Early Reviews of Destiny: Unfulfilled Potential

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Early Reviews of Destiny: Unfulfilled Potential

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday September 13, 2014 @12:30AM from the your-mileage-may-vary dept.

Destiny is a first-person shooter set in a persistent, online world. It was released on Tuesday by Bungie, the development studio behind Halo, and billed as a blending of console shooters and progression-based MMOs. Reviews for the game are finally trickling out, and most publications say it's merely average. (Though it's worth noting that the social and multiplayer portions of the game are difficult to evaluate in such a short timeframe, and like many MMOs, Destiny will continue to see active development.) Polygon's Arthur Gies reports, "Destiny doesn't look real, but rather, it looks like painted concept art, meticulously assembled and presented to you at all times. Instead, it's the suggestion, through Destiny's concept, its soundtrack and its visual presentation, that Destiny is big. That there's a whole universe out there to explore, a reality worth discovering. There isn't, though."

Jeff Gerstmann at Giant Bomb had a similar reaction: "There are cool little flashes of brilliance in Destiny, but a lot of it feels like a game designed by people who weren't sure what sort of game they were designing. Is it a loot shooter? Sort of, but the loot isn't very good. Is it an MMO? No, but you'll occasionally encounter other players out in the field. A story-driven shooter like the Halo franchise? Sure, if you don't mind digging through the developer's website to find those little bits of lore." The Escapist's Jim Sterling concludes, "Destiny exists in the shadow of multiple games, taking a little from each, and doing nothing truly remarkable with any of it. It's a prime example of how the nebulous concept of 'content' can be used to puff up a game without adding anything to it."

59 of 93 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

"console shooter" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 00:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's yer problem.
Speaking as someone who likes shooters, AND who likes consoles, console shooters are rubbish. There's a degree of control you can get on a PC with a keyboard and mouse that you'll never achieve on your couch with a console controller.
It's just the wrong mix of controller and game, just like a mouse (by itself) would be a terrible input device for platformers.
The right device for the right game. Consoles aren't the right device for shooters.
1. Re:"console shooter" by drinkypoo · 2014-09-13 00:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Speaking as someone who likes shooters, AND who likes consoles, console shooters are rubbish.
  
  If you are expecting them to give you the same experience as using a mouse, then they are quite rubbish. But they can be enjoyable, so long as they aren't trying to be both things. On the other hand, aside from the thorny issue of whether to mix PC and console players in multi (answer: no) it's often possible just to ratchet up the default difficulty for the PC. Halo was certainly a doddle by comparison on the PC, aside from segments driving vehicles where I found the difference to be negligible, but that didn't make it any more or less exciting (or the levels near the end any less boring.)
  A console is a fine place to present a shooter that's heavy on story. And if you don't like those games, you can just avoid console shooters and spare yourself a lot of wasted time- wasting.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:"console shooter" by Skarjak · 2014-09-13 01:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I find that shooters which make use of vehicles a lot are actually better controlled on consoles. Twin sticks are superior to WASD + mouse for controlling tanks and such. That's why Halo made sense on consoles.
3. Re:"console shooter" by GNious · 2014-09-13 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  Play your console-shooters using a mouse+keyboard then?
  There is nothing technical in the current and previous console generations that keeps you from using a USB or Bluetooth mouse in shooters. The game-developer might have decided to not support it, but that is a question of the game, and not the platform.
4. Re:"console shooter" by MrL0G1C · 2014-09-13 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought they should stick a trackball on the gamepad, or laser-tracking against a thumb perhaps. And more back buttons - fingers are wasted. Really, I think gamepads have got a long way to go and the current creators of them are rather narrow-minded.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
5. Re:"console shooter" by Bensam123 · 2014-09-13 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm definitely in the minority here, but I'm a avid PC gamer, believe in the PC master race, and haven't owned a console since Gamecube, but I'm considering going back to consoles JUST for FPS's. This seems asinine and I can hardly believe I'm considering doing it, but rampant cheating in FPS's now days that's being swept under the rug is horrendous. About the worst thing you have on consoles is mouse/keyboard dongles and modded lobbies. That's it. The PC FPS scene is a mess as far as cheat detection and cheating goes and no one pays it any mind. Most people don't even know what to look for and that makes it that much worse. With the elusive 'He just plays in his moms basement 24/7 that's why he can see through walls and get a constant stream of headshots' doesn't help things.
  
  This actually may be the saving grace of consoles. It's too bad they're still being billed as 'casual' entertainment systems, rather then a locked down and secure OS people can't really cheat on. They really should allow you to use a mouse and keyboard from the getgo instead of going out of your way to buy dongles, people do it anyway. They also need to give it the PC treatment and unconsolize games that are even being made for consoles.
  
  You can use gamepads on the PC, why not a mouse and keyboard on a console? Is that really the defining factor of a console? The only console that's really 'casual' anymore is the Wii anyway.
6. Re:"console shooter" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  The 40 +/- 10 age group is full of people who grew up playing games, and still want to play games.
  But...we've played them all. We were there when the shooter was born, and when the MMO was born. We saw them all grow up and die.
  We are all looking for something truly novel, with the magic that Wolfenstien had and the "second life" feeling of WoW.
  And nothing on the market today lives up. Star Citizen looks like a noble attempt, but I remain skeptical seeing as how it is just a grander scale assembling of all the same elements.
  I guess we will just keep waiting.
7. Re:"console shooter" by CronoCloud · 2014-09-13 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  They really should allow you to use a mouse and keyboard from the getgo instead of going out of your way to buy dongles, people do it anyway.
  You can use gamepads on the PC, why not a mouse and keyboard on a console?
  Where have you been for the past 14 years, you don't need a dongle. Consoles DO allow you to use a mouse and keyboard, but as drinkypoo says, the question is whether the game supports it.
  The PS2/PS3/PS4 have USB ports for a reason. I have games for all 3 that have mouse and/or keyboard support.
8. Re:"console shooter" by angel'o'sphere · 2014-09-13 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't know how to head shot one who is approaching behind a wall, then you should not complain about cheating.
  Obviously besides the skills, you lack basic knowledge about games, especially FPS.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
9. Re:"console shooter" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I had one of these. It made great use of the fingers: http://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/188/retro-scan-of-the-week-the-most-complicated-video-game-controller-ever-devised
10. Re:"console shooter" by Bensam123 · 2014-09-13 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  What do you think the dongle is for?
11. Re:"console shooter" by Bensam123 · 2014-09-13 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Halo 2 had something called 'bridging' which allowed PC players to play with console players and conversely, cheat. Modded lobbies are a thing though, but it's easy to find different games that aren't modded and that only applies for some games (mainly CoD).
12. Re:"console shooter" by Valisky · 2014-09-13 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  so you just described Planetside. Go git it cowboy.
13. Re:"console shooter" by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-09-13 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Light guns only work on progressive-scan screens (CRTs and the like). They track the position by timing when the scan line moves in front of the point of focus to determine where it's pointing. This is why firing the gun led to the whole screen flashing - it needed the increased brightness to detect the scan beam.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
14. Re:"console shooter" by ildon · 2014-09-13 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Destiny's problems have nothing to do with it being on a console. If this exact game were released as a PC exclusive, all of its problems with gameplay, story, and end game content would be identical.
15. Re:"console shooter" by Rakhar · 2014-09-13 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  And your proposed solution is....?
  As a gamer that's played PC games long enough to remember when everything used the arrow keys...WASD was a considerable improvement over the horror that was using the arrow keys for games. If you're using a standard keyboard for input then WASD is about as good as it gets. If you aren't using a standard keyboard / mouse then the entire argument is invalid as you have more options available.
16. Re:"console shooter" by Rakhar · 2014-09-13 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  When Planetside 1 came out it was a utopia for the FPS fan + MMO fan crowd for the first month. Then the first subscription time hit and the population dropped like a rock. That first month was a wonderful thing though... Giant battles with firm lines (there might as well have been trenches) and the hotshots darting between the two. There was so much that was new to FPS games at the time. The array of vehicles, choosing your skills to spec in vehicles or weapons or body armor suits. Hacking to take over bases. So much to encourage team play among your faction.
  I feel that if the free to play movement had been stronger back then and Planetside had gone with that it would have done so much better. No one wanted to pay a subscription for a shooter though. Planetside 2 can be fun, but it doesn't come close to the first game due to the sheer scale of battles during that release month.
  On topic, I'm considering getting an XBox One just for Destiny. I'd probably get D3 on it as well just for convenience.
17. Re:"console shooter" by Xest · 2014-09-14 21:15 · Score: 2
  
  Yep, I'm skeptical of anyone who claims console shooters are rubbish. There's a reason games like CoD, Halo, Battlefield, Gears of War and so on and so forth make by far the vast majority of their sales on consoles - people enjoy them, meaning they're not rubbish.
  Which isn't to say that I absolutely agree that if I was looking for ultra-competitive multiplayer (I still have fond memories of Quake 1 DM and TF that make everything since pale in comparison whether PC or console) then I'd look to the PC with a mouse and keyboard combo, but that's something different, that doesn't detract from the fact that consoles are full of great shooters (okay, I don't personally think CoD is great or at least has been since about CoD 4, but a lot of people obviously do) and even then there are some, like mass effect, that IMO were actually better on consoles (I played both versions of ME2) which feeds into your comment about more story oriented shooters. Personally I think Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 highlighted the situation well - the PC and Console versions were both shooters, but were also very different games taking advantage of the types of setup that make shooters work well on the respective platforms- the PC version was an out and out FPS, the 360 version was a 3rd person shooter.
  Destiny isn't crap because it's a shooter on a console, there are plenty of great console shooters that prove that a fallacy. Destiny is crap because it's crap. People expected it to be great because "Bungie!" but the fact is that everyone that made Bungie great, either left, or stuck with 343 at Microsoft and all that was left were those living off the original glory of Halo (many of whom had fuck all to do with Halo and Halo 2's development). Those who did hang around and were actually talented like O'Donnell got pushed out by folks over stupid stuff such as being lovestruck by the grand has-been McCartney because OMG WE'RE WORKING WITH A BEATLE, SCREW YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE WELL AT BUNGIE OVER THE LAST DECADE O'DONNELL!
  It was never going to live up to the hype, for it to do so you needed a dream team - you needed the Halo 1 / 2 era Bungie, or the Wolfenstein/Doom/Quake era id Software, or the CoD: Modern Warfare Infinity Ward- you needed that type of team. They just didn't have it, and they tried to do way more than a team of their competence can possibly get right.
  People expected the current Bungie to be their father's Bungie, and it's simply not and that's why it has disappointed.
18. Re:"console shooter" by Xest · 2014-09-15 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's not so much the success of the franchises year on year I was referring to but ultimately the size of the demographic in question.
  Ultimately these sorts of games and most PC games (educational games aside) are decide to fulfil a simple purpose - to entertain, to provide people with an avenue to relax and have fun.
  So my point is, ultimately, that if franchises like CoD, BF, Halo and so forth are routinely shifting 5 - 10 million units year on year whilst PC games only ever achieve these sorts of figures with one title every 3 years then my argument is that clearly these franchises are successful in their goal - that a majority of the populace looking for such entertainment find it happily in these games.
  My point therefore, is that if a majority are happy with these titles as an option for their enjoyment that one cannot realistically objectively define these titles as "rubbish" but only subjectively do so as a minority viewpoint. Fundamentally, as a large majority of gamers prefer the console medium for even their shooters it seems a bit of a stretch to say objectively that they are rubbish else if they were then people would instead just game on PCs (much like they used to in the Quake/Doom days when PCs were vastly more popular for shooters).
  It was only with the advent of things like Halo on the Xbox and Goldeneye 64 on the N64 that console shooters really started to take off and I'd argue that there was a turning point there at which gamers started turning towards consoles for more than just mario-esque platformers and top down shooters and the like and started gradually to prefer these platforms for shooters in general.
  I don't think there is a mutually exclusive PC or console gamer demographic, most console players I play with are also PC gamers and I myself am, but I find more and more that the games I play on my PC are games like RTS games and harder to categorise and very innovative (e.g. Minecraft) indie games more and more and shooters less and less - this despite cutting my teeth on PC shooters, and, as I say, still having the fondest memories from Quake above all else with Doom and Wolf coming in after that.
19. Re:"console shooter" by RivenAleem · 2014-09-15 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  GTA V would be one of those, but the shooting aspect of it was never that tough with Aim Assist.
Call it what it is... by bl968 · 2014-09-13 01:21 · Score: 5, Informative

As I stated when I watched the first couple of people playing the game on twitch.tv the reviewers should call a turd a turd. Bad AI. Many NPCs were simply standing in the open firing 1 shot a second while allowing the players to shoot them with 10 in the same time frame. The entire goal of Destiny is to extract $60 from your pocket with very little care given to ensuring that you are satisfied in the end. I think that most serious gamers will walk away from Destiny in the first week, two at the outside; and be left feeling wanting.

--
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
1. Re: Call it what it is... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Watching the higher level 28 show it is a challenge to teams of level 26.
2. Re:Call it what it is... by CrashNBrn · 2014-09-13 04:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I've yet to see any MMO that has even half of the "features" of some of the best MUDs from the early/mid 90's. But they sure look purty,
3. Re:Call it what it is... by RivenAleem · 2014-09-15 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Aardwolf and others are still going strong. I'm still writing code for one to this day (not Aardwolf) and it's a lot of fun taking things that were good in MMOs and easily incorporating them into a MUD.
4. Re:Call it what it is... by farble1670 · 2014-09-15 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  a legit question as i'm somewhat new to consoles after last owning a SNES ... are there *any* reasonable MMOs for modern consoles?
That title needs work, for one thing by wonkey_monkey · 2014-09-13 01:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Early Reviews of Destiny: Unfulfilled Potential

I'd have gone for a more confident title, for a start.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:That title needs work, for one thing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 01:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  How about "Destiny: It turned out that it was better working for Microsoft than Activision, all our best staff members quit, oh yeah enjoy the game"
2. Re:That title needs work, for one thing by sasparillascott · 2014-09-13 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget they fired their award winning composer who'd been with them since Marathon (?) days & treated him bad while doing so - made me wonder what was going on over there at the executive level (and add a bit of apprehension for this game's release - which turned out to be warranted).
  
  I was ready for this game as I loved Bungie's releases previously (been with them since the Mac days), but the always connected part put me off (hate having to pay a subscription to Microsoft just so I can connect my 360 online) and then they weren't allowing reviews of the game to be done in advance...so I decided to wait just a bit, now I'll wait for the price to fall significantly or maybe skip it altogether. Big disappointment.
3. Re:That title needs work, for one thing by FreeRadicalX · 2014-09-13 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I've been having a blast with it - On 360 no less. It's true that the actual size of the game world isn't actually as vast as the game's media suggests it is, but that doesn't change the fact that when I'm playing it I'm having a really good time. It's also true that the game play is a patchwork of elements from different genres that don't ever go definitively in any direction, and yet I find the game play experimentation that Bungie committed to totally refreshing. Despite the fact that the content FEELS like it should be underwhelming, I cannot deny that I'm really enjoying my time with it so far. That may wane once I reach the endgame, but that doesn't worry me. This is an MMO and Bungie / Activision are in this together for the next decade. The game's content will continually expand and Bungie, famous for their involvement with their user base, will in all likelihood listen to suggestions to improve their offering and keep people hooked. I got my money's worth already.
4. Re:That title needs work, for one thing by tlhIngan · 2014-09-13 19:23 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget they fired their award winning composer who'd been with them since Marathon (?) days & treated him bad while doing so - made me wonder what was going on over there at the executive level (and add a bit of apprehension for this game's release - which turned out to be warranted).
  The problem is Activision. That's the problem with Activision - they are all about the money, and even Kottick's admitted to it. And they've already forced Bungie's hand - it's presumed Activision put pressure on Bungie's board to fire Marty. He's been there since the beginning I believe - one of the founding members.
  Unfortunately, Marty had the last laugh. First, the courts awarded him unpaid overtime and vacation accrued ($30K, plus another $30K for being idiots for not just giving it to him, and $40k in attorney's cost). And in the past couple of weeks, the courts also re-awarded him Bungie Founder's Shares, that Bungie tried to illegal take from him.
  Well, the courts ruled that according to the terms of issuance, yes, Marty is due all his shares (even ones that weren't issued yet), undiluted. The argument that he left was invalid since the only way the shares could get cancelled was if he voluntarily left. Since he was forced out, he's still due all shares. And Bungie even protested saying Marty would use his shares to screw up the business because he holds powerful shares as an ex-employee forced out. The judge disregarded that reason basically stating that Bungie made the bed.
  So $100K and powerful shares because Activision didn't want him. (Probably because he cost a lot of money and with Paul McCartney's special track). And Marty's not obliged to sell those shares, either. So he technically still has a say.
  Bungie's following the path of Blizzard - from great gaming company to hollowed out shell coasting on a name.
  Hell, Bungie/Activision made a super classic mistake - they didn't let game reviewers have a go in advance. The cynical response (and history has shown it to be true) is that it's because the game is so bad, they can at least count on a few early sales before reviews basically end up killing sales. They tried to couch it in terms of "we want everyone to evaluate it on the full content with real players" but that rings hollow - the easiest way to do that is to recruit a bunch of beta players for a special play session for reviewers.
  Ars Technica wasn't kind to it either. Their same-day early review showed a lack of content (though they were kind in saying "the servers worked". Their later review calls it "Rent it" saying there's not enough content for whatever-kind-of-game-it-is.
  Somehow, after taking 4 years to do it (2010 - Halo Reach), to release this disappointment means that Bungie probably had a few ideas for a Halo MMO like game in the background, then used that. And tons of committee meetings later, well, you have this as everyone tried to get their say in the game. Resulting in something no one is quite sure what it is.
  Hell, I suppose the final insult is when Activision reported "shipped" numbers. Well, at least they got a bunch of money from Sony for exclusives.
Re:And then watch all of them... by umdesch4 · 2014-09-13 01:33 · Score: 1

I don't think you know who Jeff Gerstmann is. Other than that though, I agree with you.
Re:Clearly no one at Bungie slept with the reviewe by Calydor · 2014-09-13 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or maybe the game just isn't that interesting?

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:Looks promising by Renozuken · 2014-09-13 02:55 · Score: 1

You Literally posted on the article telling you it doesn't.
Re:Looks promising by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 03:14 · Score: 1

I've heard that Destiny has a storyline and RPG gameplay mechanics on a par with Doom.
Why not a comparison to Defiance? by CronoCloud · 2014-09-13 03:19 · Score: 1

When I first heard about this game I was thinking, "Oh, someone's going to try to do a more successful Defiance"? Defiance being the sci-fi MMO shooter based on the Syfy TV series of the same name. I played the Destiny Beta, and it's basically Defiance.with faceless master-chief-ish characters. It wasn't equal to Defiance during the beta and I was wondering how they'd get it done in time because it wasn't "ready" and needed more work. I actually told someone that "unless they put a lot of work in it, you're better off playing Defiance. Defianceisn't the greatest game either, but the PS4 doesn't have Defiance so you're stuck with Destiny if you want a similar experience on the PS4."
1. Re:Why not a comparison to Defiance? by CronoCloud · 2014-09-13 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Warframe's more like Dust514, a more traditional team based pvp shooter with some RPG elements.
  Destiny and Defiance are PvE centric.
2. Re:Why not a comparison to Defiance? by Luckyo · 2014-09-13 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Warframe has no PvP worth mentioning at all. It's full on cooperative PvE shooter.
3. Re:Why not a comparison to Defiance? by ildon · 2014-09-13 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Because not enough people have played Defiance for them to get that reference/analogy.
4. Re:Why not a comparison to Defiance? by Luckyo · 2014-09-13 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  A more successful Firefall is more like it.
5. Re:Why not a comparison to Defiance? by CronoCloud · 2014-09-14 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Oh? Thanks for the info. The impression I got from the early media/promotion was that it was PvP, not PvE. I'm more of a PvE type so I basically ignored the game.
6. Re:Why not a comparison to Defiance? by CronoCloud · 2014-09-14 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  /me googles. Ah, it's Windows only, thats why I hadn't heard of that. Unlike Firefall, Destiny and Defiance are cross-platform.
7. Re:Why not a comparison to Defiance? by Luckyo · 2014-09-14 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  If you're into PvE, Warframe is your game. The only PvP content in the game (conclave) is utterly barren because all skills and weapons are balanced for PvE. As a result you have things like full invulnerability to all damage for a long time on Valkyr frame, invisibility on Loki and weapons that basically one shot other players when they crit.
  Since abilities and weapons, when maxed out, are designed for clearing entire rooms worth of enemies that have health pool that in end game is hundreds of times more than that of even tankiest warframes (think WoW raiding), PvP is inherently broken.
Hulu ads by BrennanPratt · 2014-09-13 03:38 · Score: 1

I was getting ready to buy this and a PS4. Then Hulu glitched out and played the extended trailer three times every commercial break. Now I hate Destiny and don't feel all that great about Immigrant from Zeppelin. Could someone please publish a scientific paper assuring advertisers that people respond negatively to repeated ads? Christ.
Re:Borderlands meets Halo by Grog6 · 2014-09-13 03:54 · Score: 1

Rage is fun; of course, I only paid 9.99 for it, so I didn't feel screwed.
If I'd paid 60, I'd be pissed.
I recently replayed DNF, and it wasn't nearly as bad as I remembered, lol.

--
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Re:Looks promising by Pinky's+Brain · 2014-09-13 04:10 · Score: 1

It's not a waifu simulator and it has no memorable personalities.
It's also a last gen shooter optimized for graphics, expect corridors ...
Re:Borderlands meets Halo by Truekaiser · 2014-09-13 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have watched level playthroughs.
Describing Destiny as the love child of Boarderlands 2 and Halo is pretty apt if you add to it that it takes the worst aspects of both.
It's like Boarderlands 2; except that the bad guys do not drop as much loot of either ammo or weapons, even when you're at a higher level they are bullet spongy so imagine how much more they will be when at or below their level, Guns have ammo pool types but you will run out of ammo faster than borderlands 2, at the end of each mission like Boarderlands 2 you can have one or several gun or item loot chests but the game only gives you 30 seconds to find it and take what you want before being booted back to the mission selection menu, and to get anything decent you have to grind.
It's like halo; except the bad guys are different in name only, the good guys no matter how you can customize their look will look like spartans, Well wait.. no it's just halo by any other name.
Shades of... by yoshi_mon · 2014-09-13 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

This game smacked to me of Titanfall marketing. And appears to have delivered the same level game. Nothing bad but not anything near the level of hype that the marketing inspired.
But the marketing DID deliver the hype level sales and that is all that matters to the publishers. So while the culture of pre-orders based on marketing hype that is backed up by paid for "reviews" exist this cycle will repeat.

--

Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
1. Re:Shades of... by MasT3quila · 2014-09-13 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I was fooled once with titanfall. Glad I didn't buy into this one. In fact the free beta was so lacking in fun that I deleted it the same day. Much like I'm now deleting all the spam emails I receive from them, apparently having clicked OK on some marketing consent thing somewhere along the way.
2. Re:Shades of... by RivenAleem · 2014-09-15 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  When marketing accounts for a greater than 50% of the development costs (One figure I read said $180Mil and $100Mil on top for marketing) then yes, there's going to be huge hype of an average game. What happens when the marketing budget is tiny compared to the development costs? You get a cheap, great game but it might take a bit of searching to find it (Example: Terraria and many many other indy games)
3. Re:Shades of... by farble1670 · 2014-09-15 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  did the marketing lie? did it show content that doesn't exist? gameplay that doesn't exist? how were you fooled?
I own the game by iONiUM · 2014-09-13 06:48 · Score: 1

I bought the game when it came out (digital download, who needs line ups or EB?) and I agree with the reviews.
I play FPS on both console and PC so ignoring the argument people like to have, which isn't the issue, the game is lacking. The thing is it actually has a lot of potential, and I really want to like it, but its just.. Boring. If they had of had more variety of quests, a real open world, any sort of story, and public match making for campaign it would have been a lot better. A shame, really.
I prefer Warframe by MikeBabcock · 2014-09-13 08:51 · Score: 1

Warframe for PC and PS4 is a much better semi-mmo shooter (although I most frequently play with just a sword) than Destiny. The updates are good, the new missions are interesting and the challenge is high. Its also free to play.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
1. Re:I prefer Warframe by Luckyo · 2014-09-13 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Warframe is coming out on XBONE as well afaik.
  Though it's a bit closer to third person shooter version of diablo than MMO. But honestly, if you want a proper warframe with all the pretty graphics, you have to have a decent PC with nvidia card in it. Harware physx particles for skill effects are pretty.
2. Re:I prefer Warframe by MikeBabcock · 2014-09-14 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  How is first or third person relevant to its MMO status?
  Have you watched the game played on PS4? The graphics are quite impressive. The framerate is smoother, which would be nice, but not enough to do a PC upgrade and force myself to run Windows.
  cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for a graphics comparison
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
3. Re:I prefer Warframe by Luckyo · 2014-09-14 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  They had to cut down on graphics on PS4 and XBONE. And obviously remove hardware physx. PS4 is about as good as PC on medium settings.
  You video shows early gameplay with no fancy elemental effects or visually impressive skills in play and the in-game trailer. A pretty bad comparison even if you choose to ignore the whole "youtube video compression makes comparing graphical fidelity impossible".
Re: Looks promising by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-09-13 08:55 · Score: 1

*Whoosh*

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:And then watch all of them... by Rakhar · 2014-09-13 21:09 · Score: 1

I had a subscription to PC Gaming Magazine in the late 90s. Even then the reviews were more like advertisements. I've not trusted them since. These days I just look for gameplay footage on YouTube if I'm iffy about a game. No amount of news articles or fancy CG trailers will convince me a game is worth buying. I rely on direct, face-to-face word of mouth and gameplay videos.
Plus, in the ads by sabbede · 2014-09-15 02:06 · Score: 1

it looks like Mass Effect. I thought the commercials were for a new ME game, because they looked so much like a Quarian and a Turian out with a human.
Just don't forget who did it to you by kilzfire7478 · 2014-09-15 06:25 · Score: 1

I've never felt so alone in a multiplayer environment. This game is without a soul. I finally went into the 2nd Strike mission and felt like the other two people that were playing alongside me were actually playing the game "with" me. I sort of wanted to say thanks to them. No real way to do that. I can't remember their handles they were too complicated. Would have been nice to group up with them again for some regular missions if they wanted. Just like other first person shooters on the console I wanted my mouse and keyboard desperately. But most of all I wanted TeamSpeak or Ventrilo and a good group of friends to enjoy the game with. Normally I am in my living room taking some time out to enjoy some console fun but this game left me with such a strong desire to just interact with someone....anyone. I got up went into my office and sat down with some TeamSpeak friends to play other games. I would have welcomed the high pitch squeal of a pre-teen screaming at how bad I am at the game and I think that says it all.