With the complexities of an always-online console game like Destiny, glitches are to be expected and patches welcomed. No matter how extensively a developer tests a game before launch, they simply cannot account for or anticipate the problems that will occur once the game launches to a massive audience. The same applies for DLC content, especially new raids. This, however, absolutely does not excuse the lackluster storytelling in Destiny's campaign. The lore is brilliant and extensive, and grimoire makes an awesome addition to the universe, but only an addition. It cannot replace traditional storytelling in games via cut scenes, dialogue, and character development, none of which exists in Destiny to any sufficient measure. The failed miserably on the story and the decision not to include private matchmaking for PVP is inexcusable, but the game mechanics and gunplay are so excellent that I still have fun playing the game on an almost daily basis 6 months after release. There is undeniably an incredible foundation built here to expand upon with sequels and that's another factor that drives me to keep playing, besides the plethora of online buddies I game with regularly. While I completely agree with this point in regards to the campaign, Bungie did not release a broken game in the least bit. An unfinished one, yes, but the fact that I continue to enjoy this game is a testament to its polish in gameplay. They're still figuring out the servers and continue to tackle one connectivity issue after another, but I'm willing to give them a second chance on the storytelling aspects with the sequel.

I heard constant stories that the community rushed Bungie to come out with TDB thus making it unfinished and full of glitches. I hope the community learned and I am not expecting HoW to be better than TDB and even the base game.

Shiggy is right about a lot of stuff.

I can kinda see both sides. Sometimes games are rushed and they become absolute shit, like Sonic 06. They tried to release for Christmas and everything went south from there. However if a game takes too long there's a chance it won't sell as well or you'll run out of money, so you kinda have to be quick. (Duke Nukem Forever for example, not a bad game, but it took so long that it can't be called good anytime in the future.) Then as for patches, again, there's two sides. >Release a shit game and hope to patch it into a good game. This is a bad use of patching because obviously you're selling subpar games for short term income. >Release a good game,but that game happens to have some bad issues, so you patch them when found. Skyrim comes to mind, Skyrim has some pretty odd bugs when it released, but thanks to modern age patching, they eventually got fixed. Point being patching is a mixed bag because back in the Nintendo days, if a game breaking bug was present, you just had to hope you could avoid it.

Hoping that is the case for witcher 3.

Postpone Watchdogs they said. Improve upon it they said. It'll be the greatest game they said.

I think that's a very true statement. Unfortunately though, this current generation of consoles taught me a thing or two. Those deadlines can't all be real. So many titles were promised soon after launches. Soooooo many were immediately pushed back once the consoles were sold. I could have waited months to get my ps4. These devs are just getting trickier and trickier to get more from us.

Just like witcher 3

That's what they did with HoW, and I'm glad.

This is a lesson activision needs to learn.