That depends on what "Meh" means to you. For me a "meh" game that doesnt have redeeming features from a gameplay perspective. Most FPS's fall into that category from my point of view.

I'm not saying the game cant be good from a technical point of view. It sure seems to look and perform well, but the fun factor is where its at for a game. Graphics are secondary, they cant hide boredom for long.

I will say that the problem for me is how short the regular game is. Yeah, you can get replay value out of strikes to get better equipment, and the meat of the game is in the Crucible, but the main story is just too short. Oh, but expansions are on the way! Great... that's not an excuse for shipping such a short game. Imagine if Halo shipped with only 4 levels, because that's what it is.

I also found myself leveling to 20 very, very fast because of bounties. That felt cheap to me because it shouldn't be so simple to reach the level cap. And now the game to me is just playing Crucible matches over and over hoping I'm lucky enough to get some new armor that will increase my light level.

That'scexactly whybit's very good to me. I don't remember last time I had so much fun with the game. Well, I can, but long ago with Borderlands 1 and Left 4 Dead. The first game in a long time that made me want to chase my wife and kids to bed at 8 pm so I can start playing.

And that's the reason I fiound this review funny. Because it's 100% true.

I don't intend to argue your opinion, but I am confused. The game is short? But it surely lasts some 10 hours, according to reports (I'm still on the Moon). Isn't Halo also about 10 hours or less (9-10 chapters usually)? Isn't PvP in Halo the place people spend majority of their time, same as you complain about in here? Very few modern games (except J/RPGs) offer double digit hours of content outside of multiplayer, yet this game gets singled out as short with poor story, while CoD rakes in high 80s/low 90s.

(Comparing to Halo because you and many others do).

Didn't BF4 have only 7 missions playable in max. 5 hours? And a few MP maps so they can sell 5 expansion packs? And a bug ridden unplayable glitchfest of PvP MP. And no servers on which to review the game so the reviews were several days late?

And it scored 85!!!

Now you can see why thus "review" is accurate. 

I think its just a type of game you enjoy. I'm not saying it can't be enjoyable for those that know what they are getting. The problem was expecting it to be a special advancement in the industry.

Whoever was expecting that, while at the same time knowing it's being released on last-gen consoles, only set himself up for disappointment.

As another thread stated, this game was probably the most honestly marketed game in a long time. Everything was open, shown, tried out, questions answered months before release.

But enough from me, I posted this to share some humor, not to start another Destiny debate...

Awesome review.  A lot of truth in there.  The review landscape is becoming a mess, which is a shame, as people are paying more attention to reviews than ever.

Personally, I'm becoming very apathetic toward the review system.  Many of them no longer address the question I'm most interested in: is the game fun to play?  

They tell me if it was too much like this other game or not enough like this other game.  They tell me it's not revolutionary enough, that it brings nothing new.  They tell me what the game should be like based on other installments and that it's a massive disappointment because other games in the series are better.

I don't give a damn about any of that.

I want to know if the game itself is enjoyable to play or not.  There aren't a lot of reviewers who seem able to fit that into their agenda, however.

You talk about Halo having 9-10 chapters and Battlefield having 7. Again, Destiny has 4 levels. They have you going back to the same spots and give you different "missions" within those levels, but it's still the same 4 maps. That's what I find unacceptable. If the 3 planets and 1 moon were more like actual planets to explore, the way the game was advertised months ago, I would be totally cool with it. Given the size of each level, I would expect there to be more like 10-12 in the base game. Instead, it's like we need to buy several expansions to get the full game.

Its a shooter, so it should be judged as one, from what I have read it seems it has good mechanics, and the main issue is that its a bit bare at the moment. The large open worlds turned out to be a tease.

What I dont understand is why people complain about shooters being "generic" so much. Everything does not have to be groundbreaking to be enjoyable. Thats why CoD sells, because thats what Shooter fans want, it has good controls, fun to play, addictive multiplayer etc. Why should the formula change.

Mario games are "generic" platformers but they are awesome and people love them, I mean how would fans react if the next main Mario game is underwater painting game and Mario is a damn Fish Picasso. Same goes for sports games like FIFA, imagine if FIFA 16 was "space football" or something.

Gaming is a hobby for me and I enjoy "generic" titles like AC, Mario, FIFA along with stuff like Dark Souls and other RPGs, I think reviewers are taking their games too seriously and stopped having FUN.

I agree. I'm digging this game so far. There are not many games that have me jonezing for more when I'm at work anymore, but this is one of them. The problem with this game is the same as it was with watchdogs, TLoU and MGS4 back in the day. It gets so overhyped that it's almost impossible to live up to. Now I'm not saying that Destiny is as good as TLoU or MGS4 but I'm still enjoying the hell out of it.