"bungie destiny leak said there will be a destiny game in 2013, a huge add on in 2014, new game in 2015, add on....and so on. we also know that it will be fraction based. the names of the factions sound like a space game (osiris, 7 seraphs, dead orbit? - i cannot recall those.) overall this looks pretty mmo ish to me too"
I am not saying you couldn't be right, PG. But I will point out that what you described sounds a lot like a CoD yearly release schedule. Annual game, followed by annual DLC. WoW has been out for a long time, and has only seen three expansions. The fourth one is coming this winter. They take a few years inbetween and aren't a yearly thing. Tho for a less content intensive genere like FPS(vs content loaded RPGs) it might be possible to put out smaller, yearly updates.
Time will tell.
DaMan, I don't think I understand what your getting at(if that was even aimed at me). Sorry.
My best stab at it is that you think I stoped enjoying Halo because I wasn't very good at it when it went online. I stoped playing Halo because the experience didn't evolve. It is a very surface level play experience. Generic. For what it does, it does a good job. But it feels pretty flat to me. I like a more robust omp fps experience like found in Battlefield games. And if I am being honest, I think I am growing away from the entire OMP FPS draw. I put over 400hours(I think, last I checked) on xb360 BF3. And no, I am not a dominating player, but I don't have to be to enjoy a game. And I did top the scoreboard here and there.
But those experiences are flat. Other then simple unlocks, one round doesn't connect to another. There so very much more that could(should be done) with an OMPfps game. While on the subject of MMO, lets look at typical MMOrpg PVP.
Some of them have battleground style "rounds" where combat has a starting and stoping point. You are often teleported away from safe PVP-free zones into a combat zone, where a timer counts down and the round begins. Often times there is a castle, fort, or series of them to either defend or capture. Sometimes other objectives like capture the flag, hold onto multiple zones, etc.
But the combat is varried.
Most MMOrpgs offer several classes. Warriors, Mages, Clerics, Rouges, Rangers, Paladens, Necros, Druids, Warlocks, and so on. Each one of those often have several different ways to be "built" or "speced"(they play differently. One player might have a Priest that heals, while another might have a dark preist that focuses on DPS instead. That adds a lot of different veriables to the mix. Because of the diversity of the combatents and the wide scope of different stage types(goals), it keeps things from feeling flat. It adds a lot of depth that just isn't found in other online games.
Plus your "building" your toon(player). You can often times earn gold or XP, or combat points to spend on improving/customizing/upgrading your toon further. Plus in most MMOs you also have different modes of play that aren't just PVP. In the dungeons, across quest lines, or whatever, you are also further customizing your toons effectivness. Maybe you pick a proffesion that allows you to make potions(you can use them to alter your toons stats or heal during combat). Maybe you are an engineer and can make explosives to use against your enemies.
My point being is that there are a lot of different possiblities in the pvp offered in most MMOrpgs. Heck you can even have PVP in the regular game world. No zones to be teleported to needed. Your out on the plains with a friend, hunting down a monster, and you noticed a pack of enemy players riding straight at you.
Are MMOrpgs the greatest games ever made? No. And different games for different gamers. But, is the combat deeper and more varried then a round of Halo, CoD or BF? Yes it is.
Getting back to your SF bit DaMan. Do you still play SFII on SNES? Or do you play SF IV on a current gen system? What difference does it make? Alot. Because years ago the game was what it was. But todays versions of the game offer a far richer experience. More chars, more balance, better counters, better graphics, deeper gameplay, and all around better games. I own the SFIV Arcade edition on xb360 myself. I also own the Ultimate Marvel VS Capcom 3, same system. And that is my point.
Years ago I enjoyed the crap out of Unreal and Quake for the Dreamcast. As I did Halo when it came out for Xbox. And even when compared to current cod/BF games, Unreal, Quake, and Halo of old look and feel flat. But I have seen an even better form of online PVP(to me at least). I would rather play my Druid in a Wow battleground, or my Bard in pvp in Rift, very much looking forward to Guild Wars 2s PVP, then play another round of a console OMP shooter.
And in no way am i putting down anyone for likling what they like. Just connecting the dots as to why I say what I say sometimes.
I have a saying I like to call Atari Syndrome. It is basicly that a gamer is a gamer, yet if all that gamer had to play was an Atari 2600, they would be a very happy gamer. It wouldn't be untill they were exposed to a NES, PSX, DreamCast, XB360, or a PC that they would become unhappy with what they were playing on the Atari 2600. Still works like that today. Gamers know what they play. If a gamer is happy with something like Halo, that is great. They should enjoy it.
Me? I want something better.
that is also why this gen I have shifted so much to PC. I have found that the games on it are more suited to my tastes. As we grow older as gamers our tastes change, trust me.
