I'd like to play these "little games" that were made in between Halo, Phoenix, and Destiny

Chances are highly likely that you will play one of these "little games" in some configuration or another within Destiny as some of them may have helped form the inner workings of the world and create mechanics for the product that will be shipped.
I highly suspect that one or more of the fun and compelling "little games" will make it into Destiny as a standalone, in the form of one of the in world mini-games they have hinted about in recent interviews/informational briefings.

Particle for example, was regarded by a few Bungie employees to be a 'game' that was being worked on. Which from all we can tell so far simply regards the Geomantic symbols (obviously those have a greater meaning than just the context of Particle) and the Alpha Lupi teaser. We have yet to see what, if any, embodiment they may, or may not, take within Destiny.

Is this the first time they've publicly talked about what that game was going to be?

As far as I know, Phoenix was a mech action game. It could be something different that never got off the ground.

Medieval siege game. No mechs as far as I know. Unless they were made of wood and stone.

golems, maybe? on that note, I'd like to play these "little games" that were made in between Halo, Phoenix, and Destiny

Those Portal challenges that were so awesome? Those were "incentives" to replay the level (quickest time, fewest portals etc. - they encourage you to play the exact same content but in a different way).

Would you perhaps concede that (as is virtually always the case) implementation is king, and that Valve simply got it right where others sometimes get it wrong?

I think puzzle games operate a little differently. The challenges aren't really incentives, so much as new puzzles. Ok, now beat this chamber using 6 or fewer portals. You have to think and solve a totally new puzzle. This is pretty different than giving rewards for tasks in game, since the whole point of a puzzle game is to solve puzzles, and the challenges are themselves new puzzles.

What about an incentive you can only get by doing something like that?

I think we are on a different page, since the challenges in Portal do not have 'gameplay benefits'. They ARE the 'gameplay' - the equivalent of adding an extra level to play. By the way, as far as I remember, advanced chambers and challenges were available to play right from the start.

The challenges and advanced chambers have you replaying some of the standard levels, with (shockingly enough) more challenge, which is something you like, and even without that you said you liked the challenges and advanced chambers ("Those things were awesome."), making them incentives. Also you remember wrong, you have to beat, for example, TC 15 to be able to do challenges on TC 15 and play TC 15 Advanced.

"I think the great tragedy of Halo is that for years and years it provided wonderful single-player and co-op content, and we provided people with almost no fun incentives or excuses, almost no reason besides their own enjoyment, to go back and replay it. So Halo 1 built these 10 labor of love missions, and only if you decided to go back and replay them was there any incentive to do so."

I invite Jones to elaborate.

"If I would have done anything to Halo 1, it would have been to do something to draw people back into those experiences that they enjoyed the first time. Even in the smallest ways, just to give them an excuse to get together and do it again."

Like the Skulls in later Halo games?

"Sure. And that was a shadow of an attempt to do that," he says firmly.

He used Halo 1 as an example, and then when he was asked to elaborate he went into it more with that example. He also says that skulls were a partial attempt at doing what he wanted-- a few people don't like them, but I think overall there's been less complaint about them than at least half the other things in the games (besides being hidden so well). I'd also like to point out the wording there. He calls any more incentives an excuse-- not an excuse to make more money, not an excuse to put more things into the game or give people more to do, an excuse for people to play the games more, and in particular to get together and play them more. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially if we agree the games were already (really) good. Am I the only one here that's ever had trouble getting someone (personally several people over the years, including myself) to do something fun?

Jason mentions that it was just a shadow of an attempt at incentives, but I definitely thought the skulls in the later Halo games felt pretty artificial and gimmicky. I don't want to be encouraged to replay boring sections of a game for the satisfaction of earning a neato little prize or to fulfill some kind of artificial desire to "collect 'em all!". Make the game fun and I will come back to explore it again, just because.

Yeah, this is absolutely bewildering, in part because as I have explained many times, 'incentives' tend to ruin games.

Did he not pay any attention to the Halo community?

What, you're confused that your explanation wasn't enough for the co-founder and lead designer of Bungie to shift around how their games are made? Maybe you just didn't explain well enough how incentives are evil, or maybe you didn't talk long enough about how bad they are, or maybe you didn't hate them hard enough for it to be felt all the way over there. Maybe if you yell loud enough you can still save Bungie from themselves.*

I don't think anybody complained about lack of incentive in Halo 1, and the Halo games that DID have this 'incentive' were replayed far less than Halo 1.

If ever there was a time a citation was needed**, it would be now.

I'll say this though, apparently you were right about him not being fully engaged or interested in what Bungie was doing (at least their primary projects at the time) for the last 2-3 games. I wish someone had been straightforward about it back when regular people were asking about it (giving interviews more than once a decade might also work, but I don't blame him for not being that comfortable with them and wanting to do other things in his free time).

* BTW, I realize you said "...in part because as I have explained...", i.e. you're referring to those explanations, not saying they're a reason to act differently or that the supposed tendencies of incentives would be the only reason, but you still did slip that part about you explaining things in there and directly followed it with asking if he paid attention to the community

** Does this really only allow the colors in the little color-pick box thing? I tried to change the numbers around to get a different color and it just showed the tag itself.

Halo 4 is the biggest seller of the Halo series appealing to the most people, but is it the best? I think we all know the answer to that.

Umm, what?

No, it isn't.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=halo

Perhaps it reached some particular milestone faster than all others, but it hasn't been out long enough to even surpass Halo 2. So far it has only outsold ODST, the original, and Halo Wars.

Old data. Halo 4 is at 8.37 Million.

Um... I hung around on GAF long enough to learn that VGChartz can be wrong sometimes... but that's actually precisely the number it gives for Halo 4, globally. How is that old data?

http://news.xbox.com/2013/07/games-halo-4-top-seller

There are no numbers in that article, and they're talking about number of copies sold in a product's launch year - a relatively meaningless statistic when you're looking at products that have been on the market for 10+ years. It sold FASTER than anything else out of the gate (in the US, at least) - but only time will tell if that rate means anything about the continued sales down the road.

I was looking at that wrong. How confusing.

In other news, Halo 4 is not canon. Discuss.

Halo 4 is the biggest seller of the Halo series appealing to the most people, but is it the best? I think we all know the answer to that.

Umm, what?

No, it isn't.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=halo

Perhaps it reached some particular milestone faster than all others, but it hasn't been out long enough to even surpass Halo 2. So far it has only outsold ODST, the original, and Halo Wars.

Old data.

Really? VGChartz says the data is as of June 29, 2013.

Halo 4 is at 8.37 Million.

That is the SAME number cited by VGChartz worldwide. (Halo 3 is over 11 million worldwide, but only 7.7 million in North America.

Worldwide or US? Also, where did you get that number? The xbox.com page does not actually list one, it just cites "Microsoft sell-through data".

Are you, or MS, seriously suggesting that Halo 4 outsold Halo 3's entire five-year run in only nine months, and then expecting people to believe it without figures?

http://news.xbox.com/2013/07/games-halo-4-top-seller

One thing I remember Bungie saying quite clearly is that all of their weapons have been hand balanced, as opposed to Borderlands' procedural generation. That should help a lot.

Which even with 400+ employees seems crazy to me. I picture a guy in a room with a dev kit on a desk and on the opposite wall a giant spreadsheet of weapon balancing, haha.

The one thing I'm worried about with Destiny is that the original Halo games had a very well-constructed sandbox, with each weapon being very unique and built for a specific role. Games with a larger quantity or that add randomization to items tend to be lacking the level of quality that comes with more thoughtful design, Borderlands being the most obvious example.

One thing I remember Bungie saying quite clearly is that all of their weapons have been hand balanced, as opposed to Borderlands' procedural generation. That should help a lot.

The one thing I'm worried about with Destiny is that the original Halo games had a very well-constructed sandbox, with each weapon being very unique and built for a specific role. Games with a larger quantity or that add randomization to items tend to be lacking the level of quality that comes with more thoughtful design, Borderlands being the most obvious example.

There's so much loot it takes about 1/2 your gameplay time to sort through it all.

I bought it last week when it was on sale and while I do enjoy it, I had to will myself to not even pick stuff up when my inventory was full so I could get to the next check-point before my limited game-time was up.

I actually had the opposite experience with the matchmaking; had a level 50 in with 3 level ~15s and he was just blazing through everything, running ahead and leaving me nothing to shoot.

Bringing it on back to Destiny, I get the feeling that Destiny will have less overall loot. That, combined with the emphasis on upgrading your weapons that (AFAIK) Borderlands does not have, seems like you will have more opportunity to develop a bond between you and your weapon.

"Yeah, I got this pistol the first week I had the game, but it took me 6 months to level it up all the way" vs "Yeah, I just got this pistol 5 minute ago and now I have a better one"

IMO, overwhelming the player with gameplay choices right from the start without even having at least an off-main-game tutorial about them is very poor design. Having us play by trial-and-error is not very fun and once you finally find a good approach, you tend to stick with it.

Well, this is where a proper difficulty progression solves this problem. When you first start the game on easy or normal mode, it should be somewhat easy, so that the player doesn't have to worry about all the elements he's got. However, as the difficulty ramps up, he'll find himself having to experiment with the elements in order to overcome the new challenges. This is sort of an anti tutorial, since it's up to him to figure out and apply things.

You do the same for hard and very hard, while then having an expert / extreme difficulty where all of the game is super challenging.

I am wondering if destiny is going to have difficulty levels. If not, it's going to be an insufferable bore playing all the easy parts…

I bought it last week when it was on sale and while I do enjoy it, I had to will myself to not even pick stuff up when my inventory was full so I could get to the next check-point before my limited game-time was up.

I actually had the opposite experience with the matchmaking; had a level 50 in with 3 level ~15s and he was just blazing through everything, running ahead and leaving me nothing to shoot.

Bringing it on back to Destiny, I get the feeling that Destiny will have less overall loot. That, combined with the emphasis on upgrading your weapons that (AFAIK) Borderlands does not have, seems like you will have more opportunity to develop a bond between you and your weapon.

"Yeah, I got this pistol the first week I had the game, but it took me 6 months to level it up all the way" vs "Yeah, I just got this pistol 5 minute ago and now I have a better one"

Bringing up the Halo 2 ending again. I still thought it was the perfect ending, since I already expected a 3rd game. I don't understand why people react so strongly against cliffhangers.

Like he said I don't think most people were upset because of the cliffhanger as much as the abruptness of the ending. Like "Wait, what? It's over?" Personally I agree with you I didn't have a problem with it at all, but I remember beating it and a few minutes later thinking "Man the Internet is going to be pissed by that ending."

I'm not crazy about the trend of putting in more artificial incentives, like achievements, et cetera. For instance, I enjoy some things about Borderlands, but the focus on playing it simply for obtaining loot and not for the fun of playing it is irritating and not particularly fun. I'm hoping that Bungie is going to stay focused on the more natural brand of fun.

Personally I enjoy getting loot, but that being said I did NOT enjoy Diablo or Borderlands loot very much because you get too much loot! "Let's see I just got this gun, but this new one has higher damage... but the old one fires rocket, ah crap, now I have 3 more guns to compare..." From the demo it doesn't look like Destiny will have the same problem though.