Destiny - Review Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think its funny both, IGN and Eurogamer, were waiting on the raid to fully review the game. I bet they want get very far in the raid at all.
 
I think its funny both, IGN and Eurogamer, were waiting on the raid to fully review the game. I bet they want get very far in the raid at all.

Bet they are watching stream and taking notes. They should. Problem is, their review isn't informing buyers anymore, it's more there for archival purposes, since I think most Destiny buyers will be people saving up or told by a friend etc.

Though IGN's review of Demon's Souls sold it to me. It got it release day in EU and I was super glad.
 
I'd argue reviews that don't take into account stuff like new game+ are not really complete, either. And note I have never said the raid should affect the review (meaning, score). If it's too hardcore or whatever, that's fine. But the review should account for it. From your last line there, I don't think you actually understood what I wrote.

You expect a lot from reviewers, just how much do you think they get paid?

And where does it stop, NG++? NG+++? 1 end game raid? 10?
 
i wonder if reviewers every feel kinda guilty/get guilt tripped for denying people of the bonus they often receive if they have a certain metacritic score.
I have often heard various reviewers talk about it on podcasts. It does seem pretty common for developers to complain to reviewers about their bonuses, but reviewers rightfully shift blame to metacritic and the people that choose to use it for bonuses, rather than blame themselves about it.
 
i wonder if reviewers every feel kinda guilty/get guilt tripped for denying people of the bonus they often receive if they have a certain metacritic score.

If they feel guilty about being honest in a review, they shouldn't be reviewing games then. There should be absolutely no guilt placed on the shoulders of reviewers for things like bonuses between developers and publishers. If they want to have some arguably silly agreement based off of meeting a certain average score, that's their problem.

Then again, maybe I feel this way simply because my site isn't on Metacritic. If there is any guilt tripping going on by any of those developers or publishers against reviewers, that sounds like there is a much larger issue going on in the industry.
 
IGN, please don't tell me you think this shit is fun. Between finishing campaign and playing the raid is all repetitive bullshit. This game need an Episode 2 with some Ambitions of the Illuminus kind of update.

You are really devoted to making sure nobody is having fun, right? And judging games from streams, seems like. The premise of these raids is ridiculous to begin with, but holding them up as some sort of proof that the game could not be fun is just out there.
 
Is this game really that bad? I mean I'm having an enjoyable enough time I guess. Its not great but its not terrible like a lot of people are saying.

The thing about this thread is that most of the complaints (including mine) have the unspoken subtext that the game is actually pretty fun, but it's important to address the faults.
 
The thing about this thread is that most of the complaints (including mine) have the unspoken subtext that the game is actually pretty fun, but it's important to address the faults.

Yeah, you can pretty much only hate it as much as you're given to love it. I enjoy the gunplay and many core bits of moment-to-moment gameplay, but so many of the surrounding gameplay decisions, glaring feature omissions, and ways the greater experience is structured can piss me off to no end. Very disappointing when you're coming in with great expectations. Hell, just to take a break from PvE grind, I've come to appreciate the PvP quite a bit more even if it feels like a step down from Bungie's past and the basic gist is a bit like hyperactive rats in tall mazes. Don't care for the low TTK, especially. It's better than most FPS games, but much less than other loot-based action-"RPG"s, IMO.
 
I must say, nothing is more fun than waiting for my single player mission to finally load, use my sparrow to get to the mission start point, kill a few guys, then get the Destiny Server message...get the message again...get sent back to the mission select screen and be forced to start it all over again. Huzzah.

Is this game really that bad? I mean I'm having an enjoyable enough time I guess. Its not great but its not terrible like a lot of people are saying.

A game with shooting this good will never be terrible. The problem isn't that it's not great, it's that it's so damn bland. Everything about the story, the missions, the PVP and the strikes are that they're all so bland. Cut and paste.
 
The thing about this thread is that most of the complaints (including mine) have the unspoken subtext that the game is actually pretty fun, but it's important to address the faults.
Yeah, don't think most people are saying it's a bad game (just overhyped for some some). Metacritic is also in the 70's, not really a bad score.
 
Hoping the expansions bring a kind of middle-ground between the regular game and the super hardcore Raid stuff - just some varied boss/play mechanics and maybe some places to explore. We'll see I guess. I don't see myself doing any raids as a) I just don't have the time and b) it looks too hard to get people together for a team of 6. Regardless, sounds pretty cool.
 
Wonder if Bungie can turn this game around like Blizzard did with Diablo 3. Not saying Destiny is as bad as D3 at launch but still. More content and increased loot drops would do wonders for this game.
 
I really want to experience the raid. Unfortunately I'm 0/7 with legendaries. Grinding marks is so tedious though. I guess my only option is to wait for Xur.
 
Are Raids any fun? The only thing I've enjoyed was the first few hours of co-op PvE, but now I can only enjoy playing control pvp

I'm guessing that if you've managed to be interested enough to grind far enough to where you are able to play the raid then you will probably like the raid.
 
Which part?

The review pretty rehashes the argument about how it becomes a different experience after "many hours" of game play. I don't subscribe to that. The score also seems quite inflated, especially with their "flawed structure" header.

I also dislike this paragraph. It seems contradictory to me.

Thankfully, the story-sparse missions are a blast,[/B] offering a mix of activities for solo, cooperative, and competitive play. Destiny excels at providing activities for different moods and moments, from short planetary patrols to lengthy three-person instanced dungeons. These tasks often take you to interesting corners of the game world, but it’s too bad that so many missions start in the same places, leading to a needless sense of repetition. That sense of repetition extends to mission objectives, which too often fall back on the same setup of your AI companion needing time to hack something while you fight off attackers; thankfully, the stage layouts and enemies help the battles feel distinct.

And then there is my personal bias against Game Informer. I've always found them to be soft and oh-so-cautious as to not offend the hand that feeds them.
 
This is clearly a discussion that will end up going nowhere.

Have a nice night. :)

I'm just having a hard time understanding your position. People, rightfully so, decry others who take issue with a reviewer who scores a game they like, or anticipating to like, lower than they want. How is what you're doing – having trouble with GameInformer scoring Destiny higher than you'd like – any better or different?
 
Orignally posted in the Kotaku: "Destiny Review Scores May Cost Bungie $2.5 Million" thread, but it seems like a question better suited for the review thread:

Speaking of what the game might be like, has Bungie ever stated how much players should expect the game experience to change over time? And by that I mean without premium DLC.

Why are there expectations that the game will even be different in six months? Or is it being assumed that everybody will pick up the expansions? Or that the core game should be scored based upon the promise of paid expansions?

Am trying to get a sense of what the critics assume is going to happen, as some reviewers do hint at this game evolving over time, though I don't know what that's based upon.

I'm really wondering what, outside of the expansions, people assume or expect is coming down the pipe, and what, if anything, has been promised.
 
The review pretty rehashes the argument about how it becomes a different experience after "many hours" of game play. I don't subscribe to that. The score also seems quite inflated, especially with their "flawed structure" header.

I also dislike this paragraph. It seems contradictory to me.



And then there is my personal bias against Game Informer. I've always found them to be soft and oh-so-cautious as to not offend the hand that feeds them.

It's not contradictory. You can enjoy a game while acknowledging its faults. Destiny's combat helps alleviate its sense of sameness to GameInformer, which is valid.
 
Chiggs, sounds like you think the text doesn't agree with the score. GI does play nice with big games, so it's not a surprising thing to see that disjointed feeling between the reasoning and the score. Just ignore the score. I do understand your bitterness over their hyped up bullshit review for Galaxies, though, so I personally get the distrust.
 
Orignally posted in the Kotaku: "Destiny Review Scores May Cost Bungie $2.5 Million" thread, but it seems like a question better suited for the review thread:



I'm really wondering what, outside of the expansions, people assume or expect is coming down the pipe, and what, if anything, has been promised.

Well, besides the rotating PvP playlists, there is some speculation that there'll be a new free story mission before the end of September (for what it's worth :P)
 
Orignally posted in the Kotaku: "Destiny Review Scores May Cost Bungie $2.5 Million" thread, but it seems like a question better suited for the review thread:



I'm really wondering what, outside of the expansions, people assume or expect is coming down the pipe, and what, if anything, has been promised.
Im wondering what is this game in a couple of month. They're isnt a lot to do right now and unless they add some cool shit this game will be dead by dec. when the first paid dlc comes out.
 
So far, loving the game. The dialogue and story does seem a bit flat, but the gameplay is awesome so far.

What's really surprised me is the PVP though. Had some excellent matches, seems balanced and damn fun. This is one point where from my narrow view, the low 6 reviews seem a bit confounding.

Even if the game does in the end have a Mediocre campaign, if the PVP stays awesome, and the campaign stays fun, this seems like a big winner for me. Guess I'll see soon enough.
 
The review pretty rehashes the argument about how it becomes a different experience after "many hours" of game play. I don't subscribe to that. The score also seems quite inflated, especially with their "flawed structure" header.
The review pretty clearly weighs the fun of the game over the flaws in the story and structure.

I also dislike this paragraph. It seems contradictory to me.
Such as this quote. Bad story and narrative outweighed by good gameplay. Clearly not everyone weighs these things the same or agrees with the views. I just find it curious to find a differing view dismissed as a "crock", as if there's something clearly wrong with it, especially as it's pretty well reasoned.
 
I think the issue here is some are using the word average as "statistically average," while others are using it as a synonym for mediocre. Something can be mediocre and not have an equal number of things better or worse than it.

No, it can't. Part of the word origin actually means half-way/middle.

I think the problem is people like you are perfectly willing to re-define words to suit their agenda. :P
 
How dare someone actually enjoy this game! It must be universally loathed or else!
I'm pretty sure I both love and hate it. Or a mix of love with a nice heaping dose of disappointment and confusion.

Among my friends its a pretty mixed bag too. A lot of stuff just makes us scratch our heads - the story, the way loot works, lack of matchmaking across the board and weird communication restrictions - but man, its still been a great time whenever we're blowing stuff up, though we do lose steam with most of the boss battles. Throw in the wild expectations across the board, both for the game at day one and how it'll be months from now, I'm not surprised to see the game have so much discussion and meltdowns around it.
 
I'm sure it's been posted but it's the best thing I ever read
http://www.vg247.com/2014/09/15/destiny-review/

I got a great laugh out of this...

The problem with Destiny is that it pares gaming down to its essential loop, giving me immediate access to shooting and the loot cycle, and suddenly I’m having an existential crisis because I’ve realised that all mainstream video games are essentially the same experiences implemented to varying degrees of quality and wrapped in different aesthetics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom