You have no idea why they left. But it was their choice and theirs alone.

Untrue. You can make educated guesses that will be true for at least some of them.

Back to why we have to unlock PvP, it utterly baffles me that they can't check to see if you've acquired the item or obtained the skill that supposedly unlocks it, and if you haven't, MATCH YOU UP AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS WHO ALSO HAVEN'T. If they just HAVE to have acquired stuff cary over to multiplayer, then this seems like a really simple way to do it.

Go read the first paragraph of my first post in this thread again.

But the fact that is even an issue means the game system is set up in a bad way; a way which presents the 'wrong circumstances' with which to enjoy the game.

Nah, because then they've changed the game again so those circumstances aren't presented.

Bungie framed is as not a deficiency in player skill with regards to the matchmaking algorithm, but of avatar strength. Why not just give the avatar whatever they need to compete, especially if you can get it as quickly as they say?

Not every interview answer will list all reasons. If they're given the opportunity to delve in immediately because 'their character has all it needs' then they're still more likely to lose because they haven't got to grips with controls and use of all those abilities.

Flipping around, if it's short, then it really shouldn't be an issue just going through it. Right?

On the left, there is a title of 'All Articles', with categories below it.

Whoa.

That's a thing!

I never noticed it, lol.

The fact that Bungie, and others, treat their 'investment systems' as separate from the game itself (or the 'gameplay' if you must), just shows that they are not viewed as part of the fun of the game. If they were, the term would never be used.

Do they? And hell's bells, if it's just about terminology, let's call it a mini-game and proceed to have buckets of fun.

I actually had a little trouble following this link (not your fault, it's Bungie's, really), so if you end up on the Publications page, open the Engineering tab and click on 'E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3'.

Wat.

That page has tabs that open and close on your browser?

I'm not sure whether my mind is blown or not.

Not sure if this is serious or not - what I'm talking about happens on Chrome, Firefox, and Safari on OSX, and Chrome, Firefox, and IE on Windows 7. That suggests that it happens on pretty much every browser. ;)

Maybe we're talking about different things? On the left, there is a title of 'All Articles', with categories below it. Next to each category is a '+' sign; clicking it opens that category. (That's what I was calling a 'tab'.)

If you were making fun of my terminology, the joke went completely over my head - sorry. (It's still over my head.)

Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

I love it when people mention things I can use to argue against them!

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about. Graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

19% of players stopped after less than 20 games, and a further 23% stopped before 100 games. So more than 2/5ths of players are gone before the game could get an accurate read on their skill level and get 'good' matches consistently.

As others mentioned, it is a very different media landscape that Destiny will be launching into compared to 2004-2007.

You have no idea why they left. But it was their choice and theirs alone.

With the wrong circumstances, anything that many enjoy immensely can be perceived by others as awful.

Back to why we have to unlock PvP, it utterly baffles me that they can't check to see if you've acquired the item or obtained the skill that supposedly unlocks it, and if you haven't, MATCH YOU UP AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS WHO ALSO HAVEN'T. If they just HAVE to have acquired stuff cary over to multiplayer, then this seems like a really simple way to do it. But the fact that is even an issue means the game system is set up in a bad way; a way which presents the 'wrong circumstances' with which to enjoy the game.

Bungie framed is as not a deficiency in player skill with regards to the matchmaking algorithm, but of avatar strength. Why not just give the avatar whatever they need to compete, especially if you can get it as quickly as they say?

You're presuming that it's all about acquired loot or powers and no other measurement is happening during that two hours of game play.

Games aren't long for good reasons, only bad ones. One day I hope you'll give us a break...

If you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realize I said nothing of the sort. Length is bad if a game is long for the sake of making it long. If your game is long, and every second is bursting with excitement, then that's exactly what you would hope for, isn't it?

Read what I say, and don't speak for me, especially when you get it wrong.

Uh huh. At least I dragged you near to seeing the good side of something.

Now then, your implication that "Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun" was that Bungie was going to keep them playing without using fun to do so.

I posit that part of Destiny's fun will come from the fact that it is not yet another 10 hours and done shooter. That the process of gaining and upgrading weapons and abilities, instead of just being handed them, will make for a undeniably better game. Same goes for delaying the introduction of PvP.

Because it's not about everyone having Nova Bomb or whatever. It's about giving new players time to become familiar with Destiny's mechanics without them getting stomped into the ground one day one.

And it's also completely possible (and even probable) that they actually did try other methods of letting people into PvP immediately, but this is the one that people actually appreciated the most. Bungie DOES have one of the best user research groups in the gaming industry.

Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

I love it when people mention things I can use to argue against them!

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about. Graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

19% of players stopped after less than 20 games, and a further 23% stopped before 100 games. So more than 2/5ths of players are gone before the game could get an accurate read on their skill level and get 'good' matches consistently.

As others mentioned, it is a very different media landscape that Destiny will be launching into compared to 2004-2007.

You have no idea why they left. But it was their choice and theirs alone.

With the wrong circumstances, anything that many enjoy immensely can be perceived by others as awful.

Back to why we have to unlock PvP, it utterly baffles me that they can't check to see if you've acquired the item or obtained the skill that supposedly unlocks it, and if you haven't, MATCH YOU UP AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS WHO ALSO HAVEN'T. If they just HAVE to have acquired stuff cary over to multiplayer, then this seems like a really simple way to do it. But the fact that is even an issue means the game system is set up in a bad way; a way which presents the 'wrong circumstances' with which to enjoy the game.

Bungie framed is as not a deficiency in player skill with regards to the matchmaking algorithm, but of avatar strength. Why not just give the avatar whatever they need to compete, especially if you can get it as quickly as they say?

I actually had a little trouble following this link (not your fault, it's Bungie's, really), so if you end up on the Publications page, open the Engineering tab and click on 'E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3'.

Wat.

That page has tabs that open and close on your browser?

I'm not sure whether my mind is blown or not.

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about. Graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

I actually had a little trouble following this link (not your fault, it's Bungie's, really), so if you end up on the Publications page, open the Engineering tab and click on 'E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3'.

Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

I love it when people mention things I can use to argue against them!

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3 - Chris Butcher, in the 'Engineering' section. Check out the graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

19% of players stopped after less than 20 games, and a further 23% stopped before 100 games. So more than 2/5ths of players are gone before the game could get an accurate read on their skill level and get 'good' matches consistently. That's millions of players gone from MP after trying it and, based on the graph numbers compared to sales, at least a million more didn't even touch matchmaking at all.

As others mentioned, it is a very different media landscape that Destiny will be launching into compared to 2004-2007.

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

Fun is a perception and games can only try to be conducive to it.

With the wrong circumstances, anything that many enjoy immensely can be perceived by others as awful.

Like sex.

I think you're granting that Cody's definition of fun is the correct definition, Zackdark.

To recap: unless I'm mistaken, Cody views investment systems as distractions for developers who could otherwise work on making the game more fun.

The problem with this view is some people, perhaps even many people, see investment systems as fun, too. They don't see them as mutually exclusive from game play fun. For those people, they are not continuing to play the game past the point of having fun. They're having fun with the mechanics, the gun play, the puzzles, or whatever else, and the investment system. The game play can be just as fun as, say, the first Halo's, and still have an investment system. Cody might be so turned off by the idea of an investment system that its presence keeps him from enjoying aspects of the game he'd otherwise like, though. Is that the issue, Cody?

Everything you ask your player to do is a part of your game! So it's stupid that investment systems are labeled as something separate, when in fact they are just elements of the game.

You might as well say that the pistol in Halo 1 is an investment system, because if you put in time and get good at it, you can 3 shot kill.

The difference between a good investment system (like the pistol), and a bad one (often like character levels or loot), is that one is based on YOUR progression through skills you gain and knowledge you learn, versus things your avatar has or is.

Now, are all loot systems bad? Are all character leveling systems bad? No of course not. But the good ones never described themselves as investment systems. Nobody talked about character progression in Deus Ex as an investment system. Nobody talked about the weapon upgrade system in Vanquish as an investment system. Nobody talked about the acquisition of weapons and items in Super Metroid as an investment system.

The reason why, is because they are just a part of the game, and they make the game better. The systems are fun to play with.

The fact that Bungie, and others, treat their 'investment systems' as separate from the game itself (or the 'gameplay' if you must), just shows that they are not viewed as part of the fun of the game. If they were, the term would never be used.

Games aren't long for good reasons, only bad ones. One day I hope you'll give us a break...

If you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realize I said nothing of the sort. Length is bad if a game is long for the sake of making it long. If your game is long, and every second is bursting with excitement, then that's exactly what you would hope for, isn't it?

Read what I say, and don't speak for me, especially when you get it wrong.

Huh? I don't understand. You're the one paying for the games, so you should be the one deciding what and when to play. Are you saying that if I play a bad game, and decide it's not fun and quit, that I should feel bad, or continue playing out of charity to the developer? That's insane. It's MY time, not theirs. They have no say how I spend it.

I'm saying that thinking they won't try to sway you in any way other than making the game "fun enough" is fairly naive. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it is to be expected and is in no way supposed to characterize them as evil beyond salvation. They're simply going with the flow/listening to the money-holders.

I think you're granting that Cody's definition of fun is the correct definition, Zackdark.

To recap: unless I'm mistaken, Cody views investment systems as distractions for developers who could otherwise work on making the game more fun.

The problem with this view is some people, perhaps even many people, see investment systems as fun, too. They don't see them as mutually exclusive from game play fun. For those people, they are not continuing to play the game past the point of having fun. They're having fun with the mechanics, the gun play, the puzzles, or whatever else, and the investment system. The game play can be just as fun as, say, the first Halo's, and still have an investment system. Cody might be so turned off by the idea of an investment system that its presence keeps him from enjoying aspects of the game he'd otherwise like, though. Is that the issue, Cody?

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

As usual, your failure of imagination is epic. There are many fun games all competiting for player time and even the funnest games is slowly played less over time.

And? I have tons of games I still have to play. Let me decide where to spend my time. I'd rather play a shorter game which was designed to be the best it could be, versus a game designed to be long just to keep me playing it.

Why can't length and more specifically long length be a part of making a game as fun as it can be? With length you can tell stories that evolve over time just as one example. But again everything with you is negative. Games aren't long for good reasons, only bad ones. One day I hope you'll give us a break...

Huh? I don't understand. You're the one paying for the games, so you should be the one deciding what and when to play. Are you saying that if I play a bad game, and decide it's not fun and quit, that I should feel bad, or continue playing out of charity to the developer? That's insane. It's MY time, not theirs. They have no say how I spend it.

I'm saying that thinking they won't try to sway you in any way other than making the game "fun enough" is fairly naive. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it is to be expected and is in no way supposed to characterize them as evil beyond salvation. They're simply going with the flow/listening to the money-holders.

And? I have tons of games I still have to play. Let me decide where to spend my time. I'd rather play a shorter game which was designed to be the best it could be, versus a game designed to be long just to keep me playing it.

Let you decice? But what if you decide against them? That's a terrible, terrible decision in a aggressive capitalistic industry. Especially if a game is designed to accumulate profit from other sources other than the game itself, e.g. DLC and toys.

Huh? I don't understand. You're the one paying for the games, so you should be the one deciding what and when to play. Are you saying that if I play a bad game, and decide it's not fun and quit, that I should feel bad, or continue playing out of charity to the developer? That's insane. It's MY time, not theirs. They have no say how I spend it.