tl;dr Destiny is going to be incredible, it's just going to be different, That is scary, because it is uncertain. [quote]I'm not sure that "best game ever" directly translates to "biggest game ever". That is a very closed minded way of thinking.[/quote] Now I would much rather be close minded and sensible, than so open-minded that I was not. If you follow my original statement, not just this reply out of context, you will notice that Joe Staten is the one who expressed the "open world" that Destiny was going to be. It is a safe assumption that Joe Staten, one of the leads who wrote the Destiny campaign story, would have an understanding of what Bungie wanted for Destiny. So tell me where my logic is flawed: 1) A large part of what makes Bungie games awesome is Joe Staten 2) Joe Staten has an understanding of Destiny 3) Joe Staten thinks X is going to make Destiny Bungie's best game ever 4) Joe Staten leaves Bungie 5) X is not happening Resident Evil 4 had 3 levels, and it was one of the greatest shooters of its generation, so I am not counting Destiny out. Like I said, it is still the most fun shooter I've ever played, and obviously a large portion of what Destiny was intended to be is going to be a part of the game - the story, the character creation, the multiplayer....but with the announcement of the expansion packs, and Activision being who they are, it is very likely that Bungie's original vision was likely along the lines of Destiny debuting with all or most of its content - it's just that the cost of development and maintaining the open world, without a subscription fee, doesn't allow for that. So unlike with Halo 2, where they could, in terms of content, absolutely blow everything else out of the water (Like 4 levels were cut out of that game, I think? And the campaign was STILL massive?) with Destiny, because their vision requires a permanent world, it isn't possible.

Closed minded and sensible are a little contradicting to me. Sensible and open minded however seems a better fit. Maybe it's just our preferences. As far as Staten goes he's out to make money. Microsoft has deep pockets and at the time had a deep hole in which they placed their self in. They had a previous working relationship. It has been stated that Staten had already finished the ground work for Destiny's universe. Microsoft probably made an offer he couldn't refuse. It is a well known fact that Microsoft did not share Bungie's idea of creativeness. This is why I'm forming the opinion that the only reason he would return to a company that everyone knows screwed Bungie from a company you're assuming screwed Bungie. I wasn't meaning to belittle your logic. You could very well be correct. After all we're both throwing out hypotheticals. But I was merely suggesting that you're opinion of the world not being as big as you think it should be may not be the opinion of the creator. Hours of play test and piles of data might've suggested the world to be too big for the vision they have.

[quoteClosed minded and sensible are a little contradicting to me. Sensible and open minded however seems a better fit. Maybe it's just our preferences. [/quote] That was a baited statement on my part - neither of us are completely open or close minded. >As far as Staten goes he's out to make money. So is Activision. [quote]This is why I'm forming the opinion that the only reason he would return to a company that everyone knows screwed Bungie from a company you're assuming screwed Bungie. [/quote] Could you re-state this? I don't think I'm reading it properly. [quote]Hours of play test and piles of data might've suggested the world to be too big for the vision they have.[/quote] Yeah, that could have been. It's just difficult to imagine Bungie falling that fall short of such a major goal. I mean Old Russia was a big map, but it wasn't bigger than San Andreas was in the PS2 days. And who knows? Maybe those blocked off areas will reveal some insanely huge underground labryinth or something. That's why we're just gonna have to get the game. I'm just hoping that Bungie weathers the storm, if Activision did choke them creatively, which I would not put past them considering what they allow to be released (CoD)

[quote]This is why I'm forming the opinion that the only reason he would return to a company that everyone knows screwed Bungie from a company you're assuming screwed Bungie. [/quote] Could you re-state this? I don't think I'm reading it properly. What I was getting at is why would Staten return to Microsoft? It's common knowledge that Microsoft forced Bungie into creating content that they were tired of making and even "whored" out the Halo name to make Halo wars. What would persuade him to go back? Was his departure from Bungie because of Activision or his pursuit in a career change? Which I will tie this back in. Your opinion is that because the wording almost two years ago does not directly describe what the game was as of the BETA your assumption is that Activision stifled their creative dream, Staten got mad and left. But the vast opened world might not of fit their thirty seconds of fun rule.

I see. I guess we will just have to wait and play the game to find out. So far, they nailed the 30 seconds of fun.

I know and that's what I've focused on. Trust me when I tried to get above the waterfalls in The canal and couldn't I was disappointed. But I shrugged it off. Then that's when I really started to see destiny for what it was, a big action fps.