Destiny - Review Thread
- Thread starter opticalmace
- Start date
- Status
Holy shit I'm sorry. I should just keep playing PvP for rares so that when Iron Banner comes out, I can have fun with them. I better make sure I am maxed out otherwise I won't be able to compete!
Come on man...
I played Iron Banner in the beta, it doesn't mean you can be stronger (because you normally OHKO in other modes anyway), it just allows you to be weak if you're not getting better loot.
DrROBschiz
Member
This discussion does highlight my biggest problem with the industry right now
Trying to sell us on promises instead of actual meaningful content. Its scary and costly to consumers who rarely know exactly what we are getting
Season Passes, Early DLC, its all there to get us to subsidize imcomplete and unproven development
Its like Kickstarter/AAA development are crossing paths lol
The original 10 year plan had a new game coming out every 2 years with expansions in between. That might have changed but I can't imagine they won't drop XB360 PS3 support with Destiny 2 in 2016
Wow so because I can state* facts as to why certain points of his argument are wrong due to my own experience in the game it's "nuh uh you haven't played it"? I think it's you who doesn't understand.
breakfuss
Member
Ok, I agree the gunplay is good in Destiny; easily some of the best we've experienced. But the same could arguably be said about a host of other games. Hell, Shadow Fall (boring as it is) has fantastic mechanics. I'm not trying to diminish Bungie's accomplishment in this regard, but I feel like it's expected given their pedigree. I didn't buy Destiny simply to be wowed by how "good it feels".
This is funny. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't response. Why get better gear in pvp! PvP is normalized! Well your gear counts in iron banner which is pvp that takes loot into account. Oh well iron banner doesn't count that's in october!
Let me guess in october I will be seeing posts like Iron banner needs to be balanced why are people with better gear stomping me.
You either want gear to count in pvp for progression or you dont. I mean pick a side.
I think this debate will be fruitless.
I completely agree with you too, gatti. Your responses have been spot on.
If you're on psn feel free to add me. Building up a decent friends list of people who enjoy the game. Not because I want an echo chamber environment, but playing with people who get joy from the experience is just more satisfying
Psn: astropoff
Goes to everyone else too.
Yep that's EXACTLY what I said.
GrandHarrier
Member
Oh, I'm ripping the game, but I definitely enjoy the gun play. It's just disappointing that I don't give a shit why I am doing anything that I am doing. I understood and enjoyed the missions in Halo. They made sense. You had a reason to be doing what you were doing. Destiny lacks even this. It's just bullshit paragraph of nonsense before you enter the zone or strike and then go shoot stuff for awhile.
What facts? You seem hung up on what I said in one line about titans more than anything else. I know defenders are great in PvE, I never said otherwise there. And your PvP stuff is more "get good" more than...well, anything else.
It's not. I never wanted to play PvP in the first place. Our argument started with me saying how fucking boring getting rare drops was, and that I had to do strike missions in order to get them.
Read our posts again. You basically told me:
"Play PvP, and wait until October to use the drops you get"
No, I want to play PvE, I want to level up. I have put in more time then it took me to get to LV20, trying to get to LV22. Nothing has ever dropped for me. If I wasn't told that these drops existed, I would think there really is nothing at all to do.
Dictator93
Member
If it is the same, I would be extra surprised. I would find it quite fitting.
the insane AAA hype machine 500 mill for medicore stuff should stop.
FunkyPajamas
Member
I wonder if Bungie will address scores/criticisms in their next media update, or if they're going to ignore that.
Freeman
Banned
Most MMOs aren't received well from my experience.
Strange response... WoW is HUGE...
And even so, the rare drops in Destiny don't allow you to do anything other than the same thing you have already been doing,
In WoW there are specific bosses that you can only fight at a high level. In Destiny the strike playlists make you fight the same fukn spider boss from the beta
And more over, the whole point is that if I did get a good drop, I can say "that was boring" rather than "it will be boring"
TheGameChanger
Banned
Content: The amount of specified material contained.
Destiny has four, fairly large, explorable areas, strike missions, a raid and a multiplayer with 11 maps and 6 gamemodes. Compared to the amount of content available in MGS Ground zeroes, Infamous second son and Titanfall, that's a lot. Now define "satire" for me.
oneils
Member
I was trying to think of an MMO that got a decent reception and I think Guild Wars 2 was the first one in a while. In a sense, these reviews shouldn't be a surprise. Unless everyone wants to insist that Destiny shouldn't be compared to an mmo, I guess.
Warcraft and expansions normally score in the 80s or 90s. FFXIV scored an 86 on PS4 and 83 on PC. Good MMOs are well received mediocre ones get mediocre scores
Netherscourge
Banned
The IGN review is on hold until the Raid opens and they test it.
Freeman
Banned
Movies have a way lower metacritic score.
oneils
Member
I think that's why he used the word "most." He mean't most - not all. But your point is well taken. Good mmo's are well received. By extension, though, most mmo's are not well received. That should have given us a little bit of an understanding of what to expect for Destiny.
Or it's a bit tiring to get the Axiom Coven IV for the 20th time doing the same strikes again and again.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I don't know about that. Watchdogs is a very good game that I feel stayed true to the promises made pre-release pertaining to what you as the player would be able to do in that world and how much control or freedom you'd be able to have in terms of both manipulating the environment around you, as well as the people in it. People can complain about graphics if they want, but I felt delivering on the vision promised was far more important. Destiny isn't the game that was promised. It's not even close to being that from everything I've seen and heard.
I had a feeling a long time ago that this would happen. Not that destiny would somehow be received this badly. I totally didn't see that coming, and I don't know anyone who did. However, I had strong suspicions nonetheless that Watch Dogs would end up being the better received game of the two, and it very clearly is. It may not be easy for people to accept this after all the guaranteed GOTY talk around Destiny, but Watch Dogs is a much better game.
Edit: And reviews aren't exactly the law or anything. I disagree with reviews on an almost consistent basis. I think they're a very terrible thing to solely rely upon in determining whether or a not a game is right for you. In the case of Destiny, however, my doubts go back quite a ways. I was already concerned well in advance about how worthwhile the story in the game would be and if I'd feel like the things I was doing actually mattered. I wasn't looking for a game where the good feeling gunplay was the only payoff or reward. Based on what I've seen for myself and from what I've heard from friends that I trust, a lot of my early concerns were spot on. That reviews on top of my own existing doubts seem so definitive in their portrayal of just how badly Destiny misses the mark, it was easy to conclude that it just wasn't the game for me.
Freeman
Banned
I wasn't arguing that point and I was excluding WoW because its WoW, you are counting A Relm Reborn for FFXIV it wasn't like that the first time.
But even for the genre the score Destiny have right now is bellow average.
No it isn't EXACTLY what you said, which should have been fucking obvious by my use of the word "imply"...
Feel free to actually explain the point to your post then, if the take away from it wasn't supposed to be what I got from it.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It certainly doesn't seem like Bungie played any of them.
Sure it is. It's just not massive. It is structured exactly like one, but just really poorly executed and lacking a ton of features.
It's to be expected when other games provide it right from the start.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
I find it incredibly dumb that sites are trying to judge Destiny as if it were a static, final experience not even a week after release.
I mean, I know the game has problems currently, but isn't the whole point of the product to provide a platform that offers new content on a regular basis instead of rushing out a SP campaign and trying to capitalize on PvP map packs? The current structure of AAA game reviews isn't able to account for that. By this time next year the entire review text could be completely outdated and not represent what the game actually is at that time. There needs to be some kind of flexible rating system that will serve this type of game better.
I mean, I know the game has problems currently, but isn't the whole point of the product to provide a platform that offers new content on a regular basis instead of rushing out a SP campaign and trying to capitalize on PvP map packs? The current structure of AAA game reviews isn't able to account for that. By this time next year the entire review text could be completely outdated and not represent what the game actually is at that time. There needs to be some kind of flexible rating system that will serve this type of game better.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc
So I like Destiny. I like it a lot. This doesn't excuse some of the flaws of the game though - loot feels wrong, like vanilla D3 levels of wrong.
I don't understand how Bungie apparently had so much time & resource available to them to come out with this as an end product. It feels far too light on content and mission variety.
I can completely see where these review scores are coming from. I just hope Bungie build on what they have and make improvements.
I don't understand how Bungie apparently had so much time & resource available to them to come out with this as an end product. It feels far too light on content and mission variety.
I can completely see where these review scores are coming from. I just hope Bungie build on what they have and make improvements.
Let me break this down for you.
Four large worlds.
In each world, there is a world of area.
In each world of area, there are missions in that world.
There will soon be, in about a week, another mission to do in one of those areas.
Now, Multiplayer has 11 maps, half or so of which are from the world of area from above, so let's say we have 6+4... 10 different looking areas, and 6 of them are exclusive to PvP. Oh yeah, 6 different rule sets for each 6 areas for PvP...
Titanfall came out with ~13 maps, all different looking areas, actually more different kinds of weapons, a ton of burn cards to change up the gameplay, and roughly 4 (the rest don't count) different ways to play in those maps.
Oh we also had Titans, so there were two whole different ways to move, gunset, w/e to play in this 13 maps with 4 modes.
--
Look in terms of content, assuming you are still serious that content should determine a games' score and nothing else, Destiny doesn't have much. If it didn't have levelling, it would be the smallest game ever. Locking off loot and having the same enemies with a bigger number on their head is not content.
--
This thread has given me more fun than Destiny.
It's very clearly a game meant to be expanded upon over time.
I also am having a certifiable blast with the game. Forget the review scores - my review score is the only one that matters.
Depends how you mean it. Did they look at the finished game and decide to rove stuff and hold it back? Doubt it.
Did they plan for DLC from the start and make clear decisions how much content had to ship on release and however they could schedule for DLC? Probably. I wouldn't even be surprised if they targeted minimum content for launch they thought market would accept.
Fbh
Member
I sometimes have to wonder why we even have a 1-10 scale when a difference of 0.8 is the line that separates a good game from a mediocre one
It is not an end product. That's what every single review seems to fail to understand.
But again, if they all said the same thing, they wouldn't get the clicks.
Bright-Light
Member
I agree a flexible system would be good.
But how are reviewers supposed to review it NOW? Do you believe it should not be reviewed yet, or people should review it by imagining how good the additional content will be?
Jack Scofield
Member
Like I said earlier, I wonder how many reviewers are looking at the generous consensus of the game before assigning it a score. If release copies were sent to gaming sites a few weeks the ago, I'm sure many reviewers would have given it a much higher score (they're typically always blinded by AAA hype), and 9 times out of 10 seem blind to major problems of games.
But since they don't get to play it until everyone else, they see that there's a lot of conflicting (and sometimes negative) opinion. In order to seem like they have their finger on the pulse of the general gaming community, they assign the game a score lower than they originally would have.
If they played actual review copies, they probably would have played it much safer. Same thing used to happen in the "Afterthoughts" column in game magazines like EGM, where they take another look at a game a few months later and suddenly they find a ton of stuff wrong with it. Why didn't you mention this stuff when you first reviewed the game? Halo 2 is the one example that comes to mind for me.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. It cribs just about everything from MMORPG design school, but doesn't gel the elements together in a way that is satisfying or well done.
Yeah right when I hit 70 in Diablo 3 I had perfect uniques for all the builds wanted to try. Cuz all games provide you with every item except for Destiny.
As much as I don't get the comparison between Destiny and more straight-up action focused games, this is very well put.
Tomeru
Member
If that is true, it is very very sad.
I actually think the co-op in Halo was far better and more fleshed out than Destiny. That had four player co-op instead of three, a campaign scoring meta-game with free-for-all or team scoring and all sorts of multipliers for time bonuses or stylish kills, optional skull modifiers to change how enemy AI behaves, etc. (Admittedly I haven't reached max level/end game in Destiny yet, so perhaps this stuff unlocks then, I'll have to see).
Halo had more actual co-op opportunities too, for example driving your buddy on the warthog as he's shooting enemies on the gunner turret, or that Halo Reach mission where two people are shooting out of the sides of a hornet and having to provide cover fire for each other, etc.
Destiny doesn't really do anything interesting with co-op in my experience so far. It plays pretty much the same as playing it solo, just that the boss fights become less tedious in co-op. Maybe the upcoming raid will be fun, but not having matchmaking pretty much kills that for me and I assume a lot of other people.
- Status