Support NeoGAF

[Absoludacrous]

If they're going to turn Destiny into something with actual legs, they need to pump out strikes and raids at a fairly decent pace separately while simultaneously developing the expansions into big, story driven pieces of content complete with new gameplay systems.

If I had to guess though, after Tuesday's raid you won't see any actual content until the expansion drops, which will probably be a new zone with a few new story missions, a couple strikes, around five crucible maps, and a raid. So basically the equivalent of one planet and maybe 5 hours of new content.

Certainly nothing to change a review over.

 

[Karl Hawk]

Story missions on a new planet?

The Dark Below focuses on the Hive (Space Zombies race), so no. There'll be new story missions centered on the Moon since that's where the bulk of the Hive lives in.

 

[JimmyRustler]

The two together are worth apparently $35 to Bungie, so now the question becomes: after playing Destiny, what does Bungie consider to be worth $35 in terms of content.

 

[Moipa]

usually this would be the case where too many cooks spoilt the broth ........except all they did was put the water on to boil

Wow that must have been 4 years of hard work lol.

Off course it doesn't mean much, we don't know for how long they were employed etc.

 

[antitrop]

TloU remastered was longer I believe. I think that was over 200?

Remastered was like 20 something pages (got a bunch of 10s again, whoop-de-doo). The PS3 version was 206.

 

[Absoludacrous]

The Dark Below focuses on the Hive (Space Zombies race), so no. There'll be new story missions centered on the Moon since that's where the bulk of the Hive lives in.

I'll admit I'm really curious to see if they change direction on how they handle story missions before they ship the first expansion.

 

[GlamFM]

The two together are worth apparently $35 to Bungie, so now the question becomes: after playing Destiny, what does Bungie consider to be worth $35 in terms of content.

Fair concern.

 

[EventHorizon]

I thought the information about releases came from the leaked Bungie-Activision contract. The years are off, but the idea was that Destiny would have 4 major releases occurring every other year. In the off-years they would release an expansion pack that they called Comets which would apply to the previous year's game. Along with all that Bungie would release the normal DLC that we are talking about now and possibly some content behind micro-transactions.

1A. Release Plan A
The release plan for the Destiny Games ("ReIease Plan") is currently comprised of four (4) major retail Destiny Game releases tentatively scheduled for the Fall of 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019 and four (4) Comet releases following each Destiny Game release tentatively scheduled for the Fall of 2014, 2016,_ 2018 and 2020. ln addition, as part of the Destiny Games Licensor shall also produce DLC Releases as mutually agreed by the parties in the time periods between retail Destiny Games and Comet releases. The expected business model for the Products is a blend of retail packaged goods sales (although the parties acknowledge and agree that the future retail model for iterations of the Destiny Games may be via digital download rather than disk or packaged goods), subscriptions, downloadable content, value-added services and micro~trarrsactions, the exact mix of which shall be determined by mutual agreement of Licensor and Activision. Pricing strategy for the Products shall be subject to mutual approval, provided in the event of a deadlock, Activision shall have the tie-breaking vote. Activision will have control and final approval over all decisions relating to retail sales and promotions, discounts, rebates, etc., provided that Activision shall meaningfully consult with Licensor on such decisions in advance.

 

[Danomeon]

I thought the information about releases came from the leaked Bungie-Activision contract. The years are off, but the idea was that Destiny would have 4 major releases occurring every other year. In the off-years they would release an expansion pack that they called Comets which would apply to the previous year's game. Along with all that Bungie would release the normal DLC that we are talking about now and possibly some content behind micro-transactions.

Do you guys think the MMORPG-esque game works with a system in which your character progress is completely wiped every few years when the company drops support for your current game in favor of a new one?

I mean, part of the reason I level up alts in games like WoW is that I know I'm playing a game that will be updated with new content for many, many years to come. That sense of permanance means building my character doesn't feel like a waste of time. I'm in it for the long haul.

If all of the time spent and progress made on my current characters is just going to go away in two years when a sequel arrives, are people going to be willing to go through the skinner box as readily as they would in a long-term MMO? Does the two-year release schedule work for a game genre dependent on lengthy post-launch support?

 

[Scofield94941]

Destiny was AMAZING the first time a played it. I played for 4 hours straight. Then when I came back to it, I just seemed like I did everything. I hate to say it but I'm going to trade it into Gamestop for 40 bucks on Friday. I'm someone who hates gamestop but losing 20 bucks is ok by me as I made a mistake and I kind of got 20 dollars worth out of the game. I could maybe get 45 shipped on ebay but there are fees and buyer problems. This game has so much potential but the world is just not deep enough to spend all this time in. I've never played an MMO and this seems like it would be better if it was a full on MMO experience. O well.

Edit: Wow gamestop is offering a guarenteed 40 dollars ending October 8th. I may hold off until the end of September. By that time I'll be more than satisfied

 

[speculawyer]

The two together are worth apparently $35 to Bungie, so now the question becomes: after playing Destiny, what does Bungie consider to be worth $35 in terms of content.

Well they shipped what they thought was $60 worth. So half that?

 

[Absoludacrous]

Do you guys think the MMORPG-esque game works with a system in which your character progress is completely wiped every few years when the company drops support for your current game in favor of a new one?

I mean, part of the reason I level up alts in games like WoW is that I know I'm playing a game that will be updated with new content for many, many years to come. That sense of permanance means building my character doesn't feel like a waste of time. I'm in it for the long haul.

If all of the time spent and progress made on my current characters is just going to go away in two years when a sequel arrives, are people going to be willing to go through the skinner box as readily as they would in a long-term MMO? Does the two-year release schedule work for a game genre dependent on lengthy post-launch support?

It wouldn't work if Destiny was actually considered an MMO. I don't think you're looking at a similar time investment though, so it's not quite as big of a deal.

You're probably looking at around 30-60 hours on average for most people for Destiny, then another 10 maybe per expansion. Removing the outliers of people who dedicate a lot of time to raiding.

A better comparison than WoW would be Call of Duty. People play a lot, unlock a lot of stuff, prestige, etc, then start all over again the next year.

 

[JimmyRustler]

If all of the time spent and progress made on my current characters is just going to go away in two years when a sequel arrives, are people going to be willing to go through the skinner box as readily as they would in a long-term MMO? Does the two-year release schedule work for a game genre dependent on lengthy post-launch support?

I think its pretty save to say that you'll have to start over with Destiny 2 - otherwise they could just keep releasing Expansion Packs for Destiny instead of releasing a real part 2.
IIRC you had to start over in Borderlands as well so it not really something new for console folks.

I personally have no problems with this as long a the classes in Destiny 2 are distinctively different to the ones in Destiny 1. If it's just leveling up the same skills all over again, well, that would be a different story.

 

[Psoelberg]

I thought the information about releases came from the leaked Bungie-Activision contract. The years are off, but the idea was that Destiny would have 4 major releases occurring every other year. In the off-years they would release an expansion pack that they called Comets which would apply to the previous year's game. Along with all that Bungie would release the normal DLC that we are talking about now and possibly some content behind micro-transactions.

Seems like Bungie is focusing on to many things.

I can't see how Destiny 1 can ever become interesting when they need a large team to work on Destiny 2.

Do you guys think the MMORPG-esque game works with a system in which your character progress is completely wiped every few years when the company drops support for your current game in favor of a new one?

I mean, part of the reason I level up alts in games like WoW is that I know I'm playing a game that will be updated with new content for many, many years to come. That sense of permanance means building my character doesn't feel like a waste of time. I'm in it for the long haul.

If all of the time spent and progress made on my current characters is just going to go away in two years when a sequel arrives, are people going to be willing to go through the skinner box as readily as they would in a long-term MMO? Does the two-year release schedule work for a game genre dependent on lengthy post-launch support?

I read somewhere that your character will transfer from game to game. So you can have the same character your playing with now all the way to the last game.

 

[antitrop]

I think its pretty save to say that you'll have to start over with Destiny 2 - otherwise they could just keep releasing Expansion Packs for Destiny instead of releasing a real part 2.
IIRC you had to start over in Borderlands as well so it not really something new for console folks.

I personally have no problems with this as long a the classes in Destiny 2 are distinctively different to the ones in Destiny 1. If it's just leveling up the same skills all over again, well, that would be a different story.

Yup, Destiny is like an MMO in all of the areas you don't want it to be and none of the areas you do. Bungie embraced the worst concepts and eschewed the good. Baffling, at best.

 

[Mascot]

I thought the information about releases came from the leaked Bungie-Activision contract. The years are off, but the idea was that Destiny would have 4 major releases occurring every other year. In the off-years they would release an expansion pack that they called Comets which would apply to the previous year's game. Along with all that Bungie would release the normal DLC that we are talking about now and possibly some content behind micro-transactions.

I can see those plans going straight down the toilet if the online playing numbers follow a steep decline. Bungie/Activision aren't going to bother putting a lot of time, effort and dollar bills into content that only a relatively small number of people might use. A point will probably come where they will cut their losses and just do the bare minimum to fulfill any contractual obligations.

In other words: keep forcing yourselves to play a game you don't particularly enjoy if you want to increase the chances of it being improved in the future.

 

[leng jai]

The appeal of MMOs is the sense of community, exploring a massive world and getting satisfying loot. Destiny doesn't possess any of these qualities and in this state it would have been far better off being a normal shooter with a firefight mode.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Yup, Destiny is like an MMO in all of the areas you don't want it to be and none of the areas you do. Bungie embraced the worst concepts and eschewed the good. Baffling, at best.

Well, first we have to wait and see where they are going. What if they never planned Destiny 2 to be a real sequel to 1? The new story could take place decades later in an other solar system. Who knows? With the MMOs we have it's much easier since they actually have a progressive story that is just expanded with the new expansions.

 

[antitrop]

Well, first we have to wait and see where they are going. What if they never planned Destiny 2 to be a real sequel to 1? The new story could take place decades later in an other solar system. Who knows? With the MMOs we have it's much easier since they actually have a progressive story that is just expanded with the new expansions.

After Destiny, I will never give Bungie's ambitions the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ovek]

How about you stop trying to make the game the least fun and do it the way its supposed to be done?

You accept bounties, complete them for 100/50 points each, 5 every day with probably 6/12 patrol missions included (in the bounty requirements) for ~500/800 vanguard points per day in 1/2h.

If you grind 10 Points over and over again for hours it really isnt the games fault...

Grinding the same 8 or so bounties over and over again isn't fun either.

 

[JimmyRustler]

After Destiny, I will never give Bungie's ambitions the benefit of the doubt.

You are being too hard. Destiny reminds me heavily on the first Assassins Creed and Uncharted. Both were extremely bare bones with their first entries and then just kept expanding and improving. I'm sure Bungie will do the same. Let alone for the fact that Activision won't allow Destiny 2 to be a 70% Metacritic game again, you can be sure of that.

 

[antitrop]

You are being too hard. Destiny reminds me heavily on the first Assassins Creed and Uncharted. Both were extremely bare bones with their first entries and then just kept expanding and improving. I'm sure Bungie will do the same. Let alone for the fact that Activision won't allow Destiny 2 to be a 70% Metacritic game again, you can be sure of that.

I fucking hate Assassins Creed 1, it's one of the most overrated and disappointing games I've ever played. That's not helping.

I also feel that fans greatly over-purport AC2's improvement on the formula.

 

[Alienous]

I fucking hate Assassins Creed 1, it's one of the most overrated and disappointing games I've ever played. That's not helping.

That was the point of the comparison, I think.

You are being too hard. Destiny reminds me heavily on the first Assassins Creed and Uncharted. Both were extremely bare bones with their first entries and then just kept expanding and improving. I'm sure Bungie will do the same. Let alone for the fact that Activision won't allow Destiny 2 to be a 70% Metacritic game again, you can be sure of that.

I don't think it deserves any credit for what it could be. People are being perfectly reasonable with their opinions on it. It could evolve like Assassin's Creed 2 did, or it could got the opposite way, like Medal of Honor 2010 did. We'll see.

Like Paul McCartney, I do have hope for the future of Destiny.

 

[Fortinbras]

I fucking hate Assassins Creed 1, it's one of the most overrated and disappointing games I've ever played. That's not helping.

It took me months to beat the game. It was like playing the same mission over and over again. Terrible game.

 

[JimmyRustler]

I fucking hate Assassins Creed 1, it's one of the most overrated and disappointing games I've ever played. That's not helping.

What I'm saying is that just like Ubisoft heavily improved AC after the first one, so will Bungie.

Many new IPs suffer from identity crisis. So does Destiny obviously. You can literally tell that Bungie was experimenting for a long time before the settled with the gameplay. Now that the basics are set they can start expanding on them. Meaning, the new content is more defined, better and comes faster.

 

[antitrop]

What I'm saying is that just like Ubisoft heavily improved AC after the first one, so will Bungie.

Many new IPs suffer from identity crisis. So does Destiny obviously. You can literally tell that Bungie was experimenting for a long time before the settled with the gameplay. Now that the basics are set they can start expanding on them. Meaning, the new content is more defined, better and comes faster.

I disagree, though. AC2 was still the same shallow combat and press the analog stick forward with a button held down to parkour gameplay that AC1 and every game in the series is.

I understand how you're comparing it to the potential evolution of Destiny, that point is not lost on me.

I just hate Assassin's Creed with a deep passion.

 

[QaaQer]

Interesting. Thanks for the detailed clarification.


Really weird seeing people praise the AI in the other thread. Between this and watching my cousin play, it looks totally pedestrian.

It is.

It's also weird to see people praise the gunplay. It's a 30fps/1080p/60FOV game, I really don't see how it can have the best gunplay ever given those restrictions alone.

 

[JimmyRustler]

I disagree, though. AC2 was still the same shallow combat and press the analog stick forward with a button held down to parkour gameplay that AC1 and every game in the series is.

I understand how you're comparing it to the potential evolution of Destiny, that point is not lost on me.

I just hate Assassin's Creed with a deep passion.

Well, I think we can all agree that the core gameplay is (unlike in AC) pretty good in Destiny and all it's lacking right now is the proper content. So most of the critique is quite easily fixable - again unlike in AC where they would have to revamp the whole core gameplay. [Not that I don't like AC, but I can understand the problems people have with it.]

 

[antitrop]

Well, I think we can all agree that the core gameplay is (unlike in AC) pretty good in Destiny and all it's lacking right now is the proper content. So most of the critique is quite easily fixable - again unlike in AC where they would have to revamp the whole core gameplay. [Not that I don't like AC, but I can understand the problems people have with it.]

I agree with that, the core gunplay is solid, unlike AC's base gameplay.

I guess I just don't see Bungie taking feedback to heart and continuing with their strange vision of an anti-social "shared world shooter" for Destiny 2.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves, I want to see how they support the game that came out last week, first.

 

[Dictator93]

What I'm saying is that just like Ubisoft heavily improved AC after the first one, so will Bungie.

Many new IPs suffer from identity crisis. So does Destiny obviously. You can literally tell that Bungie was experimenting for a long time before the settled with the gameplay. Now that the basics are set they can start expanding on them. Meaning, the new content is more defined, better and comes faster.

I completely disagree.
I have a hard time imagining this game was some experiment that they just haven't gotten right yet and will be "better in the sequel." The entire game's base design from its shooting (ironsights?!, hitmarkers, switiching between 3rd and first person, unequal baseline PvP, guns with no meaningful difference) to its over-world and mission structure (the same ad nauseum, lack of real open world exploration) would have to be completely ripped out and rethought for this game to work and be interesting. A game which fixes these things, would be a completely different game with almost no relation to the first.

Right now it seems like a mashing of tropes and I find it hard to believe that bungie, the people who made Halo 1 (a game balanced around completely BETTER set of gameplay rules and levels), made this game.

I agree with that, the core gunplay is solid, unlike AC's base gameplay.

I guess I just don't see Bungie taking feedback to heart and continuing with their strange vision of an anti-social "shared world shooter" for Destiny 2.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves, I want to see how they support the game that came out last week, first.

In comparison to Halo? Why does this game have iron sights? Why does this game have weapons which differ almost purely in stats? Why does it have hit markers? Why does it transition to third person?

Those are all tropes from other games, that happen to be popular, and really IMO, lack any distinct flavor or make the game better. A first person game transition to thrid person for some reason smacks of lazy design IMO.

To me good gunplay also means guns with meaningfully different uses. Where each weapon has its use and its physical location / balance in a PvP environment. Something which makes FPS an anti-thesis to grindey MMO. A grindey MMO can IMO only have poor gunplay if you are constantly unlocking new weapons (1% better lol).

 

[Zakalwe]

The problem is that the encounter design and AI a much weaker in Destiny.

The AI is not much weaker.

The encounter design is really good too.

I've still yet to read an actual detaile sexa action of these too critiques that actually makes sense.

The open world clusters of mobs are tethered to a specific radius and won't chase you further, but that's inherent the reason of the open world (for better or worse).

Everything else in terms if encounter design and AI is great. Especially during the linear respawn restricted segments.

I completely disagree.
I have a hard time imagining this game was some experiment that they just haven't gotten right yet and will be "better in the sequel." The entire game's base design from its shooting (ironsights?!, hitmarkers, switiching between 3rd and first person, unequal baseline PvP, guns with no meaningful difference) to its over-world and mission structure (the same ad nauseum, lack of real open world exploration) would have to be completely ripped out and rethought for this game to work and be interesting. A game which fixes these things, would be a completely different game with almost no relation to the first.

Right now it seems like a mashing of tropes and I find it hard to believe that bungie, the people who made Halo 1 (a game balanced around completely BETTER set of gameplay rules and levels), made this game.

Most of the things you list here I class as parts Bungie have nailed. The game has an incredibly strong foundation, and the flaws are all things that can be patched or tuned.

Bungie have a real shot at making something great. It really depends how they take it from here.

 

[JimmyRustler]

I agree with that, the core gunplay is solid, unlike AC's base gameplay.

I guess I just don't see Bungie taking feedback to heart and continuing with their strange vision of an anti-social "shared world shooter" for Destiny 2.

Oh, but I'm pretty sure they will. Destiny may have sold well for now but the reviews were a disaster. Unlike with Halo that had a great start Bungie and Activision are now hanging in the loop, not knowing if Destiny 2 will hit the same numbers after that reception disaster. They WILL not only have to patch the shit out of Destiny but also prove that they can make a better game with 2, otherwise the 500 Mill investment will be all for nothing.

 

[angrygnat]

I think 7.5 is fair although I would give it an 8.5. Based on what I've seen to this point. I think it's addictive. (Grindy) The worlds are huge and beautiful. The enemies are pretty. My biggest complaint would be load times. So far it's not the end all be all I wanted it to be but it's solid and a lot of fun.

 

[HowZatOZ]

If all of the time spent and progress made on my current characters is just going to go away in two years when a sequel arrives, are people going to be willing to go through the skinner box as readily as they would in a long-term MMO? Does the two-year release schedule work for a game genre dependent on lengthy post-launch support?

People seem to be happy doing it in AC/CoD/BF/BL etc so why not Destiny?

 

[gatti-man]

It is.

It's also weird to see people praise the gunplay. It's a 30fps/1080p/60FOV game, I really don't see how it can have the best gunplay ever given those restrictions alone.

Rent it then. Plenty of people love it. This thread is just the same angry posters rewording what they've already posted 10 times over. The OT is already in its 3rd state. It's even outpacing this backlash thread.

 

[Zakalwe]

I agree with that, the core gunplay is solid, unlike AC's base gameplay.

I guess I just don't see Bungie taking feedback to heart and continuing with their strange vision of an anti-social "shared world shooter" for Destiny 2.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves, I want to see how they support the game that came out last week, first.

I thought it as anti social at first. Then I started adding people I met in game. A lot. I built up an active friendlsit of a couple of dozen players within the first couple of days.

After I did that the game came to life. I had people joining my games halfway though, invitations to games, party chat meetings, etc...

And every single social experience has been positive.

The game doesn't allow for the off the cuff nonsense you get in public chat. Those games can be anti-social at times due to the down side of letting Internet personalities loose. Iknow there are also huge benefits to public chat options too, but I thinking prefer my social experience in Destiny. It's more personal.

I think they should stick to their guns but streamline it a little to remove a few steps in the process of adding people. Maybe add a text chat option to fireteams for those who dislike using voice, or a way to quickly convert a match made team into a fireteam, proper clan support with clan chat options, and so on...

 

[vrln]

The reviews are pretty accurate I think. After all these years of development, this game reminds me completely of Diablo 3: brilliant core gameplay, lack of content, heavy balance issues and odd gameplay system choices (marketplace in D3, social features that aren´t really social in Destiny). I´d say despite the polish Destiny simply shipped too soon. The have the core down well, but the content side isn´t good enough. What they are basically selling now is mostly a promise, a ticket to join the endless DLC wave after wave that will probably build this game to where it should have been at launch.

In the end when people say this isn´t an MMO, well, I´m not sure what to think. It really depends on how you want to define the word. If you stress the "massively" part, yeah then in a way Destiny isn´t an MMO, but if you use the term loosely Destiny games pretty close:

- Basically be prepared to buy expansions every 3 months or so which is pretty much the same as a monthly fee. I see little to no point in playing this game in the long run without buying all the DLC that will eventually raise level cap and mostly make the old content almost obsolete.

- There are tons of systems ripped off from World of Warcraft, yet for some odd reason they didn´t really make them that social for a game that is trying hard to be an instance-heavy MMO.

- Right now the game´s content stops when it should start going into "mid-game". There´s no room for a story arc to build as there aren´t that many missions in the first place. Basically there is a nice art style and occasionally good atmosphere, but no good characters or story other than "this game starts now, see you at DLC!" I wonder how many lines of story dialogue there is currently in this game: I bet it´s not much more than a 10 page document.

All in all what we have at launch is a nice co-op shooter with good gameplay, yet severely lacking in content. The 60 dollars only gives you entry to the world. The next 9-12 months will tell if this game actually starts delivering on the big dream of doing a constantly evolving console shooter-MMO. Time will tell.

 

[GroundCombo]

It's nice how the reviews have been on point; I just wish I'd waited for them before jumping in. I played through the "story" with a friend, probably the best way to have fun in the game. Now that the so-called endgame presents itself, I can see myself jumping out within a few days. The loot is shallow and would require a major overhaul to be fun, grinding the same spots or strikes is boring and the class abilities are a bit of extra spice you toss in whenever they are available.

It's really disappointing how only a few games have successfully combined special abilities with gunplay. Mass Effect 3 did it incredibly well in multiplayer and Borderlands 2 wasn't bad either. Hell, almost everything in BL2 was better than Destiny.

 

[gatti-man]

I completely disagree.
I have a hard time imagining this game was some experiment that they just haven't gotten right yet and will be "better in the sequel." The entire game's base design from its shooting (ironsights?!, hitmarkers, switiching between 3rd and first person, unequal baseline PvP, guns with no meaningful difference) to its over-world and mission structure (the same ad nauseum, lack of real open world exploration) would have to be completely ripped out and rethought for this game to work and be interesting. A game which fixes these things, would be a completely different game with almost no relation to the first.

Right now it seems like a mashing of tropes and I find it hard to believe that bungie, the people who made Halo 1 (a game balanced around completely BETTER set of gameplay rules and levels), made this game.

In comparison to Halo? Why does this game have iron sights? Why does this game have weapons which differ almost purely in stats? Why does it have hit markers? Why does it transition to third person?

Those are all tropes from other games, that happen to be popular, and really IMO, lack any distinct flavor or make the game better. A first person game transition to thrid person for some reason smacks of lazy design IMO.

To me good gunplay also means guns with meaningfully different uses. Where each weapon has its use and its physical location / balance in a PvP environment. Something which makes FPS an anti-thesis to grindey MMO. A grindey MMO can IMO only have poor gunplay if you are constantly unlocking new weapons (1% better lol).

You really just need to play the game. It's transition to third person is entirely natural and not during gameplay moments. It's during story cinema sections or in the hub or when you do an emote. That's it. It never comes off as lazy or odd.

 

[Dictator93]

You really just need to play ghecgame. It's transition to third person is entirely natural and not during gameplay moments. It's during story cinema sections or in the hub or when you do an emote. That's it. It never comes off as lazy or odd.

It may just be a personal pet peve of mine, but when I play a game in first person I find it disorienting and ugly (like art wise) to switch to third. Not the most fair argument obviously....
but making art and animations for first person is much harder/more involved than third person animations, especially for complex movement. Hence why a lot of games just go, meh, and switch to 3rd person (like halo when you use a turret or the later games when you have a larger weapon).

I have watch a good couple hours of this games gameplay and I am surpremely confused at everything I have seen. It really does not look like it was made by the guys who made halo. If I had the time to play it at a friends, I would. But I am not sure how playing it would make me enjoy its use of, IMO, boring FPS tropes. There are amazing FPS tropes that I rather it used.

 

[Panthers]

The more I play this game, the higher I would rate it, and I think that will be the way most people feel. But until this story starts to make sense for me, it will never be higher than a 8.

I think the biggest issue I am having is the use of ridiculous names for things in what I thought was supposed to be a Sci-Fi game. And not just the names, the explanations for things are no different than in a fantasy title. The darkness, the Traveller, the Queen, the Fallen, the Hive, etc. and the Traveller made our lives way better, somehow. Just take our word for it.

I havent beaten it yet so hopefully I will get more details.

 

[Apt101]

Oh, but I'm pretty sure they will. Destiny may have sold well for now but the reviews were a disaster. Unlike with Halo that had a great start Bungie and Activision are now hanging in the loop, not knowing if Destiny 2 will hit the same numbers after that reception disaster. They WILL not only have to patch the shit out of Destiny but also prove that they can make a better game with 2, otherwise the 500 Mill investment will be all for nothing.

Bungie traded on their brand (I admit, I fell for it). If that brand loses a lot of value by them failing to correct the issues with this game, and quickly, then any future releases in the franchise will be viewed instantly unfavorably and they'll be fighting an uphill battle. Personally, I find the Bungie brand to now be extremely low after playing this game. This would also jeopardize Bungie's future with Activision - because lets face it, if the DLC fails to perform and the brand name dives, Kotick will be ruthless in dismembering Bungie for all they're worth to try to recoup losses.

I think the best thing Bungie can do is change their attitude and offer a mea culpa along with the first DLC free. The needed development tweaks honestly aren't drastic in terms of work: promise to immediately alleviate the grind by enormous amounts, add the social systems this game is lacking while streamlining grouping, tune encounters so they're not just merely waves of enemies and can be easily done by solo players, improve loot frequency while adding trading, and insert the lore found only online into the game. They could tackle the major issues (grind, social) first in a month, then get the rest over the course of several.

It still wouldn't be a great game, but it would have legs for future buyers and show that the Bungie brand is still worth what it was prior to this game releasing.

 

[Future]

It may just be a personal pet peve of mine, but when I play a game in first person I find it disorienting and ugly (like art wise) to switch to third. Not the most fair argument obviously....
but making art and animations for first person is much harder/more involved than third person animations, especially for complex movement. Hence why a lot of games just go, meh, and switch to 3rd person (like halo when you use a turret or the later games when you have a larger weapon).

I have watch a good couple hours of this games gameplay and I am surpremely confused at everything I have seen. It really does not look like it was made by the guys who made halo. If I had the time to play it at a friends, I would. But I am not sure how playing it would make me enjoy its use of, IMO, boring FPS tropes. There are amazing FPS tropes that I rather it used.

The 3rd person transitions are the least of the problems actually. They were always headed in this direction when they had the 3rd person moments in halo games with turrets and vehicle jacking

And this for sure feels like the game from the halo guys. The enemy design and behaviors, the big jumps and hang time, the shield absorption, the offensive triangle, the gunplay.... All halo.

They did change the power weapon placement in pvp in favor of the loot grind, but there are remnants there with the heavy ammo drops. Time to death is faster because characters have stronger weapons, but you can also select a class with more health to be more tanky if you like. The supers are the only thing that is definitely out of whack. I definitely see a future playlist that disables them...

On the other hand , the supers do help classes feel distinct, which is important for a game like this

 

[QaaQer]

Nope. You are correct about the academic grading scale, but the tiers are somewhat different.

100 - Perfect
90 - A+
80 - A
70 - B
60 - C
50 - D
... and so on. It does admittedly vary region to region, though.

I think the reviews have been more than fair to Destiny.

And they change over time, google 'grade inflation'. An A in the 50s was an epic achievement, today they are handed out like candy at places like Harvard. I've also read that even things like dress sizes are change. A female 8 in 1970 is a 6 today, and some men's pants are actually bigger than the waist size measurment (i.e. they lable a 36 waist 34, I guess because guy's want to believe they have smaller waists?).

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Gameplanet ANZ review - Mirrors a lot of my thoughts on the game.

Highlights what has been done right, what can be improved and a look at the future.
"HORDE-OR" - Delightful summary haha...

8/10 - Metacritic Reviewer.

 

[Truant]

It's funny how much this game is reminding me of Too Human.

Terrible story and presentation, incredibly boring characters, ridiculous and repetitive grinding, no end-game content, empty and hollow worlds, limited sosial interaction, mostly worthless loot.

 

[QaaQer]

does anyone think maybe a full mmo level subscription fee model would have worked better than the buy the 60 dollar game then the expansions one after the other. I think the subscription model in some sense mentally prepares people that this is not a one time buy but an investment as opposed to the game + dlc/expansions model?

IMO, thats what Bungie was developing until 2012 when the subscription mmo cratered, killed by free2play with WoW being the only exception. They then had 18 months to cobble a $60 + dlc game together from the rubble. It is the only logical explanation for this fiasco aside from 'bungie is incompetent'.

 

[hamchan]

If they put out this current game and asked for a sub the critical reception would be even worse than it is now.

 

[QaaQer]

Rent it then. Plenty of people love it. This thread is just the same angry posters rewording what they've already posted 10 times over. The OT is already in its 3rd state. It's even outpacing this backlash thread.

ffs, I own it.

* * *

Flipping through that unsealed Bungie-Activision contract, I was totally wrong about it being a WoW mmo originally. It was a retail game + dlc from day one.

And there was some posts saying they needed an 80 on gamerankings in order to keep their contract. That isn't true. Activision has a clause that says they can terminate the contract in 2016 after the first game + 2 expansion packs 'for any reason'. Not that they will, mind you, but they could even if the game got an 81 aggregate.

The bonuses Bungie gets are pretty meagre until the game passes 500 000 000 in gross revenue for Activision, which is going to be tight given the numbers released by Activison PR. They really need this game to have some legs and for people to buy into the expansions.

 

[Loginius]

Grinding the same 8 or so bounties over and over again isn't fun either.

Then dont do them?
There are still strikes, raids , daily/weekly, collectibles, public events and Crucible to play, if you dont like any of those because youre just doing the same thing over and over again than the endgame in this type of game is clearly not for you.