Support NeoGAF

[NullPointer]

I'm with you on the scores hurting video games. But, I think it's fair for reviewers to put out their (scored) reviews already. If someone is trying to decide whether they should spend their hard earned $60 on a game or not, why should they give a fuck what the game might be like in 6 months, they want to know what the game is like now. This is the product Bungie chose to sell, it's the product that should be reviewed.

Speaking of what the game might be like, has Bungie ever stated how much players should expect the game experience to change over time? And by that I mean without premium DLC.

Why are there expectations that the game will even be different in six months? Or is it being assumed that everybody will pick up the expansions? Or that the core game should be scored based upon the promise of paid expansions?

Am trying to get a sense of what the critics assume is going to happen, as some reviewers do hint at this game evolving over time, though I don't know what that's based upon.

Let me put it this way: I think review scores are useless, but I think they're even more useless for a game like this, especially after such a short time period.

Case in point.

Are Diablo 3: UEE's reviews being put on hold because Greater Rifts are coming soon? Should they be? Is Diablo one of those kinds of games?

 

[Aaron]

Reviews are product evaluation, and as such should be out when people are most likely to buy the game, which is during the initial days of release. A review is substantially less useful to the vast majority of its audience if it comes out a week late. Catering to a developer's roll out plans is undermining the integrity of that review.

 

[Armaros]

How do you put a score on World of Warcraft? How do you score Hearthstone? Dota? League of Legends? The way to assess these games is through interesting writing, not review scores. And even if you do believe a review score has value to readers, I don't think there's value to offering such a nuance-free evaluation so early.

Let me put it this way: I think review scores are useless, but I think they're even more useless for a game like this, especially after such a short time period.

Destiny is closer to Borderlands with an ingame lobby system then anything you have provided as an example, AND Bungie did not market the game as anything simliar to the above, in fact they distanced themselves from the MMO moniker.

And borderlands got a day 1 review from everyone with no problem. AND no one re-reviewered the game for the myriads of DLC that was sold just like Destiny is going to.

Same exact deal with Diablo, day 1 reviews from everyone with no apparent issues. Why not wait for the patches that Blizzard were sure to provide?

 

[ekim]

Early reviews for Destiny are somewhat important imho, simply because the game didn't sell itself as the kind of game it is compared by Jason (DOTA, WoW etc...). If it would've, I wouldn't have bought it. (I should have waited for reviews) I expected a much more story/narrative driven game with interesting missions and not some kind of repetitive FPS grind fest. I got bored very quickly although the technical and gameplay foundations are great and I can totally see people enjoying this.

Edit: ok - got Jason's point of talking about scores.

 

[jschreier]

Destiny is closer to Borderlands with an ingame lobby system then anything you have provided as an example.

And borderlands got a day 1 review from everyone with no problem. AND no one re-reviewered the game for the myriads of DLC that was sold just like Destiny is going to.

Again, my issue is with review scores, not reviews. Review scores imply definitive assessment.

 

[The Bookerman]

people are surprised by this?

 

[David___]

Why are there expectations that the game will even be different in six months? Or is it being assumed that everybody will pick up the expansions? Or that the core game should be scored based upon the promise of paid expansions?

Am trying to get a sense of what the critics assume is going to happen, as some reviewers do hint at this game evolving over time, though I don't know what that's based upon.

The core game should be rated for the core game and only the core game. Writing off an entire game like this because of a meh launch is idiotic. Bungie needs to add in new content(whether paid or otherwise) to keep people interested till Destiny 2 and beyond. Warframe still doesn't have an endgame after nearly 2 years since open beta. It took 3 Expansions to make the original Borderlands shine. It took 2 years for Blizzard to fix Diablo 3.

Case in point.

Are Diablo 3: UEE's reviews being put on hold because Greater Rifts are coming soon? Should they be? Is Diablo one of those kinds of games?

Greater Rifts are improving on a mechanic that is already found in the "base" game. Not the same leap as Blizzard adding Rifts and Bounties in RoS.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I'm still shocked about this "waiting" business people are talking about with Destiny.

For me, it's the core gameplay that terrible. 6 months won't fix that.

 

[emag]

Again, my issue is with review scores, not reviews. Review scores imply definitive assessment.

Reviews without scores are cowardly. But it's always easier when there's no accountability, isn't it?

 

[NullPointer]

Reviews without scores are cowardly. But it's always easier when there's no accountability, isn't it?

Cowardly? Wow.

The accountability shouldn't be in a simple number, but in the meat of the actual review. Otherwise whats the point of all that text or video anyway. Just put up a number and leave it at that - pure, 100% accountability with none of that mewling and cowardly perspective.

*double-checks sarcasm detector*

 

[David___]

Reviews without scores are cowardly. But it's always easier when there's no accountability, isn't it?

Considering how big the hate train this game has here I guess so.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Again, my issue is with review scores, not reviews. Review scores imply definitive assessment.

But, most sites give a score with their review. Are you saying you expect a site like Gamespot or magazine like Game Informer to put out one of their normal reviews, but without a score? Why would they? I mean, if they got rid of scores all together, that'd be great, but that's a different issue. Destiny isn't unique, it should go through any website or magazines normal review process.

It's not an MMO, and all games have patches these days. Reviews are most important at launch. A couple months from now no one is going to be going to a review to see if they should purchase a game or not.

That's not to say reviewers should rush through as quickly as possible to get their reviews out. We all know that reviewers didn't get their copies much earlier than us pleebs. But, reviewers shouldn't feel like they have to wait and see what Bungie does long term before giving their normal review. Destiny today is a whole $60 product, and there's nothing wrong with reviewing it today as such.

If I were a reviewer, I'd review the game now, and then review the DLC as it comes out separately.

 

[Orayn]

Reviews without scores are cowardly. But it's always easier when there's no accountability, isn't it?

What the fuck? You don't think there are any legitimate reasons a person or publication could choose not to give scores?

 

[Gestault]

Reviews without scores are cowardly. But it's always easier when there's no accountability, isn't it?

...what?

 

[Taruranto]

Should have spent that 2.5 Millions in Doritos, then THIS wouldn't have happened!

 

[ebullientprism]

The core game should be rated for the core game and only the core game. Writing off an entire game like this because of a meh launch is idiotic. Bungie needs to add in new content(whether paid or otherwise) to keep people interested till Destiny 2 and beyond. Warframe still doesn't have an endgame after nearly 2 years since open beta. It took 3 Expansions to make the original Borderlands shine. It took 2 years for Blizzard to fix Diablo 3.

I dont follow this. I thought thats what the reviews were. People are reviewing what they are playing. That is the "entire game" right now.

This line of reasoning would make reviews entirely pointless. Dont like a feature? Dont say bad things about it, it might be patched out in the future. There are bugs? Well there might be a patch in the future. Game is short? There might be large free DLC in the future.

Should we start reviewing games for what they theoretically could be at some point? Why even bother then?

This isnt an early access game. They released a finished product. People paid for it. They got rated for it. Whatever they might add or change in the future is pointless right now.

 

[ScatheZombie]

The way to assess these games is through interesting writing, not review scores. And even if you do believe a review score has value to readers, I don't think there's value to offering such a nuance-free evaluation so early.

Let me put it this way: I think review scores are useless, but I think they're even more useless for a game like this, especially after such a short time period.

I suppose it's a balance between 'interesting writing' and compression of information.

For the vast majority of games, I really don't feel like reading a dozen-plus paragraph, self-masturbatory essay on your personal game experience, no offence - I know there are people who love that or Tim Rogers wouldn't still be getting work. I'm looking for a short, concise explanation of "Is this worth the time/money?" Which, interestingly enough, you actually provide with the Yes/No reviews without devolving to numbered scoring. That, I think, is why numbered scoring (or some derivative of - like the 5 star system) will be around for a long time to come. Because while it is a really shitty way to pass judgment on a product, it's actually what most of your readers want.

 

[RE_Player]

Devs hate scores. Journalists hate scores. Consumers... I'm making an assumption but I assume the majority like having scores to look at. It gives a nice quick glance if a game should be worth one's time and money.

People use sites like Rotten Tomatoes for movies so what's the problem with Metacritic?

Spoiler

I dislike review scores too I just think they are useful.

 

[inner-G]

2.5M is nothing if they sold 500M at launch. It could do 2B overall

 

[inm8num2]

Scores are nice, but it helps to have summarized notes alongside them (e.g. pros and cons, + and -). The core problem doesn't seem to be just scores themselves, but also how people interpret or otherwise rely too heavily upon them without context.

 

[Karish]

You guys know 2.5M to Bungie isn't that much, right?

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Considering how big the hate train this game has here I guess so.

These 'hate train/bandwagoning' posts are pretty immature. There's very few people from what I've seen that say they hate the game.

With that said, that poster has an odd mindset. Not sure what scores have to do with cowardice or accountability. It's review content that will always matter.

 

[RE_Player]

You guys know 2.5M to Bungie isn't that much, right?

This logic is mind blowing. When you run a company, no matter how huge it is, you don't just write off 2.5M like that.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

2.5M is nothing if they sold 500M at launch. It could do 2B overall

You guys know 2.5M to Bungie isn't that much, right?

I know this is just going to keep getting repeated by new people coming into the thread, so I should just give up on responding to it. But, it's not like the normal employees get a percentage of those sales. They get to keep their jobs and collect their normal paychecks thanks to the game selling so well. They are the ones who would have benefited from this bonus, so yeah, I'm sure they think it sucks they're not getting their bonuses for this.

Also, $500 million isn't profit, and obviously doesn't all go to Bungie.

 

[Alienous]

This logic is mind blowing. When you run a company, no matter how huge it is, you don't just write off 2.5M like that.

Since 2003, Infinity Ward has gotten almost $500 million dollars in bonuses, prior to Call of Duty Ghosts.

following bonuses.

• Call of Duty - $3.8 million (studio)
• Call of Duty 2 - $69 million (studio)
• Call of Duty 3 - $2.6 million (tech)
• Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - $74.5 million (studio)
• Call of Duty: World at War - $13.96 million (tech), $18.68 million (IP)
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - $147.46 million (studio)
• Call of Duty: Black Ops - $46 million (tech), $56.96 million (IP)
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - $59.9 million (studio)

$2.5 million is peanuts.

 

[NastyBook]

I blame the horrid multiplayer announcer.

I like the guy. Don't understand the hate.

 

[Travo]

I'm thinking that's chump change right now.

 

[Messofanego]

Reviews without scores are cowardly. But it's always easier when there's no accountability, isn't it?

 

[NullPointer]

You guys know 2.5M to Bungie isn't that much, right?

$2.5 million is peanuts.

I'm thinking that's chump change right now.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume Bungie would have seriously preferred to have that 2.5 million (or whatever any actual figure might be) rather than not.

 

[RE_Player]

Since 2003, Infinity Ward has gotten almost $500 million dollars in bonuses.

$2.5 million is peanuts.

Again I can't believe I'm reading this. $2.5 million is not peanuts. Whether is goes directly to the employees pockets or is reinvested into the company it is a lot of money.

I would love to see the situation where you were promised X amount of millions of dollars and the instead you get 2.5 million less than what you were originally told and you just shrug your shoulders.

 

[Dryk]

in the same contract it leaked Destiny 1,2,3 and 4.

Odds are they'll end up going the Mass Effect route and making it a lot less niche in 2 and 3

 

[Kiote]

Didn't this game sell around $500 million in the first 24 hours or something like that? It's successful despite reception, so ideally I'd like to see Bungie get rewarded. Unfortunate contract.

How sad is it that they probably didn't even break even off that 500 million.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Since 2003, Infinity Ward has gotten almost $500 million dollars in bonuses, prior to Call of Duty Ghosts.

following bonuses.

• Call of Duty - $3.8 million (studio)
• Call of Duty 2 - $69 million (studio)
• Call of Duty 3 - $2.6 million (tech)
• Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - $74.5 million (studio)
• Call of Duty: World at War - $13.96 million (tech), $18.68 million (IP)
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - $147.46 million (studio)
• Call of Duty: Black Ops - $46 million (tech), $56.96 million (IP)
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - $59.9 million (studio)

$2.5 million is peanuts.

How does this relate to studios who didn't make the biggest franchise of the generation?

 

[RE_Player]

How sad is it that they probably didn't even break even off that 500 million.

$500 million isn't the amount of money they received... It generated $500 million is sales. Platform holders, retailers etc. get a cut of that.

 

[Alienous]

Again I can't believe I'm reading this. $2.5 million is not peanuts. Whether is goes directly to the employees pockets or is reinvested into the company it is a lot of money.

I would love to see the situation where you were promised X amount of millions of dollars and the instead you get 2.5 million less than what you were originally told and you just shrug your shoulders.

In the context of the earnings they will recieve for having such a financially successful title, 2.5 million isn't significant. According to that same contract Bungie get between 20-35% of "cumulative operating income" for Destiny. They are in the money. This cake needs no more icing.

 

[JediLink]

WTF Jason... Since when a 77 is a "esoundingly mediocre review scores"???

Since... a very long time ago? It consistently astounds me when people try to act like the 7-10 scale isn't real. It is, and by now we've just learned to go with it.

Also, I have very little sympathy for any company that fires Marty O'Donnel.

 

[ScatheZombie]

Since 2003, Infinity Ward has gotten almost $500 million dollars in bonuses, prior to Call of Duty Ghosts.

$2.5 million is peanuts.

Since 2003, the Call of Duty franchise has also generated more than 10x the gross revenue with per game development costs being between 1/2 to 1/5 that of Destiny.

Numbers.

People keep seeing $500m compared to $2.5m and correlating that $2.5m is small comparatively. However, the real comparison here is $2.5m to $0, since that $500m is not profit, does not go directly to Bungie, and has nothing really to do with their royalty or bonus structure.

 

[Aaron]

In the context of the earnings they will recieve for having such a financially successful title, 2.5 million isn't significant. According to that same contract Bungie get between 20-35% of "cumulative operating income" for Destiny. They are in the money. This cake needs no more icing.

Is there a business on the planet that thinks they have enough money? I don't think you understand the concept of business.

 

[David___]

These 'hate train/bandwagoning' posts are pretty immature. There's very few people from what I've seen that say they hate the game.

Considering someone had to make a faux OT to try to have an actual discussion about a game mode without getting trolls..... yea.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=895598

 

[Alienous]

Is there a business on the planet that thinks they have enough money? I don't think you understand the concept of business.

I'm not saying that some of the top brass at Bungie aren't kicking themselves. I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things nobody at Bungie is broken to pieces over this.

 

[ScatheZombie]

In the context of the earnings they will recieve for having such a financially successful title, 2.5 million isn't significant. According to that same contract Bungie get between 20-35% of "cumulative operating income" for Destiny. They are in the money. This cake needs no more icing.

The 20%-35% royalty structure is actually based on quarterly Operating Income (i.e. quarterly profits). Their Cumulative Operating Income bonuses are $25m each for hitting 2 milestones of $750m and $1b.

Not to say they probably won't end up with more than $2.5m in royalties and bonuses combined over the lifetime of the product. But to say that $2.5m bonus, right now, is nothing to them is inaccurate.

 

[RE_Player]

I'm not saying that some of the top brass at Bungie aren't kicking themselves. I'm saying that in the grand scheme of things nobody at Bungie is broken to pieces over this.

When you run a business you can't be broken into pieces over anything or else it effects the business negatively.

I am not contesting with you that this 2.5M not earned for Bungie has shook the very foundation of the company. All I am saying is that 2.5M is not "peanuts" as you put it in a previous post and they would have probably liked to have that money instead of not have it.

 

[cchum]

Bonuses based on Metacritic make no sense to me and never have. I feel bad for the men and women who worked on this great game (yes I think it's a great game) having to deal with all the negative reviews and general discontent on the internet surrounding it, and now missing out on their bonuses.

Sometimes I wonder if reviewers would have rated the game higher had they been allowed to play it prior to release and issue their reviews earlier. I get the distinct feeling many of them are pissed about being treated more like regular players and less like celebrities.

They should do something like this:

(.33xAmazon user review)+(.33xmetacritic)+(.33xratio of good message board topics to bad)

 

[RE_Player]

They should do something like this:

(.33xAmazon user review)+(.33xmetacritic)+(.33xratio of good message board posting to bad)

If a company was going to pay me out based on Amazon reviews and message board chatter you better believe I would spam the hell out of those with positive reveiws and impressions.

 

[Jeels]

Thats not a lot of money for a company like Bungie.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Considering someone had to make a faux OT to try to have an actual discussion about a game mode without getting trolls..... yea.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=895598

Talking about matchmaking and other options that some are confused about why it was left out for the Raid /=/trolls. Every discussion has gone like this. Someone says even a minor knock, they are a troll or a 'hater'.

Yes, I do realize there were people being asinine over it to where they weren't at actual information coming out about the raid and making judgements, but it was being thrown at anyone not conforming to what it seems 'fans' want.

This has been an ongoing thing since Day 1 from both 'sides'. Same Us vs Them bullshit that people are addicted to.

 

[RyanPierre]

I think that review scores are actively hurting video games -- for evidence of that, read this article: http://kotaku.com/metacritic-matters-how-review-scores-hurt-video-games-472462218 -- and I sympathize with the level designers and artists and programmers who may have very well done stellar jobs, putting in countless hours every day just to ship the game, only to miss out on bonuses because someone cranked through the game in two days and decided it was "worth" a 6.

Publishers choosing to tie bonuses to review scores is not "review scores actively hurting video games." That's misplacing the blame. People aren't missing out on bonuses simply because some reviewers played the game for two days and gave it a 6. They're missing out because their higher-ups agreed to a publishing contract that gave monetary value to some reviewers playing the game for two days and giving it a 6.

 

[Head.spawn]

"Destiny Review Scores May Cost Bungie $2.5 Million"

and in an alternate reality...

"If Destiny Had a Review Score, They Could've Gotten a $2.5 Million Bonus"

 

[Moral Panic]

There are rare cases when a game is "objectively" bad -- it's broken, it doesn't function properly, it doesn't do what it promised, etc. Aliens: Colonial Marines comes to mind. It's pretty easy to give that game a 1 and be done with it. But usually, video games deserve so much more than numbers. They really do.

O really.

 

[ShinMaruku]

This logic is mind blowing. When you run a company, no matter how huge it is, you don't just write off 2.5M like that.

You never met a investment banker where when drunk and high the lose that but since the net is so insane the fucks given strikes Zero. When you spitball a huge amount of money somthing like 2 million is pittance. However I want 2 million right now...