chronic_archaic
Member
Let's just say it's not, we have enough evidence pointing to the fact that Destiny could be updated to support all the new visual effects Destiny 2 does via updates.
-
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
yanipheonu
Member
Perfect visual interpretation of this thread.
It's funny how adamant people get about a game they probably won't buy/will buy anyways.
I'll refer you to my previous post:
Why would it be irrational? If I completed Dark Souls feeling satisfied, I'd want more Dark Souls. If I felt Destiny was lacking I'd expect forthcoming iterations to offer far more. Destiny was absolutely an easy target of ire around release, though I enjoyed the game and have defended it in the past, I can still feel and express disappointment with certain aspects of it.
Since the beginning, I'm asking to demonstrate me something that could prove me I'm wrong.
Yes, to be honest, I'm here to be convinced that during the stream, Bungie showed something making that D2 isn't a DLC packaged as a whole new game and how evolutionary D1 was made.
To my defense, I explain how some stuff couldn't be added as a DLC and some could (The Crew), so if my points are valid, then you're okay to say some sequel couldn't be added as DLC.
But yes, D2 is sold as a new game, I feel disappointed by what I saw, I'm curious to see more.
chronic_archaic
Member
I'm getting it the day it comes out - doesn't make me any less upset it's not remotely different from the first game.
Perfect visual interpretation of this thread.
It's funny how adamant people get about a game they probably won't buy.
Forsaken82
Member
Welcome to the general consensus of every sequel.
Bull_peeler
Banned
Well, since the stream was very limited it would be hard for anyone to argue that (at least) some of it could be added as DLC. As a game - I can't imagine that would work. If, and I have to say if as long as I don't work at Bungie, the engine is indeed reworked to such a degree that D1 and D2 at this time is not compatible (I no longer know if I'm making sense) it would be impossible to implement all the new stuff.
(Once again) If we are just talking about a new strike and some guns; sure - it most possibly could be added as dlc. But this is a whole new game. It's not JUST what we saw in a stream, but a whole new world, new gear, new powers and everything else that comes with a sequel (based on what has been said/shown). It's, if everything they said are true, an evolutionary step - just like Uncharted 2 or Gears of war 2 is.
The problem here is that it is impossible for anyone to know if their right before the launch of the game. I have to admit that I feel that basing this argument on just the stream itself and kind of forgetting that there is indeed a whole new game coming is kind of dishonest. I'm not calling YOU dishonest, as you are entitled to your opinions, but the basis of the discussion is skewed from the start.
(I'm sorry if there's something that doesn't make sense. English is not my first language.).
StalkerUKCG
Banned
I get you're over exaggerating to prove a point but "remotely different" is an insane statement
New abilities for each of the classes like the titan wall or the warlock sigil that are not tied to a super are enough of a change to make it remotely different on their own.
On top of that it's basically an entire new games worth of content that just happens to play like one of the best feeling console FPS games currently. Not to mention all the QoL improvements.
Basically all the complaints ball down to people being reductive of features or basically ignoring them.
It's been said a million times but D2 is as much of a sequel as GAFs beloved Dark Soul sequels are.. or the majority of other same platform sequels.
yanipheonu
Member
Ah true, fixed it.
I'm mostly poking fun at the idea lots of the posters here seem to be in it for the argument, not any genuine desire to understand more or change minds.
It looked pretty much the same to me (except now one class can fly in the air and rain fire swords down on people, why would you pick any other class?). Curious how much of it (or the story?) was edited from the original one.
Do people think this is more like DLC because how empty the first one felt?
Do people think this is more like DLC because how empty the first one felt?
Yeah don't worry, you make perfect sense, and I agree on a lot of thing you said, that we need to see the rest of the game to really make a valuable feedback.
Again, I'm only talking about what I've seen during the stream and Strike.
When I saw Halo 2 and Halo 3 demonstration during E3, it was easy to spot how the rendering engine improved so much, and with the Vidoc made by Bungie, we could see how the engineering stuff was revamped (plus gameplay mechanic stuff).
I did not have this effect with D2 demonstration. But again, D1 gameplay loop was great, so yeah, don't broke what doesn't need to be fixed. D2 didn't need to change its formula, I was just expecting really new addition that DLCs from D1 couldn't have made possible, like (again, from I was expecting from Bungie) using your ship to fly and fight in space, maybe being able to dual wielding weapons, being able to tackle a vehicle...
Gun from Destiny is in the next Destiny game is somehow meant to discredit it?
Bull_peeler
Banned
I see (and understand) where you're coming from. Let's hope there's some things left to be shown that will make you change your mind. I saw enough changes to make me happy, but then again: I just wanted bigger, (even) better and more.
I'm biased towards Destiny.
Took my 5 minutes to understand this ahah (no offense, it's just me).
It's a quick example to illustrate that content created for D1 and intended to be part of the lastest DLC was just shown as this so-much-spoked-about brand new content for D2, making (maybe) a point that the content they shown so far could be added as a DLC.
But anyway, we're in an endless loop here. I'm looking forward to see more about D2.
Yeah and the common defense of it seems to be that:
1. It is apparently a core pillar of Destiny gameplay.
2. Better bosses are harder.
Perfect visual interpretation of this thread.
It's funny how adamant people get about a game they probably won't buy/will buy anyways.
Probably won't/will buy? So.....everybody?
I remember hearing something similar a lot in defense of Destiny. If you stopped playing Destiny, then you can't criticize it since you haven't played it enough. If you stuck through and played Destiny a lot, then you can't criticize it because you put so much time into it. So who can criticize Destiny?
yanipheonu
Member
I'm more concerned with people hitting their head against the wall.
Clearly there are people in this thread with no interest in actual criticism and just want to argue about fanboys or "you don't understand Destiny".
Spauldingxx
Member
This game is going to consume me. If it's anything like The Taken King, then it's going to kick ass. TTK was the shiznit.
Trickster
Member
the main ones I've seen are these -
- Raids are where the boss mechanics are
- You can't have mechanics in strikes because trying to coordinate between 3 randoms is not possible
Second argument really annoys me though. There's absolutely nothing, anywhere that says that boss mechanics needs to require a lot of group coordination. There could easily be fun and varied mechanics that rely on individual skill and attention. Even if there were mechanics requiring group coordination, there're ways that the game could help players learn and understand what to do (visual cues or you ghost/npcs pointing things out. Just as quick examples)
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
I think it will be a leap on visuals on the PC but on console I don't think anyone expected to be blown away.
You can't critique it. Vex changed the fundamental nature of the universe. ¯\_(ツ
_/¯Probably should just ignore those posts. If you need to say something like that then you are not arguing in good faith. I don't think there are many people on a gaming forum who don't have knowledge of Destiny in a thread about Destiny.
fabricated backlash
Member
So Destiny 2 is just a port like Splatoon 2.
When will these lazy ports end?
When will these lazy ports end?
KrM DeLorean
Member
3 remixed subclasses, we're losing Bladedancer/Bubble/Selfrez/Blink it seems(rip)
We got 3 BRAND NEW subclasses in a DLC
We've gotten new campaign missions in all DLC released.
Previous DLC have given new strikes.
Yet to be seen. I hope so.
IO, TITAN, NESSUS, EARTH
We're also losing access to MOON, MARS, VENUS, Plaguelands, Dreadnaught (at launch at least). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yet to be seen, unless you work at Bungie.
We've gotten new patrols in DLC.
We've gotten new raids via DLC.
All of this have been delivered before via DLC.
Vex and Cabal have some "new" archetypes and attacks it seems, we've gotten those via Taken and Splicers via DLC. Hopefully they have something more to show at E3.
Swords, Cannons and Sidearms were added via DLC
This is awesome, and was expected.
To the OP:
Compared to proper MMO Expansion patch notes:
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/topics/detail/464263b3ce6026cdf98a49bf8f98c204c6199e5a
Comparing Destiny to an MMO in any sense of the word is laughable. There's nothing "Massive" about the social aspects of it. (max 16? people per Tower/Reef instance, even less in public combat areas)
This is what I've felt as well. If they fail to meet that deadline Activision essentially owns everything. We'll see what happens at E3.
Twilight Gap
Member
How can you lose access to content that was never in the game to begin with?
KrM DeLorean
Member
Same way we lost gear that was never in the game to begin with?
Right. This part I don't understand, and there's plenty I don't like in the D2 reveal. Either you *want* it to be a DLC, stacking on top of all the old shit, or you want it to be it's own thing with completely new areas. Can't have it both ways unless you're the kind of person that expects Advanced Warfare to be packaged in with Infinite Warfare because reasons.
Mind you I Haven't really played Destiny 1 on my own just with a friend who was a huge fan of the game and played it with him from time to time. I also followed pretty much everything about it when Destiny 1 was about to be released. But the game didn't really appeal to me.
I saw the entire stream and there really was no indication of anything new and fresh. And while this game is an FPS and can't really change the gameplay much it doesn't feel like a sequel and if they were to just release all this on DLC with a PC version it would've been just as exciting.
So I don't blame people when they say it feels like a DLC because it does. Maybe not to the most hardcore of Destiny players but to everyone else its just more of the same. It could be a fresh experience to PC players however which to this day I still don't understand why the first one wasn't for PC but yeah. They are the new consumers not the PS4/Xbone players.
More of the same with a prettier package is what I would describe it.
I saw the entire stream and there really was no indication of anything new and fresh. And while this game is an FPS and can't really change the gameplay much it doesn't feel like a sequel and if they were to just release all this on DLC with a PC version it would've been just as exciting.
So I don't blame people when they say it feels like a DLC because it does. Maybe not to the most hardcore of Destiny players but to everyone else its just more of the same. It could be a fresh experience to PC players however which to this day I still don't understand why the first one wasn't for PC but yeah. They are the new consumers not the PS4/Xbone players.
More of the same with a prettier package is what I would describe it.
omgwtfbentime
Member
Destiny kinda suffers from the No Man's Sky problem where they promised the world and were vague leading up to release so once people finally saw what it was, they felt robbed. To be fair, Destiny 1 was pretty skimpy on content, but everyone was under the impression that because what Destiny 1 wasn't the biggest revolution in gaming ever, its development was a complete mess and the sequel was going to be what 1 was "supposed" to be. people feel like Bungie/Activision owe them a game they were never making thanks to misleading and vague marketing, long development, and huge budgets.
In a way, Destiny 2 marketing being pretty upfront of what Destiny 2 is was a nice movie. This is a game destiny fans will love, feels pretty feature complete, and refined. Destiny is naturally divisive as an MMO-lite, it's genre is never going to be universally appealing, but I think what it boils down to is there's a large vocal minority who wants Bungie to make a game that isn't Destiny and can't accept that Destiny 2 is just more Destiny.
In a way, Destiny 2 marketing being pretty upfront of what Destiny 2 is was a nice movie. This is a game destiny fans will love, feels pretty feature complete, and refined. Destiny is naturally divisive as an MMO-lite, it's genre is never going to be universally appealing, but I think what it boils down to is there's a large vocal minority who wants Bungie to make a game that isn't Destiny and can't accept that Destiny 2 is just more Destiny.
Think you've got it wrong. People wanted the actual vision and scope of Destiny that was outlined early on in their development. Before the reality of having to develop on legacy gen, loss of their entire narrative team and seemingly shite tools to rapidly create content took hold. Many were expecting them to deliver on their initial vision rather than cut their losses and just make Destiny 1 again with a story mode intact. Wanting the series to grow /= not wanting Destiny. The same way expanding the scope, and adding classes doesn't make it a different IP.
veloxStrix
Banned
Let's not forget that Halo 2 and Halo 3 came out on different console generations.
Psychoward
Banned
Destiny 1 and 2 technically are since Destiny 1 had to be on 360 and PS3 and 2 doesn't have that limitation anymore.
Souldestroyer Reborn
Banned
I can see where people are coming from tbh.
The type of game that Destiny is, there's nothing stopping Destiny 2 basically being DLC, the reality is, that's pretty much what it is anyway.
Regardless, day one. Warlock master race.
The type of game that Destiny is, there's nothing stopping Destiny 2 basically being DLC, the reality is, that's pretty much what it is anyway.
Regardless, day one. Warlock master race.
veloxStrix
Banned
That's an interesting idea and I'm honestly not sure exactly how much that affects things.
Have you seen how Destiny 1 looked on PS360? Like compared them side to side? The difference there is already a generation apart despite having the same "look". Just like how Rise of Tomb Raider has generational differences between Xbox 360 and Xbox One but yet the 360 version "looks" close..but that still doesn't make the Xbox One version less technically impressive just because it was a cross gen game available in older console and looked pretty similar. If anything it's something of an achievement that they managed to make the last gen version look so close rather than it being the other way around as it has been suggested. People make the "looks a generation apart" comment for games that are much much closer and less significsnt visually like a modern PC game vs console version. Like you have people say Battlefront on PC is a generation ahead of PS4 yet somehow something like Destiny is not? When it actually had generational differences.
If you were to actually compare the PS360 version with PS4Bone version of Destiny you'll notice that. There are upgrades to the graphics in Destiny 2, primarily in lighting, post processing and particles, pretty hefty one even. But the actual areas where you had these "last gen shackles" were the size of maps, number of enemies (upgraded in ROI already due to dropping last gen), and world geometry. You will see these and the previously mentioned upgrades and know more about it as you see more of it.
Boombloxer
Member
I fail to see why this is a bad thing.
A lot of this sounds like fairly unrealistic expectations.
It's not an MMO, not should it have expectations of one. Borderlands 2 fixed everything wrong with 1 and added a shitton of content. Why exactly is this different?
For me it's simply a matter of single playthrough content. If D2 had three to four times the content of vanilla / launch D1, it might be worthwhile, and certainly feel like a sequel.
I don't expect them to change the experience, just the lack of content.
duhmetree
Member
The problem with Destiny has always been content. We witness the untapped potential. Over the past few years they've fixed the quality of the content but we've always been lacking in quantity. They've been playing 'catch-up' since Vanilla release. Another reason why Bungie would want to break free from Destiny 1 and have a new beginning.
At this point we do not now much about D2. We saw the first mission, a strike and learned that there will be 4 planets. e3 is right around the corner.
I feel as if we're actually on the same page.. I just feel as if Bungie will deliver the goods with D2.
At this point we do not now much about D2. We saw the first mission, a strike and learned that there will be 4 planets. e3 is right around the corner.
I feel as if we're actually on the same page.. I just feel as if Bungie will deliver the goods with D2.
At the end of the day, Destiny 2 is a sequel and not DLC because Bungie is marketing, packaging, and selling it as a sequel instead of DLC. Therefore it is, by definition, a sequel. Is it the most ambitious sequel ever made? Nah, doesn't look to be. But not every sequel is a complete overhaul. Sometimes you get the jump from Assassin's Creed to AC2, and sometimes you get the bump from 2 to Brotherhood. Both types of sequels are valid, and both have their place. That one is a far bigger change doesn't make the other less of a sequel, it just makes it a more evolutionary approach.
Snd let's be honest, what this is really about isn't labelling Destiny 2 a sequel or DLC, what this is really about is money, specifically the $60 Destiny 2 will cost as a sequel instead of the $40 people think it would have cost as DLC. Except that was never going to be the case. We've had 4 Destiny expansions now: two at $20, one for $40, and the final $30 DLC. Looking across these it's not hard to see the tiers at play in terms of what your money buys. Even if you accept the argument that Destiny 2 isn't adding anything that The Taken King didn't already add, there difference in scale is obvious. TTK added one patrol zone, 8 missions to the main campaign (with admittedly another 10 or so extra missions wrapped up in various quests), 3 or 4 strikes (1 PS4 exclusive) with a 5th added for free 6 months later, and a raid. Destiny 2 is adding 4 planets/patrol zones which, while not shown, are claimed to be considerably larger than in Destiny), what sounds to be around twice the story missions, and presumably 6+ strikes. By the standards clearly already laid out whether you call that an expansion, DLC, or a sequel that's $60 worth of content.
As for what we've seen thus far that couldn't be done as DLC, quite simply the entire opening mission. Not one Destiny expansion has undone anything that's come before. Nothing has been replaced or eliminated (with the sole exceptions of replacing Dinklebot with Nolandroid and organizing Destiny 1's missions into quests while leaving the missions themselves unchanged). They've expanded only. Look at the Plaguelands. A good third of that area is recycled from the Cosmodrome, yet the Cosmodrome wasn't replaced. Instead the Plaguelands are a separate area with all the changes restricted to them while at any point I can return to the original Cosmodrome which is identical to how it was on launch. Expand only, remove nothing. I can role a new character today and get almost the identical experience as on launch day (again the only duuiifferences being the quest structure and Nolandroid), meanwhile the Warlock I rolled on launch day can still replay any mission he wants. He can still go to the tower, but Bungie wants to blow the tower up. How do you get rid of the Tower in an expansion while still allowing the game to be played by new players? Plus after 2 1/2 years of balance patches, archetypes, metas, etc. there's a LOT of cruft that'a built up. By pitching this as a sequel Bungie gets to start over from scratch, and they have. They didn't just blow up everyone's vaults, they completely redid the approach to weapon loadouts. The change from primary/special/heavy to kinetic/energy/power alone is something that couldn't be done as DLC, because such a fundamental weapon rearrangement would destroy the balance of the entire game. You would have to redesign every encounter in the game to compensate for it. Finally there's the backend, invisible stuff. We know Destiny's developer environment was a disaster and needed to be completely redone. I'd be shocked if fixing their dev tools didn't require changes to the engine to incorporate the new content that left it fundamentally incompatible with what was already there.
Snd let's be honest, what this is really about isn't labelling Destiny 2 a sequel or DLC, what this is really about is money, specifically the $60 Destiny 2 will cost as a sequel instead of the $40 people think it would have cost as DLC. Except that was never going to be the case. We've had 4 Destiny expansions now: two at $20, one for $40, and the final $30 DLC. Looking across these it's not hard to see the tiers at play in terms of what your money buys. Even if you accept the argument that Destiny 2 isn't adding anything that The Taken King didn't already add, there difference in scale is obvious. TTK added one patrol zone, 8 missions to the main campaign (with admittedly another 10 or so extra missions wrapped up in various quests), 3 or 4 strikes (1 PS4 exclusive) with a 5th added for free 6 months later, and a raid. Destiny 2 is adding 4 planets/patrol zones which, while not shown, are claimed to be considerably larger than in Destiny), what sounds to be around twice the story missions, and presumably 6+ strikes. By the standards clearly already laid out whether you call that an expansion, DLC, or a sequel that's $60 worth of content.
As for what we've seen thus far that couldn't be done as DLC, quite simply the entire opening mission. Not one Destiny expansion has undone anything that's come before. Nothing has been replaced or eliminated (with the sole exceptions of replacing Dinklebot with Nolandroid and organizing Destiny 1's missions into quests while leaving the missions themselves unchanged). They've expanded only. Look at the Plaguelands. A good third of that area is recycled from the Cosmodrome, yet the Cosmodrome wasn't replaced. Instead the Plaguelands are a separate area with all the changes restricted to them while at any point I can return to the original Cosmodrome which is identical to how it was on launch. Expand only, remove nothing. I can role a new character today and get almost the identical experience as on launch day (again the only duuiifferences being the quest structure and Nolandroid), meanwhile the Warlock I rolled on launch day can still replay any mission he wants. He can still go to the tower, but Bungie wants to blow the tower up. How do you get rid of the Tower in an expansion while still allowing the game to be played by new players? Plus after 2 1/2 years of balance patches, archetypes, metas, etc. there's a LOT of cruft that'a built up. By pitching this as a sequel Bungie gets to start over from scratch, and they have. They didn't just blow up everyone's vaults, they completely redid the approach to weapon loadouts. The change from primary/special/heavy to kinetic/energy/power alone is something that couldn't be done as DLC, because such a fundamental weapon rearrangement would destroy the balance of the entire game. You would have to redesign every encounter in the game to compensate for it. Finally there's the backend, invisible stuff. We know Destiny's developer environment was a disaster and needed to be completely redone. I'd be shocked if fixing their dev tools didn't require changes to the engine to incorporate the new content that left it fundamentally incompatible with what was already there.
I wasnt thinking it was DLC sized before i read your post, i was not really into the first one so im not keeping up with coverage. but only 4 new areas? Did they learn nothing, from the tepid response to the original?
Oh and the reason those games arent dinged is they all have more than 4 new locations.
Literally every hybrid FPS-RPG game has similar amounts of content lol. Why are you comparing pure MP shooters to Destiny 2?
Because people have to go on the defensive and protect developers they're fans of even if the complaint or worry is reasonable or even warranted.
Dynasty8
Member
Every FPS RPG? There aren't even that many... Borderlands is the only one I can think of and B1 and B2 didn't have as much content as what D2 is looking to be.
And these games are the SAME price. They cost the same even with their so called "season passes". Why shouldn't we compare them?
anothertech
Member
Ya. That was one thing rubbing me a little raw as well. What they brought us with ttk seemed just as if not MORE significant than what they're offering so far with D2. I mean,
even if a new element revealed, It wouldn't have been any more than we got with ttk dlc. And we didn't even get that.
That's why a fourth class was expected at the least I think. I hope they have somthing significant to show at E3.
Mass Appeal
Member
What would be these other fps-rpg hybrids on consoles? BL1 and 2 have less content then vanilla Destiny and both had dlc.
Nothing wrong with comparing MP first shooters though right ? All those he mentioned have campaigns plus a multiplayer mode that is basically grinding and unlocking weapons, skins, items.
Two of them offer season passes too up front like Destiny does and TF2 while they don't offer seasons passes and dlc is free because of MTs which imo is a great model, the content is a drip feed.
Vanilla Destiny 2 will have more content then those games at launch yet those are worthy of $60 and a new game yet Destiny 2 is not? I played tons of TF1 and while adding a full fledged campaign and changing MP a little bit, it's not much different. Same with every COD that has come out which is basically a new campaign and reskinned MP.
bigboss370
Member
I think people wanted to see some newer enemies and enemy types, at least one new race or class (with greater customization perhaps), a bigger improvement in graphics (since last gen has been dumped), and possibly a brand new mechanic or gameplay hook (ie. spaceship battles).
I'm personally excited for the game and can see where the improvements are, but I do understand where the "doesn't look like a sequel" crowd is coming from.
I'm personally excited for the game and can see where the improvements are, but I do understand where the "doesn't look like a sequel" crowd is coming from.
Can't believe there wasn't at least one new class and the new hunter subclass seems like a bladedancer with a staff. How cool would a class be that could like summon a turret or wolf or something. But instead we see the same three classes and an area that anyone could easily mistake for something that was in the first game. Either way I'll probably buy it but I can't help but feel disappointed in what they've shown so far.
2blackcats
Member
Finally watched the conference and now I think you guys are crazy.
It's Destiny 2, a sequel. Plain and simple.
With all the usual trappings including a new campaign, etc.
It's Destiny 2, a sequel. Plain and simple.
With all the usual trappings including a new campaign, etc.