I was going to give it an 8 but then I decided to sacrifice my career and give it a 10 in order to get an extra trading card and figurine. I'm sure my wife and kids will figure something out while I play with my figurine by risking my salary and way of life.All these reviewers got a free Destiny Collectors Bribery edition right ?
Anything for Activision to score some extra free points in score and text review
Maybe he isn't a fanboy?..I've read people call Destin a Destiny fanboy so for him to give it a lower score really sucks.
All these reviewers got a free Destiny Collectors Bribery edition right ?
Anything for Activision to score some extra free points in score and text review
Ign have lowered their review in progress score to 8.2
http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2017/09/09/destiny-2-review?read
Its fantastic and certainly not just more of the same IMO.Destiny has always struck me as an 8/10 game. Well, ever since Taken King (before then, it was dog shit). But it doesn't surprise me Destiny 2 is received no differently. It is mostly more of the same.
This whole review in progress concept is just bizarre. Yesterday, it was 8.7, today an 8.2, what will it be next week?
I'm not criticizing the actual score itself, just the method of assigning scores while still in the progress of playing.
He was trolling the same garbage in the lost legacy thread. Best ignore the trolls. Game is fantastic, some hate that.Why is it an issue for you that Destiny 2 got some positive reviews?
Satire?All these reviewers got a free Destiny Collectors Bribery edition right ?
Anything for Activision to score some extra free points in score and text review
Only a handful of games a gen feel fresh...thats an odd standard. There is nothing else like destiny on the market.I'd give it an 8.5. It's pretty good. If bungie had delivered a game of the same quality 3 years ago it'd have blown our minds.
Destiny 2 is great but it doesn't feel fresh.
Only a handful of games a gen feel fresh...thats an odd standard. There is nothing else like destiny on the market.
OK..has nothing to do with what I said. Barely anything is fresh. GTA 5 has a 97 metacritic. Its basicalky the sane game as GTA 4 and 3, with added polish and content like every sequel ever. I put 1000 hourd in d1. D2 is a bug step up in every area, feels different enough IMO, as far as sequels go.Doesn't feel fresh for people like me who spent 1800 hours in D1. Some enemies have been revamped. But some are essentially the same.
It's more of the same with added polish and a bigger scale. That's not bad. I love destiny. I don't want "not destiny" like many haters do. But at times i have this strong feeling of deja vu.
I too did not like the weapon hanges in the beta in regards to PVE. But now playing the full version it feels like i have two primaries and a secondary power rarher than one primary one secondary and a power like D1If that helps I hated the new weapon loadout in the Beta but it makes sense and works pretty well in the final game for PVP... you shot normal enemies with non-elemental gun and fast switch to elemental gun to break shielded enemies.
That is a good change for PVE... in D1 you had to go in menu to change your weapon and now you can switch on the fly to kill enemies in Nightfall for example.
Works pretty well.
Those scores are arbitrary anyway, no need to think twice about them. A 5% deduction can stand for anything. Feeling not great today? Encountered a glitch? Didnt like todays loot?This whole review in progress concept is just bizarre. Yesterday, it was 8.7, today an 8.2, what will it be next week?
I'm not criticizing the actual score itself, just the method of assigning scores while still in the progress of playing.
Those scores are arbitrary anyway, no need to think twice about them. A 5% deduction can stand for anything. Feeling not great today? Encountered a glitch? Didnt like todays loot?
OK..has nothing to do with what I said. Barely anything is fresh. GTA 5 has a 97 metacritic. Its basicalky the sane game as GTA 4 and 3, with added polish and content like every sequel ever. I put 1000 hourd in d1. D2 is a bug step up in every area, feels different enough IMO, as far as sequels go.
Barely anything is fresh. GTA 5 has a 97 metacritic. Its basicalky the sane game as GTA 4 and 3, with added polish and content like every sequel ever.
Those scores are arbitrary anyway, no need to think twice about them. A 5% deduction can stand for anything. Feeling not great today? Encountered a glitch? Didnt like todays loot?
I'd give it an 8.5. It's pretty good. If bungie had delivered a game of the same quality 3 years ago it'd have blown our minds.
Destiny 2 is great but it doesn't feel fresh.
I'd give it an 8.5. It's pretty good. If bungie had delivered a game of the same quality 3 years ago it'd have blown our minds.
Destiny 2 is great but it doesn't feel fresh.
GTA online is completely new, and so insanely successful that the all of their future games will revolve around an online concept. It is the sole reason the game is much more successful then it's predecessors.
This whole review in progress concept is just bizarre. Yesterday, it was 8.7, today an 8.2, what will it be next week?
I'm not criticizing the actual score itself, just the method of assigning scores while still in the progress of playing.
One, let the guy have his opinion. Is 1800 hours invested not good enough just because he's not championing the game as you are?
Secondly, you're statement about GTA5 being basically the same as 4 and 3 is blatantly false. There is a reason it achieved 97 metacritic, something D2 most likely won't even end 10 points within range once all the reviews are out.
GTA online is completely new, and so insanely successful that the all of their future games will revolve around an online concept. It is the sole reason the game is much more successful then it's predecessors. Having three protaganists instead of the staple one is actually video game defining, let alone GTA defining (and they are all doing their own activities in the world in real time as you're a different character).
The AI is VASTLY improved. Before they used to mindlessly wander around the city, now they have lives, schedules they follow, etc. They'll sit and wait for the bus, go to a destination, and eventually go back to the same area, while others would be gardening and get hostile if you mess up their garden. These are a few examples but the difference between GTA 4 is insane, let alone GTA3 (you must be trolling with that). R* also said there are 5x as much NPCs in the world.
There actually is an economy unlike the previous games. The customization options for everything is light years ahead of GTA4. New features such as underwater exploration, dynamic missions, skydiving, bounties, heists, challenges, vastly improved cover mechanics, and more. One of the bigger things Destiny is being praised for is a bigger world then the first game (like thatvwas hard to top) and GTA5 does the same thing, as well.
Hell, Michael's flip flops individually moving the way they do generated crazy amounts of praise, even in reviews. The engine R* used was mind blowing at the time and to think it even ran the way it did on older consoles is crazy.
I can keep on but my point is:
is a statement that's not doing you any favors here. It's vastly, vastly more than just "added polish and content like every sequel ever."
The two biggest things Destiny 2 has going for it are actually having a story, unlike the first game, and much needed QoL improvements. As a level 20 plvl 240, please attempt to tell me that there are bigger things the game has going for it besides those.
Not all review scores are equally arbitrary, in my opinion. But a scale of 100 increments seems to imply some sort of objectivity or science which is obviously not there. On a 5 star system, each step represents a significant difference that is easy to grasp. The difference between 82 or 84 or 87? Totally arbitrary. The review in progress concept amplifies this issue, I think. On top of that you add a weird feedback loop into the mix, where the reviewer can constantly see how his audience reacts to every single point change immediately, which inadvertently will influence the score he gives next time.Reviews are subjective, but I'm not sure "arbitrary" is the appropriate term. Presumably the scores reflect how the individual reviewer feels about a particular game and isn't completely arbitrary. The problem here is that in the rush to be first, or at least one of the first, they provide a review that is dynamic based not on contemplation over the entire experience from the game, but rather the most recent snapshot of a reviewer's impression.
To some extent, the issue is just trying to review a game as sprawling as Destiny. Nor does it help that Bungie has been walling off its best content behind the Raids. I think it raises questions as to whether any kind of numerical score should be given for a game like this before the game has been played for weeks or even a month. Written impressions discussing the ebbs and flows until that point is probably a better way to go.
Yep. Exactly. Revisionist history at its finest.there is nothing that allows this type of gameplay, with groups anywere else.destiny is pretty unique as it is.GTA Online did not even launch until a month after GTA5, which had received superlative reviews with the online mode sight-unseen. It was also pretty demonstrably broken at launch.
Sometimes I also feel like the expectations for PvE content are a bit out of whack, like there must be this infinite stream of novel PvE content which is pretty unprecedented for a non-sub MMO. But then even if you have as many different and fun activities as Destiny 2 does, it's still not enough or is repetitive. There's a ton of different shit to do.
UM. GTA got its reviews before online even launched, destroys your argument. Its the same GTA, more of the same...
I never said he cannot have an opinion, am I not allowed yp comment about his opinion on a forum or something? Chill man, relax tiger.
How so?Sorry dude, but calling GTAV 'more of the same' in trying to defend Destiny 2, you're missing the mark in every way. It's a hilariously bad example to pick.
Going from just one playable characters to three and how they're integrated into the some of the mission structure is a big enough to change to differentiate the two entries.How so?
You never even gave one legit reason why, and GTA 4 , 5 is just one if many examples.
The "review in progress" thing is bizarre and final scores now is bad journalism. Just play the game for two weeks then put out a review after the Raid and Trials are out. Those are incredibly important aspects of the game.
Anyone who scores this before Trials AND the raid doesn't have my respect and isn't doing their job. It's that simple. It's not even about a good score or not it's about doing your due diligence. it's not 2007 it's 2017 don't review games like we're still using Zunes...
Anyone who scores this before Trials AND the raid doesn't have my respect and isn't doing their job. It's that simple. It's not even about a good score or not it's about doing your due diligence. it's not 2007 it's 2017 don't review games like we're still using Zunes...
Going from just one playable characters to three and how they're integrated into the some of the mission structure is a big enough to change to differentiate the two entries.
Going from just one playable characters to three and how they're integrated into the some of the mission structure is a big enough to change to differentiate the two entries.
The game will easily be the biggest timesink for most people, how does it land a solid 8/10 in that case? Doesn't this mean it should be a solid 9. Just wondering of course, not disputing any of these reviews, it looks like a very solid game regardless.
The game plays identical to 4 . its more of the same, and again. GTA is just one example. You can do this for nearly every sequel.Going from just one playable characters to three and how they're integrated into the some of the mission structure is a big enough to change to differentiate the two entries.
The game plays identical to 4 . its more of the same, and again. GTA is just one example. You can do this for nearly every sequel.
Destiny has always struck me as an 8/10 game. Well, ever since Taken King (before then, it was dog shit). But it doesn't surprise me Destiny 2 is received no differently. It is mostly more of the same.
Not everyone cares for the raids. I wonder about the percentages of D1 players that have even finished all the raids.
Completely different?how?As someone who hated GTA V and think that GTA IV is amazing, this is absolutely wrong. They are completely different.
It died because of competitive multiplayer only (at launch) and the lack of content. In terms of gameplay depth it absolutely towers over any mainstream FPS this gen.