After playing the Destiny Alpha and Beta I'm pretty excited for what it could offer. I wasn't blown away by any means but by level 8 the mechanics proved cohesive and fun.

As the release date grows closer and new information about the game becomes fewer and far between, It makes me worry how much content the game really has... 3 player classes, 4 enemy classes and only 5 maps? I guess my main concern is the small amount of locations. What are all your guys's thoughts? Is the game bigger than I think it is? Will this turn out to be another watch dogs or titanfall? I hope my concerns are wrong and it turns about to be a title we can look back on in years and smile.

Well, seems clear to me they are setting this thing up to be a DLC fest, so it is to be expected that the initial version will be just a barebones stripped thing.

Personally I'll wait for the PC version which is surely to come and when it does it will have like about 60 or so DLC packs included I'm sure...

Skyrim has 1 map in the sense that you're saying this game has only 5, that doesn't mean anything. Destiny has 5 open world regions, it's not like saying a Halo game has only 5 levels.

I guess unlike some people my expectations are exactly in line with what they have shown, so I have no reason to be disappointed.

To be honest I'm not sure where people got some of these false expectations in the first place.

Well not yet, wait until they release the christmas themed DLC pack

We already have a "why am I not so excited for Destiny" thread.

I was completely underwhelmed by the Beta. It felt like they're trying to make a crappy MMO out of Halo and Borderlands.

It's PSO with better gameplay. That's exactly what I want. I'm hyped.

Everyone expecting it to be the best thing since the invention of fire will be disappointed though.

@ll_exile_ll: thanks for the reply Exile! Yea thats a good analogy with skyrim but from what I've played im not getting a good feeling on those five maps being open world in the traditional sense. As open as it was I still felt on rails because there really wasn't much to discover. But lets just hope the final version will offer much much more! I really am very excited, been a long time coming for this one

The other thread about this is very similar.

Honestly, I just feel like the hype and marketing is gonna lead to a lot of unreachable expectations.

@corruptedevil: Yea im excited too, we all know Bungie has changed a lot since it's hay day especially with a lot of people moving onto other companies so thats another exciting thing to look forward to is seeing how much they've changed since their last release.

@csl316: So I guess my thread is a little open ended. My main question to all you guys is your thoughts on how big the maps will be or really how much content the game really will have to offer. I am still excited to play it. I mean why not give it a whirl.

Destiny is a bit of a coin-flip right now. As much as Bungie clearly knows what they are doing with shooters, they still have a lot to learn on the MMO side of things. They seemed to have missed the really obvious no-brainer stuff like:

Making it easy to manually group with people (waay to clunky, at least on PS4)

An in-game clan interface (why do I need to leave the game and go to a website to create or join a clan?)

An in-game event calendar interface (again, why do I need to leave the game to find out when my clan is doing stuff or find out when special events are taking place?)

The success of the game is going to depend a lot on how fast Bungie learns these lessons. If some of this stuff gets improved in an early patch, it can be quite successful. If they don't it is going to drive people away.

As far as the maps go, I don't think that's as much a gameplay issue so much as it is a business model one. I mean, they clearly are going to introduce a lot more content via DLC, but the question becomes how much content are you getting for the price? Other MMOs tend to release new zones in one of two ways (1) either a ton at a time via expansion, like Warcraft, or (2) dribbled out a little at a time between expansions, but for free. LOTRO used to do this before it went free to play.

Destiny seems to want to take a middle road and charge for all new zones without making an out and out expansion. If they don't get the price right, or they don't get the balance between PvP and PvE right, the game stands a good chance of being the next Titanfall.

@lawgamer: Yea the DLC thing can be tricky... The other day when Nintendo announced the DLC with mario kart 8, something like 12 new tracks and adding new characters like Link. All for 12 bucks?! I am super excited for something like that. With the base game I felt completly satisfied and giving us all that contenct for cheap makes me feel like im getting a deal. I hope it will be a similar case.

This thread seems weird considering the game is literally 4 days away from being released. Why don't we ask these questions in about a week when we actually have concrete information, and not just speculation?

@berserker976: I will most defiantly be talking about it then as well. It's fun to get the communities thoughts and opinions in the mean time.

@creamy_pixels: Fair enough. I for one am not really worried about content. I mean the earth map alone was pretty gigantic, and was both 1. The starting zone, and 2. a map with many parts closed off to beta goers.

What little we got to see of the moon made it seem like that zone was also enormous; probably bigger than the Earth map in fact.

@corruptedevil: This is exactly what I am expecting. I loved PSO and wish we got PSO 2. This looks like it will be amazing. I didn't play the alpha or beta because I know that can ruin the experience. I pre-ordered Knights of the Old Republic and kept making new characters after each new beta round. By the time the game actually came out I didn't want to play the game.

It's going to get a bunch of 7/10 and 3 star ratings from game journalists who don't even make it through all the content as they proclaim that the game doesn't have enough content. And for whatever reason people are going to believe them.

This is the first shooter I can recall looking forward to since 1999, and that's after getting 800 grimoire points in the beta.

Most people seem to be skeptical about the number of locations (I'm slightly skeptical but I think it will be okay in the end), but I'm really worried about the quality of the storytelling in that content. From the little bit of storytelling present in the Beta (cutscenes, mission dialogue, etc.), it seems like the game won't do a great job at filling in players about the world. I thought all that stuff from the Beta--stuff that felt fairly final, mind you--was extremely flat, was willing to drop information with no context, and seemed rather uninteresting. Furthermore, the quest objectives were extremely plain--again, this could potentially get better later on.

As someone who needs more of a reason to run around and shoot stuff than just "get better loot" or "it's fun!," I'm a bit skeptical about how the final game will turn out. That's why I cancelled my pre-order (which I shouldn't have made in the first place, but I wanted Beta access) and decided to wait out the final impressions. Jeff seems to feel much the same way I do about what was present in the Beta, so I'm guessing that his final reflections on the game will tell me whether or not I want to play it on release.

I'm expecting it to be a great rental. I've never thought that it was going to be something I would play for a long time. What I'm most looking forward to at the moment is Dragon Age.

@wemibelec90: I agree! When they showed a nondescript cut scene of you and the speaker in the tower. It felt cheap no having mouth animations by covering it with a mask. Even if it's covered there are lots of opportunities to have mechanical animation, light reacting etc, and seeing how that scene is in the trailers now It probably wont change

As a big fan of Kamen Rider I think masks are rad.

But you haven't even played the full game, no one knows how much Destiny is going to ship with...I feel like the other half of people dismissing a game as not having enough content are those that are so excited about the possibility of it having a ton of content that they don't wait and look at it objectively before buying.

It's in this very thread..."But Destiny has five open world maps and Skyrim only has one" is an example. We don't even know how big those maps actually are yet, or what they are even populated with in terms of missions & encounters. It's too soon to tell either way, but already with the Skyrim comparisons?

@corruptedevil: Yea the masks are super rad. You know how there is a level of detail and depth to them, especially how of some set ups you can see the light deep inside it. Just would have been nice if they reacted when they talk. Just another level of polish that I would appreciate.

Zero game journalists will complete or even attempt Destiny's end game content before pushing out a review, regardless of how big any of the maps are.

100%ing a game is not required to make a critical assessment about said game. Some people seem to forget that when it pertains to a game they really want to be good and there is pre-release doubt about it.

From what I have played of the beta it did not make me feel depressed. So no it does not give me that Christmas feeling. I thought it was fun enough to finally take the leap to the current generation by preordering the white PS4/Destiny bundle. Even if the game turns out to be a disappointment I still got a cool white PS4.

These two quotes sort of tie the point I'm trying to make together.

We don't even know what the "end-game" of Destiny is, or how long it's going to take to get there...so there is a lot of assumptions going on when someone says "zero game journalists will attempt Destiny's end game content before pushing out a review."

And I've seen more and more places post a "review-in-progress" for games with significant endgames. Since several outlets already mentioned they won't have release-date reviews, I can see them not rushing things out. With less of a deadline, there will be more time to explore the late game content. There will be streams, but it doesn't feel as urgent to get a review out early in this case.

I'm guessing that with server issues during so many launches, outlets will hold off until things are confirmed to be stable. This has become more common in recent times. Review timing has become way more fluid with online-focused games nowadays, as they don't have a clearly defined end like a traditional single-player campaign.

And hell, there are so many preorders that Activision probably doesn't need positive reviews to help sales (and if reviews are negative, well, a release date review later in the day won't have people canceling preorders).

So here's the thing that's been mulling in my mind lately about Destiny.

We already know that they have a contract for a trilogy. Now if you look back at the last gen of games we saw several trilogy series (gears, mass effect, uncharted etc) that followed a very specific path. First game had potential but didn't execute very well, second game was the game the first game should've been, third game was the cash-out sequel. With that in mind it sorta seems logical to "botch" the first game when you already know you'll be making three games. If the first game is great the second one becomes the cash-out, and by the time the third comes around you'll be expected to re-invent yourself. The beauty of the first "formula" is that even if the first game doesn't get that great of a reception a lot of people will come back the second time around since it's supposed to fix everything you didn't like about the first one.

I know it comes off as sorta "conspiracy theory"ish etc, but is it really that far fetched to think that Activision has already made a full on marketing plan for producing and selling the entire trilogy ?

I highly doubt they specifically told Bungie to make a bad game. That pattern of trilogy design is just a reality of game development.

They are forced to pushed out the first game on a deadline so it has all the ideas and design of a finished game but is mechanically rough. Then for the sequel they take the stuff the worked from the first game and use the development time mostly on mechanics and content which results in a more polished game, at which point the publisher just tells them to put out that same game again with different content.

@corruptedevil: Oh, I'm not saying they're trying to make a bad game, but maybe deliberately holding back a bit since they already know the game will sell like hot cakes ? That way when the time comes around to make the sequel there will be a lot of "easy wins" that can easily reinvigorate the franchise.

What you're describing is the normal process for a game that step by step turns into a trilogy as it becomes succesful. But what happens when you already know you're making a trilogy and all your marketing research shows that the first game will sell really well no matter what ? Does it really make sense to come out with a bang ? Won't that just lead to a steady decline as the franchise keeps going ?

I dunno.. It's the only reason I can come up with for why they're doing some of these really "no-brainer" miss-steps.

I don't think a developer would ever want to "botch" the first game. It's about exploring new ideas and building a world, but a storied developer like Bungie, Bioware, or Naughty Dog wouldn't half ass anything. The first game is a challenge to build, sure, and the second and third are about refining. Much of the development of Destiny 1 has been preproduction, initial design, and building technology. They're not trying to botch the first game, they're trying to make sure they build a strong foundation that's not on fire and makes you a fan of the franchise. If you don't leave a good impression at the end of game 1, then Too Human.

Mass Effect 3 was my favorite in the trilogy and one of my top games of last gen, so I disagree with your cash-out theory. Since game franchises are built to be around for a long, long time, it makes sense to end strongly to build anticipation when you come back after a break 3, 5, 10 years later. Seems like people may not like the third game because it's not the same as their favorite in the series. Sometimes it's the pinnacle, however, since the developer knows what the strengths are and has an efficient, well-defined workflow.

Now, when you talk about rushing out one more game at the tail end of a generation by outsourcing to a another developer, then yes... that may be more of a cash grab on the publisher's side. But then you have a new developer trying to replicate previous games while adding their own spin, which can easily become a mess. Which can, in turn, temper expectations for the next one.

What I'm trying to say is, this shit's complicated and changes case by case. All I know is, Bungie's trying a lot of stuff here and I'm gonna wait and see how it turns out.

I feel like they were intentionally holding story stuff back from the alpha and the beta so the story won't be spoiled. As for the number of locations and map size, I would look to the level ?? areas that we were able to take a peek inside the beta. There's obviously more areas even within Old Russia that most players haven't gone through yet, so I'm not so concerned about that aspect until we actually have the game in our hands.

Im gonna wait for a quicklook or something before i buy this, i have a feeling it will be dissapointing. But i could be ( and i hope i am ) wrong.

I don't know that much about Destiny, but everything I've read seems to suggest people are getting excited about the part of the game Bungie would rather people not. All of the articles I've read up to this point (which in the grand scheme of things isn't a lot) is them attempting to push the pvp multiplayer and not the singleplayer/coop stuff. I highly suspect people are going to be disappointed with the initial offerings of the coop gameplay and the people in it for the pvp will be totally happy with the game.

this is the most excited ive ever been for a game.so the answer is no.

the coop and pvp are both things bungie wants people to be excited for.after playing the beta i would say the coop and pvp are on the same level when it comes to importance for the game,and how much content is offered.alot of people are just looking at the number of planets when they worry about content,they are not looking at the bigger picture though.loot games are not usually that long when it comes to the main part of the game.the story usually lasts 5 to 10 hours in these games and then the longest part of the game is the grinding for endgame gear.so the people wanting some amazing story driven shooter probly wont be happy,because these games are all about the loot and the grinding.they also are ment to be replayed over and over.TLDR the game has plenty of content,it just wont be for people wanting a great story driven campain.it will be for people who like loot and farming or grinding for stuff.

If you're going to quote me out of context at least actually quote me so I can respond.

If you interpreted my comment about Skyrim having one map as some sort of proclamation that Destiny will be 5 times the size of Skyrim you really missed the point I was trying to make.That was in no way meant to be a direct comparison to Destiny or prove as any sort evidence about the amount of content in Destiny. In fact, the point I was trying to illustrate is that we simply don't know, which is what you seem to saying as well.

The point of invoking Skyrim as having one map was to say that the number of locations in Destiny means nothing when we don't know what's in them. Those five areas could be as densely packed with things to do and see as Skyrim's "1 map" or be entirely devoid of anything worthwhile. We simply don't know, but the point I was trying to make is that the number means nothing on its own, just as Skyrim having one map means nothing on its own.

@creamy_pixels said:

General reply: by situating the game between the MMORPG and FPS genres, I think Bungie has really sort of fucked themselves with player expectation. If Destiny was framed as a traditional first-person shooter, I think it would be bulging with content. I'm sort of approaching Destiny as another Halo game with a 6-10 hour campaign, lots of PVE replayability, and a really solid multiplayer offering. They seem poised to continuously update the game with new content and events, but I'm going to remain skeptical as to whether or not this will be enough to hook people.

To this specific quote:

• Destiny, more accurately, has 6 classes (6 skill trees / 6 sets of abilities)
  • Titan
    • Striker
    • Guardian
  • Warlock
    • Voidwalker
    • Sunsinger
  • Hunter
    • Bladedancer
    • Gunslinger
• Four enemy factions (with numerous types; note: this does not include unique bosses):
  • Cabal
    • Centurion
    • Colossus
    • Legionary
    • Psion
    • Phalanx
  • Fallen
    • Captain
    • Dreg
    • Vandal
  • Hive
    • Knight
    • Ogre
    • Thrall
    • Acolyte
    • Wizard
  • Vex
    • Goblin
    • Harpy
    • Hobgoblin
    • Hydra
    • Minotaur
• Four open world spaces, technically. Mars, Earth, Moon, Venus. You could argue that there are other unique spaces like the Tower, the Strikes, the Vault of Glass and the multiplayer maps. The Reef, despite being a location on the map, seems to be another non-combat space like the Tower.

There is atleast 1 more per class since there were 3 slots on the Subclass selection thing in the Beta and only 2 of them were filled. There might even be more than that because in the Companion app where it shows the rarity of all your gear it includes the subclass in that.

By Christmassy feeling I'm guessing you mean Autumn multiplayer releases that have such lasting appeal you know you'll end up playing them through and well past the holidays?

On a side note, I always regretted not playing through Arkham Origins over Christmas last year.

@ll_exile_ll: How are you liking Destiny so far?

question is how many hours does this game "owe you" in gameplay. I know its different cus this is sort of MMO-y but shooter campaigns last 4-6 hours and a lot of people played the beta and alpha for like 30 or more. If this is the game that is supposed to last you for months like is that fair to put on the game? Did they sell this thing as a WoW killer that you'd play for 10 years? I really dont know Im asking. 5 biggish areas sounds like enough to make a game to me. Like MOBAs have less maps than that, and smaller, and people play them for hundreds of hours.

@bargainben: The ten year thing is for the entire franchise future, but one needs to be either into the social playing together aspect, the grinding or the killing-duders modes to make this game last. That's what I feel from days of playtime during alpha and beta, that the longevity requires one to be more into it than I was and I loved every moment and had no problem getting down on the ground and grinding mission after mission of generic "kill ten of these" mindless timekilling.

Luckily my PS4 is off on RMA again so no Destiny until next year..

@pinner458: I thought Origins was pretty good personally, if you haven't yet it's worth playing this year.