Is that what you're trying to convey? Because while MM was certainly very good, Ocarina of Time is still miles better, IMO, and it had none of that resetting thing.

I'm actually directly answering what you are saying. These games *could not be* what they are without investment systems. If you remove the investment systems the entire core design wold be something else. Dark Souls generates a huge amount of tension by giving you an investment system that can be used as a reward, but that you can lose at any time. EVE battles, scams, and schemes are meaningful because the actual result of hundreds of hours of game play are on the line.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you. That's absolutely true. Designing these games without investment systems would fundamentally alter their design for sure.

But I'm convinced that the result would end up being better.

That seems like a meaningless opinion; you have absolutely no clue what those games would be like if they didn't have investment systems. Because they wouldn't be the games that got released.

It's like saying "I'm convinced my sister would be a better person if she'd been born to different parents."

I'm not sure it's so meaningless, because we have the entire history of video games to give us SOME idea of what an investment-less system would look like. I mean, you can see what was trying to be accomplished, and imagine doing that without such a system, using past examples as guidance.

Your inability to answer says more about the weakness of your arguments than staying silent would have.

Or, imagining something forward thinking like my save-less RPG / MMO.

It's still just the most labor intensive version of Nethack ever envisioned.

I'm sorry, but a saveless RPG wouldn't be good, IMO.
A saveless FPS, a saveless Adventure game, a saveless racing game, now THOSE could be amazing, using your logic. A saveless RPG would just be too short. Or it would fry out my Xbox (again).

Nope. It could be as long as you wanted. It could be 100 hours+. However it would be played in 30-45 minute chunks:

http://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=12443

Depending on how the saveless-ness is implemented, I find the idea for a game like that to be very intriguing.

I'm sorry, but a saveless RPG wouldn't be good, IMO.
A saveless FPS, a saveless Adventure game, a saveless racing game, now THOSE could be amazing, using your logic. A saveless RPG would just be too short. Or it would fry out my Xbox (again).

Nope. It could be as long as you wanted. It could be 100 hours+. However it would be played in 30-45 minute chunks:

http://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=12443

That's what I mean by 'too short'. Especially with RPGs, I want my games to play like a book. Long, in chunks, but with continuity. No fresh starts all the time.

I'm sorry, but a saveless RPG wouldn't be good, IMO.
A saveless FPS, a saveless Adventure game, a saveless racing game, now THOSE could be amazing, using your logic. A saveless RPG would just be too short. Or it would fry out my Xbox (again).

Nope. It could be as long as you wanted. It could be 100 hours+. However it would be played in 30-45 minute chunks:

http://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=12443

Now, EvE Online would be something like a multiplayer flash game based on Escape Velocity if it hadn't its investment system there. Tiny, limited and devoid of any social interaction other than head-on combat/trading. Because of its investment system, EvE compels you to not only play a lot differently, but also interact with other human players completely differently. After all, EvE not only takes your time, but uses it as leverage. Everything you do is paid for or uses up your time in a level not like anything CoD or LoL will ever be able to (given current trends).

I'm actually directly answering what you are saying. These games *could not be* what they are without investment systems. If you remove the investment systems the entire core design wold be something else. Dark Souls generates a huge amount of tension by giving you an investment system that can be used as a reward, but that you can lose at any time. EVE battles, scams, and schemes are meaningful because the actual result of hundreds of hours of game play are on the line.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you. That's absolutely true. Designing these games without investment systems would fundamentally alter their design for sure.

But I'm convinced that the result would end up being better.

That seems like a meaningless opinion; you have absolutely no clue what those games would be like if they didn't have investment systems. Because they wouldn't be the games that got released.

It's like saying "I'm convinced my sister would be a better person if she'd been born to different parents."

I'm not sure it's so meaningless, because we have the entire history of video games to give us SOME idea of what an investment-less system would look like. I mean, you can see what was trying to be accomplished, and imagine doing that without such a system, using past examples as guidance.

Or, imagining something forward thinking like my save-less RPG / MMO.

I'm actually directly answering what you are saying. These games *could not be* what they are without investment systems. If you remove the investment systems the entire core design wold be something else. Dark Souls generates a huge amount of tension by giving you an investment system that can be used as a reward, but that you can lose at any time. EVE battles, scams, and schemes are meaningful because the actual result of hundreds of hours of game play are on the line.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you. That's absolutely true. Designing these games without investment systems would fundamentally alter their design for sure.

But I'm convinced that the result would end up being better.

That seems like a meaningless opinion; you have absolutely no clue what those games would be like if they didn't have investment systems. Because they wouldn't be the games that got released.

It's like saying "I'm convinced my sister would be a better person if she'd been born to different parents."

I'm actually directly answering what you are saying. These games *could not be* what they are without investment systems. If you remove the investment systems the entire core design wold be something else. Dark Souls generates a huge amount of tension by giving you an investment system that can be used as a reward, but that you can lose at any time. EVE battles, scams, and schemes are meaningful because the actual result of hundreds of hours of game play are on the line.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you. That's absolutely true. Designing these games without investment systems would fundamentally alter their design for sure.

But I'm convinced that the result would end up being better.

I don't think ANY game has been made better by an investment system. Not a single one. They are perhaps the biggest blunder of modern game design in the last few years.

I mean, this is where you go off the rails these are all games that rely heavily on player progression for their core design. They are also some of the most beautiful and important games in years.

EVE
Diablo
Dark Souls/Demon Souls
World Of Warcraft

Please read the words I write. I say exactly what I mean.

No game has been made better by investment systems. Does this mean there are no good games that have them? No. These games would be better if designed in such a way that there were no investment systems.

I don't think ANY game has been made better by an investment system. Not a single one. They are perhaps the biggest blunder of modern game design in the last few years.

I mean, this is where you go off the rails these are all games that rely heavily on player progression for their core design. They are also some of the most beautiful and important games in years.

EVE
Diablo
Dark Souls/Demon Souls
World Of Warcraft

I'm actually directly answering what you are saying. These games *could not be* what they are without investment systems. If you remove the investment systems the entire core design wold be something else. Dark Souls generates a huge amount of tension by giving you an investment system that can be used as a reward, but that you can lose at any time. EVE battles, scams, and schemes are meaningful because the actual result of hundreds of hours of game play are on the line.

PS. WoW and Diablo are not good games.

jooo crazy.

PS. WoW and Diablo are not good games.

PS. cherry and orange are not good fruits.

I don't think ANY game has been made better by an investment system. Not a single one. They are perhaps the biggest blunder of modern game design in the last few years.

I mean, this is where you go off the rails these are all games that rely heavily on player progression for their core design. They are also some of the most beautiful and important games in years.

EVE
Diablo
Dark Souls/Demon Souls
World Of Warcraft

Please read the words I write. I say exactly what I mean.

No game has been made better by investment systems. Does this mean there are no good games that have them? No. These games would be better if designed in such a way that there were no investment systems.

PS. WoW and Diablo are not good games.

You are incorrect when you say investment compliments 'gameplay'. In essence, everything you ask your player to do is 'gameplay'. Thus, the systems of investment you ask your players to use or play with, become part of the game. They are kind of the same thing in a way.

Now if they systems of investment themselves are compelling and fun, well then that's just called 'gameplay' isn't it? And that's YOUR job isn't it?

I agree with this 100%.

I don't think ANY game has been made better by an investment system. Not a single one. They are perhaps the biggest blunder of modern game design in the last few years.

I don't agree with this 100%. I think in the MMO world giving a player a longterm goal that requires substantial investment of time to achieve can make for interesting gameplay. It makes the reward that much more satisfying if it takes ages to cross the line.

I will say that my initial post was rude, and so I do apologize for the tone, but not the content. Please do not interpret this as an attack on your person or the studio's efforts, but rather a point made that investment systems are not necessary (and in fact harmful) for a healthy community and lasting experience.

Cody. Tyson's job is investment. He doesn't handle gameplay. That is my job. I (and others in my group) handle gameplay. We make sure the game is fun. Player Investment and Gameplay compliment each other- they aren't at odds. Just because there is investment doesn't mean there is no gameplay or not a focus on gameplay. We have triple the amount of level and activity designers than any of our Halo games. We have Old school Vets and fresh blood. Our sole focus is building great and memorable encounters- just like we did with Halo.

This is a really telling post. Investment really scares me when it becomes ingrained in the gameplay. When it is on top of the gameplay, I can see it adding a lot to the overall "experience".

This video was super encouraging. It sounds like investment means a lot more than numbers ticking up. That the vidmaster achievements and Dark Souls were some of the main points they're looking to in how to drive investment makes me very happy.

*scrambles the internet*

Hey! I can't read the internet anymore! Unscramble it! :P

What makes you, Cody Miller, such an expert compared to so many other fans – and even the groups at Bungie themselves? What experience do you have that allows you this insite?

Only the extent to which you find what I say compelling or interesting.

Heh. Well that's the kicker isn't it. I find everything to be interesting. Learning is Boss, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Even though you have answered my question in the few of words, I still have the question of Why. When the time comes perhaps. :)

What makes you, Cody Miller, such an expert compared to so many other fans – and even the groups at Bungie themselves? What experience do you have that allows you this insite?

Only the extent to which you find what I say compelling or interesting.