I am surprised you admitted actually looking forward to a Bungie game though. :p

Why? I get worked up because I care. Up until recently, Bungie was the best game developer on Earth. The only reason they aren't right now is because they haven't released a game since Vanquish, MGS Rising, and Anarchy Reigns to compete with Platinum :-p

Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FUCKING FUN.
Investment systems don't make games better. Making a good game makes it better.

Multiplayer, a customisable character, decisions that matter, challenge. Tell me what, out of that list, that doesn't make the game better when done correctly.

You need to think of these things in the context of investment systems. When he says you will fail, it's not because you're going to encounter cool situations which you are unprepared for in terms of skill or knowledge, but because your avatar won't be strong enough. This has been confirmed by Game Informer. Which is dumb.

You've just got it into your head that because now game developers are designing with invest-ability in mind, that anything that is spawned out of that -even partially- must automatically be irreparably corrupted and objectively make the game worse, for every player.

Mr. Miller, you are wrong.

It's just short hand for a design theory. You can cast many things in the light of 'investment system.' The difficulty badges on the level select screen in Halo 1. The map-specific knowledge you had to acquire to be good at multiplayer. Things players want to attain or get the opportunity to use, they are 'invested' in.

There is a difference. When you 'invest' yourself in a good game, what you get back manifests itself in your brain and body as increased skill or knowledge. When you 'invest' yourself in games with investment systems, you primarily gain flipped bits on your hard drive or the game server.

A quick test: do you keep it if you were to completely start the game over and wipe all progress? If yes, you're on the right track. If not, you are generally wasting time.

Thus the best 'investment' systems are simply making a really good game people like to play, not one based on rewards.

Cody. Tyson's job is investment. He doesn't handle gameplay. That is my job. I (and others in my group) handle gameplay. We make sure the game is fun. Player Investment and Gameplay compliment each other- they aren't at odds. Just because there is investment doesn't mean there is no gameplay or not a focus on gameplay. We have triple the amount of level and activity designers than any of our Halo games. We have Old school Vets and fresh blood. Our sole focus is building great and memorable encounters- just like we did with Halo.

Oh, Dan. You obviously don't understand that the second ANY effort is expended on 'investment' the game goes down the toilet. Silly man.

Cody. Tyson's job is investment. He doesn't handle gameplay. That is my job. I (and others in my group) handle gameplay. We make sure the game is fun. Player Investment and Gameplay compliment each other- they aren't at odds. Just because there is investment doesn't mean there is no gameplay or not a focus on gameplay. We have triple the amount of level and activity designers than any of our Halo games. We have Old school Vets and fresh blood. Our sole focus is building great and memorable encounters- just like we did with Halo.

I don't believe that Destiny won't generally be like Halo; I actually think the game system and the possibilities look very cool. I wouldn't keep buying your games if you guys weren't the best at what you do.

BUT.

You are incorrect when you say investment compliments 'gameplay'. In essence, everything you ask your player to do is 'gameplay'. Thus, the systems of investment you ask your players to use or play with, become part of the game. They are kind of the same thing in a way.

THAT is what's worrying. If you guys do have so much more content as you say, then why is an investment system even necessary? Why can't players play the game until they stop having fun? And if you want them playing longer, why not make your game bigger / more challenging so that they have fun longer? The investment system is essentially a way to keep players playing beyond when they otherwise would stop right? Folks stop playing the game when they aren;t having fun, so such systems basically get players to play when they otherwise aren;t having any fun.

Now if they systems of investment themselves are compelling and fun, well then that's just called 'gameplay' isn't it? And that's YOUR job isn't it?

I don't think ANY game has been made better by an investment system. Not a single one. They are perhaps the biggest blunder of modern game design in the last few years.

I will say that my initial post was rude, and so I do apologize for the tone, but not the content. Please do not interpret this as an attack on your person or the studio's efforts, but rather a point made that investment systems are not necessary (and in fact harmful) for a healthy community and lasting experience.

Cody. Tyson's job is investment. He doesn't handle gameplay. That is my job. I (and others in my group) handle gameplay. We make sure the game is fun. Player Investment and Gameplay compliment each other- they aren't at odds. Just because there is investment doesn't mean there is no gameplay or not a focus on gameplay. We have triple the amount of level and activity designers than any of our Halo games. We have Old school Vets and fresh blood. Our sole focus is building great and memorable encounters- just like we did with Halo.

This is a really telling post. Investment really scares me when it becomes ingrained in the gameplay. When it is on top of the gameplay, I can see it adding a lot to the overall "experience".

This video was super encouraging. It sounds like investment means a lot more than numbers ticking up. That the vidmaster achievements and Dark Souls were some of the main points they're looking to in how to drive investment makes me very happy.

I think you're sort of misapplying the term 'investment' and acting like it's a rusty fishook that a developer wants to hide in the center of your lollipop. You can't honestly say Bungie is going to muster behind the banner they've made out of making-the-games-they-want-to-play and then include *by explicit design* mechanisms just to get you to play a crappy game longer, because they somehow benefit from that. It would be dishonest at best. Did we even watch the same interview vid? It feels like he went to significant effort to get across that they're shooting for a quality of experience that will be free of those kind of mechanisms that impede fun.

I should give him credit for that. However all of that is in the context of having a player investment system to begin with, so by that very fact the game is worse than it otherwise would be. Destiny may be great, but if it were designed without investment systems it would be greater.

It seems like after every release you reset your appraisal of their credibility and expect them to have to work to earn every scrap of it back.

This is not correct. I still do not like ODST, and Reach I was merely skeptical about because of ODSTs quality. Nothing about Reach's systems made me inherently worried, and after the Beta I knew it was good.

You know they consider your (and all of our) input into what they do, I guess I just don't see how disrespecting that which you cherish in order to make it better(through some kind of crucible of distrust and scorn) is supposed to somehow elicit a better end result. That's just not productive, man.

He noticed. It's productive. Assuming they take our input into account, which I doubt they do. It's not disrespect. It's just being direct. If Tyson or Dan met me in real life the encounter would seem much more positive, I assure you.

As someone with a significant creative bent, you of all people should understand the increased quality of work and satisfaction in completing a project you know to have been made better through your own self-criticsm, should you not? You can't sit there from on-high and say they aren't making those same efforts.

Every day I hear a million different opinions: this sucks, that's good etc. I just screened a documentary I cut about the life of a certain man, and half the people who saw it hated it because we didn't put him on a pedestal, but instead looked at his life in a humble, almost melancholy way. They said the approach was idiotic (because many people in the room considered him a personal hero), but others LOVED what we did. In the end you do what YOU think is right, but you have to be prepared for others not to share the same opinion.

If you want all your self-righteousness to count for something, if you want to be taken seriously as a seasoned and trustworthy vector for input on something we all want to be enthralled with, why would you dilute your contribution with an unnecessarily shrill tone?

Maybe because some people are smart enough to listen to the words, and not how they are said? It's not a personal attack.

Matter of fact, I'm kind of insulted that you keep up like this. I'll venture to say that most folks around here recognize you as a pretty intelligent guy. I'm confident that if you were being honest with yourself, you would know the place they're communicating from and accept it for what it is instead of...whatever it is you're doing.

Then ban me and call it a day.

Please keep your hands and arms inside Grognok at all times.

What makes you, Cody Miller, such an expert compared to so many other fans – and even the groups at Bungie themselves? What experience do you have that allows you this insite?

Only the extent to which you find what I say compelling or interesting.