Gamespot needs to get a new host of reviewers on their site. Their numerical ratings are arbitrary at best. "The gameplay sings," says Clark. Yet it only gets a 7.0?
And his critical points are downright uninformed:
1) That "too much" clutter is the cover that makes the stealth possible . And even with all the cover, it's hard to beat the game on everything but the "easy" difficulty setting...
2) The AI is fine. I've played about 10-15 hours, and I've never once seen a situation where I wondered why I was spotted or killed. Every single time, I realized, after the fact, that there was something I forgot to consider before making my move(s). And I've had some close saves and instant agency wipes thanks to the random events that occur with each alarm level. But never once did I feel I won or lost because of faulty a.i. (The player pathing, on the other hand, can be a pain—but if you click step-by-step instead of assuming your agents will tiptoe around the edge of a "seen" area, you'll be fine.)
I'm guessing Clark just didn't figure out how the mechanics in the game work completely.
3) This is a procedurally generated game. Dinging it for lack of story is lame. There's only so much you can do to make the narrative work when every playthrough is going to have the player visiting different facilities in a different order with different characters.
The bottom line: if you loved the strategy of "X-Com" and the procedurally-generated, replayable nature of "The Binding of Isaac," then you won't be disappointed in this game. It's easily a 9.0 or better.
@RabbiSchmuley You know, I'm all for a "10-year plan" for a franchise. I don't hate it on principle. I mean, Final Fantasy has technically been on a 25-year plan, and I've loved nearly every one I've played.
What I don't like is how Activision/Bungie's 10-year plan is more akin to a crack dealer's methods. Rather than give you something complete and fulfilling and original, they're going to give you bits and pieces of the same old crap, making you feel empty and wanting for more. And they're going to overcharge the hell out of us when they do it.
When I pay $60 for a game, I want a full game. You want to make it episodic and epic like "Lord of the Rings?" (Bungie's comparison—DEFINITELY not mine!) Great. Fellowship of the Ring was over 300 pages long. Lots of stuff happened—a variety of stuff in each chapter. TFOTR had an engaging story arc, memorable characters, and a pretty solid conclusion with room for the sequel. I felt satisfied AND hungry for more.
Destiny, on the other hand, leaves us feeling cheated, manipulated, and empty.
Except for the fanboys. Just like good little crackheads, they'd put anything in their mouths to get another taste.
@RobDev Ouch. You shelled out for the DLC ahead of time? Sucks to be you. :(
I refused to get the DLC until it came out, and I insisted on a disc instead of a digital download for the game. And boy am I glad. Now my $60 DLC-bait turd is going to turn into a $20 purchase when I sell the game for $40 on CL.
If the money back doesn't ease the sting, knowing that I kept a sale from Bungie/Activision does...
@Shewgenja There is no redemption, unless the content is free. The money's already been spent. There are those of us who refuse to pay $40 more for content that should have been included in the original game.
@nik_williams44 No, I think we're referring to the same thing. A new, unnamed enemy that saps creativity and spoils other products by mere association and proximity.
I think we just differ on what to name it. You say Reeviewerz. I say Greedz, Arroganzes, or Shortsightednezz. In fact, maybe it's a siphonophore with elements of all three?
I get the feeling that Tom Mc Shea writes reviews not to tell us if a game is good or bad. I think Tom Mc Shea writes reviews because he loves to hear himself talk.
I get it, Tom. You like your literary flourish. You enjoy lovingly reading your prose to us with your dramatic stops, pauses, and nauseating poetic intonation. William Shatner would be green with envy.
But when I have to read between the lines of your paragraphs—which could double as the first chapter of a short story provided by Naughty Dog to set the scene for the game and its characters—in order to get a feel for how good the game is, then you're doing it wrong. For cripes' sake: you don't even talk about the mechanics of the game until halfway through the review.
Now I appreciate good writing as much as the next guy. But I don't come to Gamespot to get sucked into a story written by a talented writer. I come to Gamespot to find out where my money is best spent; then I let the game suck me into its own story. So please, Tom, leave the six-paragraph introductions for your novels and short stories. Your target audience just wants to know how the game plays, whether it's worth the $60 price of admission, and why.
TheFodao's comments