On content and why we're hurting for it.

I've been thinking a lot about why my opinion on Destiny is in such stark contrast to other Bungie games, and what they might be able to do to fix that. Granted there are systems that I would like to see changed, but I know that's probably not going to happen.

I'm seeing a lot of posts around the forum regarding people feeling burned out, and tired of repeating the same content over and over until a new expansion drops, and this post is sort of going to be a reply to a bunch of those at once.

Halo lacked the investment system and story/raid content expansions we have currently, but I still played those later games for months and years on end. Why?

Forge.

Crazy custom games.

User created content.

I can't believe it took me this long to figure it out. I can't even begin to calculate the number of hours I spent creating maps and rule-sets, then sharing them with my friends. Content was never an issue, because it was impossible to consume and try out what everyone in the broader community was coming up with.

With the number of abilities our guardians have, The amount of variance in those games would multiply exponentially. Granted, a lot of the rules might have to be honour-based, but so was zombies in Halo 2. And even if the tool-sets were a straight port (in terms of feature parity) from Halo 3, I would be ecstatic.

So when I think of this and look at the game we were given, I'm dumbfounded that such an influential and game-sustaining feature was completely excised.

You want me to throw money on this franchise Bungie? Pull another Forge World reveal on us.

locked

2797 views

I don't think this will go anywhere, especially just via external pressure, but I wish you luck and I hope it does go somewhere. It just seems like everyone that cares about user-created in-game content either shrugged and put it aside (this issue has been noted since before release when people found the lack of information on customs suspicious), or decided they don't really care about Destiny. As for Bungie themselves, they clearly had player versus player and everything it entails as a low priority-- I think they might be elevating its priority, but it still seems low. I think maybe, possibly user-created stuff will come back in the sequel, and if not then it'll probably never be part of this franchise. It's sad and needless but it can't be helped by anyone that's not part of Bungie's leadership.

locked

2551 views

Halo was exceptional, it pulled you into the game. Bungie nailed the controls and made you feel part of the game. Destiny has much of same feel. But, since they gave the reward system it changes the game. I can remember creating Halo Hide and Seek. Strangely the community responded to it. It was just simply finding a place in Halo and taking a screen shot. Most people solved it in a day. It was because Halo was a new. Destiny feels the same but too much time and other games have passed.

locked

2528 views

For me, the lack of a theater mode is also a big omission. I spent hundreds of hours making Halo montages, later moving in to machinima as well (which was heavily dependent on Forge and custom games, too).

I think the lack of user-creation features is another sign that Destiny came in hot... much more so than any of us would have assumed in the months before launch. The big question to me is whether or not we can expect those sorts of features to be added to Destiny, or if it's more realistic to think "Destiny 2".

locked

2543 views

For me at least Forge had nothing to do with Halo's longevity. I pretty well hated custom forge maps and custom games. To me those were places where I played terrible because I was either lost or unhappy because I didn't like playing "Not-Halo" with strange new rules. Same reason I hated SWAT. Why take Halo's wonderful shield/health/weapon diversity and throw all that out in favor of instant cross map kills?

I'm still pretty happy with Destiny's Crucible and amount of maps. For me, it was Halo's big interesting missions each having their own geometry and impactful story and intro and outro cutscenes. Destiny almost certainly is bigger in terms of raw play space than any Halo... but those four planets also get used a lot lot more. Destiny has more missions than any Halo but almost all of them are much shorter and very few of them have anything more than a Ghost narrated paragraph at the beginning and end to set them apart from each other. Plus they all kick you out of the game world at the end! Halo was awesome because one mission flowed into the next! In Destiny each mission flows into... a score screen. :/

I think Destiny needs to take some cues from Halo's better, longer missions and a good look at Mass Effect's style of out of order, user selectable missions that still manage to build a strong central storyline. Forge can come later, but in my opinion it's Destiny's single player that needs serious fixes... not it's multiplayer.

locked

2625 views

I think you're right that Destiny's story missions are a big turnoff for a lot of people. I suspect, however, that most of us who are still playing Destiny have at least reached a place of "acceptance" for what they are. I mean, if the story missions were enough to turn you off the game, you probably would have stopped playing it months ago, right?

Either way, better story missions and user-created content would both help a lot :)

locked

2554 views

Either way, better story missions and user-created content would both help a lot :)

Sure! I remember being in awe at all the features Halo 3 was going to come with. I remember thinking that even if some other "Halo killer" manages to ship a decent single player they'd also have to contend with Halo's multiplayer. And if they somehow also managed to do that they'd need to rework their engines to provide Theater Mode functionality. And if they did all three of those they'd still need to support something like Forge. It was an amazingly complete package. Destiny... isn't.

But! As much as Destiny didn't live up to what we wanted, it could also be much worse! For example: Crysis 2. It was pretty... but everything else was crap. The enemies were strangely hard to fight effectively. The story was nonsensical and weighed down by constantly changing villains spouting meaningless buzzwords at you about your supersuit. And the multiplayer was that horrible Call of Duty style unlock system that almost seemed interesting until I got utterly destroyed in the first couple of matches by players who had heavy machine guns that I could not yet even use.

For all its faults, Destiny still has a extremely solid core that can be built on and a studio that seems willing to build upon it. And part of that building upon should include user generated content for those who do like it. :)

locked

2576 views

Sure! I remember being in awe at all the features Halo 3 was going to come with. I remember thinking that even if some other "Halo killer" manages to ship a decent single player they'd also have to contend with Halo's multiplayer. And if they somehow also managed to do that they'd need to rework their engines to provide Theater Mode functionality. And if they did all three of those they'd still need to support something like Forge. It was an amazingly complete package. Destiny... isn't.

What I'm about to say shouldn't be taken as "Shutup and be happy", just perspective.
Halo 3 used the Halo 2 engine. The artwork was updated, but design was iterative, not brand new. bungie had time and creative will to take new steps and add not just the basics of a game, but all the additions that tack in well to a solid game.

Destiny feels incomplete, yes. But Bungie could spend the next two years not updating the engine or game mechanics, and just give me missions, story, and a few new bad guys here and there, and if be completely happy. If be happy because the game core is not broken, only the amount of things surrounding it.

The first Halo didn't have forge. It didn't even have Internet play! Bungie's previous two games had match made Internet. It worked in 56k modems! But Bungie nailed the core game, and I feel like they nailed Destiny's as well.

It's still up to Bungie to make Destiny a game really work remembering. I would not think as fondly of "Halo" if they stopped after the first game.

locked

2541 views

I am about 90% sure Flawless Cowboy said the famous 30 seconds of fun thing about Halo. Shoot dudes, mop up survivors, move on. Bungie has outdone themselves with this part in Destiny. It's fantastic. Best gameplay I've ever experienced. Much of the rest of it, like the story and stuff, wasn't nailed at all. But if you agree with the subject, then I agree with you.

And you say Halo 3 used the Halo 2 engine? I don't remember hearing that. Source?

locked

2525 views

I am about 90% sure Flawless Cowboy said the famous 30 seconds of fun thing about Halo.

AKA Jaime Griesemer.

locked

2489 views

And you say Halo 3 used the Halo 2 engine? I don't remember hearing that. Source?

Halo 2 was an updated version of the Halo engine. 3 was an updated version of 2, Reach an updated version of 3, etc.

That said, the jump from H2 to H3 was significant, because Bungie needed to take the Halo/H2 engine (which was 100% dependent on a harddrive) and adapt it to work on the 360, which only included an HDD as an option. It was a real technical nightmare, and required some caching wizardry.

locked

2516 views

It was a real technical nightmare, and required some caching wizardry.

If by "caching wizardry" you mean "drastically reduce audio variety for people playing without a hard drive", yes. :D

locked

2461 views

And you say Halo 3 used the Halo 2 engine? I don't remember hearing that. Source?

I knew when I wrote it that I might have been wrong. I didn't mean to imply that art was the only change, only that there was a significant amount of code reuse, such that they had time to spend on other things. However, since I can find no reference for that, you may dismiss it as incorrect.

But I'd like to think my conclusion, despite an incorrectly phrased premise, is still true. The work required for Destiny was greater than the work required for Halo 3, in no small part because they were standing on top of Halo/Halo 2, where as Destiny (more or less) came ex nihilo. All significant expansions to Destiny, or Destiny 2, will get to start from where Destiny left off. They can pick and choose what aspects to redo, but otherwise build on what they have.

locked

2483 views

And you say Halo 3 used the Halo 2 engine? I don't remember hearing that. Source?

It did or didn't depending on how you define "different engine."

It sounds like the overall high-level structure of Halo's engine didn't change much over time, but systems were regularly added or modified.

locked

2500 views

But! As much as Destiny didn't live up to what we wanted, it could also be much worse! For example: Crysis 2. It was pretty... but everything else was crap. The enemies were strangely hard to fight effectively. The story was nonsensical and weighed down by constantly changing villains spouting meaningless buzzwords at you about your supersuit. And the multiplayer was that horrible Call of Duty style unlock system that almost seemed interesting until I got utterly destroyed in the first couple of matches by players who had heavy machine guns that I could not yet even use.

Man, I loved that game. It has one of my favorite scripts in recent FPS history (if not precisely my favorite story), and you could absolutely demolish in the multiplayer with just the starting gear. An underloved gem, if you ask me!

locked

2455 views

Also, the Multiplayer was a great combination of Call of Duty's twitch and Halo's strategy. A quick-thinking... thinking man's game. Definitely underrated.

The campaign was fun enough, but the writing was a bit too pretentious and wannabe-heady, which was kind of funny, all things considered. But I enjoyed it.

locked

2419 views

I loved that multiplayer too. Since most of the playerbase treated it like a Call of Duty game it was really easy to run circles around them with the suit and the vertical movement. When you were on your game, Crysis 2 multi had a sense of exuberant flow that I think was missing from later Halo and Call of Duty games - you always had a range of options, whether movement or attack, and you could keep your rhythm going even when faced with a bunch of enemies. Managing suit energy had a good skill ceiling.

I thought the story, while narratively muddled, was a huge thematic step forward for the genre. The aliens don't think like us, don't much care about our armed resistance, and won't waste time blowing up the planet or shooting us all with guns. They're just going to release a self-replicating machine to clean us out, an absolutely inhuman, completely practical solution. And our only response is an equally alien machine which uses a mostly-corpsed Marine as a biocomponent.

My favorite part of Crysis 2 is the Bioshocky gameplay hints that you're not playing as Alcatraz, you're playing as the suit.

locked

2528 views

I thought the story, while narratively muddled, was a huge thematic step forward for the genre. The aliens don't think like us, don't much care about our armed resistance, and won't waste time blowing up the planet or shooting us all with guns. They're just going to release a self-replicating machine to clean us out, an absolutely inhuman, completely practical solution. And our only response is an equally alien machine which uses a mostly-corpsed Marine as a biocomponent.

The aliens are truly alien; physiology, strategy, movement...
Great film.

My favorite part of Crysis 2 is the Bioshocky gameplay hints that you're not playing as Alcatraz, you're playing as the suit.

locked

2503 views

But! As much as Destiny didn't live up to what we wanted, it could also be much worse! For example: Crysis 2. It was pretty... but everything else was crap. The enemies were strangely hard to fight effectively. The story was nonsensical and weighed down by constantly changing villains spouting meaningless buzzwords at you about your supersuit. And the multiplayer was that horrible Call of Duty style unlock system that almost seemed interesting until I got utterly destroyed in the first couple of matches by players who had heavy machine guns that I could not yet even use.

Man, I loved that game. It has one of my favorite scripts in recent FPS history (if not precisely my favorite story), and you could absolutely demolish in the multiplayer with just the starting gear. An underloved gem, if you ask me!

I too enjoyed Crysis 2. I did not play the multiplayer, but the single player was quite enjoyable.

locked

2409 views

- No text -

locked

2526 views

You want me to throw money on this franchise Bungie? Pull another Forge World reveal on us.

It is 100% the fault of the investment system and how the game was designed around awards.

With Halo, you never burned out, because you only played when you wanted to, for the sake of just playing. In a sense there was nothing to get burned out on; you simply played when you wanted to, and didn't when you didn't.

Destiny is so reward focused, that it essentially mandates certain activities if you want to succeed and get to the parts you do want. So at times you are playing not because you enjoy the experience, but because you need the reward. As you progress more, this happens more. Thus, there is a clash, and you burn out.

It was a colossal misstep, although I warned about it years before Destiny was even announced. The fewer rewards in the game the better. All items and weapons should be able to be acquired in specific ways through specific challenges. Not through bullshit repetitive bounties, but as part of the challenge of the actual game. Think about how you get weapons in games like Deus Ex, Metroid, and Zelda.

In short, put back in all the stuff you described, and get rid of the player investment system entirely. In fact, the term and what it represents should simply be banned from the Bungie offices.

You do not even have to give up things like weapon and player progression, that my critics seem to love so much.

locked

2574 views

You do not even have to give up things like weapon and player progression, that my critics seem to love so much.

I've read many, many DBO discussions on this topic, but yet I feel compelled to ask: in your opinion, what's the difference between player investment and player progression? How can you say one is ok but the other ruins the game? In my head, it seems that player progression is synonymous with player investment, no?

Just a clarification of terms, please. :)

locked

2402 views

Not to speak for Cody, but here's how I understand it. Progression is a pretty specific thing - you are progressing somehow. Usually that means leveling up or gaining new abilities. Not inherently a bad thing, and in a lot of games it's used more to ease the player into wrapping their head around all the possibilities, rather than to limit their fun.

Investment systems are a little more nebulous as far as what mechanics they can entail, but are defined by a pretty specific aim - to keep the player invested in the game. Or to put it another way, to artificially keep them playing beyond the point where they otherwise would have stopped. This is a real thing, whether people want to admit it or not. Destiny had people specifically employed to design this aspect, and it's hardly the only game to have done so.

Where the distinction starts to get a little fuzzy is that sometimes the lure of progression is used as part of the investment design. The carrot-and-stick effect of always having some upgrade or new item just around the corner. So they're often related, but not necessarily the same thing.

locked

2404 views

You do not even have to give up things like weapon and player progression, that my critics seem to love so much.

I've read many, many DBO discussions on this topic, but yet I feel compelled to ask: in your opinion, what's the difference between player investment and player progression? How can you say one is ok but the other ruins the game? In my head, it seems that player progression is synonymous with player investment, no?

Just a clarification of terms, please. :)

I probably should have called it Avatar progression, since that's what it really is. Avatar progression is simply when a game lets you improve the character you play somehow. You can get better weapons, abilities, items, moves, etc. Player Investment are the systems which try to entice actual people into playing the game, usually through a system of rewards.

Avatar progression can greatly enhance a game. An investment system can never enhance a game.

locked

2541 views

I probably should have called it Avatar progression, since that's what it really is. Avatar progression is simply when a game lets you improve the character you play somehow. You can get better weapons, abilities, items, moves, etc. Player Investment are the systems which try to entice actual people into playing the game, usually through a system of rewards.

Avatar progression can greatly enhance a game. An investment system can never enhance a game.

Thanks for the reply.

But don't all Player Investment systems by default have to include Avatar Progression in order to function? What does a Player Investment system look like without Avatar Progression?

And isn't Avatar Progression (i.e. the promise/reward of upgrading your Avatar) a form of Player Investment? What does a non-investment version of Avatar Progression look like?

Have these two things ever been clearly separated in a game, and if so, what did it look like?

Thanks! :)

locked

2484 views

- No text -

locked

2434 views

But don't all Player Investment systems by default have to include Avatar Progression in order to function? What does a Player Investment system look like without Avatar Progression?

Not necessarily, however you are right that the ones that suck the least try to justify themselves by feeding back into the actual game. You could have investment through collectables, cosmetics, etc.

locked

2421 views

You want me to throw money on this franchise Bungie? Pull another Forge World reveal on us.

It is 100% the fault of the investment system and how the game was designed around awards.

With Halo, you never burned out, because you only played when you wanted to, for the sake of just playing. In a sense there was nothing to get burned out on; you simply played when you wanted to, and didn't when you didn't.

Destiny is so reward focused, that it essentially mandates certain activities if you want to succeed and get to the parts you do want. So at times you are playing not because you enjoy the experience, but because you need the reward. As you progress more, this happens more. Thus, there is a clash, and you burn out.

I couldn't disagree more.

As someone who played very little competitive multiplayer post Halo 2, I'd admit it is true that Halo's campaign material was very replayable. Even then, however, you come to its end. Even if you play slowly, even if you replay the entire game or isolated levels, even if you intentionally vary your own style of play, you come to a point of diminishing returns.

I tended to play a campaign on Heroic, then replay it on Legendary, then go back and perhaps noodle around on Normal looking for things I'd missed, or things to do differently, and then replay favorite levels on Heroic for fun. All in all that's probably fewer hours played than I'd get from RPGs like Mass Effect that I've replayed each campaign multiple times and each pass takes 30 hours or so.

Then you wait three years for new content.

Yes, the reason to repeat missions in Destiny is for the chance of reward, not purely just the sake of play, but I'd say that burnout is what happens when the potential reward is the only reason. I'm not a huge fan of the Omnigul strike, and I don't have the best (or the worst) luck with Nightfall loot, but I did have some fun running the strike last week because I was playing with friends in a way that was never possible in Halo-- and that, for me, trumps just about everything.

I got new missions and a new raid after a few months, and there is still more on the way. If this were a Halo title, I'd be done with it already and playing something else. I'm still playing Destiny and the biggest complaint about it is that people are still playing Destiny but have already played everything too much because they play even more than me.

That is not a criticism. That is the ultimate confirmation that Bungie has made the right decisions, not the wrong ones, and that the investment hooks work so well that people keep playing beyond the point where they should but are unable or unwilling to stop.

I'm also at a point of wanting new content again, and hopefully it's just around the corner, because if this were a Halo game, I'd already be at the point of wishing there was some new level to play that would be years away.

locked

2488 views

That is not a criticism. That is the ultimate confirmation that Bungie has made the right decisions, not the wrong ones, and that the investment hooks work so well that people keep playing beyond the point where they should but are unable or unwilling to stop.

You act as though putting a game down and finishing it is somehow bad, and that the more you play the better the game. I thought you were smart man.

I cannot believe you just said that. I really can't. Do you have any idea of QUALITY vs QUANTITY?

I cannot stand anything but PvP and occasional raids and nightfalls anymore. That time you say people are spending the game beyond when they should stop is time where they are doing repetitive, boring ass shit. I get that you play at a more leisurely pace than some of us. I get why you might not see it yet.

Day 1 I complained the endgame was shit aside from the raids. And I can only run them so many times before I want something new. I have guns I'd love to try but can't because I'd have to spend upwards of 6 hours over 3 days leveling them up to get the perks that make them worthwhile. It's not worth my time, but plenty of people would do it even though leveling guns is fucking boring.

if you ever say "the investment hooks work so well that people keep playing beyond the point where they should but are unable or unwilling to stop." then your investment hooks are complete and utter shit.

It's really simple. Ask yourself: would I do this if I got no reward? If the answer is no, then you don't really want to be doing it, and when players do it because the system forces or manipulates them to, Bungie is wasting their time when they could be doing something they'd actually enjoy.

It is the harshest criticism one can give to a game actually, since these elements are not accidentally bad, but bad on purpose and meant to exploit you.

Your criticism of the Halo games is also off base, since while you have to wait three years for more content, that content will be of better quality because it is not DLC, than if the equivalent amount of content were released as DLC in chunks over the period of three years. It's not like Bungie is the only company making video games. Play something else while you wait.

locked

2500 views

That is not a criticism. That is the ultimate confirmation that Bungie has made the right decisions, not the wrong ones, and that the investment hooks work so well that people keep playing beyond the point where they should but are unable or unwilling to stop.

You act as though putting a game down and finishing it is somehow bad, and that the more you play the better the game. I thought you were smart man.

I'm smarter than the me that's in your head, that says things I don't say.

I cannot believe you just said that. I really can't. Do you have any idea of QUALITY vs QUANTITY?

Yes, I do!

I cannot stand anything but PvP and occasional raids and nightfalls anymore. That time you say people are spending the game beyond when they should stop is time where they are doing repetitive, boring ass shit. I get that you play at a more leisurely pace than some of us. I get why you might not see it yet.

That's mostly my point. The fact that the game reaches that point-- that ANY game reaches that point-- is not a criticism in and of itself. Games are finite. What I don't get is how people are considering Destiny worse than Halo because it is repetitive, when it is entirely within the individual's power to decide when they've consumed the content.

Day 1 I complained the endgame was shit aside from the raids. And I can only run them so many times before I want something new. I have guns I'd love to try but can't because I'd have to spend upwards of 6 hours over 3 days leveling them up to get the perks that make them worthwhile. It's not worth my time, but plenty of people would do it even though leveling guns is fucking boring.

Actually I find leveling guns to be fun and rewarding. Playing through variations of the strikes using the same maxed-out guns, the ones that are ideal for certain situations, does get boring. Taking on those same circumstances with less than ideal weaponry so I can level them up makes those situations more challenging, and completely changes the way you have to play. I find most of that has to do with the special weapon slot-- there's not a lot you can't grind through by keeping your distance and spamming icebreaker, but when you've got a fusion rifle in that slot you are trying to level up-- perhaps one with the wrong damage type-- things change completely. I find that fun and interesting. But when I stop finding it fun and interesting, I'll stop doing it without somehow blaming it on Bungie that I've run out of "content".

if you ever say "the investment hooks work so well that people keep playing beyond the point where they should but are unable or unwilling to stop." then your investment hooks are complete and utter shit.

No, they are doing their job. It is not the job of the developer or the investment system to tell anyone when or why they should stop playing. It's to give them a reason to play-- even if according to the standards of the way the previous game was designed, the game has been "finished".

It's really simple. Ask yourself: would I do this if I got no reward? If the answer is no, then you don't really want to be doing it, and when players do it because the system forces or manipulates them to, Bungie is wasting their time when they could be doing something they'd actually enjoy.

You have missed the point entirely. That is the point of the investment system, and it is not "forcing" it on anyone. I can only speculate about why Bungie wants this kind of stickiness-- I'd imagine that players who play on a regular basis buy DLC more often-- but obviously they want a situation where instead of breezing through 10 hours of campaign you then sit on your hands for 6 months to three years waiting for new content, you're playing variations on the old content right up until the new stuff drops.

As far as time goes, I think that is also exactly the point. The investment system probably takes far less time to create and maintain than new content does. If you're complaining that the guy who maintains loot tables and upgrade systems and the like could somehow contribute to the content pipeline and get us new strikes and raids that much faster, you're nuts. The whole point of that system is to shuffle what we have around in ways that are interesting enough, long enough, for enough people, that enough of them are still engaged when the next batch of content is ready.

Your criticism of the Halo games is also off base, since while you have to wait three years for more content, that content will be of better quality because it is not DLC, than if the equivalent amount of content were released as DLC in chunks over the period of three years. It's not like Bungie is the only company making video games. Play something else while you wait.

No, I stand by what I said, and I think what you said is nonsense. Of all the Halo games there was one that was developed like DLC-- and that was ODST, arguably the best of the bunch. Small team, existing technology, rapid iteration. (Leave the pricing out of it, as Bungie apparently didn't control that.)

Content does not magically improve in quality because it is or is not "DLC". That's an idiotic knee jerk reaction that characterizes the DLC model as being a ripoff, when in actuality... only some of it is.

I can, and do, play other things "while I wait" but I honestly doubt that forms a meaningful portion of Bungie's own development strategy; nor should it.

locked

2422 views

No, I stand by what I said, and I think what you said is nonsense. Of all the Halo games there was one that was developed like DLC-- and that was ODST, arguably the best of the bunch. Small team, existing technology, rapid iteration. (Leave the pricing out of it, as Bungie apparently didn't control that.)

Guess what? ODST was not DLC. It was basically and expansion. It was not in any way developed like DLC.

Content does not magically improve in quality because it is or is not "DLC". That's an idiotic knee jerk reaction that characterizes the DLC model as being a ripoff, when in actuality... only some of it is.

Yes it does. It 100% does. DLC is by definition not mandatory. Only mandatory content can be rolled into the game in a meaningful way, and be created with the finely tuned interactions with the other content in the game. You can't even physically do it with DLC, unless it is day 1, but if you do the game will actually be BROKEN without including it.

You need to think at a high, holistic approach to the design. You can't make DLC units for chess, since the entire game is built around everybody having, and the designers knowing everybody has, certain pieces that do certain things. The entire game centers around that and their interactions. You can't just add pieces willy nilly without upsetting that finely tuned machine.

Don't take my word for it: history has proved my point. No DLC in the history of the medium stands up to the best of what non dlc has to offer. None. Not a single example.

locked

2425 views

Don't take my word for it: history has proved my point. No DLC in the history of the medium stands up to the best of what non dlc has to offer. None. Not a single example.

You know... First I got mad. I wrote out an angry post filled with bolds and underlines and the works. But that's not really appropriate or how I wish to act. Then I tried sarcasm. Toy Story quotes mostly. But that seemed overly petty. I really don't know how to address the way you're acting here. You clearly aren't trying to have a debate or deliver fair criticism. Surely you know that such an absolute statement will never fly with anyone but you made it anyway. Why? I'm completely at a loss. You're much smarter than this...

Honestly, at this point I think you should just leave.

You're not trying to have honest interactions. You're trying to cram a worldview that you clearly and obviously can't hope to stand behind or prove. I can think of a good example of DLC that, in my opinion, easily surpassed the game it shipped for and, again in my opinion, does in fact stand up with the best content any video game studio has ever shipped... but why should I even bother engaging with you if you're going to make statements like the one above.

So yeah, at this point I think you're just here to troll and make people angry and act like a complete jerk. And I think you should stop. And I think you should leave. Or at least you should grow the heck up and stop trying to provoke people like you did here. I'd welcome a Cody Miller who actually cared to make an honest point and listened to feedback... but that's not you right now.

Really, it hardly ever is. :(

locked

2453 views

I can think of a good example of DLC that, in my opinion, easily surpassed the game it shipped for and, again in my opinion, does in fact stand up with the best content any video game studio has ever shipped...

Then name it. I've been proven wrong before.

locked

2440 views

I can think of a good example of DLC that, in my opinion, easily surpassed the game it shipped for and, again in my opinion, does in fact stand up with the best content any video game studio has ever shipped...

Then name it. I've been proven wrong before.

You act like we're having a debate here. We're not. We're not because you made an outrageous, unsupportable claim and are now asking me to prove it, heck to prove "history" itself, wrong! If you want to discuss the merits of DLC with any authority ever again you'll do one of of the following things:

1. Play every single DLC in the history of the medium so you can actually support the claim you've made. That might take you a while and might be rather expensive, but don't worry, I'm patient.

2. Retract your claim and admit it was an arrogant, pigheaded, discussion killing thing to say.

Remember, Cody, I actually think you have a lot of good ideas and insightful dissections of video game mechanics. But the way you choose to express them and to interact with us is so mind numbingly elitist that no real discussion can be had with you until you cut it out and treat the rest us as equals.

I know I've said it before, but words mean something Cody. If you'd said that you haven't yet played a DLC you think lives up to the best games? That would have been fine. That you couldn't think of DLC that lives up? Perfectly fair. And it would allow others to offer up suggestions. But to claim...

Don't take my word for it: history has proved my point. No DLC in the history of the medium stands up to the best of what non dlc has to offer. None. Not a single example.

...and then to demand someone try to prove you wrong makes you either a complete troll or a fool who can't back up his own statements. Or both.

locked

2434 views

For some reason, in his writing Cody is loathe to use the qualifiers that people normally use in conversation to identify opinion on obviously subjective issues. I've heard him argue that the obvious subjectivity involved excuses him from such courtesies, but given the reactions he gets, I don't think that flies.

Cody, your style is appropriate for a pundit, but in this context, where we are trying to have a dialogue, you might try adjusting your approach.

locked

2433 views

For some reason, in his writing Cody is loathe to use the qualifiers that people normally use in conversation to identify opinion on obviously subjective issues. I've heard him argue that the obvious subjectivity involved excuses him from such courtesies, but given the reactions he gets, I don't think that flies.

Cody, your style is appropriate for a pundit, but in this context, where we are trying to have a dialogue, you might try adjusting your approach.

Sure, that happens from time to time. Occasionally he even gets wrongly called out for stating an opinion. But that only happens because his bad behavior is so well known. We all anticipate him to be on his worst behavior with every post he makes. And let's be clear, Cody's problem isn't that he forgets to put "in my opinion" somewhere in a sentence. Or even that he refuses to do so. It's that he has, for years and years, gone out of his way to proclaim, in a knowingly hyperbolic and inflammatory fashion, "truths" and "facts" that he cannot and does not intend to back up. He's not a pundit, he's a troll.

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot and that he alone has the one correct solution to a given problem. Until that happens he's going to keep making his trolling proclamations.

locked

2449 views

gone out of his way to proclaim

Of course I proclaim. That's what a thesis is.

Still waiting for you to name that DLC and give analysis.

locked

2457 views

I think all the ME3MP DLC was awesome and made the game much better. The release-day MP experience was pretty fun, but it only got better with new maps, new weapons, and particularly the new characters.

Chess is a bad example for DLC. Most video games do not play by such rigid rules.

locked

2523 views

gone out of his way to proclaim

Of course I proclaim. That's what a thesis is.

Now you're back to intentionally missing the point by taking people's quotes severely out of context?! Classic Cody Miller... How about you respond to all of what I said, not just the subsection that you wrongly and insultingly carved out of the middle?

Still waiting for you to name that DLC and give analysis.

Get real, I'm not the one who has a history of unsupportable claims. And I'm not the one currently demanding that someone disprove "history" and the idea that there's "...not a single example" of DLC that's as good the best games. That's you. I'm the one who always, always has has a link or quote or reference in mind... sometimes to the point it makes people uncomfortable. Of the two of us, I'm the one far more likely to backup his points. For instance, I do have a specific piece of DLC in mind, and I will defend it at length, but only once you prove you are here to have an honest discussion.

You can do that by either by playing every single DLC in history or retracting your statement. While you're at it, how about an apology for twisting my words by quoting me out of context? Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

locked

2430 views

You can do that by either by playing every single DLC in history or retracting your statement. While you're at it, how about an apology for twisting my words by quoting me out of context? Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't have to play it all for the following reasons:

1. There are necessary limitations based on the format.
2. Other people have collectively played it all, and I can read about what's supposedly good and what's not.

Number 1 is mostly why, but 2 ensures that nothing slips through the cracks.

If you did not want to offer your DLC up, then don't bring it up. I haven't played Far Cry Blood dragon… but I want to.

locked

2434 views

You can do that by either by playing every single DLC in history or retracting your statement. While you're at it, how about an apology for twisting my words by quoting me out of context? Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't have to play it all for the following reasons:

1. There are necessary limitations based on the format.
2. Other people have collectively played it all, and I can read about what's supposedly good and what's not.

Number 1 is mostly why, but 2 ensures that nothing slips through the cracks.

If you did not want to offer your DLC up, then don't bring it up. I haven't played Far Cry Blood dragon… but I want to.

I don't know what number 1 means at all. But number 2, you "can read about it"? What a meaningless statement! Be clear, have you or have you not read about every single example of DLC in history? If not, then how can you claim there's "None. Not a single example." of good DLC that stands up to the best of games?

Not only are you still (salsa?) dancing around the fact that you can't back up your claim, you're actually doubling down! It's amazing what lengths you'll go to to avoid having an honest debate! Wouldn't it be easier to just retract your previous statement and say something you can prove? Or is it time to do another misquote and add a third layer of obfuscation to your blatantly unsupportable claim?

locked

2444 views

I don't know what number 1 means at all. But number 2, you "can read about it"? What a meaningless statement! Be clear, have you or have you not read about every single example of DLC in history? If not, then how can you claim there's "None. Not a single example." of good DLC that stands up to the best of games?

Because the bad ones are never written about or thought about. So no, you don't have to read about every single one :-)

locked

2425 views

I don't know what number 1 means at all. But number 2, you "can read about it"? What a meaningless statement! Be clear, have you or have you not read about every single example of DLC in history? If not, then how can you claim there's "None. Not a single example." of good DLC that stands up to the best of games?

Because the bad ones are never written about or thought about. So no, you don't have to read about every single one :-)

*Snerk*

I was trying to think of a way to add a third layer of obfuscation to your little dance and couldn't do it. So bravo! According to you, there are no examples of good DLC. You know this because others have collectively played every piece of DLC ever and written about it. Not that you've read what they've written. Just that they have done so. Except now they haven't done so because the bad ones (aren't they all bad according to you?) are never written or even thought about.

I'm cracking up here. We'll have to do this again some time. (And I'm sure we will because you can't help but be an arrogant elitist know-it-all who really quite clearly doesn't.)

I'm done. :)

locked

2427 views

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot and that he alone has the one correct solution to a given problem.

I might believe he believed that if he was consistent in his behavior away from this forum, but I've found him not to be. I've enjoyed TALKING with Cody.

I'll grant, though, that his merely adding qualifiers is not enough, but it would help. He'd probably still say stuff like, "I thought you were a smart man," which rubs me the wrong way.

locked

2464 views

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot and that he alone has the one correct solution to a given problem.

I might believe he believed that if he was consistent in his behavior away from this forum, but I've found him not to be. I've enjoyed TALKING with Cody.

This only applies to people who have actually talked to Cody. I always assume that people are about %50 more reasonable in person than on the internet, but it's sometimes hard to remember that.

locked

2422 views

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot and that he alone has the one correct solution to a given problem.

I might believe he believed that if he was consistent in his behavior away from this forum, but I've found him not to be. I've enjoyed TALKING with Cody.

This only applies to people who have actually talked to Cody. I always assume that people are about %50 more reasonable in person than on the internet, but it's sometimes hard to remember that.

Yeah, of course I was referring only to me, but that doesn't take away from the point that I don't believe Raga's characterization. Cody does play that character here, and that's all some people know, but honestly, I liked Cody more just hearing his voice on Anger, Sadness, and Envy.

locked

2429 views

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot and that he alone has the one correct solution to a given problem.

I might believe he believed that if he was consistent in his behavior away from this forum, but I've found him not to be. I've enjoyed TALKING with Cody.

This only applies to people who have actually talked to Cody. I always assume that people are about %50 more reasonable in person than on the internet, but it's sometimes hard to remember that.

Yeah, of course I was referring only to me, but that doesn't take away from the point that I don't believe Raga's characterization. Cody does play that character here, and that's all some people know, but honestly, I liked Cody more just hearing his voice on Anger, Sadness, and Envy.

The most irritating part for me is, having heard his voice around the Halo speed-running community and knowing he can be thoughtful and introspective and funny, what we get on here is...less reasonable.

locked

2429 views

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot and that he alone has the one correct solution to a given problem.

I might believe he believed that if he was consistent in his behavior away from this forum, but I've found him not to be. I've enjoyed TALKING with Cody.

To me, that makes his behavior here all the more insulting! What is it about this place or text interactions that makes him think it's ok for him to be an outright troll here but not when he's talking live with you or others (who have also reported he is much better in person)? I really don't get it. I've always lived by the rule that I will only ever say things that I actually support. I won't ever say anything here or in private or on a tweet or blog or email that I won't say to your face. I see the split behavior you describe as a massive character flaw!

locked

2464 views

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot and that he alone has the one correct solution to a given problem.

I might believe he believed that if he was consistent in his behavior away from this forum, but I've found him not to be. I've enjoyed TALKING with Cody.

To me, that makes his behavior here all the more insulting! What is it about this place or text interactions that makes him think it's ok for him to be an outright troll here but not when he's talking live with you or others (who have also reported he is much better in person)? I really don't get it. I've always lived by the rule that I will only ever say things that I actually support. I won't ever say anything here or in private or on a tweet or blog or email that I won't say to your face. I see the split behavior you describe as a massive character flaw!

If he's even a little bit like what I've seen of him in various Internet spaces, he believes everything he says he does. That's not necessarily at odds with seeming more reasonable in person. Talking person to person you have tone of voice, you have body language, you have a different flow of conversation, replies tend to be shorter and less meticulous, you can't just put in a bunch of pictures or links, people tend to not have research and quotes at the ready so much, there tend to be more questions, there tends to be more time, the verbal version of a text wall doesn't really hold up because no one wants to hear it... it's very different and more flexible. People, themselves, tend to be more flexible, for various reasons. (If I remember correctly, I've been told that I'm more pleasant in person than on-line, but not fundamentally different.)

locked

2443 views

It probably also helps temper one's statements when the other person is close enough to punch you in the face. :)

locked

2411 views

It probably also helps temper your statements when the other person is close enough to punch you in the face. :)

That's one of the various reasons, yes. Hopefully nobody here needs the chance of physical violence to keep them from acting too stupid.

locked

2415 views

It probably also helps temper your statements when the other person is close enough to punch you in the face. :)

That's one of the various reasons, yes. Hopefully nobody here needs the chance of physical violence to keep them from acting too stupid.

I can show you fella's the Fitzsimmon's Shift. Get your hooks in order too. We'll make sure Raga doesn't pick on you.

locked

2445 views

The only way his adjusting his approach would work is if he stopped believing that everyone but him is an idiot

I am sorry that I make you feel that way. You should know that while I disagree with Narcogen on a lot, he's not an idiot. He's actually pretty smart and I like hearing what he has to say. That's why we've been doing it for so long.

Believe me, if I think someone is an idiot, I will make that 100% clear, but I meet very few people actually like that.

locked

2439 views

You need to think at a high, holistic approach to the design. You can't make DLC units for chess, since the entire game is built around everybody having, and the designers knowing everybody has, certain pieces that do certain things. The entire game centers around that and their interactions. You can't just add pieces willy nilly without upsetting that finely tuned machine.

Don't take my word for it: history has proved my point. No DLC in the history of the medium stands up to the best of what non dlc has to offer. None. Not a single example.

So as I understand it, your argument is: nobody's made a DLC as good as the best games ever made, and I can't provide an example of a DLC better than the best games ever made; and that is because the best games ever made are narrative works of art that DLC's are simply a derivative of, like fan-fiction. So stuff like Fallout: New Vegas, or the Expansions to Diablo/Starcraft, etc., probably aren't what you would include as DLC (they're inconvenient for your argument, I would imagine, and you'd probably consider them core components of the planned narrative to the core game, so whatever, fine, we'll toss them). Sequels are also out, but they aren't really DLC.

(The definition for DLC is understood to be content that builds on to the original core of the game; that this content is superfluous to the enjoyment of said core content, and largely unnecessary to the enjoyment of the core narrative; but that it still is canonical, and upsets the apple-cart of the primary narrative a little. Like an epilogue of sorts, or a prologue, which is frequently what DLC does. It could also be a "Season 2" sort of thing that offers new gameplay mechanics.)

Along with the definitions listed above and the outline of your argument, you also presuppose that I:

1. Enjoy the exact things you enjoy
2. What you enjoy is the (objectively) best thing to enjoy

So, caveat's out of the way.

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon is a DLC.
[image]

I've never enjoyed a one-off, 4-5 hour campaign more in my life.

It delivered. I've enjoyed few games as much as I enjoyed it. If your cold heart couldn't enjoy that throwback, I feel sorry for you.

locked

2460 views

I'd use Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep as an example of amazing DLC that far surpassed the original content in fun-factor.

locked

2447 views

I'd use Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep as an example of amazing DLC that far surpassed the original content in fun-factor.

ODST had a full release at full price, and provided far more content. FC3:BD was a download for $5 and was entirely derivative: a facelift. If Blood Dragon isn't a DLC, I don't know what to call it.

locked

2426 views

True enough, it never had physical media for it, so I guess it is downloadable content, in the strictest meaning of the expressions, but it's not, in any way, an add-on, which is what I'm pretty sure most of us were thinking of anyway. Blood Dragon is one hell of a ride, but even if entirely derivative of FarCry3, it is entirely stand-alone in both execution and playability.

locked

2430 views

True enough, it never had physical media for it, so I guess it is downloadable content, in the strictest meaning of the expressions, but it's not, in any way, an add-on, which is what I'm pretty sure most of us were thinking of anyway. Blood Dragon is one hell of a ride, even if entirely derivative of FarCry3, but it is entirely stand-alone in both execution and playability.

Yeah. I think Cody's really talking about Expansions. Specifically, DLC expansions. But DLC is too broad for what he's discussing.

locked

2455 views

True enough, it never had physical media for it, so I guess it is downloadable content, in the strictest meaning of the expressions, but it's not, in any way, an add-on, which is what I'm pretty sure most of us were thinking of anyway. Blood Dragon is one hell of a ride, even if entirely derivative of FarCry3, but it is entirely stand-alone in both execution and playability.

Yeah. I think Cody's really talking about Expansions. Specifically, DLC expansions. But DLC is too broad for what he's discussing.

I consider DLC and expansions to be two different things entirely. You could technically have DLC that's not even downloadable (Halo 2 map pack disc).

locked

2437 views

- No text -

locked

2431 views

True enough, it never had physical media for it, so I guess it is downloadable content, in the strictest meaning of the expressions, but it's not, in any way, an add-on, which is what I'm pretty sure most of us were thinking of anyway. Blood Dragon is one hell of a ride, even if entirely derivative of FarCry3, but it is entirely stand-alone in both execution and playability.

Yeah. I think Cody's really talking about Expansions. Specifically, DLC expansions. But DLC is too broad for what he's discussing.

I consider DLC and expansions to be two different things entirely. You could technically have DLC that's not even downloadable (Halo 2 map pack disc).

Aren't add-on DLC's a kind of expansion? Maybe not a full blown one, but DLC is still too broad.

Your argument requires a lot of semantics. Can you consider being more specific? Like give some examples of what you're talking about from the actual DLC's you've played?

locked

2443 views

True enough, it never had physical media for it, so I guess it is downloadable content, in the strictest meaning of the expressions, but it's not, in any way, an add-on, which is what I'm pretty sure most of us were thinking of anyway. Blood Dragon is one hell of a ride, even if entirely derivative of FarCry3, but it is entirely stand-alone in both execution and playability.

Yeah. I think Cody's really talking about Expansions. Specifically, DLC expansions. But DLC is too broad for what he's discussing.

I consider DLC and expansions to be two different things entirely. You could technically have DLC that's not even downloadable (Halo 2 map pack disc).

Aren't add-on DLC's a kind of expansion? Maybe not a full blown one, but DLC is still too broad.

Your argument requires a lot of semantics. Can you consider being more specific? Like give some examples of what you're talking about from the actual DLC's you've played?

I have to go to work, but I can definitely explain the difference between the two at lunch or something.

locked

2473 views

- No text -

locked

2426 views

One of those dudes that wrote about the DLC's so you didn't need to play them WROTE THIS FOR YOU!1!1!

Best part is right at the end: "*One might argue that Blood Dragon isn’t technically DLC, since you can play it without a copy of Far Cry 3. I consider it “standalone DLC,” due to its ties to the source material and its similar price tag to other games’ expansions."

It's like he read our minds.

locked

2457 views

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Standalone DLC" any more than a "Standalone expansion", which is a contradiction in terms.

FC3: Blood Dragon is to Far Cry 3 what Halo 3: ODST is to Halo 3.

locked

2426 views

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Standalone DLC" any more than a "Standalone expansion", which is a contradiction in terms.

FC3: Blood Dragon is to Far Cry 3 what Halo 3: ODST is to Halo 3.

Yeah. I'd say that both DLC and Expansions cannot stand alone, and need to be installed or run on top of some other game. That seems pretty reasonable to me as the most basic requirement.

locked

2436 views

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Standalone DLC" any more than a "Standalone expansion", which is a contradiction in terms.

FC3: Blood Dragon is to Far Cry 3 what Halo 3: ODST is to Halo 3.

I don't even really agree with the guy (I would not recommend putting much weight into Time Magazine's opinion on vidya); it was mostly entertaining in the way it fit into what we were talking about: complete with arbitrarily set guidelines and definitions, the fact that Cody posited he could go by what other people had written about DLC to form opinions on it, and the hilariousness of that title within the context of the conversation.

Thus the "1!1!1"'s, etc.

locked

2435 views

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Standalone DLC" any more than a "Standalone expansion", which is a contradiction in terms.

FC3: Blood Dragon is to Far Cry 3 what Halo 3: ODST is to Halo 3.

I don't even really agree with the guy (I would not recommend putting much weight into Time Magazine's opinion on vidya); it was mostly entertaining in the way it fit into what we were talking about: complete with arbitrarily set guidelines and definitions, the fact that Cody posited he could go by what other people had written about DLC to form opinions on it, and the hilariousness of that title within the context of the conversation.

Thus the "1!1!1"'s, etc.

I agree.

Cody was responding to the even more absurd notion that he would have to play every single game and DLC in order to verify his statement. If a developer had put out a piece of DLC that was SO GOOD that it put all standalone games to shame, we would have heard about it in some way. That's the point I think he was making, and I find it hard to argue with.

locked

2431 views

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Standalone DLC" any more than a "Standalone expansion", which is a contradiction in terms.

FC3: Blood Dragon is to Far Cry 3 what Halo 3: ODST is to Halo 3.

I don't even really agree with the guy (I would not recommend putting much weight into Time Magazine's opinion on vidya); it was mostly entertaining in the way it fit into what we were talking about: complete with arbitrarily set guidelines and definitions, the fact that Cody posited he could go by what other people had written about DLC to form opinions on it, and the hilariousness of that title within the context of the conversation.

Thus the "1!1!1"'s, etc.

I agree.

Cody was responding to the even more absurd notion that he would have to play every single game and DLC in order to verify his statement. If a developer had but out a piece of DLC that was SO GOOD that it put all standalone games to shame, we would have heard about it in some way. That's the point I think he was making, and I find it hard to argue with.

I mean I guess he has a point, but has he provided any evidence he's actually played any DLC? I don't really like micro-transactions and book-ending expansion content but I feel he should at least provide examples to back up his claim? Hell, I agree with his point! But I don't agree with unsubstantiated opinions; they aren't conducive to actual dialogue. I thought micro-transactions were ultimately the breaking point for me with Borderlands 2, and the DLC expansions from Borderlands 1 were just more helpings of confusion on an already incoherent story; but I formed those opinions via experience, and that's what I think Cody needs to provide for his claims to have merit.

*Here's a substantiated opinion he hasn't addressed. Maybe admit he hasn't played this DLC and that maybe the statement has merit? Or say he has played it, and provide reasons it's bad?

locked

2473 views

Oh good. We're to the part where we make up what Cody should have or could have said instead by going by his actual words. Yes, demanding that he play ever DLC ever is absurd but it was only a response to his statements that:

Only mandatory content can be rolled into the game in a meaningful way, and be created with the finely tuned interactions with the other content in the game.

And

Don't take my word for it: history has proved my point. No DLC in the history of the medium stands up to the best of what non dlc has to offer. None. Not a single example.

Stop making excuses for him or putting better words in his mouth and respond to what he actually said! If he wants to say something that is reasonable let him do it himself. When he says something completely unreasonable he should be held accountable for it. If you keep prettying up his statements you're just enabling and encouraging and actively supporting his further bad behavior.

locked

2428 views

Oh good. We're to the part where we make up what Cody should have or could have said instead by going by his actual words. Yes, demanding that he play ever DLC ever is absurd but it was only a response to his statements that:

Only mandatory content can be rolled into the game in a meaningful way, and be created with the finely tuned interactions with the other content in the game.

And

Don't take my word for it: history has proved my point. No DLC in the history of the medium stands up to the best of what non dlc has to offer. None. Not a single example.

Stop making excuses for him or putting better words in his mouth and respond to what he actually said! If he wants to say something that is reasonable let him do it himself. When he says something completely unreasonable he should be held accountable for it. If you keep prettying up his statements you're just enabling and encouraging and actively supporting his further bad behavior.

The more you, or anyone else, including Cody, make the thread specifically about Cody, rather than the issues (which may or may not have merit), the more it goes downhill. This is why people don't respect forums and the discourse that happens on forums: stupid drama. (That's not to call you stupid, but the situation.) If Cody's posting is so awful you should ignore it-- he won't stop, but telling him to stop obviously doesn't work either, and directly engaging or even referencing his posts encourages responses. Agh, now you've got me doing it even more!

locked

2432 views

Best part is right at the end: "*One might argue that Blood Dragon isn’t technically DLC, since you can play it without a copy of Far Cry 3. I consider it “standalone DLC,” due to its ties to the source material and its similar price tag to other games’ expansions."

I guess Marathon Infinity is DLC, because it had strong ties to Marathon 2, and even used the exact same engine, weapons, enemies, etc.

If you can play it standalone without any other game, it's its own game. Just a short and inexpensive one.

locked

2443 views

If you can play it standalone without any other game, it's its own game. Just a short and inexpensive one.

That has more to do with the business of games than anything else.

EDIT:

ITT: Arguing semantics - joy of joys!

locked

2466 views

I've thought about this a bit, and while I think FC3:BD isn't what we typically think of with DLC/Expansion/Bookend content, it is the kind of thing we should be encouraging developers to pursue. It was, more or less, a Developer Mod; a unique spin-off that was in its own rights extremely entertaining while being uniquely similar to the original content. How great would it be if Bungie did something similar with their new engine? A unique story with nothing tying it to Destiny.

Maybe that's not what DLC's typically are, but wouldn't it be better if that were something more developers pursued? Imagine if Bungie did a spin-off, 5 hour game set in the middle ages? Same engine, mostly cosmetic. Hell, most of it is already there! They already have a bundle of concept art for it!

[image]

That's the kind of additional content that would be worth spending money on, even if it isn't what we normally think of as DLC.

locked

2463 views

Hell, "Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep" (my favorite piece of DLC, besides Spock/Lizard in Rock, Paper, Scissors) was, almost word-for-word, exactly what you described!

locked

2424 views

Hell, "Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep" (my favorite piece of DLC, besides Spock/Lizard in Rock, Paper, Scissors) was, almost word-for-word, exactly what you described!

Having now googled this...I have let myself down.

locked

2431 views

- No text -

locked

2421 views

I was seriously disappointed at buying the Season Pack. Only thing that kept me slightly happy was the fact that the main game was so enjoyable. I did play them, though, all the way through, if only out of hope.

Then BAM! Tiny Tina's. I laughed, I cried, I awed and I laughed again. Most important of all: I had a major good time.

locked

2424 views

- No text -

locked

2426 views

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon is a DLC.

I've never enjoyed a one-off, 4-5 hour campaign more in my life.

It delivered. I've enjoyed few games as much as I enjoyed it. If your cold heart couldn't enjoy that throwback, I feel sorry for you.

It does not appear to be DLC. Can you explain? It's available on its own from steam.

locked

2462 views

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon is a DLC.

I've never enjoyed a one-off, 4-5 hour campaign more in my life.

It delivered. I've enjoyed few games as much as I enjoyed it. If your cold heart couldn't enjoy that throwback, I feel sorry for you.

It does not appear to be DLC. Can you explain? It's available on its own from steam.

I'm just going to put the wiki article here. Decide for yourself.

locked

2461 views

I'm just going to put the wiki article here. Decide for yourself.

I am still not seeing it. It appears to be available on its own from steam. It does not require any other game. If you are suggesting that anything on steam is DLC, then I don't think that's a very helpful definition.

locked

2421 views

I'm just going to put the wiki article here. Decide for yourself.

I am still not seeing it. It appears to be available on its own from steam. It does not require any other game. If you are suggesting that anything on steam is DLC, then I don't think that's a very helpful definition.

Hm. Fair enough. Worth a purchase though!

locked

2450 views

I remember one time when the game was fairly new where three of us were doing something on sparrows on Venus, and we were talking about our expectations of the game.

Someone, maybe me, maybe someone else: This game is different than I expected it.
Narc: Yeah, it's better!

Truer words were never spoken. I think one of the reasons I like playing with you is we share broadly similar opinions on the game. We avoid scan this object missions like the plague, we don't do that shitty moon mission with the hive to farm stuff, and I agree with everything you just said.

locked

2508 views

- No text -

locked

2453 views

Risky.

locked

2448 views

As someone who played very little competitive multiplayer post Halo 2, I'd admit it is true that Halo's campaign material was very replayable. Even then, however, you come to its end. Even if you play slowly, even if you replay the entire game or isolated levels, even if you intentionally vary your own style of play, you come to a point of diminishing returns.

I tended to play a campaign on Heroic, then replay it on Legendary, then go back and perhaps noodle around on Normal looking for things I'd missed, or things to do differently, and then replay favorite levels on Heroic for fun. All in all that's probably fewer hours played than I'd get from RPGs like Mass Effect that I've replayed each campaign multiple times and each pass takes 30 hours or so.

Then you wait three years for new content.

I can't say I've particularly felt that way with Halo ever. I replay all of Bungie's Halo games on occasion, and the 3-year release schedule always felt just about right; enough time for the earlier game to get a proper run of life and sink in, and enough time for Bungie to develop a new game.

That is not a criticism. That is the ultimate confirmation that Bungie has made the right decisions, not the wrong ones, and that the investment hooks work so well that people keep playing beyond the point where they should but are unable or unwilling to stop.

How is it the right decision if it keeps people playing beyond the point when they should stop?

It seems like you're arguing that it's the right call because it's impressive, which doesn't really make any sense.

locked

2461 views

That is not a criticism. That is the ultimate confirmation that Bungie has made the right decisions, not the wrong ones, and that the investment hooks work so well that people keep playing beyond the point where they should but are unable or unwilling to stop.

How is it the right decision if it keeps people playing beyond the point when they should stop?

It seems like you're arguing that it's the right call because it's impressive, which doesn't really make any sense.

Because it's the player's job to decide when to stop. I'd say it's the developers job to always offer some reason to keep going. If the offer isn't enticing enough, you stop, but I don't think there's much value in a "game over" screen that's not a failure state.

locked

2446 views

Because it's the player's job to decide when to stop. I'd say it's the developers job to always offer some reason to keep going. If the offer isn't enticing enough, you stop, but I don't think there's much value in a "game over" screen that's not a failure state.

Imagine you are me on September 9th. 6am, having finished the main Destiny story.

The raid sounds like it will be awesome, but it starts at level 26. I am 20. Going from 20 to 26 requires the worst type of grinding. I want to play the raid. What am I supposed to do?

Well, I could do what you did and wait, but if I did I know I would not have gotten the experience I did by doing it second 1. I saw your videos. You had funkmon tell you how the mechanics worked. The BEST part of the raid - uncovering and figuring out this weird new set of items and bosses and abilities, was totally lost on you.

I had SO MUCH FUN being baffled as to how to kill the Templar, and figuring it out with my group. The gorgons, and finding the chests. Wondering what secrets there were. I still don't know how we figured out the gatekeeper section but we did! It took us 10 or so hours to completely do it. You just waltzed through it.

Because of the internet, if you don't do it as soon as possible, either you get spoiled, or the people you want to play with get spoiled.

So, the raid the second it opened up with no clue and blue weapons was one of the best times I've ever had playing a bungie game. That is very valuable. That would compel me to play. So why the shit did I have to grind to get there and experience this wonderful thing?

I had reason to keep going, but the journey to get there was miserable. I almost gave up. The journey should be fun as well, and with investment systems, the journey is required to suck.

but I don't think there's much value in a "game over" screen that's not a failure state.

No. This is REQUIRED for a good game! It's called an ending, and it means that you have finally mastered the game.

locked

2461 views

Because it's the player's job to decide when to stop. I'd say it's the developers job to always offer some reason to keep going. If the offer isn't enticing enough, you stop, but I don't think there's much value in a "game over" screen that's not a failure state.

Imagine you are me on September 9th. 6am, having finished the main Destiny story.

Sorry, not that much of a masochist.

locked

2447 views

Because it's the player's job to decide when to stop. I'd say it's the developers job to always offer some reason to keep going. If the offer isn't enticing enough, you stop, but I don't think there's much value in a "game over" screen that's not a failure state.

Imagine you are me on September 9th. 6am, having finished the main Destiny story.

Okay, I'll bite and actually reply. However it is worth noting that I never ruin a Bungie game for myself-- or indeed any game I'm looking forward to playing-- by binging on it that way.

The raid sounds like it will be awesome, but it starts at level 26. I am 20. Going from 20 to 26 requires the worst type of grinding. I want to play the raid. What am I supposed to do?

Didn't you say that if the thing isn't worth doing for itself, you should not do it? So what you should have done, according to your own advice, is stop playing there. The promise of the raid should not have been, according to your own statements, sufficient carrot to keep doing "the worst kind of grinding".

Of course, it turns out it was, and you did, which is again an endorsement of Bungie's design decisions and not a criticism of them. You're performing an ex post facto justification for why your continued play of a game you profess to dislike isn't evidence of why your prejudices-- from before the game was ever released-- were incorrect.

I've got five characters and only one, the very last, ever experienced something I'd characterize as a "grind"-- a titan that got stalled between 24 and 26 (post Dark Below) just could not get the right armor drops to level up. C'est la vie.

Well, I could do what you did and wait, but if I did I know I would not have gotten the experience I did by doing it second 1. I saw your videos. You had funkmon tell you how the mechanics worked. The BEST part of the raid - uncovering and figuring out this weird new set of items and bosses and abilities, was totally lost on you.

This is one of the only things I really do feel like I've missed out on with Destiny, and it's a reason why I like End of Crota better than the Vault of Glass. Given timezones and whatnot, it's challenging to schedule a full fire team I can get in on. Secondly, I wanted the podcast episodes to be a "first run" for as many people as possible. This was communicated to our regulars, but for one reason or another, it usually ended up that I was the only one left who hadn't already done a raid by the time the scheduled recording day arrived.

The other thing is that my hard drive space is limited-- I couldn't record the hours that a virgin run takes and then edit it down, I just don't have the space. So I struck the best compromise I could-- we started out each area without advice or explanation, experienced a few of the failures that new players would, and then got the advice.

On the one hand I stand by the decision, but I have decided that I will try and get in on the HoW raid sooner rather than later.

One of the reasons why I like the EoC raid better is that the first part, at least, is more accessible to solo players, and as an utterly average player I've still been part of raid runs that feature as few as four.

[snip]

but I don't think there's much value in a "game over" screen that's not a failure state.

No. This is REQUIRED for a good game! It's called an ending, and it means that you have finally mastered the game.

The goal of this game is to experience it, not to master it, because there is no mastery. Given that all the progression is character progression, rather than player progression, you have no more mastered the game at level 32 with maxed out exotics than you have at level 20 playing with green and blue weapons. In fact, since the game is harder under those conditions, you'd be better off doing that, or pulling stunts like Datto did with the group doing Crota with all green weapons.

This game isn't supposed to have a logical end point. The end point is when you decide to stop playing (or pause playing until they make more content) and then whenever they decide to stop making that content and make something else.

If you're unable to determine the criteria for making those decisions, then you're going to have a bad time, and it sounds like you are. No reason to try and drag the rest of us-- or indeed Bungie-- with you because of your personal delusion that your criticism is tough love aimed at improving a game you see as fatally flawed. It isn't. You just don't like it much, which is fine. Heck, that was the majority opinion at release!

Now go play Bloodborne and give us a rest, sheesh!

locked

2452 views

Of course, it turns out it was, and you did, which is again an endorsement of Bungie's design decisions and not a criticism of them.

Absolutely not. It is an endorsement of the Vault of Glass, and a condemnation of the hoops I had to go through to get there. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

locked

2444 views

Of course, it turns out it was, and you did, which is again an endorsement of Bungie's design decisions and not a criticism of them.

Absolutely not. It is an endorsement of the Vault of Glass, and a condemnation of the hoops I had to go through to get there. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

How about with what you just said? Brevity is the soul of wit. Yes, that's a stolen statement, but it's short and to the point.

locked

2430 views

This is one of the only things I really do feel like I've missed out on with Destiny, and it's a reason why I like End of Crota better than the Vault of Glass. Given timezones and whatnot, it's challenging to schedule a full fire team I can get in on. Secondly, I wanted the podcast episodes to be a "first run" for as many people as possible. This was communicated to our regulars, but for one reason or another, it usually ended up that I was the only one left who hadn't already done a raid by the time the scheduled recording day arrived.

To Narc: If you can get a fireteam going for the next raid when it's available if it's plausible at level 32, I would love to do a virgin run. I'm prepared to wait a week or two before doing any research to get that experience to be utterly bewildered. If you're looking for a group of 5 people you can trust to keep themselves insulated for a short time, I'll be in it.

To Cody or anybody else wondering about discovering those raid mechanics: It's remarkable how close those runs WERE to first runs. In Vault, we went in largely blind, and I'd done it once with a PUG, but didn't really know what I was doing. This explains the 7 hour run that took over two days for Vault of Glass. I had to leave for Chicago that night and took my Xbox with me so we could finish, and we did. It was a huge commitment.

I'd soloed a huge portion of Crota's End by that point because I had a friend who was interested, so I understood the things required to get by certain sections, but I did not really understand how they worked. We had never gotten to Crota. It took us hours and hours to get that right. While we were coached, we still had to learn and figure out how it really worked. It was mind numbingly difficult to get done and very frustrating and time consuming.

Compare that to the half hour runs with no wipes we're used to now and it really puts it into perspective. Those runs were basically fresh. I know it doesn't really matter, it's just some background info.

locked

2427 views

This is one of the only things I really do feel like I've missed out on with Destiny, and it's a reason why I like End of Crota better than the Vault of Glass. Given timezones and whatnot, it's challenging to schedule a full fire team I can get in on. Secondly, I wanted the podcast episodes to be a "first run" for as many people as possible. This was communicated to our regulars, but for one reason or another, it usually ended up that I was the only one left who hadn't already done a raid by the time the scheduled recording day arrived.

To Narc: If you can get a fireteam going for the next raid when it's available if it's plausible at level 32, I would love to do a virgin run. I'm prepared to wait a week or two before doing any research to get that experience to be utterly bewildered. If you're looking for a group of 5 people you can trust to keep themselves insulated for a short time, I'll be in it.

Ditto, Narc, if you're listening.

To Cody or anybody else wondering about discovering those raid mechanics: It's remarkable how close those runs WERE to first runs. In Vault, we went in largely blind, and I'd done it once with a PUG, but didn't really know what I was doing. This explains the 7 hour run that took over two days for Vault of Glass. I had to leave for Chicago that night and took my Xbox with me so we could finish, and we did. It was a huge commitment.

I'd soloed a huge portion of Crota's End by that point because I had a friend who was interested, so I understood the things required to get by certain sections, but I did not really understand how they worked. We had never gotten to Crota. It took us hours and hours to get that right. While we were coached, we still had to learn and figure out how it really worked. It was mind numbingly difficult to get done and very frustrating and time consuming.

Compare that to the half hour runs with no wipes we're used to now and it really puts it into perspective. Those runs were basically fresh. I know it doesn't really matter, it's just some background info.

My first vault run was 14 hours, and it was amazing in the way that Cody describes. My Crota first run had experienced people in it, and I'm thoroughly convinced that no matter how much people claim to not want things explained, and how much people promise they won't, at some point frustration sets in, and hints are either asked for or dropped. I'd love to do another purely virgin run.

locked

2429 views

This game isn't supposed to have a logical end point. The end point is when you decide to stop playing (or pause playing until they make more content) and then whenever they decide to stop making that content and make something else.

All games have logical end points:

1. You've conquered all the challenges. Beaten all the levels, done all the side quests, etc.
2. The story ends. If the game is narrative driven, the end of the story naturally concludes the game.

When you are that point, you want a sense of closure. After you've tackled all of Destiny's challenges, you don't feel that at all. As far as random ass challenges that involve you doing wacky things, I'd say if you are at that point you'd be better off trying a new unfamiliar game with new challenges. You're basically trying to eat every little crumb left instead of just getting a new cookie.

locked

2434 views

This game isn't supposed to have a logical end point. The end point is when you decide to stop playing (or pause playing until they make more content) and then whenever they decide to stop making that content and make something else.

All games have logical end points:

1. You've conquered all the challenges. Beaten all the levels, done all the side quests, etc.
2. The story ends. If the game is narrative driven, the end of the story naturally concludes the game.

When you are that point, you want a sense of closure. After you've tackled all of Destiny's challenges, you don't feel that at all. As far as random ass challenges that involve you doing wacky things, I'd say if you are at that point you'd be better off trying a new unfamiliar game with new challenges. You're basically trying to eat every little crumb left instead of just getting a new cookie.

As someone who literally does that (not with the tiniest of crumbs, but most of them), and who still enjoys Destiny despite it having gotten samey, I think you just don't have the mindset to enjoy that type of experience fully, and you probably never will-- and that's fine, but you shouldn't go around saying that that mindset doesn't exist, or that something is wrong with it.

locked

2434 views

The BEST part of the raid - uncovering and figuring out this weird new set of items and bosses and abilities, was totally lost on you.

It's the best part of the raid for you. Not for everyone. I'm rather glad I first ran Crota with a somewhat experienced team. Glad my first Vault run had Beorn to explain things to us after a few failures. Maybe you enjoy failing for hours on end, but I dont! I'd rather my team work on their teamwork and execution rather than trying to figure out what to do. I'm the same for movies and books. Spoilers don't bother me. I'm only ever going to go in fresh once, but if that thing is good I'll end up getting decades of enjoyment out of it that has nothing to do with being unspoiled the first time.

locked

2445 views

It's the best part of the raid for you. Not for everyone. I'm rather glad I first ran Crota with a somewhat experienced team. Glad my first Vault run had Beorn to explain things to us after a few failures. Maybe you enjoy failing for hours on end, but I dont!

You actually do enjoy failure. Every single person who plays a video game does. In fact, video games rely on this. It's all explained in this book (which is very good by the way).

I'm thinking instead you don't enjoy the much larger challenge of figuring the raid out yourself, versus the easier challenge of doing it with instruction. And that's absolutely fine.

locked

2453 views

Because it's the player's job to decide when to stop. I'd say it's the developers job to always offer some reason to keep going.

It's the developer's job to provide entertainment, I would hope.

Keeping the player going as long as possible would clearly be the best route toward accomplishing that if human brains were sensible things that made careful and perfectly-logical decisions regarding what they ought to be doing to maximize entertainment quality.

But as you implicitly acknowledged in your own words about people playing longer than "they should", this isn't necessarily the case.

but I don't think there's much value in a "game over" screen that's not a failure state.

I'm not seeing where "game over" screens factor into the discussion, if we're going to compare Destiny to things like replaying Halo*. This isn't about games explicitly telling the player to stop, it's about players putting a game down when doing something else would be a better experience.

*Unless perhaps if we're making a nitty-gritty discussion over particular design influences.

locked

2431 views

Obviously custom games and content were huge and would make me love this game twice as much as I do now, but I think we're hurting for content because we're playing too much. Many of us are close to a thousand hours into this game that is only 6 months old.

In Halo, we probably didn't play that often. It felt like it, but we really didn't. Halo 2, we did, and custom games allowed it.

At 800 hours, or even 300, the game should start feeling like old hat, because it is. You just played wayyy too much. Custom games would alleviate this, but I do not blame Bungie for us being burned out. It's our fault for playing the game so much.

I know I sound like some kind of apologist, but I am coming from the viewpoint that anything beyond the story, like the nightfalls and the raids, are bonus, like they would be in Halo. The bounties are a bonus. You don't HAVE to do them.

I just really like the game and am not disappointed with the content. Do I play less now? Yes, obviously. Would I go a week without playing? Yeah, and not break a sweat.

So, am I getting burned out? Yeah. I have less of a desire to play the game. Would custom games help? Yes. But 700+ hours in, it's definitely not Bungie's fault, it's mine for no-lifing it.

locked

2556 views

I can't even play the game and all I think about is the game.

locked

2476 views

I can't even play the game and all I think about is the game.

I just lost the game. Lost it for the first time in years.

locked

2464 views

[image]

locked

2466 views

Someone reminding me of it doesn't count.

locked

2437 views

Not sure if user created content of any type will be a feature any time soon, don’t see it as a part of Bungie’s plans on adding features to the game, I may be wrong.
Halo made me feel in the game, always, Destiny doesn't do that for me other than when admiring the vistas daydreaming. The story is OK, it's the script and delivery that bothered me way back in the beta. Peter Dinklage is a fine actor but he had little to work with. Great voice talents are wasted by just having a few lines. I’ve played the story missions, still don’t have a clue what’s going on, but most importantly, I don’t care to find out.

I need an emotional connection with the characters, I'm silly that way and I didn't find an opportunity to connect with any. Loot is not my thing, I’d rather enjoy a memorable mission, lone wolf style. Then again, the game wasn’t made for me and most people seem to really enjoy it the way it is.

A chance to run a couple of missions with Lord Shaxx, or Banshee-44 would be awesome, would love to see them in battle and find out more about them rather always meeting them at their desk jobs. I know all their lines by heart…

Destiny is so beautiful, would spend a lot of time capturing video or taking screenshots if I could get rid of all the stuff on my screen.
Still play the game occasionally, and I get lost in the beauty of the details (I’m an artist), ask me about the dragonflies, the butterflies, koi fish, the rainbows in the waterfalls, the way the drops falls in a puddle, lol, I spend way too much time observing rather than leveling up.

TLTR; Destiny works for most players but I need a story and characters to relate to, the art is freaking amazing.

locked

2504 views

- No text -

locked

2472 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

On content and why we're hurting for it. (Destiny)