Just because you spend more money doesn't make it better. You have some bizarre impression that the market value of something is the sole indicator of quality.

You have a complete inability to parse an argument.

My argument is NOT

Spending more makes the game better.

My argument is:

Better games require more money to make.

Merely spending more money does not make the game better. Nobody here is arguing that and it is such a banal statement I can't believe we are talking about it. You can obviously blow your money on shit that doesn't improve a game.

I've seen games, movies, music, whatever made with small budgets that have blown me away in the way that the latest Transformers movie can't even touch.

Me too. Not what I'm arguing.

Considering that there are games better than others made with less money, then I think "require" is not the word you're looking for. I'd be completely ok with you saying "money can and likely will make a game better". Require is WAY too prescriptive.

Just because you spend more money doesn't make it better. You have some bizarre impression that the market value of something is the sole indicator of quality.

You have a complete inability to parse an argument.

My argument is NOT

Spending more makes the game better.

My argument is:

Better games require more money to make.

Merely spending more money does not make the game better. Nobody here is arguing that and it is such a banal statement I can't believe we are talking about it. You can obviously blow your money on shit that doesn't improve a game.

I've seen games, movies, music, whatever made with small budgets that have blown me away in the way that the latest Transformers movie can't even touch.

Me too. Not what I'm arguing.

Yes, but you can’t be assured that an increase in your base price will lead to a profit increase because of the current realities of how capitalism is managed. An increase in base price which reduces units sold could be a net even or a loss of profit. Most businesses would rather avoid that risk and cut costs elsewhere.

If you can increase the price, decrease the units sold, and maximize profit that’s the best outcome. Fewer players using your servers if you game has an online component:

There seems to be game developers who care just as much about as many people enjoying their game (or more) than making as much money as they can.

I agree this is a factor for sure! But you require more money to make a better game in the first place, so it’s a balance.

To where even you would not argue that more money is required to make a better game.

Even so, I would argue that more money is one tool that can be used to make a better game, that even now, more money does not a better game make.

At some point it becomes a requirement. You want better animations? More money. You want a bigger world? More money. You want smarter AI? More money. You want more unique enemies and situations? More money. You want detailed graphics for all that? More money.

Just because you spend more money doesn't make it better. You have some bizarre impression that the market value of something is the sole indicator of quality.

I've seen games, movies, music, whatever made with small budgets that have blown me away in the way that the latest Transformers movie can't even touch.

I'm the type of coffee snob that has my own burr grinder and a kettle that heats up water to an exact temperature ideal for brewing. In recommending a coffee machine for a family member, did I recommend something that was $300+? No. I recommended something that was well designed and makes a great pot of coffee for less than $50. More money does not mean better necessarily and I hope it is rarely a requirement.

Yes, but you can’t be assured that an increase in your base price will lead to a profit increase because of the current realities of how capitalism is managed. An increase in base price which reduces units sold could be a net even or a loss of profit. Most businesses would rather avoid that risk and cut costs elsewhere.

If you can increase the price, decrease the units sold, and maximize profit that’s the best outcome. Fewer players using your servers if you game has an online component:

There seems to be game developers who care just as much about as many people enjoying their game (or more) than making as much money as they can.

I agree this is a factor for sure! But you require more money to make a better game in the first place, so it’s a balance.

To where even you would not argue that more money is required to make a better game.

Even so, I would argue that more money is one tool that can be used to make a better game, that even now, more money does not a better game make.

At some point it becomes a requirement. You want better animations? More money. You want a bigger world? More money. You want smarter AI? More money. You want more unique enemies and situations? More money. You want detailed graphics for all that? More money.

And frankly, it don't bother me none. There are enough assets built by this point and enough little tricks they can pull to repurpose their already-rigged models almost endlessly.

I mean, they re-animated the Fallen to create the Skorn, literally and figuratively.

I obviously have no idea how it's built, but look up the final boss for Scourge of the Past. It's a giant Fallen mech. It's neat. But it looks very much like it could just be a reskinned massive Ogre. It has a very similar shape, and moves basically the same, just with some extra bits on him. Very well could be intelligent reuse of existing assets with some small modifications.

I also could be completely wrong and it's a completely custom-built, one off, but it looks enough like an Ogre for me to question that.

I will start by addressing some of the stuff you said, though, just because it's there. (:

Or "2 Scarabs. You heard me. 2 of them"

The weird thing about that is that the Scarabs in that fight aren't particularly interesting in what they do, but it's still undeniably cool because it felt unique. The area for that fight is relatively tiny (even compared to the area of the single Scarab fight earlier in the game on Earth). The Scarabs are smashed into a small area and can't move. They literally just stand in one spot and rotate. They don't have any interesting behavior. But there is enough chaos there with two Scarabs shooting at you, Banshees flying around shooting at you, some Ghosts zipping around, friendly Warthogs zooming about. The Scarabs themselves are only interesting because of their size and the fact that it feels nearly inevitable that they're going to step on you or a friendly Warthog at some point.

Destiny's many patrol spaces look different in superficial terms, but very few of them offer a unique gameplay experience compared to the other zones. You're usually doing the exact same thing over and over with a different skybox in the background

All that said, I do think things are improving on that end. The Dreaming City alone is a really special achievement, I think.

This is getting at what Korny and I talked about a bit yesterday.

The Dreaming City is the best thing that's every happened in Destiny. I'm not even sure that's a debate, for me. The way it evolves and continues to feel fresh, the secrets, the Shattered Throne, the Raid, the way all that is connected--it's damn near perfect, in my mind. While I'm no loremaster, and have undoubtedly missed a lot of important things that were revealed, the context we got every week when something new opened up is a large part of why that all felt so cool. Obviously, the fact that it's all strong in terms of gameplay loop really helps, and maybe that's ultimately why it's successful, but without that context, it undoubtedly wouldn't have been nearly as effective.

That's why the Black Armory stuff, while absolutely fun (I think), hasn't felt as cool. We're given basically zero context for any of it, to the point where I'm still not sure why we should even give a shit about these Forges. The few weapons I've obtained so far are fun and cool, but they're not anything that the Vanguard weapons aren't--they sure don't feel like they were made in some super secret Forge that Guardians have never accessed before. Which, that's fine, they can't be ridiculous because of gameplay reasons, but the game doesn't give us any context for any of this or why it matters, and it's not like the gear speaks for itself and makes that immediately evident.

I'm really curious to see how this season (and this year) will unfold. Gameplay trumps everything, and, ultimately, if it's all fun, it will be successful, but I worry a bit about getting a bunch of random activities that don't feel like they add much to the universe of Destiny. Forsaken was so strong because of the way it was built and the context it added to everything we did. It gave a definitive shape to the world of Destiny that I think it's been sorely lacking, at least since The Taken King.

I said previously that I wouldn't miss the smaller campaigns if it meant we got more fun, meaningful content. That's still true, I think, but the Black Armory rollout has shown that I actually will miss those campaigns, if only because they gave me some story elements to latch onto (even when they were mostly paper-thin).

I still want to see what Destiny looks like if the devs at Bungie are given freedom to experiment. The Whisper mission was made by a small team, just a few people, and it's some of the coolest content in the game still. What does Destiny look like if they break up into tens of those small teams and all just design one-off things that are cool? What if we could get a Whisper mission every month? That sounds appealing, but how do that contextualize that content and make it "fit" within the Destiny universe and further the story elements of the game? Forsaken (and the Dreaming City specifically) made me care about that aspect of Destiny in a way that I never have before, so I want them to lean into that now. But the idea of getting a year of support of smaller teams trying cool ideas and making neat things sounds really appealing between Forsaken style releases. I was hopeful for that when they talked about the Annual Pass initially, and I'm still very hopeful and optimistic that there will be some cool surprises along the way, but I'm not convinced that's what we're really getting.

There are ways to address this issue beyond adding more unique boss characters. The early Gears of War games did an admirable job of taking the same basic mechanics against the same set of enemies and repeatedly finding new, fresh, and exciting ways to contextualize it through different environments and set pieces. Halo, too. Destiny's many patrol spaces look different in superficial terms, but very few of them offer a unique gameplay experience compared to the other zones. You're usually doing the exact same thing over and over with a different skybox in the background. Again, that's a place where somebody early on needed to step in and say "for this mission, the player is going to be riding on a huge vehicle swarming with friendly NPCs, and its going to be a unique scenario unlike anything else in the game". Or "2 Scarabs. You heard me. 2 of them. I feel like those kinds of bold calls are largely missing from most of Destiny, with a few exceptions along the way. All that said, I do think things are improving on that end. The Dreaming City alone is a really special achievement, I think.

Not only was Titanfall 2's campaign specifically designed by collection of different groups coming up with cool concepts and setpieces, but the ideas behind all of the individual levels made up for the fact that every single boss fight (save for the very last) was essentially just a straightforward fight against a PvP-loadout Titan (with Ult hax).

In Destiny, all strikes are basically the same:
Run/Drive forward, fight off a wave or two, activate item/door, run forward more, defeat enemies to open door, run forward, fight big version of existing enemy with new trick.

There's no distinguishing moments to set them apart, and even the barons mostly play out the same way. Titanfall 2's campaign avoided all of this, as the level gimmicks are all distinct, the goal is never "find and fight this guy", and the small variety of enemies are thrown at you in different contexts, usually with elements of the level gimmick playing a big role in the encounters.
Fighting a Reaper and squad of soldiers on a floor-less level with sniper sightlines requires a completely different strategy than fighting a Reaper and squad of soldiers in a giant room that is constructing buildings and shifting the floor around, and then there's "Effect and Cause"...

But back to boss battles and planning, which is where Titanfall 2 faltered a bit. Enemies like Richter and Kane weren't great or memorable, because they were wholly removed from the level's gimmick, with nothing interesting to replace it. Viper and Slone, however, had unique mechanics throughout their fight that helped them stand out, even if they didn't implement their level's gimmick either. Ash was a pretty straightforward fight as well, but because the level's gimmick somewhat came into play, there was a bit more to take from it, so it could feel different or better than it was. Of course, if you just stayed in your Titan throughout the fight, you might miss out on that fact.

So yeah, the tacked-on boss fights featured a ton of missed opportunities, but the fact that they stuck out like sore thumbs is a testament to how the game could take the same generic handful of enemies, and stretch out the fun loop across an entire game, because the scenarios were interesting and varied. Halo 1 did that masterfully as well, and even that had subtle gimmicks, such as AotCR, where you're fighting the same enemies, but on a bridge with two levels, or running across an open field as wraiths bombard the space between you and a Warthog, or you walk through a room where half are sleeping and the others patrol. That game had zero dedicated boss fights, and certainly didn't have any "big" versions of an enemy.

I think Bungie has approached great bosses with stuff like Theosyion and Sedia. Neither fights had a boss that was just "This, but big, and also..."

Theosyion's fight was great because the strike's gimmick was to guide one of the Fireteam members through hordes of enemies so he could plant the orb and unlock a gate. This same mechanic played a huge part in the final fight.

Sedia's strike required careful platforming, and throwing the orb between teammates to do bonus damage and make the enemies vulnerable. The same mechanics were involved in the fight.

Protheon and the Psion Flayers were two other good fights, because even though the strike lacked a mechanic-based element, the level changed constantly, and the strikes had varied encounters (both had elements of verticality). Sure, Protheon was a big minotaur, but he didn't have to be. If the game universe hadn't already established Gate Lords, he could have been something completely new visually (or even a series of enemies), but rigged to a Minotaur skeleton, and nobody would have noticed.

(Obligatory Warframe)

Pretty much every boss in Warframe has started out as "Basic unit mesh with much more health, and they can...", but over time, DE has changed the encounter to have unique bosses, or multi-stage encounters:

Tyl Regor used to be a generic melee Grineer with an upside-down mask, now he has an entire level and custom model (still with upside-down mask), and his motivations are a part of the encounter and tileset (and he has unique enemies exclusive to the tileset).

Ambulas used to be a slightly bigger moa with a railgun. Now it's a boss fight where you disable several Ambulas units and hack them while a ship bombards you from low-atmosphere, and during normal missions, an Ambulas Moa can be dropped off by a dropship randomly.

Raptor was just a regular Osprey with high health and missiles, and now the "boss fight" involves destroying a factory production line, with Raptor-model Ospreys being manufactured throughout.

This all just reminds me of how Bungie removed the non-giant-boss Exodus Down for months while they worked on it, only to bring it back exactly the same, only with fewer waves. Yay.

From the outside, looking back in hindsight, I would argue that somebody should have decided early in Destiny's development that 8 really amazing, unique boss fights would have been more impactful than 30 repetitive variations of the same couple boss fights. As others have pointed out, the Raids are a version of that, and for what they are, they work quite well. I personally would have enjoyed the majority of D1 a great deal more if there were 1/3 as many missions, but the quality of those missions was set higher. Destiny has never had a "lack of content" problem, despite what some people say. The issue is that too much of the content in Destiny bled together because it was too similar.

There are ways to address this issue beyond adding more unique boss characters. The early Gears of War games did an admirable job of taking the same basic mechanics against the same set of enemies and repeatedly finding new, fresh, and exciting ways to contextualize it through different environments and set pieces. Halo, too. Destiny's many patrol spaces look different in superficial terms, but very few of them offer a unique gameplay experience compared to the other zones. You're usually doing the exact same thing over and over with a different skybox in the background. Again, that's a place where somebody early on needed to step in and say "for this mission, the player is going to be riding on a huge vehicle swarming with friendly NPCs, and its going to be a unique scenario unlike anything else in the game". Or "2 Scarabs. You heard me. 2 of them. I feel like those kinds of bold calls are largely missing from most of Destiny, with a few exceptions along the way. All that said, I do think things are improving on that end. The Dreaming City alone is a really special achievement, I think.

If a game makes me say "I never want to play this again" after 10 minutes, is it really a good value?

Nobody liked Van Gogh's work while he was alive. Sometimes it takes time :-p

Don't give a shit if history says it's a great game - if *I* got 10 minutes of (bad) gameplay out of my investment, it's a bad investment. (For me.)

There seems to be game developers who care just as much about as many people enjoying their game (or more) than making as much money as they can.

I agree this is a factor for sure! But you require more money to make a better game in the first place, so it’s a balance.

Which is why I was surprised by your comment:

If you can increase the price, decrease the units sold, and maximize profit that’s the best outcome. Fewer players using your servers if you game has an online component:

Because in my mind that says screw who gets to play the game, all we care about is money. That's not balance.

Oh yeah sorry. That was purely in a business, rather than creative context.

There seems to be game developers who care just as much about as many people enjoying their game (or more) than making as much money as they can.

I agree this is a factor for sure! But you require more money to make a better game in the first place, so it’s a balance.

Which is why I was surprised by your comment:

If you can increase the price, decrease the units sold, and maximize profit that’s the best outcome. Fewer players using your servers if you game has an online component:

Because in my mind that says screw who gets to play the game, all we care about is money. That's not balance.

Yes, but you can’t be assured that an increase in your base price will lead to a profit increase because of the current realities of how capitalism is managed. An increase in base price which reduces units sold could be a net even or a loss of profit. Most businesses would rather avoid that risk and cut costs elsewhere.

If you can increase the price, decrease the units sold, and maximize profit that’s the best outcome. Fewer players using your servers if you game has an online component:

There seems to be game developers who care just as much about as many people enjoying their game (or more) than making as much money as they can.

I agree this is a factor for sure! But you require more money to make a better game in the first place, so it’s a balance.

To where even you would not argue that more money is required to make a better game.

Even so, I would argue that more money is one tool that can be used to make a better game, that even now, more money does not a better game make.