This is from back in May, but I just saw it linked on reddit.

🚨NEW: Bungie has posted a new job listing for "Incubation Sandbox Designer" for its new "multiplayer action game currently in incubation." (New IP)

~ Experience working on character-focused action games
~ Familiarity with the competitive gaming landscape/esports pic.twitter.com/Zh6k6j3aqC

— Destiny Bulletin (@DestinyBulletn) May 25, 2021

Would be surprised if it were exclusively multiplayer focused like overwatch. Probably the PvP mode of a larger game. Cool in the sense that your character character choice in story could matter in PvP. Bad in the the sense that Bungie's been slipping and slipping with regard to making Destiny a monetization platform, so loot boxes / skins / other bullshit.

- No text -

I realize that there's an audience for it, but I'm not it. Competitive multiplayer in Bungie games has always been a fun addition to what I liked most about Bungie games.

Would be surprised if it were exclusively multiplayer focused like overwatch.

Bungie currently has not shown any ability to maintain a competitive multiplayer game on the level that would be required to match their contemporaries. Part of this is almost certainly that their games are wildly ambitious in terms of scope - Destiny's connected PvP and PvE is a constant source of balancing problems, but when they do pull it off it's very cool. I would imagine that some at Bungie are just as frustrated as the players are about how Destiny gameplay effects must be so thoroughly vetted in so many environments, and that a more focused game would attractive to work on.

I agree with squid’s post above.

Destiny’s PvP is really fun, but it’s in no way balanced or competitive. I would love to see what Bungie could do in an isolated PvP game.

Destiny’s PvP is really fun, but it’s in no way balanced or competitive.

Funny. From my PoV, PvP is neither balanced NOR fun. Just purely competitive.

Funny. From my PoV, PvP is neither balanced NOR fun. Just purely competitive.

It's always hard to have PvP conversations on the internet because the words used to describe what different games are trying to accomplish have shifted over the years. In fact, Bungie only recently made the concession to refer to PvP as "PvP" in their TWABs rather than "competitive" due to the different connotations.

In this context, "competitive" means a game centered around creating a level playing field in each individual game, where the goal for each team or player is trying to win. Drilling down further, it most often takes the form of emphasizing decisions and skill throughout the length of the game, attempting to avoid "slippery slope" gameplay where an early advantage by one team becomes immediately insurmountable (this goes back to the whole BR vs. AR thing in Halo). Usually this kind of gameplay is accompanied by a ranking system that promotes personal and team improvement over time.

I can only speak to personal experience.

The most fun I've ever had in Destiny PvP was the trace rifle weekend. (I generally dislike D2PvP)

The least fun I ever had in Halo PvP was when they introduced that MLG playlist. (I generally loved Halo 1-3 PvP)

All the fun ended as soon as loadouts were introduced. Everything became competitive then. The next level is just Sweaty Competitive.

Competitive multiplayer in Bungie games has always been a fun addition to what I liked most about Bungie games.

I'm a step further, I don't even find it fun anymore. Haven't for a long time. I couldn't be less interested in a game that's ONLY competitive multiplayer.

Competitive multiplayer in Bungie games has always been a fun addition to what I liked most about Bungie games.

I'm a step further, I don't even find it fun anymore. Haven't for a long time. I couldn't be less interested in a game that's ONLY competitive multiplayer.

In some sense (and I have to say upfront this is my opinion because… you know), games that are exclusively competitive multiplayer are kind of the lowest of the low in terms of this artform and what it can achieve. Even Brood War had an excellent campaign mode…

In this context, "competitive" means a game centered around creating a level playing field in each individual game, where the goal for each team or player is trying to win.

Creating a level playing field would be rubber banding and handicapping the better team. No "competitive" game ever strives for a truly level playing field. They all purposefully exaggerate differences in skill. That's… the whole idea. You get good? You can win.

Drilling down further, it most often takes the form of emphasizing decisions and skill throughout the length of the game, attempting to avoid "slippery slope" gameplay where an early advantage by one team becomes immediately insurmountable (this goes back to the whole BR vs. AR thing in Halo).

The prevention of which is antithetical to a true competitive game, which is to be an objective and correct measure of skill. That sounds more like a more casual multiplayer game, which as I think you've been suggesting, is way more fun. The true competitive games which rely solely on skill are quite boring, and usually warp player incentives.

Creating a level playing field would be rubber banding and handicapping the better team. No "competitive" game ever strives for a truly level playing field. They all purposefully exaggerate differences in skill. That's… the whole idea. You get good? You can win.

Well, this is what I mean by differences in vocabulary making this very difficult to discuss. What I mean when I say "level playing field" is that everyone starts with the same items and abilities, or items and abilities that are at least nominally equivalent. This term comes from real life sports, where quite literally a sloped playing field in a soccer game would advantage the team with the high ground. Obviously everyone not everyone playing in the soccer game is exactly the same skill.

The prevention of which is antithetical to a true competitive game, which is to be an objective and correct measure of skill. That sounds more like a more casual multiplayer game, which as I think you've been suggesting, is way more fun. The true competitive games which rely solely on skill are quite boring, and usually warp player incentives.

What I think people mean when they say, I want a "competitive" game, is that they want them to work more like sports in real life. Sports in real life are well understood to have variance - the "better" team does not always win, but sometimes this is because the ball bounced weird, or sometimes it's because the better team played worse/worse team played better that day (e.g., the Any Given Sunday effect). The weird thing about this, is that the "competitive" games we are talking about, like FPSs, have behaviors unlike real sports, such as dying and having to respawn somewhere on the arena, which introduces complex design decisions about how much to punish someone for dying, a huge part of the "slippery slope" problem. So, it's a hard problem: how do we incorporate the ebb and flow of a real life sport, while also introducing more complex game elements that can't be replicated easily in real life, which necessarily require more complex solutions to maintain balance?

What I think people mean when they say, I want a "competitive" game, is that they want them to work more like sports in real life. Sports in real life are well understood to have variance - the "better" team does not always win, but sometimes this is because the ball bounced weird, or sometimes it's because the better team played worse/worse team played better that day (e.g., the Any Given Sunday effect). The weird thing about this, is that the "competitive" games we are talking about, like FPSs, have behaviors unlike real sports, such as dying and having to respawn somewhere on the arena, which introduces complex design decisions about how much to punish someone for dying, a huge part of the "slippery slope" problem. So, it's a hard problem: how do we incorporate the ebb and flow of a real life sport, while also introducing more complex game elements that can't be replicated easily in real life, which necessarily require more complex solutions to maintain balance?

Is it really that different? The "rules" of sports are just as arbitrary as the "rules" in an FPS. The only difference is that game physics don't need to mimic those in real life, whereas real sports are necessarily all governed by the same physical laws. But the rules are just as constructed. What happens when you get fouled, or cross two blue lines or whatever are just as arbitrary and exploitable as what areas you can spawn in. Spawn trapping is a thing, just like fouling the worst shooter is.

I agree with squid’s post above.

Destiny’s PvP is really fun, but it’s in no way balanced or competitive. I would love to see what Bungie could do in an isolated PvP game.

I'm not saying that Bungie couldn't do a great job at it! I'm just saying I don't want to play it :D

Or I guess I should say that the older I get the less I enjoy it. As I get older, I am losing my competitive edge. In college I LOVED Halo multiplayer, the grittier the better. I just don't care anymore, I want an open world where I can just explore and shoot things at my own leisure. Do I play PvP in Destiny? Sure! But I rarely ever do it alone, I do it with friends.

So yeah, If Bungie wants to do it, I hope they do it well. But I'm not going to play it unless I can get a of my friends to play it as well.

Is it really that different? The "rules" of sports are just as arbitrary as the "rules" in an FPS. The only difference is that game physics don't need to mimic those in real life, whereas real sports are necessarily all governed by the same physical laws. But the rules are just as constructed. What happens when you get fouled, or cross two blue lines or whatever are just as arbitrary and exploitable as what areas you can spawn in. Spawn trapping is a thing, just like fouling the worst shooter is.

I think I agree, the difference is that most major sports have had much longer to evolve, and the rules have coalesced and remained mostly static for longer. Certainly there are rule changes to improve the games (like the NBA foul rule tweak this season), but on the whole the games have the basic back-and-forth well crystalized. Video games have difficulty reaching this level of continuity for many different reasons.

I’m not sure I agree. I can’t quite articulate my thoughts without rambling a lot, but I think a good competitive game can show the strengths of game design as art as much as The Last of Us can.

I’m not sure I agree. I can’t quite articulate my thoughts without rambling a lot, but I think a good competitive game can show the strengths of game design as art as much as The Last of Us can.

Yeah, I think it's possible. I think it's just much harder to do in the scope of making a good PvP game. Most PvP games are built on top of other history or other games or other parts of the same game.

Destiny PvP has its moments... but I don't really enjoy it all that much anymore. The Halo Infinite Tech Preview was a nice reminder of how good FPS PvP games can feel.

I'd love to play a bungie game that really focused on the balance of PvP first. I think they'd nail a hero shooter.

FWIW, I don't either. The reasons I don't enjoy those games are totally due to my own personality, and learning that they aren't good for me mentally.

Is Bungie making a competitive hero shooter? Well, they wouldn't be the first ones. And, no doubt, the reason is as ever the money. There have been some pushes towards Major League Gaming, with games like Overwatch and Valorant bringing the strongest pushes to date. Yet, it's still too knish. It has yet to hit mainstream, I think. And I'd say it's a fair bet that for both Bungie and their invested benefactors, that's the market where their aim is.

If they can pull it off, then they will have both pockets lined with gold. Destiny their Starwars (merchandising... just you wait) and Matter(?) their Advertising Bank.

Not too thrilled with this, but it's the current way of the land. Hope it's more fun then not.

Bungie is or at least was too smart for this. Tech, markets, and preferences change so rapidly. They’ve never been one to chase others, but have others chase them. By the time a hero shooter were done it’d be too late. If it is a hero shooter, it’s going to have that Bungie spin that makes it almost a new thing.

Bungie is or at least was too smart for this. Tech, markets, and preferences change so rapidly. They’ve never been one to chase others, but have others chase them. By the time a hero shooter were done it’d be too late. If it is a hero shooter, it’s going to have that Bungie spin that makes it almost a new thing.

One would hope, but I don't think I'd be up for it regardless, and it's not just that I'm not so much into multiplayer.

What's always been most interesting to me about video games is their potential as a story telling medium. I know you have strong opinions about this subject, but for me, part of what attracted me to Bungie in the first place was that it was the game company that told quality stories. Maybe not always great, but not dumb, like, say, Doom. (I admit I have a somewhat uninformed prejudice against Doom. Plus, Bungie was a Mac developer, and the Mac snobbery was strong in me--I assumed that all software not on Mac was butt-ugly and unimaginative. My limited exposure to Doom confirmed this bias.)

A Bungie game without a story isn't really a Bungie game. [Insert snarky comment about Destiny's failures here.]