{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/14/2017 2:53:52 PM
6
They had 3yrs of D1 to improve.
You got this.... what a joke.
English
-
How could they start making a game based on feedback from year 3 of destiny when they started making Destiny 2, two years prior?
-
Why would they even try to make a sequel to a game like destiny instead of expanding it especially after all the praise that TTK got?
-
Because Destiny was synonymous with a bad game. Despite what you hear on this forum, destiny 1 did not perform well at all, especially in the eyes of the consumer as a whole And to be perfectly honest, taken king was only considered good by those that were already hooked on destiny and because vanilla set the bar so low, anything was an improvement.
-
Edited by Nintentard: 12/14/2017 4:35:35 PMSo destiny 2 wasn’t going to be considered a bad game before it came out because it’s a sequel. 3yrs of bad destiny and people were just going to forget all about it because the put a number on the dlc? They should have just kept the fans that they had happy, at least year 3 had a solid foundation. TTK was pretty shitty but it’s much better than d2.
-
It was supposed to be a "hey look, number 2! We know the first one was bad, so we've completely revamped it into a new game" Essentially it was a reboot. Devs wanted to start fresh
-
Coulda fooled me. All the marketing made it look like a sequel.
