Rant(ish)

[wings]

Sept 18, 2014 10:45:04 GMT -5 mannon said:

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.

Hand Cannons appear to have decent range as I was using them at considerable distances when farming those Engrams earlier. I was at the top of the hill one shotting Thrall. While I was heavily over-levelled, I can't physically do this with shotguns as the rounds appear to disappear into thin air. This may also be gun specific because I tried a white hand cannon during the Beta and it sucked big time and I have two blue ones in the game, and at least one of my blue ones has bonus explosive damage as a perk, hey it's the Unkempt Harold from Pandora in revolver form.

There is legendary chest armour for the Warlock that boosts auto rifle and sniper rifle ammo I noticed, which kind of annoyed me since I'm a Hunter but I'm going to level up all three characters to cover my bases both for in-game circumstances and gaining legendary gear. I'm hoping the Titan has ammo boosts for machine guns so I can turn myself into a human turret. You will be surprised the amount of times I'm with Titans on Strike missions and I'm the one firing the most machine gun rounds while they are trying to take on bosses with pulse rifles.

Sept 18, 2014 10:50:56 GMT -5 mannon said:

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.

I don't mind the Walkers as I solo'd the one that drops in the Cosmodrome with my Stranger's Rifle quick enough (I was using a green Scout Rifle for funsies initially) getting in its face and its attacks couldn't get me as it couldn't turn around quick enough and I could jump out of the way from the bouncing munitions. It's trying to kill the Fallen Captain who appears to have imported the Hoplite and the Cracked Sash from Pandora and combined them for annoying levels, since this event is a straight pass or fail, unlike defending the Warsats. You can still earn Vanguard Marks if partial success is available.

[Dumien]

Actually, hand cannons are what I used on the raid and as my non-shield damage dealer in Raids. The crits are fantastic...you just need the proper hand cannon. I currently use two. The Thorn (exotic) and The Devil You Know (legendary). Devil has a 13 round mag and the Thorn has a damage over time effect and pierces through multiple enemies.

[mannon]

Yeah I suspected they got a lot better. White ones that I've tried are pretty garbage. I had a green one in beta that was fun, though it was probably still not quite as effective as my green scout rifles that I used in beta.

My hunter has a hand cannon now that I've been playing with mostly just for kicks. Seems to headshot hive pretty well even at a distance but it seems like Fallen at a distance don't always 1HK. Though that could just be due to longer distances, I'm not sure.


For some reason Hive seem like they die from 1HK headshots more than Fallen to me. In fact the headshots feel generally more satisfying against them. They feel, for lack of a better word... crunchy. This is purely anecdotal, but it got me wondering if they have higher crit modifiers or less health or something, or if it's entirely subjective. Any thoughts?

[wings]

You hear a crunching sound when you kill the Thrall with the Hand Cannon and I heard this before I unlocked my explosive rounds bonus too.

[iw5000]

Sept 14, 2014 0:50:38 GMT -5 wittyscorpion said:

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.

Witty.

What you and many others on here missing is this. Gaming reviewers/critics are not writing their articles for 'core gamers'. They write their articles for a very targeted group. Casual gamers. There are more of them.

The above Forbes writers doesn't give a sh1t about what you think. He knows people like you, will get their info from other places. By the time the review article comes out, people like you will have already played the beta, watched dozens of hours of youtube videos, examined game logs and break down in great detail things like gun mechanics. "Joe Critic" has no reason whatsoever to address a person like you when he puts up his article.

It's like CoD. I'm not reading a critic's opinion as to whether I want to buy the next installment. By the time Nov 9th rolls around (and critic's review go online) I have already made my decision. Critics/reviewers know this. They know the only reason core gamers even look at their reviews is so that they can feel justified in their purchasing of the product.

[iw5000]

Sept 14, 2014 23:04:13 GMT -5 Dumien said:

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.

I think for a good example of well thought out 'exploration' type of games (at least on consoles) would be looking at GTA V. In my opinion that is the top of the ladder amongst console games for the 'Spade' type of player.

[wittyscorpion]

Sept 19, 2014 10:55:49 GMT -5 iw5000 said:

Sept 14, 2014 0:50:38 GMT -5 wittyscorpion said:

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.

Witty.

What you and many others on here missing is this. Gaming reviewers/critics are not writing their articles for 'core gamers'. They write their articles for a very targeted group. Casual gamers. There are more of them.

The above Forbes writers doesn't give a sh1t about what you think. He knows people like you, will get their info from other places. By the time the review article comes out, people like you will have already played the beta, watched dozens of hours of youtube videos, examined game logs and break down in great detail things like gun mechanics. "Joe Critic" has no reason whatsoever to address a person like you when he puts up his article.

It's like CoD. I'm not reading a critic's opinion as to whether I want to buy the next installment. By the time Nov 9th rolls around (and critic's review go online) I have already made my decision. Critics/reviewers know this. They know the only reason core gamers even look at their reviews is so that they can feel justified in their purchasing of the product.

This forbe critics is doing a blog like style review for Destiny, sharing his thoughts every a few days. The most recent blog entry is talking about the good things of the game:

www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/19/in-defense-of-destiny-what-bungie-got-right/

Destiny is without question going to be the most talked-about game of the year, for good or ill. The reviews are mixed among fans and critics alike, yet both groups seem to have a common problem, they can’t stop playing.

That’s certainly true for me, and I’m almost embarrassed with how much I’ve played the game over the course of the past week and a half. I have a level 25 Hunter, a level 20 Warlock and a level 18 Titan , and I’m thankful I don’t know how to access my hours played data, as I don’t want to feel any worse about myself.

The earlier point I was trying to make, is that engaging game play is what really matters most to me. Maybe critics and other gamers need much more for a game to be considered 8 out of 10 or 9 out of 10, but the "can't stop playing" part alone would mean 90+ out of 100 in my book.

[wittyscorpion]

This reddit post is making a splash in today's headlines: www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2hgwwn/next_years_content_does_not_excuse_a_lack_of/

In general I think that the post articulated the main concerns from the player community quite well, especially the "explorers". The "content" does seem a bit lacking compared to pre-launch expectations: 4 planets, 4 explorable areas, ~20 missions, 5-6 strikes (?), 1 Raid, definitely on the low side.

The main question for the bros here is: are you fine with playing these contents with different modifiers and driven by different bounty-like incentives, and consider them different enough experiences even though you are playing the same stories/strikes/locations?

I imagine that the answer is no from "explorers", but OK from players who enjoy the core game play. For example, I just like shoot stuff with interesting weapons/abilities/combos/chain-effects, and don't care that much of how many different locations I can do that in

[mannon]

I think the main problem is unrealistic expectations.

Howlongtobeat.com says main story in Destiny runs about 10 hours, I've seen reports of 16 for some. For an FPS that does SP and MP that doesn't sound particularly short to me. I beat MW2 in 9 hours in one sitting on launch night. Something like Bioshock that is exclusively SP, sure I expect more. But the story isn't even the main game in Destiny. It's an introduction to the world of Destiny. That's not to say I don't want and expect more content, including more areas. I flat out EXPECT more planets and locations, and we had better get them. Destiny needs a LOT more content if they want to make good on the promise that we'll be playing these guardians for 10 years. But honestly there is a lot to do. I haven't even finished the Moon missions, because I've been dicking around. *shrug* As long as the expansions aren't a let down I'm not worried.

[wittyscorpion]

Satisfied or disappointed, at least one thing that most of the fans would agree: the game has a very good foundation where greater things can be built.

From a software developer point of view: I am impressed by how solid the infrastructure is, nice work with high quality and flexibility.

[GodMars]

Given reports out of the closed, internal beta testing and the history of publishers having their dev studios cut content for future DLC/expansion release, I have little doubt that Destiny was at one point a longer game.

[psychlon]

Sept 26, 2014 14:58:08 GMT -5 wittyscorpion said:

This reddit post is making a splash in today's headlines: www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2hgwwn/next_years_content_does_not_excuse_a_lack_of/

In general I think that the post articulated the main concerns from the player community quite well, especially the "explorers". The "content" does seem a bit lacking compared to pre-launch expectations: 4 planets, 4 explorable areas, ~20 missions, 5-6 strikes (?), 1 Raid, definitely on the low side.

The main question for the bros here is: are you fine with playing these contents with different modifiers and driven by different bounty-like incentives, and consider them different enough experiences even though you are playing the same stories/strikes/locations?

I imagine that the answer is no from "explorers", but OK from players who enjoy the core game play. For example, I just like shoot stuff with interesting weapons/abilities/combos/chain-effects, and don't care that much of how many different locations I can do that in

I think it's funny that we consider modifies "normal" when they really have been hated all the way since like 10-15 years back. If you can combine that with spending more and more money on the development... something isn't adding up. It's like you pay way more money for a car today but getting maybe a chassis, 1 door knob and a tire with the promise that you'll get the rest at some point in the future... no eta. I think people have every right to question where 500 million dollar went... and the problem is that so far no developer I know ever came down to earth and saying how much was spend for what. It is almost to excuse the price for the game, considering that now.. to play online for example I have to pay additional for PS4 plus which I didn't have to on previous games on the PS3. We are being asked for more money but effectively getting less for what it's worth, that's as simple as it gets. Destiny is not a bad game but it's not the next big thing. Enjoyable surely but I also read angry reviews for just that, not to make my decision on buy/ no buy.

[mannon]

Yeah you gotta sub to PSN now for online, but ultimately I think it's worth it. Let's face it, last generation PSN was considered largely inferior to XBox Live Gold, and you kinda got what you paid for. So now we have to pay, but at least they do give you games for it. Unfortunately if you only have a PS4 you don't get very many games, but if you have a PS3 or Vita as well then you get a lot more. I don't think we're necessarily paying for nothing, I think we're paying to improve the service.

Over all though, I definitely agree that the practice of chopping up our games to sell them to us in pieces for more money is bullshit. We signed on for DLC and expansions back when they really were extra content, but more and more that's becoming less and less true and it seems like $60 only buys you a demo these days. Unfortunately without some kind of major backlash in the market the trend will simply continue.

[GodMars]

Oct 1, 2014 8:32:00 GMT -5 mannon said:

Yeah you gotta sub to PSN now for online, but ultimately I think it's worth it. Let's face it, last generation PSN was considered largely inferior to XBox Live Gold, and you kinda got what you paid for. So now we have to pay, but at least they do give you games for it. Unfortunately if you only have a PS4 you don't get very many games, but if you have a PS3 or Vita as well then you get a lot more. I don't think we're necessarily paying for nothing, I think we're paying to improve the service.

Over all though, I definitely agree that the practice of chopping up our games to sell them to us in pieces for more money is bullshit. We signed on for DLC and expansions back when they really were extra content, but more and more that's becoming less and less true and it seems like $60 only buys you a demo these days. Unfortunately without some kind of major backlash in the market the trend will simply continue.

People annually shelling out $15 for four maps several times a year in CoD really proved to these companies that these sorts of practices were totally viable and supported by the community.

[iw5000]

Sept 20, 2014 12:35:34 GMT -5 wittyscorpion said:

The earlier point I was trying to make, is that engaging game play is what really matters most to me. Maybe critics and other gamers need much more for a game to be considered 8 out of 10 or 9 out of 10, but the "can't stop playing" part alone would mean 90+ out of 100 in my book.

Right now, there is no way of knowing how many people fall into the 'can't stop playing' mindset. Those people are out there, but those people exist for almost every game that comes out.

[mannon]

They may exist for nearly all games, but there are certainly games that promote it more than others. I would rate Destiny fairly addictive. Similar to witty I would rate a game more highly if I find it fun and addictive to play even if it is lacking in some other areas. In fact I don't think that it is necessary or even good for all games to have a large focus on story. Story can be nice, sure, but sometimes it's not the thing that draws me in. I watch plenty of movies with shitty, practically nonexistent plots. They're called action movies and I don't really fault them for it. I measure them based on the question, "Did I have fun watching it?" That's not to say deeper, more moving experiences aren't in some way superior. There is something to be said for that. But it's also supremely unfair to measure everything on the same scale. I would be very disappointed if all movies were nothing but Oscar bait and we had no dumb, entertaining action flicks.

I think everybody expected a lot more from Destiny, but when it comes down to it, I'm still having fun and I really don't care about the story one way or the other. It isn't making the game less fun. If you compare Destiny to what it could have been, (or in my opinion what it still could be) then yes I understand the disappointment. But that shouldn't be how you score it. It should be compared fairly to other games in the market. I think that's the only real purpose of ratings at all, a quick (oversimplified) comparison.

[iw5000]

Story means nothing to me. With Destiny, i have no clue what's going on. I just mentally substitute Halo's story, and everything is fine.

[psychlon]

Oct 1, 2014 9:34:04 GMT -5 GodMars said:

Oct 1, 2014 8:32:00 GMT -5 mannon said:

Yeah you gotta sub to PSN now for online, but ultimately I think it's worth it. Let's face it, last generation PSN was considered largely inferior to XBox Live Gold, and you kinda got what you paid for. So now we have to pay, but at least they do give you games for it. Unfortunately if you only have a PS4 you don't get very many games, but if you have a PS3 or Vita as well then you get a lot more. I don't think we're necessarily paying for nothing, I think we're paying to improve the service.

Over all though, I definitely agree that the practice of chopping up our games to sell them to us in pieces for more money is bullshit. We signed on for DLC and expansions back when they really were extra content, but more and more that's becoming less and less true and it seems like $60 only buys you a demo these days. Unfortunately without some kind of major backlash in the market the trend will simply continue.

People annually shelling out $15 for four maps several times a year in CoD really proved to these companies that these sorts of practices were totally viable and supported by the community.

I don't mind Playstation Plus but until recently to me it was something optional. I can play Diablo 3 for free on my PS3 but I have to pay for it playing online on the PS4. Just something I didn't see coming.

[markopolo]

Oct 1, 2014 11:55:53 GMT -5 psychlon said:

I don't mind Playstation Plus but until recently to me it was something optional. I can play Diablo 3 for free on my PS3 but I have to pay for it playing online on the PS4. Just something I didn't see coming.

Yea, I got blindsided by that too.

I just take solace that I get free games because of it and it all makes me feel good and better inside.

[TheHawkNY]

Oct 1, 2014 5:18:02 GMT -5 psychlon said:

I think it's funny that we consider modifies "normal" when they really have been hated all the way since like 10-15 years back. If you can combine that with spending more and more money on the development... something isn't adding up. It's like you pay way more money for a car today but getting maybe a chassis, 1 door knob and a tire with the promise that you'll get the rest at some point in the future... no eta. I think people have every right to question where 500 million dollar went... and the problem is that so far no developer I know ever came down to earth and saying how much was spend for what. It is almost to excuse the price for the game, considering that now.. to play online for example I have to pay additional for PS4 plus which I didn't have to on previous games on the PS3. We are being asked for more money but effectively getting less for what it's worth, that's as simple as it gets. Destiny is not a bad game but it's not the next big thing. Enjoyable surely but I also read angry reviews for just that, not to make my decision on buy/ no buy.

Oct 1, 2014 8:32:00 GMT -5 mannon said:

Over all though, I definitely agree that the practice of chopping up our games to sell them to us in pieces for more money is bullshit. We signed on for DLC and expansions back when they really were extra content, but more and more that's becoming less and less true and it seems like $60 only buys you a demo these days. Unfortunately without some kind of major backlash in the market the trend will simply continue.

You are not paying more today for a game. Game prices have remained constant at $60 for a number of years. When you factor for inflation, game prices have decreased. As far as I'm aware, the expectations for the amount of content in a game as shipped has not changed significantly either.

Splitting up the game into core content and DLC is just a form of what economists call price discrimination. It allows players who want to invest the standard $60 to do so, and allows the players who want to enjoy the game and want to expand its lifespan to do so for an additional fee. Generally, this works better for both the companies and their consumers than were they to bundle all of the content together and sell it for a higher initial price. As consumers, this can have other benefits as well - for example, much better post launch support. Just compare the post launch support for BO2 or Ghosts to the support for MW2. The revenue from DLC sales played a big part in that.

[wings]

Yep. I remember games for the Atari ST being £45 during the 1990s.

[mannon]

I'm not talking about merely comparing modern games to oldskool games. There are games today that you buy and get a nice full game for $60, and maybe they have some other DLC, and maybe the don't, but $60 covers the price of a whole game.

But there are other games where they have clearly taken what is a whole game and rather than adding extra content to it for DLC they have merely chopped it up so that the core game is now a MUCH inferior experience akin to a glorified demo rather than a whole game. I gotta call shenanigans on that. IF you're going to give me a subpar game as the core game and make me pay for all the rest of it I'd expect the core game to be cheaper. Go ahead and sell me 1/3 of the game for $20 and the other 2/3's for $20 a pop, or give me a core game that's $40 and has several $15 expansions, ect.

The issue is that if $60 is a standard price for a standard game I expect to still get a standard game for that money, and not something that absolutely feels incomplete.

For that matter how have so few developers figured out that cosmetic content can be a goldmine? Just give me tons of options to customize my own character and whether it's online or SP doesn't matter, you'll sell loads of it if you don't overprice it all.

All I want is for the core game of a full price title to actually contain the core game and for DLC to be extras. I don't have anything against DLC in principle, but it clearly can be abused.

[TheHawkNY]

Well, you're not giving any specific examples, so I can't really clarify further. It seems ridiculous that anyone would complain that the Destiny story seems incomplete when it's been public knowledge that they plan on releasing 4 titles (one every other year), 4 "Comets" which we can assume are large pieces of content on the off years, and DLC on a regular basis in-between. It has been very clear that this isn't a traditional single-player story, but rather a shared world experience that will evolve over a period of close to ten years.

[mannon]

Yeah, I'm not complaining about Destiny it-self. I've heard the story is bleh, but haven't even finished half the moon missions yet. I'm not rushing it. Story in Destiny is not important to me.

[psychlon]

Oct 1, 2014 15:28:51 GMT -5 TheHawkNY said:

Oct 1, 2014 5:18:02 GMT -5 psychlon said:

I think it's funny that we consider modifies "normal" when they really have been hated all the way since like 10-15 years back. If you can combine that with spending more and more money on the development... something isn't adding up. It's like you pay way more money for a car today but getting maybe a chassis, 1 door knob and a tire with the promise that you'll get the rest at some point in the future... no eta. I think people have every right to question where 500 million dollar went... and the problem is that so far no developer I know ever came down to earth and saying how much was spend for what. It is almost to excuse the price for the game, considering that now.. to play online for example I have to pay additional for PS4 plus which I didn't have to on previous games on the PS3. We are being asked for more money but effectively getting less for what it's worth, that's as simple as it gets. Destiny is not a bad game but it's not the next big thing. Enjoyable surely but I also read angry reviews for just that, not to make my decision on buy/ no buy.

Oct 1, 2014 8:32:00 GMT -5 mannon said:

Over all though, I definitely agree that the practice of chopping up our games to sell them to us in pieces for more money is bullshit. We signed on for DLC and expansions back when they really were extra content, but more and more that's becoming less and less true and it seems like $60 only buys you a demo these days. Unfortunately without some kind of major backlash in the market the trend will simply continue.

You are not paying more today for a game. Game prices have remained constant at $60 for a number of years. When you factor for inflation, game prices have decreased. As far as I'm aware, the expectations for the amount of content in a game as shipped has not changed significantly either.

Splitting up the game into core content and DLC is just a form of what economists call price discrimination. It allows players who want to invest the standard $60 to do so, and allows the players who want to enjoy the game and want to expand its lifespan to do so for an additional fee. Generally, this works better for both the companies and their consumers than were they to bundle all of the content together and sell it for a higher initial price. As consumers, this can have other benefits as well - for example, much better post launch support. Just compare the post launch support for BO2 or Ghosts to the support for MW2. The revenue from DLC sales played a big part in that.

I think content wise that Destiny does not give you the bang for the buck other games do. I can pick up any CoD/ BF title and I'll have a completed story pack + maps + huge amount of weapons/ customize options and locations. Neither of these games is trying to be more than that, which is why they deliver content wise w/o any map update. DA was a much more complete game and even their fans were upset when they started introducing DLC's. 

As for MMOG, the "we will deliver x" and "y was delivered" has become a common feature. Developer usually want to do everything only to realize at some point that there is neither the money nor the time to actually do all that kind of stuff. Therefore they need to have a clear idea of a core content which they want to deliver at any cost. Destiny doesn't give you the feel that they have accomplished that, neither with their story, nor with their implementation to get new people into the game. To be the next big shooter franchise on the horizon, neither their story is interesting enough nor does the PvP give you anything tons of other games couldn't. The game is ok for people like me, I don't really care what happens in a couple of years to the game and 60 bucks spend or not.... there are so many games coming and going and Destiny doesn't stand out of that mass. Fans which have been following the game naturally are more attached to it (just as I was to SWToR, been following 2-3 years before release) and since developer usually don't tell why they did that or that... the only result is that Fans make their own conclusion. Cutting a game so that you have ready content for the next months or year and more doesn't even sound so unreasonable but then let's call it for what it is. Financial decisions are usually not pretty and giving the large budget Activision blew into this game I think a lot of people thought that they won't cut anything for financial reason (which happens a lot in low budget games) yet the final game looks just like it.

[iw5000]

This thread is about 'ranting' about reviews (media and consumers) and it would appear the story (or lack of) has been raised quite a bit.

Another thought. Could another reason be what is just a downright awful MP in Destiny?

Last night, i played around eight or nine games of MP. Three games of 3v3, and five of Domination. Before i went in, I had my notes from yesterday,on what corrections i wanted to make. Guns that might be better. Ways to make it work better than the other sessions i have had. My prior attempts have all been very uneven. With even the good games i have had, not a lot of fun as i couldn't really find any real reason why i did better.

And the result of last night? Just more of the same. Just not very fun. I wish i could put my finger on 'why', but i can't. I also do know we already have a couple of threads on the PvP stuff, but since this thread is about possible reasons why the game didn't get a lot of love...... could the MP be a reason why? Lots of CoD fans out there. Fans who mostly obsess on MP. They try this game, get this PvP gameplay, and well...boom. Negative reviews. Trying to gather my thoughts as to why:

- Does the 30fps vs 60fps second have anything to do with it? Destiny's MP feels floating & loose vs CoD. Destiny is just not very tight. At all.
- CoD seems to lay everything out. Stats. Destiny? Frustration. There seems to be nothing but confusion on what works and doesn't work.
- For Domination, the game mode plays kind of to loose in Destiny. There's no offense vs defense tactics. One big sloppy circle jerk of swapping flags.
- The obvious big flaw of higher level players having access to perks not available to lower level players. . The game fairness issue.
- All game modes have respawn delays.
- The whole shield issue, with the use of other 'supers'. You get this game unevenness. Entire clips to shoot someone, who then one-hit kills you with a ninja sword.
- If playing solo, one person can't really carry a team. You always run into bundles of opponents in Destiny. 1 v 2 (or more) is mostly a death.

I could go on, but the above could be a deal breaker for a lot of people. CoD's MP experience is very consistent. Destiny's (right now) is kind of garbage. I can't even say it's even similar to Halo. Halo's MP is much better than this. Maybe the average TTK in Halo is slightly higher than Destiny, but the perceived times (at least by me) seem to be much longer in Destiny. To lay a full clip into an opponent jumping at me, then reload and fire at him again, ..only to insta-die when he uses some Ninja Hunter sword on me? It gets a bit ridiculous.

It's not for the lack of effort by me. I keep going back to try again and again. But i'm not seeing how Destiny is going to hook me with the MP, like CoD does. Right now, Destiny's PvE is carrying the entire burden for me, in regards to the 'hook'. But even with the PvE, at some point i am going to get tired of the leveling/loot process. Helium Filament loops for 30 minutes can only retain interest for so long.


So... maybe it's Destiny's MP that is causing some of the hate.

[psychlon]

My CoD MP experience was consistently mediocre to bad. Either there was another weapon currently completely OP, you got knifed from 15m away or you played against a Clan. I haven't had any of the latter recently. Knowing the choke points of travel is a first step as often, while shooting at an opponent, you are being hit by another person as well. Especially if you are using a weapon which does need a couple of hits to kill with no no special/ grenade up. Additionally I found it fairly common to stick together which however can turn into a mass kill for the opponent if he places his special right.

How about you use the same weapon which annoys/ kills you and see if you do better?

Ps: haven't seen this one posted here   The Angry Joe Review

[iw5000]

OP weapons in CoD? Especially in the most recent version Ghosts. Good lord. Come on, how can you say that after playing Destiny. And while I also hated the CoD knife kill animation, that kind of pales in comparison to some of the stuff going on this game.

With part of my post, I am comparing playing as a random in Domination....between the two games. You can't expect the two to play a like (that would be wrong), but choke points are much easier to hold down in CoD than Destiny. Come on there, let's be real. You get a solid choke point in CoD, with dumb players pushing against it, a player can be on a 20 kill streak in no time.

I would love to use some of the same weapons my opponents use. But I can't. See my 2nd and 5th points. I just can't go get the gun they are using, and in many instances, use the same perks.

I have read Joe's reviews. I see his points about the story, agree, but it's a non factor with me. I can still have fun regardless of the quality of the story.

[n1gh7]

Just going to ask for some clarification on some of these...

Oct 2, 2014 6:03:22 GMT -5 iw5000 said:

- CoD seems to lay everything out. Stats. Destiny? Frustration. There seems to be nothing but confusion on what works and doesn't work.

I don't see how COD lays everything out in game. The only reason we know how things actually work on COD is because of these forums. Without the forums I think we would know even less about COD than we do about Destiny.

- The obvious big flaw of higher level players having access to perks not available to lower level players. . The game fairness issue.

But this is how COD worked in the earlier editions and didn't seem to raise any issues. Players even had to go through having limited options many times to prestige, but there weren't any complaints. Destiny is even more relaxed in this part, in that you do not have to play PvP to unlock things for PvP. Players in COD seemed to deal with the limited options by changing their playstyle to match what they had available. Why is it that people with limited options in Destiny don't change their playstyle to match what they have available? For example, if you are a Hunter and haven't unlocked bladedancer yet, why would you rush and try to play the close quarters game? If in COD you didn't have dead silence you wouldn't run around and rush, you would crouch or ADS and move in tactically.

- All game modes have respawn delays.

Why is this an issue? Respawn delays are functionally important in providing a negative punishment for dying in game.

- The whole shield issue, with the use of other 'supers'. You get this game unevenness. Entire clips to shoot someone, who then one-hit kills you with a ninja sword.

I can understand why this is frustrating for players, but it's disappointing that people don't recognize the availability bias that they experience with supers.

- If playing solo, one person can't really carry a team. You always run into bundles of opponents in Destiny. 1 v 2 (or more) is mostly a death.

I agree that it is really hard to carry. Destiny's TTKs mean that you will always trade some damage with your opponent, and not only does that make chaining kills together difficult, but it makes teamshot really important, which is something that COD players did not have to think about. The importance of that aspect makes playing against a group even more frustrating, as a group is always more effective at teamshot.

[n1gh7]

Oct 2, 2014 8:23:50 GMT -5 Mousey said:

Oct 2, 2014 8:19:29 GMT -5 n1gh7 said:

Players even had to go through having limited options many times to prestige, but there weren't any complaints.

I complained about this a lot.

Yet you still played... Until you stopped.