EXTomar

No I did and found his comments (and now yours) largely lacking. He thinks it is still a borked and boring game. If there was something real to discuss, do you not think I'd post more than I did?

If you need a direct hint: I suspect if they changed everything he wanted he would still say "Destiny is a hot mess". How do I know? Because I've seen this very same complaint with different names for so many other games. It is an uninteresting post that basically says the same thing so many others have said about so many other games that really don't say anything beyond "I don't like this game I thought I was supposed to like".

The issue is that games is that producers are overvaluing protecting games. The lifespan of some of these titles is sometimes weeks and at best months where throwing on obtrusive and damaging DRM solutions like this is literally overbearing and shows little evidence it helps with sales.

This is a monster of their own creation: They make very expensive titles, blow an equally large pile of money on advertising to create a "hype train", all for a piece of software which will be abandoned in a couple of months by the buyer who enjoyed it where the cost of protecting is just another facet of the absurdity.

This is what happens with these games: You either "buy in" on how the game is setup or you don't. But suggesting it is a "hot mess" really just means "I don't like it" instead of some objective measure.

If there is an issue it sounds like content isn't coming out fast enough or there is not enough of it.

An author using "dues ex machina" in their story isn't automatically bad but using it because they have no alternative to get to the ending makes it feel like a cheat or extraordinarily contrived.

Side comment: It is interesting to compare this movie to Wolf of Wall Street. If Wolf of Wall Street was like Interstellar, there would be constant comments like "Belfort is funding this party with money stolen from the company's account and put into that company's account..." The important thing isn't the stealing or the party but Belfort so telling us about the stealing and the party in excruciating detail isn't "helpful".

I've always had a spot in my heart for BGC.

There are also a bunch of "pre-90s" stuff that is and should be largely forgotten mostly because it is harmless fluff. :) But Ranma 1/2 stands out in that category because it is a strange setup that I'm surprised no one has been tempted to "reboot" yet.

So far works great....except that DDoS attack that was interfering with players. I skipped out on the beta but so far the Garrison feature is pretty cool. I hope they continue to add buildings and other NPCs to "collect" as the expansion goes through major releases!

As for "no flying in the expansion", I'm kind of "meh" about it. It is clearly done as a "mechanical" way to force players to traverse the zone in a linear manner instead of skipping around by flying over chunks of it where I don't care as long general "no-fly zones" are sensible.

I'm not given how much Microsoft has been pushing the hype train for this thing. Microsoft through their own marketing set the buyer's expectations high with all of the new modern features and they just don't work or function correctly. So yeah it is just like Diablo 3 and buyers were correct in complaining then. Buyers for this thing are correct in complaining how poorly this is going now.

Or another way to think about it: This is as lame an excuse as "The game gets good 20 hours in". It is probably true this will get better days from now but it isn't a good excuse or tolerable behavior.

People keep saying "this isn't the job of the reviewer is to help the consumer" and "the job of the reviewer is to give advice". That is bogus because the modern review process does this fairly poorly if not outright distorts it to the point that any advice is weak.

Right now I get more insight into any game's performance and behavior from "Let's Play" months after release than I do from a "week before release professional review". I'm sure people get value out of the pre-release review but I'm saying that almost all "reviewers" are passively acknowledging the release issues we've seen in all recent games. Counting this stuff as "outside the review" seems dubious and does not "help the consumer".

So I have no idea why people are so fixated on embargoes. Do you know what helps shape my purchase decisions for Assassin's Creed Unity? Watching someone try to play the PC version, hearing how frustrated they are getting fiddling with the settings to get it to run smoothly, and get hit with crashes in the span of 15 minutes.

My default/gut feeling about anything where you are asking strangers if one should buy or not buy something, the answer is "not buy". There is no issue with letting this wait a couple of weeks or months till you are really sure either way.

Sorry if it is unearned but if you were a PC gamer at the same period, Goldeneye looked like a "toy". Even though though that era had a lot of FPS that were still "2.5D", those games where heavily detailed and then you had full 3D games like Quake that blew everyone away. Then this goofy Goldeneye game comes out later that "looks terrible" and you can't even aim properly and people where gushing about it made it seemed self delusion if not "sour grapes".

My opinion has always been Half-Life was bolder and better than Goldeneye and that came out even later.