Rant(ish)

[tooros]

I'm getting annoyed at the dumbfcuk reviewers, eager to be first, and the seriously retarded eeejuts on the bungie forum whining about this game.

I don't understand why anyone is remotely surprised, or worse 'disappointed,' at what it is?
I agree the skyrim-esque developmental parts might have been exaggerated a bit - hopefully they'll improve that in the future.
But, we already played the alpha and the beta.
It has absorbed the best bits of a bunch of other games and rolled them up into one. Distilled the bits that made them so playable and squeezed them together in a 'new' IP.
Why does anyone moan about that?
It's like saying "OH GOD, It's a driving game, how derivative and boring, all it involves is driving a car around a track, trying to beat some other cars but with shinier graphics" What the fcuk is wrong with that?

It has RPG development
COD/HALO game play.
BL2 Co-op fun.
It's lost most of the bad Halo shit.
It's slick and OCD feeding.
It's not controlled by Microsoft OR Sony.

I wish ALL videogames were as polished.

Go and stick your creative development, genre pushing, "little big-planet" up your shitty arses. THIS is the type of game I love to play. Why do out-dated games reviewers even get paid for this bollocks?

"Err no, We haven't even seen the Raids yet but, err, they're probably shit because they involve shooting baddies."
"As for competitive multiplayer - err - yeah - that's pretty shit too because it involves shooting baddies controlled by other people. - Err nothing new there" Nor has there been for 10 fucking years you dick.
"Err Chess, yeah, why bother? It's just the same as always, the game never evolves, it's nothing new"
"Where are the indie games?"
Get Fucked.

[Pegasus Actual]

OCD feeding is a good thing? It's not controlled by Sony or Microsoft? Who cares? What Halo shit did it lose that was bad? It has RPG stuff? So?

As for racing to get reviews out, that's totally on Activision/Bungie for not providing review copies in advance on such a high profile game.

I agree "Little Big Planet" sucks...? I guess. See, common ground, that's the key.

[tooros]

The thing that it lost from Halo which, in my opinion is good, halo-hopping. The reticle blooms like crazy in Destiny when you jump - accuracy goes out the window. That's why the game plays more cod-like because folks aren't frogging around the place. To a lesser extent the standard issue: grenade-shoot-melee combo is not the core of the game.


OF COURSE OCD feeding is a good thing - I played BL2 for nearly a year becuase of it - just ----one----more---infinity......

RPG development is fun and keeps you going back for more.

I guess I should have posted this as it was the catalyst.....

nzgamer.com/reviews/2130/destiny.html

[mannon]

I'm giving zero shits about reviews. There was a ton of positive hype when the beta hit so now it's fashionable to be negative and lots of reviewers are going to try that. Also, the game isn't for everyone. I think it's a great game, but it isn't mind blowingly, reality altering, OMFG out there. It's a game that in fact isn't even trying to be innovative in and of itself so much as it is trying to build a hybrid game that can borrow from multiple genres instead of sticking to just one. To that extent it's experimental, but it's not being done blindly. Bungie is focusing on making Destiny it's own experience and seeing how everything works in that context.

Really, you can't even fully judge Destiny yet. It's not quite an MMO, but similar to MMO's this is a game with a heavy emphasis on post launch support and development. It will continue to grow and change, and I don't think we will really have a good idea what a fully formed Destiny will be for at least a year. Though I'm sure the core experience won't change too much... and personally I love the core game. Right now I'm just excited to play beyond the beta content and to see where the game goes from here.

[wings]

I used to use reviews as a rough guide but I have been disappointed by many, usually on racing games, so now I just go by 'instinct'.

[mannon]

PS OCD feeding is VERY good... for OCD whores like me. ;3 It's not usually what makes me play a game in the first place, but it sure makes it addictive when I do.

Last night I meant to just play one mission and then do a little exploration in Destiny and I wound up doing several and then I still needed some kills for a bounty so I went back on patrol, but I died doing an event and had to start the bounty over... so I did, all 100 kills and then some, just wandering around on patrol doing events (more carefully), looting, and killing random enemies. I didn't even do the patrol mission themselves.


Then I spent about an hour dicking around in the tower, but that was mostly just me goofing around. heh I managed to climb the tree about as much as I think possible since there's a cieling to it, climbed up on a spot I didn't know you could get to at the emblem NPC and actually got high enough to get killed by the out of bounds timer. I manged to sprint the entire length of the rail without falling to my death on the 3rd or 4th try. I instigated a game of kick the soccer ball which we played until we managed to wedge the ball in the rail, then went and got the dark floaty ball and we played until someone inevitably knocked it off the ledge. And I spent an unhealthy amount of time trying to jump from the building with the mail NPC to the flag post in front of it (towards the ledge). I made that jump in Beta, but it seems harder now. I still think it's possible, because just one time my legs did the thing like I made it on top and then I immediately slipped/ran off, but that tells me it's possible, just very difficult to get the height. Maybe I need more agility? I also saw a high level guy climb up to an area I couldn't figure how to get to. I shoulda paid more attention. ;3 (Yes I'm big enough of a nerd that I enjoy just exploring the stupid places you can get to. I wonder if you can still get on top of the building at the entrance to the array mission from the airplane's. I haven't tried since beta.)

Also I verified that you can still push the knight off the ledge to get that ghost and chest under the helipad. ;p

[mannon]

Sept 12, 2014 10:22:32 GMT -5 wings said:

I used to use reviews as a rough guide but I have been disappointed by many, usually on racing games, so now I just go by 'instinct'.

Yeah if I'm not sure about a game I'll generally look for videos of gameplay and maybe a youtuber I'm familiar with playing it. There are a few people who's opinions I value, and know how to gauge compared to my own likes and dislikes.

[wittyscorpion]

All I want to say on this topic:

1) Beta trumps everything (in the case of Destiny as its beta is a valid representation of the core game);

2) Game play videos trump subjective opinions, whether from players or critics;

3) Live streaming game play (e.g. twitch) trumps recorded game play (e.g. YouTube), which trumps montage;

4) In terms of sujective opinions,community responses trump critics. If I am searching for opinions, I will come to forums like this, not read reviews from critics;


IMHO game critics should RIP. Sadly, in this information age people who solely count on critics for purchase decisions are not "real" gamers.

Game journalists are good at one thing: the previews. That's the only time they can do something useful that the gamer community cant replicate.

[Dumien]

Sept 12, 2014 4:06:41 GMT -5 Pegasus Actual said:

As for racing to get reviews out, that's totally on Activision/Bungie for not providing review copies in advance on such a high profile game.

And have them play with which people?

Reviewers playing the game together would not be a review-able experience that is indicative of the buyer's future experience.

However, the beta was. Reviews are becoming more and more obsolete for games. If I'm on the fence about a game... I'll just watch the front bit of a LP.

[Will]

I agree with you 100% on the "polished" feel.


We have been used and abused by Battlefield/Titanfall/COD releasing unfinished bug-filled crap alpha versions of their games but calling them the "full game".

It's nice to finally get a game that is actually finished. Money was well spent on this one.

[mannon]

Really? I've had practically zero problems with Titanfall since day one and the performance is great, way WAY better than Ghosts (random framerate spikes), BF4 (bad framerate in general in MP), or even BO2, (though BO2 runs okay on my current rig, but TF still runs better).

I hear you, though.


Between twitch and youtube I generally go youtube first. The reason being I just find it easier to find what I'm looking for on demand rather than having to go look for what happens to be streaming right now. I also prefer some editing to show me more of the game without me having to watch hours. Though for multiplayer I definitely see the benefit of watching streams of full games, had I the time for that. ;3 Mostly I don't want to watch full games. I want to watch a 20 minute overview of the game and if I like it I'll look for more... assuming it holds my interest. I generally look at the videos on Steam first and they have about 30 to 60 seconds to get me interested or I'm out. From there my viewing escalates until I decide if I'm interested in buying it and whether I want it at launch or will wait for a lower pricepoint. Once I've decided on my buy in price I'm done with it other than passing interest unless I'm still hyped for it as I have been for Destiny. ;p

But some games I'll do this little dance with then ignore for a year until it goes on sale... including CoD games. I haven't bought into a CoD on launch since MW2... until AW that is, which I have preordered.

[Pegasus Actual]

Sept 12, 2014 11:01:14 GMT -5 Dumien said:

And have them play with which people?

The same people they played with when they reviewed Titanfall before release? There's not that much to it, 6v6 competitive multiplayer, and 3 person team missions?

[Will]

Sept 12, 2014 11:53:01 GMT -5 mannon said:

Really? I've had practically zero problems with Titanfall since day one and the performance is great

The performance is great, yes, but the game is incomplete. We were promised a revolutionary new "multiplayer campaign", which has yet to be delivered.

[mannon]

That's more due to overhype in marketing than any fault of the actual game. Yes the multiplayer campaign is disappointing, but still the game it-self doesn't feel incomplete to me. I don't even think the multiplayer campaign was incomplete... just not very well thought out. Tacking a couple cinematics and scripted events and throwing tons of dialogue into a normal match just doesn't turn it into a campaign.

Having said that I really liked the cinematics and scripted sequences. I wish we could have them in all the games without the constant irrelevant radio chatter.

[wittyscorpion]

Finally got time to catch up on the reviews, and this piece is one of the milder ones: www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/13/what-have-we-learned-from-titanfall-watch-dogs-and-destiny/

The article offered reasonable opinions and made reasonable arguments. However, after reading through it I realized how out of the loop the critics are from the core gamers, at least from gamers like me. His points, while seem reasonable, don't reflect how I feel about the game play experience (here I am only talking about Titanfall and Destiny, as I have not played Watch Dogs).

Reflect further upon this: IMHO most of these critics mainly feel comfortable in reviewing one major aspect of the game: the story, and aspects closely associated with the story component, like the plot, the memorable characters, etc. The problem is: I am one of the gamers who don't care about the story. What I want is the core "30 seconds of fun", and twists/variations/extensions which stretch that fun. A few examples:

a) Halo: my console gaming life started from Halo CE, it is Bungie's "30 seconds of fun" of shooting aliens that got me hooked. Halo CE has a very good story, but I did not care about that nor have a very good understanding of why the hell I was fighting these aliens until my 3rd play through;
b) CoD: for me it's all about PvP multiplayer. CoD Single player on the other hand is a great example of anti-fun: stupid AIs that don't provide any thrill and sense of accomplishment for beating them;
c) Titanfall: I am one of the minority who appreciate Respawn's decision of not bother with a traditional campaign. My 30 seconds of fun come from the parkour, the pilot vs. pilot gun fight, and the Titan vs. Titan thrill. They are a startup studio taking huge risk of making a new IP, I would rather have them focus on getting the core part right for the first release;
d) Destiny PvE: I enjoy the loop of shooting/movement/melee/grenade/super against interesting AIs, combo effects, and chain reactions of things feeding each other.

Sadly, it's difficult to impossible for a game critics to describe the above very well in a review article, because these things must be experienced. They either don't get it, or don't have the confidence of describing the essence of that experience, or don't feel they can write an "interesting" enough article on it to attract the desired viewership.

Would I appreciate a compelling story? Of course. But for me it is more like an icing on the cake, not the cake itself. If a game offers horrible playing experience, no amount of compelling story telling can get me to like the game. For games like Titanfall and Destiny that offer a core loop of fun but do not offer a good story, I am totally fine. The story, no matter how compelling, can only last for a few hours during the first play though. The "30 seconds of fun" on the other hand, is what makes gamers like me to keep coming back. This is especially important for players like me who prefer to play a handful of games in great depths.

[wittyscorpion]

I fully acknowledge that I am only one type of gamers. Bartle test of gamer psychology classifies gamers into 4 broad categories:

1) Achievers: also known as "Diamonds," these are players who prefer to gain "points," levels, equipment and other concrete measurements of succeeding in a game;
2) Explorers: dubbed "Spades" for their tendency to dig around, are players who prefer discovering areas, creating maps and learning about hidden places;
3) Socializers: also known as "Hearts," these players gain the most enjoyment from a game by interacting with other players, and on some occasions, computer-controlled characters with personality;
4) Killers: "Clubs" is a very accurate moniker for what the Killer likes to do. They thrive on competition with other players, and prefer fighting them to scripted computer-controlled opponents;

Different players have different "weights" of preference over the above categories. For me personally, my primary enjoyment of playing games are first 4 & 3, then 1, with 2 at the last place.

IMHO, score card for Destiny:

1) Great for Achievers. There are just so many things to achieve, it's like heaven;

2) did a solid job for Socializers. The social aspect is not as strong as MMO, but the game is bringing gamers together in a sensible manner so players won't feel uncomfortable of some others coming on too strong;

3) did a solid job for Killers. The PvP provides interesting enough arenas for Killers to duel out with each other. Probably not as good/popular as CoD and Titanfall, but strong enough to keep a whole section of players hooked. To see you, look no further than the intense fight over leaderboard positions on destinytracker.com , and the crazy amount of stats points tracked there for competition purpose;

4) did not realize its full potential for Explorers. While the background setup of the game offers huge room for developers to be creative in this dimension, as the gaming world of Destiny stands today it feels a bit empty, and the exploration experiences feel repetitive (not much to do other than killing waves of aliens);

[daftpunk]

Destiny and Titanfall are both excellent games and both are victims of overhype and some peoples ridiculous expectations

[Will]

I'm a spade.

[wings]

I'm a diamond.

[mannon]

I'm all of the above, but probably more spade than anything.

[wittyscorpion]

How do you "spades" feel about Destiny? Besides lack of a good story, the other main negative point from critics is Destiny's world is too "empty", too "sterile", exploration activities too "repetitive", too kill focused, etc.

I dont necessarily disagree with any particular point, I just dont like the overall picture they painted about the game, because that's so far away from my impressions about the game.

[Dumien]

Any exploration experience outside of randomly created world (i.e. minecraft), must be finite. So one must judge the exploration experience by the quality of that experience. Destiny totes offers that. When we found the "true" vault of glass (raid enterence) hidden in the citadel we were ecstatic. Previously we had thought the enterence was near ishtar cliff with the level 26 pratoreans as was common knowledge.

Finding that blocked off tractor beam was pretty awesome.

[pharq]

almost every mixed/negative review turns me into..



call a shooter repetitive because all you do is shoot?
call an MMO bland because of development and grind?
do you call a driving game horrible because you drive cars in it?
the game has no where to explore? (seriously? did you even try? look at the vault entrance in the forgotten shore and even look at the hack for that showed inside it (this was even in the beta))

shit some these reviewers ONLY played story missions, and even then not all of them, shit game spot ADMITTED in their review. "finished the game in a party of at level 16, and our reward was a blue rifle" really? a unique skin, and very good rifle to help transition into the endgame, also to be level 16 you have had to do the bare minimal of story missions, not even attempt crucible, patrols, bounty's and half the strikes. they just finished the last mission and it was time to review....

is giving bad unjustifiable reviews to go against a game JUST because of the hype the new hipster thing to do? "i only play bad indie games...hrhrhrhrhr"

the game is just so polished, well crafted and yet there is a lot more to come. I don't think I've ever been so addicted and excited for a game ever...

my only complaint is the current story could have used a bit more polish and cohesion...

[Will]

Sept 14, 2014 22:53:44 GMT -5 wittyscorpion said:

How do you "spades" feel about Destiny? Besides lack of a good story, the other main negative point from critics is Destiny's world is too "empty", too "sterile", exploration activities too "repetitive", too kill focused, etc.

I dont necessarily disagree with any particular point, I just dont like the overall picture they painted about the game, because that's so far away from my impressions about the game.

Destiny has potential, especially with the double-jumping, but they just didn't capitalize on it. The game felt very close to "Guild Wars 2", but it missed out on the jumping puzzles. There is a total of 2 hidden items in the town.

The town itself is so small and lacking. Only 10 players connecting at once, at random? That is bad. They need to make it 10x larger with 100 players connected. And fill it with jumping puzzles for secret rewards. And fill all of the roaming maps with jumping puzzles and rewards too.

I found myself climbing up walls to places I should clearly not be, even finding my way past the invisible barriers (I got to the very top of the cliffside in the Black Garden). I think this is actually one of the things that I find more appealing about the old COD games over the new ones: Map exploration. Invisible barriers are stupid and I hate them. COD4 had it right - give us an "Old School" mode to REALLY explore the maps.

[mannon]

I'm not a fan of invisible barriers either. The soft "return to mission" type barriers are a little better, but still usually immersion breaking unless they totally fit in context... which is rare. I liked how Journey just used wind to keep it contextual within the world. That is nearly as good as a wall. It makes sense to you.

As for Destiny I enjoy exploring. I go in every cave, I try to check every dark corner, and in the Tower I try to climb every climbable area I can find. ;3 The size of the Tower and number of players there really has never bothered me. Destiny may look like it to some, but it is not an MMO, and was never really intended to be, despite all the borrowed features. Keeping it quaint makes the game feel like yes there are other guardians, but not necessarily a massive army of them. (Although there clearly are thousands and thousands given the number of players...) But in the lore you're not one of many, you're one of relatively few. The regular people are in awe of you. Being a guardian is special. It's not like you can easily talk with people anyway, interactions are kept to a minimum.

As for jumping puzzles, I dunno. I wouldn't mind a couple here and there which could lead to a cave with a couple enemies and a chest or something, kinda like that one cave you get to by jumping from that aircraft wing. I wouldn't mind a couple of things being a little more hidden than that with a small reward, but I don't personally want the game just chock full of jumping puzzles. I find jumping type exploration is best when it's optional. When you're trying to go somewhere you aren't even supposed to, or just because you can. If they put jumping puzzles everywhere I wouldn't feel like they were optional. I would feel like they were a main part of the core content and I would be missing out if I ignored even one of them. But then it's not just me exploring it's grinding through puzzle after puzzle. Jumping puzzles also don't work terribly well in first person.

One thing I'm finding that kinda keeps my interest in exploring areas I've been to before is in finding more of the spawn locations for chests and spinmetal, ect. Since they have multiple but finite locations you can eventually find them all so that you can quickly location that resource the next time you go through that area. So even if I've been to an area once, or twice, I'm still searching around for stuff when I go there. So to an extent I don't even mind that the world is finite given there's a lot to learn about each area which will take time and multiple explorations.

Also... there is something about non finite worlds such as Minecraft (though technically Minecraft is not infinite, just astronomically large). That is you can never explore everything which removes that as a possible goal. Getting 200.6% map completion in SotN was a great challenge and every % you gained felt like an achievement right from the start. Destiny is like that for me. I want to explore all of it. I want to get to 100% or beyond. ;3 Not that there's a % ticker in game, but I have a rough one in my head telling me where I've been and where I haven't and I'm not happy until I've been everywhere I can get to.

It's still fun in Destiny, but you flow through it quicker than in say Bioshock where you gotta check every container for loot. But while I miss that loot gathering aspect the rewards for a chest are bigger than a few dollars and some chips, and the enemies themselves are loot pinatas. Even if they mostly just explode into ammo, I'm cool with that. I really like how something as simple as ammo has become loot and I'm actually really happy about collecting it. I love getting that little flash and crunchy sound. Yum!

[Morshu]

My biggest gripe with this game? The classes and how they feel too similar. The only thing that really sets them apart is the super abilities, and even some of those are similar.(Ex Warlocks void blast is basically a thrown version of the titan's fist of havoc)

Destiny has the structure of a great game. It just lacks content. Moar plz

[wittyscorpion]

Sept 18, 2014 0:43:15 GMT -5 Morshu said:

My biggest gripe with this game? The classes and how they feel too similar. The only thing that really sets them apart is the super abilities, and even some of those are similar.(Ex Warlocks void blast is basically a thrown version of the titan's fist of havoc)

Destiny has the structure of a great game. It just lacks content. Moar plz

This opinion (classes too similar to each other) is fairly popular among some players, but I don't agree.

IMHO: the 3 classes start very similar to each other, but grow further and further apart as you progress. Super is the most obvious feature that separate them apart, but there are less obvious ones that would become more apparent at late stage:

1) Different subclasses have different elemental damage focus. This may not be important at lower level, but when facing advanced enemies it can result in huge difference;

2) As you get deeper and deeper into the upgrade tree, classes and even subclasses can play quite differently due to how you take advantage of the modifiers.

I'll use Warlock's 2 subclasses as an example (keep in mind that I have not played this game enough to claim how I set up the subclasses is good, especially when I only have half of each tree unlocked. This is merely to demonstrate my point):

a) Voidwalker: when using this subclass, I am focusing on speeding up the cool down of the melee ability, the energy drain, by maximizing "Strengths" of the armor pieces. This is because Energy Drain gives me 3 benefits: a) it is a devastating attack by itself, b) it speeds up the grenade cool down, and c) it produces great after effects: "surge" (increase weapon/movement speed, my only unlock at the point) / "life steal" (restore health) / soul rip (speed up Nova Bomb);

b) Sundancer: this class has some great grenades, so I am trying to take advantage of that by focusing on speeding up the cool down of the grenades or Super by maximizing either "Discipline" or "Intellect". During the duration of Super, I can dish out grenades in rapid succession, producing very high DPS.

[wings]

I think for Destiny to match BL2 for co-op fun we could do with more public events and try and get them activated with more players in any given map because most of the time when they come in, I am alone and many of them need several players in order to complete. However, unlike BL2 they don't have dumb level caps that segregate players.

I like the fact that sniping is still practical at higher levels of the game, which it is not in BL2 for the most part. You can use Zer0 and work aggressively on Critical Ascensi0n stacks going sniper only (as kills with anything else resets this), but you need to get headshots very frequently and be close enough to get enough enemies to spawn by which time a sniper rifle isn't the ideal weapon to use then.

[mannon]

I'm with Witty here. Initially the classes start off very similar since you don't have your abilities or anything and every class can use the same weapons. In fact right at the start the classes are pretty much identical other than the basic stats that control things like regen rate and delay, ect... (I actually tend to forget about those and what the distinctions are since those stats are buried on the subclass upgrade screen.) Honestly the first obvious distinction of note is that Hunters are given a sniper rifle as their first special weapon instead of a shotgun. (You'd think one class would get a fusion rifle, but nope.)

Once you start leveling up things change a lot. The vertical movement modes are very different even if they fit the same purpose. There are even significant difference between glide and jetpack. The grenades and melee attacks are also different, along with supers, and all of that changes more and more as you level up your subclass. I really don't feel like the classes play the same, even though the highest level I've gotten to is 11 so far. They all feel different to me, enough that I even chose to differentiate them more by choice of weapon as well. My Warlock speacializes in AoE and area denial and exclusively uses Auto Rifles and Rocket Launchers, saving the more precise weapons for my Hunter. My warlock also carries fusion rifles while my Hunter does not.


Sniper rifles and shotguns are a bit of a special case. I feel like all my classes need both to switch out situtionally rather than simply choosing whatever compliments my primary. In fact all the primaries really seem to be more mid range weapons, though scout rifle is particularly good at longer ranges by comparison and auto rifle probably peaks at the closest range. Hand cannon probably has the narrowest range because the recoil, fire rate, and mag size all make it poor at close range, but the damage drop off and hurts it a lot at long range. So really shotguns fill a niche shorter range than all the primaries and snipers fill a niche longer range than all the primaries. Fusion rifle is I guess more range than shotgun, but still a bit shorter than most primaries.

[mannon]

That's why I never just run up and activate public events when they drop. I always try to wait until the timer gets down to at lease 30 seconds in case more players are coming. It seems like the events scale based on levels of players involved at least somewhat (event mebbe has min/max range?). Can make for some VERY tough event if you're the lowest level there, but I usually find those really hard ones fun even if we don't win although I'm not a huge fan of losing just because we ran out of time and couldn't kill the enemies quite fast enough.