Destiny - Review Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is why Bungie's reason for the review embargo was complete bullshit.

"Wait until our game actually has players in it!!".

Why? They can't really do much of anything in terms of social interaction anyway.

that was the funniest part

like those 3-4 randoms you won't interact with except in the 1% chance you run into a public event before the strike or mission you're on will really make the difference

but I guess they needed more players to experience their versatile unique suite of PvP modes like Deathmatch and Capture Points. "Its like all the other MP shooters you've played, but NOW you get unbalanced supers every now and again"
 

Yeah, cause giving BF4 4/5 was really justified as well. :P

Looking back at how these same sites scored that mess of a game makes me remember why I don't bother with giving them a single click to begin with.

Wether the style of the game is to your liking or not, or what problems you have with certain aspects of it, it's pretty hard to justify scoring a game that was completely broken for months higher than a game such as Destiny.

Games journalism remains as a joke in my eyes, with a few exceptions.
And no, those exceptions didn't give Destiny a glowing review either if you were wondering. ;)
 
He's not just talking about his review. How are you going to quantify the number of people "lashing out in anger"?

by not really over thinking video game tweets on twitter. if I clicked on three of these links on the front page and read the comments, if they agreed, I would write the tweet. I wouldn't expect someone to really ask how I got my data and all that. or he could have just read this thread, lmao.

that was the funniest part

like those 3-4 randoms you won't interact with except in the 1% chance you run into a public event before the strike or mission you're on will really make the difference

but I guess they needed more players to experience their versatile unique suite of PvP modes like Deathmatch and Capture Points. "Its like all the other MP shooters you've played, but NOW you get unbalanced supers every now and again"

I couldn't believe they were really using that for an excuse. Like we all played the beta, we knew it having an online community wouldn't have made a difference. the only thing that got me kinda happy about that excuse was the brief glimpse of hope that they actually listened to feedback and changed the way social interactions worked.
 
by not really over thinking video game tweets on twitter. if I clicked on three of these links on the front page and read the comments, if they agreed, I would write the tweet. I wouldn't expect someone to really ask how I got my data and all that. or he could have just read this thread, lmao.

I really feel like you don't understand what I wrote.
 
That's how I feel. I Like what's there and will continue enjoying it, but it deserves some of the scores it's gotten. I'm happy that reviewers seem to be giving much more proper scores lately. That there's a 96 on Metacritic for this game is an absolute joke. "Chumps" indeed.

Precisely. You can enjoy a game for what it does good, but still remain critical and hold it accountable for where it falls flat. However, what makes this case stand out is how huge this game was supposed to be and the various lines of bullshit that Bungie ran with while creating the hype. It more than deserves to be called out and I am glad to see that it is. But sure, I am still having some fun playing it.
 
So who else played the beta and saw these criticisms coming from a long way off?

I don't wanna sound like a hipster but I delve at least 2 hours into the alpha and stopped playing because I didn't want to damage my opinion of this game (because ultimately I thought the mission shit was really mundane, did not feel like it rewarded my efforts). I played the beta and did not feel a difference. The gunplay is also just not fun.

The worst part is I can't stop comparing it to borderlands, it just fails in comparison to that game which is why I mostly kept my criticisms to myself. but I figured "well, so many people are enjoying it/hyped, maybe it's just me"
 
I really feel like you don't understand what I wrote.

Maybe not because I read that tweet and didn't really see why that would be hard to generalize because I made the same assumption reading this thread. Then you said he wasn't just talking about his review and asked how he was going to quantify those lashing out in anger. I just assumed he read the comments on a few sites, seen that a lot of the comments were agreeing with the reviews rather than being upset and wrote the tweet. It just seemed like you were looking way too deep into that tweet. It was a generalization that could easily be gathered in less than 5 mins. I don't really understand your issue with the tweet.

but whatever, it's not a big deal, my last interaction with a mod didn't end well so I'll take your explanation (or not) and call this a day, lmao.
 
Yeah, cause giving BF4 4/5 was really justified as well. :P

Looking back at how these same sites scored that mess of a game makes me remember why I don't bother with giving them a single click to begin with.

Wether the style of the game is to your liking or not, or what problems you have with certain aspects of it, it's pretty hard to justify scoring a game that was completely broken for months higher than a game such as Destiny.

Games journalism remains as a joke in my eyes, with a few exceptions.
And no, those exceptions didn't give Destiny a glowing review either if you were wondering. ;)

I don't think Giant Bomb reviewed BF4?
 
Yeah, cause giving BF4 4/5 was really justified as well. :P

Looking back at how these same sites scored that mess of a game makes me remember why I don't bother with giving them a single click to begin with.

Wether the style of the game is to your liking or not, or what problems you have with certain aspects of it, it's pretty hard to justify scoring a game that was completely broken for months higher than a game such as Destiny.

Games journalism remains as a joke in my eyes, with a few exceptions.
And no, those exceptions didn't give Destiny a glowing review either if you were wondering. ;)

Yh, the hypocrisy is pretty damning
 
The internet just sent Activision and Bungie some humble pie. I really can't wait to see their response to this...

probably take a bath in their $500 million and post wash lather using the tears of the masses as lubricant

no but seriously i dont think they'll care much because this game gon be around awhile
 
The problem I see with this is that the console market is very different. Every year there's THE new FPS to try. If you don't create a loyal community by then, it's gone. The "honeymoon" period will be over fast IMO. The backlash is one of the fastest I've seen in my 25+ years of gaming.

Bingo

Diablo also got its shit together before the console release, and PC Diablo fans are a fanbase that would come back to Diablo's revamp. This isnt the same with Destiny. There is no new market to try again, unless they reintroduce the game on PC
 
Titanfall's [1]story WAS part of the multiplayer. That's what made it so throwaway in the end, because you may as well just play some Attrition. I found it to be disappointing as well, the game never relied on the story and world being expansive to sell itself (they didn't even bother showing any of the campaign prelaunch). Titanfall was always being pushed as a multiplayer arena shooter along the lines of CoD, without the SP mode. It provided pretty much everything it claimed it would, from a development standpoint.

See that Destiny "you can go there" video that everyone is currently quoting? What is the Titanfall equivalent of that? Destiny claimed to expansive, and filled with shit to explore and to provide a world/story to sit alonsige Star Wars and Game of Thrones... ot be significantly beyond Halo.[2]

It's not even close to being any of that. It's more in line with Warframe and other F2P offerings.

1) Titanfall was exactly a multiplayer story game. Exactly what I said. I'll give you that it was exactly what they said it was but that doesn't excuse it for being barebones and barely getting docked for that at all. Games that barely over promise get docked for stuff like Gunplay lower than anything else while having a good story, good gameplay etc. My problem rest with that fact.

2) I'm gonna need receipts on this exaggeration made by Bungie vs, people expectations that probably the media did to over hype the game . I have not yet once hear that it was going to be like star wars or game of thrones.

Can we use facts when discussing things? Thanks.

Titanfall came out March 11th, 2014. Almost *six months* to the day, not a year.

Lol! Thanks but the date doesn't really matters to the conversation. Especially if Destiny gets expanded beyond what TF was able to do in 6 months.

WTF is a multiplayer story driven game? Titanfall was designed as multiplayer only game. Full Stop. Nor was it ever the notion that story would be "part" of the multiplayer. It's campaign was pretty much tacked on as an entirely separate game mode because people keep whining for singleplayer to be included with their multiplayer only games.

No. Full stop. Titanfall Multiplayer was it's Main Campaign that just like Destiny has other game modes. Don't get it twisted. That's why everyone was bugging about how different it was because it took a traditional single player campaign mission and fused it into a multiplayer session. It was not separated but fused. Stop.


Just because you sucked at it and never learned how to play it properly doesn't make it automatically a game that doesn't improve on anything. It's core movement mechanics and shooting gameplay is light years ahead of Destiny.

Wtf is this bullshit? I know how to play Titanfall and I certainly do not suck. Do I like the game, no I don't. It doesn't click well for me. This is probably one of the most immature comments I have ever seen addressed to me on GAF before.

"You're not good at it so stop talking bad about it."

What's funny about that statement was, the game was supposed to bring people who suck as an easier way to get into the game rather than people who will be good at it. Even Polygon admitted that shit, but I wasn't one of them. Bye with this garbage.

Who the hell cares that it's going to be "ever evolving" or whatever Activision marketing that is being spouted. The game costs $60, and it should be judged as it is at this moment. And the point is at this moment, the content that is there is sparse, extremely repetitive, and the story is bordering on atrocious. The game is wracked from top to bottom with terrible design decisions, which is all the more sad because this is the studio that made Halo


As I have said before, I disagree. I feel like my $60 is well spent with almost all of the things it did right. Presentation feels right to me. Gameplay feels right to me. Content, I have more than I can play at moment and I'm just level 14 feeling like I have played for weeks. Social is amazing because I can jump in anyone of my friends squad. The world's look incredible in which I KNOW there is more to come. What are these terrible designs decision? If your expectations was way to high to achieve then, that's the issue, but from where I'm sitting, this game has offered a lot more than half the games that has came out this year.
 
Do people consider WoW repetitive? DCUO?

I'm not suggesting that Destiny isn't...just that it may have been designed to be that way.

If you want to commit to typical, repetitive MMO game design, you also have to fully commit to the social elements that make that content tolerable in a MMO. Large, barren areas are boring when they are largely underpopulated. The loot isn't as important when it's sparse and not freely traded.

GTA Online suffered a lot by also going for the MMO-lite game design. You really have to fully commit.
 
Do people consider WoW repetitive? DCUO?

I'm not suggesting that Destiny isn't...just that it may have been designed to be that way.

I've never played WoW, and only played a few hours of DCUO... but yea, DCUO was extremely repetitive, to the point where I couldn't bring myself to continue playing it despite being super interested in the universe it was set in.

DCUO's intro was better than the entirety of the Destiny story I've seen though lol.
 
I was waiting on the reviews before I picked up Destiny, but with the general consensus that the game isn't worth $60 right now I'll probably never get it. Especially with Dragon Age, GTAV, COD, BF4DLC, and the deluge of games coming out in 2015.

Destiny will be a forgotten game this generation like Lair.
Let's not be silly. This franchise isn't going away like Lair.
 
So Meta's been updated with GS/PSLS reviews?

hRbhDWh.png


Dayum.

ODST having the lowest score of the Halo games is a crime considering it's the best one.

Whole-heartedly agree.

While I won't go as far to say ODST is a better open-world game then Destiny, it certainly does a much better job of presenting a world and characters that you actually CARE about. When you see reviews titles for Destiny like "Hollow Earth" or "It's a Small World After All", you know you've got some identity issues.
 
If you want to commit to typical, repetitive MMO game design, you also have to fully commit to the social elements that make that content tolerable in a MMO. Large, barren areas are boring when they are largely underpopulated. The loot isn't as important when it's sparse and not freely traded.

GTA Online suffered a lot by also going for the MMO-lite game design. You really have to fully commit.

Do you think that Red Dead Redemption got it right, I felt that open world with strangers, no one I ever particularly interacted with socially, but there seemed some sort of cohesiveness, not actually sure why it was so complelling to just be online, maybe im wrong, but I thought there was something to it
 
Yeah, cause giving BF4 4/5 was really justified as well. :P

Looking back at how these same sites scored that mess of a game makes me remember why I don't bother with giving them a single click to begin with.

Wether the style of the game is to your liking or not, or what problems you have with certain aspects of it, it's pretty hard to justify scoring a game that was completely broken for months higher than a game such as Destiny.

Games journalism remains as a joke in my eyes, with a few exceptions.
And no, those exceptions didn't give Destiny a glowing review either if you were wondering. ;)
Did the reviews of BF4 get revised down and back up ever? Because I don't see how it can have an 85 on PS4, when it came out broken, but Destiny has a 74. Something about their scoring rationale is off.
 
probably take a bath in their $500 million and post wash lather using the tears of the masses as lubricant

no but seriously i dont think they'll care much because this game gon be around awhile

You mean only 17% of that $500 million. They only get a part of that $60 price. If they continue to sell Destiny for 10 years straight with this outcome they would break even.

Not exactly impressive when you think about it.
 
EDIT: Nevermind, I guess I shouldn't be telling other people how to feel. Anyways, I basically think that reviews should be used as a tool (ie. information). I personally don't care too much about the score. But to each his/her own.
 
Yeah, cause giving BF4 4/5 was really justified as well. :P

Looking back at how these same sites scored that mess of a game makes me remember why I don't bother with giving them a single click to begin with.

Wether the style of the game is to your liking or not, or what problems you have with certain aspects of it, it's pretty hard to justify scoring a game that was completely broken for months higher than a game such as Destiny.

Games journalism remains as a joke in my eyes, with a few exceptions.
And no, those exceptions didn't give Destiny a glowing review either if you were wondering. ;)

Yh, the hypocrisy is pretty damning

This is a ridiculous logic. So every outlet where a reviewer, or even the same reviewer (wouldn't change a thing), has messed up BF4's evaluation now should take into account that score and be sure every less-broken-than-BF4 game gets scored higher regardless if it even deserves that score? Two wrongs don't make a right, better to have one balanced and well thought-out review than having none in the name of some ridiculous so-it's-fair line of thinking.
 
I like Destiny a lot so far, but I feel that it is getting the scores it deserves so far. These are the scores i feel MOST massively hyped AAA games should be getting lately. Games like Titanfall and Watch_Dogs were scored much too high. Destiny is scored just right.
 
I can see why some people are mad that Battlfield 4 got better scores, given how terrible that game was. Especially if you actually like Destiny. It's never easy to see people being critical over something you like, and feeling like their criticism isn't consistent to other games.

But things to keep in mind:

I. Not all reviews have the same reviewer. It's possible the person that scored Battlefield 4 a 5/5 wasn't the same person that gave Destiny a 3/5.

II. Just because a reviewer/site has over scored in the past, doesn't mean they should continue to do so. This idea that, a person can't grow as a critic, is kind of silly. Past scores should NOT always dictate future scores.

III. Reviews are subjective. They really are. Not only are they based on opinion, there is human elements (such as bias/experience) that will impact the review, regardless of how objective a reviewer tries to be. It's just human nature. There will be many times in a critics career, where they will regret scoring something too high or too low. Where they will have felt ONE way about a game, and then felt ANOTHER way years later. It happens. Reviews are strange in a way, as they are capturing a moment in time in the persons life that reviewed the game. People change.

IV. Lastly reviews should stop being looked at as this permanent fixture. Because reviews are subjective, what really matters is that they are used as tool. They are used as information, to help you the consumer made a decision on purchasing something. The words in the reviews matter more than the score. So if we accept the score isn't this holy/permanent thing, then we should being upset when a game gets scored too high or too low. Who cares. What matters is I. the information the review provided. II. How that information relates to you.

Thanks mom, I promise not to do it again
 
Thanks mom, I promise not to do it again

lol huh?

To be clear, I have no issue with people debating reviews, and being critical of them. That wasn't the intent of my post. I was just saying, all things into perspective, it's hard to get too angry over a review on a personal level. They are what they are. But by all means if you don't agree with critics, I think it's more than reasonable to be critical (within reason).
 
Very clearly a user review lol.

Whoops then. As I said, I don't visit that site at all and get everything from here.
Doesn't excuse all the other sites though.

This is a ridiculous logic. So every outlet where a reviewer, or even the same reviewer (wouldn't change a thing), has messed up BF4's evaluation now should take into account that score and be sure every less-broken-than-BF4 game gets scored higher regardless if it even deserves that score? Two wrongs don't make a right, better to have one balanced and well thought-out review than having none in the name of some ridiculous so-it's-fair line of thinking.

No, that's not what I was going for.

I'm not saying that Destiny should be getting a 9 because BF got an 9 or something like that, which would pretty much mean X is better than Y score.

It's simply an example of how messed up this whole system is and how these kinds of sites are all of a sudden harsh on games as they should be and on our side as they should be, while that's clearly not the case at all and haven't been for a long time.

All that matters is clicks and money. Integrity is something most of these don't seem to care about and that is clean when talking people into buying crap like BF4 at launch.
 
The internet just sent Activision and Bungie some humble pie. I really can't wait to see their response to this...

"Destiny has been an unparalleled success for a new ip. $500 million dollars in 24 hours is a lot of money. We couldn't do it without all you guys and your disposable income, so thanks. In the months ahead, we're rolling out all new content to expand the universe of Destiny. NPC vendors will show up in the tower, new bullet sponge boss fights that are blown up versions of enemies you already fought will soon be available, and new missions where you race on a ghost to a location where you can hold square and fight waves of enemies are in development as we speak. And, for all you Guardians out there who played launch week, you'll be getting the new dance animations for FREE. Now you can pretend to interact with the 3-4 people you may run into in the game's single town in even more ways than before.

We're just getting started. Let the legend come back to life.

-Bungie"
 
2) I'm gonna need receipts on this exaggeration made by Bungie vs, people expectations that probably the media did to over hype the game . I have not yet once hear that it was going to be like star wars or game of thrones.

The exact quote from Bungie has been posted several times in this thread already and should not be hard to find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom