Early Reviews of Destiny: Unfulfilled Potential

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."

Comments

"console shooter"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:"console shooter"

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:"console shooter"

[Skarjak]

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.

Re:"console shooter"

[GNious]

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.

Re:"console shooter"

[CronoCloud]

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.

Re:"console shooter"

[Xest]

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.

Call it what it is...

[bl968]

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.

Re:Call it what it is...

[CrashNBrn]

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,

That title needs work, for one thing

[wonkey_monkey]

Early Reviews of Destiny: Unfulfilled Potential

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

Re:That title needs work, for one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Re:That title needs work, for one thing

[tlhIngan]

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:Clearly no one at Bungie slept with the reviewe

[Calydor]

Or maybe the game just isn't that interesting?

Re:Borderlands meets Halo

[Truekaiser]

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...

[yoshi_mon]

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.