Nah, I think it's that he genuinely found good stuff here. Just imagine if the Raid had been one huge terrible waste of time and sucked, though.

The raid is one of the few things in Destiny that was not overhyped. I think it delivered on everything they promised.

Which symbol are those? When I get the bounty, I go straight for the "kill anything in this area 'till there's enough blood for our satisfaction" (5 squares arranged in a cross) or the "fetch me x number of these obviously fetishist items" (triangular pyramid)

It's a star, like a VIP icon.

His assessment is faulty only if he is working with incorrect or misleading information. He's got access to the same game we all do.

The whole idea of opinions is that they cannot be objectively correct. Smart people will, instead of telling someone their opinion is wrong, try to understand WHY it is they hold the opinion they have.

Maybe someone doesn't like grinding. Grinding is dumb and a waste of time. However, if someone says "I like to grind" that is not wrong. They might very well enjoy it. So understand why they like grinding, and you can have a better discussion. Perhaps they like grinding because they are they type of person who likes results, and doesn't like experimentation, exploration and failure. Rather than have to learn new skills, they are more happy doing the same thing over and over to get better stuff and power up their characters.

Now you can try to convince them that challenge, and going outside the box and improving yourself is more worthwhile and they key to being a more happy healthy and successful human being. If you do, then maybe they will begin to dislike grinding.

That's how you have to approach something like this. They key is that nobody's opinion is wrong.

I find my self without words when one with such a dedicated history of a hard line professes to essentially seek understanding from all venues.

Conversing on the internet really doesn't do justice sometimes.

I'm not saying anything about you, just that I think your assessment is faulty. As in, with the evidence provided, I think you came to an incorrect conclusion.

His assessment is faulty only if he is working with incorrect or misleading information. He's got access to the same game we all do.

The whole idea of opinions is that they cannot be objectively correct. Smart people will, instead of telling someone their opinion is wrong, try to understand WHY it is they hold the opinion they have.

Maybe someone doesn't like grinding. Grinding is dumb and a waste of time. However, if someone says "I like to grind" that is not wrong. They might very well enjoy it. So understand why they like grinding, and you can have a better discussion. Perhaps they like grinding because they are they type of person who likes results, and doesn't like experimentation, exploration and failure. Rather than have to learn new skills, they are more happy doing the same thing over and over to get better stuff and power up their characters.

Now you can try to convince them that challenge, and going outside the box and improving yourself is more worthwhile and they key to being a more happy healthy and successful human being. If you do, then maybe they will begin to dislike grinding.

That's how you have to approach something like this. They key is that nobody's opinion is wrong.

You're making no sense. If someone says the movie you like is bad you're...just going to agree with them? Really?

I don't know man, read it again? I'm not sure what other ways I can phrase it. Maybe, "something doesn't have to be of high quality for me to like it"?

Ultimately, what I'm seeing here from you is an intense lack of respect . . . I can be objectively wrong if I say Destiny is a flight simulator or a turn based stragety game. I cannot be objectively wrong in that I think Destiny gave us a better reason to fight than Halo.

I'm not saying anything about you, just that I think your assessment is faulty. As in, with the evidence provided, I think you came to an incorrect conclusion.
Whether or not you like that thing is totally up for you to decide, but I still believe that we can deduce which, between two examples, is objectively better. If you disagree with me on that, okay, you are welcome to disagree about that. That is an opinion.

Using language wrong becasue you don't want to debate is not going to be part of that baseline. Don't go around trying to say you are objectively right! That's crap and you know it.

Sorry I guess my Huck Finn example wasn't good enough. I believe there are objectives marks that we judge works of art by. I guess you disagree with that. We can argue about that if you want?

For instance I believe the movie Kung Pow has an objectively bad narrative as far as movies go. But my opinion of it is that I like the narrative. I guess in my post I was going for a "you may have the opinion that Destiny is good at X, but can we agree that it is objectively bad?" It's a blunt thing to say, but it is hard for me to see it any other way. If someone said the same thing about Kung Pow to me, I would agree.

You're making no sense. If someone says the movie you like is bad you're...just going to agree with them? Really?

But that's besides the point. Ultimately, what I'm seeing here from you is an intense lack of respect. Someone takes the time to reply to you and the first thing you do is tell them that their opinion is objectively wrong? Without even giving them a chance to defend it? That's not how debate around opinions works. I can be objectively wrong if I say Destiny is a flight simulator or a turn based stragety game. I cannot be objectively wrong in that I think Destiny gave us a better reason to fight than Halo. All I'm asking is you show me, and every other poster, enough respect to disagree with their opinions without claiming that there is no way they can possibly be right.

Yeah, in my mind I actually put you in the anti-Cody camp. I consider myself kind of in between.

I disagreed with his opinion of Reach. He's become less, um, absolute, in the expression his opinions, and I've probably become less likely to automatically react when I see his name.

Plus, we've gotten to play together a little, and it was enjoyable.

Also, we both think the Last of Us is amazing.

Using language wrong becasue you don't want to debate is not going to be part of that baseline. Don't go around trying to say you are objectively right! That's crap and you know it.

Sorry I guess my Huck Finn example wasn't good enough. I believe there are objectives marks that we judge works of art by. I guess you disagree with that. We can argue about that if you want?

For instance I believe the movie Kung Pow has an objectively bad narrative as far as movies go. But my opinion of it is that I like the narrative. I guess in my post I was going for a "you may have the opinion that Destiny is good at X, but can we agree that it is objectively bad?" It's a blunt thing to say, but it is hard for me to see it any other way. If someone said the same thing about Kung Pow to me, I would agree.

Right. No point in even voicing an opinion then. If you seriously think I'm objectively wrong on this then you've got some serious problems. If not, then you shouldn't throw around words you don't understand just to try and look good at debating.

Pretty much everyone would agree that Huckeberry Finn is a good piece of literature. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I believe it is objectively good. Disregarding subjective prejudices or preferences, it is a quality work of art.

In the same way, I am comfortable saying that Destiny is objectively worse at representing "why we fight" than Halo did. Basically, I have gotten very tired of arguing about opinions on the interwebz and think that agreeing on a couple baselines is going to help things. Sorry if that makes me a turd. I'm probably a turd.

You are.

You want a baseline to agree on? That's great. I'm sure we can find plenty of things we both like or even dislike. Using language wrong becasue you don't want to debate is not going to be part of that baseline. You may be tired of arguing on the interwebz, but that doesn't excuse arguing poorly! If you don't want to argue opinion then get off the darn forum. Don't go around trying to say you are objectively right! That's crap and you know it.

Is this not obvious? It focuses player attention and ensures a healthy population if it's time-limited.

The question clearly isn't just asking for any positives to that system. it is asking if they think the balance is worth it.

They implemented it, so of course they do.

Not quite. Very often things in a game are changed due to time constraints or server issues. I very much hope that was the issue here, because I really dislike Salvage not being available.

You are comparing a gametype to a playlist of many gametypes. That's not a good comparison.

Huh?

So, because Grifball was technically playable in customs all the time in Halo 3, limiting it to DEXP weekends for Matchmaking had nothing to do with it's popularity in those weekends. And Grifball being available permanently in MM in later games had nothing to do with it's lower population figures?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that limiting an XP bonus in playlists is not the same as limiting an entire gametype.

Right. No point in even voicing an opinion then. If you seriously think I'm objectively wrong on this then you've got some serious problems. If not, then you shouldn't throw around words you don't understand just to try and look good at debating.

Pretty much everyone would agree that Huckeberry Finn is a good piece of literature. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I believe it is objectively good. Disregarding subjective prejudices or preferences, it is a quality work of art.

In the same way, I am comfortable saying that Destiny is objectively worse at representing "why we fight" than Halo did. Basically, I have gotten very tired of arguing about opinions on the interwebz and think that agreeing on a couple baselines is going to help things. Sorry if that makes me a turd. I'm probably a turd.

Eh. We never saw earth in Halo 1, or the rest of the Galaxy for that matter, but they were worth protecting. In contrast, Destiny's Tower directly overlooks The City!

Do you really think Destiny did a better job of establishing why we are fighting better than Halo? I don't want to argue too aggressively, but I can't avoid thinking that you are objectively wrong.

Right. No point in even voicing an opinion then. If you seriously think I'm objectively wrong on this then you've got some serious problems. If not, then you shouldn't throw around words you don't understand just to try and look good at debating.

Is this not obvious? It focuses player attention and ensures a healthy population if it's time-limited.

The question clearly isn't just asking for any positives to that system. it is asking if they think the balance is worth it.

They implemented it, so of course they do.

"In what way does staying married to your wife enhance your life?"

Compare the wild popularity of weekend DEXP playlists in Halo 3 with the more than 2 dozen struggling lists in Reach.

You are comparing a gametype to a playlist of many gametypes. That's not a good comparison.

Huh?

So, because Grifball was technically playable in customs all the time in Halo 3, limiting it to DEXP weekends for Matchmaking had nothing to do with it's popularity in those weekends. And Grifball being available permanently in MM in later games had nothing to do with it's lower population figures?

Eh. We never saw earth in Halo 1, or the rest of the Galaxy for that matter, but they were worth protecting. In contrast, Destiny's Tower directly overlooks The City!

Do you really think Destiny did a better job of establishing why we are fighting better than Halo? I don't want to argue too aggressively, but I can't avoid thinking that you are objectively wrong.

*this is a combination of how I think they'd answer these and what I hope is true.

Sadly, I think you are exactly right. I wonder if we could craft questions that would preclude answers that don't address the actual core of the questions.

For instance my question about "Will we see more about the city/people we are protecting" is really asking whether or not they think that kind of thing is valuable to the game. The only evidence we have so far is that they do not think it is valuable, but on the other hand that stuff may have just been cut for time constraints. Same with the customization of missions.

Eh. We never saw earth in Halo 1, or the rest of the Galaxy for that matter, but they were worth protecting. In contrast, Destiny's Tower directly overlooks The City!