Art Andrews said:It is certainly an interesting perspective. I suppose I can separate the two, still acknowledging that Halo is a great game/series whether the company who made it is great or not. I look at Assassin's Creed that way. Ubisoft annoys me to no end and their political correctness is absolutely absurd... but, despite those things, they produce a great game and I can love the game for what it is despite the fact that the company who produces it leaves something to be desired.
Art Andrews said:Is there some type of documentation on this? I have to believe if the DOA rate was even a fraction of that and 343 took the approach you claim that there would have been a very public Class Action Suit against them.
Art Andrews said:WHA?!?!? No. no. no. Bungie would never do that! You are thinking of 343... the big evil company. Bungie would NEVER push out an incomplete game and promise to make it whole if you would just wait and pay them more money for the add-ons. Just ask Zaff!
Master Builder said:Zaff
Wow, why so much hate on 343?
I never heard of a "75% "Dead on Arrival" rate at launch!" problem. Also 15GB of data on your hard drive? thats not right. I don't even have a hard drive, so I installed it on a flash drive with a 8GB partition just for the 360, I'll have to check but I know it is taking up about 4-5 GB of data and thats all. Map packs will only take up an additional 300 or so MB. You have to keep in mind that games nowadays are running about 30 or so gigs and thats for PC, you try jamming that onto 2 dvds, and then only install one which can not contain more than around 8 gigs. And I know that Halo 4 is not using that much data.
But neither does WoW, or any other MMORPG for that matter. Why? Because in a "persistent world" game you need to be connected to an independent server in order to get the full experience (or really, any experience at all). Halo doesn't have this because Halo is not an MMO by any stretch, nor is it in any way a "persistent world" game. Am I happy with the lack in Destiny? No. Did I expect anything else? Not really. Am I disappointed that BOTH Bungie and Activision (the "top dogs" in both cooperative and competitive multiplayer shooter arenas) overlooked the appeal of this aspect of gaming and didn't bother to include a secondary (or rather tertiary) game mode that catered specifically to the "local" gamer crowd? Well quite frankly, yes. I didn't expect to be earning any experience, currency, or really anything at all from it, but I did expect there to be some form of "offline" play. In this, yes, Destiny certainly did fail, and shame on both Bungie and Activision for dropping the ball there.
I don't see what PC harddrive usage has to do with any of this. We're not talking about PCs, we're talking about consoles.
Master Builder said:This is a next gen game running on next gen and current gen consoles, and a completely new engine build for very new consoles. You can not expect Bungie to just "add" a second player. Theres is not enough hardware power to run a not so completely tuned engine with not just one, but two cameras running around the world at the same time.
First release for next gen hardware will most likely not have a split screen compatibility. Now once they tune their engine to make it a lot more efficient, and not have to make it run on old consoles, then a split screen option is more possible.
No matter how great they are or how well they deliver to their fans, at the end it is always about the money, because if they don't make money, they can't make games. It's not a matter of cynicism or skepticism, it's the simple fundamentals of business. If you can't turn a profit, you can't justify your product. If you can't make a significant profit, you can't even think about putting out another product.Master Builder said:It's not an issue of money, I'm sure.
Master Builder said:Please tell me one thing that is different. The new consoles are even running on the same architecture as the PC you are on right now.
Master Builder said:Yes a game like Skyrim is only about 7 GB, but hey look at each game and tell me what one looks twice as good on a tech scale? Textures take up some of the most data. And when you only have 512mb of ram on your console, how do you expect it to keep up with decompressing and loading them onto what little ram you have, and still have a playable experience (loading)? Thats why you install games onto your hard drive. Your harddrive is much faster than your DVD reader. Almost 100 times.
Your CPU can decompress faster than it take to load the files off the DVD, and your ram is lightning fast. So the disc drive becomes the slow link and must be eliminated.
I strongly suggest you learn some more about game design on a tech level.
I'm sorry, but if the xbox/playstation is running on Windows Vista, we're all boned. But as for what's different, I can do better than just one. Hard drive capacity, processor speed, RAM capabilities, the simple fact that any PC can be tweaked, modded, upgraded, and custom tailored on terms of both hard and soft ware. My 360 has 120 GB of storage. There are laptops wit hover a terabyte of storage space. The processor, "RAM," and "operating system" of the 360 will never change, never improve, never be tweaked or modded (and if you even try, your gamertag and the console itself are both permanently banned). The XB1 has better hardware and software, certainly, but in the same. You won't find the shelves of Staples, Radioshack, or even Gamestop lined with XB1 processor upgrades, RAM boosters, discs with a streamlined OS, the only thing you might find are larger hard drives for storage.
Oh, and let's not forget the more "subtle" differences. PCs can download games off Steam. PCs get features that consoles will NEVER see (using Skyrim as an example, the literally thousands of user-generated mods and the Creation Kit itself will NEVER bee seen on the console versions). PCs give you a much wider selection of brands, operating systems, styles, configurations, and so on and so forth, and new ones are coming out every few months (if not weeks). So yea, the differences are a lot more complex than just "this one has an Xbox logo on it and that one has Windows 8 stamped on the side."
Master Builder said:A game is a game no matter what it's made for.
Master Builder said:What I meant was consoles are basically just tuned, specially design for games, computers that run their own OS and can be mass produced.
Master Builder said:Your OS doesn't mean squat about your hardware. If you don't like vista, install an OS you do like (I recomend 7).
Master Builder said:Sorry this is all typed up poorly. I bring up the question again. Why can't you compare the size of a PC game to that of a console? Look at Watch dogs: 20gb, Titanfall xbone 18gb (48gb PC). So 15gb is no big deal, sure is could be compressed smaller, but that would also run slower. It's not like they throw in a bunch of junk assets to make it bigger.
Yea, the PS4 and the XB1 are rather new consoles, but neither Bungie nor Activision are greenhorns. And having a tertiary offline competitive multiplayer isn't asking them to do anything they have not already done many times before. I get why the "campaign" can't support split screen, but the Crucible is a whole different animal, and a rather familiar one at that for both developers.
No matter how great they are or how well they deliver to their fans, at the end it is always about the money, because if they don't make money, they can't make games. It's not a matter of cynicism or skepticism, it's the simple fundamentals of business. If you can't turn a profit, you can't justify your product. If you can't make a significant profit, you can't even think about putting out another product.
Looking over TJ's breakdown, there is certainly one point in which Destiny absolutely MUST concede defeat to Halo, or really just about every FPS in existence: the local game. Namely, that there is none. No local/custom competitive multiplayer, no split-screen co-op or competitive, no "local" support whatsoever.
I can relate. https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/66729577/0/0
This is my world until they make a TV that can broadcast two separate inputs on one screen.
Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk
RYNO_666 said:I can relate.
This is my world until they make a TV that can broadcast two separate inputs on one screen.
I guess with that I can understand the lack of cutscenes in some games (Destiny), but that kind of content really steps up a story, and is necessary in my opinion.
I'm honestly surprised when I see a 7GB install from a disc. I've tried to make some legit DVDs in the past with menus and everything, rather than just making a media disc that contains a bunch of videos, and formatting the disc just for the DVD menu seemed to cut the storage capacity in half. So instead of 10 episodes on one disc, I only get to have 3? What.....?
Moving on from this interjecting ramble....
As far the Spartan Ops taking up space, the reason is because of all the cutscenes that the have. All of them are lengthy and are 720p. You can reduce the polygons of models in the game and map sizes and whatever, but a video is a video, you can try to compress it as much as possible, but in the end, it still takes up a lot of space.
This actually is exactly why I'm glad Destiny does NOT offer split screen on the campaign. I hated the checkpoint teleporter in Halo when I needed to go back for ammo, a vehicle, etc. and either dragged the other player back with me, or what I wanted was just on the other side of the "wall" so if I tried to get to it, it would port me back to the other player. Destiny is meant to be as much of an open-world, free-roaming experience as possible. If you can't walk 100 yards from your fireteam without dragging them with you or being dragged back to them, that really puts a stake in the heart of open world and free roaming. Now would I like there to be a "quick jump" option if you've wandered too far and want to rejoin your fireteam quickly? That would be great, yes. But a forced limit on how far you can roam on your own? No thank you.WandererT said:Interjection aside, the game already has to load the environment around you once, it doesn't need to do it a 2nd time, you just have to bring in a 2nd camera and then limit the distance you can be separated from your local co-op partner, and if they stray too far away, teleport them to your location. Halo was great about this when you reached a checkpoint, why they couldn't have done that in Destiny is beyond me.
WandererT said:Zaff and anyone else who have been talking about hard drive space...
You can't lower the tri-count on models, what they use are called LODs (level of detail)(change level based on distance to object) which can be like 3 or 5 quality levels of the same model, some of the model will most likely use a different set of textures, well because they need to in order deal with the different model topology for each level. Nowadays the computing power needed for meshes is not that high at all compared to the other systems like shaders, physics engines, particles, lighting, etc.
I think the engine they brought in for Halo Reach in regards to that (referring to Forge World for the most part) was pretty phenomenal.
Not sure if they are continuing to use a similar engine with Destiny.
For that matter, I wonder what all will actually be included on the Master Chief Collection. They've been promoting "1 Disc". Are they going to make you download supplements to the disc in order to play the game? What about all the DLC that was added for each title, are they going to include it on disc too?
I'm curious to see what they do to milk the Collection to get people to pay more.
But Reach............ [snip]
I was thinking the same when they announced it will be on one disc. But after thinking about it, it's very possible, Blu-ray dual layer disc (standard) hold 50gb, and that might just be enough. But if not, they could put it on a triple layered Blu-ray (100gb) our quadruple layered (125gb), but those require a BDXL drive witch I don't think the xbone or ps4 has.