Destiny review copies being sent out one day before release, impacting review dates
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
eh not necessarily if all your game info is saved server side, generally most of it is done by saving their character to a memory card and modding on pc.
WrenchNinja
Member
I don't know, I read some pretty compelling stuff about how Diablo 3 was basically an MMO and turned out that it wasn't. None of that really sounds like it requires an always online connection.
fastballspecial
Member
This makes sense. The game has to be played in the proper environment for impressions to be of a high quality, whether positive or negative.
I think a lot of that depends on how much of the game runs locally. Either way, it'll be a lot easier to detect and ban.
originalself
Neo Member
Everyone had a chance to play and decide for themselves. Review is a trivially at this point.
While I agree that it doesn't all require a constant connection, I think it changes things enough that Bungie would be justified in making it always-online if they think that's what's best for the game. You're free to disagree with that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Destiny being online is strictly a DRM thing.
byron_hinson
Member
Hopefully means they won't all over-rate it like they did with Titanfall.
Seemingly the biggest issue is the amount of unique content in the game at launch which you can't infer from the alpha or the beta.
I agree. If console Diablo is what we could expect from an offline Destiny then I can't say I have any problem with the online requirement.
Death Metalist
Member
Typical Activision but whatever LOL, already have the Ghost edition pre-ordered from Amazon.
That makes sense. A review about an experience consisting entirely of a low population would be worthless.
All this plus this game was designed to run on 10 year old hardware. Only thing new consoles get is a graphics upgrade, nothing more.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I think after the alpha and beta test you can assume if you liked what you played there will be more of the same thing. The reviewer will be like one of us now. Heck, they might even write better reviews, no offense. How many hours can you spend in something like that and hate the thing at the final product? The product would need to fail on every single level faster than it did in the beta.
I've never read a single Halo review. I've completed all the major releases. I think it only matters if these guys weren't Bungie. lol Right? Even though I've played games for 20+ years I still know that a game will come out with terrible gameplay over what we were previously shown, so I'm not putting them down.
I've never read a single Halo review. I've completed all the major releases. I think it only matters if these guys weren't Bungie. lol Right? Even though I've played games for 20+ years I still know that a game will come out with terrible gameplay over what we were previously shown, so I'm not putting them down.
hoopvillian
Banned
After all the shitting on by the journalists in the gaming industry the past few weeks, you guys still want to read their reviews?
My read is they want the reviews to take place in the context of a populated game world. Thus, players need to be present to really review the game.
Wow, right after the Polygon announcement, trying to get out in front of it all.
Probably a good idea.
Kalamari
Member
As with any new game, I think people will like it at first, but once the newness wears off they will start to say they hate it. Story mode doesn't look that interesting to have any serious replay value, strikes will get boring after a while, and quests to gain reputation will very grindy. The only real lasting appeal of this game will be the multiplayer, and even that is somewhat mediocre. The multiplayer could be excellent, but I feel that all of the supers really ruin what would otherwise be a fun game.
Black Mantis
Member
Not concerned at all, going by what I played in the beta.
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
This is the longest backhanded compliment I have read i some time.
The evil, corrupt press are continuing their attack on consumers by potentially not giving us their worthless paid-off reviews on time!
Could be. Either way it's a good thing for you, since this prevents another Diablo/Battlefield/SimCity fiasco where connectivity problems didn't start until launch and reviews didn't reflect that.
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
One, you can't assume that. with all that activision money, and bungie's track record with online performance out of the gate, that isn't fair. I'm a little weary of this too, but isn't it better to have accurate reviews than the likes of BF4?
Huge Succeeded
Banned
fuck these games publishers want to play with review outlets this generation
fine you do that
i won't buy your game until every single major outlet has a score up and I've seen a couple that don't sound like they were thrown together in a day to appease the shittiest publisher of all time
sketchy pricks
fine you do that
i won't buy your game until every single major outlet has a score up and I've seen a couple that don't sound like they were thrown together in a day to appease the shittiest publisher of all time
sketchy pricks
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
Wow, right after the Polygon announcement, trying to get out in front of it all.
Probably a good idea.
Hmm, what could that tweet even mean? I am even more intrigued suddenly.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Considering the positive outcome of the beta and whatnot, why not give these out by the end of the week at least, and then give out reviews on Monday?
Dr_LucienSanchez
Banned
Yeah, that's how I read it as well. Certainly isn't terrible for the consumer, and most people have been able to get a feel for the game with the alpha/beta anyway.
Except for raids.
Admiral Woofington
Member
well story missions yeah. You could also play crucible, I believe there's a 3 person team game type
The raid though you need 6 people.
It suggests that they're controlling the story. The game plays well, we know that, yet if the game content is limited you won't find that out with only a day lead time. Not with writing and editing thrown into the mix. This is effectively an NDA. The outlets who review early to get their first 24 hour clicks will probably not run into any issue that would give the review a negative edge.
There is no reason for this, given that the game went gold weeks ago.
The success of the beta rested largely on the large player count. Some of the unintended/interesting co-op moments that can occur seem to require a healthy number of people playing. They are perhaps concerned that reviews consisting of low player count / low skill interactions would not be indicative of the quality of the final product.
Although they could probably just organize a day where a number of people from Bungie and Activision are online with the final "gold bits" to play with journalists who are reviewing it via a downloaded copy. Maybe there is some logistical issue that we are not aware of.
SneakyStephan
Banned
It's going to be interesting to see how long junnalists are going to play it before they review it (all rushing to get the hits for early reviews and activision playing them like a fiddle with this date)
It'll also be interesting to see how their rushed reviews line up against people's feelings on the game after they've played it for longer.
It'll also be interesting to see how their rushed reviews line up against people's feelings on the game after they've played it for longer.
Sleepy Buddha
Member
Not a problem for me. I decided to buy it after playing the Alpha which I found very fun and lasted me longer than some full games.
And I think for people on the fence not buying day one the reviews will actually be more accurate and helpfull in this case since it's so dependant on being online.
And I think for people on the fence not buying day one the reviews will actually be more accurate and helpfull in this case since it's so dependant on being online.
base shagohod
Member
ITT: people think weary = wary.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I'm so weary of people being wary.
Yeah, and I wish more reviews turned out this way, under the scrutiny of a current user base already playing the game alongside the reviewer. When everything you write can be instantly supported or refuted by a general audience it makes it a lot harder to write up a bunch of fluff or condemn a game for something stupid when no one else had an issue.
Considering some particularly popular online games in the past, there's a chance those views could be extravagantly different from one another.
.
LumpOfCole
Member
Destiny is a game that needs live server time to be reviewed properly, doesn't it?
Kor of Memory
Member
Yes, but note that the Strikes have 2 or 3 difficulties, so the number of strikes is probably closer to 6 or 7, with 2 or 3 difficulties/variations each.
What interests me more is the "vanguard" section of that image. I'm assuming it'll be a Firefight/Horde mode type of game that we haven't even seen yet.
You can't even create a character without being connected to Bungie's servers.
As some have mentioned, this does seem like a case where Bungie wants a realistic environment for what they're trying to achieve. A couple hundred reviewers online at most and at different times does not seem like what they're trying to achieve.
Dangoesforth
Member
Maybe Bungie and Activision don't want false reviews when the servers are just for reviewers as it will be a completely different experience without the shared world.
IXIKelsonIXI
Member
That's kind of how I read it. How accurate can a review about a "Shared World Shooter" be if there is nobody for the reviewer to share the world with? So much of this game is meant to be social. Without that aspect, the review is pretty meaningless.
But please, cancel your preorders until you see IGN give it a 9. Preferably Ghost Editions, since I am still on the hunt.
Trojan
Member
Bungie is confident in their servers and this will give reviewers real-world situations to rate the game. I don't see any issue in this whatsoever. It sucks for those that always want review scores to dictate their game purchases, but i imagine review scores will start dropping by Wed/Thurs of next week so not a long wait.
Why do you think this will result in higher ratings? I would argue the opposite, in that there is a higher likelihood of servers being jammed and there is also a ton of skepticism after the BF4 review fiasco.
Why do you think this will result in higher ratings? I would argue the opposite, in that there is a higher likelihood of servers being jammed and there is also a ton of skepticism after the BF4 review fiasco.
Similar threads
- Poll