Polygon has a new article answering key questions about what Destiny is. Go see the answers here.

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4362341/tower34.jpg [Huge Image Warning]

Also, two other things:

1. This quote:

"If you want to be a more aloof character, the emotional fantasy of the Awoken is more disconnected and more ethereal than the humans," explained investment lead Tyson Green. "The humans have more of a rugged, survivor feel. These are the people who survived the fall. Or there is this anti-emotional archetype, like the Exos, are meant to be the tireless war machine."

...is actually making me think about which race to choose. Do we know how far in effect a race has? I know its doesn't effect actual play - but say, can an Exo get gear that would be best for it and not a Human? (Visually Speaking)

2. In the comments "metric152" asks

I really wish they would talk about co-op. I really want to play this with the wife. We played a lot of Borderlands 1/2.

I don't think I have heard this question before - do we know of any comment involving couch co-op?

- No text -

- No text -

Polygon has a new article answering key questions about what Destiny is. Go see the answers here.

"According to Green, you need to play "a couple of hours, tops", to unlock PvP. "And that's only on your first character."

WHY ISN'T IT ZERO HOURS? Really now.

"But why force players to play Destiny for a couple of hours before letting them try PvP? According to Green, it's to ensure players have good enough abilities and equipment to compete."

1. Why do acquired abilities affect the game so much that you can't compete without them?
2. Why not allow players in PvP to simply select any ability they want before the match?
3. Why not just use trueskill to match players with similar skills levels and gear?

More stuff like that…

3. Why not just use trueskill to match players with similar skills levels and gear?

I'm as stumped as you about the other question but couldn't this one simply be answered by "they don't have reliable access to TrueSkill anymore"?

3. Why not just use trueskill to match players with similar skills levels and gear?

I'm as stumped as you about the other question but couldn't this one simply be answered by "they don't have reliable access to TrueSkill anymore"?

Which brand of matching algorithm is used isn't really the core issue.

3. Why not just use trueskill to match players with similar skills levels and gear?

I'm as stumped as you about the other question but couldn't this one simply be answered by "they don't have reliable access to TrueSkill anymore"?

I'm no programmer, but it doesn't seem hard to determine which skills a player's avatar has, and match them up to other avatars with similar skills (or lack of skills).

I'm no programmer, but it doesn't seem hard to determine which skills a player's avatar has, and match them up to other avatars with similar skills (or lack of skills).

Sounds excruciatingly difficult to me, personally, but I'm more of a exact maths/physics programmer. No statistical mumbo-jumbo in my curriculum at all.

Well, historically speaking, if it were so easy there wouldn't be so many obvious blunders all over the industry.

I'm no programmer, but it doesn't seem hard to determine which skills a player's avatar has, and match them up to other avatars with similar skills (or lack of skills).

Which skills a player's avatar has?

Polygon has a new article answering key questions about what Destiny is. Go see the answers here.

"According to Green, you need to play "a couple of hours, tops", to unlock PvP. "And that's only on your first character."

WHY ISN'T IT ZERO HOURS? Really now.

"But why force players to play Destiny for a couple of hours before letting them try PvP? According to Green, it's to ensure players have good enough abilities and equipment to compete."

1. Why do acquired abilities affect the game so much that you can't compete without them?
2. Why not allow players in PvP to simply select any ability they want before the match?
3. Why not just use trueskill to match players with similar skills levels and gear?

More stuff like that…

For the ALL CAPS ?, just a guess: this is a small way the game encourages you out of your comfort zone, let's say, if you're in that apparently large group that buys FPS games and ignores all modes other than PVP.

I'm connecting this with other things they've said related to how the game steers you toward playing with others cooperatively, even if that's not something you'd normally do.

Just a thought.

- No text -

For the ALL CAPS ?, just a guess: this is a small way the game encourages you out of your comfort zone, let's say, if you're in that apparently large group that buys FPS games and ignores all modes other than PVP.

I'm connecting this with other things they've said related to how the game steers you toward playing with others cooperatively, even if that's not something you'd normally do.

Just a thought.

I'm going with this, too.

3. Why not just use trueskill to match players with similar skills levels and gear?

It seems pretty obvious that this "delay" is for a variety of reasons, one of which is that it will drastically improve TrueSkill's ability to create good matches.

One of the huge problems with TrueSkill is that the first matches you play could be against pretty much anyone, resulting in a high incidence of lopsided games. It's also very frustrating to be matched up with new players on your team that have yet to even learn which buttons do what. Do you learn how to play basketball by jumping into a pickup game? No, you practice dribbling, shooting, then you try to put them together in a game. Forcing players to play a little bit and learn the mechanics before jumping into PvP will improve both their experience and the experience of the players that are already knowledgeable.

A second thing about this that helps is that it has a good shot at reducing second accounters. Halo has been full of people starting new accounts to destroy players at the low end of the TrueSkill curve: by adding this delay in, it will add a level of annoyance to this behavior that will discourage it, while still being reasonably short for a player with a more legitimate reason to start a new account. This should lead to an improvement of the TrueSkill player distribution, resulting in better matches for everyone.

2. In the comments "metric152" asks

I really wish they would talk about co-op. I really want to play this with the wife. We played a lot of Borderlands 1/2.

I don't think I have heard this question before - do we know of any comment involving couch co-op?

This is a huge question for me. I rarely play by myself anymore. Having split screen is almost a must for me. I have to skip over some games because I can't play with lil' blue due to lack of split screen. I also want to know if we can play with guests.

...is actually making me think about which race to choose. Do we know how far in effect a race has? I know its doesn't effect actual play - but say, can an Exo get gear that would be best for it and not a Human? (Visually Speaking)

Race is purely cosmetic [http://goo.gl/4EB3xJ]. I think the big choice that affects what kind of gear would be your class.

WHY ISN'T IT ZERO HOURS? Really now.

Honestly I feel like Tyson's answer to your question really covers it well:

"We found early on that people here in the studio, when they jumped on the game - these were people who were already really familiar with the game mechanics - they would roll a new character, play through the first mission then go right into PvP, and they would just get really beaten up by the other players because they didn't have a super ability yet and they'd only got an auto rifle from the first mission,"

1. Why do acquired abilities affect the game so much that you can't compete without them?

This would be like only one player in Halo not having any access to the Rocket Launcher and over shield, while everyone else does almost simultaneously... Is it possible to compete? Kind of... but it's probably not going to be terribly fun for that unlucky player.

2. Why not allow players in PvP to simply select any ability they want before the match?

Because this breaks the investment. You aren't investing in a character and building up your own lore in your loot collection if you can just jump over to PvP and pick whatever super ability or special weapon that you want. What would be the point of even trying to get those things if you could just play PvP all day and have the entire suite of weapons and supers at your disposal? I know that you think this kind of unlocking mechanic makes games terrible, but this is exactly the kind of game that Bungie wants to create.

One of my favorite photos from the recent info dump. I especially like the bookshelves. And the flag reflections in the rules. And the NPCs working/walking about. And the robot DJs (yes, the Tower doubles as a night club: Club Errera 2.0)

And the flag reflections in the rules.

If the game's reflections ever wipe awkwardly away just because the reflected object leaves your direct view.

Bungie, I will be disappoint.

- No text -

3. Why not just use trueskill to match players with similar skills levels and gear?

I'm as stumped as you about the other question but couldn't this one simply be answered by "they don't have reliable access to TrueSkill anymore"?

I'm no programmer, but it doesn't seem hard to determine which skills a player's avatar has, and match them up to other avatars with similar skills (or lack of skills).

Considering location, when players are online, what they're playing, if they're available for matching and skill level, when you add gear and character levels to that it's easy to reduce the potential good matches to... zero.

And you don't even have any information on player skill initially so that's just a crapshoot. (4v4 pure trueskill takes 150 games IIRC)

All the data I've seen on PvP matchmaking says that a huge proportion of players complete less than 20 PvP matches, ever.

The conclusion drawn is that a lot of players are jumping into PvP, getting horrible matches that they don't find fun, and quitting forever. That player bleed hurts long-term matching quality since less people are online playing (*cough* Halo 4, starting with AR and Pistol *cough*).

Solution? Sorry, but you have to 'break' the pure experience to ensure the (slightly delayed) first experience of PvP is more likely to be a good one and long-term match quality is higher due to higher player retention.

Requiring that players invest a few hours of time in solo/cooperative first - although it reduces the number of players available initially - cuts the bottom off the experience/gear/skill spreads. If they can get through it, they'll need to have a minimum of aiming and movement skill, they'll have to pick up some extra gear, and they'll naturally learn a little about the game's specific mechanics.

It's also possible - though I don't know if Bungie is doing it - to get preliminary information on where exactly their skill lies on the curve by examining their performance on these 'prologue' tasks in relation to other players: accuracy, time taken, damage taken, deaths etc.

This all results in - on average - better matches when they do start playing PvP. Better for them, for their opponents and the game as a whole if those players stick around.

In that playing campaign/coop is the "tutorial" or even interview/ice breaker, if you will, for PvP. New folks get some time to learn the game, vets get vetted by the game, and everyone wins in the long run.

I think I like this.

Solution? Sorry, but you have to 'break' the pure experience to ensure the (slightly delayed) first experience of PvP is more likely to be a good one and long-term match quality is higher due to higher player retention.

The issue was explained by Bungie to be that of mismatched avatar skills and weapons. This is a problem easily fixed by changing how PvP works. Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

Either players have somehow gotten stupider, or the system they have set up doesn't work as well. If you have to nanny your players like that, then I'm guessing that it's not a problem on their end.

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

Solution? Sorry, but you have to 'break' the pure experience to ensure the (slightly delayed) first experience of PvP is more likely to be a good one and long-term match quality is higher due to higher player retention.

The issue was explained by Bungie to be that of mismatched avatar skills and weapons. This is a problem easily fixed by changing how PvP works.

How so?

Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

I was eager to jump on to play Halo 2 matchmaking, and I did it before I had finished the campaign in part because it was new. As a person of low skill, though, I died a lot. The novelty of being able to play online kept me going and the matchmaking got better. Either way, though, I sure didn't play very much matchmaking before I had a few hours of campaign time under my belt, so this requirement would hardly have hindered me.

Either players have somehow gotten stupider, or the system they have set up doesn't work as well. If you have to nanny your players like that, then I'm guessing that it's not a problem on their end.

Not sure I follow, but could this be an improvement over older games? Someone mentioned that the delay addresses the problem of users creating unranked characters in order to dominate against lower-ranked players. Do you not consider that a problem?

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

Are you assuming that they're not interested in "keeping players playing" by keeping it fun?

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

As usual, your failure of imagination is epic. There are many fun games all competiting for player time and even the funnest games is slowly played less over time. If two games are equally fun but one makes an effort to keep players playing then it will have a longer lifespan. But then you can't see any positives in your black and white black world now can you? Certainly not with the evil of player investment.

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

As usual, your failure of imagination is epic. There are many fun games all competiting for player time and even the funnest games is slowly played less over time.

And? I have tons of games I still have to play. Let me decide where to spend my time. I'd rather play a shorter game which was designed to be the best it could be, versus a game designed to be long just to keep me playing it.

And? I have tons of games I still have to play. Let me decide where to spend my time. I'd rather play a shorter game which was designed to be the best it could be, versus a game designed to be long just to keep me playing it.

Let you decice? But what if you decide against them? That's a terrible, terrible decision in a aggressive capitalistic industry. Especially if a game is designed to accumulate profit from other sources other than the game itself, e.g. DLC and toys.

And? I have tons of games I still have to play. Let me decide where to spend my time. I'd rather play a shorter game which was designed to be the best it could be, versus a game designed to be long just to keep me playing it.

Let you decice? But what if you decide against them? That's a terrible, terrible decision in a aggressive capitalistic industry. Especially if a game is designed to accumulate profit from other sources other than the game itself, e.g. DLC and toys.

Huh? I don't understand. You're the one paying for the games, so you should be the one deciding what and when to play. Are you saying that if I play a bad game, and decide it's not fun and quit, that I should feel bad, or continue playing out of charity to the developer? That's insane. It's MY time, not theirs. They have no say how I spend it.

Huh? I don't understand. You're the one paying for the games, so you should be the one deciding what and when to play. Are you saying that if I play a bad game, and decide it's not fun and quit, that I should feel bad, or continue playing out of charity to the developer? That's insane. It's MY time, not theirs. They have no say how I spend it.

I'm saying that thinking they won't try to sway you in any way other than making the game "fun enough" is fairly naive. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it is to be expected and is in no way supposed to characterize them as evil beyond salvation. They're simply going with the flow/listening to the money-holders.

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

As usual, your failure of imagination is epic. There are many fun games all competiting for player time and even the funnest games is slowly played less over time.

And? I have tons of games I still have to play. Let me decide where to spend my time. I'd rather play a shorter game which was designed to be the best it could be, versus a game designed to be long just to keep me playing it.

Why can't length and more specifically long length be a part of making a game as fun as it can be? With length you can tell stories that evolve over time just as one example. But again everything with you is negative. Games aren't long for good reasons, only bad ones. One day I hope you'll give us a break...

Huh? I don't understand. You're the one paying for the games, so you should be the one deciding what and when to play. Are you saying that if I play a bad game, and decide it's not fun and quit, that I should feel bad, or continue playing out of charity to the developer? That's insane. It's MY time, not theirs. They have no say how I spend it.

I'm saying that thinking they won't try to sway you in any way other than making the game "fun enough" is fairly naive. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it is to be expected and is in no way supposed to characterize them as evil beyond salvation. They're simply going with the flow/listening to the money-holders.

I think you're granting that Cody's definition of fun is the correct definition, Zackdark.

To recap: unless I'm mistaken, Cody views investment systems as distractions for developers who could otherwise work on making the game more fun.

The problem with this view is some people, perhaps even many people, see investment systems as fun, too. They don't see them as mutually exclusive from game play fun. For those people, they are not continuing to play the game past the point of having fun. They're having fun with the mechanics, the gun play, the puzzles, or whatever else, and the investment system. The game play can be just as fun as, say, the first Halo's, and still have an investment system. Cody might be so turned off by the idea of an investment system that its presence keeps him from enjoying aspects of the game he'd otherwise like, though. Is that the issue, Cody?

Games aren't long for good reasons, only bad ones. One day I hope you'll give us a break...

If you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realize I said nothing of the sort. Length is bad if a game is long for the sake of making it long. If your game is long, and every second is bursting with excitement, then that's exactly what you would hope for, isn't it?

Read what I say, and don't speak for me, especially when you get it wrong.

I think you're granting that Cody's definition of fun is the correct definition, Zackdark.

To recap: unless I'm mistaken, Cody views investment systems as distractions for developers who could otherwise work on making the game more fun.

The problem with this view is some people, perhaps even many people, see investment systems as fun, too. They don't see them as mutually exclusive from game play fun. For those people, they are not continuing to play the game past the point of having fun. They're having fun with the mechanics, the gun play, the puzzles, or whatever else, and the investment system. The game play can be just as fun as, say, the first Halo's, and still have an investment system. Cody might be so turned off by the idea of an investment system that its presence keeps him from enjoying aspects of the game he'd otherwise like, though. Is that the issue, Cody?

Everything you ask your player to do is a part of your game! So it's stupid that investment systems are labeled as something separate, when in fact they are just elements of the game.

You might as well say that the pistol in Halo 1 is an investment system, because if you put in time and get good at it, you can 3 shot kill.

The difference between a good investment system (like the pistol), and a bad one (often like character levels or loot), is that one is based on YOUR progression through skills you gain and knowledge you learn, versus things your avatar has or is.

Now, are all loot systems bad? Are all character leveling systems bad? No of course not. But the good ones never described themselves as investment systems. Nobody talked about character progression in Deus Ex as an investment system. Nobody talked about the weapon upgrade system in Vanquish as an investment system. Nobody talked about the acquisition of weapons and items in Super Metroid as an investment system.

The reason why, is because they are just a part of the game, and they make the game better. The systems are fun to play with.

The fact that Bungie, and others, treat their 'investment systems' as separate from the game itself (or the 'gameplay' if you must), just shows that they are not viewed as part of the fun of the game. If they were, the term would never be used.

Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

I love it when people mention things I can use to argue against them!

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3 - Chris Butcher, in the 'Engineering' section. Check out the graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

19% of players stopped after less than 20 games, and a further 23% stopped before 100 games. So more than 2/5ths of players are gone before the game could get an accurate read on their skill level and get 'good' matches consistently. That's millions of players gone from MP after trying it and, based on the graph numbers compared to sales, at least a million more didn't even touch matchmaking at all.

As others mentioned, it is a very different media landscape that Destiny will be launching into compared to 2004-2007.

In just about every article and interview I've read, Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun.

Fun is a perception and games can only try to be conducive to it.

With the wrong circumstances, anything that many enjoy immensely can be perceived by others as awful.

Like sex.

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about. Graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

I actually had a little trouble following this link (not your fault, it's Bungie's, really), so if you end up on the Publications page, open the Engineering tab and click on 'E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3'.

I actually had a little trouble following this link (not your fault, it's Bungie's, really), so if you end up on the Publications page, open the Engineering tab and click on 'E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3'.

Wat.

That page has tabs that open and close on your browser?

I'm not sure whether my mind is blown or not.

Thanks Claude. I edited my post as well.

Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

I love it when people mention things I can use to argue against them!

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about. Graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

19% of players stopped after less than 20 games, and a further 23% stopped before 100 games. So more than 2/5ths of players are gone before the game could get an accurate read on their skill level and get 'good' matches consistently.

As others mentioned, it is a very different media landscape that Destiny will be launching into compared to 2004-2007.

You have no idea why they left. But it was their choice and theirs alone.

With the wrong circumstances, anything that many enjoy immensely can be perceived by others as awful.

Back to why we have to unlock PvP, it utterly baffles me that they can't check to see if you've acquired the item or obtained the skill that supposedly unlocks it, and if you haven't, MATCH YOU UP AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS WHO ALSO HAVEN'T. If they just HAVE to have acquired stuff cary over to multiplayer, then this seems like a really simple way to do it. But the fact that is even an issue means the game system is set up in a bad way; a way which presents the 'wrong circumstances' with which to enjoy the game.

Bungie framed is as not a deficiency in player skill with regards to the matchmaking algorithm, but of avatar strength. Why not just give the avatar whatever they need to compete, especially if you can get it as quickly as they say?

Because it's not about everyone having Nova Bomb or whatever. It's about giving new players time to become familiar with Destiny's mechanics without them getting stomped into the ground one day one.

Because it's not about everyone having Nova Bomb or whatever. It's about giving new players time to become familiar with Destiny's mechanics without them getting stomped into the ground one day one.

And it's also completely possible (and even probable) that they actually did try other methods of letting people into PvP immediately, but this is the one that people actually appreciated the most. Bungie DOES have one of the best user research groups in the gaming industry.

Games aren't long for good reasons, only bad ones. One day I hope you'll give us a break...

If you had an ounce of reading comprehension, you'd realize I said nothing of the sort. Length is bad if a game is long for the sake of making it long. If your game is long, and every second is bursting with excitement, then that's exactly what you would hope for, isn't it?

Read what I say, and don't speak for me, especially when you get it wrong.

Uh huh. At least I dragged you near to seeing the good side of something.

Now then, your implication that "Bungie seems obsessed, it'd say even at the level of paranoia, with 'keeping players playing'. This is not something you have to worry about if your game is actually fun" was that Bungie was going to keep them playing without using fun to do so.

I posit that part of Destiny's fun will come from the fact that it is not yet another 10 hours and done shooter. That the process of gaining and upgrading weapons and abilities, instead of just being handed them, will make for a undeniably better game. Same goes for delaying the introduction of PvP.

Halo 2 and 3 let you play multiplayer right away, and look at how many folks played, and KEPT PLAYING those online?

I love it when people mention things I can use to argue against them!

Halo 3 is the exact game I was talking about. Graph on Slide 47 and commentary on Slide 51.

19% of players stopped after less than 20 games, and a further 23% stopped before 100 games. So more than 2/5ths of players are gone before the game could get an accurate read on their skill level and get 'good' matches consistently.

As others mentioned, it is a very different media landscape that Destiny will be launching into compared to 2004-2007.

You have no idea why they left. But it was their choice and theirs alone.

With the wrong circumstances, anything that many enjoy immensely can be perceived by others as awful.

Back to why we have to unlock PvP, it utterly baffles me that they can't check to see if you've acquired the item or obtained the skill that supposedly unlocks it, and if you haven't, MATCH YOU UP AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS WHO ALSO HAVEN'T. If they just HAVE to have acquired stuff cary over to multiplayer, then this seems like a really simple way to do it. But the fact that is even an issue means the game system is set up in a bad way; a way which presents the 'wrong circumstances' with which to enjoy the game.

Bungie framed is as not a deficiency in player skill with regards to the matchmaking algorithm, but of avatar strength. Why not just give the avatar whatever they need to compete, especially if you can get it as quickly as they say?

You're presuming that it's all about acquired loot or powers and no other measurement is happening during that two hours of game play.

I actually had a little trouble following this link (not your fault, it's Bungie's, really), so if you end up on the Publications page, open the Engineering tab and click on 'E Pluribus Unum: Matchmaking in HALO 3'.

Wat.

That page has tabs that open and close on your browser?

I'm not sure whether my mind is blown or not.

Not sure if this is serious or not - what I'm talking about happens on Chrome, Firefox, and Safari on OSX, and Chrome, Firefox, and IE on Windows 7. That suggests that it happens on pretty much every browser. ;)

Maybe we're talking about different things? On the left, there is a title of 'All Articles', with categories below it. Next to each category is a '+' sign; clicking it opens that category. (That's what I was calling a 'tab'.)

If you were making fun of my terminology, the joke went completely over my head - sorry. (It's still over my head.)

The fact that Bungie, and others, treat their 'investment systems' as separate from the game itself (or the 'gameplay' if you must), just shows that they are not viewed as part of the fun of the game. If they were, the term would never be used.

Do they? And hell's bells, if it's just about terminology, let's call it a mini-game and proceed to have buckets of fun.

- No text -

On the left, there is a title of 'All Articles', with categories below it.

Whoa.

That's a thing!

I never noticed it, lol.

You have no idea why they left. But it was their choice and theirs alone.

Untrue. You can make educated guesses that will be true for at least some of them.

Back to why we have to unlock PvP, it utterly baffles me that they can't check to see if you've acquired the item or obtained the skill that supposedly unlocks it, and if you haven't, MATCH YOU UP AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS WHO ALSO HAVEN'T. If they just HAVE to have acquired stuff cary over to multiplayer, then this seems like a really simple way to do it.

Go read the first paragraph of my first post in this thread again.

But the fact that is even an issue means the game system is set up in a bad way; a way which presents the 'wrong circumstances' with which to enjoy the game.

Nah, because then they've changed the game again so those circumstances aren't presented.

Bungie framed is as not a deficiency in player skill with regards to the matchmaking algorithm, but of avatar strength. Why not just give the avatar whatever they need to compete, especially if you can get it as quickly as they say?

Not every interview answer will list all reasons. If they're given the opportunity to delve in immediately because 'their character has all it needs' then they're still more likely to lose because they haven't got to grips with controls and use of all those abilities.

Flipping around, if it's short, then it really shouldn't be an issue just going through it. Right?