This is why the social aspect turns me off greatly, since it's anti-social in a way, encouraging interaction through abstraction rather than actual exchanges.

I can't help but nod along to this. One thing that the Halo series was especially good for was acting as a medium for social interaction but without any abstraction — you could gather your friends (in person or online) and have a blast together, be that in co-op, firefight or PvP multiplayer. In fact if you look at some of the more popular games with a multiplayer component over the past few years (WoW, Diablo III, Guild Wars, TF2 etc.) this is a big part of their appeal: they're a sandbox for having fun with your friends.

Maybe Destiny will still permit this more traditional, less-abstracted kind of social play. I'd hope that whatever they're cooking up isn't going to render it redundant, at least, because I suspect you're not alone in wanting something that's more pick up and play than invest, engage, socialise. We shall see.

Gameplay wise, sure, but don't dress it up as the downfall of social behaviour

Conceded.

This is why the social aspect turns me off greatly, since it's anti-social in a way, > encouraging interaction through abstraction rather than actual exchanges. You're sitting at home on a couch alone.

Ugh.

Innate predispositions for sociability within the human species survived the agricultural and industrial revolutions, it'll survive the internet revolution too.

Legitimate concern, though, in regards to participation. If I cannot commit to social aspects of a game, and the social aspects are primary to the game, then I may not be able to participate in the game. I have been around for years, but never have played an MP match with anyone. (Not that I haven't been invited!).

So although I can still play campaign in (for example) Halo 4, I have not participated in the social aspects of the game in a while. And since people in the community absolutely destroy levels and secrets at a ridiculous pace, I'm not sure how I can contribute. Hence I move to the margins.

Bungie wants to build a real connection within the community, but relationships are "expensive" to me. Will I be able to participate in a meaningful way even though I am very shy online? Will I be able to contribute even though sometimes I miss a few days?

Otherwise, I guess, I don't know what to expect. Which is pretty nice for a change.

I think that's one possible interpretation of what "persistent" means. Yes, it means it exists when you aren't in it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that things change with respect to your play when you aren't around.

If that were the case, there would literally be no difference between a world that's persistent, and one that is not from the perspective of the player, and thus no reason at all to label it any differently since players would never ever see a difference.

Persistence could be something as simple as meaning that enemies don't respawn, and that items stay where you've left them-- the world doesn't reset itself when you leave. This is not an issue in a single-player campaign, because you just save the game world when you shut down, and nothing can change. In a multiplayer world, it's on even when no one is playing.

You log on, and other player's items are now dropped, and enemies they killed are dead. If only YOUR items stay put and onlyYOUR enemies stay dead, then see my response to your point above.

If the game has Guilds, and there's a Guild House where people meet up before going to play, and half the members are on one side of the world, and half are on the other, so that by going to sleep you're "missing" half of the play-- is this a problem for you? Or is this a feature?

Problem for me. Why I've never been in nor will ever be in a guild.

If a player isn't around when his guild goes on an end-game raid, do you consider that he's "missed" it? Isn't that opportunity just going to come around again?

I don't know.

I tend to think these sort of essential experiences will be instanced-- when a new "chapter" drops people will be able to team up and go tackle it any time after it's ready. I don't think you should consider that you "missed" it just because somebody else played it before you while you were doing something else. I don't think it's going to go away because other people played it. And there will probably be other kinds of play to engage in that can be done anytime-- firefight-style coop, deathmatch-style competitive matches, that sort of thing.

If everything is instanced for you, then again, see my response to the first post. From the perspective of the player, there would be no difference between the world always being there, or it shutting off when he logs off.

This forum is online and persistent, but the new threads that are posted while I'm sleeping-- which is most of them-- are still around for me to read and respond to when I wake up.

This forum isn't a game.

As for the rest... loot drops, crafting, and mandatory timed events that you can miss out on or will change your game world while you're not playing (Cody mentioned those)... have any of those things actually been in any way confirmed? Or are we just making stuff up?

Well, by definition a persistent world exists and changes when you aren't in it. So that means yes, you will miss stuff unless you play 24/7.

I think that's one possible interpretation of what "persistent" means. Yes, it means it exists when you aren't in it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that things change with respect to your play when you aren't around.

Persistence could be something as simple as meaning that enemies don't respawn, and that items stay where you've left them-- the world doesn't reset itself when you leave. This is not an issue in a single-player campaign, because you just save the game world when you shut down, and nothing can change. In a multiplayer world, it's on even when no one is playing.

BUT... that does not mean the game must allow for things that will change your experience while you aren't around.

If the game has Guilds, and there's a Guild House where people meet up before going to play, and half the members are on one side of the world, and half are on the other, so that by going to sleep you're "missing" half of the play-- is this a problem for you? Or is this a feature?

If a player isn't around when his guild goes on an end-game raid, do you consider that he's "missed" it? Isn't that opportunity just going to come around again?

I tend to think these sort of essential experiences will be instanced-- when a new "chapter" drops people will be able to team up and go tackle it any time after it's ready. I don't think you should consider that you "missed" it just because somebody else played it before you while you were doing something else. I don't think it's going to go away because other people played it. And there will probably be other kinds of play to engage in that can be done anytime-- firefight-style coop, deathmatch-style competitive matches, that sort of thing.

This forum is online and persistent, but the new threads that are posted while I'm sleeping-- which is most of them-- are still around for me to read and respond to when I wake up.

The UI elements we saw in the ViDoc, even if they are placeholder, suggested to me that story chapters would probably be like Spartan Ops episodes in Halo 4 - coming out on a schedule, but still available later.

I’m also not very social I have a select few I play games with online and that’s it I have no interested in text alerts or other social features in the game to get me addicted to the game. I mean I have been a member of HBO for years now I check daily read the forums but I never interact that much because like I said I’m not a very social person so social features in a game are not a selling point for me.

This is actually a big concern for me. I loved Skyrim and Fallout because I could slowly, carefully explore and shape my world. It might be a week or two between games because of my life, but it's always there, frozen, until I get back.

How will this go? If I take a few days off will all of the wonder be gone? All of the secrets discovered? All of the missions played and fleshed out and nothing left uncovered? With this ravenous community?

I have hope because Bungie is Bungie, but I have some concerns because when it comes to online community, I'm....well, anti-social. I enjoy reading about others exploits and LANs or whatever, but I have trouble jumping into them myself.

This is why the social aspect turns me off greatly, since it's anti-social in a way, > encouraging interaction through abstraction rather than actual exchanges. You're sitting at home on a couch alone.

Ugh.

Innate predispositions for sociability within the human species survived the agricultural and industrial revolutions, it'll survive the internet revolution too.

As for the rest... loot drops, crafting, and mandatory timed events that you can miss out on or will change your game world while you're not playing (Cody mentioned those)... have any of those things actually been in any way confirmed? Or are we just making stuff up?

Well, by definition a persistent world exists and changes when you aren't in it. So that means yes, you will miss stuff unless you play 24/7.

First of let me say that I have been a follower and fan of Bungie since I played Myth I love the studio and I love their games.

With what we have seen about the game so far I am just not sold. Yes I love the story and I think the game has potential but I just don’t know enough about the game right now to make a firm decision, and the release has just left me with even more questions then we have the answers to.

That's too bad.

The game is being funded by Kickstarter, right?

So they have to sell us on it now or else it won't be released. I guess they should have given us more information.

As for the rest... loot drops, crafting, and mandatory timed events that you can miss out on or will change your game world while you're not playing (Cody mentioned those)... have any of those things actually been in any way confirmed? Or are we just making stuff up?

I realize plenty of us are justifiably skeptical of marketing claims about games-- but when Bungie says this really isn't an MMO, why is everyone taking that to mean it really is an MMO?

Yesterday's slashdot summary I think used the acronym "MMO" more times than "Bungie" or "Destiny" combined, and I doubt it's at all relevant. Destiny seems to me-- given what little we have to go on-- much less like an MMO than Myth seemed like an RTS game.

It looks to me like a natural expansion of how Mass Effect 3 tried to integrate online coop into the single player campaign. I'm not sure what everybody's panties are in such a twist about. The idea sounds good to me, and that's coming from someone who will probably not be able to play the game due to high ping and low upstream bandwidth.

We need our video game worlds to be constant and endless, not thrown out in eight hour chunks every two years.

This is where I disagree, and why Destiny does not personally interest me. This is not to say that it will be a bad game, but just one that I don't really care to play.

I want to be able to turn off a game, and when I return have the world be as a left it. That is my personal preference. I want my life to dictate when I play games, not what's happening in the game world to dictate when I'll be playing. I do not want to have to worry about whether or not something is happening in the world that I'm missing, because I'm doing something in real life.

This is why the social aspect turns me off greatly, since it's anti-social in a way, encouraging interaction through abstraction rather than actual exchanges. You're sitting at home on a couch alone. Will Destiny offer split screen play? Or will you have to bring Xboxes together to play in person? Why would you do this when the game is telling you to just play online, encouraging you with the 'always connected' moniker?

We're already at at a point where our virtual social interactions and the image we project of ourselves is becoming more real than the actual thing. What are your friends doing on facebook? Oh wow! Look how cool John is!

I'm reminded of Baudrillard when he wrote of the paradoxical implications of being constantly connected. On one hand, you're everywhere. You can talk to anybody you want, pull down whatever information you desire. But at the same time, you're nowhere, because every computer terminal has access to the same data as every other one, so your physical location is no longer special or unique.

I enjoy social aspects of games when they grow from people who love the game, not social aspects that are designed to be part of the game. I don't know if this makes any sense, but this is what turns me off most about Destiny.

IN MY OPINION OF COURSE

Forbe's article

I'm ready for change. Bungie style.

-Hedge.

-- Steve's seen some griefing in ME3, but not nearly as much as in other titles.

Which is my point I get scared hearing words like, MMO, and Social now because they seem to just be gimmicks and without solid details like I hoped we were getting on the fence I shall be!

Nothin' wrong with that. I can see pretty easily how they can do good drop in and out single player. Just use level and trueskill and whatever to not pull in someone way too good or bad. Playing with friends, yeah, that's where it gets interesting.

The only source I can think to look to is, again, Mass Effect 3. In its multiplayer you start out with a small handful of classes who themselves only have access to a fraction of their powers and passive abilities. You also don't have the inventory of guns, ammo powers, and healing items that you build up by playing. But even with all of that once you know how the game plays you can jump in to a mid or even high level match and fare well enough to help your team out. Sure, you aren't near as powerful as you will be. Yes you will likely score less points. But as long as you know what you're doing I'd rather have you at level 1 than be a man down.

Maybe Destiny will be like that. Maybe the core combat cycle will be such that someone without all the fancy powers and guns can still contribute as long as they have a handle on the game. How that works with a world that is, presumably, much bigger than ME3's 20 minuteish matches is beyond me though.

Bungie's definition of social is playing with other people and having fun.

But you can just ignore people who you encounter. And you never know, you may see some guardians getting their butts kicked and help them out for a bit then move on. Ships, passing in the night.