While the progression and combat was a bog-standard Destiny strike, the scale of the map and the interactive environment in the dig site weren't something we saw in D1.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
To the "Destiny 2 looks like DLC" crowd. Why?
- Thread starter StalkerUKCG
- Start date
While the progression and combat was a bog-standard Destiny strike, the scale of the map and the interactive environment in the dig site weren't something we saw in D1.
What the hell does the amount of content have to do with anything apart from there being more of the same, which isnt all that true for COD. This is a discussion about how similar the content is and if its more of the same. Which is true with D2 its more of the same with some balance and QOL thrown in. absolutely ridiculous is your reasoning.
D1 and D2 are very similar and D2 looks like a DLC, COD looks fresher in this regard.
You: NAH Destiny has more SP content.
Like fucking wut?
Well, gameplay is what they showed to us, so I'm only giving feedback on what they gave us and I'm not making speculation on what they could bring.
What I saw is the whole stream, with the homecoming mission, and the Strike playable during the event.
I would have say D2 felt like a new game if, for example, the part where Holidays takes you for a ride was a playable space and you had to go by yourself to the Cabal Ship with, idk, a flying vehicle. It's just one example, but I could give more, it serves to illustrate one point you understand I guess.
From your message, well, nothing you quoted wasn't achieved with a DLC during the D1 era, am I wrong?
- new locations: done (with pretty much every DLC, TTK and RoI being real new locations)
- completely new sets of weapons and armor: done, with all the DLCs (which is the point for Destiny DLC I guess, so people keep coming back)
- complete change to all the subclasses: well, hotfix and patches already make changes/adjustments to subclasses for D1, and TTK added new ones
- remodeled the pvp: they just put it as a 4v4, no really a remodeled pvp if you're asking. Trial of Osiris is a remodeled PvP then if we compare them, don't you think?
Yeah, TTK was 40$, and I think it was may overpriced for a DLC. But this doesn't mean paying 60$ for 4 new locations is a good argument to tell D2 is really a whole new game.
I played a lot of D1, and I don't regret any moments I have spent in this game. But is it really so hard for people defending D2 to understand why people may have the impression that D2 could be just a big DLC for D1?
Well, the first Cabal mission for TTK was quite similar in term of interactive environment, don't you think? Sure, there is more stuff in the background for the Homecoming mission, but those are scripted event, not really sandbox stuff.
psynergylover
Member
No the discussion listed in the op was to the people who think Destiny 2 looks like dlc and why and then lists all the changes that Destiny 2 has done. Then you come in and say that the yearly CoD did more than what Destiny 2 has done; a game coming out 3 years after its predecessor and I said and will say again is absolute hyperbole.
duhmetree
Member
CoD doesn't have to be the same.... Destiny is one world following canon... it sort of leans towards being the same.
Destiny has improved in every aspect of the game since release while staying true to canon. Destiny 2 will be the next step.
COD doesn't no. But thats why I said even the MW series and BO series still were a lot more fresh looking each time than Destiny 2 looks. Destiny 2 looks like its just ignoring the gameplay aspects and just adding more QOL features that the first game needed so much, which is fine but it still doesnt get rid of the same game feel.
What has Destiny 2 done exactly? The OP's list looks like a DLC list. COD generally delivers a whole new experience each time in SP, CO-OP and MP. Of course COD is going to be more fresh because it avoids trying to be more of the same each time.
Well, ok, but the context is that we're talking about how different (or not) D2 is from D1 compared to the sequential CoD games, not amount of content. But I think you know that.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
It honestly looks the same to me. I was pretty surprised when I saw how little changed in the gameplay and looks of the game.
I played Destiny vanilla and never touched TTK and when I saw Destiny 2 it looked almost exactly like the same ol' Destiny I played years ago. Fans will love it and more power to them but it's not for me. The 30fps cap on consoles (I'd play on PC but most of my friends play on consoles) and P2P connection guarantee I'll be skipping it anyway. For a game that has been in development for such a long time I was expecting a lot more, how disappointing.
I played Destiny vanilla and never touched TTK and when I saw Destiny 2 it looked almost exactly like the same ol' Destiny I played years ago. Fans will love it and more power to them but it's not for me. The 30fps cap on consoles (I'd play on PC but most of my friends play on consoles) and P2P connection guarantee I'll be skipping it anyway. For a game that has been in development for such a long time I was expecting a lot more, how disappointing.
psynergylover
Member
No, my sole argument is that it's ok that you feel underwhelmed by what you saw in the reveal, but I do have misgivings if you think all that you saw in the reveal could've been an add-on.
People might not like what Destiny 2 is offering but like i said in my first post it fits the definition of a sequel(imo) they're many reason why they didn't just stack Destiny 2 on top of 1(hell just managing your inventory would be nuts) and I just don't think it's easy as done people are suggesting in this thread; if that were the case devs would just stack their supposed sequel as dlc.
Watching the stream you'd know what they're introducing; a new story, new location, new armor and weapons for both pvp and pve. I think that'd be enough to warrant a sequel...like a yearly shooting franchise
At bolded: is Destiny 2 not doing the same thing?
duhmetree
Member
Destiny's gameplay is what kept people playing it for 1000's of hours. Why would they drastically change that?
OPs list looks like a DLC? I honestly don't know what to say to that.
3 new subclasses, 6 re-worked subclasses
15-20 hour cinematic campaign.
I'm guessing roughly 8 strikes.
A ton more end-game content (where most of Destiny is played)
4 new planets
Bigger more dense patrols
New patrol activities/NPCs in the world
A new Raid.
QoL improvements
Gameplay tweaks
New Crucible mode and maps
A pile of new weapons/armor/exotics
New enemies
New weapon archetypes
Better Graphics/Improved engine
Added LFG system/Matchmaking
In-Game Lore/Grimoire
In what universe has that ever been offered in a DLC for any game? This is also just what was shown in a 'Gameplay reveal'. Did Bungie save anything for e3?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you... Describe to me CoD's whole new experience? What makes it greater than what you've seen so far for Destiny?
HawksWinStanley
Member
I can't tell if it just felt like DLC to me or if I'm still just burnt out on it.
I liked what I saw in the reveal but I was hoping for completely new classes instead of the same old Titan, Hunter, Warlock. I figured with the 'losing their light' narrative it would be an opportunity for completely new guardians when they got it back. Otherwise there just doesn't seem to be much of a difference in the actual gameplay. Looked like the same animations, same types of guns, same general formula of how missions and stuff occurs. I don't know, it just didn't scream sequel to me.
In the end does it matter if it feels like a sequel or expansion? As long as it's enough to warrant $60 worth of content and you're a fan of the series then game on.
I liked what I saw in the reveal but I was hoping for completely new classes instead of the same old Titan, Hunter, Warlock. I figured with the 'losing their light' narrative it would be an opportunity for completely new guardians when they got it back. Otherwise there just doesn't seem to be much of a difference in the actual gameplay. Looked like the same animations, same types of guns, same general formula of how missions and stuff occurs. I don't know, it just didn't scream sequel to me.
In the end does it matter if it feels like a sequel or expansion? As long as it's enough to warrant $60 worth of content and you're a fan of the series then game on.
I didn't see "previous destinations" discussed anywhere at any point in time regarding Destiny 2. Specifically as it pertains to Earth, where did they mention anything about Old Russia or Plaguelands?
Bringer Of Bacon
Member
It's basically just a wow expansion
I mean, all of that just looks like an expansion back. Maybe Destiny just made people think expansion backs were something different, but if you listed off all the changes Legion did to WoW like that, you'd think they released the biggest game in the world.
Should've just released it as an expansion back so at least you could still have all the Destiny 1 content with your Destiny 2 stuff, like with other games. *
Because the original game had a very troubled development. What shopped was not what most customers, rightly or wrongly, expected.
D2 DOES look like more of the same, with some arbitrary content updates. To me anyway.
The problem is that Bungie sold us on a game changer, this series is not game changing in any way.
Having said that, despite the original game being held together with duct tape gameplay hook and story wise, I really enjoyed it. I'm sure I will enjoy this as well.
D2 DOES look like more of the same, with some arbitrary content updates. To me anyway.
The problem is that Bungie sold us on a game changer, this series is not game changing in any way.
Having said that, despite the original game being held together with duct tape gameplay hook and story wise, I really enjoyed it. I'm sure I will enjoy this as well.
I think my biggest problem with calling this Destiny 2 is that there was this preconception that, among other reasons, Destiny 1's scope was so limited because of its cross-gen nature; that the PS3/360 were holding it back. I think a lot of us assumed that by Destiny 2 unshackling itself from being cross-gen that we'd see that scope open up and resemble something more modern. Instead, I have a very difficult time looking at any of the Destiny 2 footage and thinking it couldn't have been done as another piece of Destiny 1 DLC.
RadicalVelocity
Member
What?
So in a sense, you're right. All these releases are more like expansions to a base game.
However, it's a separate release because it is fundamentally incompatible with destiny 1, engine and content-wise. They've discussed the issue of bringing the D1 content into D2 in at least one interview, mentioning a lot of work would have to go into it to bring it inline.
Maybe now that the tools are in a (hopefully) not-utter-dogshit state, D3 and D4 will keep old content MMO style. But the break here was inevitable.
chronic_archaic
Member
Look at the World of Warcraft expansions - they've done stuff arguably bigger than what Destiny 2 is adding to the franchise. Every addition could have feasibly been a DLC. The story is the only excuse they have to call it a new game. Remember that TTK didn't just add content but actually did completely add new UI elements, quests systems, and added new weapon types and subclasses - in game LFG could be implemented. In game lore could be implemented. Essentially everything else has already been added in the first game as DLC, and considering how close the engine looks to the first game and all the assets that are being reused it's fair to assume they could have just completely overhauled that part of the first game.
Now this is what the list looks like when you consider what previous DLC has offered:
New PVE Content (Adventures, Lost Sectors)
New Map System
Revised Crucible
QOL Improvements (Lore Encyc, P2P Travel)
Guided-Game System
I'll even throw in a UI update if you want to make the list look bigger.
EDIT: Oh and "Improved Visuals"
I just don't see how since the games just look fundamentally so similar. What did they do to the engine that was such a massive change that everything in Destiny 1 couldn't possibly work in 2?
Maybe this is just the WoW nerd in me speaking but Blizzard increases the system requirements with each expansion since they upgrade the game with each expack and they don't remove all the content that was already there.
I remember Jeff from Giantbomb saying that he thought Destiny might be a game where there isn't a sequel, and they just add new xpacks like with WoW, so every piece of content is still there. Seeing how little D2 has changed on a basic level, and how xpacky everything they've shown so far is looking, I really don't see why they couldn't have just done this whole game as an xpack.
duhmetree
Member
So, no new game should be called a new game.. It's just an overpriced DLC because WoW expansions are bigger than that game...
We're entering a gray area and need to define certain terms. To me, a WoW expansion is equivalent to a new console game, specifically content wise. Who cares what they call it. WoW expansion still costs the same as a new console game, if not more when you factor in subscription costs.
Destiny 1 content was cut because it's a new client/upgraded engine. It's a new foundation for moving forward. To limit Destiny 2, comparing it to WoW expansions, is grasping for straws.
We're entering a gray area and need to define certain terms. To me, a WoW expansion is equivalent to a new console game, specifically content wise. Who cares what they call it. WoW expansion still costs the same as a new console game, if not more when you factor in subscription costs.
Destiny 1 content was cut because it's a new client/upgraded engine. It's a new foundation for moving forward. To limit Destiny 2, comparing it to WoW expansions, is grasping for straws.
duhmetree
Member
No Destiny expansion/DLC has come close to offer what they've shown us so far for Destiny 2.
Like I said, would expect to see even more at e3. Possibly a new PvE game-mode.
To be fair, Destiny 1 had/has a ton of engine problem that can't be fixed with simple updates.
There are ammo glitches, jump exploits, connection exploits/problems, physics anomalies, super exploits, and many other problems with perks that can't just be patched up without breaking the game in the process.
They have tried fixing many of these issues over the years the game has been out, but failed to do so on many of them because the engine is so hard to work with, and takes hours just to unpack an object to make any change, no matter how big or small.
They have been wanting to bring content more quickly, and be able to change things with less issues for years. This is a pretty good step in the right direction with new tools, and a reworked engine.
Guided Games is also something a patch likely wouldn't have been able to do with how poorly the memory management has been with Destiny 1.
For example, the vault is finite, and only has been upgraded twice in the 3 years destiny has been out.
First it was PS3 and Xbox360 holding the vault back, then they tried doing it again after leaving them out of updates, and it barely increased.
Also, once you start comparing sequels to other sequels, you are bound to find fault.
I think we could come to completely different conclusions depending on what game we hand pick for our argument.
I think it wise to keep expectations from clouding the reality of developer hell.
There are ammo glitches, jump exploits, connection exploits/problems, physics anomalies, super exploits, and many other problems with perks that can't just be patched up without breaking the game in the process.
They have tried fixing many of these issues over the years the game has been out, but failed to do so on many of them because the engine is so hard to work with, and takes hours just to unpack an object to make any change, no matter how big or small.
They have been wanting to bring content more quickly, and be able to change things with less issues for years. This is a pretty good step in the right direction with new tools, and a reworked engine.
Guided Games is also something a patch likely wouldn't have been able to do with how poorly the memory management has been with Destiny 1.
For example, the vault is finite, and only has been upgraded twice in the 3 years destiny has been out.
First it was PS3 and Xbox360 holding the vault back, then they tried doing it again after leaving them out of updates, and it barely increased.
Also, once you start comparing sequels to other sequels, you are bound to find fault.
I think we could come to completely different conclusions depending on what game we hand pick for our argument.
I think it wise to keep expectations from clouding the reality of developer hell.
I really don't understand why a new release can't be considered a sequel if its content additions/changes are to content similar to that in the previous release or its DLCs/expansions.
The years-old answer to this is that D1's engine and dev tools don't allow for the kind of frequent and subtantial content updates that a game like Destiny needs. Hence the restart with D2 and its nore flexible engine and dev tools.
What did they show (so I'm talking about the Homecoming mission, the Strike and the Vidoc they gave us during the stream) that couldn't be done with a DLC on D1?
So far, I haven't really got an answer to my question.
Tools and Engine are really two different things actually. They didn't change their engine as much as they have created new tools to use with the engine (the engine actually is on similar stuff they used for Halo since Halo CE).
Darkstorne
Member
Going by what they showcased, it definitely looks like this is only a brand new game because the contract they signed demanded multiple games. Which is why I'm considering just waiting for Destiny 3 which they HAVE to move a huge amount of their team onto immediately, again because of the contract demanding a Destiny 3.
I would love to be proved wrong though, and hear Activision say "no Destiny 3 until next gen, all-in on building both the content and community of Destiny 2 with 100% of Bungie's dev time." It's the exploration/planet content that will make or break Destiny 2 for me. New locations/planets with every single expansion (so 3+ per year) or no buy from me.
It takes years. No less than 4 years for a crappy engine to be made from scratch.
5-7 years for a well worked engine that is likely solid.
It takes 2-4 years to rework an existing engine to acceptable levels if you made it to be reworked in the first place.
They may very well need a new engine to fix everything wrong with Destiny, but that likely won't happen for at least one more game iteration.
When Bungie left Microsoft, they left everything they ever made behind.
This includes all code for previous engines to games they created.
Design philosophy is they only thing they could take with them.
The engine has been reworked. There is no question the engine has been reworked by the simple fact they are pushing volumetric lighting, increased particle effects, more enemies on screen, bokke lens effect, and many, many other graphical improvements over Destiny.
Destiny didn't have the resources to pull any of this stuff off.
We know that. If anything that's speaks more about how overpriced previous expansions were when compared to other big franchises. There is a disconnect between the argument you're making and what others saying. The content shown looks too familiar, such that it could have very well been DLC. New Strike? New Raid? New PvE Content? New PvP maps & Modes? Avid Destiny player or not, anyone could have predicted these things would have made it into a sequel for the game. Now the question becomes: What are you adding to the experience? Suddenly the list looks a lot more meager. Rather than an expansion I'm just referring to this as a reboot. It's more or less a Destiny re-release with QOL improvements. It'll set solid foundation for the franchise going forward in a way the original wasn't capable of (likely due to a lot of internal factors). People are understandably disappointed because you lead strong with the new and unexpected. All we got is the expected and familiar.
I think they would have if they could have. There's a lot of different external and internal forces that pushed them to the result we see now: with limited resources you need to make choices, and there are going to be choices they make out of necessity that are going to hurt the final product in certain ways. From a rendering side, I think they chose correctly: no game these days attempting to approximate realistic graphics should lack PBR, for example.
From leaks, we know there's a great deal of work on their tool chain that needed to happen to support adding of new content, and quickly. Very few devs that invest in a proprietary engine are likely to drop that engine unless they see a serious sunken cost problem -- from a visual side, little needed to happen. From a "background" side, a lot needed to happen. Time will tell if these rumored changes have the desired impact, but we'll see.
External factors -- money, pressure from Activision, pressure from players, fuck-ups in the move from D1 to D2, and yes -- and this is to say nothing of the actual game: you need to have content to give: raid, strikes, missions, weapons, etc., all of that takes time, and any time you need to make big changes it can slow down production of content.
So yeah, in an ideal world, they would have been like "60 fps, top of the line visuals, completely reworked classes, etc" -- in the world we actually live in, with time constraints, I'm ... kind of surprised it looks as good as it does in some ways. (Still annoyed by a lot of stuff though -- PVP should be 60 fps, and there's no excuse for it)
duhmetree
Member
None of it could be on D1 because D1 client/engine wouldn't allow it.
chronic_archaic
Member
Update it's engine to allow it. The old stuff is portable.
People are getting hung up on what others care to call it. I'm referring to it as a reboot, others an expansion and Bungie/the rest, a sequel. Different expectations I suppose? That's really the only answer I'd have.
Lol.
Dude, I don't want to be mean, really, but as myself an engineer, I can tell you don't know what you're talking about.
The only think that looked to be difficult on D1 is the weather effect, but aside from that (since you already add weather effect, and rain effect on MP maps and the Warlock stormcaller mission), there is nothing showed during the event the rendering engine used for D1 couldn't have done.
Is this the only argument I will have?
Again, don't want to be mean. English isn't my primary language since I'm french so maybe my way of writing can be seen as provocative.
As a quick example, if you played The Crew, Ubisoft revamped the engine used for the game with a DLC, adding new shaders, weather effects, UI elements, network stuff and more. If you're curious: https://www.videogamer.com/news/the-crew-wild-runs-new-graphics-engine-is-a-big-improvement
According to their GDC talk from 2014, Bungie was happy with the Tiger engine and because of its modular nature, it is pretty future proof. They also acknowledge that content iteration took way to long.. One can assume that they focused on that, while improving the rest.
duhmetree
Member
The same can be said for every other game. Everyone here loves Souls games. Do we complain when we get more of the same from Demon Souls to Dark Souls 3? The same logic is rarely, if ever, applied to any other game but Destiny.
Add to the fact Destiny is a 'shared-world shooter' and highly social game... A lot of people just want new and more content to play with their friends/clan mates. The community is what draws a lot of people to Destiny. Yes, the content-type ( as of right now, with what has been revealed) is the same but it's coming in mass quantity.
I never had a gaming experience like Y1 Destiny. I fully expect the same with the drop of Destiny 2.
Different expectations for different games. If people were satisfied with what Destiny had to offer as opposed to Souls or whatever else then we'd likely not be having this discussion.
Not true, Tiger engine started as a fork of the Halo Reach codebase.
Then that would mean bungie stole code from Microsoft.
Legally that's what that implies.
duhmetree
Member
You asked why couldn't be on D1. I gave you a simple answer.
You're asking insatiable questions... "Can anyone explain to me how DS3 couldn't just be an expansion to DS2? It plays the same, looks the same.. Anyone? No one has answered my question"
duhmetree
Member
Wouldn't that be considered irrational? I'm asking sincerely... What were/are you expecting for Destiny 2?
A lot of people, for whatever reason, LOVE to hate on Destiny. I've never seen anything like it.
SuperDowns
Banned
Why do you care, Junior. You're not even a Member.
Didn't ask why. Read again. I asked what.
And if you ask me, about DS3, I can say the physic engine was redone (using third party asset btw), so the hitboxes couldn't be used from DS2 to DS3. The way shaders (those are the way you put visuals on 3D models, just in case shaders isn't something you're familiar with) were embedded couldn't allow for basic stuff like real map reflection, changing states, so the rendering engine needed to be redone, as well as the animation since they didn't use the same tool to read them.
If you want to compare that to Bungie, they pretty much create everything in-house and rarely use third party software (take a look at their GDC conferences, really interesting stuff), they don't have to rely on other stuff that could have been updated with them being blocked by those updates. You may argue "So the same can be said to D2 like you're explaining stuff with DS2/3", the main difference here is that DS3 changed a lot of thing from DS2, based on the rendering part, that could be easily viewed by people without any engineering knowledge. This can't be said for Destiny unfortunately. So we can talk in depth if you want, and those aren't insatiable question if you know what you're talking about.
Unless they made sure that their in-house technology is their own owned IP.
Bull_peeler
Banned
It seems to me that all the people that want the game to have huge changes implemented don't want Destiny 2 to be a sequel to Destiny (which is what we are getting) but just wanted a totally different game altogether. I can't remember that many sequels that were vastly different to the original game in any series, even though some things always change and others are added/taken out. At least; for the most part sequels are grander in every aspect while keeping the identity of the first game intact. Total reimaginations rarely happen ( I'm sure someone will enlighten me).
And, to all of you that believed/wished that Destiny 2 was going to be radically different from the first game, this is your song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiH4BFTELME
And, to all of you that believed/wished that Destiny 2 was going to be radically different from the first game, this is your song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiH4BFTELME
duhmetree
Member
So the rendering is the exact same from Destiny > Destiny 2?
Actually, do you know what rendering is?
I see you're trying to defend your point that is D2 couldn't be a DLC, but you need to have real argument, if not, you're running short.
I won't waste more of your time buddy. You have your opinion, based on your vision and your appreciation of Destiny. I have mine based on my knowledge of 3D engine and, also, my appreciation of Destiny.
Edit: I think it's not hard, even for a pure Destiny lover, to understand why D2 seems like a DLC. After that, yes, it is branded as a new game and will be sold like this, so there is no real discussion about the fact that D2 is a new game. It is marketed as one.
In the end, the whole point is that everything they have showed so far could have been done with a DLC, mostly due to the nature of Destiny and how DLC already changed the game since Vanilla Destiny. Actually, those changes were worthy of a sequel, and D2 is a resume for all of this packaged in a sequel, imo.
But they may show stuff in a near future that could make me thing that yes, D2 couldn't be based on D1.
duhmetree
Member
Ok, thank you for blessing me with your presence.
You may be sarcastic here (I think you are), but it would be more honest if you would say that nothing we could argue would change your mind.
This topic asked why we were thinking D2 looked like a DLC for D1, we answered, and the only thing people defending the idea that D2 couldn't be a DLC can come with is "they added new content that couldn't be done", which isn't an argument, and it have been illustrated numerous of time.
Again, just be honest with yourself (not talking about you specifically), and admit that you're not here to be convinced to just see the topic with a whole new eye.
Edit: Hell, there is even an Exotic Rocket Launcher that was in D1 (in the BDD at least, not usable in-game) that is shown during the Homecoming mission.
Bull_peeler
Banned
Just a question: Are you?
I guess every sequel could be added as DLC if your points are valid. There would be absolutely no reason for anyone to release sequels if every evolutionary step in a video games series just could be added as dlc.
I have to adming; I absolutely love how the goal posts for what a sequel should be are moved to fit a narrative.