• 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.

Destiny - Review Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
It shows a broken scoring system. Reviews are subjective sure. But a game that came out massively broken and stayed broken for months simply shouldn't be rated higher than games that are usable. It looks a bit silly to a game like BF4 sitting 10 points higher on average on Metacritic.

We can say, "oh but the reviews aren't written by the same people!" What exactly does that prove? All that shows to me is that if your website/outlet has reviewers assign their own scores, it's doing a terrible job. Polygon's system of having the reviewer meet with senior editors to decide how to text fits the scale is what needs to become more of a standard.
 
I wish they would have gone full out mmo by having towns in each of the planets with text chat interaction, trading, and multiple servers. The biggest downfall though, imo, is how uninteresting the world is made out to be at the fault of bad storytelling. There are so few characters. Everything that is explained is so shallow, like you're playing the simplest of history books. No emotion at all. It just makes you not give damn about the world at all, and feels depressing.
 
It shows a broken scoring system. Reviews are subjective sure. But a game that came out massively broken and stayed broken for months simply shouldn't be rated higher than games that are usable. It looks a bit silly to a game like BF4 sitting 10 points higher on average on Metacritic.

We can say, "oh but the reviews aren't written by the same people!" What exactly does that prove? All that shows to me is that if your website/outlet has reviewers assign their own scores, it's doing a terrible job. Polygon's system of having the reviewer meet with senior editors to decide how to text fits the scale is what needs to become more of a standard.

This is why reviews shouldnt be assigned scores but thats another topic entirely.
 
Does anyone know what the materials in your inventory do?
they are for upgrading equipment and weapons, mostly rare and legendary items...

I also think Destiny's reviews so far are pretty fair, just that other games were too highly rated...

Who knows why this one isn't being licked up, I could imagine having even more of a short time with TitanFall, at least Destiny is pretty much guaranteed to be a bigger game down the line, and playing with friends in something other than pvp is awesome...met some cool people on PS4.

meh, most people I've run into don't even know about reviews, It's destiny week for them! This game will sell well, all I want from Bungie is a proper next-gen sequel, balance to PvP, and more story with interesting characters.
 
I have very little problem with the words reviews are using against Destiny, but the scoring is getting ridiculous.

Take Gamespot's review. They say the core mechanics are superb, and then downgrade the game all the way to a 6 because the story is bad and there's too much repetition/too little to do.

Compare that to Titanfall, with even MORE repetition and even less to do, with a story that's as bad, and they gave that a 9. Why?

I agree you have to start fixing things somewhere, but I'd always thought that the core mechanics were pretty much all that mattered in an FPS, because when it comes down to it they all have sucky stories and endless repetition for gameplay.
 
These scores just seem to balance out the inflated scores the Halo's have gotten.
iYt0SmUzCYwNn.gif
 

meppi

Member
Junnalists tested the game in a controlled environment set up by dice to hide the server issues and rubberbanding.
They didn't see the game in the state consumers saw it at launch.

Of course they're still shits for agreeing with reviewing the game in some controlled review event, and dice are still evil for deceiving people like this...
Still most of your anger needs to be directed at dice, not junnalists, their scores reflected what they saw at the review events not what consumers would see.

Oh don't worry. Dice is on my shitlist. ;) Not buying a game from them or EA anytime soon, if ever. Maybe a secondhand copy here or there if they release something remarkable downy he line, but I doubt it.

But I hold those journalists just as responsible.
Agreeing to stuff like that and taking a company's word for it when it comes writing an evaluation where tons of people are going to base a purchase on is just vile and irresponsible.

Then again, there were stories of magazines doing reviews back in the day on a game that they only played a demo for, so I guess not that much has changed.
It just seems to have become even harder to find people you can trust to tell it like it is without skewing their conclusions in one way or another that doesn't have to do with their personal tastes.
And all to be the first to get a piece out or to write something that is sure to create as much traffic as possible.

Guess I'm just salty today. ;)
 

Pepboy

Member
It shows a broken scoring system. Reviews are subjective sure. But a game that came out massively broken and stayed broken for months simply shouldn't be rated higher than games that are usable. It looks a bit silly to a game like BF4 sitting 10 points higher on average on Metacritic.

We can say, "oh but the reviews aren't written by the same people!" What exactly does that prove? All that shows to me is that if your website/outlet has reviewers assign their own scores, it's doing a terrible job. Polygon's system of having the reviewer meet with senior editors to decide how to text fits the scale is what needs to become more of a standard.

I think BF4, albeit broken, benefited a lot from launching at the start of a new console generation with relatively weak lineups. Virtually every console generation will have at least one 5/5 game because they are comparing them to other new games released. It's been a year or so and we have more next gen games to compare Destiny to -- Infamous: SS, Watch_Dogs, etc.

edit: In other words, it's not just the people that change, but standards that change over time. Launch games almost always get a bit of a "pass", if only because of the general hype around new consoles. I don't see that as particularly damning, the reviews are partly meant to help guide purchasing decisions. Reviews don't exist in some time vacuum. If BF4 launched today, I doubt it would get nearly as good reviews as it did back then.
 

Alienous

Member
I have very little problem with the words reviews are using against Destiny, but the scoring is getting ridiculous.

Take Gamespot's review. They say the core mechanics are superb, and then downgrade the game all the way to a 6 because the story is bad and there's too much repetition/too little to do.

Compare that to Titanfall, with even MORE repetition and even less to do, with a story that's as bad, and they gave that a 9. Why?

I agree you have to start fixing things somewhere, but I'd always thought that the core mechanics were pretty much all that mattered in an FPS, because when it comes down to it they all have sucky stories and endless repetition for gameplay.

Gosh, maybe Destiny and Titanfall are different games?
 

Kind of. While they are certainly going to be thrilled with the sales, Bungie isn't going to get their $2.5 million bonus. From the original court documents that revealed the game forever ago:

Other details about Bungie’s contract were also revealed, including the studio’s royalty payments and bonuses. For example, Bungie will receive a $2.5 million bonus if the first Destiny receives an aggregate score of 90 or better on GameRankings.com.

That has to suck a little. And obviously shows that Activision does care about review scores to some degree.

This game is all about building the brand. I think Part Two will be absolutely fine, but they are going to have a little something more to prove. I feel like the majority are forgiving of this one because it's the first and shows a lot of potential. The second one won't be given that benefit.
 
I'm glad I waited for the reviews. From the beginning I felt the Beta had given me all the game had to deliver. I feel anything below a 7 is being harsh though.
 
I have very little problem with the words reviews are using against Destiny, but the scoring is getting ridiculous.

Take Gamespot's review. They say the core mechanics are superb, and then downgrade the game all the way to a 6 because the story is bad and there's too much repetition/too little to do.

Compare that to Titanfall, with even MORE repetition and even less to do, with a story that's as bad, and they gave that a 9. Why?

I agree you have to start fixing things somewhere, but I'd always thought that the core mechanics were pretty much all that mattered in an FPS, because when it comes down to it they all have sucky stories and endless repetition for gameplay.
Titanfall is a competitive multiplayer game. Repetition/lack of things to do don't matter when all you want to do is play a set of maps on team deatchmatch over and over again. Amount of content doesn't matter as long as the content in the game is fun to play multiple times.

Meanwhile Destiny is a coop shooter, coop shooters need variety, different bosses to take on that have different ways to kill. Destiny doesn't have that yet.
 
Titanfall is a competitive multiplayer game. Repetition/lack of things to do don't matter when all you want to do is play a set of maps on team deatchmatch over and over again. Amount of content doesn't matter as long as the content in the game is fun to play multiple times.

Meanwhile Destiny is a coop shooter, coop shooters need variety, different bosses to take on that have different ways to kill. Destiny doesn't have that yet.

Destiny has (nearly) as many competitive multiplayer modes as Titanfall does on top of being a coop shooter.
 

Pepboy

Member
I have very little problem with the words reviews are using against Destiny, but the scoring is getting ridiculous.

Take Gamespot's review. They say the core mechanics are superb, and then downgrade the game all the way to a 6 because the story is bad and there's too much repetition/too little to do.

Compare that to Titanfall, with even MORE repetition and even less to do, with a story that's as bad, and they gave that a 9. Why?

I agree you have to start fixing things somewhere, but I'd always thought that the core mechanics were pretty much all that mattered in an FPS, because when it comes down to it they all have sucky stories and endless repetition for gameplay.

I think there's a really interesting discussion to be had regarding the interaction between marketing and reviews. Should reviewers try to ignore all marketing?

For example, let's say Destiny was marketed as a platformer (obviously it wasn't). As a platformer, it would be a terrible game. If I am a platforming fan, I would want reviewers to let me know (via scoring) that it's not a good platformer.

In other words, I see reviews are partly existing to debias marketing. If Destiny was marketed as a PvP FPS battle arena, then I'd probably agree with you. But it was marketed as having a huge emphasis on story, on the lore, on the world, etc. Which, from what I understand and watched, it has failed on.

I think Activision knew that -- they marketed it in a sexy way but knew the game wasn't what they were claiming. Hence why they didn't let reviewers see it. It worked -- they got a lot of preorders through basically deception -- but now you are seeing the backlash.
 
Yikes. The increasing amount of Too Human comparisons to this game are beginning to utterly astound me.

I'm NOT about to to say I really DISAGREE with that assessment of course. I think this is the real danger that presents itself when you launch a new IP as a "franchise" and a "10-year plan" from the get-go.

I don't see other too human comparisons in the thread.


But yeah, it's probably the most solid comparison you can make. Planned series, rushed launched, lackluster gameplay, does nothing to be the new thing compared to other games in the genre, tons of money wasted, soon Bungie will be suing Epic Games.
 

Jito

Banned
Kind of. While they are certainly going to be thrilled with the sales, Bungie isn't going to get their $2.5 million bonus. From the original court documents that revealed the game forever ago:



That has to suck a little. And obviously shows that Activision does care about review scores to some degree.

This game is all about building the brand. I think Part Two will be absolutely fine, but they are going to have a little something more to prove. I feel like the majority are forgiving of this one because it's the first and shows a lot of potential. The second one won't be given that benefit.

Haha oh man that sucks big time for them. Bet they thought it as such a sure thing as well "We're Bungie, no way we'd get less than a 90 on metacritic!"
 

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
I'm personally enjoying the game, but it is hard to argue with most of the criticism I've seen. For instance, I did not expect Borderlands 2 to have a more compelling narrative than Destiny going in, I was wrong.

Lots of potential though, really like some of the world building, just have to go out of your way to learn anything about it. Like, I don't get the Grimoire shit at all, would have much preferred a Mass Effect style codex. Oh well, I have Destiny wiki.

Seriously?
 
I cancelled my pre-order after the beta and managed to hold off on the launch day hype and seeing my friends list full of people playing this game. I'm glad I didn't have a breakdown and cave for this game.

Everyone always says, don't judge a beta by the final game, but in every beta I've ever done, and its probably dozens in the last decade, the final game usually isn't far off from the beta.

A lot of the negative feelings I had toward this game in beta were things articulated in many of these reviews. The game was a big barrel of empty fun to me. The mechanics were good, but this game was mind numbingly repetitive. That's the game at its core. You can't change the core of the game from beta until final release.

Glad I saved myself $60.

Okay!

And Borderlands.. a more compelling narrative? I couldn't even make it past the first missions in that..
 

Zakalwe

Banned
I'd give this game an 8/10 and I can see it easily becoming a 9/10 maybe even a 10 as it develops over the coming months.

Reviews, IMO, are being far too critical. They seem to be applying concerns to Destiny that they let other games get away with, and giving more weight than usual to certain critiques.

I honestly think many opinions will change as this game develops. What Bungie have made here is special, the combat is absolutely amazing and the game has incredible potential. I very much doubt there going to waste it.

Time will tell.
 

Synth

Member
Compare that to Titanfall, with even MORE repetition and even less to do, with a story that's as bad, and they gave that a 9. Why?

Because Titanfall is a competitive focused game, where players are expected to learn the nuances of everything from the map layouts, to how of their opponents are likely to react in each situation. Knocking a game like that for being repetitive would be like giving Street Fighter 4 a 3/10 for being repetitive.

When your opponent is supposed to primarily be the AI, then repetition becomes much more of an issue, as they won't adapt with you. Most games that fare well in under these conditions have enough variety in the mission design that the player doesn't "solve" the entire game's logic in the first couple of hours of play, and then pretty much plays on autopilot because what they've just learned works forever onwards.

And like Titanfall, Street Fighter would be no worse with no story at all. Whereas in Destiny, it's actually supposed to be part of the variety. The story is used to (poorly) mask the fact that what you're doing now, is the same thing you were just doing 15 minutes ago.
 
You're just being obtuse. They said it on multiple occasions and it was even part of a slide deck they used in one of their public presentations.

Frist result for Destiny like Star Wars from google

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...tiny-can-surpass-halo-sit-alongside-star-wars

Lol, I quoted it directly in that post. I'm not being obtuse but reasonable. I read what they said. The game isn't star wars... They want it to achieve the same level of greatness that that franchise has created. There was no promise that this edition of Destiny was going to be star wars.

Reading =/= Expectations
 
I'd give this game an 8/10 and I can see it easily becoming a 9/10 maybe even a 10 as it develops over the coming months.

Reviews, IMO, are being far too critical. They seem to be applying concerns to Destiny hat they let other games get away with, and giving more weight than usual to certain critiques.

I honestly think many opinions will change as this game develops. What Bungie have made here is special, and has incredible potential. I very much doubt there going to waste it.

Time will tell.

Exactly. And it seems to be the case with gamers as well.
 

ironcreed

Banned
I have very little problem with the words reviews are using against Destiny, but the scoring is getting ridiculous.

Take Gamespot's review. They say the core mechanics are superb, and then downgrade the game all the way to a 6 because the story is bad and there's too much repetition/too little to do.

Compare that to Titanfall, with even MORE repetition and even less to do, with a story that's as bad, and they gave that a 9. Why?

I agree you have to start fixing things somewhere, but I'd always thought that the core mechanics were pretty much all that mattered in an FPS, because when it comes down to it they all have sucky stories and endless repetition for gameplay.

The problem with Destiny is that it looks and plays great, but the game itself is unfortunately extremely weak. A game will be judged on what it is supposed to be and if it lives up to that or not. While I am not a fan of Titanfall because it is just multiplayer, it was judged on that merit and was found to be a great game for what it does and what it is supposed to be. There you go.
 

watership

Member
I'm actually enjoying Destiny way more than Borderlands 2. One of the biggest reasons for this is gun handling which is far more superior.

Absolutely true. The shooting mechanics and movement in Destiny is far better than Borderlands. I just find the overall gameplay, environments and story to be more rewarding in Borderlands 2.
 

Papercuts

fired zero bullets in the orphanage.
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.

First, the story missions have zero variety. Deploy ghost, waves of enemies, progress further, sudden no respawn zone where more enemies are deployed and then a boss. The issue there is also one with the way the world is designed. The shared open part, to work with both 20+ and 5 makes it so across the board there is nothing but fodder spawning on 98% of the area, and it makes it so each mission has to funnel you into tunnels so they can instance you out of the game and plop down higher level enemies. As a shooter, this gets very grating as encounter design is the key to keep things fresh and when you can predict how everything is going to happen, it gets boring. Beyond this is the completely incomprehensible plot itself, the only thing that sheds any light on stuff is accessed via an app, and all of the characters are just giving you no reason to care about them. The vendors in the tower could be made an actual vending machine and lose nothing in the translation, as they never have an introduction or any real interaction beyond saying a one line quip randomly when you view their store. Unlike other shooters, Destiny doesn't capitalize on tight well designed encounters, nor does it craft a story worth a shit.

Then there's the loot. The majority of the weapons are very similar looking, and the brunt of everything interesting is all in the endgame which leaves the 1-20 climb not very interesting. You can rock it 5 games in a row in PvP and only get one single weapon the entire time that ends up being worse. You can run through the same strikes and get similar results, and nothing but green drops from the enemies which are totally useless once Light comes into play. The endgame focus becomes focusing on reputation and marks to afford loot and purchase it yourself, which is counterintuitive to the point of a loot game. The game frequently will give engrams to decode, but these can all jump down in value. A legendary engram can become a rare weapon, which keeps happening to me. It can also become an item for ANY OTHER CLASS, which literally never happened with commons, uncommons, and rares. They just make it even less likely to get a legendary you can even use, when it is already so incredibly rare to have one drop. It's possible you decode these and they just become actual items/special currency...this, again, is why everything is just focused on buying it all yourself. Unlike other loot games, Destiny doesn't integrate it well enough to feel like it's a satisfying chunk of the game. There's so much frustration involved, and the guns are all still grounded so you won't be seeing things like cows being summoned to fight for you, or a gun that as you reload you throw it and it levitates towards enemies shooting them until it blows up. Instead it gives you the same armor pieces twenty times each.

Next up, Patrols. I could use their video where they threw a grenade far into the distance then turned around because they had no time, but these issues stand out just by playing and don't even need that on top of it. You can go wherever you want, so get to exploring! First off, you probably want to find chests. And sure, there's a decent amount of them, all hidden away...but they tend to have barely anything. Here's some glimmer and whatever resource the planet has on it. Also more uncommon gear, since that's just fantastic. Next, is actually finding these. They are at times pretty well hidden, which is actually clashing with how these landscapes are designed. The game is full to the fuckin' brim with these little caves that are clear spawn closets. They all look the same, are a single room with a rock jutting out, they're all over the place. Sometimes like on the moon they even have these little buildings that you can go in and look oddly similar, a single dead end room....because they're the same. These tend to have nothing in it, but CAN hold chests. This means the game encourages you to check these little spawn closets even if they're all copy and pasted, because some of them will hold shit. Why would you encourage players to do that? Otherwise, there's exploring with your guardian's abilities. All three classes can get very high with their jump, but the level design does not let you do much.

0YN02GD.jpg


Here's an example. This is on top of a building on the moon, where a piece is broken off and serves as a bridge over to this hill. Can you tell me where the player can go, and where he can't? That lower part the bridge goes directly towards works, but just a little bit to the right with all the circles is a giant invisible wall that pushes you off. But sometimes you can get to areas like this totally fine, AND sometimes they have loot...so there is no consistent ingame logic about boundaries which is incredibly frustrating and immersion shattering. To add some more hilarity, there was once a chest I found at this spot on the other side of that hill, right by the invisible wall. After opening it, I stepped forward a bit to look out into the distance and found out that the back half of this has zero collision so you fall right through the moon to your death.

cfDcYnW.jpg


Here's another. Looks like a decent place to possibly put a chest or matierial, yeah? until you take a step down here and get a TURN BACK countdown warning that kills you. This entire spot in front of me is a giant killzone...but you can get to the spot behind it, and to the left of it. You circle around this whole spot, but the circle itself is death for...some reason. Again, this clashes with what a player would expect to be consistent ingame logic, and instead becomes guesswork on "can I actually go here, or will I die/smack into a wall?" and that is damning critique to an 'open world' game. Also, all of the side missions range from the exact type of generic stuff you would expect. Kill a bunch of ___ and pick up the items they drop. Kill all enemies in general. Go to this random point and stare off into the distance to survey. Go to this point and hold square to have ghost scan for three seconds, job well done.

Moving on, Strikes! Fight through enemies, hit a big boss at the end. Sounds like fun, yeah? Most of the bosses are not well designed for this type of game. They are designed incredibly samey, having ranged attacks with an AoE splash, and a shockwave attack if you get close (gg to Titans who have a totally useless skillset as CQC is impossible and their super is suicide unless they're the subclass). On top of THAT, they have absurd amounts of HP for you to grind through as they keep walking around, shifting focus around players as you keep hitting them slowly but surely. Very few function like the spider tank which has a weakness to exploit to the point where it topples and opens up for a lot of damage. Though even this guy just sits idly by as everyone rains fire upon him instead of leaping around the massive space to fight him, which would have been a much more organic and hectic fight. To counterbalance, Bungie just takes a super easy way out and keeps spawning in enemy fodder to both pressure you from the sides and possibly distract you from the boss who will blindside you. But, mainly, you just save you super for them and get ammo back because you're running out pelting this sponge. The endgame content, apparently, is meant to be using a strike playlist to keep doing these at higher level, but ultimately these problems are hardly fixed at other difficulty levels. And then after you finally beat these, the game has the same issues with loot distribution where it's likely to give jack and shit all to actually progress you forward. And there's 6 of them total. And there's no way to vote on a map, so it keeps sending you to the same couple.

So as you can imagine, all of these pieces and parts intertwine and hold eachother back. The patrol worlds themselves seem barely designed around the actual jump capabilities of your guardian, and are trying to link up with people so the surface is full of fodder and generally uninteresting fights, so the game funnels you down into tunnels but still manages to just toss uninteresting boss fights at you which focus far too much on enemies that you know within the first few minutes you can already beat as you go through the motions again. Then the loot based part makes it so you're grinding this all to just buy the better weapons, which feels like an empty loop as the actual content being grinding has so many issues already.

The other part is PvP, which has its own slew of issues. Again, no map vote, so expect to see the same ones. Though special mention here as Bungie has always been so forward focuses with these types of things, how the hell did they go so far backwards on basic functionality? Weapon balance is still off from the beta though it's likely they're tweaking the hell out of this, but ARs and shotguns are overwhelmingly powerful, and each class can just pull nonsense out of their hat on a whim. Turn a corner into a guy with a golden gun, instant death. See a team capping a point as a titan drop a shield...I dunno, you got outplayed. Warlock and Titan yolo bombs, titans in particular starting up in an instant and having a hitbox the size of a nuke so you instantly die even if you see it coming and get away. You can fight it at some points, but on many others it's just a no win scenario based on a 2 second split decision as there's not enough notification that a player has a super ready. Grenades with AoE damage all over the place, and no way to track who tossed it. Did an enemy leave this behind? Only way to know is run on in. Maps themselves are serviceable but not totally standing out in any way, aside from Blind Watch which is one of the worst maps I have ever seen in any shooter. The main mode being control, the placements are just baffling here, putting A by itself on one spawn and on the entire other side of the map having B in some very close quarters room, with C being right beside it outside the window. The entire game is people rushing these points desperately trying to control both as without them your spawns keep shooting you back to A and everyone else can watch over B and C with ease without moving. It is obvious that this issue exists just playing the map two or three times, yet it somehow got playtested and exists in this state in the retail game. And again, random ass loot that doesn't seem curved to benefit actual skill.

so there's a few of the issues the game has. there's still more, like the lack of proper communication, barely seeing worlds populated, the tower being an awkward quiet zone where all you can do is dance with people or smack your face off a ball, etc. but I'll just stop here.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
mediocre reviews aside,

I still plan on getting this for ps3 and for ps4 (when I get one)

It looks fun as can be to me and I love co-op type stuff (resistance 2 anyone?). My buddy was over yesterday and was praising the hell out of it, this guy is no slouch either when it comes to gaming.

Also, while I don't know too much about what Bungie has said concerning the game's future, it seems like they will bring more content to it in the months/years to come. At least I would assume they would.
 

Dabanton

Member
The internet just sent Activision and Bungie some humble pie. I really can't wait to see their response to this...

Activison well Bobby K and the execs will be rubbing their hands in glee they've made bank but their money men that's their aim. Bungie are the creatives and any creative worth their salt would be hurting right about now. Years of work getting shit on can't be nice.
 
Exactly. And it seems to be the case with gamers as well.

I can't tell if you're serious, so I'll just ask nicely: Have you seen/read/watched the things Bungie stated would be in the game? Places to go? Things to do? The social concepts? Basically, have you seen any of the media prior to the game's release?

Many have been linked here, actually. I'm curious as to how you believe misdirection and suggestion should be blindly ignored by reviewers and gamers. Honestly. As a small-time-nobody-game-maker-person I'm interested in what the trick is to blatantly give false information and get away with it in your eyes.

Because that's the ultimate hook, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom