Who plays in Destiny 2?

[freisler0293]

Tell about your experience

[Rynjin]

It's a mediocre shooter and a really bad MMO combined into one grindy, slow, unbearably boring package.

[Psyren]

The visuals are gorgeous but everything else is so... bland. I mean, same goes for Anthem but at least you can fight in three dimensions there, and the classes actually feel different.

I tried to get back into it after having quit in year one, now that it is free to play on Steam. Bottom line is that Warframe still does this the best, and I honestly find that sad, given how unbearably grindy that game is.

[warty goblin]

I beat the campaign when it first released, and found it a decidedly mixed bag. The feel of the guns was absolutely superb, some of the exotics were quite creative and interesting to use, and I enjoyed the art aesthetics of the level design quite a bit.

Everything else was mediocre. The AI was braindead, the combat arenas were gorgeous to look at but uninteresting to fight in, encounter design was dull and repetitive, and it all felt very empty and hollow somehow.

I think the problem is that I fundamentally do not enjoy adding RPG trappings to a shooter. In something like Halo, a gun is a tool you use to solve encounters. Because it's a tool, it can be inappropriate for certain encounters - the shotgun is a bad choice for the sniper level. Destiny demotes its guns from tools in a sandbox to Skinner box rewards. Because every encounter has to be beatable with whatever your currently most powerful gun is, basically all the encounters get homogenized into mid to close range firefights in a mostly flat arena. So you lose the pleasure of a really ace encounter for the mindless sense of vague satisfaction from making an arbitrary number slightly higher.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the enemies are great, as they have mechanics that are easy to understand and adapt to. They reward you for adapting to them rather than just "being good", which I think is important in any game.

The gunplay is also incredibly smooth.

I don't think how the plot is delivered is good. I don't think the level up system through gear level is good. I don't think PvP is very good. I don't think that the support of MMO features (like clans, groups, etc) is good, especially considering how much content is locked behind that kind of stuff. You're often not encouraged to act as a group, despite bottlenecking you into one (I've often jumped into a "dungeon" where my allies just dashed past all of the enemies ahead to get the gear while I was left behind, confused and surrounded).


I think that some of the subclass options are just really jank. There are a bunch of Titan builds you can make that are all variants of "Shoot guns really good", and several Warlocks that are just "make explosions really good".
Hunter seems to be the only class with some notable diversity in what playstyles it rewards, and even that can have some redundant gameplay (for example, the Solar Hunter subclasses boil down to 2 "Headshots" and 1 "Melee" options).

[The_Jackal]

I play it on PC on occasion. I'm conflicted about it.

The good:

The core movement and shooting mechanics are good and fun. The gameplay loop of shooting enemies, collecting motes, and blowing them up with spectacular ninja space-magic is quite gratifying. The weapons are mostly solid, they've got a good variety of guns to suit a good variety of playstyles.

The bad:

The PVP, like PVP in most PVE games, is utterly broken trash, but is particularly bad even for that. Their peer-to-peer networking has a low tick rate, features terrible latency, overcrowded maps with no cover, and they've deliberately handicapped aerial accuracy which might make the dynamic gameplay actually interesting. On top of that where the super powers are fun and gratifying in PVE, they're absurdly broken and overpowered in PVP. One team gets their super, and generates orbs for their teammates, which causes a runaway cascade of dominance.

The progression:

Because the underlying game is basically Halo with better jumps and a giant nuke every few minutes, there's really not very much to differentiate gear. Most of the perks and stats in the game feel like inconsequential filler, except for whichever one supplies a measurable improvement to kill rate, which in Destiny's case, is reload speed or raw damage. You'd think after Destiny 1, they'd have squinted at Borderlands' homework for how to make a varied FPS itemization grind, but they didn't, and Destiny 2 feels really, really insipid.

The story:

I'm somewhat notorious for hating/not caring about game stories, and that's generally true, but Destiny's particular brand of quasi-mystical star-trek technobabble is particularly odious. Bad writing, bored voice actors, ****ty jokes. It's pretty sad, considering how much they paid A-list actors to read this terrible, terrible copy.

The raids:

Nothing really says your game is dumb and bad like fencing off the end-game behind scheduling chores and obtuse game mechanics which need to be researched on the internet. The raids and encounters themselves can be hit-or-miss, but I've long since come to the conclusion that the game and player base would be much, much better off if the designers would take a page from Diablo's book and design procedurally generated maps and a more varied pool of enemies to fight. Instead, like 35% of the game's content and development work is completed by less than two percent of the player base.

The grind:

All of these live-service games are built around progression and repetition, but there's a smart and a dumb way to accomplish it. Diablo does the smart way: You iterate hard on your core gameplay, put in randomness to make the process enjoyable and accessible, and supply everyone with a long-slow progression which rewards coming back. Every so often, you entice your players to re-set with cosmetic rewards and new items, so as to rejuvenate the cycle. If that loop is done well, your game can be fun for years, if not decades. If it's done poorly, you distribute a list of tedious chores which drive players to complete bland content they otherwise wouldn't bother to do in the first place had you not baited the chore list with loot.

In the end, I feel like Destiny is kind of like Everquest: Somewhere in there is the idea of a truly great, revolutionary game, it needs only for a smart developer to take the concept and rid it from all the crummy ideas and imposed drudgery.

[NeoVid]

I alternate between being super addicted to it and barely playing for a couple of weeks at a time. I think of D2 as another game in the Diablo 3/FF14 mold, where a game that immediately drove me off with its first impression got patched so hard it ended up feeling like a different game that was actually fun. Now that Bungie's free from Activision, they've been able to implement things that they and the fans actually want in the game, and with the preview of their next three years of plans for D2, I have high hopes... especially because they've said they're no longer contractually bound to make a third game, so they won't be forced into resetting everyone's progress with another sequel. Instead, they're going to keep the game's scope under control by rotating content in and out of the game.

Incidentally, they've confirmed that the first old content that will be rotated in will be the Cosmodrome and Vault of Glass from Destiny 1.

[Vizzerdrix]

I played from launch until the first expansion. I had convinced several friends to play too. I was even hoarding the exp codes you got on pop tarts to share out among my clan. I ate so many pop tarts that I am pretty sure I got diabetes from them.

Then it was outed that they where throttling xp. It broke me. Why had I suffered through box after nasty box of vile pastries?! I was left with a bad taste in my mouth, in more than one way, as well as number 1 that smelled of cheerios.

I persisted. Most of my clan had already dropped the game by now, but I kept going. I had promised myself that I would see the game at least through the first expansion, and I did, despite two tokens and a blue.

I immediately uninstalled after beating it once, and started exercising. My trips to the restroom no longer smell of breakfast cereal, and I learned a valuable lesson: Always wait to buy a game.

[NeoVid]

Well. There's an unexpected announcement in today's patch notes: All of the raids that are being rotated out of the game next expansion have had their reward lockouts removed. The four Leviathan raids and Scourge can be farmed infinitely for as long as we still have access to 'em.

So much for my free time.

[sihnfahl]

Tell about your experience

Let's see. Looter shooter.

Run quests you pick up for glimmer (in-game currency) to get XP and loot; either the planet's resource (which can be used to increase reputation or buy needed upgrades) or a piece of gear. Random, of course. You can't tweak the base stats, and they're randomly generated. So you'll be doing a lot of mix and match to get high in the stats your playstyle goes for.

Run strikes (read: their version of a Dungeon, not to be confused with the actual Dungeons they have in the game) on random to get higher quality loot. The number of strike locations is limited and there's minimal randomization about them. You know where the enemies will spawn. you know what will trigger what event. you jump in the same place, every time. So much so, I can toss a grenade at the spawn point JUST as the enemies materialize. About the only 'random' thing about them is that in some mission maps, Faction A will be replaced by Faction B. Because reasons. But that's only on one map I can recall off the top of my head.

LOTS of jumping. As in, way too many platforms to go to in order to progress. Miss, and you can fall, which is insta-death. You'll give your spacebar a workout.

Run one of four predictable on-map mini-missions for additional XP and loot. Your choices are: kill a specific thing protected by a lot of smaller things, kill things to make them drop items, kill things to be able to listen to lore, kill things to... you get the point.

Dismantle piece after piece of gear for upgrade materials!

Storywise, it's sci-fi and mysticism fare. Once you get over the 'you're an immortal murder hobo' bit, you kind of forget what your character even is. And yes, the voice acting needs work. About the only one who's amusing is Cayde 6, and they took him out....

[Knaight]

I played it briefly, and never with any intensity at all. It's very well polished, and there's some surprisingly solid setting lore and some surprisingly decent characters - though the actual plot ranges from uninspired to trainwreck and they bury the interesting stuff pretty deep. Similarly the core gameplay under the polish is pretty uninspired, and presumably worse if you actually grind as opposed to booting it up on occasion to have something to do with your hands while remote socializing.

[The_Jackal]

I played it briefly, and never with any intensity at all. It's very well polished, and there's some surprisingly solid setting lore and some surprisingly decent characters - though the actual plot ranges from uninspired to trainwreck and they bury the interesting stuff pretty deep. Similarly the core gameplay under the polish is pretty uninspired, and presumably worse if you actually grind as opposed to booting it up on occasion to have something to do with your hands while remote socializing.

I think the core gameplay is pretty slick, the issue is that it's very, very, very repetitive, especially when you realize how many enemies are just re-skins of Halo enemies, and the AI is completely braindead, with no enemy doing anything other than shambling in your general direction and shooting. No use of cover, no flanking tactics, nothing. But then, you don't exactly see a huge variety of enemy types in MMOs either. IMO the gold standard of looter-shooter design should be Diablo 2, and really everyone trying to design a game in this space needs to aspire to the design features that game offered: Diverse builds and strategies, varied itemization, a really wide array of enemy types and behaviors, and very importantly, dynamically generated map geometry.

[Psyren]

Diablo 2 got a lot right but a lot wrong as well. Baal runs, the only reliable way to gear up, were also the height of tedium. Duping was rampant - and good thing too, because otherwise most of us would have never even seen a decent runeword let alone been able to play one. No transmog/fashion game. Once you could reliably kill ubers there was no PvE challenge left in the game. People reset for season.s/ladder, but only because the alternative (non-ladder) was a cesspit of cheaters and hacks. And synergy bonuses meant the number of meaningfully different builds (rather than "X but with a slight variation") was tiny.

[The_Jackal]

Diablo 2 got a lot right but a lot wrong as well. Baal runs, the only reliable way to gear up, were also the height of tedium. Duping was rampant - and good thing too, because otherwise most of us would have never even seen a decent runeword let alone been able to play one. No transmog/fashion game. Once you could reliably kill ubers there was no PvE challenge left in the game. People reset for season.s/ladder, but only because the alternative (non-ladder) was a cesspit of cheaters and hacks. And synergy bonuses meant the number of meaningfully different builds (rather than "X but with a slight variation") was tiny.

I will totally agree that D2 was not lacking for flaws, but I still think it's inexcusable that looter-shooter games are not looking to D2 when designing their itemization and character customization. Destiny 2's loot reworks have just been an abominable hot mess, as has The Division 2. Of all the looter-shooters I've played, BL2 has the closest to the Diablo-style system, with skill trees and and dynamic loot, unfortunately it's rife with terrible balance decisions.

No game can be perfect, but I feel like Diablo 2 had more right in terms encouraging players to continue to engage with the game for longer, in a way that no other game has managed to match.

[warty goblin]

I will totally agree that D2 was not lacking for flaws, but I still think it's inexcusable that looter-shooter games are not looking to D2 when designing their itemization and character customization. Destiny 2's loot reworks have just been an abominable hot mess, as has The Division 2. Of all the looter-shooters I've played, BL2 has the closest to the Diablo-style system, with skill trees and and dynamic loot, unfortunately it's rife with terrible balance decisions.

No game can be perfect, but I feel like Diablo 2 had more right in terms encouraging players to continue to engage with the game for longer, in a way that no other game has managed to match.

I rather suspect that an isometric clicky RPG is structurally a lot better suited to being built around loot than a shooter. RPGs are mechanically already number comparison engines where you choose a build around a couple of skills, then work to make the numbers bigger. There's player skill in utilizing the skills to be sure, but it's very much built around character skill. Adding a Skinner box for getting even bigger numbers is pretty natural.

A shooter is generally built around rewarding player mastery of the combat sandbox within gameworld itself. Quite often this mastery is expressed through lightning fast adaptation to the dynamics of the gameplay - seeing a good opportunity for a headshot, or knowing when to fall back to cover. Something like Halo is deeply satisfying because it's got a very rich combat sandbox with dynamic AI that is generally pretty good at thwarting the player. Notably a lot of the enemies are capable of pretty direct counterplay, Elites dodge your attacks and regen your damage through their shields, forcing you to be dangerous aggressive, Jackals are highly resistant to frontal assault, and so on. Even the Grunts can stick you with a plasma grenade for an insta-kill. On anything but the easiest difficulty, you're likely to die a lot, and the game's very much built around that assumption. This makes winning feel good, because it means you've mastered the game's tactics.

I suspect a lootfest RPG that murdered the player that often would feel rather frustrating, and like it was invalidating your build. After all, if you'd mastered the RPG system, you should be melting faces, not getting one-shot by the weakest enemies in the game. At least in the campaign, Destiny's enemies are stupid, not terribly aggressive, and just generally pretty easy to kill. Even the minibosses aren't really hard, they just have enormous stacks of HP you need to melt through, which emphasizes not your player skill (outmaneuvering a hunter to shoot them in the back) but your character's super ability. This just disengages me from mastering the gunplay and movement, and I don't see how making my build more important would re-engage me with that. But if I'm not engaged through the shooting, it's just a mediocre shooter, albeit one with really good audiovisual feedback.

[Man_Over_Game]

I rather suspect that an isometric clicky RPG is structurally a lot better suited to being built around loot than a shooter. RPGs are mechanically already number comparison engines where you choose a build around a couple of skills, then work to make the numbers bigger. There's player skill in utilizing the skills to be sure, but it's very much built around character skill. Adding a Skinner box for getting even bigger numbers is pretty natural.

A shooter is generally built around rewarding player mastery of the combat sandbox within gameworld itself. Quite often this mastery is expressed through lightning fast adaptation to the dynamics of the gameplay - seeing a good opportunity for a headshot, or knowing when to fall back to cover. Something like Halo is deeply satisfying because it's got a very rich combat sandbox with dynamic AI that is generally pretty good at thwarting the player. Notably a lot of the enemies are capable of pretty direct counterplay, Elites dodge your attacks and regen your damage through their shields, forcing you to be dangerous aggressive, Jackals are highly resistant to frontal assault, and so on. Even the Grunts can stick you with a plasma grenade for an insta-kill. On anything but the easiest difficulty, you're likely to die a lot, and the game's very much built around that assumption. This makes winning feel good, because it means you've mastered the game's tactics.

I suspect a lootfest RPG that murdered the player that often would feel rather frustrating, and like it was invalidating your build. After all, if you'd mastered the RPG system, you should be melting faces, not getting one-shot by the weakest enemies in the game. At least in the campaign, Destiny's enemies are stupid, not terribly aggressive, and just generally pretty easy to kill. Even the minibosses aren't really hard, they just have enormous stacks of HP you need to melt through, which emphasizes not your player skill (outmaneuvering a hunter to shoot them in the back) but your character's super ability. This just disengages me from mastering the gunplay and movement, and I don't see how making my build more important would re-engage me with that. But if I'm not engaged through the shooting, it's just a mediocre shooter, albeit one with really good audiovisual feedback.

Hmm...Maybe the solution is to have the loot not touch how much you're "rewarded" for playing well (that is, how much damage you deal), but rather how punishing the mistakes are comparing your loot relative to the threat?

For example, two players both deal the same amount of damage to an endgame boss. However, a noobie dies as soon as they take any damage, but a veteran can afford to take quite a few hits before going down.

This means that your successful plays are always rewarded at any level of play, but better loot means you can afford more mistakes. In a way, the game gets easier the more you play, or you can just git gud and not need it (but set it at such a high level that you're expected to have some gear to really have a chance). You could even create a soft gear threshold by having situations that risk damage even when playing well, for example an enemy that has autoturrets that protect the weakpoint on his back that would only be a nuisance to a properly geared player.

[NeoVid]

Hmm...Maybe the solution is to have the loot not touch how much you're "rewarded" for playing well (that is, how much damage you deal), but rather how punishing the mistakes are comparing your loot relative to the threat?

For example, two players both deal the same amount of damage to an endgame boss. However, a noobie dies as soon as they take any damage, but a veteran can afford to take quite a few hits before going down.

This means that your successful plays are always rewarded at any level of play, but better loot means you can afford more mistakes. In a way, the game gets easier the more you play, or you can just git gud and not need it (but set it at such a high level that you're expected to have some gear to really have a chance). You could even create a soft gear threshold by having situations that risk damage even when playing well, for example an enemy that has autoturrets that protect the weakpoint on his back that would only be a nuisance to a properly geared player.

That's pretty close to the system Destiny 2 uses now. If you're notably under the power level of whatever you're fighting, you'll get splatted almost instantly, nearly even power gives the intended matchup, and getting 20+ power above what you're facing starts giving you the advantage in damage and damage resistance. As I've unpleasantly discovered from seeing new players attempting to try out the raids despite being completely unprepared...

[warty goblin]

Hmm...Maybe the solution is to have the loot not touch how much you're "rewarded" for playing well (that is, how much damage you deal), but rather how punishing the mistakes are comparing your loot relative to the threat?

For example, two players both deal the same amount of damage to an endgame boss. However, a noobie dies as soon as they take any damage, but a veteran can afford to take quite a few hits before going down.

This means that your successful plays are always rewarded at any level of play, but better loot means you can afford more mistakes. In a way, the game gets easier the more you play, or you can just git gud and not need it (but set it at such a high level that you're expected to have some gear to really have a chance). You could even create a soft gear threshold by having situations that risk damage even when playing well, for example an enemy that has autoturrets that protect the weakpoint on his back that would only be a nuisance to a properly geared player.

I donno, one of the major appeals of an FPS to me is that it is an exercise in, basically, raw player skill. In terms of singleplayer, Crysis is a great example of what I'm talking about; on the higher difficulties you're hideously vulnerable and numerically substantially weaker than on Normal, but your suit has a skill ceiling about a mile high when it comes to mitigating and avoiding damage. Not getting shot is a player skill you learn to exercise, and harder difficulties require higher skills because the game punishes mistakes brutally hard. This makes Delta (the highest difficulty) by far the most rewarding in Crysis, because it gives you the greatest canvas for skillful play and system mastery.

Being able to tank more damage just allows for worse play, which is perfectly fine as a difficulty slider, but not generally something I'd enjoy having a player-skill driven action game fundamentally built around. For one thing it seems like it would make gear feel really pointless as anything but a gating mechanism, which just sounds frustrating. If all the gear does is make my durability number large enough I can actually do the content, but the game plays essentially identically to when my durability number is low, all I'm doing is grinding because the game says I should grind. That boss could just as easily have had its number tweaked so I didn't have to do that.

It seems to me that in order to be interesting, loot has to actually be able to change the way you play the game. If my level 1 gun does 10 damage and everybody has 100 HP, getting a level 2 gun that does 11 damage against dudes with 110 HP is just pointless. If the level 2 gun does 20 damage and everybody has 100 HP still, the game plays differently and I'm actually rewarded for getting to level 2. But my reward is making the game less interesting to play, because it requires less skill on my part. I think it's borderline impossible, maybe actually impossible, to have a game that increases your power meaningfully without decreasing the necessity for player skill. We don't think of it like this, but in essence a difficulty slider does exactly this; Easy is easy because you're more powerful than on Hard.

So to square that circle you inevitably end up with HP sink enemies. This way you get the satisfaction of gaining the power to obliterate peons and feel like you're getting more powerful, but the game can still push back occasionally with enemies that end up being difficult simply because they absorb ridiculous amounts of punishment. But HP sink enemies are generally boring, and particularly boring in a shooter, because the whole point of a shooter is that you click the button and the thing dies. Remember all those Division memes where somebody dumps 10,000 rounds of machine gun ammo into a dude and it's the stupidest thing ever? Space magic mitigates this a bit because it gets rid of the incongruity of a t-shirt offering roughly the protection of battleship armor, but it's still hard to feel like your Super Gun is, in fact, all that super.

[Psyren]

I rather suspect that an isometric clicky RPG is structurally a lot better suited to being built around loot than a shooter. RPGs are mechanically already number comparison engines where you choose a build around a couple of skills, then work to make the numbers bigger. There's player skill in utilizing the skills to be sure, but it's very much built around character skill. Adding a Skinner box for getting even bigger numbers is pretty natural.

A shooter is generally built around rewarding player mastery of the combat sandbox within gameworld itself. Quite often this mastery is expressed through lightning fast adaptation to the dynamics of the gameplay - seeing a good opportunity for a headshot, or knowing when to fall back to cover. Something like Halo is deeply satisfying because it's got a very rich combat sandbox with dynamic AI that is generally pretty good at thwarting the player. Notably a lot of the enemies are capable of pretty direct counterplay, Elites dodge your attacks and regen your damage through their shields, forcing you to be dangerous aggressive, Jackals are highly resistant to frontal assault, and so on. Even the Grunts can stick you with a plasma grenade for an insta-kill. On anything but the easiest difficulty, you're likely to die a lot, and the game's very much built around that assumption. This makes winning feel good, because it means you've mastered the game's tactics.

I suspect a lootfest RPG that murdered the player that often would feel rather frustrating, and like it was invalidating your build. After all, if you'd mastered the RPG system, you should be melting faces, not getting one-shot by the weakest enemies in the game. At least in the campaign, Destiny's enemies are stupid, not terribly aggressive, and just generally pretty easy to kill. Even the minibosses aren't really hard, they just have enormous stacks of HP you need to melt through, which emphasizes not your player skill (outmaneuvering a hunter to shoot them in the back) but your character's super ability. This just disengages me from mastering the gunplay and movement, and I don't see how making my build more important would re-engage me with that. But if I'm not engaged through the shooting, it's just a mediocre shooter, albeit one with really good audiovisual feedback.

Warframe does looter-shooter decently well. Its monetization model gets in the way for me (lots of fiddly arcane resources + needing to grind blueprints + huge time delays before you can try your new toys unless you spend platinum), and I hate its use of mana rather than ability cooldowns - but the core loop of traversal/combat/objective is solid, plus the variety among your classes, builds, enemies, and allies is massive. And the setting and story are actually somewhat engaging, even if you have to slog through several hours of glorified tutorial to start it. A streamlined version that relied on drops instead of lengthy crafting and recipe grinding (or at least, more on drops than it does now) would be a big draw for me.

Destiny 2 meanwhile has very little variety. The classes feel almost identical except for their jump, one spell, and ultimate. Support for non-gun builds (like melee-heavy, caster, summoner, control or support) is minimal to nonexistent. Enemy and mission variety is paper-thin. The biggest traversal challenge is first-person platforming. And the less said about the "lore" the better.

[The_Jackal]

Yeah, the Division 2 and Borderlands give that notion the lie as well. It's my considered opinion that the 3d gameplay actually offers you *more* knobs to present in itemization, because in addition to just attack rate, crits, damage, penetration, etc., you've also got handling characteristics like weapon swap speed, recoil and accuracy modifiers and other effects which are relatively meaningless in the context of an isometric clicker. It's not a coincidence that many of most popular Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 builds involve indiscriminate or even self-targeting attacks.

Destiny 2 meanwhile has very little variety. The classes feel almost identical except for their jump, one spell, and ultimate. Support for non-gun builds (like melee-heavy, caster, summoner, control or support) is minimal to nonexistent. Enemy and mission variety is paper-thin. The biggest traversal challenge is first-person platforming. And the less said about the "lore" the better.

Agreed, and I feel much of that redounds back to the problem that their skill tree is so canned and rudimentary that it simply smothers any chance of making meaningful or dynamic decisions. You get a choice of super, and then a sub-choice of grenade, melee, and utility ability (barrier, well, or dodge), and that's it. The biggest felt difference in the classes to me is their jumping style. Now you *can* with exotics make some changes in your style which will vary your weight toward one ability or another, for example the "Attunement of Sky" felt, to me, very "caster-ey", since you could, with the right loadout, spam grenades and fly around a lot. But yes, at day's end, the game is a shooter and everyone is expected to shoot. However, I don't view that as a drawback in and of itself, rather I think the problem is that all the guns also feel very samey. This is a science fiction universe, but it looks like the weapons were lifted straight from Call of Duty, squirt-gun aesthetics notwithstanding.

If the designers had lifted some more creative gun concepts from, say Unreal or Half-Life, or even the Covenant weapons from Halo, you could have had a lot more flexibility offered to players in terms of how they approached the game. Of course, doing that would have made balancing PVP nightmarish, but I've long advocated that it's better for games to choose what they're going to be, instead of splitting the difference between PVP and PVE games and pleasing no one.

What I am really holding out for is for someone to wake and do the looter-shooter in a fantasy milieu, more of a looter/brawler, basically taking God of War/Assassin's Creed style melee combat, and adding in archers and spellcasters to do some truly epic third person dungeon-crawling action. If they can wed that to a well-realized setting with a bit of sandbox and story elements, not unlike what you see for The Division, I feel like that has massive potential.