Edge Online is finally dead - The Bear and Badger

Skerret

mistercrayon wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Vela wrote:

Skerret wrote:

Vela wrote:

I disagree vehemently with this.

I disagree vehemently with that, kinda. Games can (now) evolve over time. A film is the same film from day 1 to day 1001 (DCs notwithstanding). A game like Destiny can be altered, improved, in ways that matter, months after release. I'm not suggesting a game that scores 2/10 on day 1 can scoot up to 8/10 on day 100, but certain criticisms, valid at one time, can become irrelevant down the track. Destiny seems like the first notable example of this. Unless the mechanics are borked, fundamentally borked (and in Destiny's case, they're not), a Destiny (mainly down to pedigree) deserves time. There's a larger argument about rapidfire game review practice that foregoes meaningful critique in service of "FIRST", but to get into that I'd be sacrificing DSII time and I simply won't.

So long as companies are happy to front load sales, take preorders, massage the review process and sell season passes before they confirm content, the games need to be reviewed based on what they are, not what they might be. Reviews should serve as a buyer's guide.

In 90% of cases, I agree. It's the Destiny model that warrants a different approach.

Nup. Because they do all of the things Vela says. If they want out of the buyer guide model then they should jump outside the model fiscally too. You could argue their model is a bit like WoW but at least that charges you nothing to play the full game before asking for piecemeal payment. Destiny asks for full monies on day one or fuck off.

I'll nup you. Sure, then the model is a bad fit and leads to angst; I'm not convinced it's shady though. Reviews should serve as a buyers guide, but reviews that I read tended to note the long haul nature of Destiny and not to judge too quickly. This angle starts to paint Destiny as bereft of content, or somehow deceptive, which it plainly wasn't. It just wasn't quite what people expected. Bungie's efforts to promote it the way they did probably didn't help.

Kow

WOW cost 50 quid to buy as well as the monthly sub. I'm not sure that it's free even now.

Skerret

shoulda done my research afore responding then, coulda brought down a firestorm of loose facts

stonechalice

Yossarian wrote:

Re: Destiny, FWIW, I far prefer their model of selling the full-price game and DLC with no subscriptions, and would probably rate it higher for not asking a subscription. Beyond that, I do agree that reviewers should have spent more time with it. I understand that there are issues with the early game, I really do, but I don't care about that now that I've reached the higher levels. There is no game in the history of gaming which has grabbed me like Destiny has. If you're put off by the early game, I'm sorry to hear that, the end game is a ten, no question, and that end game will keep you occupied for months once you've spent the week or so that it takes to get there.

You came late to the party with Destiny Yoss, I accept that, but there is no way the end game in Destiny is a ten, that's just madness. All that's left at the end game is to repeatedly play stuff you've played hundreds of times before for the slim chance of marginally better loot.

If anything, the climb to 20 is way more entertaining, because you actually level up, and see new stuff. The gameplay is essentially identical whether you're level 4 or level 30.

The Raids are great true, but once you've got them down they become perfunctory run throughs like the rest of the game. I'm amazed there are so many people still slogging their way through this game since release. I had more than my fill weeks ago.

Destiny has triggered the loot nerve in peoples brains like no other.

optimark_prime

I often buy games because of this forum.

Forza Horizon 2, Titanfall and Sunset Overdrive (and an Xbox One) were all primarily because of recommendations on here. And the prospect of online with you lot

Kow

It's mostly g.man's fault. I vote we ban him from playing games.

Skerret

Won't be long to wait before his participation one way or the other is moot.

Kow

I'm not that far behind him. So shut up.

Skerret

That's Kow and G out then.

Kow

Nevur give up.

Yossarian

stonechalice wrote:

You came late to the party with Destiny Yoss, I accept that, but there is no way the end game in Destiny is a ten, that's just madness. All that's left at the end game is to repeatedly play stuff you've played hundreds of times before for the slim chance of marginally better loot.

I disagree. The stuff that I'm doing in the endgame is as much fun and as satisfying in and of itself as any game I've played, and I'm only just reaching that with my second build, I have a subclass and a class I haven't even started yet.

Besides, the DLC is keeping me happy with new content. It's not cheap when all that's factored in, but I don't really care when it's as much fun as it is.

stonechalice

It's fun, but severely lacking in variety. All you do is point your reticule at bullet fodder ad infinitum. There isn't even any nuance to combat, nothing to make you think differently, just point and shoot. That is great and I loved playing Destiny, and will still put it on from time to time, but the blatant attempt by the devs to extend the already drawn out process of acquiring and levelling gear by implementing arbitrary hurdles such as upgrade materials to the point of silliness was too much for me to ignore.

And when you reach that max level, got all your gear maxed and done all the raids on hard, then what? There is literally nothing left to do. You've got maxed out armour and no new challenges to test it on, other than running through the same shit you've done hundreds of times before. Until another twenty quid DLC pack comes along that was already on the disc and you start that process all over again for some armour that will make a number go up. You can't even customise it apart from a shader for christ sake.

I'm glad I saw sense and gave it up but glad you've found a game that tickles your itch.

mk64

Petey wrote:

I wonder if I could buy the edge-online domain and restore this forum to its spiritual home. But yeah. Sad that sites like Polygon are flourishing where Edge originally stood.

I like that idea, I think we should stay here but repoint people from that link to here.

Yossarian

stonechalice wrote:

It's fun, but severely lacking in variety. All you do is point your reticule at bullet fodder ad infinitum. There isn't even any nuance to combat, nothing to make you think differently, just point and shoot.

Not true, there is a great deal of coordination and teamwork going on in the raids, for example, and even the basic combat has more depth than that with grenades, melees and supers available.

That is great and I loved playing Destiny, and will still put it on from time to time, but the blatant attempt by the devs to extend the already drawn out process of acquiring and levelling gear by implementing arbitrary hurdles such as upgrade materials to the point of silliness was too much for me to ignore.

I agree with the hurdles, but they don't ruin my enjoyment of an otherwise finely-crafted experience.

And when you reach that max level, got all your gear maxed and done all the raids on hard, then what? There is literally nothing left to do. You've got maxed out armour and no new challenges to test it on, other than running through the same shit you've done hundreds of times before. Until another twenty quid DLC pack comes along that was already on the disc and you start that process all over again for some armour that will make a number go up. You can't even customise it apart from a shader for christ sake.

The environment may have been on the disc, but the content to fill it wasn't, there was a 2GB download for the DLC, what was that if not content?

Besides there was a ton of content that came with the disc, far more than most games. Complaining about a few environments that were on the disc but which weren't used until the DLC which was being sold instead of charging a subscription like most MMOs seems rather churlish to me.

Diluted Dante

Vela wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

It's a game that should not have been reviewed as early as it was.

I disagree vehemently with this. If the game is ready to go on sale for full price, its ready to be reviewed as such. If it's not ready to be reviewed, its not ready to be sold. If anything, games are not reviewed harshly enough when it comes to performance and content. Skyrim PS3 should have gotten 0/10, i.e. one point for every frame per second. Driveclub should have been reviewed based on numbers of online matches possible. Halo Master Chief Collection should have gotten 4/10, something which reflects the number of months between release and a semi-working state. Assassins Creed Unity should have gotten 1/10 because of its name (and also if you didn't figure out the series was shit after the 1st game then you deserve to waste more money on it).

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. You're lumping Destiny in with a bunch of broken games, but that's not why I was saying it should not have been reviewed at launch.

Would you be ok with somewhere reviewing World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Final Fantasy Online ect right out of the gate? If the answer is yes, I'm left wondering what possible basis you think the review will be on.

stonechalice

Yossarian wrote:

The environment may have been on the disc, but the content to fill it wasn't, there was a 2GB download for the DLC, what was that if not content? Besides there was a ton of content that came with the disc, far more than most games. Complaining about a few environments that were on the disc but which weren't used until the DLC which was being sold instead of charging a subscription like most MMOs seems rather churlish to me.

There really isn't that much content. Four planets with average sized, mostly empty maps . That's it. The 'DLC' environments were on the disc and built, all they had to do was populate them with enemies. Face it, they were part of the original release game but cut because of the release schedule - there was nothing coming out at that time to challenge Destiny in any way, so they cut it out to sell it back to you later. They knew the game would sell like fuck anyway.

Yossarian wrote:

stonechalice wrote:

It's fun, but severely lacking in variety. All you do is point your reticule at bullet fodder ad infinitum. There isn't even any nuance to combat, nothing to make you think differently, just point and shoot.

Not true, there is a great deal of coordination and teamwork going on in the raids, for example, and even the basic combat has more depth than that with grenades, melees and supers available.

Teamwork involved aye. As for what's required? Point reticule at thing and shoot. There is no depth outside of aiming a weapon/super and pulling the trigger. Elemental damage doesn't change anything apart from having to go into a menu and swap a weapon.

Diluted Dante

It doesn't make any sense for them to have been part of the original game though.

g.man

I'm pretty sure there's a Destiny thread somewhere for this sort of thing.

mk64

Diluted Dante wrote:

Vela wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

It's a game that should not have been reviewed as early as it was.

I disagree vehemently with this. If the game is ready to go on sale for full price, its ready to be reviewed as such. If it's not ready to be reviewed, its not ready to be sold. If anything, games are not reviewed harshly enough when it comes to performance and content. Skyrim PS3 should have gotten 0/10, i.e. one point for every frame per second. Driveclub should have been reviewed based on numbers of online matches possible. Halo Master Chief Collection should have gotten 4/10, something which reflects the number of months between release and a semi-working state. Assassins Creed Unity should have gotten 1/10 because of its name (and also if you didn't figure out the series was shit after the 1st game then you deserve to waste more money on it).

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. You're lumping Destiny in with a bunch of broken games, but that's not why I was saying it should not have been reviewed at launch. Would you be ok with somewhere reviewing World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Final Fantasy Online ect right out of the gate? If the answer is yes, I'm left wondering what possible basis you think the review will be on.

Weird that as someone involved in reviewing you are not considering that reviewer copies often have segments of games if they are massive. So you may be able to jump straight to later parts of the game to judge it properly.

stonechalice

g.man wrote:

I'm pretty sure there's a Destiny thread somewhere for this sort of thing.

Trying to keep out of there.

FUCKING YOSS.

Yossarian

g.man wrote:

I'm pretty sure there's a Destiny thread somewhere for this sort of thing.

Fair play.

@stonechalice, I'm moving my reply there.

Skerret

Edge is dead, long live Rich Stanton.

pantyfire

I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that there was a tectonic shift in development late in the games making and what was meant to be a big sprawling epic was pruned back savagely, into a bit of a narrative mess.

As for should it have been reviewed?
The basis is that you are being peddled the game at release, so therefore outlets are not being unreasonable by reviewing it at release!
If the dev was confident the game would be better in 8 months time then they should have released it 8 months later with the better bits in it. They can try charging more than normal if they want.
The reviews would have been glowing then, yeh?
As for lumping Destiny in with broken games, well it was a bit wasn't it? Frequent disconnects, lag, pathetic item drops, loot caves and boss glitches weren't catastrophic but they were still a bit broken.

I_R

A more general note about on-line games is that pro reviewers tend to be jack of all trades, master of none. BF4 and Halo:MCC worked fine for them at press events, the graphics are shiny and game play seems fun for an afternoon. You can apply these doubts to a lot of genres as well, not just FPS.

Youtubers who focus on a particular genre or even a single game are much more useful here, unfortunately they're even more susceptible to influence from devs and publishers. A trip to the office and a look at preview code can go a long way.

Diluted Dante

mk64 wrote:

Weird that as someone involved in reviewing you are not considering that reviewer copies often have segments of games if they are massive. So you may be able to jump straight to later parts of the game to judge it properly.

The only review copies of anything I've ever recieved are CD's. In any case though, it doesn't apply to Destiny:

As you may already have seen elsewhere, we in the press have had no prior access to Bungie's online shooter Destiny before its global launch date tomorrow. There was no review event, and though review copies have been sent out, they're useless until the servers are turned on.

HP

Yossarian

pantyfire wrote:

I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that there was a tectonic shift in development late in the games making and what was meant to be a big sprawling epic was pruned back savagely, into a bit of a narrative mess.

I'm with you there.

As for should it have been reviewed?
The basis is that you are being peddled the game at release, so therefore outlets are not being unreasonable by reviewing it at release!
If the dev was confident the game would be better in 8 months time then they should have released it 8 months later with the better bits in it. They can try charging more than normal if they want.
The reviews would have been glowing then, yeh?
As for lumping Destiny in with broken games, well it was a bit wasn't it? Frequent disconnects, lag, pathetic item drops, loot caves and boss glitches weren't catastrophic but they were still a bit broken.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been reviewed, just that reviewers shouldn't have rushed them out without having time to see everything. Lots of sites wanted to be first with the reviews, which means that they didn't allow time to see the game properly.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the rumoured Destiny 1.5 drops in September. I expect a lot of much more favourable reevaluation of the game.

IanHamlett

I might pick it up then.

stonechalice

Yossarian wrote:

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been reviewed, just that reviewers shouldn't have rushed them out without having time to see everything. Lots of sites wanted to be first with the reviews, which means that they didn't allow time to see the game properly. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the rumoured Destiny 1.5 drops in September. I expect a lot of much more favourable reevaluation of the game.

This is the thing; You can see pretty much everything Destiny has to offer in less than ten hours. The only thing that prolongs the game is the endless grind for weapons and armour. I'd argue that you could review Destiny within a week just fine, just like any other game.

Kow

Here's my review of Benjy: 4/10

Kow

Yossarian: 4/10.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories