So I waited for the preliminary reviews and decided that I was, after all, going to buy No Man's Sky. And I did. And I can't stop playing. Holy hell. But that's not why I'm making this post, because this post is about Destiny.

No Man's Sky is almost the polar opposite of Destiny in terms of gameplay, so if you're wondering what it's like, I'll break it down in those terms:

In Destiny you have extremely limited explorable areas. Small, contained zones with decent load times as you travel from place to place. A "planet" in Destiny is maybe a square mile in size. No Man's Sky is basically unlimited in size (technically 18 quintillion worlds is a limit, but come on). You can walk for hours and only see a small percentage of a single world's terrain.

In Destiny, you have arguably the best gunplay and character control of any FPS ever made. No Man's Sky... not so much. The movement isn't awful but the shooting leaves much to be desired.

In Destiny, you have to level up everything - yourself, your guns, your abilities, your light... No Man's Sky has no levels. Some items are clearly better than others, but who you are at the start of the game is a fully functional avatar, just lacking the various (and randomly seeded) upgrades that you can use to improve your functionality along the way. Nothing to level up, however. If you happen to find a better ship, you can hop right in and use it provided you've got the money to buy it or the resources to repair it.

In Destiny, there are enemies everywhere shooting at you like crazy. In No Man's Sky almost nothing attacks you unless you attack it first.

In Destiny, your ship is just a mask for the level select and loading screens. In No Man's Sky, your ship is your vault, your transportation, your weapon in space, your shelter on worlds... It's hugely important (and upgradeable in a number of ways).

Speaking of which, Destiny has loading screens. There's nothing like that in No Man's Sky.

I'll grant that the non-gameplay elements are similar: Both games are gorgeous, though the sheer scale of NMS has left me breathless and stunned in a way that Destiny simply can't. Neither game has any real plot to speak of, though Destiny actually has a few characters where NMS really has nothing.

But here's the big one for me: Nothing about NMS makes me angry or frustrated like Destiny. Where Destiny, especially PvP, is a sweaty mess decided by microsecond differences often resulting from lag rather than skill, NMS is a peaceful journey of relaxation and discovery.

If someone could harness the best of both games, I may never stop playing that. As it stands, they're a nearly perfect compliment to one another, and I encourage you all to check it out. Where Destiny is a brilliant core in a disappointing world, NMS is a lackluster core in a brilliant world. NMS is incredible and stunning. A true watershed moment for video games.

***Disclaimer: NMS may not be for everyone. Personally I am rapt with joy as I play it, but I can imagine that someone expecting seat of their pants action or some kind of Babylon 5-esque space drama will be disappointed (go play Rebel Galaxy!). It's more like Journey, I suppose, than anything else I can think of, but it's entirely glorious. Actually, okay, I just figured it out: If you enjoyed exploring the worlds in Mass Effect 1, then you're going to absolutely love NMS. This isn't to say they're the same at all, but it's a similar feeling.

If you enjoyed exploring the worlds in Mass Effect 1, then you're going to absolutely love NMS. This isn't to say they're the same at all, but it's a similar feeling.

Sold.

- No text -

- No text -

If you enjoyed exploring the worlds in Mass Effect 1, then you're going to absolutely love NMS. This isn't to say they're the same at all, but it's a similar feeling.

Sold.

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.

EDIT: Ha. "Where the Streets Have No Name" came on when I hit post. Guess I really *do* have to play it now.

I'll agree with lots of that post. NMS got a lot right that Destiny failed on, and Destiny got a lot right hat NMS failed on.

NMS is full of frustrations for me, but they're minor and will largely go away as I figure out the game. I feel NMS could have really used some more blind play testing before release. My bro-in-law was telling me the 'tutorial' portion was tacked on in the day 1 patch, it certainly feels like it to me, it could have been vastly improved upon.

Combat isn't that great. Aiming is harder than it should be, and I think I have trouble telling where I'm getting hit from. How the crap do I reload? oh, I just stumbled onto it after almost dying, it's square, there's no prompt telling you how to reload, I thought I had to go into my multitool & refuel it the way you do other things. The game's full of things like that which should have been found & improved on (unless the developers want people fumbling around not knowing how to reload their gun-mode of the multi-tool and never learning you can build bypass chips & actually use those beacons).

I lost a whole ships worth of supplies when I finally figured out how to get rid of that annoying "you have unredeemed items" prompt (what do you mean I have to transfer supplies to my new ship? How am I supposed to do that when redeeming my pre-order bonus ship straight up deletes & replaces my old ship full of supplies? Oh, also, in doing so I missed out on the tutorial on how to get warp fuel? AUGH!) Oh, and I just found out you can make bypass chips.

Anyway, annoyances aside, it's a fairly fun game and I'm excited to play it again tonight.

Edit: maybe I didn't entirely miss out on the tutorial on how to get warp fuel, I'll just have to pick it up later on, maybe? so confusing.

I'll agree with lots of that post. NMS got a lot right that Destiny failed on, and Destiny got a lot right hat NMS failed on.

NMS is full of frustrations for me, but they're minor and will largely go away as I figure out the game. I feel NMS could have really used some more blind play testing before release. My bro-in-law was telling me the 'tutorial' portion was tacked on in the day 1 patch, it certainly feels like it to me, it could have been vastly improved upon.

Combat isn't that great. Aiming is harder than it should be, and I think I have trouble telling where I'm getting hit from. How the crap do I reload? oh, I just stumbled onto it after almost dying, it's square, there's no prompt telling you how to reload, I thought I had to go into my multitool & refuel it the way you do other things. The game's full of things like that which should have been found & improved on (unless the developers want people fumbling around not knowing how to reload their gun-mode of the multi-tool and never learning you can build bypass chips & actually use those beacons).

I lost a whole ships worth of supplies when I finally figured out how to get rid of that annoying "you have unredeemed items" prompt (what do you mean I have to transfer supplies to my new ship? How am I supposed to do that when redeeming my pre-order bonus ship straight up deletes & replaces my old ship full of supplies? Oh, also, in doing so I missed out on the tutorial on how to get warp fuel? AUGH!) Oh, and I just found out you can make bypass chips.

Anyway, annoyances aside, it's a fairly fun game and I'm excited to play it again tonight.

Edit: maybe I didn't entirely miss out on the tutorial on how to get warp fuel, I'll just have to pick it up later on, maybe? so confusing.

You're spot on. Apparently there's a bug with the warp *drive* if you never made that in your original ship and you may be stuck for a while looking for abandoned factories that may or may not have the blueprint. As for fuel, I was given my first fuel by an NPC, and didn't learn how to make my fuel until my 2nd system. My advice after reading other people post about it is that if you don't have the warp drive, you're likely better off starting over than hunting for the blueprint. Fuel, on the other hand, shouldn't be too big of an issue. Do the system scan and follow the beacons - should get you some.

At least for me, the tutorial broke down like:

- Fix your spaceship, go to orbit.

- Beacon appears on another planet in the same system.

- Go to beacon and the guy gives you a material to build a warp drive. Mission says go to space station.

- Go to space station and buy the last item you need to build the drive. New beacon appears on a planet.

- Go to that beacon and a guy gives you fuel for the warp drive.

- Fly to next system.

- New beacon appears on a planet there.

- Go to that beacon and you get the recipe for making fuel.

That's about as far as I've gotten in the game.

Surely nobody enjoyed exploring planets in ME1? It was awful.

Good post. I'm really enjoying it. You're right about the Mass Effect vibe. More than once I've longed to have the Mako.

Good post. I'm really enjoying it. You're right about the Mass Effect vibe. More than once I've longed to have the Mako.

I'd settle for a ship that lets me get closer than 500ft from the ground before taking control from me.

This game has a ton of annoying little niggles--it's a testament to how good it is that none of them bother me all that much.

Good post. I'm really enjoying it. You're right about the Mass Effect vibe. More than once I've longed to have the Mako.

Rellekh has this logo on a shirt called Mako Mountain Climbing Team.

Now I want to play

But, yes, I did enjoy it. The biggest thing for me is probably that the Mako didn't bother me AT ALL. I got good with it very early in my game, so it was never a hinderance. That alone is what kills the exploration part for more than 80% of the people I've talked to.

Then comes the actual fruits of said exploration. The random tidbits of lore and minor, self-contained stories. God, I loved those. The vistas were quite a good motivation too. Getting the Mako the top of the biggest peak I could lay my eyes on was pretty much my first goal every time.

- No text -

Mostly just the leader of the Powder Gangers.

I just played for two hours--it felt like 30 minutes.

The pull of "just one more planet" is strong. It's odd, in a way. You find the exact same things (in terms of resources) on every planet, for the most part. There's not much of a point to moving on to a new one if you're just actively collecting resources for upgrades. But I can't stay in one place for long. I always want to see what the next planet holds.

The Mako was fine (and even fun!), but I still hated exploring the planets in Mass Effect 1. They were all lifeless and boring with awful, muddy textures. It was thoroughly unpleasant in terms of gameplay (there was jack-all to do) and in terms of having to look at them.

I'm still in love with No Man's Sky, though.

I just played for two hours--it felt like 30 minutes.

The pull of "just one more planet" is strong. It's odd, in a way. You find the exact same things (in terms of resources) on every planet, for the most part. There's not much of a point to moving on to a new one if you're just actively collecting resources for upgrades. But I can't stay in one place for long. I always want to see what the next planet holds.

I'm both deeply saddened and relieved at the same time that it's not available on XBone and I don't have a PS4. :P

But mostly sad ... This whole thing sounds super fun. :D

- No text -

- No text -

Agree with pretty much everything you said.

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish. I've run into a hundred little annoyances already... none of them game-breaking, but all the kinds of issues that you rarely see in games from large studios.

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish.

More money = better game.

#codywasright

:-p

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish.

More money = better game.

#codywasright

:-p

Depends on how that money is spent.

They needed to find a Dave Candland clone and pay him.

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish.

More money = better game.

#codywasright

:-p

Depends on how that money is spent.

They needed to find a Dave Candland clone and pay him.

Big time. I think No Man's Sky is proof that you don't need hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a huge game with good (not great) production values, but a bit more time and money in the test/QC realm would have gone a long way.

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish.

More money = better game.

#codywasright

:-p

Depends on how that money is spent.

They needed to find a Dave Candland clone and pay him.

Big time. I think No Man's Sky is proof that you don't need hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a huge game with good (not great) production values, but a bit more time and money in the test/QC realm would have gone a long way.

You definitely don't. I don't think either Uncharted 4 nor Last of Us ever broke 100 million in terms of budget. But do you really think No Man's sky was a tiny game? I guarantee it was at least 7 figures, and would not be surprised if it were in the low 8s.

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish.

More money = better game.

Except you never said that. You said good games are a direct result of more money.

"More money= better game" is like saying "bigger special effects budget = better special effects", in that it is a no-brainer, but still subject to the skill and budgeting ability of the people making the thing.

You were essentially saying that lower budget games couldn't be great, because AAA games are apparently all great, which is patently false.

#codywaswrong

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish.

More money = better game.

Except you never said that. You said good games are a direct result of more money.

"More money= better game" is like saying "bigger special effects budget = better special effects", in that it is a no-brainer, but still subject to the skill and budgeting ability of the people making the thing.

You were essentially saying that lower budget games couldn't be great, because AAA games are apparently all great, which is patently false.

Nah dude your completely misrepresenting the argument.

1. If you have more money you can make your game better.
2. As games get more complex, so do budgets get bigger.
3. Said complexity is the new baseline for "good"
4. Your game may be "good" but not good compared to other games if you don't have the budget to hit the complexity that is expected of modern games.
5. Therefore cheap games aren't amazing anymore, and don't push the medium forward.
6. Exceptions only for genres where the measure of worth is not nessesarily about software complexity (visual novels, etc)

I'm loving No Man's Sky, although it is perhaps the best example I've seen of a game with brilliant "indie spirit" that would majorly benefit from some AAA polish.

More money = better game.

#codywasright

:-p

Depends on how that money is spent.

They needed to find a Dave Candland clone and pay him.

Big time. I think No Man's Sky is proof that you don't need hundreds of millions of dollars to produce a huge game with good (not great) production values, but a bit more time and money in the test/QC realm would have gone a long way.

You definitely don't. I don't think either Uncharted 4 nor Last of Us ever broke 100 million in terms of budget. But do you really think No Man's sky was a tiny game? I guarantee it was at least 7 figures, and would not be surprised if it were in the low 8s.

I can only guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if close to half of No Man Sky's total budget was marketing. The dev team was tiny (4 people plus a few contractors here and there, I believe) up until the last year or so. Even now I think the team is only about 12-15 people. So in terms of actual development costs, I'd say the budget was quite low. Certainly into the "millions", but that is next to nothing given the long development time.

3. Said complexity is the new baseline for "good"
4. Your game may be "good" but not good compared to other games if you don't have the budget to hit the complexity that is expected of modern games.

Nope, I believe complexity can be a facet of how good a game is, but I do not believe that it is the baseline for "good". Therefor I don't think you're right, just weirdly obsessed with the appearance of being right.

If 15 people can give us that, then the 700+ working at Bungie had better deliver a god damn masterpiece come Destiny 2. Like, I dunno, maybe more than one raid.

If 15 people can give us that, then the 700+ working at Bungie had better deliver a god damn masterpiece come Destiny 2. Like, I dunno, maybe more than one raid.

Doesn't that refute you're previous point of more money=better? There are games better than Destiny that had a much smaller budget.

Good post. I'm really enjoying it. You're right about the Mass Effect vibe. More than once I've longed to have the Mako.

Rellekh has this logo on a shirt called Mako Mountain Climbing Team.

Now I want to play

That logo made me laugh out loud.

What happened to Fun per Second??

- No text -

- No text -

If it does well I bet it'll get a bone release.

If 15 people can give us that, then the 700+ working at Bungie had better deliver a god damn masterpiece come Destiny 2. Like, I dunno, maybe more than one raid.

Doesn't that refute you're previous point of more money=better? There are games better than Destiny that had a much smaller budget.

You can only compare like to like, because sometimes people squander money. Game A would be better if Game A's creators had more money.

What happened to Fun per Second??

That's the ultimate metric, yes.

But people have more fun with more detailed levels, better AI, better music, smoother and more animations, etc. Fun and complexity are related.

I've put about 8ish hours into it at this point. I think they have a super solid base to work from. The basic UI, and getting people up to speed, needs improvement. It suffers from the minecraft-esque onboarding effect. I really shouldn't have to look up stuff on the web to play, but I have (once) already. And found out that I'm "randomly generated" stuck in my first solar system until I can find a material to make fuel to get to the next system. Due to my own ignorance, the game let me screw myself. :/

That said, so far it's an amazing piece of technical work and a taste of what is to come in the future.

If 15 people can... then the 700+... had better...

You can only compare like to like...

Go home Cody, you're drunk.

I can't think of any. Maybe Super Mario World at the time, but ain't nothing as good as Destiny right now.

I can't think of any. Maybe Super Mario World at the time, but ain't nothing as good as Destiny right now.

Uh,

Deus Ex.

I can't think of any. Maybe Super Mario World at the time, but ain't nothing as good as Destiny right now.

Uh,

Deus Ex.

Lol, right? I snorted reading this assertion.

What happened to Fun per Second??

That's the ultimate metric, yes.

But people have more fun with more detailed levels, better AI, better music, smoother and more animations, etc. Fun and complexity are related.

But I had a lot more fun playing Halo: Combat Evolved than I did playing Crysis 3, even though the latter had more detailed levels, better AI, smoother and more animations, etc. Clearly, Fun and Complexity are not equal, and I'm not even half sure you're correct when you claim they are related.

Maybe you'd like to rethink your stance?

I can't think of any. Maybe Super Mario World at the time, but ain't nothing as good as Destiny right now.

Halo Reach is better than Destiny. It's the pinnacle of Bungie games for me so far. It feels like a much more complete, coherent package than Destiny.

I can't think of any. Maybe Super Mario World at the time, but ain't nothing as good as Destiny right now.

Halo Reach is better than Destiny. It's the pinnacle of Bungie games for me so far. It feels like a much more complete, coherent package than Destiny.

For me, Destiny is a game with absolutely incredible high points that are some of my all-time favorite moments in gaming, but with A LOT of junk bogging it all down. Reach was tight, focused, polished, while also being diverse and offering "something for everyone". Absolutely one of the best games ever made, IMHO.

I can't think of any. Maybe Super Mario World at the time, but ain't nothing as good as Destiny right now.

Halo Reach is better than Destiny. It's the pinnacle of Bungie games for me so far. It feels like a much more complete, coherent package than Destiny.

For me, Destiny is a game with absolutely incredible high points that are some of my all-time favorite moments in gaming, but with A LOT of junk bogging it all down. Reach was tight, focused, polished, while also being diverse and offering "something for everyone". Absolutely one of the best games ever made, IMHO.

It's simultaneously the worst Bungie-made Halo game. By far :^)

Ultimately, I think a lot of this stuff comes down to personal preference. Some people like games with lots of intricate systems and mechanics at play, others prefer games that are mechanically simple. I would also stress that simplistic mechanics can still allow deep gameplay. For me, that's actually the ideal situation. My favorite games are usually the ones that are quick to pick up, difficult to master. I like it when the mechanics are simple enough to grasp easily, but open-ended in a way that allows flexibility and improvisation. I think that was one of Halo's biggest advantages when it first launched. The way Bungie handled physics created a sort of "if you think something should be possible, then it probably is" situation that is still rare in videogames even today.

We'll have to agree to disagree there! I think it's the best by far.

We'll have to agree to disagree there! I think it's the best by far.

Playing MCC really solidified Reach's place at the top of the Halo mountain for me.

I love all of Bungie's Halo games in their own ways. They each have their strong suits. But Reach is the most complete all-around package, with the best sandbox, best campaign design, fantastic multiplayer, best forge mode, best theatre mode, best custom game options, etc. It also broke from the traditional Halo formula in a few ways, so I get why some Halo fans didn't click with it so much. To me, every single change was very much needed. The only thing Reach is missing IMO is the epic, huge-scale setpieces that made the Halo 3 campaign so memorable. Reach doesn't really have anything that matches the Scarab battles or the big vehicle rushes from the Halo 3 campaign.

Reach is damn near perfect.

Long Night of Solace more than makes up for the lack of something like the double Scarab fight in Halo 3, in my opinion. I think it's my favorite Halo level ever. Silent Cartographer beach landing, fighting into the facility, launching into space, dogfights in space, assaulting a Covenant carrier. It's got everything and the way it unfolds basically seamlessly . . . man, I'll never forget how giddy I was during that launch sequence and I realized what was happening.

- No text -

Reach is damn near perfect.

Long Night of Solace more than makes up for the lack of something like the double Scarab fight in Halo 3, in my opinion. I think it's my favorite Halo level ever. Silent Cartographer beach landing, fighting into the facility, launching into space, dogfights in space, assaulting a Covenant carrier. It's got everything and the way it unfolds basically seamlessly . . . man, I'll never forget how giddy I was during that launch sequence and I realized what was happening.

The seamlessness you refer to makes me want to compare it to what people like about No Man's Sky, except Reach had a purpose. (I say this as a fan of both.)

Reach is my deserted island Halo, but I repeat myself.

EDIT: I agree it's a better game than Destiny, but Reach didn't have raids, and I've heard Bungie devs refer to Destiny 1 as Halo: CE, implying that it will mature like Halo did.

What happened to Fun per Second??

That's the ultimate metric, yes.

But people have more fun with more detailed levels,

People have a ton of fun with Jet Set Radio and Borderlands, neither of which have extremely detailed levels. Previous generations' classics used repeated textures everywhere, and that didn't have a negative effect on the fun that people had with them.

better AI,

A developer (implied to be a Naughty Dog dev) shut the "better AI" thing down in an AAGD article. Imagine if the "balance of power" enemy AI in The Last of Us was way less forgiving, and way more aggressive. That wouldn't be fun, it would be terrible (heck, the game can be painfully unforgiving on its own already).

better music,

Limbo has essentially no music, and the game has a better atmosphere because of it.

smoother and more animations,

Nintendo games tend to have very limited animations. Heck, many games (such as Bloodborne/Souls games) explicitly use limited animations as a gameplay element. "Telegraphing" is a huge part of being able to combat enemy AI, and that's a big factor in the amount of fun that people have in games. How fun would a fight against a boss be in Dark Souls if he had a hundred different animations and attacks? Tying back to "better AI", how fun would the boss fight be if he was always able to counter your attacks?

etc. Fun and complexity are related.

Clearly not.

;)

I can't think of any. Maybe Super Mario World at the time, but ain't nothing as good as Destiny right now.

Halo Reach is better than Destiny. It's the pinnacle of Bungie games for me so far. It feels like a much more complete, coherent package than Destiny.

For me, Destiny is a game with absolutely incredible high points that are some of my all-time favorite moments in gaming, but with A LOT of junk bogging it all down. Reach was tight, focused, polished, while also being diverse and offering "something for everyone". Absolutely one of the best games ever made, IMHO.

So much good in Destiny is diluted by so much bad. Every single fun moment I've had in destiny is matched value for lack of value with a moment of sheer frustration at poor design, bad netcode, RNG-reliant drops, or boring grind.

EDIT: I agree it's a better game than Destiny, but Reach didn't have raids, and I've heard Bungie devs refer to Destiny 1 as Halo: CE, implying that it will mature like Halo did.

See, and that's where I hope they are wrong, in my opinion.

I think Halo was the best Halo game, but it didn't have XBL, so I normally put Halo 2 at the top of my list then. Assuming they all have XBL (and they do now on MCC, so I can rank this reasonably I think), Halo games have been on a steady decline since 2001, each one being worse than the last, with the exception of Halo 5, which I thought was better than Reach and Halo 4, on par with Halo 3.

However, the quality level of Halo games was so high, it's like Sgt. Pepper's versus Abbey Road, with a brief dip to Yellow Submarine/Halo 4. I understand why each person has his favorite Beatles record, and I understand why each person has his fave Halo game. If Destiny can continue Halo's track record, then I'm all for it, but I expect, considering the updates to Destiny so far, to see it in a slow decline, albeit with some ups and downs, from what I consider to be near perfection at launch. Doesn't matter. Will still play and buy as long as they're even similar.

I've put about 8ish hours into it at this point. I think they have a super solid base to work from. The basic UI, and getting people up to speed, needs improvement. It suffers from the minecraft-esque onboarding effect. I really shouldn't have to look up stuff on the web to play, but I have (once) already. And found out that I'm "randomly generated" stuck in my first solar system until I can find a material to make fuel to get to the next system. Due to my own ignorance, the game let me screw myself. :/

That said, so far it's an amazing piece of technical work and a taste of what is to come in the future.

That last sentence of yours really resonates with me. I get the feeling as I'm playing NMS that I'm peering through a portal into the future of video gaming. I spent an hour farting around on an island today and it was glorious.

EDIT: I agree it's a better game than Destiny, but Reach didn't have raids, and I've heard Bungie devs refer to Destiny 1 as Halo: CE, implying that it will mature like Halo did.

See, and that's where I hope they are wrong, in my opinion.

I think Halo was the best Halo game, but it didn't have XBL, so I normally put Halo 2 at the top of my list then. Assuming they all have XBL (and they do now on MCC, so I can rank this reasonably I think), Halo games have been on a steady decline since 2001, each one being worse than the last, with the exception of Halo 5, which I thought was better than Reach and Halo 4, on par with Halo 3.

However, the quality level of Halo games was so high, it's like Sgt. Pepper's versus Abbey Road, with a brief dip to Yellow Submarine/Halo 4. I understand why each person has his favorite Beatles record, and I understand why each person has his fave Halo game. If Destiny can continue Halo's track record, then I'm all for it, but I expect, considering the updates to Destiny so far, to see it in a slow decline, albeit with some ups and downs, from what I consider to be near perfection at launch. Doesn't matter. Will still play and buy as long as they're even similar.

I can't tell if you're serious. I think the game is better than it was at launch by miles, but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Interesting Beatles examples. The Beatles (and the Beach Boys) kind of invented the rock album, but Yellow Submarine doesn't really fit because there was no intention for it to be an album conceptually. It was a contractual obligation fleshed out with George Martin orchestration on side B. It's a bit like saying The House of Wolves isn't as good a game as Destiny. Interesting fact, though. Yellow Submarine was my first album purchased. I got lucky. Becoming obsessed with the Beatles gave me a good foundation to develop my superb musical taste. ;)

EDIT: I agree it's a better game than Destiny, but Reach didn't have raids, and I've heard Bungie devs refer to Destiny 1 as Halo: CE, implying that it will mature like Halo did.

See, and that's where I hope they are wrong, in my opinion.

I think Halo was the best Halo game, but it didn't have XBL, so I normally put Halo 2 at the top of my list then. Assuming they all have XBL (and they do now on MCC, so I can rank this reasonably I think), Halo games have been on a steady decline since 2001, each one being worse than the last, with the exception of Halo 5, which I thought was better than Reach and Halo 4, on par with Halo 3.

However, the quality level of Halo games was so high, it's like Sgt. Pepper's versus Abbey Road, with a brief dip to Yellow Submarine/Halo 4. I understand why each person has his favorite Beatles record, and I understand why each person has his fave Halo game. If Destiny can continue Halo's track record, then I'm all for it, but I expect, considering the updates to Destiny so far, to see it in a slow decline, albeit with some ups and downs, from what I consider to be near perfection at launch. Doesn't matter. Will still play and buy as long as they're even similar.

I can't tell if you're serious. I think the game is better than it was at launch by miles, but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree here.

We're talking about the man who says the April Update story mission is great, so...
;p <3

Can't a few people devote all their love and creativity to something without getting in return more money before-hand? It's obviously easier to find examples of more money=more work, but I'm sure a few crafts of love are more like same money=more work.

We'll have to agree to disagree there! I think it's the best by far.

Playing MCC really solidified Reach's place at the top of the Halo mountain for me.

I love all of Bungie's Halo games in their own ways. They each have their strong suits. But Reach is the most complete all-around package, with the best sandbox, best campaign design, fantastic multiplayer, best forge mode, best theatre mode, best custom game options, etc. It also broke from the traditional Halo formula in a few ways, so I get why some Halo fans didn't click with it so much. To me, every single change was very much needed. The only thing Reach is missing IMO is the epic, huge-scale setpieces that made the Halo 3 campaign so memorable. Reach doesn't really have anything that matches the Scarab battles or the big vehicle rushes from the Halo 3 campaign.

I think every Halo through Reach were affected by the circumstances that surrounded them in a way I don't really see in many other series.

I mean, just list 'em out and you can rattle off historically important likely never seen again in same way again moments.

This is probably how my parents feel about the music they listened to during their 20s. :P

But people have more fun with more detailed levels

Really? I don't, at least not generally speaking. If anything, I think modern AAA games are overly cluttered, even to visual detriment. A lot of games would look more pleasant and play more smoothly if a whole lot of details were simply not there.

better AI

What's "better?" Sometimes the extremely simple stuff is what works. Halo 1's AI works as well as it does specifically because they chose to express a single emotional state. AI in the original Doom just meanders toward you, and that's perfect in context.

better music

Doesn't always necessitate high complexity.

smoother and more animations

Depends. What do you need them for? Sometimes having a limited set makes a game more readable.

Furthermore, I'd contend that the push toward smooth hyper-real animations has bogged down controls tremendously over time. Making characters move in a realistic-looking way through complex environments requires sluggishness and some amount of decoupling from controls to character.

Silent Cartographer beach landing

In SC the destination is in sight when you land, and plowing through the enemy rows is an urgent, continuous-ish matter where aggression and tactics can be the difference between a quick win with surviving allies and a grind which results in no support later on. The LNoS landing has multiple distinct stages and little real urgency.

They're both good, but LNoS isn't a Silent Cartographer beach landing.

Interesting Beatles examples. The Beatles (and the Beach Boys) kind of invented the rock album, but Yellow Submarine doesn't really fit because there was no intention for it to be an album conceptually. It was a contractual obligation fleshed out with George Martin orchestration on side B. It's a bit like saying The House of Wolves isn't as good a game as Destiny. Interesting fact, though. Yellow Submarine was my first album purchased. I got lucky. Becoming obsessed with the Beatles gave me a good foundation to develop my superb musical taste. ;)

ODST and REACH were also contractual obligations.

Funny how that stuff works out.

EDIT: I agree it's a better game than Destiny, but Reach didn't have raids, and I've heard Bungie devs refer to Destiny 1 as Halo: CE, implying that it will mature like Halo did.

See, and that's where I hope they are wrong, in my opinion.

I think Halo was the best Halo game, but it didn't have XBL, so I normally put Halo 2 at the top of my list then. Assuming they all have XBL (and they do now on MCC, so I can rank this reasonably I think), Halo games have been on a steady decline since 2001, each one being worse than the last, with the exception of Halo 5, which I thought was better than Reach and Halo 4, on par with Halo 3.

However, the quality level of Halo games was so high, it's like Sgt. Pepper's versus Abbey Road, with a brief dip to Yellow Submarine/Halo 4. I understand why each person has his favorite Beatles record, and I understand why each person has his fave Halo game. If Destiny can continue Halo's track record, then I'm all for it, but I expect, considering the updates to Destiny so far, to see it in a slow decline, albeit with some ups and downs, from what I consider to be near perfection at launch. Doesn't matter. Will still play and buy as long as they're even similar.

I can't tell if you're serious. I think the game is better than it was at launch by miles, but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Nah. Nobody believes me. I legitimately think the game was best literally at launch, up until they made purples turn into purples, which ended up being awesome, but forced the start of what I consider the bad patches (read: every one that didn't buff shotguns or gunslinger). It was the most fun. The vendor guns were good, I liked Queen's Wrath a lot, the armor was good, the RNG made the guns that you'd get actually worthwhile, I thought it was awesome.

All the new updates have done good stuff, like adding in story missions and new gear, but the gear has gotten worse and worse, with the exception of House Of Wolves Trials armor. And, not only that, but the old gear has gotten worse as well. Not even just with new missions, but they nerfed it all anyway. The reason I continue to play Destiny is because it's fun, and by making the guns worse, they're making the game less fun.

They have to make the guns worse because they playerbase whines constantly about getting drops. I played heroic strikes for 90 minutes last night and got 2 exotics and 5 legendaries, plus filled my postmaster with blues. All worthless. That's insanity. Bingle's pacifying the whiny players by making it appear that they are fixing the problems, but they're actually making the problem more annoying, and they have continued to do this.

"We want good loot!" Fine, here's tons of exotics and purples. By the way they're all the same and they all suck.
"We want guaranteed quest based loot!" Fine, here's some and it all sucks except for the swords or is highly conditional.
"We want levels to reflect our experience!" Fine, now they do. By the way, levels no longer matter and now the only important stat is hidden.
"We want cloaks to have a purpose!" Fine, we gave them a purpose. Now you're stuck wearing only one with nice perks. lol.
"We want ghosts to have a purpose!" Here you are, we made an unbelievably grindy quest step for the swords so you have a benefit for them. Also glimmer is now nerfed from consumables.
"We want more heavy ammo!" Great! Xur sells it every week. Good luck carrying more than 6 rockets at a time, and it's now more expensive.

Every time this happens, the game gets worse in my opinion, and it happens frequently. I have less fun playing this game.

Maybe you'd like to rethink your stance?

No. All other things being equal, complexity is better. Crisis 3 had shit design. So not all things were equal. That's like saying you shouldn't use quality ingredients in food because one time someone did and they burned it, meanwhile the low quality ingredients were cooked properly.

A developer (implied to be a Naughty Dog dev) shut the "better AI" thing down in an AAGD article. Imagine if the "balance of power" enemy AI in The Last of Us was way less forgiving, and way more aggressive. That wouldn't be fun, it would be terrible (heck, the game can be painfully unforgiving on its own already).

Harder is not better. There are numerous ways to make Ai better, not the least of which being giving them more interesting behaviors or the ability to move around the level in cool ways. What if when knocked around with an explosion the AI dynamically tries to balance itself with arms and legs? Stuff like that.

…the story.

- No text -

- No text -

Maybe you'd like to rethink your stance?

No. All other things being equal, complexity is better. Crisis 3 had shit design. So not all things were equal. That's like saying you shouldn't use quality ingredients in food because one time someone did and they burned it, meanwhile the low quality ingredients were cooked properly.

Fascinating...

So:

1. If you have more money you can make your game better.
1a. Unless you squander that extra money.
2. As games get more complex, so do budgets get bigger.
3. Said complexity is the new baseline for "good"
3a. But only if all other things are equal to the point that comparing a pair of AAA FPSes doesn't count.
4. Your game may be "good" but not good compared to other games if you don't have the budget to hit the complexity that is expected of modern games.
4a. Unless you cook with low quality ingredients or burn your food while cooking.
5. Therefore cheap games aren't amazing anymore, and don't push the medium forward.
5a. Unless they were more fun because their design was better.
6. Exceptions only for genres where the measure of worth is not nessesarily about software complexity (visual novels, etc)
7. MMORPGs are Objectively Bad.
8. Any game with an investment system is automatically worse than any game with no investment.
9. Halo Reach is not a cannon.
10. Micro transactions always decrease game quality.
11. DLC is not as good as an expansion pack.

That's pretty confusing! Did I leave anything out??

*canon

Like the printer/scanner/camera company.

- No text -

That's pretty confusing! Did I leave anything out??

10. Micro transactions always decrease game quality.
11. DLC is not as good as an expansion pack.

- No text -

- No text -

I've put about 8ish hours into it at this point. I think they have a super solid base to work from. The basic UI, and getting people up to speed, needs improvement. It suffers from the minecraft-esque onboarding effect. I really shouldn't have to look up stuff on the web to play, but I have (once) already. And found out that I'm "randomly generated" stuck in my first solar system until I can find a material to make fuel to get to the next system. Due to my own ignorance, the game let me screw myself. :/

That said, so far it's an amazing piece of technical work and a taste of what is to come in the future.

That last sentence of yours really resonates with me. I get the feeling as I'm playing NMS that I'm peering through a portal into the future of video gaming. I spent an hour farting around on an island today and it was glorious.

I think you can do that without feeling like you're wasting time because time doesn’t mean as much in a game that’s impossible to finish. Spending time in the game is its own reward. I also think what slycrel said about the game letting you screw yourself can be an asset. Let me explain.

I spent about an hour lost in a cave the other night and I didn't mind it, even though I nearly drowned trying to swim my way out. Knowing the tech behind the game affects the experience. In a normal game, you can't forget that the devs allowed you to get into situations like that, and that knowledge feeds frustration. In contrast, the worlds in NMS are what they are--they don't exist for your pleasure. God doesn't build escape hatches into real caves, and this NMS cave didn't have an intended exit either (unlike every cave in every Uncharted game). Because of this verisimilitude, my mild panic over being lost had a real edge. I thought to myself, "No youtube video is going to help me out of this." I stopped, took a breath, and asked myself what I would really do. I then started following a wall. Yes, that’s a standard strategy, but my point is any other decent game would've designed the cave to minimize player frustration based on numerous playtests with gamers who know the language of gaming (e.g., the lighting might clue them in on where to go, and they’d never get to the point of thinking about what they’d really do if they were lost).

I believe that the secret sauce of NMS is the awareness the game gives you that this time you’re not in yet another finely calibrated experience--another digital version of the Truman Show starring you, and this lack of artifice, this non-gamey naturalness more than compensates for any gamey aspects, or the lousy UI, the pop-in assets, and so on. NMS isn't (yet?) available in VR, but as is it does a pretty good job of providing a virtual reality psychologically.

Such good points. I find myself being really careful as I move around because I know there's no invisible wall to stop me from just walking off of a cliff (I almost fell into a giant pit last night but was saved by a tiny outcropping. I actually gasped when I saw the hole I'd barely missed. Games haven't affected me in this way in a very, very long time. Maybe not since Halo 1.

If it does well I bet it'll get a bone release.

Not for a good while, I think. Sony doesn't own HG but whatever they contributed, it was to keep the game on the PS4 as long as possible.

Windows launch is in 14 hours.

I feel like we should sticky this ;p

It was barely noticeable, but I grant the context isn't very flattering

- No text -

Even though I disagree and think House of Wolves was the best period of Destiny. The best part of Destiny (and the reason I rank it higher than any other game mentioned this thread) is the actual gameplay. The mechanics of playing the game (aka the only thing that matters) are phenomenal. It doesn't matter how good the story is if the game isn't fun to play.

However, the constant nerfing is definitely cutting into how well the game plays, or at the very least how fun it is to play. I would be perfectly fine if the next expansion had literally no story, a couple of cool strikes and an awesome raid with fun weapons to earn through completion. Complaints about lack of content are valid, but just point to how fantastic the actual game is.

I am currently on a tropical planet that's mostly ocean with islands dotted around. I spent a long time exploring the sea and island hopping. Ended up over 40 minutes from ship (according to that little read out), couldn't find a beacon to call it to me, so I had to swim back to it. In any other game, this would have probably had me cursing and ultimately quitting the game. Not here, though--I just happily swam back, exploring sea caves and islands as I went.

What you are describing is what you'll ostensibly get in Rise of Iron. Game informer said the story was very light and not on the same level of TTK.

Yeah, but I think we aren't getting cool strikes or weapons.

- No text -

This is the greatest GIF of all time.

- No text -

- No text -

I love me some Destiny, but it's not even Top 10.

Shame about that Reach thing :p

- No text -

I found both ODST and Reach a refreshing shift from focusing on Master Chief's superheroic feats. The former was certainly fun, but I liked the smaller, weaker characters in grittier, more realistic environments. The Reach story didn't always succeed but it had a hard job--developing multiple new characters and relationships in one game (that didn't lean on previously established Firefly characters). Reach's story shined brightest in its setting and tone, and in those areas it succeeded wonderfully. It's a different kind of Halo game, and I, for one, was ready for it. Not to everyone's taste, but Reach was a savory dish compared the hot fudge sundae that was Halo 3.

Such good points. I find myself being really careful as I move around because I know there's no invisible wall to stop me from just walking off of a cliff (I almost fell into a giant pit last night but was saved by a tiny outcropping. I actually gasped when I saw the hole I'd barely missed. Games haven't affected me in this way in a very, very long time. Maybe not since Halo 1.

I'm with you. There was many times that Halo succeeded in giving the sensation of a limitless world. Regarding staying close to the ship, there were many times in that cave where it seemed I was very close to the ship but I couldn't find a way out. Haven't tried this yet, but I've since learned I might have been able to blow a hole in the ceiling.

The Reach story didn't always succeed but it had a hard job--developing multiple new characters and relationships in one game

But ODST did that aspect better. I'm not saying ODST was a huge success (the characters were certainly more interesting than Reach, however the story structure undercut drama), but I think it proves it's certainly possible to introduce new people we care about. I have softened my stance against ODST over the years. It fares much better than Reach in my opinion in terms of story. Reach fares better in terms of game.

So, after talking with 30-40 traders, I was able to purchase the item that I needed to move on. My beef with "screwing myself" was that I had no idea if I actually could do that or if I had to restart the game. There are some rough edges like that.

So, after talking with 30-40 traders, I was able to purchase the item that I needed to move on. My beef with "screwing myself" was that I had no idea if I actually could do that or if I had to restart the game. There are some rough edges like that.

The factories with doors you have to shoot open also can drop recipes to craft most of these items as well. I learned that after spending a small fortune on a few of them. Of course, those factories are hard to find.

The Reach story didn't always succeed but it had a hard job--developing multiple new characters and relationships in one game

But ODST did that aspect better. I'm not saying ODST was a huge success (the characters were certainly more interesting than Reach, however the story structure undercut drama), but I think it proves it's certainly possible to introduce new people we care about. I have softened my stance against ODST over the years. It fares much better than Reach in my opinion in terms of story. Reach fares better in terms of game.

Did ODST succeed, though? As Kermit pointed out, I feel like they were mainly just the Firefly cast dropped in with new names. I'm not sure the game did much at all in that regard.

Sounds like the PC version is an un-optimized dumpster fire at the moment.

I tried it, and the game felt slow, clunky, and dull. But I'm not a sophisticated gamer.

Also every 10 seconds it would freeze for a minute as if I didn't have enough VRAM. I bet they're getting haaaaaaaaaaaammered in Steam refunds.

My understanding is that that recipe can only be found in the second solar system (or beyond, potentially), and you get it from the first factory you visit.

Regardless, I don't love that I thought I was stuck. The UI was asking me to jump, and I couldn't find the antimatter component to buy from the space station or regular trading terminals that I needed to make fuel to jump. Just had to let RNG take care of it, but there was no indication that that was even possible or not -- so I thought I was stuck.

OTOH, looking for that I made a bunch of money and upgraded to a nicer ship in the second solar system. =)

I tried it, and the game felt slow, clunky, and dull. But I'm not a sophisticated gamer.

Also every 10 seconds it would freeze for a minute as if I didn't have enough VRAM. I bet they're getting haaaaaaaaaaaammered in Steam refunds.

So much for that Day 1 patch.

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/764152548815241216

Constant crashing sounds like more fun than the gameplay, tbh.

Constant crashing sounds like more fun than the gameplay, tbh.

Dude. I've never met you, and I've only played with you once or twice (not really enough to get a sense of who you are, in person), but I swear to god, you sound like Eeyore on this forum. After I've read a half-dozen of your posts, I want to hire someone in your neighborhood to visit your house and hug you. It really seems like you need it.

Too carefree and gullible. Sets an awful example for children.

- No text -

Well, this is actually the Lightberry, the Raspberry Pi version of it, but the same effect.

Found over at /r/NoMansHigh on reddit.

I think I'm going to order one.

Well, this is actually the Lightberry, the Raspberry Pi version of it, but the same effect.

Found over at /r/NoMansHigh on reddit.

I think I'm going to order one.

I'm not sure I would admit going on that subreddit. :P

Look, I totally get that it's not your point, but if you remember Pooh as being carefree you need to reread/rewatch.

But he might not have been, idk. Maybe was thinking piglet.

Too carefree and gullible.

- No text -

Just wanting to be an ass. Like Eeyore.

- No text -

Constant crashing sounds like more fun than the gameplay, tbh.

Dude. I've never met you, and I've only played with you once or twice (not really enough to get a sense of who you are, in person), but I swear to god, you sound like Eeyore on this forum. After I've read a half-dozen of your posts, I want to hire someone in your neighborhood to visit your house and hug you. It really seems like you need it.

You should play with him for... well, hours. Hugs wouldn't cut it. Doubt crystal meth would cut it.
He's like Zero, but without the enthusiasm.

He's like Zero, but without the enthusiasm.

Savage.

I'm nowhere near as good as Zero.

I'm nowhere near as good as Zero.

- No text -

- No text -