@veldi: The beta is like 10% of the game at best, and the finished game is much different from the beta I can tell you that much. But whatever floats your boat, buy what you like.
@Warhearted: I put about 400 hours into Destiny and can tell you immediately this game is better in virtually every way. Practically no loading screens (all instances and sections (except elevators for some reason) of the map flow seamlessly)), in my experience better hit detection and more fair damage system, more challenging in a good sense (not just hard for the sake of hard like Destiny at times), actual crafting, better looting, better performance/graphics, more believable and coherent world (you can actually understand the story/lore), more things to do and variety in missions (do not believe the idiots who tell you it's the same repetitive formula for missions, there are plenty of different mission types), less unfair and more unique take on PVP, bigger map, higher level cap (even higher DZ rank cap), more weapon/armor variety, separate style from armor so you can look the way you want and still have your preferred armor, among other things. But honestly they're different enough, with their own defining qualities (good and bad), I'd say it's one of the best Ubi games in recent years right under R6S for me.
@thrombosis45: What are you on about? They said you can review the game once servers go publicly live, which was on (technically before) launch. This isn't just some game you beat in a sitting, accomplishing everything there is to offer within hours. They didn't want early reviews like most MMO publishers - because giving reviewers a contrived setting (sticking them together/with nobody else at all), in a world so built around exploring with or fighting against other people either friends or strangers isn't the way any online focused game should be reviewed. It needs to be reviewed in a natural setting, where the game's quality isn't just dictated on polygon count or hit boxes, but also on the strength or weakness of the community shaping the game's world. It takes time, and a review in progress at least gives us an insight on how the review might be shaped, as he's clearly still finding new and different things to do 50+ hours in. If Ubisoft "bought" any hype, I'd say in this case it's probably pretty well deserved.
@duckofdeath: Also, "adjusting for inflation" widely regarded as one of the best superhero movies ever made, the original Spiderman 2 only made about $200M more, not a single SM movie making an IMDB rating of over 75% - please tell me more about how these are credible sources to form an opinion?
@duckofdeath: Cool the **** off son. Where does it say ANYWHERE that they LOST money? You really think because it got bad ratings by people (whoa guess what, that amazing Avengers movie that "everyone" loves didn't even get above 70% metacritic!) doesn't mean "no one like those two" how far outside of your own mind are you? It's a superhero movie, most people are going to be openly critical because it's never perfect no matter how many comics you've read in your mom's basement. These "trolls" are the ones giving movies like this a 0 scores because "it was the worst movie they've ever seen in existence, it gave them cancer" Over exaggeration much?
Please, tell me with sound reasoning and logical, constructive arguments as to how this new suit looks bad? Please, look very closely at the details, review the facial, armor, material details, and clearly explain how this could possibly be a bad suit? And don't give me that "it's CGI" bullshit.
hoyholyhoy's comments