Lets just have a quick look at your post to which you have asserted that I derived a strawman argument from. Where I derived that your evaluation of the DLC is quantitative based instead of qualitative.

I'm not really familiar with DLC outside of Halo,* and it's hard to compare it to Destiny, so I wasn't trying to, but maybe I still was comparing it on some level.
The multiplayer maps, as I meant to say, have basically no worth to me. I have no control over what maps I play other than excluding some depending on the playlist I pick, and my control over what I play on them is very limited too. I can't even pick one map or another or even veto a map. I have yet to play on several on-disk maps; having more to randomly possibly doesn't do anything for me.
The strike is kind of nice, but there's only one. It's just hard to get excited over one more of something.
The raid is kind of nice, but again there's only one.
The story missions are kind of nice, but there are only three, which compared to how many there are already is actually less of an increase than one more strike (for Xbox players), and they're now confirmed to use a lot of geometry that was already created, and I think it's a given there won't be any new enemies or any big changes in how the game plays. Now that I think about it this strike (or these strikes) and these story missions probably won't come up for weekly and daily heroics or bounties either.
It doesn't seem worth it because it's not that much stuff, and because I'm getting less than other people for the same price (albeit not a lot less), and because it just doesn't appeal to me that much.
* side note: I'm not even that familiar with buying Halo DLC, I didn't get into Halo 2 until all its DLC was free, I Halo 3's paid DLC via ODST, I was given some of the DLC for Reach and Halo 4 for winning contests or just because, and I eventually got all of Halo 4's DLC through the game of the year edition

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the post above and incorrectly painted it as an argument strongly about quantity rather than quality. If you indeed have feelings about the DLC's quality which would involve an interesting amount of theory and conjecture rather than judging it by the quantity of the content, then I'm sorry to have strawmanned the hell out of the above post. I would also say, damn, you should work on the clarity of what you're writing, because I'd say the above post was misleading regarding what you actually care about.

Maybe saying it was a strawman was too much, but I do care about quality. I can't prove that to you any more than you can prove I'm more concerned about quantity (because they're both internal to my mind), so I don't know what you're looking for. I will say my posts in this thread certainly imply more care about quantity, but that's because that's the thing I'm pointing out as an issue. I can't judge the quality of it ahead of time anyway-- if I tried, that reasoning would be more suspect than anything I've said above.
Also, resorting to calling fallacies? I know logical fallacies are associated with pale neckbearded autistic nerds, but they're valid concerns and problems that show up with arguments. I try to not bring them up because they're usually serious issues when they do show up and because of those associations, and maybe I should be more careful still, but to say that like it's an insult... I don't know....

I'm not really familiar with DLC outside of Halo,* and it's hard to compare it to Destiny, so I wasn't trying to, but maybe I still was comparing it on some level.
The multiplayer maps, as I meant to say, have basically no worth to me. I have no control over what maps I play other than excluding some depending on the playlist I pick, and my control over what I play on them is very limited too. I can't even pick one map or another or even veto a map. I have yet to play on several on-disk maps; having more to randomly possibly doesn't do anything for me.
The strike is kind of nice, but there's only one. It's just hard to get excited over one more of something.
The raid is kind of nice, but again there's only one.
The story missions are kind of nice, but there are only three, which compared to how many there are already is actually less of an increase than one more strike (for Xbox players), and they're now confirmed to use a lot of geometry that was already created, and I think it's a given there won't be any new enemies or any big changes in how the game plays. Now that I think about it this strike (or these strikes) and these story missions probably won't come up for weekly and daily heroics or bounties either.
It doesn't seem worth it because it's not that much stuff, and because I'm getting less than other people for the same price (albeit not a lot less), and because it just doesn't appeal to me that much.
* side note: I'm not even that familiar with buying Halo DLC, I didn't get into Halo 2 until all its DLC was free, I Halo 3's paid DLC via ODST, I was given some of the DLC for Reach and Halo 4 for winning contests or just because, and I eventually got all of Halo 4's DLC through the game of the year edition

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the post above and incorrectly painted it as an argument strongly about quantity rather than quality. If you indeed have feelings about the DLC's quality which would involve an interesting amount of theory and conjecture rather than judging it by the quantity of the content, then I'm sorry to have strawmanned the hell out of the above post. I would also say, damn, you should work on the clarity of what you're writing, because I'd say the above post was misleading regarding what you actually care about.

But I'll definitely concede that it's more varied than Destiny, and one of the reasons I went back to playing Skyrim again, is specifically the misrepresentation of the expansiveness of Destiny. They really did more or less say 'If you can see it, you can go there.' A promise that was broken within my first 10 seconds in the Cosmodrome. Maybe they were actually playing an Elder Scrolls game in that part of the interview....

GTA 5: 20 times larger map? 50 times? 1,000,000 times more story and plot? ∞ times better voice acting?

Skyrim: 100+ hours of voice acted, non-repetitive story missions, PLUS a map that takes literal hours to walk across.

Assassin's Creed 4: Massive open map, more than 60 hours of only semi-repetitive voiced story missions and gameplay.

These are games that are more than worth the price of admission. But to be fair, there are other games that don't match this at all:

Titanfall: Literally zero story. Great gameplay. Each map is roughly akin to a destiny area in size.

I'm sure there are others.

But the fact is that Destiny was billed as a massive, open world(s) to explore, with quotes like "if you see mountains in the distance, you can go there" which are just patently false. Am I having fun playing it? Sure. But the game was sold to me as HUGE and EXPANSIVE but it's really not.

Graphics: Amazing
Sound: Incredible
Gameplay: Fun
Story: Basically none.
Mission Design: Terrible and repetitive. Mission 2 features you literally walking back through part of the end of mission 1. So dumb.
Voice Acting: Generally good acting completely overshadowed by how god-awful Peter Dinklage is as the primary signposter. Stunt casting at its worst.
Size and Scope: Far less than advertised, and made to seem even smaller because so many of the missions in the game are all the same. Why are the weekly nightfall and weekly heroic strikes always the same strikes? That just forces us to play the same mission over again, which is boring as hell. It's like game design 101 to mix these things up. Why is so much of the game text-based instead of voiced? How come there's zero backstory and zero in-game plot to motivate your actions? There's clearly been loads of stuff written by Bungie about the game world and its mythos, as evidenced in the grimoire cards, so why is ZERO of that in the actual game?

Instead of being the game I was planning on playing for the next 10 years, Destiny has turned into the game I plan on scrapping as soon as the next moderately interesting game comes out. For me, that'll probably be The Division.

As for the xpac, you're getting your $20 worth if you believed that the $15 per xpac you paid for CoD was worth it. Think of it like this: If you could buy two movie tickets for $20, you'd get about 4 hours of movie out of that. So if you get 4 hours of gameplay from it, you're even.

I suspect those sorts of maps are a lot less fun when everyone can spawn with Sniper Rifles :-/

Good point. Unless you really like sniping...

I feel like a lot of the multiplayer design that I don't like simply comes back to the way they've designed their weapon system. Basically, the possibilities are being limited because they can't control it. This is an excellent example; since we can't control whether someone has a sniper rifle, we will just have to design all of our maps to limit its usefulness. If that's how things are going to be, I'd prefer to go back to weapon spawns.

Though another possibility might be to distinguish ammo types further. If they could control where shotgun versus sniper ammo spawned, instead of just general secondary ammo, it would go a long way towards fixing that particular limitation, which would allow for more flexibility in map design.

It's just hard to get excited over one more of something.

This is some arbitrary nonsense.

It's how I feel. Feelings are known for being arbitrary and nonsensical.

It certainly can be hard to get excited about one more of something that you don't particular care for in the first place.

I like the strikes, but one more doesn't impress me, it doesn't make me want to spend money... maybe if it was like $3. Two strikes would be nicer, but that's not an option, and it would only bump up the price I'm comfortable with by a bit, like to $7 maybe. I haven't played the raid, I'm hoping it impresses me, but I don't think another one would be worth $20 to me, and I'm not sure two more for $35 is much better.
The multiplayer maps I don't particularly care for, that much is true, but we're getting more than one, and I still don't particularly care.

It's this type of quantity over quality logic that really bothers me and has lead to a lot of games that have padded out game times because people just want more, not necessarily better.

I didn't say I value quantity over quality, but that's a nice strawman you built. Seriously, it is, there's a legitimate concern there, but I don't think it applies in this case. I'm definitely also concerned about quality, and with so few strikes even just one more is relatively significant, but then that's part of the problem, isn't it? They sold us four worlds, four (or five) strikes, one raid, and some multiplayer maps that we may or may not even get to play, and now they want to sell us a fraction of a world's worth of story missions that aren't even on a new world, one more strike (two if you're lucky), one more raid, and some more multiplayer maps that we presumably also may or may not get to play.
That's not to say I feel cheated, I don't agree with or even understand the argument that we were lied to about the scope and size of the game, except for the way they talked about Saturn and Mercury, and the one comment about how we could go to every place that's visible from the beginning of the first mission, which always seemed a bit too good to be true to me. OK, so I feel let down and a little mislead there, but the worlds are about as big and mostly as well done as I hoped, I just was looking for there to be more of them, and to have organic boundaries instead of bullshit invisible walls and kill barriers, but that second part seems very rare indeed.

Let's talk after you've played a Raid, which is a special experience for many, and may be for you, too. I bet it changes the equation.

Think of it like this: If you could buy two movie tickets for $20, you'd get about 4 hours of movie out of that. So if you get 4 hours of gameplay from it, you're even.

Yes because all experiences are the same, and a ten second orgasm is worth the same as ten seconds of playing Halo.

Playtime is not a valuable way to assess game quality.
Playtime for money is an even WORSE way to assess game quality.

TLOU: Left Behind was $20 and was about two hours long, if that.
Minerva's Den was $10, and was about five or six hours long...

Both gave me what I wanted for my money's worth, and I won't complain that LB gave me far less time than MD...

What he was saying was not that "if it's 4 hours long, you can't complain about paying $20". What he meant was that people will happily pay $20 for a two-hour movie that they might not even like, but for some reason, they go crazy with paying as much for small DLC, despite the fact that you theoretically would get the same amount of time with it on your first playthrough, knowing that it won't be ALL you get out of it, unlike a movie ticket, and if you're paying for DLC, then obviously you enjoy the game enough to shell out money for it. And you'll have more content to spend time with friends on...

Then again, I'm one of the folks who'll pay $60 for a Treyarch Call of Duty with the Campaign story as my biggest draw, and I'll still buy the Season pass, because the multiplayer is balanced and fun to play with others even if it's not my style, and the Zombie's mode is fun for some mindless shooting.

If it's outside, yeah. It doesn't seem to make a lot of story sense though, unless it's supposed to be after a long while. We only just found and got into the Black Garden, it's hard to think it would be safe or well-understood already, which seem to be criteria for Crucible arenas.

Well to be fair, Firebase Delphi is right next to, if not in, the Exclusion Zone. They even have Cabal dropships pass over it every few minutes.

Just read the descriptions for the new maps and realized that Pantheon is listed symmetric. Is this the first symmetric map? The only one close I can think of is The Anomaly, but even that is only roughly symmetrical (the outside parts are very different as far as I can tell). I'm very curious to see how symmetrical Pantheon is. Are we talking exactly the same, or only roughly the same?

good questions

Also, the Black Garden seems like a gorgeous place to have a multiplayer map.

If it's outside, yeah. It doesn't seem to make a lot of story sense though, unless it's supposed to be after a long while. We only just found and got into the Black Garden, it's hard to think it would be safe or well-understood already, which seem to be criteria for Crucible arenas.

It's just hard to get excited over one more of something.

This is some arbitrary nonsense.

It's how I feel. Feelings are known for being arbitrary and nonsensical.

It certainly can be hard to get excited about one more of something that you don't particular care for in the first place.

I like the strikes, but one more doesn't impress me, it doesn't make me want to spend money... maybe if it was like $3. Two strikes would be nicer, but that's not an option, and it would only bump up the price I'm comfortable with by a bit, like to $7 maybe. I haven't played the raid, I'm hoping it impresses me, but I don't think another one would be worth $20 to me, and I'm not sure two more for $35 is much better.
The multiplayer maps I don't particularly care for, that much is true, but we're getting more than one, and I still don't particularly care.

It's this type of quantity over quality logic that really bothers me and has lead to a lot of games that have padded out game times because people just want more, not necessarily better.

I didn't say I value quantity over quality, but that's a nice strawman you built. Seriously, it is, there's a legitimate concern there, but I don't think it applies in this case. I'm definitely also concerned about quality, and with so few strikes even just one more is relatively significant, but then that's part of the problem, isn't it? They sold us four worlds, four (or five) strikes, one raid, and some multiplayer maps that we may or may not even get to play, and now they want to sell us a fraction of a world's worth of story missions that aren't even on a new world, one more strike (two if you're lucky), one more raid, and some more multiplayer maps that we presumably also may or may not get to play.
That's not to say I feel cheated, I don't agree with or even understand the argument that we were lied to about the scope and size of the game, except for the way they talked about Saturn and Mercury, and the one comment about how we could go to every place that's visible from the beginning of the first mission, which always seemed a bit too good to be true to me. OK, so I feel let down and a little mislead there, but the worlds are about as big and mostly as well done as I hoped, I just was looking for there to be more of them, and to have organic boundaries instead of bullshit invisible walls and kill barriers, but that second part seems very rare indeed.

I've played through the M2 campaign countless times back in the day, but unfortunately, the 360 version makes me queasy.

Queasy like, "man, why would I buy this?" or queasy like, "man I SWORE I would never eat movie-theater cheese nachos, ever again"?

The latter. It's a known issue. They even patched it in an attempt to fix it.

I've played through the M2 campaign countless times back in the day, but unfortunately, the 360 version makes me queasy.

Queasy like, "man, why would I buy this?" or queasy like, "man I SWORE I would never eat movie-theater cheese nachos, ever again"?

The latter. It's a known issue. They even patched it in an attempt to fix it.

I've played through the M2 campaign countless times back in the day, but unfortunately, the 360 version makes me queasy.

Queasy like, "man, why would I buy this?" or queasy like, "man I SWORE I would never eat movie-theater cheese nachos, ever again"?