It seems you just refuse to acknowledge this, or disagree, as I've mentioned things to this effect quite often; if it's the latter, I'd really like to hear why you believe that the genre as a whole is actually bad, as opposed to just one you dislike.

The very raison d'etre of MMOs - a semi persistent game world populated by actual humans - necessitates the inclusion of bad mechanics in order to work. Working means having players log on and stay in the world, hence the MMO part.

Quite simply, players will not log on and play unless there is something to do. It is economically unfeasible to constantly create new content every day so players can play something they haven't before. It takes longer to create content than to play. So unless you have a team of 10,000 people working in a staggered assembly line releasing new missions every day, then it's not going to work. If people blow through your content, they won't log in, and you will not have the Massively Multiplayer part.

The solution? Simply make stuff take way longer than it needs to. Hence leveling, grinding, etc. On principle, this makes MMOs bad because they require this to work, unless content creation gets a lot faster.

Destiny would have been better off focusing on being a good FPS game with heavy Co-Op elements. In that case, it wouldn't matter how how quickly you and your friends mastered the content.

Not being something you like isn't the same as being bad.

It seems you just refuse to acknowledge this, or disagree, as I've mentioned things to this effect quite often; if it's the latter, I'd really like to hear why you believe that the genre as a whole is actually bad, as opposed to just one you dislike.

It has less to do with changing the world permanently, and simply it all fitting together. Everybody plays the story missions, so it would have been trivial to have a story sequence, be it a cutscene, or NPC dialogue to have other characters at least acknowledge that things have changed.

This is still seeking a linear narrative, and I don't think Destiny is really that kind of narrative. Any persistent game will lack a true "beginning, middle, and an end" story. You can save your progress, play the game backwards, and generally break the fourth dimension as we typically understand it.

Destiny is a step further, at least as I understand it. I experienced it more like the Pendragon cycle: an oral history of the adventures of individual heroes, all completing quests for a higher, unknowable purpose. It might be years before all of that can be expressed, but what we have now are legends being formed. Our actions in later years may recall our actions now.

Time as we understand it isn't going to be helpful, because in a lot of ways, like the legends of Arthur or Roland or Charlemagne, we're dealing with a timeless space. Near identical stories happen all over the place with different names in the place of earlier ones. Fights almost always end with one hero or villain winning and the other fleeing. In the Iliad, Hector fights Ajax or Achilles or Odysseus twenty times with no resolution: some God comes in and sweeps up the loser in their moment of peril.

This is my interpretation of events. It doesn't have to be yours, but it could be helpful for you to approach it from different angles. We have the benefit now of hindsight with Halo: we can understand its narrative holistically and linearly. That's not the case (as far as I believe) with Destiny. At least right now, resolution isn't necessarily going to be helpful.

You had a cutscene with the speaker after you destroyed the heart, yet the tower remained the same. That's better than what we got.

I don't understand this. Did PS4 not have that cutscene?

You had a cutscene with the speaker after you destroyed the heart, yet the tower remained the same. That's better than what we got.

That's because such a game is simply a better genre. Not all genres are created equal, and MMOs are inherently bad. You are right: I want the good parts of Destiny without the bad.

Also Halo had no problem changing things despite the fact I beat the Maw 500 times.

Woof. The subjectivity of this statement is so counterproductive I don't even know how to respond to it.

It seems to me that you want more narrative impact on the game world, but the stative nature of persistent online games prevents the narrative closure you're used to in a game? You've stated it in such a way that someone would literally have to be you to understand what you mean. What generic modes of narrative storytelling actually apply to Destiny? You've brought expectations to this game, but I don't think that Bungie wanted to spoon-feed it to you like Halo did. They wanted to give you an environment to craft your own storytelling in.

You have! You and cruellegacy and speedracer and Korny (apologies on spelling, all) have crafted your own brand of storytelling in your raid exploits. You have shared experiences, both in successes and failures, that are most likely unparalleled in any game you've ever played. If you can think of any game that can deliver a new narrative experience ad infinitum, you're probably going to be disappointed. I don't know that Destiny would even work if Bungie was just telling the same story over and over. It works because the narrative burden is on the player, and each player can approach it with their own take.

If you just want another Halo, that's on you. Bungie never promised another Halo. They didn't want to make it. Perhaps they found it creatively stifling? Maybe you're not interested in crafting your own narrative within this game. I can certainly tell you that you've crafted a narrative on this forum, and frankly, it's awfully narrow, repetitive, and simplistic. All things you've accused Destiny's story of being.

There are time when you are in an open area with other people, then you cross over into a darkness zone, and you are basically in an instance all by yourself. This allows Bungie to create a unique experience that only you and your fireteam see/interact with. These areas are usually set places, that even if you go there in patrol, you will be by yourself.

But, there is a precedent for having public places be in their own unique instance as well. Think to the first moon mission, you don't have a sparrow yet, and you have to activate a terminal. That lights up the rail thing in Archer's line, which is not lit up, or making any sounds throughout the rest of the game's missions or patrol.

In the mission "Exclusion Zone" you activate a computer in a public area, and are fighting wave after wave of cabal out in the open on the Barrens. Again, this is a public space, but you are the only one there.

I think what Cody was asking is that in the circumstance of you playing through new content for the first time, instances of the game could be created to where things are different while you are in the mission. Perhaps the cosmodrone could be darker, or more hivey, until you clear it out. I'm thinking about Borderland's Tiny Tina's Assualt on the Dragon Keep. The first mission starts out all beautiful and sterile, and then changes right before your eyes to dark, dead, and dirty. Once you defeat the handsome wizard, it changes back to bright blue skies and rainbows.

Maybe Bungie can do something like this going forward. I think it would be a neat touch, definitely not a deal breaker though.

Honestly, Cody, your complaints are valid (if repetitive) but what it boils down to is you don't want a better Destiny, you want a different game-- or rather, you want the parts of Destiny you like wrapped in something more like what you're used to-- the cutscene-driven single player FPS. In other words, more Halo.

That's because such a game is simply a better genre. Not all genres are created equal, and MMOs are inherently bad. You are right: I want the good parts of Destiny without the bad.

Also Halo had no problem changing things despite the fact I beat the Maw 500 times.

Nothing about these stories in the Dark below feel like they have any effect on the world. Neither the speaker, anybody at the tower, or your ghost seems to mention, react, or be affected in any way by these developments and Eris' arrival.

Just like Destroying the heart, you have no context for how this actually effects things.

They can't. You're going to be doing these things over and over for years. They can't change the world in any noticeable way.

If killing Crota or destroying the Black Heart changed anything, who would it change it for, and for how long? What would happen in public spaces where people meet and half of them are coming back from doing that mission, and the other half are heading out to do that mission?

Honestly, Cody, your complaints are valid (if repetitive) but what it boils down to is you don't want a better Destiny, you want a different game-- or rather, you want the parts of Destiny you like wrapped in something more like what you're used to-- the cutscene-driven single player FPS. In other words, more Halo.

I haven't played the DLC yet but I bet the objective is "go to a spot. Press X. Kill guys until you press X again."

Actually there is no x pressing, which is cool!

Actually it's not. When missions end after killing a boss, you only get 30 seconds to explore the space to look for ghosts and things, so I prefer missions end with Press X to Scan Something or Other. Even if it does sound silly and offers yet another opportunity to heckle the Dinklebot.

Personally I like the idea of the Sparrow NOT despawning. I'd rather it sits around until you leave the area or summon another one.

But what if you block a door and your fireteam can't pass it?

Destroying it is an inconvenience, and sometimes a dangerous one. Other times, it might get stuck in level geometry...

I would be okay with it sticking around a couple of seconds longer, since you usually only get off to pick up stuff before you're on your way again...

Nothing about these stories in the Dark below feel like they have any effect on the world. Neither the speaker, anybody at the tower, or your ghost seems to mention, react, or be affected in any way by these developments and Eris' arrival.

Well, we'll continue to disagree, since I simply don't feel that way. In addition to the in-game cinematic and dialogue, the Grimoire has a great conversation between Eris and Ikora about how she returned to the Tower and was allowed to remain to assemble forces to assault Crota, even if the rest of the Tower didn't believe her.

You can reject the Grimoire if you don't like it, but I really enjoy reading it after I unlock a card and before I fall asleep. It's become a nice routine. Then the next time I go back to Destiny, I have a little more lore in my head to apply to the world I'm playing in. Of course, I'd like to see the Grimoire be readable in-game as well, but this is how Bungie's telling part of the story.

A lot of it comes down to liking the game and investing yourself in it. When a game (or anything for that matter) intrigues you, you're going to put more of your imagination into it, and consequently, get more out of it.

That's just how people like different things. One person starts to read a book. If something captures their interest in the beginning, they're going to keep reading and throw themselves into it. Another person picks it up and doesn't get ensnared - that probable means they're going to remain more distant and critical of the book than the other reader, and harder to affect as the book progresses. They'll look at that first person laughing or crying as they read, and think "How'd that happen? That didn't happen to me.".

Just like Destroying the heart, you have no context for how this actually effects things.

Well, we interrupted a seance and destroyed the heart of Crota, shattering his soul, stopping the Omni...Omni...er.. the "Witch Lady" from restoring him to power and bringing him into this plane. Made sense to me!

(There's another Grimoire card from the perspective of the Hive - it's great!)