A question on PVE enemy revivals and reskins

Lore
#1

As mainly a PVE player, and someone who has struggled away at trying to make a concise story out of Destiny, it’s come to my brain that when I kill someone major in the Destiny universe, i.e Omnigul.

It kinda pains me to watch the devs just bring them back.

This happens for many reasons, time constraints for making new stuff, limited resources and the main issue, player demands.
And that’s fair enough, we want more content and they delivered. But ROI was sooooo short, its bad enough powering through a rearranged cosmodrome but then you find that the majority of your PVE end game, as in Strikes, are all reskins :frowning2:

With the story behind ROI, killing the production of SIVA and defeating Aksis and what not. I feel compelled to completely ignore the new versions of the Summoning Pits etc.

What are your thoughts?

#2

The different versions of the Strikes are either “alternate universes” (Taken in the Valus Ta’aurc strike) or else expansions of the lore (Nixis, Sekrion, Subverted Mind, Taniks, Omnigul), however thin that expansion may be. Personally, with Taken appearing in older strikes, that just spoke of laziness.

The reskinned Summoning Pits are the Splicers taking Unborn Ogres from the Hive rather than just us killing a bigger version of an Ogre. Omnigul coming back from the dead is because she’s an Ascendant Hive and has her own Oversoul and potentially Ascendant Realm – even though that’s poorly explained in the game itself and basically you need to plough through Grimoire to find it – and Taniks is explained simply by that he’s “more machine now than Eliksni, twisted and evil”.

Of course, that’s due to the fact that Rise of Iron wasn’t made with the full Bungie team – just the Live Team. They were constrained by resources since most of that was going to Destiny 2. For Taken King… I’d say they bit off more than they could chew.

1 Like
#3

Good answer.

There are elements of laziness really. I didn’t see the need for Taken in the Undying Mind for instance. It was the exact same boss anyway.
I heard a while back the story is written in parallel with the game. So it seems there may be little direction until some of the game elements are built, then its just shoved in any old way to make it fit. As I say, player demands are high.

It’s especially annoying when it’s spawn in the same area, walk through the same area, fight in the same arena and fight the ugly twin sister Boss.

For me it breaks the immersion sadly.

Maybe I can accept Omnigul, begrudgingly.
But certainly the Taken versions of Cerberus Bae. - Nope.

Do you accept it into the Lore (even though there is cards for them), or do you just ignore them?

1 Like
#4

If there’s cards for them, that means they’re in the lore, so yes I should. If there isn’t then its a gameplay mechanic and something to be ignored or otherwise not to be bothered with.

#5

Indeed. The Taken rehashes of strikes really showcased a rushed and lazy need for content. The Taken can make PVE more challenging with their relatively new abilities, but their design - all the same color- is kind of an eyesore, and the devs overuse them as a gameplay device.

The new strikes that are relevant to the lore should be considered legit, but Taken clones aren’t anything to be taken too seriously.

1 Like
#6

The reskin design is to make it easy for the game-engine. Adding in a completely new species design would strain the engine and/or servers, causing a long maintenance time. The Taken color is just reskinned enemies.

#7

You’re right about that. Which is probably why they pulled ROI from back gen consoles.

#8

Yea I understand the reasoning really. But I just wondered what people thought about the lore behind it, and how it’s kinda cheesy that enemies just “come” back" for the sake of the Devs not making new content, instead just “re imagining” strikes to fill out the lack of new content.

I just try and ignore the taken undying mind, taken Cerberus bae and Dust Palace. In terms of anything to do with the story.

#9

Understandable that you would.

#10

This might be the best typo of all time! :smile:

On the subject of content in strikes — from a lore perspective it makes no sense to be able to repeat strikes. From a lore perspective it makes no sense to be able to complete missions multiple times.

I don’t think the Taken or SIVA variations on strikes are especially contradictory to the lore, definitely not compared to the fact that you can defeat Omnigul and then go back and start the strike again.

Now obviously I’m not suggesting that strikes should be changed so that you can only run them once, but we are all perfectly happy to run identical strikes multiple times, even though we shouldn’t be able to kill Valus Ta’aurc again and again and again.

In my opinion, strikes have never fit into a consistent timeline, and the changes in the Taken King and Rise of Iron don’t change that. :slightly_smiling_face:

#11

The TTK revamps were essentially, in my opinion just for the value of replay. But RoI was to build up future story elements. This is why they actually have new dialogue, not just enemies changed.

#12

Hahah yea Bae🌝

Yea from a Lore perspective, repeatable activities such as strikes I’m fine with just seeing as such, a repeatable activity and nothing to do with the story.

But if you followed a timeline or a quest, you essentially go through missions finding clues on the where abouts of the main boss, big chief, the top banana.

And the strikes are elements of the story that show off the power of an army, or the henchmen of said Cheif Boss guy.
I.e Omnigul.

Then you technically kill them once and eventually move on to the raid.

That’s the over arching story or direction.

So I’m happy to break immersion for repeatable activities, that’s just part of Destiny’s game design.

But when it came to Taken versions of Flayers, Cerberus Bae, I couldn’t really connect them back to the story in the same way I could before they were “Taken”. I just see it as more content for the player.

I just wondered the opinions when it came to the SIVA versions, as they just brought back the old Summoning Pits ogre, who doesn’t look any different than it did before. But now Shiro is part of the dialogue.

I just dunno if it legitimately works in the timeline of Destiny.

Go down into the Hellmouth and kill that big ugly fucker.

wee while later

shiro you know that fat bastard you killed pure ages ago? Well it’s back. Go kill it again.

Super ignorant portrayal of the timeline but, you get my point.

Grimoire or not, it just feels wedged in for the sake of content.

#13

What about the new Taniks strike we still calling that non canon or what it seems possible in a way. Omnigul could also be a possible option. But I agree that the Heist strike and the Taken versions are not canon.

#14

The Taken versions would be not canon, with the possible exception of the Taken Winter’s Run. The Heist, Omnigul’s return, and Taniks reborn can be all considered canon as they don’t bend the lore.

#15

Ah ok I just never understood because many people have told me both views on the subject.

#16

The Taken Winters run. From the dialogue of Coming War, “I think it needs a living host.” Surely debunks the idea of just “fuck it bring that Archon back, guardians needs more old shit to do!”

Omnigul is a maybe. I’ll be indifferent really. I don’t meant to overthink it, but as someone who is planning on compiling a timeline of my own, I figured it would be vulgar to include Taken Cerberus Bae and the like.

#17

And Ghost’s dialogue asking where the Archon Priest is then cutting himself short with “Taken incoming” doesn’t mean anything? Clearly that Archon is alive until it was Taken. It wouldn’t have been Aksor but Nxis Winter retrieved this time.

Omnigul is an Ascendant Hive, and that’s the only explanation for why she can return at all. She either has her own Ascendant Realm or else an Oversoul in Crota’s Ascendant Realm that we haven’t found yet.

Cerberus Bae and all of that, don’t include those. They have no Taken replacements for the bosses.