New Bungie IP

[nomotog]

Originally Posted by Rindill the Red

I think... Bethesda, Rockstar, The Creative Assembly, and PiranhaBytes should come together to create a RTS/FPS/RPG set in a consistent free-roaming single-player world.

You start randomly in a big fantasy world... and just go off doing things and discovering stuff.

Everything is simulated. All quests are generated (not randomly), but by the world interacting with itself. All dialogue is generated by AI's (and therefore text-based)... but the world itself is completely dynamic. Kings rule over kingdoms... mages plot and study in towers... orcs/goblins/other evil creatures live in tribal structures, coming together to wage war on the kingdoms in times of crisis. Kingdoms will go to war with each other, or ally against evil creatures. Etc. Etc. There would be "main plot threads" or "main side-plot threads", that are designed by the developers, but which are given rise to by the simulation.

As a player, you just try to find your way in the world. You might join an army of a kingdom when they go to war, and rise in the ranks... (where RTS play comes in). Or you might find a mage and become his apprentice. Or you might just stay in your town, and build it up... protecting it from the world and helping it grow. You might become a carpenter, and form a guild, then enter politics. The idea being, you build your character, but as you gain power and prestige, more and more RTS elements can be played (or distributed to subordinates), as fancy strikes you. Or you might just be a lone wanderer, exploring the land looking for interesting things to un-cover.

Think Elemental: War of Magic, but with Rockstar tech, Morrowind-esque world design, Rome: Total War level RTS play, Gothic II level RPG play, and advanced simulated AI behavior of political and sociological nature.

Would it be insanely expensive? Yes. But seriously... how much would you pay for a game like that?

Sounds like mount and blade, but ya I want to see that game too. Kind of like fable mixed with gta and mount and blade.

[Serendip1ty]

I've said from the beginning i think its gonna be an mmo although I hope it will not be the case. But cmon, it would be the obvious choice. They have the talent & I'm sure some big shots at Bungie have looked at WoW & thought "we can do this too". After all, their long-term plan is "world domination", it's not like they hide their motives & what a better to do it than with an MMO?

[m1r0k0v]

Originally Posted by Shralla

THAT is pretty ridiculous. I guess it would be a reasonable statement if you disregarded the fact that they were already a successful developer before they even started working on the Halo franchise. And if you also ignored the ridiculous funding they currently have access to. I mean... What sort of basis do you even HAVE for a statement like that?

I just don't like Bungie. Yeah, they might have been successful before Halo but most people know them as the Halo developer. To me, the Halo series is just kinda meh.I think jumping from Halo to a true Deus Ex style game might just be too big.

And huge amounts of funding don't always spell success. Remember Waterworld?

[biofuel]

Read somewhere, the intent on Bungie's part is to concentrate on this "new universe" as they refer to it as for the next 10 years at the very least. So its total Bungie dedication to a 10 year progression of this... I hope it takes it to the next level like Deus Ex did back in the day. I hope its like a minimum 10 year virtual-reality Deus Ex-like game

[Irate Iguana]

Originally Posted by Rindill the Red

A tribute to POM.

Fantastic.

[subtlesnake]

Originally Posted by Pretentious Old Man.

I stand corrected, but don't forget the level of ambition that Halo was supposed to embody before Microsoft took Bungie over. It could have been truly incredible in its original incarnation.

Maybe, but in the same way that the 'E3 2003' version of Halo 2 could have been truly incredible. Both demonstrations were just smoke and mirrors.

Execution is just as important as ambition, and Halo 2 failed because Bungie had too much of the latter, and ended up with an unwieldy mess, that had to be severely cut down just to make ship.

[biofuel]

Originally Posted by subtlesnake

Execution is just as important as ambition, and Halo 2 failed because Bungie had too much of the latter, and ended up with an unwieldy mess, that had to be severely cut down just to make ship.

You see Halo 2 as a failure? Man that game was a revolution in online console play, particularly for first-person shooters.

[luminar]

Originally Posted by biofuel

You see Halo 2 as a failure? Man that game was a revolution in online console play, particularly for first-person shooters.

He who speaks truth often goes unheard.

[subtlesnake]

Originally Posted by biofuel

You see Halo 2 as a failure? Man that game was a revolution in online console play, particularly for first-person shooters.

I'm talking about the single-player campaign.

[Serendip1ty]

Originally Posted by subtlesnake

Maybe, but in the same way that the 'E3 2003' version of Halo 2 could have been truly incredible. Both demonstrations were just smoke and mirrors.

Execution is just as important as ambition, and Halo 2 failed because Bungie had too much of the latter, and ended up with an unwieldy mess, that had to be severely cut down just to make ship.

Yes, did you get this from a bungie video?

I remember seeing some video where bungie folks admit they were too ambitious with the halo 2 project. They had to cut alot of content due to bad planning & overestimated the power of the xbox.

I woulnt call the SP a failure though.

[3rdmillhouse]

Originally Posted by m1r0k0v

hehe. This makes me laugh. IMO Bungie will fail outside their Halo series.

I don't think they will, they're pretty competent in the shooter scene and they'll most likely hire outside help if they wish to tackle new genres.

[subtlesnake]

Originally Posted by Serendip1ty

Yes, did you get this from a bungie video?

More from the articles that have been written on the subject. This is a more recent one:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/be...article?page=3

I woulnt call the SP a failure though.

Well, it failed to live up to the expectations set by Bungie, and by the fans. It wasn't bad, no; just unspectacular - and overshadowed by the original in several respects.

[Kodaemon]

Once again: why is there a thread for this here? It should either be merged into Other Games or THE HIVE, or moved to the general Community Chat forum.

[BigBoss]

What I hate is how much they, like call of duty, take the smallest of baby steps between games.

[biofuel]

Originally Posted by BigBoss

What I hate is how much they, like call of duty, take the smallest of baby steps between games.

I think that's a bit harsh, in all honesty.. When you get a product as refined as Halo 1 already was, its difficult to make giant leaps in each incarnation that comes after it in the series. Of course that depends on how much you happen to regard Halo 1 as a refined product :P

[singularity]

Originally Posted by biofuel

I think that's a bit harsh, in all honesty.. When you get a product as refined as Halo 1 already was, its difficult to make giant leaps in each incarnation that comes after it in the series. Of course that depends on how much you happen to regard Halo 1 as a refined product :P

I'm with you on this... I think Bungie is a fine developer, and am actually looking forward to this new IP. It's hard to make giant leaps forward when you are put under a time curnch. Microsoft wanted a big round in the barrel every year, and Gears of War/ Modern Warfare could only pick up half that slack.

I respect Halo a lot. It really revolutionized console gaming (seperate button for melee and grenades, only 2 weapons, open battlefields and indoor combat, plus vehicles... everyone forgets that all of this was a big deal on consoles when Halo came out). Then the sequel changed the way we played consoles online -- and basicly kept Xbox Live alive until the end of it's cycle. Then they did the unthinkable and actually finished the trilogy in a way that wasn't completely unsatisfying, and then gave us Reach (in my opinion the best of the bunch).

I was kind of hoping they might go the Marathon/ Mythic route for their next title, but I definitely wouldn't mind something completely new either.

[BigBoss]

Yeah, but when you ship a product that uses the same maps for the campaign, multiplayer, and firefight, you gotta wonder why the hell that took 3 years when other games like gears can pull off three unique modes with their own maps and do it in two years. Oh yeah, and sell a 3 map dlc for 15$ versus gears and battlefield's....you know what, never mind. This post needs to end somewhere.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Shralla

You know that Activision has absolutely nothing to do with the game, right? It's entirely a Bungie creation. Bungie shopped around for the publisher that would give them the best deal (best financing and publishing opportunities while being completely hands-off for the creative process), and Activision had what they needed. It's pretty ridiculous to assume that just because a certain company is publishing it that it will fall into the same hole as games produced by companies who are owned and controlled by Activision. Keep in mind that all the Halo games were created while under the control of Microsoft. They may not have been the keenest shooters on the planet, but they were far from terrible, and actually did have fairly interesting lore.

Well if you look back at the CoD series, at first it was just Infinity Ward people departing from EA MoH series and making their own studio and making CoD game. They found Activision as a choice to publish game and get money for development. Well the terms was something about 50/50 at that point but after first games success they bought out IW and owned CoD title. Why do you think it won't happen to Bungie if they will make anything money making with their new title i bet Activision will come with new terms to sequel - most likely something similar what they have done with all studios they own now. It's just a pattern over years what publisher does.

On the topic, i hope Bungie will succeed because they have to step out of that Halo shadow. Most of the people even don 't know that before Halo there already was successful titles for this developer team.

[Rainbow6Team]

It's a sequel to Oni.

About time.

[Shralla]

Some guy is claiming unfair treatment after being laid off from Bungie, and said a little bit about what Bungie is working on.

http://kotaku.com/#!5762663/is-desti...eators-of-halo

'Destiny' The Next Game From Halo Creators, Says SourceBungie's follow-up to the Halo series is a massively multiplayer online first-person shooter, according to a source claiming to have knowledge of the game's development. That sci-fi shooter is currently named Destiny, he says, Bungie's original post-Halo franchise.

[Viktoria]

Originally Posted by Kodaemon

Once again: why is there a thread for this here? It should either be merged into Other Games or THE HIVE, or moved to the general Community Chat forum.

Once again, I will explain. This still exists as an independent thread because it appears to be a popular topic with other members on this board. Once interest fades, it will probably get merged then. Hope this helps.

[Boxsmith]

Originally Posted by Pretentious Old Man.

You're supposed to visualise the "V" of "actiVision" as

A visual aid for the unimaginative:



EDIT: dammit rindill