X-Men: Destiny Thread

[Ryuuie]

Okay, I think I see what's going on here...

El Bastardo: When did I ever say that Activision was "evil" and "heavy-handed" anywhere during this conversation? I only mentioned them stating that the writing in their games (at least the licensed ones) haven't exactly been 100% stellar and that they do have control over the game. Somehow, you took all of this to think that I claimed that this is all Activision's fault and "OMG THEY'RE SO EVIL".

I also suggested that Activision most likely pushed for Dan Slott to write, and since they have been struggling with previous Spider-Man games that doesn't seem too farfetched an idea and makes sense, now doesn't it? Sure, Beenox could have presented the idea to Activision but considering neither you nor I work for Beenox, the answer will remain a mystery (as no one really cares enough to ask them anyway).

The only thing I mentioned is that Beenox could have worked with Slott to give him a bit more than "ok, here's the story, make it connect." Could it have been done? Probably. Would it have made things better? Who knows.

I don't need to prove that Activision told Slott to do X and Y because that's not what I said in the first place. I originally said that I felt that Slott did not have a lot of freedom. You seem to be generalizing as much as anyone else is on forums all forums do, misinterpreting how things are said and whatnot. You are the one that seems to be 100% sure that Activision has no pull or say on what happens in their licensed games. Maybe you should be the one showing proof?

"facepalm.jpg" indeed.

Wolvieboy: I know I did, but the only reason I even brought up SM:SD is because Slott mentioned how he wrote for the game. I haven't heard any other writer mention how they wrote for a game so I used SM:SD as an example.

Now, to get back on topic (and hopefully stay on it)...

http://insidepulse.com/2011/01/28/nine-questions-for-mike-carey-about-sigil/

According to this interview with Mike Carey which was posted on the 28th of January, we'll see more information about X-Men Destiny at Comic-Con International 2011 which is July 21 - 24th.

He also mentioned that this game has been in development for one and a half years now. However, to add on to what he stated, Silicon Knights has already confirmed that the game is still in development as the shots leaked (and in the article in OXM) are very very early development stage images.

 

[Hypestyle]

.. why so long with the character descriptions? Are you only getting to play as one of three? why not be able to create a character from scratch, including ethnicity, etc.?

 

[dtud]

Story reasons probably, it's easier to create a story if you have predetermined characters.

 

[MoPlaYa]

Arent they making the characters from the game into characters that will be in the comics?

 

[Nightmare]

When is the release date?

 

[BoredGuy]

great just who I want to play as..
some meathead wearin a football jersey, or the awful tribal tattooed jersey kid, or the asian Surge redux

super lame

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, I saw some new pics on IGN...was going to post them, but...they're not worth it at all. This game, visually, looks really bad.

What i think is stupid about this character approach is yes, I can understand them not wanting you to be one of the main X-Men so you can develop and create your own character and YES I can understand them having slight presets for story depth purposes but what i DON'T understand is why they're not making it like Mass Effect where you have the set character but you have the freedom to choose what they look like and who they are etc. Forcing us to play as one of 3, bland and generic characters in a world that is full of fun, varied and interesting characters is just a massive, massive oversight and is ignoring one of the basic fundamentals of a modern, western RPG.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

A Mass Effect approach to creating your own mutant...would have been really interesting.

Have somethings set in stone, name or just a last name, and go from there.

 

[X Knight]

have they even revealed the 3rd character yet?

I think it sucks that, in this day and age of Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc., even the Smackdown games, where creating your own character is the norm, this game forces you into choosing 3 preset characters.

I don't want to play as a preset character. I want to use this as the chance to create my own unique X-men character!

They could have done it like Mass Effect. Let us customize our character's appearance and name ( at least first name ). Then let us choose from several preset "backgrounds." Like the "All-American" farmboy/farmgirl. Or the abandoned "Street Orphan."

 

[El Bastardo]

Yes, they could have.

And then what would a large percentage of internet "fans" spouted, probably right here in this thread?

"lol they're ripping off BioWare!"

 

[X Knight]

Yes, they could have.

And then what would a large percentage of internet "fans" spouted, probably right here in this thread?

"lol they're ripping off BioWare!"

well, at least they would have tried........better than not trying at all.

 

[Havok83]

well, at least they would have tried........better than not trying at all.

I didnt see how it could work....till I actually played ME2. Playing tha game, made me wish for a Starjammers game. I knida imagined my Shepard as being Havok, having been found 2 after the Realm of Kings war and going across the galaxy building up a team of old and new faces. The biotics are a good way to incorporate mutant abilities. Too bad Activision has the X-men license on lock for the forseeable future bc Id love to see Bioware tackle an X-related title

 

[El Bastardo]

well, at least they would have tried........better than not trying at all.

And what's wrong with their current approach?

There are three characters, and I'll assume they're not all the same character with different skins, but each a different character with a different personality.

How is that any different from Nice Hawke, Sarcastic Hawke, or Angry Hawke (DA2)? How is that any different from Nice Shepard, Boring Shepard, or Jerk Shepard (ME/ME2)?

I'm playing L.A. Noire. I can't change Phelps's appearance or his voice. I cannot pick from an assortment of possible Phelpses before the game begins.

Shall I grab the torch and pitchfork and demand Team Bondi/Rockstar admit their vile, vile crime or be stuck and burned?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

No, because Cole Phelps is a more fleshed out and 3 dimensional character. These characters just look truly ,truly awful in the latest screenshots and like characters I would never want to play as. They are not X-Men to me, not in the slightest.

 

[El Bastardo]

But you can say Cole Phelps is fleshed out and a three dimensional character because the game is out and can be experienced.

That said, BioWare's main protagonists are not fleshed out or three dimensional characters. They may become such after being projected upon by the player, but in and of themselves they have some variable amount of backstory and that's that. Their NPCs are usually well-realized, but not the PCs, due in large part to every BioWare game using the Campbellian Hero Archetype and Journey as basis.

So now we want two different things? Or do we want a nigh-unattainable mixture of the two that no company has seen fit or able to produce yet? Because now I'm seeing two types of conflicting statements.

The likelihood that Destiny will be some storytelling masterpiece is small, of course. I know that. But that's largely a problem with superhero games being given to small-time studios that don't have a lot of experience in storytelling. Mike Carey is more than capable of painting masterful tone, however, via comics dialogue, and weaving good to phenomenal stories. Look at his non-Rogue X-Men comics (and even some of the Rogue-centric ones), and look at The Unwritten. That Carey is onboard doing writing chores shows a positive direction. Well, unless he's not anymore. I confess to not keeping up with news.

Point being, however, that regardless of the final product, until it's in your hands, our hands, nobody knows what it's going to be, how well-written it will be, or how entertaining it will be. And while I know running around and screaming about how the sky is falling is typical internet forum behavior, it's really kind of pointless, no? At best, you look like an idiot if the game turns out alright. At worse, you sour your opinion so much that no matter how good the game actually is, your subjectivity won't see it as anything more than ****. Look at most BioWare fans.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The thing is, when it comes to something that's as established as X-Men. People want to play as one of them. Or all of them. Wolvie, Gambit, Cykes..whatever. Not playing them, and playing someone completely new would be a great opportunity to get people make they're own.

Phelps in L.A. Noire is different. L.A. Noire is a new thing. If It were called X-MEN L.A. or something, then there'd be different expectations from the outset when thinking of playable characters.

 

[E-Man]

The thing is, when it comes to something that's as established as X-Men. People want to play as one of them. Or all of them. Wolvie, Gambit, Cykes..whatever. Not playing them, and playing someone completely new would be a great opportunity to get people make they're own.

Phelps in L.A. Noire is different. L.A. Noire is a new thing. If It were called X-MEN L.A. or something, then there'd be different expectations from the outset when thinking of playable characters.

Bingo. It's an X-Men game so people want to play as the X-Men. It's an established franchise with plenty of characters to choose from. You're working with a license, not a brand new concept. I love trying different things, but if I'm playing an X-Men game I expect to play as the X-Men. It's as simple as that.

But if I won't be playing as an established character that's fine. I can deal with making my character from scratch because there is loads of potential there. I actually anticipated doing that. I thought it would be fun to make your own person from scratch, but playing as one of three new characters it isn't that appealing. Not only that, but the two characters I saw aren't even visually appealing. In the vast universe of the X-Men that's what they came up with?

 

[El Bastardo]

Just because someone wants something doesn't prevent something different from what they want being good.

We played as regular X-Men in XML1 and 2. XML1 used Magma as the "main character." People complained. XML2, heck, I don't remember. MUA1 and 2 have generic storylines with no real semblance of a primary protagonist unless you project that in yourself, and of the two, MUA2 does the better job in that regard, and it's still incredibly flawed.

As for whether or not something is appealing, visually or not, that's subjective. The characters might not be visually appealing to you, and nothing is going to change that. True. To ten other people they might be exceptionally appealing, and twenty other people might not care one way or the other. And yeah, maybe that'll stop you from liking the game after playing it, or maybe that'll stop you from playing the game altogether. But it doesn't stop it from potentially being a good or great game.

And that's all I'm saying. Until the game comes out, there's no reason to say it's going to be a bad game, or it's sure to suck, or the sky is falling. It's just complaining, again, like most BioWare fans. olulz, they're making Dragon Age into Dragon Effect!

The X-Men will be in the game. That about covers it for any supposed "franchise duty." There are plenty of directions any given project can take, and this game has a specific direction. That doesn't make it doomed from the start.

A game - anything, really: a book, a comic, a movie, a play, a song - should be judged on its merits, as is.

 

[JNX]

Bingo. It's an X-Men game so people want to play as the X-Men. It's an established franchise with plenty of characters to choose from. You're working with a license, not a brand new concept. I love trying different things, but if I'm playing an X-Men game I expect to play as the X-Men. It's as simple as that.

But if I won't be playing as an established character that's fine. I can deal with making my character from scratch because there is loads of potential there. I actually anticipated doing that. I thought it would be fun to make your own person from scratch, but playing as one of three new characters it isn't that appealing. Not only that, but the two characters I saw aren't even visually appealing. In the vast universe of the X-Men that's what they came up with?

exactly!!

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, also your whole argument is hypocritical. You haven't played the game, so you can't possibly defend it's implementation with any credibility either.

All i'm saying, as a design choice, is if they want you to be your own character, why not give people the freedom to MAKE that character, like the majority of RPG's, and if they wanted you to be specific characters, why couldn't you just play as one of the X-Men? They seem to be trying to half and half it.

Obviously i'm going to wait and see the final game before I make a final judgment, but from a design point of view that annoys me and visually the game looks entirely unremarkable. Also, to be honest, how anyone could so adamantly defend an Activision franchise game is beyond me when they've proven to cut corners and clamp down restrictive limits on the devs, stopping them from really putting much depth into a game.

 

[JNX]

have they revealed the 3rd character yet? has there been any indication if it will be a male or female character?

 

[El Bastardo]

Yeah, also your whole argument is hypocritical. You haven't played the game, so you can't possibly defend it's implementation with any credibility either.

There's no hypocrisy at all. I have not stated that the game will be good based on any preliminary information. I have not stated that the game is good while not having played it. (In fact, I think I actually stated that, if anything, the likelihood of Destiny being a great game is slim, though I based that on the track record of the superhero game genre and the small-time, shoddy, and/or inexperienced studios that get used, thank you very much.) I've merely stated that the worth of the game is not hinged upon whether or not character selection is create-a-character or choose-from-the-following-X-Men.

All i'm saying, as a design choice, is if they want you to be your own character, why not give people the freedom to MAKE that character, like the majority of RPG's, and if they wanted you to be specific characters, why couldn't you just play as one of the X-Men? They seem to be trying to half and half it.

Because that isn't the direction they wanted to go in, from the looks of it. And it's not the story they wanted to tell. It's usually those two reasons as to why a writer chooses specific characters.

Obviously i'm going to wait and see the final game before I make a final judgment, but from a design point of view that annoys me and visually the game looks entirely unremarkable. Also, to be honest, how anyone could so adamantly defend an Activision franchise game is beyond me when they've proven to cut corners and clamp down restrictive limits on the devs, stopping them from really putting much depth into a game.

For the former, regarding waiting before final judgment, good! That's probably one of the most sane comments I've seen on this page. (I added the smiley emoticon to show that I'm not being sarcastic here. I was going to leave instead, but thought you might take it the wrong way. Please, don't.)
And I don't give a lick about Activision. I didn't even know Activision was publishing this game, though I guess I knew that at some point while I was making some of this same argument about Spider-man: Shattered Dimensions - is that the right title? - months ago, or so the posts on the previous pages would have me believe. I forgot. Publisher, whatever. I only care about the end-product game, whether it's good or not, and whether or not it has merit. I don't care about what-ifs or could-have-beens. I don't care about if dev time got cut or if funds got cut, because there's no argument to be made about what the game might have had if there'd been more time blah blah blah (see above, re: could-have-beens). The only thing I might care about is a delay, especially if the game's still poorly done after a delay. I don't even care about the developing studio, necessarily, unless they have a track record, good or ill.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Well I dunno dude, all those things you said you don't care about are significant things in the quality of a game.

 

[El Bastardo]

They may be significant things to the development cycle of the game, but once the game is released, all that can be judged is the end-product, which is the game one would theoretically have in their hands.

That a game's development time may have been cut short does not skew the weighing of an end-product's merits and flaws. There is no way to reason, "Well, if they'd had another month, the game would have been SO much better," because there's no way to measure that. At that point, you're (in the collective sense) placing subjectivity into the mix and stating the game is more valuable than the physical evidence supports. And at that point, it's no longer an applicable review or accurate measuring of a game's worth - it's just opinion. And everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has an ***hole.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I don't agree with that at all. Ignoring all evidence leading up to a games release is just, well, ignorant. That game does not just one day come to be and live and die by that merit. The games industry has shown us time and time again that a game given a lengthy development cycle means more attention to detail and more resources for the game itself. To deny that is just silly. Are you saying if you had two games, one made in a week and one made in 4 years, you wouldn't take those two factors into account when judging the quality of said games?