Jason Schreier interviewed Luke Smith and Mark Noseworthy

On the latest episode of Kotaku Splitscreen, Jason interviewed Luke and Mark for nearly an hour. I haven't listened yet, but here's some interesting info copied from a reddit post.

Armor 2.0: Armor mods drop independently of armor and can be slotted into any piece of armor, as long as the armor has enough energy (slotting mods uses up this energy). The D1 armor stats are back. The endgame will be focused on grinding for armor with the right stats you want (think tier 12) and building up your collection of mods.
The Artifact is a seasonal progression item (like the clan banner). As you play throughout the season, you unlock mods for the artifact that are exclusive to the season. These mods sound like they'll be temporary and will get replaced each season (I could have misunderstood, though). A basic perk example: Vex drop more glimmer. Advanced perk example: throwing void grenades applies a melting point debuff.
They want to change the economy of glimmer to make it more valuable. Essentially, they don't want you always sitting on 100,000 glimmer. They want players to perhaps farm for glimmer and find optimal ways of farming, a staple of MMOs.
They want to add difficulty options. They say difficulty is "the razor that drives creativity" and that they have, historically, not added enough difficulty options. It sounds like they want to make their content more difficult, since difficulty incentivizes creativity and build customization. If everything is easy, people will just shoot shit mindlessly. But if things are hard, they will need to think more. Bungie wants players to strategize more often. Difficulty options will allow casual players to opt out of this, while hardcore players will face challenge.
The "Massive" part of an MMO is something Bungie isn't planning to add because of technical limitations (they aren't going to have 40+ players doing a public event, for instance) but they want to replicate this feeling on a smaller scale. Playing an activity and running into a group of other players and teaming up is something Bungie wants to see happen more often.
They are worried about file size but are finding ways to try and keep the game from getting too bloated. However, they do not have an answer to this problem and they believe they cannot keep growing the game indefinitely.
Saying Destiny is an MMO is a matter of identity in Bungie's eyes. They recognize that Destiny has had an identity crisis and they have been trying to please many different crowds of people. By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses.
They were a bit vague, but it seems like they are less focused on reaching the high profit margins and player counts that Activision required... however, Luke Smith did reinforce that their goal for New Light was to get more people invested in the game, and they are a company trying to make money, so obviously they still have profit goals and such. That said, Luke did firmly state they will not be changing the game to make a larger profit. They will stick to their fans and what they want out of the game.
Regarding recycled content: They want to utilize previous spaces by updating them and recontextualizing them. An example Noseworthy gave was the Taken King mission where you ascended the colony ships and fought a Shade of Oryx. In this mission, players revisited the Sepiks Prime boss room and got to see the corpse of the boss. They then traveled further into new territory and got to play in the colony ship people had always seen in the distance. They want to continue with these experiences and this utilization of old content. The Moon in Shadowkeep is a test to see how well this will work.
Regarding recycled once more: Jason Schreier points out that they dodged his initial question, which is if they were still having problems making content fast enough, particularly with their engine. Bungie was really vague about this and sort of dodged the question again. Luke did mention they have made great strides on the technical side and things have gotten better since 2016 when they started improving the workflow... but still, they were really vague, so this means they probably still have some issues.
They sort of have a plan for the story. They have concept art for future story events that direct them to where the story is heading. I'm sure the writers have a much clearer idea of where the story is going, but for the studio as a whole they have a general idea of the main story beats.
Crossplay is on the table. They definitely want it and are coming up with plans for it. Resource and technical limitations are the reason we're only getting crosssave this year, but in the future they want to add crossplay.
They haven't talked about D1 servers getting shut down and it doesn't seem like it'll happen anytime soon, however they are the sole ones supporting those servers, so they could eventually be shut down if they get in the way of future projects. Jason half-joked about having all the D1 content in D2 by the time the servers got shut down. Luke joked about the file size being big if that was the case. So bringing D1 stuff back is certainly possible, but it doesn't seem like they're planning to bring the entire game to D2. Especially due to file size, I imagine.
Jason mentioned Titan (the moon) being so awesome yet he has no reason to play there. Luke agreed and even said it's a place they'd like to explore a bit more. No plans for it are underway, I would think, but they know it's underutilized.

locked

2114 views

On the latest episode of Kotaku Splitscreen, Jason interviewed Luke and Mark for nearly an hour. I haven't listened yet, but here's some interesting info copied from a reddit post.

Armor 2.0: Armor mods drop independently of armor and can be slotted into any piece of armor, as long as the armor has enough energy (slotting mods uses up this energy). The D1 armor stats are back. The endgame will be focused on grinding for armor with the right stats you want (think tier 12) and building up your collection of mods.

I really hope that they have more dedicated PvE mods again (think Shank Burn, or Raid perks). This would encourage armor build diversity, and would help with the problem of mods feeling pretty much inconsequential.
This could also tie into the endgame and playlist diversity:
Want Crucible mods? Best place to get them is Comp. Second best is quickplay, then Gambit Prime, then Gambit, then Custom Games.
PvE Mods? Heroic-difficulty Raids. Second best is Normal Raids, then Heroic Strikes, so on and so forth.
You could even throw in some exclusive ones at the endgame level, while preventing the Rich-get-richer design with Cosmetic mods, such as ones that cause Grunt Birthday Party against Comp enemies, to really demoralize them. Bungie has long underestimated the value and draw of cosmetics.

[*] The Artifact is a seasonal progression item (like the clan banner). As you play throughout the season, you unlock mods for the artifact that are exclusive to the season. These mods sound like they'll be temporary and will get replaced each season (I could have misunderstood, though). A basic perk example: Vex drop more glimmer. Advanced perk example: throwing void grenades applies a melting point debuff.

That's neat, and encourages more focused play (assuming the unlocks are challenge-based). The resetting nature really helps with the carrot on a stick that many players crave, though I worry that can lead to Gjallys-only style issues when doing LFG.

[*] They want to change the economy of glimmer to make it more valuable. Essentially, they don't want you always sitting on 100,000 glimmer. They want players to perhaps farm for glimmer and find optimal ways of farming, a staple of MMOs.

Resource starvation is terrible. "Finding optimal ways of farming" is a result of poor game design, it shouldn't be their goal.

What they should do is make Glimmer more readily available in certain events, that way people funnel to them more if they're chasing that one item. Say "Doing Patrol activities in the Flashpoint rewards double Glimmer. Consecutive activities without returning to Orbit increase Glimmer gains."
So now you're funneling players into the Patrol Spaces, and encouraging them to stay there.
From there, you can give them Boosters. "Complete three Heroic Events in the Flashpoint, and total Glimmer gains will double for two hours".
Now they can go off and play their activities of choice, knowing that their work has yielded more reward.
You can even extend this to stuff like Guided Games: "Successfully complete a Guided Games run (Host or Guest) and all Enhancement Core drops have a chance to count as double".

Tl;dr, don't starve players, reward them instead. Make stuff cost more if you have to, but always have a clear path for players to actively engage with your systems, instead of trying to find ways to cheat them.

[*] They want to add difficulty options. They say difficulty is "the razor that drives creativity" and that they have, historically, not added enough difficulty options. It sounds like they want to make their content more difficult, since difficulty incentivizes creativity and build customization. If everything is easy, people will just shoot shit mindlessly. But if things are hard, they will need to think more. Bungie wants players to strategize more often. Difficulty options will allow casual players to opt out of this, while hardcore players will face challenge.

Again, this could all tie into rewards, whether it's the Power level of drops being higher than average, or getting exclusive emblems, shaders, emotes, mods, Ships, Sparrows, Ornaments, etc.
People will chase rewards, the fact that they are exclusive supercedes their utility for MANY people (even the beloved streamers). Heck, bring D1 cosmetics over, and people will go crazy for them!

[*] The "Massive" part of an MMO is something Bungie isn't planning to add because of technical limitations (they aren't going to have 40+ players doing a public event, for instance) but they want to replicate this feeling on a smaller scale. Playing an activity and running into a group of other players and teaming up is something Bungie wants to see happen more often.

MMOs such as Guild Wars 2 have World Bosses, which show up at certain times, and depending on player level and participation, can drop rare loot.
Destiny has had the three key ingredients to make something like this work:
-Escalation Protocol bosses
-Public Event enemies that only show up during the Flashpoint
-And roaming Wanted enemies that the Spider gives you Bounties for.

Put them all together, bump up their mechanics to something like a Menagerie final boss, and you've got everything that made EP great, but presentable in a more organic and scheduled fashion.

[*] They are worried about file size but are finding ways to try and keep the game from getting too bloated. However, they do not have an answer to this problem and they believe they cannot keep growing the game indefinitely.

Destiny 2 really needs an integrated Launcher like Warframe has. It's allowed them to do "Remastered builds" where they've cut the game size nearly in half, without requiring you to reinstall the entire game (and which bypasses the annoying file check that the PS4 has to do before every update). Optimize the code, remove the excess, and hotfix on the fly.

[*] Saying Destiny is an MMO is a matter of identity in Bungie's eyes. They recognize that Destiny has had an identity crisis and they have been trying to please many different crowds of people. By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses.

That's a bummer. "You have to do both".
One of Destiny's biggest issues has always been the falling-behind-if-you-don't-play-religiously problem. Sounds like they're embracing it as a means of encouraging people to play Destiny every day, as opposed to making it the type of game where you check in every once in a while and throw some money at if you like what you see.

[*] They were a bit vague, but it seems like they are less focused on reaching the high profit margins and player counts that Activision required... however, Luke Smith did reinforce that their goal for New Light was to get more people invested in the game, and they are a company trying to make money, so obviously they still have profit goals and such. That said, Luke did firmly state they will not be changing the game to make a larger profit. They will stick to their fans and what they want out of the game.

That's all nice on paper, but with the budget that the first two games have had, plus the cost of keeping the franchise? Bungie needs money, and the Eververse overhaul sort of goes against those claims. But who knows, if the content is solid, there's nothing wrong with a little extra content in the Eververse market.

[*] Regarding recycled content: They want to utilize previous spaces by updating them and recontextualizing them. An example Noseworthy gave was the Taken King mission where you ascended the colony ships and fought a Shade of Oryx. In this mission, players revisited the Sepiks Prime boss room and got to see the corpse of the boss. They then traveled further into new territory and got to play in the colony ship people had always seen in the distance. They want to continue with these experiences and this utilization of old content. The Moon in Shadowkeep is a test to see how well this will work.

This is a great and smart thing to do. Recontextualize the familiar, and you make everyone (except Cody) happy. Revisiting the Sea of Storms? Great! It's another chance for Bungie to grow and expand on the foundation laid by the first game. They can increase the Patrol space size, add more secrets, improve the interactivity with the environment, and add more story. The potential with the time you have saved by reusing assets at scale is huge.

I talked to you about all of the additions they made to the Plains of Eidolon in Warframe. The foundation was the same, but they kept trickling in more and more content and technical improvements to it, to the point where it's an entirely different and more fleshed out experience, and which has all sorts of rewarding minigames and endgame content, all while running better and faster than when it first launched.

Bungie could do this (and to a degree, they have, with the new Forge areas added). I'd love to see them embrace their less-fleshed out areas (such as the Archology).

[*] They sort of have a plan for the story. They have concept art for future story events that direct them to where the story is heading. I'm sure the writers have a much clearer idea of where the story is going, but for the studio as a whole they have a general idea of the main story beats.

As long as they do more Story, and not just thinking that Lore is a good replacement for Story, I'm all for them following loose points.

[*] Crossplay is on the table. They definitely want it and are coming up with plans for it. Resource and technical limitations are the reason we're only getting crosssave this year, but in the future they want to add crossplay.

Hope hope.

[*] Jason mentioned Titan (the moon) being so awesome yet he has no reason to play there. Luke agreed and even said it's a place they'd like to explore a bit more. No plans for it are underway, I would think, but they know it's underutilized.
[/list]

At least they added a great Gambit Prime map with the assets and art style of Titan, so they haven't entirely killed it off as far as developing that great art direction!

locked

2083 views

On the latest episode of Kotaku Splitscreen, Jason interviewed Luke and Mark for nearly an hour. I haven't listened yet, but here's some interesting info copied from a reddit post.

[*] They want to change the economy of glimmer to make it more valuable. Essentially, they don't want you always sitting on 100,000 glimmer. They want players to perhaps farm for glimmer and find optimal ways of farming, a staple of MMOs.

Resource starvation is terrible. "Finding optimal ways of farming" is a result of poor game design, it shouldn't be their goal.

What they should do is make Glimmer more readily available in certain events, that way people funnel to them more if they're chasing that one item. Say "Doing Patrol activities in the Flashpoint rewards double Glimmer. Consecutive activities without returning to Orbit increase Glimmer gains."
So now you're funneling players into the Patrol Spaces, and encouraging them to stay there.
From there, you can give them Boosters. "Complete three Heroic Events in the Flashpoint, and total Glimmer gains will double for two hours".
Now they can go off and play their activities of choice, knowing that their work has yielded more reward.
You can even extend this to stuff like Guided Games: "Successfully complete a Guided Games run (Host or Guest) and all Enhancement Core drops have a chance to count as double".

I like those ideas! But I'm somewhat confused by your argument. Yes, resource starvation is terrible, but it happens naturally in waves when content comes out. Then you mention that finding optimal ways of farming is a result of poor game design but immediately follow that up by giving examples of ways to improve the system by giving people optimal ways to farm glimmer. How is this not exactly what you are saying is poor game design? In my mind, you either need to make it so glimmer is never really a problem by just playing the game, or as you have given examples, find a way that people can double down on farming a particular resource. They have implemented that for almost all resources in the game except glimmer.

[*] They are worried about file size but are finding ways to try and keep the game from getting too bloated. However, they do not have an answer to this problem and they believe they cannot keep growing the game indefinitely.

Destiny 2 really needs an integrated Launcher like Warframe has. It's allowed them to do "Remastered builds" where they've cut the game size nearly in half, without requiring you to reinstall the entire game (and which bypasses the annoying file check that the PS4 has to do before every update). Optimize the code, remove the excess, and hotfix on the fly.

I would agree something like this would be nice, but this is also something that might not be feasible at this time because of how integrated everything is at this point. I think they are thinking about this going forward with the a la carte DLCs. I imagine they would have to wait for a D3 for implement something like an integrated launcher. Also, maybe it's just me, but I thought launchers for games were universally hated? I mean, I have never liked them...

[*] Saying Destiny is an MMO is a matter of identity in Bungie's eyes. They recognize that Destiny has had an identity crisis and they have been trying to please many different crowds of people. By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses.

That's a bummer. "You have to do both".
One of Destiny's biggest issues has always been the falling-behind-if-you-don't-play-religiously problem. Sounds like they're embracing it as a means of encouraging people to play Destiny every day, as opposed to making it the type of game where you check in every once in a while and throw some money at if you like what you see.

This is a bummer, but this comment really sounds like the emotional response from someone who listened to what Luke and Mark said not a summary of what they said. I reserve judgement about this and am going to wait to see what this really means.

[*] They were a bit vague, but it seems like they are less focused on reaching the high profit margins and player counts that Activision required... however, Luke Smith did reinforce that their goal for New Light was to get more people invested in the game, and they are a company trying to make money, so obviously they still have profit goals and such. That said, Luke did firmly state they will not be changing the game to make a larger profit. They will stick to their fans and what they want out of the game.

That's all nice on paper, but with the budget that the first two games have had, plus the cost of keeping the franchise? Bungie needs money, and the Eververse overhaul sort of goes against those claims. But who knows, if the content is solid, there's nothing wrong with a little extra content in the Eververse market.

[*] Regarding recycled content: They want to utilize previous spaces by updating them and recontextualizing them. An example Noseworthy gave was the Taken King mission where you ascended the colony ships and fought a Shade of Oryx. In this mission, players revisited the Sepiks Prime boss room and got to see the corpse of the boss. They then traveled further into new territory and got to play in the colony ship people had always seen in the distance. They want to continue with these experiences and this utilization of old content. The Moon in Shadowkeep is a test to see how well this will work.

This is a great and smart thing to do. Recontextualize the familiar, and you make everyone (except Cody) happy. Revisiting the Sea of Storms? Great! It's another chance for Bungie to grow and expand on the foundation laid by the first game. They can increase the Patrol space size, add more secrets, improve the interactivity with the environment, and add more story. The potential with the time you have saved by reusing assets at scale is huge.

I talked to you about all of the additions they made to the Plains of Eidolon in Warframe. The foundation was the same, but they kept trickling in more and more content and technical improvements to it, to the point where it's an entirely different and more fleshed out experience, and which has all sorts of rewarding minigames and endgame content, all while running better and faster than when it first launched.

Bungie could do this (and to a degree, they have, with the new Forge areas added). I'd love to see them embrace their less-fleshed out areas (such as the Archology).

Yep. I don't know what people get so defensive about reusing content. Yeah, if it's exactly the same content sure, but going back and reimaging old content makes it actually feel like a live game! Let's go back to the moon! Oh wait, it's not the same moon we remember it to be! This is great. Also, this might help the budget problem. Reuse assets to create more content faster and progress the story line.

[*] They sort of have a plan for the story. They have concept art for future story events that direct them to where the story is heading. I'm sure the writers have a much clearer idea of where the story is going, but for the studio as a whole they have a general idea of the main story beats.

As long as they do more Story, and not just thinking that Lore is a good replacement for Story, I'm all for them following loose points.

I like both. Give me both please.

[*] Crossplay is on the table. They definitely want it and are coming up with plans for it. Resource and technical limitations are the reason we're only getting crosssave this year, but in the future they want to add crossplay.

Hope hope.

Yeah, I'm glad they are thinking about this.

locked

2061 views

Regarding resource starvation.

Having a limited resource is only interesting for players if:

1. The resource is truly limited and during the course of the game there is a set finite amount.
2. The resource recharges automatically at a rate that is appropriate.

The problem with having a resource you must gather that is unlimited is that it takes away the element of choice. If a resource is truly limited, then choosing what to spend it on has a significant impact on how you play the game from that point on. But with an infinite resource there is no longer decision making; you can get more and essentially have every choice. This what is really going on is the game is making your time a resource. Those shitty mobile games where the game makes you wait for actions to complete are universally reviled. And yet, they are functionally equivalent as to when you have an infinite farmable resource.

Truly limiting the resource makes your choices interesting and impactful.

Resources that recharge automatically, such as your temperature gauge in Vanquish or your shield in Halo, are meant to provide limitations in the heat of the moment and change the flow of battle. Do I rush our or take cover? Then when the fight is over it recharges. This creates momentary strategic decisions.

But unlimited farmable resources? You lose everything interesting about having a limitation. Because there is no limitation at all if you have time. And so your time is wasted because the game could just let you have everything without you wasting your time.

locked

2067 views

Regarding resource starvation.

Having a limited resource is only interesting for players if:

1. The resource is truly limited and during the course of the game there is a set finite amount.
2. The resource recharges automatically at a rate that is appropriate.

The problem with having a resource you must gather that is unlimited is that it takes away the element of choice. If a resource is truly limited, then choosing what to spend it on has a significant impact on how you play the game from that point on. But with an infinite resource there is no longer decision making; you can get more and essentially have every choice. This what is really going on is the game is making your time a resource. Those shitty mobile games where the game makes you wait for actions to complete are universally reviled. And yet, they are functionally equivalent as to when you have an infinite farmable resource.

Truly limiting the resource makes your choices interesting and impactful.

Resources that recharge automatically, such as your temperature gauge in Vanquish or your shield in Halo, are meant to provide limitations in the heat of the moment and change the flow of battle. Do I rush our or take cover? Then when the fight is over it recharges. This creates momentary strategic decisions.

But unlimited farmable resources? You lose everything interesting about having a limitation. Because there is no limitation at all if you have time. And so your time is wasted because the game could just let you have everything without you wasting your time.

I agree with you that "limited" resources give players an option. And also that there are different kinds limited resources. As you mention, if the resource is unlimited, then the true gated resource is then your time. That is on me, it's my time, my choice. If I have weapon A and B I want to upgrade and I need a resource, it's my choice to either spend my time to upgrade just one, or both of them. They have given me a choice as to how much I want to invest in a weapon over another. Time is just another resource that is limited. You apparently don't like Time being a limited resource in a game. The difference here, is that I control how I use the time. Mobile games decide that for you. You don't have the choice to spend more of your time if you want to. It's possible that you also don't like that time as a resource in games doesn't have a static value across all gamers. I know it's come up here many times on the forums that. But in my mind, you can't have a live game without investing time as a resource.

locked

2030 views

But in my mind, you can't have a live game without investing time as a resource.

Another piece of evidence for why MMO games are inherently defective.

locked

2051 views

Time is always a resource. In every game you’ve ever played, in every thing you’ve ever done. Time is inherently a resource. Destiny is a better game when it’s populated. Public spaces are better when other people occupy them. The game asking that you spend time in those spaces is in service of making the game better and more fun, not just some asinine scheme to keep their numbers up.

The new Truth quest sends you to patrol zones to do seemingly meaningless tasks. Get 100 Hive kills on the Tangled Shore. Seems stupid, like a waste of time. But I haven’t seen so many people in the Tangled Shore since Forsaken came out. Having 12 people in the one Hive zone on that map knocking out the Public Event and blasting Hive was a novel experience, and it was fun.

You can not like it if you want, but your assertion that it is inherently bad is demonstrably false.

locked

2041 views

- No text -

locked

2026 views

Time is always a resource. In every game you’ve ever played, in every thing you’ve ever done. Time is inherently a resource.

That's… very false.

I don't ever recall Mario asking me to trade time for upgrading items, or for anything for that matter. The game presented itself and let me experience and explore it immediately. World 1-1, here you go have fun. Hell, it even included a warp zone so you didn't have to play shit over and over!

locked

2042 views

Time is always a resource. In every game you’ve ever played, in every thing you’ve ever done. Time is inherently a resource.

That's… very false.

I don't ever recall Mario asking me to trade time for upgrading items, or for anything for that matter. The game presented itself and let me experience and explore it immediately. World 1-1, here you go have fun. Hell, it even included a warp zone so you didn't have to play shit over and over!

Except you were always choosing to spend your time playing Mario instead of doing anything else. You were using up a finite resource to play Mario. Time is a resource.

There's also the fact that Mario is a single player game, and Destiny isn't. For Destiny to work at all, there is a need for many people to be playing it. Raids don't work without a party. Crucible clearly doesn't happen without people in those playlists. Strikes could work alone, and it'd be a nice change of pace sometimes, but they are designed for three people. Without random matchmaking, patrol zones might as well not exist because it always feels drab and empty when I get loaded into one alone. Destiny is a game that only works because it is designed to be played with other people, both friends and blueberries. Sending players into the patrol zones and into the playlist activities is essential to making the game work. You can make an argument about the good or bad of designing a game where that is necessary, but we're far, far beyond that point. That is what Destiny is, that's a fact, and it's never going to be anything different. It's never going to be Halo. The game is better for everyone when everyone is out in the game doing stuff, even if you think it's piddly time-wasting bullshit.

Again, you may not like that, but it's not merely doing it just to waste Cody Miller's time. It is doing it because the game literally falls apart without those hooks that keep people in those activities. My experience is less fun if no one else is out there also doing any of those things.

locked

2048 views

Time is always a resource. In every game you’ve ever played, in every thing you’ve ever done. Time is inherently a resource.

That's… very false.

I don't ever recall Mario asking me to trade time for upgrading items, or for anything for that matter. The game presented itself and let me experience and explore it immediately. World 1-1, here you go have fun. Hell, it even included a warp zone so you didn't have to play shit over and over!

Except you were always choosing to spend your time playing Mario instead of doing anything else. You were using up a finite resource to play Mario. Time is a resource.

That's time being a resources OUTside of the game, because you could be doing something other than playing.

Cody's talking about time being a limited resource INside of the game-- such as, you can spend X minutes farming this resource, or X minutes farming that resource, but if you only have X minutes to spare, you can't do both.

locked

2024 views

I think it is reaching to suggest those are different. Like, substantial reaching. It’s all the same time. One game having more than one thing you could choose to spend your time doing isn’t new.

locked

1999 views

I think it is reaching to suggest those are different. Like, substantial reaching. It’s all the same time. One game having more than one thing you could choose to spend your time doing isn’t new.

That's not what this is about at all…

Obviously you're going to spend TIME playing any game. But time is never a resource in most games.

Think of it this way. Bungie could make glimmer farming take half the time, 1/4 the time, or maybe even NO time with a change to the game design. They are therefore purposely wasting your time. They are saying "If you want to upgrade both these weapons, you must pay for it with X amount of time".

A game like Mario doesn't work that way. Time is not a resource. The game doesn't use your time for anything. Your progression is linked to skill and knowledge. You may say those take TIME to acquire, but this is true of every pursuit. Nothing the game does can make you learn to beat world 4-2 any faster. That's on YOU. But the game also doesn't put a time barrier on that. You could be gifted and beat it your first try. But farming always takes TIME. Bungie could easily make upgrading weapons take less TIME with simple tweaks, but you must aways pay a minimum that they themselves choose.

See the difference? Bungie's methodology is about purposely holding you back no matter what you do. Mario's is about moving you forward as soon as you are ready.

locked

2024 views

I think it is reaching to suggest those are different. Like, substantial reaching. It’s all the same time. One game having more than one thing you could choose to spend your time doing isn’t new.

That's not what this is about at all…

Obviously you're going to spend TIME playing any game. But time is never a resource in most games.

Think of it this way. Bungie could make glimmer farming take half the time, 1/4 the time, or maybe even NO time with a change to the game design. They are therefore purposely wasting your time. They are saying "If you want to upgrade both these weapons, you must pay for it with X amount of time".

A game like Mario doesn't work that way. Time is not a resource. The game doesn't use your time for anything. Your progression is linked to skill and knowledge. You may say those take TIME to acquire, but this is true of every pursuit. Nothing the game does can make you learn to beat world 4-2 any faster. That's on YOU. But the game also doesn't put a time barrier on that. You could be gifted and beat it your first try. But farming always takes TIME. Bungie could easily make upgrading weapons take less TIME with simple tweaks, but you must aways pay a minimum that they themselves choose.

See the difference? Bungie's methodology is about purposely holding you back no matter what you do. Mario's is about moving you forward as soon as you are ready.

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

locked

2022 views

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

No. Sort of.

I am upset that your time is being treaded as a resource to be exploited.

locked

2029 views

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

No. Sort of.

I am upset that your time is being treaded as a resource to be exploited.

But how is it fair that a less skilled player must spend more time to get good while a skilled player doesn't have to anymore? This was especially exploitative in the age of Arcade Machines. You got nickled and dimed, literally, until you got good enough. The developers could've made it easier so it took less money to complete the game, couldn't they? But then you'd say the challenge is the fun part. Well, playing the game (for a currency) is the fun part. It's just that the rewards is less inherent to the gameplay. Your argument is that this is worse. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it bad, just different. Technically its a more fairly balanced use of your time as a resource when compared to skill-based challenge.

locked

2026 views

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

No. Sort of.

I am upset that your time is being treaded as a resource to be exploited.

But how is it fair that a less skilled player must spend more time to get good while a skilled player doesn't have to anymore? This was especially exploitative in the age of Arcade Machines. You got nickled and dimed, literally, until you got good enough. The developers could've made it easier so it took less money to complete the game, couldn't they? But then you'd say the challenge is the fun part. Well, playing the game (for a currency) is the fun part. It's just that the rewards is less inherent to the gameplay. Your argument is that this is worse. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it bad, just different. Technically its a more fairly balanced use of your time as a resource when compared to skill-based challenge.

In many games, there is a sort of mechanical progression. Games get more complex or require a wider range of skills as you make your way from level to level. In such cases, you actually want to make sure that a player can handle the basics before throwing them into more challenging scenarios. So if a player isn’t skilled enough to beat a certain level, it’s generally a good thing to have them repeat it until they demonstrate that they can handle it (by beating the level)

Of course, players very wildly in their skill levels, but that’s where difficulty settings come in and help set the appropriate range of difficulty for any given individual.

locked

2042 views

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

No. Sort of.

I am upset that your time is being treaded as a resource to be exploited.

But how is it fair that a less skilled player must spend more time to get good while a skilled player doesn't have to anymore? This was especially exploitative in the age of Arcade Machines. You got nickled and dimed, literally, until you got good enough. The developers could've made it easier so it took less money to complete the game, couldn't they? But then you'd say the challenge is the fun part. Well, playing the game (for a currency) is the fun part. It's just that the rewards is less inherent to the gameplay. Your argument is that this is worse. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it bad, just different. Technically its a more fairly balanced use of your time as a resource when compared to skill-based challenge.

Woah. Hold up. Different people have different skills to begin with--it's not about fairness. That's reality. Cody is simply saying he doesn't want low-skilled busy work in a game. THAT is what he considers exploitive. He doesn't mind devoting time (and money) to developing skill. He wants games that support that particular use of his time.

I get that you say that other people might find working for resources fun, but you muddy your argument by bringing fairness into it.

locked

2043 views

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

No. Sort of.

I am upset that your time is being treaded as a resource to be exploited.

But how is it fair that a less skilled player must spend more time to get good while a skilled player doesn't have to anymore? This was especially exploitative in the age of Arcade Machines. You got nickled and dimed, literally, until you got good enough. The developers could've made it easier so it took less money to complete the game, couldn't they? But then you'd say the challenge is the fun part. Well, playing the game (for a currency) is the fun part. It's just that the rewards is less inherent to the gameplay. Your argument is that this is worse. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it bad, just different. Technically its a more fairly balanced use of your time as a resource when compared to skill-based challenge.

Woah. Hold up. Different people have different skills to begin with--it's not about fairness. That's reality. Cody is simply saying he doesn't want low-skilled busy work in a game. THAT is what he considers exploitive. He doesn't mind devoting time (and money) to developing skill. He wants games that support that particular use of his time.

I get that you say that other people might find working for resources fun, but you muddy your argument by bringing fairness into it.

Exploitation (in this case) is an unfair use of your time, no?

locked

2009 views

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

No. Sort of.

I am upset that your time is being treaded as a resource to be exploited.

But how is it fair that a less skilled player must spend more time to get good while a skilled player doesn't have to anymore? This was especially exploitative in the age of Arcade Machines. You got nickled and dimed, literally, until you got good enough. The developers could've made it easier so it took less money to complete the game, couldn't they? But then you'd say the challenge is the fun part. Well, playing the game (for a currency) is the fun part. It's just that the rewards is less inherent to the gameplay. Your argument is that this is worse. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it bad, just different. Technically its a more fairly balanced use of your time as a resource when compared to skill-based challenge.

Woah. Hold up. Different people have different skills to begin with--it's not about fairness. That's reality. Cody is simply saying he doesn't want low-skilled busy work in a game. THAT is what he considers exploitive. He doesn't mind devoting time (and money) to developing skill. He wants games that support that particular use of his time.

I get that you say that other people might find working for resources fun, but you muddy your argument by bringing fairness into it.

Exploitation (in this case) is an unfair use of your time, no?

No. Because someone can walk down the road faster than me does not mean the people who built the road are exploiting me.

locked

2027 views

No. Because someone can walk down the road faster than me does not mean the people who built the road are exploiting me.

What a good metaphor.

locked

2011 views

Someone may also bike or use a car to get down that road, but being mad at the road because you have to pick one or the other is irrational.

locked

2032 views

Someone may also bike or use a car to get down that road, but being mad at the road because you have to pick one or the other is irrational.

Another good metaphor.

If driving or riding is a possibility, and the game forces you to walk, then your time is being wasted.

Why do you think for modern ports of classic JRPGs they all include level boosters?

locked

1996 views

Someone may also bike or use a car to get down that road, but being mad at the road because you have to pick one or the other is irrational.

Another good metaphor.

If driving or riding is a possibility, and the game forces you to walk, then your time is being wasted.

Why do you think for modern ports of classic JRPGs they all include level boosters?

Personally I think the car/bike metaphor is bad because we are all walking, there is no other mode of transportation. I think the problem is that some people hate walking so much because they feel like they are being forced to walk down a road. I personally like looking at the scenery while I walk, especially when I'm walking with other people. But other people are so bothered that they are being "forced" to walk that they can't enjoy the scenery.

locked

1992 views

Sometimes i don’t care about scenery, I’m just trying to get to the damn theater so I can have an enjoyable experience.

locked

2004 views

You aren’t being “forced” to do anything though. You are making a conscious choice to do one over the other.

locked

1985 views

That’s not really true, though.

If you want to enjoy Destiny at the highest levels, there’s no way to do so without engaging with all the extraneous bullshit, too. Yeah, it’s a choice in that you could simply not play at all (which is what Cody has done).

I still think there’s a good middle ground, and Armor 2.0 might be a good step in that direction. Remove power levels, and make the grind about mods and perks. Everyone wins. Hardcore players have cool stuff to chase, and the more casual folks can just jump in and play.

locked

2001 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

locked

1983 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

It’s been a problem since nearly day 1!

I liked raids and crucible. Can you play raids without first leveling up? No? Well gee then I have to level up and grind for powerful rewards even though I don’t want to.

locked

2003 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

It’s been a problem since nearly day 1!

I liked raids and crucible. Can you play raids without first leveling up? No? Well gee then I have to level up and grind for powerful rewards even though I don’t want to.

You can now, which is something I liked.

I bought Forsaken this past week. I'm not even halfway done with the campaign, and I jumped up from 380 to 500+. As soon as I complete the campaign and hit 50, I'm going to be given a short 20-minute quest that will give me gear that will shoot me up to 690. This will be enough to do every bit of endgame content. Every single raid/raid lair, though I might not be able to beat the newest one. That said, casual play of only the stuff I wanted to do on PS4 (playing only a single character) already has me at 720+, which is enough to beat the entire raid, if I wished to do so.

Plus, Menagerie is fun, and the better you are, the harder it gets, so there's challenge if you seek it.

locked

1973 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

It’s been a problem since nearly day 1!

I liked raids and crucible. Can you play raids without first leveling up? No? Well gee then I have to level up and grind for powerful rewards even though I don’t want to.

You can now, which is something I liked.

I bought Forsaken this past week. I'm not even halfway done with the campaign, and I jumped up from 380 to 500+. As soon as I complete the campaign and hit 50, I'm going to be given a short 20-minute quest that will give me gear that will shoot me up to 690. This will be enough to do every bit of endgame content. Every single raid/raid lair, though I might not be able to beat the newest one. That said, casual play of only the stuff I wanted to do on PS4 (playing only a single character) already has me at 720+, which is enough to beat the entire raid, if I wished to do so.

Plus, Menagerie is fun, and the better you are, the harder it gets, so there's challenge if you seek it.

The problem with this is that Cody only wants to play crucible and disregard 80% of the rest of the game to level up to play the newest raid. To me this sounds ridiculous. However, you CAN use this strategy. You get powerful engrams for just playing crucible! And even prime engrams for playing the game. So it's totally possible, it's just going to take... let me do the math... 5 times longer because you aren't playing everything you paid for.

locked

1975 views

And who’s gonna do the raid with you blind? Remember that’s important to me, and that means doing it promptly. There aren’t 5 other people on here who are blind to all the raids after and including riven.

locked

1965 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

It’s been a problem since nearly day 1!

I liked raids and crucible. Can you play raids without first leveling up? No? Well gee then I have to level up and grind for powerful rewards even though I don’t want to.

I get this feeling that it's not just that you don't like leveling/power level (we all know you do), you just like to have access to all content to play at your convenience. If there was a campaign that you didn't like and there was endgame content at the end of it you would be saying they should allow you to play the endgame content before the campaign. You would then consider the campaign to be a "grind" and thus in your way to enjoying the game.

locked

1997 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

It’s been a problem since nearly day 1!

I liked raids and crucible. Can you play raids without first leveling up? No? Well gee then I have to level up and grind for powerful rewards even though I don’t want to.

I get this feeling that it's not just that you don't like leveling/power level (we all know you do), you just like to have access to all content to play at your convenience. If there was a campaign that you didn't like and there was endgame content at the end of it you would be saying they should allow you to play the endgame content before the campaign. You would then consider the campaign to be a "grind" and thus in your way to enjoying the game.

To be fair, that's kind of true.
To me, the Forsaken campaign is dumb. The writing is bad, the missions are weak and overly long without substance, and the mandatory climb from 30 to 50 was annoying (though Comp helped me grind through quite a few levels)... Unfortunately, if I want to get started on any Season Pass stuff, I have to play through the entire campaign, even though it's unrelated to (the bizarrely-named) Forsaken. Sure, once the whole thing is over, I'll hit 690 and be on my way, but man is it frustrating. I ended up putting it off the past couple of days, and just playing other stuff, because I wish I could just skip that fluff.

locked

1971 views

Well, seeing as how they’re removing the requirements to finish the campaigns in New Light, it seems like Bungie agrees with him.

So do I. It’s always been stupid. Especially if you’re doing it on your second or third character.

locked

1974 views

Well, seeing as how they’re removing the requirements to finish the campaigns in New Light, it seems like Bungie agrees with him.

So do I. It’s always been stupid. Especially if you’re doing it on your second or third character.

That’s where it becomes real clear-cut in my mind. I can see the argument that you shouldn’t be able to buy the game and skip straight to the end (even though, IMO, Destiny is this strange case where the emphasis on the “current” content and the increasingly massive glut of “old” content is a strong counter to that argument).

But when it comes to 2nd and 3rd characters, every single minute of replaying those campaigns has felt like a chore to me. I don’t think there’s been a single story mission in the entire franchise that has left me thinking “I can’t wait to play that again!”.

locked

1964 views

Well, seeing as how they’re removing the requirements to finish the campaigns in New Light, it seems like Bungie agrees with him.

So do I. It’s always been stupid. Especially if you’re doing it on your second or third character.

That’s where it becomes real clear-cut in my mind. I can see the argument that you shouldn’t be able to buy the game and skip straight to the end (even though, IMO, Destiny is this strange case where the emphasis on the “current” content and the increasingly massive glut of “old” content is a strong counter to that argument).

But when it comes to 2nd and 3rd characters, every single minute of replaying those campaigns has felt like a chore to me. I don’t think there’s been a single story mission in the entire franchise that has left me thinking “I can’t wait to play that again!”.

Why can’t you skip to the end though? Isn’t that your choice? Most games had level select codes back in the day. But most people played through the game normally the first time because they want to have fun with the challenge the game offered. When you chose to use the code to skip ahead was your own choice. It wouldn’t ruin your experience if you are deciding the experience you want.

Notice how you could choose any level in Halo from the title screen after you have played it once.

locked

1967 views

Well, seeing as how they’re removing the requirements to finish the campaigns in New Light, it seems like Bungie agrees with him.

So do I. It’s always been stupid. Especially if you’re doing it on your second or third character.

That’s where it becomes real clear-cut in my mind. I can see the argument that you shouldn’t be able to buy the game and skip straight to the end (even though, IMO, Destiny is this strange case where the emphasis on the “current” content and the increasingly massive glut of “old” content is a strong counter to that argument).

But when it comes to 2nd and 3rd characters, every single minute of replaying those campaigns has felt like a chore to me. I don’t think there’s been a single story mission in the entire franchise that has left me thinking “I can’t wait to play that again!”.

Why can’t you skip to the end though? Isn’t that your choice? Most games had level select codes back in the day. But most people played through the game normally the first time because they want to have fun with the challenge the game offered. When you chose to use the code to skip ahead was your own choice. It wouldn’t ruin your experience if you are deciding the experience you want.

I don’t actually think any of this argument makes sense in Destiny’s case. It’s not a linear game. It’s more like an increasingly large collection of XBLA games that are tied together to let you bounce back and forth (Mario Party in space?).

So yeah, I think at this point it’s silly to cling to the idea that players should be forced to play through 2 years of story missions before they can join their friends in the latest activity. Good on Bungie for moving away from that notion.

Notice how you could choose any level in Halo from the title screen after you have played it once.

... kinda stepping on your own point there ;)

locked

1952 views

Well, seeing as how they’re removing the requirements to finish the campaigns in New Light, it seems like Bungie agrees with him.

So do I. It’s always been stupid. Especially if you’re doing it on your second or third character.

That’s where it becomes real clear-cut in my mind. I can see the argument that you shouldn’t be able to buy the game and skip straight to the end (even though, IMO, Destiny is this strange case where the emphasis on the “current” content and the increasingly massive glut of “old” content is a strong counter to that argument).

But when it comes to 2nd and 3rd characters, every single minute of replaying those campaigns has felt like a chore to me. I don’t think there’s been a single story mission in the entire franchise that has left me thinking “I can’t wait to play that again!”.

Why can’t you skip to the end though? Isn’t that your choice? Most games had level select codes back in the day. But most people played through the game normally the first time because they want to have fun with the challenge the game offered. When you chose to use the code to skip ahead was your own choice. It wouldn’t ruin your experience if you are deciding the experience you want.

I don’t actually think any of this argument makes sense in Destiny’s case. It’s not a linear game. It’s more like an increasingly large collection of XBLA games that are tied together to let you bounce back and forth (Mario Party in space?).

So yeah, I think at this point it’s silly to cling to the idea that players should be forced to play through 2 years of story missions before they can join their friends in the latest activity. Good on Bungie for moving away from that notion.

Notice how you could choose any level in Halo from the title screen after you have played it once.

... kinda stepping on your own point there ;)

I think the thing that would help a lot would be the availability to replay levels from a select screen which Cody pointed out. However as Cruel points out and Bungie has also mentioned is that Destiny has become a very big entity with a ton of pieces and it's not at all linear. Whether people like it or not, you can't just have a selection screen for missions because there is a ton of little things you do between the missions like talk to people. You kinda have to do it from start to finish. Again, that doesn't mean Bungie can't do it or at least make it so that it's not required.

locked

1974 views

I don’t actually think any of this argument makes sense in Destiny’s case. It’s not a linear game. It’s more like an increasingly large collection of XBLA games that are tied together to let you bounce back and forth (Mario Party in space?).

So why are some activities gated?! If you are supposed to bounce around all should be available regardless of your power level.

locked

1959 views

Well, seeing as how they’re removing the requirements to finish the campaigns in New Light, it seems like Bungie agrees with him.

I wouldn't call giving full access to year old content agreeing with Cody's stance. The question is if they are doing it for future content. I don't know that answer.

So do I. It’s always been stupid. Especially if you’re doing it on your second or third character.

I don't think it's stupid for your first character as some raids are enhanced, and in the case of dreaming city required, by the campaign. Yes, I totally agree that finished campaigns should be account based not character based.

locked

1978 views

Why does it being year old content matter? It’s going to be new for somebody, so what’s the difference? Destiny is a buffet, not a twelve course meal. If you want to skip straight to ice cream before you hit the salad bar, why shouldn’t you be able to?

locked

1980 views

Why does it being year old content matter? It’s going to be new for somebody, so what’s the difference? Destiny is a buffet, not a twelve course meal. If you want to skip straight to ice cream before you hit the salad bar, why shouldn’t you be able to?

My best answer to this would I guess be Artistic integrity? Like if someone bought a famous statue just so they can rip the head off because it was the only thing they liked? I know this isn't an exact metaphor as we don't own destiny, we buy it to play as is. But I can at least see how Bungie might feel about it. And this only applies for new players.

I'm all for ripping up the game for veterans who might want to replay certain content.

locked

1972 views

Why does it being year old content matter? It’s going to be new for somebody, so what’s the difference? Destiny is a buffet, not a twelve course meal. If you want to skip straight to ice cream before you hit the salad bar, why shouldn’t you be able to?

My best answer to this would I guess be Artistic integrity? Like if someone bought a famous statue just so they can rip the head off because it was the only thing they liked? I know this isn't an exact metaphor as we don't own destiny, we buy it to play as is. But I can at least see how Bungie might feel about it. And this only applies for new players.

I'm all for ripping up the game for veterans who might want to replay certain content.

Agreed. Part of that is my bias. I want Destiny to be more of a narrative-based game than it is, or I should say than it is successfully.

Cruel said he didn't want to replay any story missions. I've got favorites. For example, I adore "Chosen," and it's mirror image "Adieu" (which I don't think you can replay).

I wish you could redo quests, too. Even better would be to have a quest that basically led you through the campaign again. Perhaps juice up the drops or increase the odds for a fated engram (guaranteeing at least one at the end). They could justify it easily in this universe--they've already done similar things for Ikora's meditations and in the Mercury strikes.

Perhaps complaints about Destiny's story wouldn't be as loud if we could experience its beats in context more than a handful of times.

locked

1971 views

No clue if it’ll ever actually happen but in some interview I listened to or read last week, Mark and Luke said the new Pursuits tab is a step in working towards bringing something like The Taken King’s Quest page back. Maybe that also means they’ll bring back reactivating entire quest lines.

I’m personally with Cruel in that I mostly don’t think they are worth replaying, but some of the Forsaken missions were alright.

locked

1973 views

No clue if it’ll ever actually happen but in some interview I listened to or read last week, Mark and Luke said the new Pursuits tab is a step in working towards bringing something like The Taken King’s Quest page back. Maybe that also means they’ll bring back reactivating entire quest lines.

After Speed mentioned this to Peter tonight, who seemed to imply that wasn't true at all, I had to go back and listen to that answer again.

It seems I may have extrapolated more than they might have intended, but maybe not.

In response to Jason asking "What do you do to the Pursuits tab?" Luke replies:

What we're trying to do with the Pursuits screen ultimately is get something more like a quest log back in the game . . .

I guess I read that as the TTK Quest screen, because I can't recall any other quest log that's ever been in the game, but I don't actually remember any pre-TTK quest tracking screen or what that might have been like.

locked

1946 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

It’s been a problem since nearly day 1!

I liked raids and crucible. Can you play raids without first leveling up? No? Well gee then I have to level up and grind for powerful rewards even though I don’t want to.

I get this feeling that it's not just that you don't like leveling/power level (we all know you do), you just like to have access to all content to play at your convenience. If there was a campaign that you didn't like and there was endgame content at the end of it you would be saying they should allow you to play the endgame content before the campaign. You would then consider the campaign to be a "grind" and thus in your way to enjoying the game.

Playing a campaign to get to the endgame is not a “grind”. You only have to play the campaign once. It is not repetitive. It is ostensibly fun for its own sake. Not comparable.

locked

1967 views

“Highest levels” is nebulous at best of a description. There is no meaning to it, so you would need to be more specific as to what you mean, because I can’t think of anyway to play Destiny where you are forced to Engage the game in any way you don’t choose to.

It’s been a problem since nearly day 1!

I liked raids and crucible. Can you play raids without first leveling up? No? Well gee then I have to level up and grind for powerful rewards even though I don’t want to.

I get this feeling that it's not just that you don't like leveling/power level (we all know you do), you just like to have access to all content to play at your convenience. If there was a campaign that you didn't like and there was endgame content at the end of it you would be saying they should allow you to play the endgame content before the campaign. You would then consider the campaign to be a "grind" and thus in your way to enjoying the game.

Playing a campaign to get to the endgame is not a “grind”. You only have to play the campaign once. It is not repetitive. It is ostensibly fun for its own sake. Not comparable.

It's not comparable to you. I can easily go through all of Destiny's content without playing the same map and easily get enough light to play the raid. I find that all fun (well crucible is up and down for me). So it is fun for it's own sake. You just don't find that content enjoyable.

In my mind, a grind is doing content that you don't want to do/enjoy so that you can get something you want.

locked

1964 views

It's not comparable to you. I can easily go through all of Destiny's content without playing the same map and easily get enough light to play the raid. I find that all fun (well crucible is up and down for me). So it is fun for it's own sake. You just don't find that content enjoyable.

In my mind, a grind is doing content that you don't want to do/enjoy so that you can get something you want.

I wouldn't agree with that.

A linear campaign is not designed with a repetitive 'gameplay' loop in mind. A grind is. It's all about the goal of the design.

locked

1944 views

It's not comparable to you. I can easily go through all of Destiny's content without playing the same map and easily get enough light to play the raid. I find that all fun (well crucible is up and down for me). So it is fun for it's own sake. You just don't find that content enjoyable.

In my mind, a grind is doing content that you don't want to do/enjoy so that you can get something you want.

I wouldn't agree with that.

A linear campaign is not designed with a repetitive 'gameplay' loop in mind. A grind is. It's all about the goal of the design.

And I don't agree that content that is designed to be replayable is the defining factor of a grind. If you actually believe this, then I don't know why you like Crucible. Crucible is made to be repeated over and over again and still stay fun.

locked

1927 views

That’s a little disingenuous. Crucible is different every single match based on the fact that you’re playing with and against different players. If you don’t like Crucible that might not be an appreciable difference to you, but it’s undeniably a difference between that and doing the thousandth “Collect 15 Baryon Boughs” bounties, which still makes me angry every time I see it.

locked

1932 views

- No text -

locked

1925 views

That’s a little disingenuous. Crucible is different every single match based on the fact that you’re playing with and against different players. If you don’t like Crucible that might not be an appreciable difference to you, but it’s undeniably a difference between that and doing the thousandth “Collect 15 Baryon Boughs” bounties, which still makes me angry every time I see it.

I only used crucible as an example because Cody has specifically said that that is one of the only things he enjoys doing other than raiding. I would have used another example instead :D

I could also say that strikes and nightfalls are also specifically made to be replaying by adding matchmaking with other people, daily modifiers, and randomness of enemies.

I'm all for calling collecting baryon boughs a grind, but that is still a subset (and not required) of just one of many different ways to level up easily.

I'm mostly saying that Cody has said that you have to grind to play end game content. And to him a grind is something that has been designed to be repeated. And everything apart from the campaign is meant to be repeated, thus why Destiny is an MMO. Even the things he likes playing, crucible and raids. So if he enjoys crucible, why doesn't he enjoy strikes? or nightfalls? They are all designed to be repeated just like crucible. Yes, they are inherently different style of play, but not in terms of grinding as he puts it.

So to me, grinding, as he defines it, has nothing to do with it. He just wants to raid immediately, apart from whatever else the game gives him. And raids have inherently been endgame content. And that makes sense given story and buildup. You can't just play the Forsaken raid without playing the campaign, that would make no sense! I would have missed out on a lot if I played the leviathan raid before completing the campaign.

locked

1944 views

Not designed to be repeated.

Designed to be repetitive.

There is a difference.

locked

1948 views

This distinction feels like arbitrary “I’m righter” nonsense. Arguments over what is repeatable design and what is repetitive design will go absolutely nowhere.

locked

1924 views

This distinction feels like arbitrary “I’m righter” nonsense. Arguments over what is repeatable design and what is repetitive design will go absolutely nowhere.

It's not that hard to figure out.

Is the repetition designed purposely as a means of progression? - Repetitive design and bad.

Is the repetition tied to wanting a new experience? - Repeatable design and good.

Are you repeating to progress, or are you repeating to have a new experience? Very easy to answer.

locked

1922 views

This distinction feels like arbitrary “I’m righter” nonsense. Arguments over what is repeatable design and what is repetitive design will go absolutely nowhere.

It's not that hard to figure out.

Please don't make statements that imply we are dumb. There is no place for that here.

Is the repetition designed purposely as a means of progression? - Repetitive design and bad.

I partially agree with this. But you are making it way too black and white. If this statement is true, then you are saying that roguelike games are terribly designed. I would disagree with that.

Is the repetition tied to wanting a new experience? - Repeatable design and good.

Generally I agree with this, but you are assuming a new experience is a good one.

Are you repeating to progress, or are you repeating to have a new experience? Very easy to answer.

I would actually say that a majority of Destiny is actually both. I don't agree that it's completely bad design, progression is not a bad thing. Even if you have to repeat something to get that progression. What you repeat could be boring and not fun, but that doesn't mean that progression through repeating something is bad. Example we have used: Picking up resources from a planet vs playing crucible, both are repetition that progresses you in the game. Some people love or hate crucible, some people don't mind picking up resources but other don't. It's not all bad design.

locked

1925 views

This distinction feels like arbitrary “I’m righter” nonsense. Arguments over what is repeatable design and what is repetitive design will go absolutely nowhere.

It's not that hard to figure out.

Please don't make statements that imply we are dumb. There is no place for that here.

Sorry. The intent was that of encouragement, not that of implying you're dumb.

locked

1926 views

Not designed to be repeated.

Designed to be repetitive.

There is a difference.

repetitive adjective
re·pet·i·tive | \ ri-ˈpe-tə-tiv \
Definition of repetitive
1 : REPETITIOUS
2 : containing repetition

repetition noun
rep·e·ti·tion | \ ˌre-pə-ˈti-shən \
Definition of repetition
1a : the act or an instance of repeating or being repeated
b : a motion or exercise (such as a push-up) that is repeated and usually counted
2 : MENTION, RECITAL

Okay, when you say something is different and then don't explain how you think it's different I get technical. This is right off the merriam-webster website. You are right, they are different. But in what we are talking about, I don't see a difference. Something that is repetitive is meant to be repeated. Please inform me on how the difference in these two words matter.

locked

1921 views

Not designed to be repeated.

Designed to be repetitive.

There is a difference.

repetitive adjective
re·pet·i·tive | \ ri-ˈpe-tə-tiv \
Definition of repetitive
1 : REPETITIOUS
2 : containing repetition

repetition noun
rep·e·ti·tion | \ ˌre-pə-ˈti-shən \
Definition of repetition
1a : the act or an instance of repeating or being repeated
b : a motion or exercise (such as a push-up) that is repeated and usually counted
2 : MENTION, RECITAL

Okay, when you say something is different and then don't explain how you think it's different I get technical. This is right off the merriam-webster website. You are right, they are different. But in what we are talking about, I don't see a difference. Something that is repetitive is meant to be repeated. Please inform me on how the difference in these two words matter.

I think something can be repeatable without being repetitious. You can repeat a level of Halo, but you might try going a different way, or using different weapons, or try to take the warthog all the way to the end this time. All of these are stimulating new experiences. When something is repetitive, this implies a mindless sameness. This describes most grind I think, especially if efficiency is a concern.

locked

1931 views

I think something can be repeatable without being repetitious. You can repeat a level of Halo, but you might try going a different way, or using different weapons, or try to take the warthog all the way to the end this time. All of these are stimulating new experiences. When something is repetitive, this implies a mindless sameness. This describes most grind I think, especially if efficiency is a concern.

I can totally agree with this. But I have to say then that this also implies a choice. You can make something a grind or not. If you choose to take the same fastest path through the same thing over and over again it is a grind. And people are making Destiny a grind by choice not because they are forced to. Yes, there are some things is Destiny that give you one path, but those is very far and few between. I choose to do as you have mention, try new things, take a different path, different weapons, choose a completely different load out even if it's the same level over that you are playing.

locked

1917 views

I think something can be repeatable without being repetitious. You can repeat a level of Halo, but you might try going a different way, or using different weapons, or try to take the warthog all the way to the end this time. All of these are stimulating new experiences. When something is repetitive, this implies a mindless sameness. This describes most grind I think, especially if efficiency is a concern.

I can totally agree with this. But I have to say then that this also implies a choice. You can make something a grind or not. If you choose to take the same fastest path through the same thing over and over again it is a grind. And people are making Destiny a grind by choice not because they are forced to. Yes, there are some things is Destiny that give you one path, but those is very far and few between. I choose to do as you have mention, try new things, take a different path, different weapons, choose a completely different load out even if it's the same level over that you are playing.

But here we have an interview where it is specifically stated that Bungie wants players to find the most efficient ways to farm glimmer. I think this means their minds are towards repetitive design in this and possibly other cases.

locked

1919 views

I think something can be repeatable without being repetitious. You can repeat a level of Halo, but you might try going a different way, or using different weapons, or try to take the warthog all the way to the end this time. All of these are stimulating new experiences. When something is repetitive, this implies a mindless sameness. This describes most grind I think, especially if efficiency is a concern.

I can totally agree with this. But I have to say then that this also implies a choice. You can make something a grind or not. If you choose to take the same fastest path through the same thing over and over again it is a grind. And people are making Destiny a grind by choice not because they are forced to. Yes, there are some things is Destiny that give you one path, but those is very far and few between. I choose to do as you have mention, try new things, take a different path, different weapons, choose a completely different load out even if it's the same level over that you are playing.

But here we have an interview where it is specifically stated that Bungie wants players to find the most efficient ways to farm glimmer. I think this means their minds are towards repetitive design in this and possibly other cases.

But the most efficient way possible could be to "finish a strike" but there are many ways to finish a strike. It's not always one way. I'll wait until we know for sure what this most efficient way is before I call it a grind. We all know the Destiny Community can make almost anything a grind as well as make almost anything fun and entertaining. We shall see what Bungie gives us.

locked

1916 views

I think something can be repeatable without being repetitious. You can repeat a level of Halo, but you might try going a different way, or using different weapons, or try to take the warthog all the way to the end this time. All of these are stimulating new experiences. When something is repetitive, this implies a mindless sameness. This describes most grind I think, especially if efficiency is a concern.

I can totally agree with this. But I have to say then that this also implies a choice. You can make something a grind or not. If you choose to take the same fastest path through the same thing over and over again it is a grind. And people are making Destiny a grind by choice not because they are forced to. Yes, there are some things is Destiny that give you one path, but those is very far and few between. I choose to do as you have mention, try new things, take a different path, different weapons, choose a completely different load out even if it's the same level over that you are playing.

But here we have an interview where it is specifically stated that Bungie wants players to find the most efficient ways to farm glimmer. I think this means their minds are towards repetitive design in this and possibly other cases.

But the most efficient way possible could be to "finish a strike" but there are many ways to finish a strike. It's not always one way. I'll wait until we know for sure what this most efficient way is before I call it a grind. We all know the Destiny Community can make almost anything a grind as well as make almost anything fun and entertaining. We shall see what Bungie gives us.

I mean yeah. In a sense with this type of progression everything is going to eventually boil down to efficiency without Bungie consciously thinking about it.

I think I’m just sad nobody would ever do Riven the ‘real’ way with me should I ever try it :-p

locked

1919 views

I think something can be repeatable without being repetitious. You can repeat a level of Halo, but you might try going a different way, or using different weapons, or try to take the warthog all the way to the end this time. All of these are stimulating new experiences. When something is repetitive, this implies a mindless sameness. This describes most grind I think, especially if efficiency is a concern.

I can totally agree with this. But I have to say then that this also implies a choice. You can make something a grind or not. If you choose to take the same fastest path through the same thing over and over again it is a grind. And people are making Destiny a grind by choice not because they are forced to. Yes, there are some things is Destiny that give you one path, but those is very far and few between. I choose to do as you have mention, try new things, take a different path, different weapons, choose a completely different load out even if it's the same level over that you are playing.

But here we have an interview where it is specifically stated that Bungie wants players to find the most efficient ways to farm glimmer. I think this means their minds are towards repetitive design in this and possibly other cases.

But the most efficient way possible could be to "finish a strike" but there are many ways to finish a strike. It's not always one way. I'll wait until we know for sure what this most efficient way is before I call it a grind. We all know the Destiny Community can make almost anything a grind as well as make almost anything fun and entertaining. We shall see what Bungie gives us.

I mean yeah. In a sense with this type of progression everything is going to eventually boil down to efficiency without Bungie consciously thinking about it.

I think I’m just sad nobody would ever do Riven the ‘real’ way with me should I ever try it :-p

Oh, there's some of us that want to do it, and once cross-saves get here...

locked

1934 views

I think I’m just sad nobody would ever do Riven the ‘real’ way with me should I ever try it :-p

Oh, there's some of us that want to do it, and once cross-saves get here...

I kind of resigned myself to the fact that I'll never finish it nor any future raids. I already looked up the fights to see the 'real' way, and so now I don't really have any reason to do them.

locked

1932 views

I think I’m just sad nobody would ever do Riven the ‘real’ way with me should I ever try it :-p

Oh, there's some of us that want to do it, and once cross-saves get here...

I kind of resigned myself to the fact that I'll never finish it nor any future raids. I already looked up the fights to see the 'real' way, and so now I don't really have any reason to do them.

So you care more about the exploration than the challenge and playing with DBO? I'm not judging just curious :D

locked

1918 views

I think I’m just sad nobody would ever do Riven the ‘real’ way with me should I ever try it :-p

Oh, there's some of us that want to do it, and once cross-saves get here...

I kind of resigned myself to the fact that I'll never finish it nor any future raids. I already looked up the fights to see the 'real' way, and so now I don't really have any reason to do them.

So you care more about the exploration than the challenge and playing with DBO? I'm not judging just curious :D

Well I wouldn’t want to play it with anyone other than DBO.

Doing Spire and the first few encounters of Riven with only some people in the group blind really diminishes the experience. First impressions are important. So even after you know the raid and are just playing to get better, your first experience lingers on.

I mean, if you watch the sixth sense being spoiled the first time, your second viewing is not going to be even close to the experience of someone who was not spoiled and is watching a second time. Both people ‘know’ everything watching it their second time, but the experience is gonna be really different based on that first viewing.

locked

1917 views

I think I’m just sad nobody would ever do Riven the ‘real’ way with me should I ever try it :-p

Oh, there's some of us that want to do it, and once cross-saves get here...

I kind of resigned myself to the fact that I'll never finish it nor any future raids. I already looked up the fights to see the 'real' way, and so now I don't really have any reason to do them.

So you care more about the exploration than the challenge and playing with DBO? I'm not judging just curious :D

Well I wouldn’t want to play it with anyone other than DBO.

Doing Spire and the first few encounters of Riven with only some people in the group blind really diminishes the experience. First impressions are important. So even after you know the raid and are just playing to get better, your first experience lingers on.

I mean, if you watch the sixth sense being spoiled the first time, your second viewing is not going to be even close to the experience of someone who was not spoiled and is watching a second time. Both people ‘know’ everything watching it their second time, but the experience is gonna be really different based on that first viewing.

That's an interesting viewpoint. I don't think it fits with my experience, though.

I did King's Fall blind; it was my first blind raid, and I really enjoyed the experience. (Well, except for maybe Golgoroth; I think I'd have liked that encounter better if I'd known the mechanics ahead of time. ;) )

However, at some point (pretty early on, I think), that stops being even remotely relevant. (I have 35 KF clears, and raid.report says I have a 26% completion on it... which means I've run it over 100 times.) I don't think the good experience I had trying it blind (or the bad experience I had doing Leviathan blind) really changed how I think of either of those raids - I enjoy them (or don't) for the encounters, and the groups I do them with, not for any nostalgia (or maybe it's something more ineffable, I don't really know what you're feeling) about how it went the very first time. My favorite raid is Vault of Glass, and my first completion - my first ATTEMPT - was well over a year after the raid dropped, and the people who sherpa'd me through were machines. Every encounter was explained its tiniest detail before I stepped into it, and my inexperience was completely waved away by their competence.

In short: the experience of doing a raid blind is a cool one, and I can look back on it and enjoy the feeling... but that feeling doesn't carry through to change how I experience the raid in future runs. I completely understand how you can feel differently about it, of course.

(A good example of what I mean: Warpriest on KF was one of the places where I had an insight that helped my blind group get past a part that was confounding us - the feeling of the 'aha!' moment is probably my best memory of that blind run. By now, though, Warpriest is one of the dullest points of the raid - the last few times I ran KF, we weren't even paying attention in that section. In contrast, I hated Baths, in Leviathan, when we were running blind; it was relatively complicated, it was unforgiving, we got super-close so many times but couldn't complete. I think, in fact, we had to cheat to finish it (I can't remember the details, but we were doing something wrong that was keeping us from doing enough damage at some point, and couldn't figure out why). I enjoy Baths, now, though - it's an encounter that requires concentration, but good playing by a single person can save a run where someone died at an inopportune time. I don't play it and think at all about the pain I experienced in the blind run... I don't even use the techniques we developed in the blind run, because they were all pretty inefficient. I think my life would be better if I hadn't actually RUN Baths blind in the first place.)

locked

1920 views

Agree with all Claude said, except I've never regretted doing a section blind. The harder it was the more I enjoy the contrast once it's fairly easy, but all this points to the things I like about raiding--the a-ha moments when you make distinctions until, for instance, you figure out the damage phase during the blind run. The adjustments to strategy, load-outs, etc., until you do enough damage. Finding your rhythm as a team, finding the role you can play most effectively and with the least errors. And then there's the camaraderie, which is one reason I also really enjoy late-stage raiding, when you can roll through it like a machine, and just enjoy the ride with the personalities involved.

locked

1894 views

I can see both sides here, and I'm trying to figure out where I come down.

Like Claude, I think Vault is still my favorite, and I didn't do that until House of Wolves was out, or maybe shortly before.

King's Fall was my first blind raid, and it was incredible. Leviathan blind felt incredibly easy by comparison--I'm still fairly impressed by how easily we got through that raid, all things considered.

There comes a point, though, where the repetition makes it less fun for me. I hate going into a raid with someone who does it every week, week after week. There's nothing more annoying to me than being lectured on the prevailing strategy and having someone trying to dictate my loadout for absolute efficiency. That happened once while doing Leviathan only a few months ago. Like, seriously, loadout doesn't matter even a little bit here anymore. We're so overpowered we could probably do it by throwing rocks, so thanks, but save your lecture. (This person wasn't anyone from here.)

I'm okay with getting advice on the current raid while it's still challenging, but spending an hour explaining a year old raid makes me want to quit almost immediately.

So far, I haven't really been able to find a middle ground. I never finished Spire of Stars, I've never actually beat Riven or done the Queen's Walk. I've only done Scourge of the Past like three times, and I haven't touched Crown of Sorrow yet (though I hope to, soon).

Finding a pickup raid group is harder than it used to be. I feel like there's not as much opportunity to raid, unless someone has to drop out of the regular Wednesday night group and I get a filler invite. That's not really a complaint or a plea for more raid invites, either--it's not often that I feel like dedicating a night to pounding out a raid anymore. I do miss the weekly VoG/Crota rotation that I was in for a while, though.

locked

1895 views

Both you and Claude are mentioning VoG as a favorite. And for me it was the one that made the best first impression. Beyond the mystery and grandiosity, it was the first to even put you in raid encounters. The language of raiding had not even been invented yet. You didn’t even know what was possible or expected. Everything we take for granted was something so unfamiliar and intriguing.

locked

1898 views

You do seem to put a very high value on novelty of experience. Which is actually pretty abnormal for most people for the entertainment media they consume where novelty is almost entirely secondary.

locked

1897 views

You do seem to put a very high value on novelty of experience. Which is actually pretty abnormal for most people for the entertainment media they consume where novelty is almost entirely secondary.

I think that defeats the purpose and strength of entertainment anyway… to take you places and show you experiences you’ve never had.

locked

1908 views

And for many people it is not “never had” and more breaking away from everyday life. Sometimes the familiar is stronger for that end goal. It’s like how many people will order the same dish at different restaurants because they want something they don’t have everyday but still want something that is overall a known quantity.

I would be curious how that relates to the supposition that people frequently have a greater degree of enjoyment in media when they have the ending spoiled (it’s an interesting data point, albeit it is tied more to relief of anxiety as I recall) over when they are seeing things entirely unspoiled.

locked

1911 views

And for many people it is not “never had” and more breaking away from everyday life. Sometimes the familiar is stronger for that end goal. It’s like how many people will order the same dish at different restaurants because they want something they don’t have everyday but still want something that is overall a known quantity.

I would be curious how that relates to the supposition that people frequently have a greater degree of enjoyment in media when they have the ending spoiled (it’s an interesting data point, albeit it is tied more to relief of anxiety as I recall) over when they are seeing things entirely unspoiled.

I'm one of those people who prefers to have things spoiled for me in advance. It's a combination of a few things. I find that it allows me to focus my attention in different places. If I'm watching a movie and I already know the basic plot, then I'm more tuned into details like the subtleties of the actors' performances, visual and audio cues, or high-level thematic points that I might have missed if I were busy focusing on the moment to moment plot.

There have been rare cases where I see a movie without knowing the plot in advance, and I'm glad for it. But I can probably count those occurrences on 1 hand. The 6th Sense, parts of Lost... Actually, those are the only examples I can come up with off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a few more. At any rate, I find the vast majority of books/tv shows/movies/games don't achieve enough through the element of surprise to justify me remaining unspoiled (and missing the kinds of details that I mentioned above). More often than not, surprise is cheap. You get the "bet you didn't expect that!" moment, but that feeling is usually gone in a flash.
I also find that stories that really bank on the power of the "surprise reveal" are usually crappy stories. Take away the elements of suspense and surprise, and there's almost nothing there (I'm looking at you, Walking Dead). On the flip side, a truly great and well told story will hit me in the gut time and time again, no matter how many times I've seen it.

Lost is actually a great example of both sides of that coin. At its best, it was a show wrapped up in mystery and suspense, but at its core it was telling powerful stories about compelling characters. But at its worst, the characters were just being thrown down a plinko-wall of surprise events all designed to keep the audience guessing about "what is going to happen next!", but none of it meant anything or went anywhere. I can go back and re-watch seasons 1 and 2, and I still love them. But trying to rewatch seasons 5 or 6 is just painful, because once the element of surprise is removed you can plainly see how dumb and thoughtless they are.

locked

1896 views

Not wanting to be spoiled is not about just not knowing a twist. It’s about allowing yourself to experience the unfolding of a narrative. Even something straightforward with no “twists” or “shocks” benefits from this.

Narratives are set up for this. We are always asking ourselves when editing “what does the audience know right now? What do they think about this at this moment?” Even about small things such what affectation a character’s response to something should be. And so decisions as to how to present the narrative are designed around these questions.

Let me ask you something. If you like knowing beforehand, do you read the walkthrough for the games you play the first time?

locked

1896 views

Let me ask you something. If you like knowing beforehand, do you read the walkthrough for the games you play the first time?

Like Cruel, I often prefer having movies spoiled for me. I looked up the plot of The Last Jedi and Rogue One and Avengers Endgame before I saw them. I don’t feel like I enjoyed them any less for having done so (quite the opposite actually).

I don’t look up walkthroughs for games, but I don’t avoid spoilers for video games either. The exception being Destiny raids when I’m going to try and do a blind run. I feel like wanting to figure out game mechanics is entirely different than story spoilers, though. And we know plenty of people on this very forum who don’t like blind raiding anyway.

I guess Dark Souls games are another thing I try to avoid being spoiled on. But I watched a let’s play of Bloodborne long before I had a PS4 to play it, and it’s still far and away my favorite one of those games.

locked

1880 views

Not wanting to be spoiled is not about just not knowing a twist. It’s about allowing yourself to experience the unfolding of a narrative. Even something straightforward with no “twists” or “shocks” benefits from this.

Narratives are set up for this. We are always asking ourselves when editing “what does the audience know right now? What do they think about this at this moment?” Even about small things such what affectation a character’s response to something should be. And so decisions as to how to present the narrative are designed around these questions.

Let me ask you something. If you like knowing beforehand, do you read the walkthrough for the games you play the first time?

I think this explains everything
I think I now understand why you think everyone else automatically understands you and thinks exactly like you do, plays like you do, enjoys the things you enjoy, is motivated by the same things as you, plays the same way you do for the same goals/reward, holds the same opinion as you, etc

locked

1896 views

Not wanting to be spoiled is not about just not knowing a twist. It’s about allowing yourself to experience the unfolding of a narrative. Even something straightforward with no “twists” or “shocks” benefits from this.

Narratives are set up for this. We are always asking ourselves when editing “what does the audience know right now? What do they think about this at this moment?” Even about small things such what affectation a character’s response to something should be. And so decisions as to how to present the narrative are designed around these questions.

Let me ask you something. If you like knowing beforehand, do you read the walkthrough for the games you play the first time?

For me, the kind of decisions you’re making as an editor can be appreciated even with or without the knowledge of the plot. There’s “the story”, and then there’s the “storytelling”, which are not exactly the same thing. Its one thing to know that character X betrays character y, but to actually witness it, to see the expressions on their faces, the way it’s shot, the music... that’s the stuff that ultimately makes or breaks the scene. And for me as a viewer, if my brain is occupied by surprise or desire to know what’s about to happen next, I actually don’t take in all that other stuff properly. I miss stuff, or forget it immediately after seeing it. Having a basic knowledge of the plot ahead of time let’s me shift my focus to the storytelling, and away from simply following what’s happening.

To answer your question, I don’t typically play games that would require a guide. I usually play games where the challenge lies in proper execution, not in figuring out what I’m supposed to do next.

locked

1893 views

Not wanting to be spoiled is not about just not knowing a twist. It’s about allowing yourself to experience the unfolding of a narrative. Even something straightforward with no “twists” or “shocks” benefits from this.

Narratives are set up for this. We are always asking ourselves when editing “what does the audience know right now? What do they think about this at this moment?” Even about small things such what affectation a character’s response to something should be. And so decisions as to how to present the narrative are designed around these questions.

Let me ask you something. If you like knowing beforehand, do you read the walkthrough for the games you play the first time?

For me, the kind of decisions you’re making as an editor can be appreciated even with or without the knowledge of the plot. There’s “the story”, and then there’s the “storytelling”, which are not exactly the same thing. Its one thing to know that character X betrays character y, but to actually witness it, to see the expressions on their faces, the way it’s shot, the music... that’s the stuff that ultimately makes or breaks the scene. And for me as a viewer, if my brain is occupied by surprise or desire to know what’s about to happen next, I actually don’t take in all that other stuff properly. I miss stuff, or forget it immediately after seeing it. Having a basic knowledge of the plot ahead of time let’s me shift my focus to the storytelling, and away from simply following what’s happening.

To answer your question, I don’t typically play games that would require a guide. I usually play games where the challenge lies in proper execution, not in figuring out what I’m supposed to do next.

Cody's describing a standard assumption among storytellers ever since there have been storytellers, which is that the audience doesn't know what will happen in the story, and yes, many stories are designed to surprise audiences as one aspect of the narrative--that's a perfectly noble and time-honored purpose of stories. Yes, there are rewards to knowing the events of the story beforehand and most stories worth their salt don't depend on surprise (although some genres depend on it more than others). Knowing events going in is not superior to not knowing. You are denying yourself a certain experience in favor of an experience anyone can have the second time through. Besides, the better the story, the more depth it reveals with each subsequent experience of it. All that said, life is short and you might make the assumption that you've got one shot at experiencing a story, or that it won't really be worth a second time through. In grad school I found out plots ahead of time simply because rereading wasn't really possible in the time I had, and I had to get everything I could get out of a piece of literature in one go. I did get more out of it than I would have if I'd read blind, but I recognized the compromise. I realized that I was sacrificing an aspect that would have brought a different kind of enjoyment. I wasn't reading for enjoyment so much as for study.

locked

1869 views

We can forgo the story aspect of this discussion as it's not really exactly applicable.

You buy a game to PLAY it. And PLAYING it has always involved figuring out and conquering the challenges presented to you. It's not just a matter of being spoiled. It's a matter of not doing a thing that is inherent to playing a game. It would be more like thinking you know a book based on someone giving you a summary. You didn't actually read it. Just like when you don't raid blind, you're not REALLY playing it. But playing non blind a second time is fine, because YOU uncovered that information, and that is part of the natural challenge of playing a game.

locked

1886 views

We can forgo the story aspect of this discussion as it's not really exactly applicable.

You buy a game to PLAY it. And PLAYING it has always involved figuring out and conquering the challenges presented to you. It's not just a matter of being spoiled. It's a matter of not doing a thing that is inherent to playing a game. It would be more like thinking you know a book based on someone giving you a summary. You didn't actually read it. Just like when you don't raid blind, you're not REALLY playing it. But playing non blind a second time is fine, because YOU uncovered that information, and that is part of the natural challenge of playing a game.

Every game I ever played as a child came with someone explaining the rules to me.

When I first started playing video games, there was no set of tablets that said "thou shalt not learn the rules before you start" - this 'always' stuff you throw around is pretty much not 'always'. Some games include the joy of discovery in the play - others do not. Some leave it up to the player. When there's a choice, everyone can be happy - those who want to go in without rules, those who would rather understand the framework and work on the execution. This whole "here is how you play games" schtick is a bit annoying.

locked

1868 views

Yesterday, I ran through Shattered Throne with someone who was looking to grab corrupted eggs. He'd been through once, mostly knew what he was doing - just wanted the eggs. Partway through we were joined by someone who had never been in the ST before.

Both of them were happy to have me give them a brief summary of the goals, and the pitfalls, of each section as we got to it.

We got to the final bossfight, I started to lay out rules, and one of them jumped in and started it. Whatever - we just went with it. Killed the psions, knocked down the health of the knights, grabbed the orbs, went to town. Someone screwed up and let an orb expire before picking it up, but hey, we can do this with 2/3 buff, right?

One of 'em says "how come she's immune?"

After a couple of questions, I realized he'd stepped on the buff-clearing table. (I learned, for the first time, that once it's activated, it won't clear buffs again until the next round. Whee! That meant that if we didn't finish her, the other two of us were gonna die when the timer hit 0.

We died.

"How come you didn't warn me?" was the response. (Same guy who cleared the table was the guy who started early and cut off explanations, fwiw.)

Learning about mechanics by failing is NOT everyone's cup of tea. I'm glad it's yours... but I'm also glad there are ways of completing things without HAVING to be blind.

locked

1892 views

Yesterday, I ran through Shattered Throne with someone who was looking to grab corrupted eggs. He'd been through once, mostly knew what he was doing - just wanted the eggs. Partway through we were joined by someone who had never been in the ST before.

Both of them were happy to have me give them a brief summary of the goals, and the pitfalls, of each section as we got to it.

We got to the final bossfight, I started to lay out rules, and one of them jumped in and started it. Whatever - we just went with it. Killed the psions, knocked down the health of the knights, grabbed the orbs, went to town. Someone screwed up and let an orb expire before picking it up, but hey, we can do this with 2/3 buff, right?

One of 'em says "how come she's immune?"

After a couple of questions, I realized he'd stepped on the buff-clearing table. (I learned, for the first time, that once it's activated, it won't clear buffs again until the next round. Whee! That meant that if we didn't finish her, the other two of us were gonna die when the timer hit 0.

We died.

"How come you didn't warn me?" was the response. (Same guy who cleared the table was the guy who started early and cut off explanations, fwiw.)

Learning about mechanics by failing is NOT everyone's cup of tea. I'm glad it's yours... but I'm also glad there are ways of completing things without HAVING to be blind.

A good solution is this:

Difficulty levels, with the complexity of the mechanics rising with the difficulty level.

Maybe have a very easy mode with virtually no mechanics, and a hard mode with lots to keep track of. One of the biggest disappointments I've had with Hard Mode raids is that the mechanics are virtually the same. They could have instead thrown a wrench into each encounter with more plates to juggle.

locked

1887 views

Yesterday, I ran through Shattered Throne with someone who was looking to grab corrupted eggs. He'd been through once, mostly knew what he was doing - just wanted the eggs. Partway through we were joined by someone who had never been in the ST before.

Both of them were happy to have me give them a brief summary of the goals, and the pitfalls, of each section as we got to it.

We got to the final bossfight, I started to lay out rules, and one of them jumped in and started it. Whatever - we just went with it. Killed the psions, knocked down the health of the knights, grabbed the orbs, went to town. Someone screwed up and let an orb expire before picking it up, but hey, we can do this with 2/3 buff, right?

One of 'em says "how come she's immune?"

After a couple of questions, I realized he'd stepped on the buff-clearing table. (I learned, for the first time, that once it's activated, it won't clear buffs again until the next round. Whee! That meant that if we didn't finish her, the other two of us were gonna die when the timer hit 0.

We died.

"How come you didn't warn me?" was the response. (Same guy who cleared the table was the guy who started early and cut off explanations, fwiw.)

Learning about mechanics by failing is NOT everyone's cup of tea. I'm glad it's yours... but I'm also glad there are ways of completing things without HAVING to be blind.

A good solution is this:

Difficulty levels, with the complexity of the mechanics rising with the difficulty level.

Maybe have a very easy mode with virtually no mechanics, and a hard mode with lots to keep track of. One of the biggest disappointments I've had with Hard Mode raids is that the mechanics are virtually the same. They could have instead thrown a wrench into each encounter with more plates to juggle.

Or... you could just let people enjoy playing the way they want to?

locked

1903 views

When I first started playing video games, there was no set of tablets that said "thou shalt not learn the rules before you start" - this 'always' stuff you throw around is pretty much not 'always'. Some games include the joy of discovery in the play - others do not. Some leave it up to the player. When there's a choice, everyone can be happy - those who want to go in without rules, those who would rather understand the framework and work on the execution. This whole "here is how you play games" schtick is a bit annoying.

It's literally the point of the challenge though… to figure it out yourself. That's why challenges are put into games in the first place… to overcome them. You don't have to like every challenge of course! That's why we have different genres of games, each with their own set of things to overcome. You can pick the ones you like.

locked

1900 views

When I first started playing video games, there was no set of tablets that said "thou shalt not learn the rules before you start" - this 'always' stuff you throw around is pretty much not 'always'. Some games include the joy of discovery in the play - others do not. Some leave it up to the player. When there's a choice, everyone can be happy - those who want to go in without rules, those who would rather understand the framework and work on the execution. This whole "here is how you play games" schtick is a bit annoying.

It's literally the point of the challenge though… to figure it out yourself. That's why challenges are put into games in the first place… to overcome them. You don't have to like every challenge of course! That's why we have different genres of games, each with their own set of things to overcome. You can pick the ones you like.

It's not literally the point of anything.

It's the point of the challenge FOR YOU.

Look at Flappy Bird. Figuring out what you're supposed to do is trivial. I have seen people who have never seen a video game before (my mom) understand the goal within 30 seconds. And yet... it keeps (some) people interested for very long periods of time.

The point is not the rules, in that case - it's the execution. Figuring out what you're supposed to do isn't even a MINOR challenge.

Destiny is a game that offers a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Blind raiding is a possibility - but NOT a requirement, and not even something that the developers are unhappy if you don't experience. Again - I'm glad you like doing it. I liked doing it, a couple of times. I actively avoid it now, because it's (for me) more trouble than it's worth. And my enjoyment of this game is no less valid than yours.

Please, please, please - stop telling me how to enjoy something. Stop telling me what the POINT of the game is - the point, for you, is not the same as the point for me, so there is no universal 'point'. Enjoy the gaming you do - but please don't try and impose your views on me. Thanks.

locked

1924 views

I’m genuinely curious though… at what point you draw the line.

Do you want to be told exactly what to do and where to go? Do you watch videos of the raid being completed beforehand? Do you want only vague hints? Do you want the mechanics described but not the strategies?

Is it like this for other genres or game modes? Why? Why not? I want to understand.

locked

1908 views

I’m genuinely curious though… at what point you draw the line.

Do you want to be told exactly what to do and where to go? Do you watch videos of the raid being completed beforehand? Do you want only vague hints? Do you want the mechanics described but not the strategies?

Is it like this for other genres or game modes? Why? Why not? I want to understand.

Depends ENTIRELY on how I feel when I start a new activity. (No longer just talking about raids - this includes new quests, etc)

Sometimes I want to figure it out for myself. I jump in, and I play.

Sometimes I just want to get to the end of the quest. I google the solution (which is 100% of the time online and searchable before I get around to playing).

Sometimes it's a combination - I start on my own, I hit something that I don't get past, I get bored and google the solution.

We blind-raided Crown of Sorrows a couple of weeks ago, and got through the 3rd (of 4) encounters without looking anything up. As long as the group is enthusiastic, and progress continues to be made, that's fun.

We reached a point where we had run out of time - if we were going to finish, we were going to need to learn the technique for the final encounter faster than it would come to us on our own. Enthusiasm had begun to wane anyway, so nobody had a problem with this.

There is no 'one' answer to your questions - it depends on the game, the day, the events that led to the activity, the enjoyment experienced the last time a similar activity was attempted... in the end, the doing of the thing that first time is just a single time, regardless of whether it was done with or without help, and the enjoyment that activity brings (over the life of the game) is overwhelmingly decided by the mechanics of the activity, because that first experience is completely drowned out by the dozens, or hundreds, of runs that come AFTER that first one.

::shrug::

You and I will never experience games the same way, and I'm not sure we'll ever really understand why the other one plays at all. And that's okay. :)

locked

1894 views

There is no 'one' answer to your questions - it depends on the game, the day, the events that led to the activity, the enjoyment experienced the last time a similar activity was attempted... in the end, the doing of the thing that first time is just a single time, regardless of whether it was done with or without help, and the enjoyment that activity brings (over the life of the game) is overwhelmingly decided by the mechanics of the activity, because that first experience is completely drowned out by the dozens, or hundreds, of runs that come AFTER that first one.

That's like, the complete opposite in my experience. I vividly remember the first time for each, and all the subsequent runs get drowned out unless they are somehow special (such as flawless raider).

locked

1912 views

It is almost as if you are two different people who experience and retain the world differently.

And I personally have no recall based on any first run in any Raid, blind or not, I’ve run excluding Scourge of the Past. Which I have only run once. Without a lot more effort everyone here is working on more-or-less singular data points. Your experience is a singular data point.

locked

1899 views

You are denying yourself a certain experience in favor of an experience anyone can have the second time through.

Um... if the experience you're 'denying' yourself isn't an enjoyable one (to you)... what's the relevance of this sentence?

Cruel's been pretty clear that he doesn't really enjoy the discovery phase - so 'denying' himself that phase seems... prudent.

locked

1890 views

You are denying yourself a certain experience in favor of an experience anyone can have the second time through.

Um... if the experience you're 'denying' yourself isn't an enjoyable one (to you)... what's the relevance of this sentence?

Cruel's been pretty clear that he doesn't really enjoy the discovery phase - so 'denying' himself that phase seems... prudent.

I'm actually not the best puzzle solver so I'm not the best evangelist for the pleasure you get from solving puzzles. It doesn't really matter to me if Cruel doesn't like blind raiding. To be clear blind raiding and raiding are two separate activities. Let's be generous and assume that preferring one over the other isn't insisting that everyone has to enjoy the one you enjoy. Bungie obviously hopes that someone likes solving the puzzles they build into their raids. I think it's fair to defend the value of that experience in this discussion.

However, Cruel and Cody moved beyond puzzles in raids to storytelling, which I know more about. Cruel described being distracted by discovery or curiosity about what's going to happen next to the point that he couldn't focus on other qualities of storytelling that he appreciates. I think that's fair assuming that stories are to be experienced onlyonce--but in many cases they're not. I think it's C.S. Lewis who tells an anecdote where a woman stands in the stacks in library reading a book for 20 minutes before she realizes she's already read it and puts it back. Yes, the aspects that Cruel likes to focus on have value, but so do the discovery and curiosity that distract him. It's as if a person says they don't like salt--a chef might want to drill down into that, suggest that the value of salt might not be casually dismissed--I mean, have you ever had salted chocolate?

There's also the fact that Cruel does have that moment when he discovers what happens next--he just doesn't choose to have that within the experience that the creator was building for him. An aside: my mom loved books but at a certain point got on the Readers' Digest condensed books bandwagon. I never wanted to read them because, as an aspiring writer myself, I knew the work that went into picking the exact words and just enough of them. I wanted the full experience that the author intended. Whenever people debate things being spoiled, someone usually says it doesn't or shouldn't matter--it's the journey, not the destination. That's true, but it's also true that the frisson you get when you're surprised is sometimes vital to the experience of a narrative.

locked

1906 views

I'm not going to argue the point of whether storytelling is better or worse the first time - I don't think there's an answer to that question. I wanted to address this, though, because I thought about it before you wrote it down, but never got around to discussing it - and yet here it is:

It's as if a person says they don't like salt--a chef might want to drill down into that, suggest that the value of salt might not be casually dismissed--I mean, have you ever had salted chocolate?

This is the sort of argument that really, really bothers me. (Not salt, per se - but "you're missing out on X".) I hate mushrooms. I've almost always hated mushrooms. The only exceptions to this rule, in almost 50 years of consciously hating mushrooms (I started in grade school), are mushrooms that have no taste - the only ones I can think of are the long, stringy ones in hot and sour soup (they might have a mild taste, but it's completely buried by the spice of the soup, and all that's left is the texture, which doesn't bother me).

This completely consistent disgust is nevertheless second-guessed by every mushroom lover I've ever met. "Oh, you just haven't tried the right ones." "Oh, you just haven't had them prepared properly." "Oh, you're missing the glorious foods you can create with them."

No. No, no, and no. You're all wrong, and I'm tired of having to say it. I know me better than you know me, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd just stop trying to get me to change my mind on something that is this deeply set in stone. I don't like them, any of them, I can taste them in the foods you think you're hiding them in, and you're ruining those foods for me. ("I didn't think you'd notice.") Yes, they have a smell (even the button ones), and yes, that smell ruins my appetite. Period.

Do NOT tell me I can't "casually dismiss" them - I'm not. It's a long-term, highly-thought-out dismissal, and I'd thank you to not insult me by assuming otherwise.

locked

1896 views

It's as if a person says they don't like salt--a chef might want to drill down into that, suggest that the value of salt might not be casually dismissed--I mean, have you ever had salted chocolate?

This is the sort of argument that really, really bothers me. (Not salt, per se - but "you're missing out on X".) I hate mushrooms. I've almost always hated mushrooms. The only exceptions to this rule, in almost 50 years of consciously hating mushrooms (I started in grade school), are mushrooms that have no taste - the only ones I can think of are the long, stringy ones in hot and sour soup (they might have a mild taste, but it's completely buried by the spice of the soup, and all that's left is the texture, which doesn't bother me).

This completely consistent disgust is nevertheless second-guessed by every mushroom lover I've ever met. "Oh, you just haven't tried the right ones." "Oh, you just haven't had them prepared properly." "Oh, you're missing the glorious foods you can create with them."

No. No, no, and no. You're all wrong, and I'm tired of having to say it. I know me better than you know me, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd just stop trying to get me to change my mind on something that is this deeply set in stone. I don't like them, any of them, I can taste them in the foods you think you're hiding them in, and you're ruining those foods for me. ("I didn't think you'd notice.") Yes, they have a smell (even the button ones), and yes, that smell ruins my appetite. Period.

Do NOT tell me I can't "casually dismiss" them - I'm not. It's a long-term, highly-thought-out dismissal, and I'd thank you to not insult me by assuming otherwise.

I'm not saying this is the case for you, but what if someone disliked something because of a character flaw? What if someone likes say, grinding in a video game because they are lazy? Grinding isn't HARD after all, it just takes time. You don't really have to grow or learn or change to succeed; you just have to show up so to speak, and you are rewarded.

Would it not be appropriate in this scenario to suggest that the reason they like grinding - that it provides a reward and a sense of accomplishment without actually having to accomplish something, is itself a flaw? That it's not a good trait for them to have?

What if you dislike Star Wars because you are uncomfortable with a woman in a position of power over a male hero? Do you say okay? Or do you tell them not to be sexist?

locked

1899 views

Heavens forbid someone’s leisure activities are leisurely. The insinuation is insulting.

And there is a difference between liking something you don’t like and addressing a concern that someone may have a broader, deeper-seated bias that may need to be confronted. These are not in any measure equitable considerations. Salt or mushrooms are well enough in line with discussions of leisure. And for the record, salted chocolate is just ruined chocolate

locked

1898 views

I'm not saying this is the case for you, but what if someone disliked something because of a character flaw? What if someone likes say, grinding in a video game because they are lazy?

Wait, what? I'm now supposed to be using gaming as a measure of character? Yeah... no thanks. Not interested.

(And for what it's worth, laziness is actually a pretty useful trait in the right context. A lot of great coding happens because good, lazy programmers want to do something once and be done with it.)

locked

1903 views

I'm not saying this is the case for you, but what if someone disliked something because of a character flaw? What if someone likes say, grinding in a video game because they are lazy?

Wait, what? I'm now supposed to be using gaming as a measure of character? Yeah... no thanks. Not interested.

(And for what it's worth, laziness is actually a pretty useful trait in the right context. A lot of great coding happens because good, lazy programmers want to do something once and be done with it.)

Lol.

That's efficiency more than laziness IMO.

locked

1890 views

I'm not saying this is the case for you, but what if someone disliked something because of a character flaw? What if someone likes say, grinding in a video game because they are lazy?

Wait, what? I'm now supposed to be using gaming as a measure of character? Yeah... no thanks. Not interested.

(And for what it's worth, laziness is actually a pretty useful trait in the right context. A lot of great coding happens because good, lazy programmers want to do something once and be done with it.)

Lol.

That's efficiency more than laziness IMO.

It's both. Efficiency due to laziness.

locked

1904 views

I'm not saying this is the case for you, but what if someone disliked something because of a character flaw? What if someone likes say, grinding in a video game because they are lazy?

Wait, what? I'm now supposed to be using gaming as a measure of character? Yeah... no thanks. Not interested.

You don’t HAVE to. It’s not ALWAYS a measure of character. But it can be SOMETIMES.

locked

1884 views

I'm not saying this is the case for you, but what if someone disliked something because of a character flaw? What if someone likes say, grinding in a video game because they are lazy?

Wait, what? I'm now supposed to be using gaming as a measure of character? Yeah... no thanks. Not interested.

You don’t HAVE to. It’s not ALWAYS a measure of character. But it can be SOMETIMES.

But where do you draw the line?

locked

1934 views

I'm not going to argue the point of whether storytelling is better or worse the first time - I don't think there's an answer to that question. I wanted to address this, though, because I thought about it before you wrote it down, but never got around to discussing it - and yet here it is:

It's as if a person says they don't like salt--a chef might want to drill down into that, suggest that the value of salt might not be casually dismissed--I mean, have you ever had salted chocolate?

This is the sort of argument that really, really bothers me. (Not salt, per se - but "you're missing out on X".) I hate mushrooms. I've almost always hated mushrooms. The only exceptions to this rule, in almost 50 years of consciously hating mushrooms (I started in grade school), are mushrooms that have no taste - the only ones I can think of are the long, stringy ones in hot and sour soup (they might have a mild taste, but it's completely buried by the spice of the soup, and all that's left is the texture, which doesn't bother me).

This completely consistent disgust is nevertheless second-guessed by every mushroom lover I've ever met. "Oh, you just haven't tried the right ones." "Oh, you just haven't had them prepared properly." "Oh, you're missing the glorious foods you can create with them."

No. No, no, and no. You're all wrong, and I'm tired of having to say it. I know me better than you know me, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd just stop trying to get me to change my mind on something that is this deeply set in stone. I don't like them, any of them, I can taste them in the foods you think you're hiding them in, and you're ruining those foods for me. ("I didn't think you'd notice.") Yes, they have a smell (even the button ones), and yes, that smell ruins my appetite. Period.

Do NOT tell me I can't "casually dismiss" them - I'm not. It's a long-term, highly-thought-out dismissal, and I'd thank you to not insult me by assuming otherwise.

Wow, the people who are forcing mushrooms on you or otherwise belittling your preferences are jerks. To be clear, so is anyone who disrespects people for not liking salt, spoilers, or The Last Jedi (the latter perhaps because they’re so enamored of their own wokeness that they automatically assume that anyone who dislikes that movie dislikes it for sexist reasons). The reason why people dislike something matters, and as Cody points out, some reasons are better than others. Let’s assume the chef is acting in good faith by (gently!) asking what you don’t like about salt. Knowing food as she does she realizes that cooking without salt is a major compromise that affects all the flavors in a meal. She might discover that you dislike salt because you were forced to eat at Crackerbarrel every Sunday of your childhood. She might rightfully conclude that salt itself might not be your issue, so much as salt being the dominant flavor of everything. A respectful conversation might be helpful to you both—you, in that it helps you better understand your own preferences, and her, in that she can prepare a more flavorful meal for you than she might have if she’d just taken your dislike of salt at face value.

I shouldn’t have used “casually dismiss” the way I did. Cruel did not casually dismiss discovery or curiosity—he gave a thoughtful justification for his preferences: those things distract him from other things he likes. If I may present another (silly) food comparison, maybe someone doesn’t like solid food because they allow themselves to chew only three times after they put something in their mouth. I believe that good stories—to get the most out of them—are best when “consumed” multiple times (a decade break between can yield marvelous treasures). Given Cruel’s justification, I intended only to raise the possibility that he doesn’t have to choose which aspects to enjoy.

Another theory I have about stories is that they are essentially portable life experiences that can be shared between people. Part of life is surprise and curiosity about what happens next. Some people might not like surprise and like knowing exactly what’s going to happen. Others may so crave surprise or obsess about what might happen that they can’t appreciate the small moments in the present. It’s not disrespectful to suggest there is value all along that continuum.

locked

1919 views

Yep. I enjoy movies and games more the second time through. I don’t go out of my way to spoil myself, exactly, but it’s pretty rare that I don’t know the basics of something’s plot going in.

locked

1918 views

It's a slow Monday during a holiday week and I just read this whole thread. Good grief how y'all keep things straight is beyond me. Here are my takeaways.

• Cody went Cody and for some reason people still receive this as an unexpected affront.
• One man's grind is another man's treasure.
• I've never seen Sixth sense but know how it ends, so don't see a need in watching it.
• I beat all raids in D1, with all experienced teammates. To me, I was still playing blind. Even when I played them again...I still felt blind.
• I've not played any of the D2 raids, aside from a couple times when I've joined some teams to help them finish a small section. These people had no idea I knew nothing of the task. I was kind of a disaster.
• Claude, bless your heart man. A chanterelle sauteed in butter tossed in salt is a life changing thing. A cold beer with a plate of fried shrooms with horseradish sauce hits the spot every time. More for me, I reckon :)
• As for the salted chocolate, I will take a stand on this. Yes. Salted chocolate is legit. As is spicy chile chocolate. I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

locked

1911 views

- No text -

locked

1896 views

- No text -

locked

1905 views

- No text -

locked

1912 views

So you're upset that a skilled person's time is worth the same as a non-skilled person's time in MMOs? You're upset that skill can't save you real world time compared to others?

No. Sort of.

I am upset that your time is being treaded as a resource to be exploited.

But how is it fair that a less skilled player must spend more time to get good while a skilled player doesn't have to anymore?

Because that is an inherent feature of life.

This was especially exploitative in the age of Arcade Machines. You got nickled and dimed, literally, until you got good enough.

Due to the business model this was actually a benefit. Players want to play as long as possible, but operators wanted you to play and die quickly. Thus the compromise was you could play long if you were skilled. This is much more rewarding for players than a quarter equating to a fixed timer for play.

The developers could've made it easier so it took less money to complete the game, couldn't they?

This literally happened when the business model changed and people paid a fixed upfront sum to buy their games.

locked

1967 views

[*] Saying Destiny is an MMO is a matter of identity in Bungie's eyes. They recognize that Destiny has had an identity crisis and they have been trying to please many different crowds of people. By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses.

That's a bummer. "You have to do both".
One of Destiny's biggest issues has always been the falling-behind-if-you-don't-play-religiously problem. Sounds like they're embracing it as a means of encouraging people to play Destiny every day, as opposed to making it the type of game where you check in every once in a while and throw some money at if you like what you see.

This is a bummer, but this comment really sounds like the emotional response from someone who listened to what Luke and Mark said not a summary of what they said. I reserve judgement about this and am going to wait to see what this really means.

"By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses."

^ This is a very misleading summary of that portion of the discussion. They weren't addressing "casual" players of the sort that the people around here might understand as casual. Mark said something along the lines of "will Joe Wallmart be able to get into the game" as an example of the sorts of discussions they were having pre D2 launch, and how at this point they've just decided not to worry about "Joe Wallmart" because this game really isn't for those kinds of players.

They weren't talking about gearing the game towards the super hardcore streamer crowd at the expense of other people who are already playing, just at a more relaxed pace. They were talking about the decision to stop worrying about the kind of gamer who just wants their 6-8 hour campaign and isn't interested in any of the other mechanics or systems that a game like Destiny is built around.

locked

2007 views

[*] Saying Destiny is an MMO is a matter of identity in Bungie's eyes. They recognize that Destiny has had an identity crisis and they have been trying to please many different crowds of people. By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses.

That's a bummer. "You have to do both".
One of Destiny's biggest issues has always been the falling-behind-if-you-don't-play-religiously problem. Sounds like they're embracing it as a means of encouraging people to play Destiny every day, as opposed to making it the type of game where you check in every once in a while and throw some money at if you like what you see.

This is a bummer, but this comment really sounds like the emotional response from someone who listened to what Luke and Mark said not a summary of what they said. I reserve judgement about this and am going to wait to see what this really means.

"By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses."

^ This is a very misleading summary of that portion of the discussion. They weren't addressing "casual" players of the sort that the people around here might understand as casual. Mark said something along the lines of "will Joe Wallmart be able to get into the game" as an example of the sorts of discussions they were having pre D2 launch, and how at this point they've just decided not to worry about "Joe Wallmart" because this game really isn't for those kinds of players.

They weren't talking about gearing the game towards the super hardcore streamer crowd at the expense of other people who are already playing, just at a more relaxed pace. They were talking about the decision to stop worrying about the kind of gamer who just wants their 6-8 hour campaign and isn't interested in any of the other mechanics or systems that a game like Destiny is built around.

Gotcha, see that is why I reserved my judgment. That summary was very much influenced by an outside source instead of actually summarizing the actual content. This makes more sense and I'm fine by that. Every game isn't for everyone. And if developers cater to everyone, then no one is satisfied.

locked

1995 views

Yes I was hesitant to post it.

I did a summarily like this when they did their interview with Jason for Forsaken. I just hadn’t had time to do it. I still haven’t listened but plan to get to it today.

locked

1984 views

[*] They want to change the economy of glimmer to make it more valuable. Essentially, they don't want you always sitting on 100,000 glimmer. They want players to perhaps farm for glimmer and find optimal ways of farming, a staple of MMOs.

Resource starvation is terrible. "Finding optimal ways of farming" is a result of poor game design, it shouldn't be their goal.

What they should do is make Glimmer more readily available in certain events, that way people funnel to them more if they're chasing that one item. Say "Doing Patrol activities in the Flashpoint rewards double Glimmer. Consecutive activities without returning to Orbit increase Glimmer gains."
So now you're funneling players into the Patrol Spaces, and encouraging them to stay there.
From there, you can give them Boosters. "Complete three Heroic Events in the Flashpoint, and total Glimmer gains will double for two hours".
Now they can go off and play their activities of choice, knowing that their work has yielded more reward.
You can even extend this to stuff like Guided Games: "Successfully complete a Guided Games run (Host or Guest) and all Enhancement Core drops have a chance to count as double".

I like those ideas! But I'm somewhat confused by your argument. Yes, resource starvation is terrible, but it happens naturally in waves when content comes out. Then you mention that finding optimal ways of farming is a result of poor game design but immediately follow that up by giving examples of ways to improve the system by giving people optimal ways to farm glimmer. How is this not exactly what you are saying is poor game design? In my mind, you either need to make it so glimmer is never really a problem by just playing the game, or as you have given examples, find a way that people can double down on farming a particular resource. They have implemented that for almost all resources in the game except glimmer.

So the difference is that it sounds like they want you to always be short on Glimmer, because more things are going to require it, or require larger amounts of it. This will, in their eyes, lead people to find the most "effective" way to farm it, i.e. the most repetitive method that will require the least amount of work. The problem is that doing stuff like that no longer lets people engage with the broader game, because they're trying to push that one specific lever that will give them a treat.

My examples simply make the entire game more rewarding if the players engage with certain aspects for a bit. Areas of the game that Bungie should want players to funnel to in the first place. People wanting to increase their glimmer gains doing a few Heroic events has a number of benefits:
-Public areas become way more populated, so the game feels more alive.
-Heroic Public Events have a purpose again, so cheapLEY doesn't need to burn through the regular one.
-Casual players who aren't in a huge need for glimmer no longer feel starved anyway, they see more people helping with stuff that would be hard for them to solo, and they will likely stay with the game longer if all activities have healthy engagement.
-People will be free to play any part of the game that they want after doing an optional ritual that makes everything naturally more rewarding.

And it doesn't just have to be tied to glimmer, or heroic events. The idea is that you can play the game at the pace you are now, but if you want to "catch up" to friends, or you simply want better drops, just do X to get more of resource Y.
The Menagerie is an example of that. You can get imperials by doing the bounties, OR you can buy the boosters from Benedict and improve the drops on a successful chest-opening, or you can simply pop the booster and play Crucible or Strikes, and sooner or later imperials will there.

It's something I've talked to Cheap about, and something that DE learned very early on:
If you give players a rare resource, give the less hardcore players the option to improve their resource acquisition, to respect their time. So any casual player can naturally gather a rare resource over time, but they won't have to be falling behind their hardcore friends if they don't want to. This is key to preventing the punishment that comes with stepping away from the game for long periods of time.

locked

2011 views

Okay, this isn't really relevant to this conversation, so I apologize for hijacking... but I have a practical question for you:

How do you inform the player about this mechanic?

We already know that the vast majority of players don't even read the short "NEXT WEEK IS IRON BANNER WEEK!" type messages that pop up on your screen and need to be dismissed manually; how will you get casual players to understand all of the different ways they can earn glimmer faster by doing things in the area they happen to find themselves in?

locked

2018 views

Okay, this isn't really relevant to this conversation, so I apologize for hijacking... but I have a practical question for you:

How do you inform the player about this mechanic?

We already know that the vast majority of players don't even read the short "NEXT WEEK IS IRON BANNER WEEK!" type messages that pop up on your screen and need to be dismissed manually; how will you get casual players to understand all of the different ways they can earn glimmer faster by doing things in the area they happen to find themselves in?

We all know Korny can't be trusted, so I'll answer for him ;p

It occurred to me that there could be an icon on the director that highlights specific destinations or activities... similar to the icons used to show the availability of powerful rewards. We can tell which planet is the weekly flashpoint just by glancing at the director screen, so something similar could be done for glimmer as well. It might be cool if there was only 1 "hot spot" for earning glimmer at a time, but it rotated frequently. Maybe every 4 or 6 hours, or something like that. It could be a fun way to funnel players to otherwise under-utilized activities, like Blind Well or Escalation Protocol, the Forges, or even strike and crucible playlists.

locked

1981 views

I’ve often wished for better use of the Director. The icons highlighting Powerful Rewards is a good step. Add a blue one for glimmer bonus areas. People like flashy shit, so it’d probably work.

locked

1998 views

[*] They want to change the economy of glimmer to make it more valuable. Essentially, they don't want you always sitting on 100,000 glimmer. They want players to perhaps farm for glimmer and find optimal ways of farming, a staple of MMOs.

You have no idea how disheartening it is to see them say they want to purposefully make players do bullshit and intentionally design absolute garbage into their game. Sorry to be negative but good riddance to this disgusting player hating design.

[*] They want to add difficulty options. They say difficulty is "the razor that drives creativity" and that they have, historically, not added enough difficulty options. It sounds like they want to make their content more difficult, since difficulty incentivizes creativity and build customization. If everything is easy, people will just shoot shit mindlessly. But if things are hard, they will need to think more. Bungie wants players to strategize more often. Difficulty options will allow casual players to opt out of this, while hardcore players will face challenge.

Thumbs up.

[*] Saying Destiny is an MMO is a matter of identity in Bungie's eyes. They recognize that Destiny has had an identity crisis and they have been trying to please many different crowds of people. By saying it is an MMO, they are fully committed to making the game for hardcore fans instead of casual players. They are no longer concerned with pleasing the casual masses.

Well, they lost this hardcore fan six months ago. MMO staples are just bad, anti-fun, and anti-player.

[*] They sort of have a plan for the story. They have concept art for future story events that direct them to where the story is heading. I'm sure the writers have a much clearer idea of where the story is going, but for the studio as a whole they have a general idea of the main story beats.

I am afraid without compelling characters, emotions, and narratives the story will fall as flat as it always has. Lore is not story. A series of events is not story. They need to start telling stories.

[*] They haven't talked about D1 servers getting shut down and it doesn't seem like it'll happen anytime soon, however they are the sole ones supporting those servers, so they could eventually be shut down if they get in the way of future projects. Jason half-joked about having all the D1 content in D2 by the time the servers got shut down. Luke joked about the file size being big if that was the case. So bringing D1 stuff back is certainly possible, but it doesn't seem like they're planning to bring the entire game to D2. Especially due to file size, I imagine.

This will be a reality someday. Retro Raid nights will be impossible.

locked

2039 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Jason Schreier interviewed Luke Smith and Mark Noseworthy (Destiny)