Each to their own but I thought it was lazy and a bit of disservice. They said each DLC was going to be about an Vanguard and killing Cayde off in the first 15mins is not how you write a character death. There was no want for revenge because unless you've read the lore you won't have an attachment to him. He should have been killed way later in the campaign. Considering he was the most developed character in the entire franchise and then to just off him thinking its fine is honestly insulting to me. His death was advertised as the main focus of the story thus they used it as marketing and made money off death (Which is questionable enough if you ask me) The barons weren't threatening by any means no build up. Uldren was a joke and trying to make him a tragic villain is just poor writing. And we have to keep it PG not showing the Guardian been 'Immoral' by killing someone on screen is just ridiculous. Nobody cares is Uldren was going to be 'murdered' by the Guardian there was no reason to have sympathy for him. Lazy writing. That's just my opinion. Its debatable weather my version is better because its subject to opinion. However, mine didn't differ from the source material substantially and I only changed the order to give it a 3 act structure, a want to save and later avenge, a likeable protagonist in Cayde that the Guardian could better understand and allow him to be fleshed out so when the death happens you actually give a damn even a more casual gamer can see the severity. But like I said just my opinion. It doesn't change what is and how I think it was a mistake but that's how the world works. One thing I do object to in Bungie's part is how they advertised death for notoriety and purposeful controversy. Its disgusting especially if you've been in that position of seeing someone die and you can't do a damn thing about it. Thanks for the comment. -Steam