So yes, shockingly, a game released eleven years ago has more "things to do" than a game that was released last year.

Fix your shit Bungie!

This is another spot where I have trouble finding the balance. I post here because I want to talk about this stuff with everyone, and conversations with people who don't completely agree are more interesting. I certainly don't mean to come across as combative. I don't think my posts read that way... at least I hope they don't.

They don't.

This again just supports my arguments. I remember Narcogen arguing back in the Halo 3 days, that the best game is one where every player FEELS like they are going to lose, but never goes and is always on the edge. I think that's dumb. You ACTUALLY have to be able to fail, because if you never do, it means you are already good enough. Failure forces you to improve, and improvement is where the satisfaction comes.

Again, the best challenges are challenges you cannot defeat the minute you start them, and can only do so by failing, then improving based on that.

I guess if everyone were Jordan it would apply? I don't think it applies to any of these arguments, whether you be narc or cody.

This again just supports my arguments. I remember Narcogen arguing back in the Halo 3 days, that the best game is one where every player FEELS like they are going to lose, but never goes and is always on the edge. I think that's dumb. You ACTUALLY have to be able to fail, because if you never do, it means you are already good enough. Failure forces you to improve, and improvement is where the satisfaction comes.

Again, the best challenges are challenges you cannot defeat the minute you start them, and can only do so by failing, then improving based on that.

What possible pride can there be in defeating a challenge that is purely made in order to be defeatable, never varies, and is guaranteed to produce the same result with the same input? Hardly anything works that way except arbitrary constructs created for precisely that purpose.

You're not looking at it right. The challenges are impossible to defeat when you start them, since you do not have the knowledge, or the skills to do so. The Cody Miller on September 9th could not defeat the Vault of Glass, but the Cody Miller of September 17th could. That's because the one Cody grew in to the other, and had to improve!

The best challenges are impossible at first. The only way to make them possible is to improve your condition, and THAT is what is satisfying.

That also leads to a lack of variety. If, as some players have asked for, there was a reliable and predictable way to get all rewards, then the collection of items amongst similarly-skilled players would be the same.

So what? That's how is was in every other FPS ever. The key is to have predictable loot, but have every gun behave differently and be useful for certain playstyles and situations, and have a wide variety of challenges that mean you have to mix and match.

I think you guys are off on this. Failing (or for that matter winning) because of randomness rather than skill feels unfair, and a big reason for engaging in any media-- and especially games and sports-- is to escape the unfairness of life.

It never fails to amaze me how deeply ingrained the power fantasy is; gamers complain bitterly at any element that undermines it even in the slightest-- anything that suggests that the entirety of the gameworld cannot be dominated by a player with sufficient skill.

Something about this point you made is stuck in my brain. I think there really is something to it, I just can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe the fact that as long as I've played videogames, they've presented a series of challenges to be overcome? That I (we?) have come to expect that if there is an obstacle in a videogame, we are supposed to conquer it? Or that the "power fantasy" is so deeply ingrained in to what games like Destiny are, that some of us have a difficult time reconciling with the idea that there are some challenges that exist outside the range of "beatable" obstacles?

I think you guys are off on this. Failing (or for that matter winning) because of randomness rather than skill feels unfair, and a big reason for engaging in any media-- and especially games and sports-- is to escape the unfairness of life. A good game is fair, because that feels good. Maybe that ties into the power fantasy, because you have the power to make things always turn out in your favor if you're skilled enough, but a good game also has enough challenge that it's nearly impossible to do that, and it does it without bullshit deaths or failures.
That's not to say there's no place for randomness. Good enemy AI is unpredictable to a certain extent and that's hard to do without a degree of randomness. It's standard practice to play on a random map when you go into multiplayer, and until Destiny it was standard for Bungie games to give you a random gametype too, and people like that for a variety of reasons. The random strikes and burns for weeklies and Nightfalls fit this, as do the random bosses, burns, buffs, and bobstacles in the Prison of Elders.
The trick is to make it not feel like the proverbial dice are trying to kill you without it getting dull and samey.

This was my first time playing level 35 Prison of Elders. Probably should have mentioned that lol!

I totally see where you're coming from here, and that's my fault for not including that specific info.

I'd never tried level 35, never done the Skolas fight. I said to myself "I haven't enjoyed PoE so far, but I want to see this content". Who knows, maybe I'd find a boss fight I liked, maybe the difficulty would change things in a certain way. Either way, I wanted to see it for myself.

I will say this, and you don't like PoE in general so it won't matter a whole lot, but Void Burn was the first time I thought "Wow! Skolas is actually a pretty fun fight!" Solar and Arc makes it too much of a race to kill Skolas as quickly as you possibly can so you don't get killed in one shot by Skolas or the adds. I don't mind solar and arc because they aren't that hard with the right weapons, but Void was a blast.

I actually wanted to try fighting him that way, rather than doing the Gjallarhorn insta-burn. But the solar burn made the Captain's flak cannons too punishing to deal with. Maybe I'll give it a try the next time Void damage rolls around :)

This is because we take on challenges so we can actually overcome them. What's better, winning the superbowl on a bad call, or winning the superbowl by being the better team?

What possible pride can there be in defeating a challenge that is purely made in order to be defeatable, never varies, and is guaranteed to produce the same result with the same input? Hardly anything works that way except arbitrary constructs created for precisely that purpose.

In so many fields of endeavour it is possible (if not likely) to fail not just because you made a mistake, or because you weren't good enough, but because of circumstances entirely outside of your control. In PVP that element is the other team. In PVE, it's sometimes random elements or other mechanics that are not purely skill-based.

I'm not saying Destiny is perfect, I'm just saying that it has been very, very clear to me that Bungie's design parameters are not aiming for the kind of perfection you want, and I'm continually amused at your consternation over their failure to seek it.

I also seem to recall many posts on this forum stating this exact same thing as a criticism of the raids-- the idea that once mastered they are no longer challenging, therefore not interesting, and no longer worth continued participation.

This is true, but this is NOT a downside.

I wish I had the time to point out the post where I'm pretty sure you said exactly that. Maybe someone else will come through for me.

Something about this point you made is stuck in my brain. I think there really is something to it, I just can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe the fact that as long as I've played videogames, they've presented a series of challenges to be overcome? That I (we?) have come to expect that if there is an obstacle in a videogame, we are supposed to conquer it? Or that the "power fantasy" is so deeply ingrained in to what games like Destiny are, that some of us have a difficult time reconciling with the idea that there are some challenges that exist outside the range of "beatable" obstacles?

What came to mind immediately for me was the outcry over the ending of Mass Effect 3.

Not so much the skill mastery issue, but the power fantasy issue-- the idea that what gamers are used to is being set free in a world and then, to the maximum degree possible, shaping that world entirely. That's what messianic hero characters do. In Halo that means destroying the Covenant, the Flood, and every Forerunner ring we find, along with anyone who stands in our way. So everything in our way has to be beatable, defeatable, by design. It doesn't make for a particularly believable game world, of course, but that's where suspension of belief comes in.

In RPGs it means saving the world, perhaps even coming to rule it. So when ME3 ends with a tough choice that remakes the galaxy in a way that has advantages and disadvantages, it undermines the extreme player agency people are used to.

I think all of Destiny's enemies are meant to be beaten. But the game of "collecting all the stuff" isn't meant to be. It is clearly not meant to be a meritocracy where all the best players have all the best guns. First of all, the best players are already the best and don't need better guns; and secondly, when you've then got all the guns there are to get, you put the game down. For whatever reason, Bungie has extended the player engagement that normally only includes multiplayer to the PVE experience-- perhaps because it makes players better customers for DLC, or because that's just the game they wanted to play-- Diablo and Halo combined. (Several people at Bungie were big Diablo 2 players.)

That also leads to a lack of variety. If, as some players have asked for, there was a reliable and predictable way to get all rewards, then the collection of items amongst similarly-skilled players would be the same. Player preference alone isn't enough to guarantee a variety in how players play, especially because balance is hard and player communities tend to min-max stuff when they can.

Lots of design choices in Destiny seem to back up the idea that they want a variety of players using a variety of gear, not letting them settle on a perfect combination that is the same everywhere. If everybody had a Gjallarhorn everyone would use it all the time-- why bother modeling all the other guns, then?

RNG means some of the best players won't have some of the best weapons, and vice versa. Burns and other wrinkles in particular events mean that you won't always use the "best" gun in all situations. I think this is part of what Bungie wants for the Destiny experience.

Destiny apparently does not compare favorably to other games though in terms of content for dollars. You hear all the time WoW has more stuff to do. WoW is 15 bucks a month (I think), and up until this point Destiny has cost $11.25 a month, without counting PSN plus. Not that I think WoW "things to do" are necessarily something Bungie should strive for, but this is where that criticism is coming from.

WoW cost $40 new, when it first came out. Destiny cost $60 when it first came out (and quickly dropped to $30 - it's $19 on Amazon right now).

WoW cost $15/month from the start - the expansion pass (which provided new content at 3 and 9 months) cost $35.

I'm not sure I understand your math.

I actually do make a point of using almost all my gear on a regular basis. As I've said before, that's how I get a lot of replay value out of Destiny: I try replaying all the content with different gear, different playstyles, on a regular basis.

Can confirm: you are the only person I have ever seen who used Super Good Advice in Crota's End!

... then Comet is the first expansion that I feel will actually earn the label of "expansion". I think TDB and HoW both have some great content, but they do feel quite thin given the price and time between releases.

I've seen a number of posts making similar observations this week. Which I find funny, given how many people were saying HoW was ABSOLUTELY WORTH THE PRICE OF ENTRY after the first couple of days. ;)

Destiny apparently does not compare favorably to other games though in terms of content for dollars. You hear all the time WoW has more stuff to do. WoW is 15 bucks a month (I think), and up until this point Destiny has cost $11.25 a month, without counting PSN plus. Not that I think WoW "things to do" are necessarily something Bungie should strive for, but this is where that criticism is coming from.

In my opinion, Destiny would have been better served as a 40 hour game, that is compact, with a high awesome per second ratio. Note that many years ago, I called upon that same principle and was chewed out by Matt Soell, saying it was nebulous and unhelpful, yet here 6 years later the game designers at extra credits are espousing it. They work as consultants, so they actually teach and tell people this stuff.

Destiny unfortunately has a rather low awesome per second ratio when you consider everything.

And that's me. Clearly, it's not you. Clearly, it's not other people here, either, since I see similar "there is nothing about this encounter I enjoy" posts from people who are obviously going back and doing this mode or that again.

For me anyway, it is a case of "suffer now for fun later". The exotics appear very interesting, and probably fun to use. Again, after I get those, I'm completely done with PoE.

Things I still enjoy in Destiny:

1. PvP
2. Trials of Osiris
3. Nightfalls

That's the extent to what I would currently play if it were simply about having fun at that given moment.

It never fails to amaze me how deeply ingrained the power fantasy is; gamers complain bitterly at any element that undermines it even in the slightest-- anything that suggests that the entirety of the gameworld cannot be dominated by a player with sufficient skill.

Something about this point you made is stuck in my brain. I think there really is something to it, I just can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe the fact that as long as I've played videogames, they've presented a series of challenges to be overcome? That I (we?) have come to expect that if there is an obstacle in a videogame, we are supposed to conquer it?

Yeah, that's literally the entire point of playing any video game that isn't just an interactive narrative.

I also seem to recall many posts on this forum stating this exact same thing as a criticism of the raids-- the idea that once mastered they are no longer challenging, therefore not interesting, and no longer worth continued participation.

This is true, but this is NOT a downside.

It never fails to amaze me how deeply ingrained the power fantasy is; gamers complain bitterly at any element that undermines it even in the slightest-- anything that suggests that the entirety of the gameworld cannot be dominated by a player with sufficient skill.

This is because we take on challenges so we can actually overcome them. What's better, winning the superbowl on a bad call, or winning the superbowl by being the better team?