Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

I find it incredibly dumb that sites are trying to judge Destiny as if it were a static, final experience not even a week after release.

I mean, I know the game has problems currently, but isn't the whole point of the product to provide a platform that offers new content on a regular basis instead of rushing out a SP campaign and trying to capitalize on PvP map packs? The current structure of AAA game reviews isn't able to account for that. By this time next year the entire review text could be completely outdated and not represent what the game actually is at that time. There needs to be some kind of flexible rating system that will serve this type of game better.

This would be a fair criticism of a review of a properly large MMORPG, but that's not the case with Destiny. At launch, it is absolutely tiny. People are reviewing it based on all of the content that is currently available. That's the point of a review. Not to review it for its future potential, but for what is currently available.

 

[Orayn]

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc

it is NOT an MMO

Gonna keep beating this drum: It falls into basically the same category as whatever you consider Guild Wars 1 and Phantasy Star Online to be. Some say those are MMOs, some don't. I just say Destiny is set up similar to those games and leave it at that.

 

[Synth]

Content: The amount of specified material contained.
Destiny has four, fairly large, explorable areas, strike missions, a raid and a multiplayer with 11 maps and 6 gamemodes. Compared to the amount of content available in MGS Ground zeroes, Infamous second son and Titanfall, that's a lot. Now define "satire" for me.

satire
ˈsatʌɪə/
noun
noun: satire

the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

e.g. What someone would suspect you to be using when claiming the amount of raw content in a game should be a driving force in the score for that game. Like saying that Phantasy Star Universe should score higher than Uncharted 2 as it has more "content".

 

[Frologic]

I wonder if Bungie will address scores/criticisms in their next media update, or if they're going to ignore that.

Looks like they might have to go to the bottom of the barrel and quote cheatcodecentral for some positive press.

 

[NervousXtian]

You know another thing that get's me... when you have stuff in your world that just doesn't react.

There's bags hanging from the ceiling by rope. Yet you can shot them, stab them, run in to them... they don't move. Completely static.

This big of a budget, make the world feel alive.. at least a little.

It's really one thing Metro did such a great job of.. it felt like I was in the subway.

 

[Vire]

I don't really get most of the reviews, the moment to moment gameplay is really fun, the world's are beautiful and the music is superb.

Aren't those the most important things?...

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You know another thing that get's me... when you have stuff in your world that just doesn't react.

There's bags hanging from the ceiling by rope. Yet you can shot them, stab them, run in to them... they don't move. Completely static.

This big of a budget, make the world feel alive.. at least a little.

It's really one thing Metro did such a great job of.. it felt like I was in the subway.

I'm sure they prioritized performance over having any kind of physics. It sucks that they couldn't have both. Not having physics for environmental objects in an action game in 2014 is just kind of sad, especially considering the budget.

 

[Zakalwe]

As much as I don't get the comparison between Destiny and more straight-up action focused games, this is very well put.

I think it's very clear Destiny has tonnes more content than Titanfall. The post you quoted is stretching considerably.

I don't really get most of the reviews, the moment to moment gameplay is really fun, the world's are beautiful and the music is superb.

Aren't those the most important things?...

It's the most important part yes, and Destiny has that nailed. Pretty much all the other concerns can be fixed or patched in if Bungie see fit.

 

[Nocturno999]

the insane AAA hype machine 500 mill for medicore stuff should stop.

I wonder if that's the main concern and why many people are even thanking reviewers for giving these low scores.

 

[oneils]

I think it's very clear Destiny has tonnes content than Titanfall. The post you quoted is stretching considerably.

tonnes less or tonnes more?

 

[MR ARCADE FOREVER]

Remember guys gamestop is paying $40 for Destiny until October 6 in case you don't like the game

 

[Icyflamez96]

"Don't worry everyone, forget about Destiny, because Destiny 2 is going to be the tits!" How are people saying this already when the game hasn't even been out a week?

What do you mean? For those who love the game as it is and still agrees with all of the criticism and flaws, it's only natural to increase anticipation for the next one as hopefully it will fine tune a loved yet flawed formula.

 

[Brakke]

I'm sure they prioritized performance over having any kind of physics. It sucks that they couldn't have both. Not having physics for environmental objects in an action game in 2014 is just kind of sad, especially considering the budget.

Well sure, that's a fine decision... as long as don't also make the decision to include objects that look like they should react to force.

 

[GalacticSushiman]

All those reviews - judging the game for what it isn't instead of reviewing Destiny for what it is - are mind bogling. Bah, that's what you get for promising the moon I guess

 

[jesu]

Exactly. It cribs just about everything from MMORPG design school, but doesn't gel the elements together in a way that is satisfying or well done.

It misses out the massive multiplayer part though.

 

[Zakalwe]

tonnes less or tonnes more?

More!

Damnit!

 

[diaspora]

I can only guess at the discrepancy but I think the Titanfall scores are as they are because Respawn was always pretty open that there was no single player campaign and that it would only be a 6vs6 pvp game. The game met peoples' expectations - a solid shooter and it got scores to match that.

Destiny, however, was marketed as something else entirely. Expectations were really high and I think the fact that it didn't quite live up to those expectations hurt its scores.

More than that, Titanfall does what it does better than Destiny. I feel like Bungie was just trying to do too much at once, and ended up with sour parts to the game rather scaling back and doing a better job with less.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It misses out the massive multiplayer part though.

Most proper MMORPGs these days do, too.

The things you do in this game are very much taken from the post-WoW MMO landscape. Mostly the worst elements like long faction grinds making up the end game content.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

All those reviews - judging the game for what it isn't instead of reviewing Destiny for what it is - are mind bogling. Bah, that's what you get for promising the moon I guess

Which ones are judging it for what it isn't?

 

[Alebelly]

I find it incredibly dumb that sites are trying to judge Destiny as if it were a static, final experience not even a week after release.

I mean, I know the game has problems currently, but isn't the whole point of the product to provide a platform that offers new content on a regular basis instead of rushing out a SP campaign and trying to capitalize on PvP map packs? The current structure of AAA game reviews isn't able to account for that. By this time next year the entire review text could be completely outdated and not represent what the game actually is at that time. There needs to be some kind of flexible rating system that will serve this type of game better.

They accounted for it remarkably well

I'm baffled that people think this game is something no one has encountered before

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

I agree a flexible system would be good.
But how are reviewers supposed to review it NOW? Do you believe it should not be reviewed yet, or people should review it by imagining how good the additional content will be?

This would be a fair criticism of a review of a properly large MMORPG, but that's not the case with Destiny. At launch, it is absolutely tiny. People are reviewing it based on all of the content that is currently available. That's the point of a review. Not to review it for its future potential, but for what is currently available.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't evaluate/criticize it now; my problem is that the structure of their

Spoiler

GameSpot's

review is built around judging static products. Doing a quick write up called "Destiny: Launch Impressions" and forgoing a number grade would be better than rushing through the game's current state and applying a unchanging */10 score to it.

 

[cilonen]

It is not an end product. That's what every single review seems to fail to understand.

But again, if they all said the same thing, they wouldn't get the clicks.

Absolutely. I think the game also asks it's players to buy into the world. The story is just a vehicle to get you as a player familiarised with the environments and up to speed as a guardian close to level 20 by the end of it.

The real game is you, as a guardian, out there on the front lines fighting random events, strikes, raids and getting loot - and that is where the game will shine in future. I think that is the game they wanted to make and that is the persistence they are hoping for. They've not done a brilliant job of selling this as a concept though.

 

[ViviOggi]

Game is released at full price yet you still aren't allowed to review it according to way too many people. Marketing team deserves a raise.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

They accounted for it remarkably well

I'm baffled that people think this game is something no one has encountered before

This whole thread is a clusterfuck. I don't see why so many are personally attaching themselves to the game in a way where criticism is suddenly now an offensive thing on GAF.

 

[-Snooze-]

A lot of the destiny apologists seem to think reviewers should review a game based on promises as opposed to what's on the disc for the 40 quid we spent.

The game could become excellent in a year's time with added content etc, but ill have to pay extra for that.

They can only review what Bungie saw fit to sell us and atm it's a fun albeit extremely flawed game

 

[coolasj19]

You guys know what's fun? Warlock + Teleport + Shotgun.
Run towards person gungho, jump, teleport, turn in air, shotgun in back. It's feels sooooo good. Also even better is side teleporting behind a shotgun camper in a corner, while you're coming through a doorway and getting the hard jump on them. The map designs also come to life with Teleport, all the distances are very measured and you have to jump very specifically to get across the map with Teleport but when you do... travel time is cut by at least a third.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

FOR THE 978575746546467758648776847657th time

it is NOT an MMO

It almost certainly is. It apparently just doesn't do a very good job of putting all the vitally important pieces together.

 

[Izuna]

More!

Damnit!

Funny you wrote tonne instead of ton...

Look I'm not saying Destiny doesn't have more for a player to do than in Titanfall, because yeah, despite how awesome the gameplay is in Titanfall, and how many different strategies you have to use to be decent at the game etc. it doesn't count as "content".

But like with my reply, content means f all. Spiral Knights, PSO, Diablo 1 all have more "content" than Destiny. If content in the sense of how many different kinds of the same weapon you can pick up, with different skins and missions to play through the same areas and kill the same enemies are concerned (run on sentence sorry), then Destiny really has some of the least amount of content of any online RPG, MMO or otherwise.

Only thing that stops Destiny from being absolute crap is that it plays well, quite a lot like Halo actually, but for some reason TheGameChanger wants to discount gameplay and storytelling etc. from what should deserve a game of a high score.

 

[Trey]

I find it incredibly dumb that sites are trying to judge Destiny as if it were a static, final experience not even a week after release.

I mean, I know the game has problems currently, but isn't the whole point of the product to provide a platform that offers new content on a regular basis instead of rushing out a SP campaign and trying to capitalize on PvP map packs? The current structure of AAA game reviews isn't able to account for that. By this time next year the entire review text could be completely outdated and not represent what the game actually is at that time. There needs to be some kind of flexible rating system that will serve this type of game better.

It's called updating the review. Or reviewing the game again.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't evaluate/criticize it now; my problem is that the structure of their

Spoiler

GameSpot's

review is built around judging static products. Doing a quick write up called "Destiny: Launch Impressions" and forgoing a number grade would be better than rushing through the game's current state and applying a unchanging */10 score to it.

This is only an issue if you are personally invested in a game's Metacritic score.

When you put out a game and are charging money for it, your product is fair game for review at that time.

Why should the fact that a game will be updated mean it deserves special treatment when it's charging the same money as other products?

I am fine with revisiting products and updating reviews down the line, but it's on the developer and publisher to put out a compelling product that is worth the price when they launch it.

 

[Izuna]

It almost certainly is. It apparently just doesn't do a very good job of putting all the vitally important pieces together.

Considering you can't trade or even interact with other characters, what part of Destiny is massively multiplayer? Only the tower is? But that has a maximum of about 20 people right?

Guild Wars 1 isn't an MMO for the same reason that you can only actually play with up to 8 people at endgame.

MSN groups is more of an MMO than Destiny. At least we could play Tic Tac To and interact with up to 100 online users...

 

[TheGameChanger]

Let me break this down for you.

Four large worlds.
In each world, there is a world of area.
In each world of area, there are missions in that world.
There will soon be, in about a week, another mission to do in one of those areas.

Now, Multiplayer has 11 maps, half or so of which are from the world of area from above, so let's say we have 6+4... 10 different looking areas, and 6 of them are exclusive to PvP. Oh yeah, 6 different rule sets for each 6 areas for PvP...

Titanfall came out with ~13 maps, all different looking areas, actually more different kinds of weapons, a ton of burn cards to change up the gameplay, and roughly 4 (the rest don't count) different ways to play in those maps.

Oh we also had Titans, so there were two whole different ways to move, gunset, w/e to play in this 13 maps with 4 modes.

--

Look in terms of content, assuming you are still serious that content should determine a games' score and nothing else, Destiny doesn't have much. If it didn't have levelling, it would be the smallest game ever. Locking off loot and having the same enemies with a bigger number on their head is not content.

--

This thread has given me more fun than Destiny.

What the fuck did I just read? When did I ever say that the amount of content should be the only thing that games should be reviewed on. The quality of content is more important to me than the quantity. I am just saying a lot of review sites are complaining about the amount of quality content available in Destiny after overrating many games with much less content. And I just absolutely love how you broke down Destiny's content. Destiny launched with more content than Titanfall. That's a fact. You can say otherwise all you want but that fact is not changing. You can argue about the quality, but not the quantity. Destiny's multiplayer maps may be set in one of the explorable planets as a theme but they are build separately and you can't find any of them in the explorable areas. There are 11 maps and you can't just change that into 6. And if we are really bringing in the the type of guns here, then destiny again beats Titanfall. Titanfall launched with like 11 guns. Destiny has far more. And if we count as ways of playing as different content like you just did with titans(I don't agree with this fyi). Then Destiny has 5 ways of playing. Hunter, Titan, Warlock, Interceptors and Spikes. Titanfall launched with a tutorial campaign set on the multiplayer maps and severely lacked gamemodes for a multiplayer only game.

Edit: Since different looks is your main criteria in judging the amount of maps there are in this game, does that mean Destiny has 22 maps since there is a day n night cycle for each one of them? And holy shit, I just realized you don't count multilayer game modes as content.

 

[Icyflamez96]

It almost certainly is. It apparently just doesn't do a very good job of putting all the vitally important pieces together.

You don't know what an MMO is.

It's about player count, not specifically the structure of the game. Planetside 2 is an MMO. This is not.

 

[blackflag]

I resemble this quote. I'm having fun with the pvp. Story was nonsense but I still had fun the mechanics themselves are solid but I totally don't disagree that it should be scored low.

 

[Alebelly]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't evaluate/criticize it now; my problem is that the structure of their

Spoiler

GameSpot's

review is built around judging static products. Doing a quick write up called "Destiny: Launch Impressions" and forgoing a number grade would be better than rushing through the game's current state and applying a unchanging */10 score to it.

Nothing is static in any media industry, Bungie knows that better than most. You need to form a more cogent argument. Its ok to think, reassess, let go, come back stronger

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't evaluate/criticize it now; my problem is that the structure of their

Spoiler

GameSpot's

review is built around judging static products. Doing a quick write up called "Destiny: Launch Impressions" and forgoing a number grade would be better than rushing through the game's current state and applying a unchanging */10 score to it.

GameSpot has adapted the multiple reviews down the line though. They'll likely have another review of Destiny at the latest a year's time.

But they can only review what is there now. GAF was in an uproar at how the Xbox One was getting good hardware reviews due to 'potential' and 'ambition'. And while there are some eye brow raising in regards to reviews on Titanfall in the media, no one on GAF was like "b...but...DLC!". It was what the game was, and a lot of different people had different opinions on if what was there was sound.

So why is the standard being switched now? Some of it by the very same people crying out about a switch of standard in the media.

 

[QaaQer]

Exactly. It cribs just about everything from MMORPG design school, but doesn't gel the elements together in a way that is satisfying or well done.

It was conceived around the time everyone had major WoW envy, right? Maybe they were making a full blown mmorpgfps and decided to change focus before production ramped up, around the time SWTOR hit and Curt Schilling went bankrupt. Hence, we lose an m and get a morpgfps, and one with only a couple years of real dev time.

I also read that they originally wanted Destiny to be a fantasy game in that Destiny themed, PR-drenched Newsweek. So I'm guessing this game had some development hell.

 

[SirCrush]

Idunno...I'm having a blast with the game. Reviewers seem to be coming from a place where they know they won't be able to immerse themselves and will have to move on to the next review in a week or two so are judging it based on that. This ain't a game where you play through it and have a sense of what it is. Not even remotely. I've taken the week off so have probably played more than any of the reviewers have (Me no sleepy ) and I still don't feel like I've done everything, only tasted it.

I suspect that word of mouth is going to keep this game thriving. Sure, there are a lot of naysayers, regurgitators, and "disappointed" people out there but at least as far as my friends list goes, everyone is playing the holy hell out of Destiny and loving it. I gotta believe that isn't anomalistic but more likely a representation of the larger public whereas a certain niche but highly influential - and loud - group might make this game seem like less than it is.

Glad it's selling well, anyhow. I see a lot of room for improvement. But that would be improvement on a game that has me hooked and having more fun than I have in quite awhile in a video game.

 

[captmorgan]

Wow reviewers really don't like having to wait to play the game at the same time as everyone else.

 

[ironcreed]

A lot of the destiny apologists seem to think reviewers should review a game based on promises as opposed to what's on the disc for the 40 quid we spent.

The game could become excellent in a year's time with added content etc, but ill have to pay extra for that.

They can only review what Bungie saw fit to sell us and atm it's a fun albeit extremely flawed game

In a nutshell.

 

[TheGameChanger]

e.g. What someone would suspect you to be using when claiming the amount of raw content in a game should be a driving force in the score for that game. Like saying that Phantasy Star Universe should score higher than Uncharted 2 as it has more "content".

Who is claiming that? Would love to know. And again, how is that satire? The definition is right in front of you.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

It's called updating the review. Or reviewing the game again.

What outlet does this outside of Polygon and Kotaku? I know that GameSpot doesn't.

This is only an issue if you are personally invested in a game's Metacritic score.

When you put out a game and are charging money for it, your product is fair game for review at that time.

Why should the fact that a game will be updated mean it deserves special treatment when it's charging the same money as other products?

I am fine with revisiting products and updating reviews down the line, but it's on the developer and publisher to put out a compelling product that is worth the price when they launch it.

Because the product that Destiny is (An MMO with a flat entry fee versus monthly charges/F2P) is incompatible with the review style that most outlets use to judge console games (Play through a static campaign, dabble in multiplayer, assign score and move on to the next release). That's why I'm saying that they should give their impressions of the game RIGHT NOW and label it as such instead of reviewing it like an unchanging retail product.

 

[Heroman]

All those reviews - judging the game for what it isn't instead of reviewing Destiny for what it is - are mind bogling. Bah, that's what you get for promising the moon I guess

But if you judge destiny for it is you have a mediocre fps with some shitty mmo stuff.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

No Jeff, you don't understand. None of those people have actually played the game. They bought into the hype, conspired to create a trend of the new fab thing that is criticizing Destiny, and truly just hate the game and can't possibly be enjoying it.

You shouldn't even be talking Jeff. You should be enjoying the game.

What outlet does this outside of Polygon and Kotaku? I know that GameSpot doesn't.

Yes, they do. I don't know all the games they've done it for. But they have done it for Bioshock Infinite, which wasn't a game that benefitted from it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Considering you can't trade or even interact with other characters, what part of Destiny is massively multiplayer? Only the tower is? But that has a maximum of about 20 people right?

Guild Wars 1 isn't an MMO for the same reason that you can only actually play with up to 8 people at endgame.

MSN groups is more of an MMO than Destiny. At least we could play Tic Tac To and interact with up to 100 online users...

Have you played an MMORPG?

This is very much structured like one.

The missions are all structured like instanced dungeons in MMORPGs. Same with the non-instanced over world. The randomly spawning chests. The "camps" of enemies that respawn on a timer and are always exactly the same with the occasional rare spawn of a named enemy. The PvP system is pretty much just different Battlegrounds. It's complete with grinding faction currency to get PvP-unique gear.

Everything about it is extremely like a traditional post-WoW MMORPG, except they are missing a ton of basic features for one reason or another. It's also severely lacking in content compared to traditional MMORPGs. I'm not sure that means it shouldn't be treated like one.

Also, people using the "it's not massive" argument must not be playing many recent MMORPGs with their smaller group and raid player counts and incessant use of instancing to make the worlds feel smaller. Destiny probably even lets you access a much larger pool of players than most server-based MMORPGs these days. You just have no easy way to communicate with any of them in Destiny.

 

[Aaron]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't evaluate/criticize it now; my problem is that the structure of their

Spoiler

GameSpot's

review is built around judging static products. Doing a quick write up called "Destiny: Launch Impressions" and forgoing a number grade would be better than rushing through the game's current state and applying a unchanging */10 score to it.

It's not a free to play game. The purpose of a review is telling people is it worth their $60 now, which is what Bungie is charging for it. If Bungie doesn't think it's worth reviewing now, that means it's not worth buying now. They chose to sell it in this state, and so it should be judged in this state.

 

[Papercuts]

A lot of the reviews are talking about the significant issues the game has just from a design standpoint. Content is only one part of it, and it can be updated/added to, but I don't see anything wrong with evaluating what's on the game people are paying money for.

 

[cilonen]

It was conceived around the time everyone had major WoW envy, right? Maybe they were making a full blown mmorpgfps and decided to change focus before production ramped up, around the time SWTOR hit and Curt Schilling went bankrupt. Hence, we lose an m and get a morpgfps, and one with only a couple years of real dev time.

I also read that they originally wanted Destiny to be a fantasy game in that Destiny themed, PR-drenched Newsweek. So I'm guessing this game had some development hell.

It has to have spent time in development hell. It feels pretty obvious to me playing it that it's been there.

Halo, if I remember right, did too. Wasn't the original Halo concept a multiplayer Sci-Fi themed RTS for the Mac?

Maybe it's just the process Bungie goes through, but I think this feels like it's been through the mill a little more than usual.

 

[Norns]

Have you played an MMORPG?

This is very much structured like one.

The missions are all structured like instanced dungeons in MMORPGs. Same with the non-instanced over world. The randomly spawning chests. The "camps" of enemies that respawn on a timer and are always exactly the same with the occasional rare spawn of a named enemy. The PvP system is pretty much just different Battlegrounds. It's complete with grinding faction currency to get PvP-unique gear.

Everything about it is extremely like a traditional post-WoW MMORPG, except they are missing a ton of basic features for one reason or another. It's also severely lacking in content compared to traditional MMORPGs. I'm not sure that means it shouldn't be treated like one.

Also, people using the "it's not massive" argument must not be playing many recent MMORPGs with their smaller group and raid player counts and incessant use of instancing to make the worlds feel smaller. Destiny probably even lets you access a much larger pool of players than most server-based MMORPGs these days. You just have no easy way to communicate with any of them in Destiny.

Have you played a mmo other than WoW? Just curious.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Because the product that Destiny is (An MMO with a flat entry fee versus monthly charges/F2P) is incompatible with the review style that most outlets use to judge console games (Play through a static campaign, dabble in multiplayer, assign score and move on to the next release). That's why I'm saying that they should give their impressions of the game RIGHT NOW and label it as such instead of reviewing it like an unchanging retail product.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what reviews are supposed to be. Nothing about them is incompatible with games that receive regular updates.

They are evaluations of the product at or near the time of its release. Thats all.

They can comment on the potential of the product, but the base release version needs to be good for it to receive a good evaluation. What is wrong with that? Reviews were never meant to be the absolute final word on a product that may receive updates. Simply the reviewers evaluation at the time of the review.

You seem caught up on the fact that a score is being given.

Have you played a mmo other than WoW? Just curious.

Yes. Just about every single one that has been released in the west (and plenty more to boot). I admit I don't touch a ton of games that start out as f2p, though.

If it matters, EverQuest is probably my favorite game ever made. It dominated my gaming time from 1999 - 2002 or so.