It doesn't need to be exploitative to work that way. There's no denying that the vast majority of your time playing Destiny beyond the 15 hours or whatever it takes to go from level 1 to 20 is replaying the same missions over and over, with the purpose basically to increase bars until they ding, whether those bars are on guns, or your light level. Or worse still, running endlessly around harvesting materials to make those guns ding, the most senseless time-wasting grinding you could possibly add to a game.

If you find running around just shooting stuff in the game to be fun, good on you, for me it plays like a pared down less interesting version of Halo, but I can certainly understand why some people would get into it. From a broader perspective however, with what the game is trying to accomplish in terms of retaining its players, it is most definitely operating on a Skinner box principle.

Opinions on this game vary wildly, but I think it would be a little silly to pretend that there isn't a bit of a carrot on a stick mechanism keeping a lot of people coming back for more.

Unfortunately I don't think that works for Story. Story is one of those things that I don't think you can give good "postcards" for. It seems like you really just need one person in charge of the story with other people there to help provide ideas and additional perspectives to flush out the details. My understanding is that even with books, usually just one author writes the book. Usually in a two-author situation there is still really just one main author.

Generally the more authorial voices you add, the more likely the one good writer you have will be drowned out, if you have one good writer in a team (if you're lucky; there aren't many good writers out there). The more voices you add means the less voice the good writer gets.

Destiny's story lacks focus, and feels cobbled together. Probably because the strong voice that was guiding it, and trying to focus the committee, left the project a year before release. The committee then put together a bunch of cliches because a group of writers usually just try to hit every ball out of the park, and end up with a bunch of one-liners and cliches.

My understanding is that even with books, usually just one author writes the book. Usually in a two-author situation there is still really just one main author.

I've read some genuine collaborations between authours; the process, as described by one (whom I forget, alas) is that each authour contributes 2/3 of the work. :) Doing a real shared story involves a lot of back and forth between the writers to make sure each part works with the rest... and time spent on that overhead can very quickly exceed time spent writing the part that the audience sees. If you skip that work, though, then the parts will tend to mesh poorly.

-- Steve thinks having one core writer results in a better story told more quickly, though ancillary stuff (and research!) can be done by supporting writers.

I think it's more like a trade-off. The bigger the game, the more people you need to get things done. The more people you have, the harder it is to stick to a single vision of a good game.

I think it is made pretty clear in "Masters of Doom". You look at the different companies in that book and you sort of get the impression that you want as small a team as possible to create the game that you want. If the team gets too large then the quality of the game starts dropping because nobody can keep track of everything and ensure that it's all consistent.

I have another theory that I haven't read anywhere else but it might be discussed places, and that's that larger development teams make for less interesting games. Sort of a too many cooks in the kitchen scenario.

This is wrong. In fact, it's the opposite of true. The better games get, the more people will have to be on the team.

I've played outstanding games made jointly by five hundred people and amazing games made by just one or two people. I've enjoyed hundreds of hours in Destiny or Skyrim, but have also enjoyed quite a few playing FTL or Aquaria. I'd argue that team size doesn't really matter that much. Its good ideas that are key.

I have another theory that I haven't read anywhere else but it might be discussed places, and that's that larger development teams make for less interesting games. Sort of a too many cooks in the kitchen scenario.

This is wrong. In fact, it's the opposite of true. The better games get, the more people will have to be on the team.

Cody, is this some twisted joke?

I've been staring at this post for the last 5 minutes trying to work out how you (of all people) could think this.

If this was even remotely true, Assassin's creed would be the greatest franchise in the history of games ever.

You want a good, original game, with deep game-play? Give a reasonably small group of talented people a decent amount of time and freedom. Will it work every time? No, but looking over the past couple of years, it's hard to say that AAA games developed by small armies of developers and artists aren't struggling to maintain a certain level of quality. And a decent chunk of my favourite games have been developed by teams of >10 people.

I mean, I guess that's true if you equate bigger games with more polygons to render as better. In that case yes you would need a bigger team.

If only Levi's version of Halo 4 had been made instead of the real one.

RIGHT? I forget I played that steaming pile of a game.

I think Cody and Levi should run a team and make a game. Madness, you say? Fortune favors the bold, friends.