Of course they play tested it. Their testers know exactly what they were going to be selling. But once the heavy investment is made and a deadline is given, what can they do other than release the game and promote it like it's the second coming of gaming to get huge sales numbers to recoup the investment?
Destiny - Review Thread
- Thread starter opticalmace
- Start date
- Status
Of course they play tested it. Their testers know exactly what they were going to be selling. But once the heavy investment is made and a deadline is given, what can they do other than release the game and promote it like it's the second coming of gaming to get huge sales numbers to recoup the investment?
BibiMaghoo
Member
I have no bought Destiny yet, so not a comment on that, but I definitely view a 3 / 5 as a better score than a 6 / 10.
That may just be because I've lived around shitty review grading systems my entire life, but a 6 is a harsher score to me.
That may just be because I've lived around shitty review grading systems my entire life, but a 6 is a harsher score to me.
Maybe it's because of living with movie reviews for so long? 4 stars = fantastic, 3 stars = good movie.
I see 3/5 and 6/10 as exactly the same. In fact if I must differentiate, I place 6/10 above 3/5 if anything. Maybe because I regularly enjoy games reviewers score 6/10 or even 3-4/10.
6/10 does not say bad to me at all. It tells me it is an above average game to the reviewer. I know perception is skewed though as many people only play 8/10+ games. So to like a game that a bigger site like Polygon deems a 6/10 can indeed be a jarring first experience.
6/10 does not say bad to me at all. It tells me it is an above average game to the reviewer. I know perception is skewed though as many people only play 8/10+ games. So to like a game that a bigger site like Polygon deems a 6/10 can indeed be a jarring first experience.
It's like going to a foreign country and not understanding the language. You can see people around you, but it only makes you more aware of how lonely you are.
Much like the story being on the website/app... people shouldn't have to. Maybe I don't want to fill my friends list up with a load of people I'll likely only play with once, who may not be at a level I'm at, or be looking to do the things I'm currently doing. Maybe I'd rather not have a loads of people constantly sending me invites when I jump online, just because I may want to play with people occasionally.
People need to stop telling everyone that it's their fault that they're not doing enough to work around Bungie's stupid designs.
Titanfall 6/10 review (or 3/5 stars.. blah blah)
And if we're not limiting this exclusively to one genre (because why should we?)...
Here are some games loved by many (and hated by probably just as many), that fall into the 6/10 bracket for their entire METASCORE, let alone a review or two.
P.N.03 (a game where the main complaint was also extremely repetitive missions)
Resident Evil 6 (a game many claim has amazing "combat mechanics", but is trashed for all the other things it gets wrong)
Phantasy Star Portable 2 (a game many would claim fixed nearly all of the major shortcomings of its predecessor PSU, yet still scored within this range)
EDIT: This is a nice fitting example actually. Borderlands 5/10
Good laught with this Destiny's Plot Summary
haha, ohh well, kinda sad it is that accurate.
haha, ohh well, kinda sad it is that accurate.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I still plan on getting the game, but later once it's had some time to mature a bit. However, when a game apparently doesn't fulfill key promises - absent the hype - people will react more negatively to what they perceive as not being delivered. People that were highly interested in a big, epic story, but didn't get one, are probably the most willing to give it a very low score, even if it's still a pretty damn good game outside of its mistakes. The problem with Destiny seems to be that, even giving it a pass on some promises, it still apparently ends up not exactly handling what is actually there in the as well as people would have liked.
Again, will still give it a chance, but it being such a huge success for Bungie and Activision already makes me more comfortable with waiting it out while I get some other games I'm more immediately interested in first.
Not to be an asshole, but one could just as easily say "People need to stop telling Bungie that it's their fault that they're not doing enough to work around people's stupid decisions."
Not picking up some online friends to play Destiny with when you are a Gaf member is ridiculous. I Have picked up 200 or so between Diablo and Destiny and I haven't run into an asshole yet. It's great having someone online who is always available for basically anything you want to do. A big friends list is actually quite nice, except for the slow loading.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Anton Sugar
Member
It may be ridiculous for a gaming community like this, but randoms shouldn't be expected to have to find people on a gaming forum to play with, you know?
bananafactory
Banned
Pretty much this. I love GAF and have a few people from here on my friends list, but I don't want to add 100 people I'll rarely ever communicate with just to do a few missions in a single game. It's ridiculous and shouldn't be required - the game should have the tools you need to meet and recruit others.
Well, one could say that... but I'd personally consider it to be a rather stupid argument to put forth. What if someone isn't a GAF member (which face it, will be most Destiny players), should it really be up to them to find an existing online community just to play the game they spent $60 on properly? It's not as if other games featuring matchmaking prevent communities like GAF from arranging games amongst themselves, so why should the consumer be expected to adjust, rather than those trying to sell us the product? Seems like a weird (and potentially dangerous) line of thought to me.
I already explained that I may want to keep my friend list populated with actual friends, rather than filling it up with a load of people I have a good chance of never actually playing with (or who'll send me invites out of the blue every time I decide to play that game at all). It's not a reasonable expectation to have of your users.
Reviews discuss how a game performs for gamers on the whole, not just gamers who are a part of a community like GAF. The fact is that Bungie did not provide the tools necessary to create a community from within the game. And that is purely a developer failure, not a failure of the gamers to not get into a community ahead of time.
This is some backwards thinking imo.
A great game should be infinitely replayable. You should WANT to do a mission again, replay it on a higher difficulty, perfect your runs...
I really don't understand the people that prefer the "one and done" experience type interactive movies vs. GAMES.
Ahh. I can see that point.
What Synth also said was this; "Maybe I don't want to fill my friends list up with a load of people I'll likely only play with once, who may not be at a level I'm at, or be looking to do the things I'm currently doing. Maybe I'd rather not have a loads of people constantly sending me invites when I jump online, just because I may want to play with people occasionally."
To me that is just being a bit difficult and maybe smite obtuse. I agree that it could be better after your point, Anton, but I guess for me adding Gaffers has been a great experience as I was ONLY a solo gamer until Diablo. Maybe I am just late to the party by 10 years. Lol.
Pro tip; Crucible is WAY better with Gaf.
I get that, I mean I have +500hrs in D3, problem is Destiny is not doing it right.
Birgitte2004
Member
Whether you enjoy it or not is irrelevant. I enjoy a few games which get 4/10, that doesn't change the review, nor the general perception of the game. And I usually know when I enjoy a 4/10 game it is because it's extremely niche and happens to be a niche I like.
It's been said already, but 3/5 is definitely a better score than 6/10. Point me at any /10 reviewer that routinely gives 4 or below. I'd bet you can't. Even the "harsh" sites don't go that low unless a game is completely broken or incredibly niche. /5 sites go to 2 often, and 1s aren't unheard of.
TemplaerDude
Member
Replayable =/ Repetitive.
Birgitte2004
Member
Depending on how you define AAA the only games that are below it that might count are Thief and NHL 15.
Unless you are counting mini-expansion and/or DLC reviews.
Yea, and I stand by what I said. I've never had to rely on adding GAF members in order to play a multiplayer game successfully in the past, and I shouldn't have to do that for Destiny either. Adding GAF members becomes a numbers game in order to ensure someone is around and has a similar objective (at a similar level) whenever I feel like playing. Having matchmaking (and decent communication options) makes it far easier for me to find suitable people to play with at any given moment from within the game. It's not something that the player should be faulted for rather than the developer.
EventHorizon
Member
What in the world people? The 5 star scale is definitely not used like the 10 point scale. Hell, don't people complain all the time that the entire range of the 10 point scale isn't used. A 3/5 most closely maps to a 7/10 with regard to the meaning of the scores.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Destiny: Its not quite 7/10, but its not quite 6/10 either!
I just don't see it.
There is a huge variety of things to do. Me and a co-worker was just making plans for what we wanted to do this weekend.
Some moon patrol to help him get his faction rank up, then crucible for marks, then some strikes for coins later.
We sort of poked around the raid last night and couldn't even open the door with our group of 5.
There are all new missions coming next week. I haven't seen half of the public events.
Whatever. I love it. It's not my job to sell the game to anyone. I don't need reviews cause I played the alpha and beta.
The Lamonster
Member
Hop into the Destiny |OT| and try telling active players that the game "failed."
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Only to non intellectuals.
I guess that says something about the target audience.
partyphone
Banned
maybe to you non intellectuals. but us Serious Thinkers find it rather droll.
NullPointer
Member
9/10 shooting, 10/10 production values and art and polish, 5/10 social elements, 6/10 PVE scenario design, 3/10 story and world-building, 6/10 voice acting, 6/10 living up to its own hype and ambition, 6/10 at trying to merge an action shooter with MMO tropes.
There. That surely simplifies everything, at least on the non-PVP front.
I was thinking this over a bit ago, and while I disagree with the specific argument he's making, and certainly with the math, I do actually think of a 3/5 star review differently from a 6/10. I think it has to do with the US grading system, where ~90 is an A, ~80 is B, ~70 is a C, and so on. In that metric and a 60 is a D or poor score. I think this is part o the reason why many review sites tend to use the upper portion of the scale more often.
Similarly, when I read starred reviews, I tend to translate them as a 5 star is an A, a 4 star is a B, and a three star is a C. You gotta dip into 2 star territory before the score reads as bad to me.
Now this all varies wildly by site - Edge uses their full 1-10 spectrum for instance - but when talking general perception regarding 1-5 vs. 1-1-10 scales, I think there's something to it. At least for myself.
That said, I think this entire argument is putting way to much emphasis on numerical scores and not enough on the actual qualities of the game. It's bordering on asinine.
Hah. It's been a long time since I played a game where the various elements have had such a gulf in their relative qualities. I generally agree with how you've broken it out, which is partly why I feel so mixed about the game. It's a very mixed bag, and at different moments, different elements stand out. At one moment it's an incredible audio visual feast with fluid shooting mechanics, at another the broken social elements and uninspired encounter design rear up.
EventHorizon
Member
Do you have a problem with reality? Because that is what you are arguing against.
People tend to group things along natural boundaries. On a 5 point scale the division in quality go by points. So the points map like the following.
- 5: Game of the year contender
- 4: Good
- 3: Average
- 2: Bad
- 1: Comically horrible
People use the same categories on a 10 point scale but use the natural 1 point range as a category separator.
- 9.0-10: Game of the year contender
- 8.0-8.9: Good
- 7.0-7.9: Average
- 6.0-6.9: Bad
- 5.9 and below: Comically horrible
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
How much of this includes you deploying your ghost for some reason and killing everything that magically appears in front of you for 10 minutes?
Crysis got a 6/10? Damn thats arguably the best shooter Ive played...although Ive heard the tech was horrid at launch
We do you feel it needs to be within that score range, and not lower?
NullPointer
Member
You're doing Moon patrols at level ~20? Is there anything level appropriate or do you just spend your time gunning down greys?
Was doing an Earth patrol with my new level 4 Warlock when I stumbled upon that area that all the 23+ people are farming. Man, so sad to watch that. Just a firing line of uber players gunning down fodder again and again and again and again and ...
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis/critic-reviews
It didn't get a review on MC below 80. And Crysis was brilliant game at launch, poorly optimized sure, but the gameplay was fucking terrific, until the Aliens :/
Metacritic treats them as the same and they are the de facto arbiters of critical reception. So it does not matter whether 3/5 is or is not the same as 6/10 because, where it counts, they are treated as the same.
This is pretty absurd. We don't need to frame conversation around how Metacritic measures scores. Metacritic is far too engrained into the industry as it is, we most certainly don't need to start abiding by their rules when discussing reviews.
Except the 2nd scale you posted makes no sense when compared to the first one. Metacritic treats a 3/5 as a 6/10, doubling the scale doesn't change the value or meaning of the score.
2/10 is terrible
4/10 is bad but still enjoyable in some parts
6/10 is average but good
8/10 is great
10/10 is excellent
Times the 5 point scale by 3.
A 9/15 would be considered the same critically as 3/5 and 6/10. A bigger scale is only more useful when it comes to quantifying the game even more.
Just sayin, a 3/5 is a 6/10 on metacritic, and metacritic is the most important thing in the world of gaming criticism.
I'm surprised they haven't nerfed it yet , it gets mindnumbing
maybe 1%? You have to touch something to activate the next stage of the mission. OMG. I usually let someone else do it unless I am attempting a heroic solo.
I am level 25...
never done that. I'm doing moon patrols because:
a) I need helium to upgrade my boots.
b) there are tons of public events I haven't done there - these can be quite hard depending on how many people are there.
c) I like exploring the maps and taking in the atmosphere. Much more relaxing than a strike which is all bussines.
crazy I know.
I am surprised people play the game this way then call it repetitive.
Oh, well if Metacritic says so, I guess we can stop exercising our own critical thought.
I know how their scaling works. That doesn't mean we have to agree with it.
- Status