One Year Anniversary (Destiny)

by Claude Errera @, Sunday, January 05, 2020, 18:28 (260 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I don't think you are parsing the thesis properly. The raids are not the only part of the game.

Hilariously, I had originally typed 'Destiny' rather than 'raids', but then thought to myself, "Cody doesn't care about anything but raids, I'll be more specific."

Rereading the article doesn't change my question. How is separating 'Dresstiny' from Destiny a bad thing from your viewpoint? (Just to be clear, I can easily see how it's a bad thing from the viewpoint of others, just not you)

It's bad because many activities have incorporated 'frictions' so that merely playing the game to get bright dust and buy what you want is practically impossible. Frictions you face even if you have no interest in bright dust. Any store in which the items can be purchased for either real money or for in game currency necessarily involve a compromise to game design.

This is why the "it's optional" argument is bullshit. It must necessarily effect those who don't pay, because the whole point of the frictions is to convince you to pay.

You're not answering his question.

You've made it abundantly clear in the past that the only thing that matters to you is raiding. You played some Crucible in the early days, but that got old, for you.

You have NEVER implied that your enjoyment of the game depended on the look of your armor - so why are you suddenly getting behind an article that suggests that the way you look is really the ONLY thing that matters?

If you don't give a shit about cosmetics, having all of them behind a paywall should not affect your gameplay in the slightest.

Unless you're implying here that all of this is empathy for others, who DO enjoy the cosmetic aspect? (That would be odd, given your distinct lack of empathy for the viewpoints of others over the past 5 years or so, but I guess everyone can change.)

I think squid's point was that you've latched onto an article that stands diametrically opposed to your oft-stated viewpoint, and are using it to argue your own point not because you agree with it, but because the END CONCLUSION is the same as yours (the game isn't worth playing right now).

Just because both paths end in the same place doesn't mean they're compatible arguments.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread