634449]rebuttal? it was over with the post before yours.[/QUOTE] Ah, well I'd figured you would.

i mean unless you want me to reply to that thing you call a "post" where you trip over yourself like a drunkened child with cerebral palsy. i clearly said the game was simply not that great, multiple times. you know you're wrong.

Aaaaand there's the rebuttal. [QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38634485] you know you're wrong.[/QUOTE] Oh, okay. I guess reiterating exactly what I have been saying is now "tripping over myself" Who'da thunk it.

sadly that's not even what i was talking about and that itself is a form of tripping over yourself.

Okay.

i dunno why i bother when i'm talking to someone who thinks halo's sequel's plots were worth shelling out 60 bucks for.

You really don't like that I enjoy these games, do you.

Just report and move on, he's just shit threading now. :/

Man... I mean, these look pretty cool and all but personally I [I]really[/I] want Marathon 4.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA9oSO-HLQw[/url] its happening!

Holy fuck

[url]http://boards.4chan.org/v/res/164564642[/url] Get in here shit is going down and bungie is posting.