Is it me, or would you have to be seriously self medicating in order to leave Bioware, to join Bungie? Bungie, the company that chose to gut the story their lead writer came up with, then hired half a dozen writers, and ignored their ideas, instead putting together what remained of the original story in such a way that creating a coherent story was so impossible that they ended up being forced to use a third party medium (The internet) to actually augment the lack of story (through lore cards). To me, it's just simply insane. It would be like Barry Sanders wanting to be traded from the Lions because they didn't have a passing game to the Buccaneer (because they didn't have a passing game). It's just ludicrous.

Destiny is the Philadelphia Eagles of the gaming world. Just like the Eagles, it has it's fans, who are die hard, who will always defend it, who will always believe the hype. With each announcement they get all excited, and hype, because they think it validates all of their faith, no matter how misplaced. And again, just like the Eagles fans, when the hype dies down, and all the cards are laid on the table, all of that hype, and excitement ends up coming to absolutely nothing but let down. Sure, they might do good, sure, it might seem like they have a chance to do something that warrants all of that hype and excitement, but in the end, they always seem to fall short of the expectations. Who's to blame? The fans, or the team? In that aspect Destiny, AND the Eagles both fit into the same category, the team is to blame because they never deliver... in the end, they NEVER deliver.

If you are still playing Destiny, you ARE one of those people. It means you have ended up paying $120 for a $60 game. That's the simple truth, and the only way to justify doing that is if you're a fanboy for the game.

@draxtheknower: That's a pretty spot on analogy.

@rogue81: Well I'm not taking it too seriously at all. The thing is, continuity is important, and honestly it seems like it's going to be hard to keep the continuity of the last film. That's my concern.

Honestly it's not that big a deal to me, it's not like I'm a super fan of the series. I like the premise, but could take it with a grain of salt.

@rogue81: See you're getting more out of it than is there. At least this article to my knowledge, maybe I missed it, but it never said that she turned down the part. Where'd you pick that up, and is it credible? From pretty much every source, Scott didn't elaborate, he simply said "Noomi will not be returning, we're casting main characters currently" That to me is a far cry from "We wanted Noomi back but she's busy with other projects" which would be the polite way of saying she didn't want to do it.

I could speculate on why she didn't return. Maybe she caught an STD. Maybe she has cancer and is in chemo, maybe she having gender reassignment surgery. See it's pretty easy to just say something when you have not a shred of evidence to support it.

@rogue81: I couldn't disagree more. I didn't view prometheus as a sole survivor movie, I viewed it as an alien origins movie. A film which depicts just how the Alien came to be, and all of this would eventually lead up to the first alien film.

Taking Dr.Shaw out of it begs to ask the simple question, "She didn't die, as we saw at the end of the last film, then where is she?" If they didn't want or intend on bringing her back, then why did they leave her alive at the end. It just doesn't make any sense, it's a loose end. It would be like ending Rocky when the bell on the final round rang, without seeing who won or lost. What was the point of the fight? The last movie ends with Shaw going to the engineers home planet, or at least attempting to, so what's the result of that? Did she make it? Didn't she? If she didn't what happened to prevent it? If she did, what happened to her. How did the engineers receive her, where they hostile as the initial contact was, or were they more cordial? Did the initial engineer treat them the way he did because he was a soldier on a mission, or were they trying to exterminate mankind, if they were, why? When they see Shaw, provided she makes it to their planet, will they try to wipe out human life again?

See this adds so many questions, questions that without Shaw and the continuation of her story line won't be answered.

@wasteland2058: I couldn't agree more. These "engineers" weren't just space travelers. It's pretty clear, at least to me that the place was a base, or bio weapons lab. In either case, that last "engineer" would have been well aware of what could be. The last thing he'd be doing would be running right into areas he has no idea what was contained within. It's just plan dumb.

@lergoff: Maybe they're planning to recast Dr.Shaw as a black man, you know... for diversity. They want to avoid Spike Lee calling them "too white"

I thought prometheus was pretty good, it was a good setup for the next movie. The problem is why? Why would you recast the only survivor of the previous movie? It's going to be just another movie which recasts it's main character making it harder to immerse yourself in. It's hard enough to get into a movie, let alone getting into a movie in which the lead character looks different from the previous same character. I can't imagine Terminator recasting Arnold, or Rocky recasting. Yes, they are more iconic, but it's the same principle. There is one Rocky, just as there is one Dr. Shaw.

@dkjenvey: Really? I hate to have to actually point this out, but if this gen has passed it's second anniversary, which in fact it has, then it's not entering it's third year, it's already in it. Entering the third year isn't saying it's been three years, it's saying it's been over two. If you just had your birthday, you're no longer that age, you are now entering your next year, as in you are OVER that age. If you are over 2 years old, you are entering the third year. It's the same as the century mark, we're in the 21st century, not the 20th. Getting how it works now?

English lesson aside, I realize GTA won't be getting a new iteration anytime soon, it was just an example. As for TES, word has it that they're already working on a new one, I take that with a grain of salt, but since Bethesda is far from a small developer, and had their first solo presser at E3 that it's highly possible, if not probable that they're working on TES or another franchise. No one saw Fallout coming last year, so that means it was under development for quite some time without anyone even knowing, it's just as likely a new TES title could be under such close wraps.

As for the "consoles are dead" I don't prescribe to that as a reason why there's a deficit of titles compared to last gen, because if you remember, prior to last gen, there were just as many stories about how console games were gead. In fact that's been an ongoing sentiment for quite a few generations.