Mr Moose
Member
I've heard that they are taking the criticism pretty hard internally.

I've heard that they are taking the criticism pretty hard internally.
"A lot to do" makes me think of all the side missions and activities in San Andreas for example, vehicle types, what can be leveled up, hidden collectables. Rather than thinking about how may variations there are when it comes to killing people. Once again, semantics.
So, the game is going to be that expansive in possible scenarios?I admit, I went into my E3 demo with no idea what to expect and came out excited.
Really. Well, I suppose whatever helps Monolith gets by these days.They've been honest about it too. They straight up have said in interviews "We play as many games as we can, and we build the strongest elements into our own, with our own unique spin".
If that makes a good game I'm all for standing on the shoulders of giants.
Whilst it's understandable, it's how they react to it that's the important part. If they just bury their heads in the sand and go 'nooooope' that's no good to anyone and not what I expect from Bungie.
If they just look at all the feedback (and I'm assuming the harshest criticisms would be on their own forums) and get to work on 'fixing' things then improvements can be made and the game can be better.
My only problem in this equation is Activision. I don't have any doubts with Bungie wanting to improve things but are they under a tight schedule ? Can they take the time to do big patches/make any huge improvements etc. I hope so and expect so.
I'm not seeing the semantics here. Never played San Andreas so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Okay? What did he say wrong?
This is proof that Sony didn't need to kill off Santa Monica's MMO FPS in favor of Destiny.
No. They're disgusting games.Did you play GTA IV or GTA V by chance?
I dunno, I think I'm reading it in a different way than you are. For that specific comment, I think Urk was trying to say we were just getting started. As in, you'll have much more of everything (strikes, story, and so on), even though it's only four planets.Mostly the "breadth and scope of activities, beta was waterwings" stuff. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the game, but expansive it's not. Beta pretty much defined the next 3 planets.
Who said it was an MMO or an FPS?This is proof that Sony didn't need to kill off Santa Monica's MMO FPS in favor of Destiny.
No.
I dunno, I think I'm reading it in a different way than you are. For that specific comment, I think Urk was trying to say we were just getting started. As in, you'll have much more of everything (strikes, story, and so on), even though it's only four planets.
And then of course there's Bungie support for the game post-release.
Ofcourse. Diablo's loot is more frequent and accessible on the fly. Seeing a beam cracks me up and its a Legendary item. A green beam is a green item. Go in menu, hold square and presto.
Now Destiny. Finally dat Legendary engram eh? Go to the fucking decrypter and endure a loading screen to boot... to find out its just some fucking rare or item. Fucking waste of time. And whats more, due to the frequency of loot it might be another few hours before the next piece of loot drops thats likely crappy again. I start to hate that fucking tower.
AVGN should review this in the future; 'what were they thinking?'.
There are strikes, explore, pvp, the raid, story missions. It's plenty of stuff to me it's been five days and I'm not even through half of the game's content I figure.
I still don't see why Urk's comment was posted. He didn't say anything that was factually untrue.
I think this is a game we will have to look back at a long while from now to be able to evaluate critically. The launch was just enough to keep us entertained until new stuff is added.
I'm okay with that.
Bungie held back review copies. They knew.
No. They're disgusting games.
I think this is a game we will have to look back at a long while from now to be able to evaluate critically. The launch was just enough to keep us entertained until new stuff is added.
I'm okay with that.
So....does this prove that publishers dont pay for high review scores for AAA games?
No. They're disgusting games.
I dunno, I think I'm reading it in a different way than you are. For that specific comment, I think Urk was trying to say we were just getting started. As in, you'll have much more of everything (strikes, story, and so on), even though it's only four planets.
And then of course there's Bungie support for the game post-release.
![]()
For consumers, I suppose I see how this is funny, but Monolith is down the street from Bungie. Can't imagine anyone at Monolith (as opposed to WB) feels good about this. None of this need matter to most of you, but the devs here know the perspective. I know I'd never want marketing to promote a product I worked on at the expense of another. (Please don't bite, I'm speaking with my dev hat on here.)
How do you think the Watch_Dogs team felt when this popped up?![]()
For consumers, I suppose I see how this is funny, but Monolith is down the street from Bungie. Can't imagine anyone at Monolith (as opposed to WB) feels good about this. None of this need matter to most of you, but the devs here know the perspective. I know I'd never want marketing to promote a product I worked on at the expense of another. (Please don't bite, I'm speaking with my dev hat on here.)
I don't think you're saying anything here to counter my point. In sum, depending on a person's tastes, each game can entertain people for different amounts of time. Well, yeah. Thus this doesn't make Urk's comments any less true. I can play through everything, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm done or bored with the content.Sorry, but if you haven't played half the game's available content in five days, you've been taking you're good old time. I can play Wolfenstein reeeeeally slowly and maybe have 10% of the ~10 hour campaign done in five days; that doesn't mean that there's plenty of content in Wolfenstein. Honestly, it would take 20 hours at MOST to experience Destiny's launch content.
As I recall, that thread was mostly worried about how much stuff there was to do with only four planets. Urk addressed that.Now, the problem with Urk's comment. It's not that he lied; it's that he wasn't honest with the criticisms. Everyone was worried about whether or not there was really only one area per planet and only four areas total; that's what the entire thread was about. So he came in and offered no quells for our worries. He said so much but at the same time said nothing.
I think the way those games treat women is horrible. Hence my statement and why I don't play them.Those are pretty harsh words. I feel if I described Destiny as being disgusting due to personal reasons without ever playing it I'd get posters circling around me, ready to fuck me up.
Note: I don't think Destiny is disgusting.
I thought it seemed far fetched at the time but seeing how big a bet Sony has placed on density makes it seem a plausible factor. I'm sure the game also can't have been shaping too well if they were willing to cut their losses and can it 3 years into development.I don't think that was the reason.
They've never paid for high review scores, but publishers like EA have tended to instead blacklist publications from preview events, not provide them with the same access to information, etc. to put them at a disadvantage. "Oh, you want X? Shouldn't have given our game such a low score, then." There's a fine line reviewers need to walk between burning bridges and providing the truth to their readers. Some publishers like to engage in a form of blackmailing.So....does this prove that publishers dont pay for high review scores for AAA games?
No. They're disgusting games.
I dunno, I think I'm reading it in a different way than you are. For that specific comment, I think Urk was trying to say we were just getting started. As in, you'll have much more of everything (strikes, story, and so on), even though it's only four planets.
And then of course there's Bungie support for the game post-release.
They will bring the dlcs and will tell us that everything will get better.Whilst it's understandable, it's how they react to it that's the important part. If they just bury their heads in the sand and go 'nooooope' that's no good to anyone and not what I expect from Bungie.
If they just look at all the feedback (and I'm assuming the harshest criticisms would be on their own forums) and get to work on 'fixing' things then improvements can be made and the game can be better.
My only problem in this equation is Activision. I don't have any doubts with Bungie wanting to improve things but are they under a tight schedule ? Can they take the time to do big patches/make any huge improvements etc. I hope so and expect so.
How do you think the Watch_Dogs team felt when this popped up?
![]()
The problem I have with that comment is that although yes, we will have much more of everything, it's much more of the SAME thing. There's very little variation in the mission structure and encounters.
The problem I have with that comment is that although yes, we will have much more of everything, it's much more of the SAME thing. There's very little variation in the mission structure and encounters.
I don't think that was the reason.
Who said it was an MMO or an FPS?
Disappointing reviews but not really shocking. This game had way too much hype to live up to.
Ultimately, it's a consumer concern and I don't think you should care. I know how this shit feels on the other side is all. I'm sure both teams get along great and have something else to talk about at the monthly beer hall meet.
This is such a hard game to score. It's fun, pretty and has tight gunplay mechanics I find. However, it feels so hollow and is quite repetitive, plus also lacks a wow factor.
Yeah. I'm glad I'm not a reviewer. It has so many flaws, but I'm still addicted to it, will buy all the DLC, and can't wait for a full on sequel where they hopefully show they've learned from all the mistakes they're being called on now. It's so good and so bad at the same time.
![]()
For consumers, I suppose I see how this is funny, but Monolith is down the street from Bungie. Can't imagine anyone at Monolith (as opposed to WB) feels good about this. None of this need matter to most of you, but the devs here know the perspective. I know I'd never want marketing to promote a product I worked on at the expense of another. (Please don't bite, I'm speaking with my dev hat on here.)
I know what their project was, I was only addressing that they never said anything about an MMO or FPS.Although the rumor was shut down by Cory Balrog himself, I think what he was referring to was the SSM project that shared similar cues from Destiny. SONY was afraid that the bigger budgeted game would take away from SSM's IP.
They've never paid for high review scores, but publishers like EA have tended to instead blacklist publications from preview events, not provide them with the same access to information, etc. to put them at a disadvantage. "Oh, you want X? Shouldn't have given our game such a low score, then." There's a fine line reviewers need to walk between burning bridges and providing the truth to their readers. Some publishers like to engage in a form of blackmailing.
Power in unity. Stay tight, hold hands, give many hugs and use the criticisms to positively influence game design.![]()
For consumers, I suppose I see how this is funny, but Monolith is down the street from Bungie. Can't imagine anyone at Monolith (as opposed to WB) feels good about this. None of this need matter to most of you, but the devs here know the perspective. I know I'd never want marketing to promote a product I worked on at the expense of another. (Please don't bite, I'm speaking with my dev hat on here.)
So....does this prove that publishers dont pay for high review scores for AAA games?