Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN (Destiny)
by JDQuackers , McMurray, PA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 12:36 (3780 days ago)
edited by JDQuackers, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 12:43
Looks like voice chat in the beta is pretty much what we will get for launch, but they are discussions about the feedback provided
Also more confirmation of "the raid" instead of "raids"
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:26 (3780 days ago) @ JDQuackers
Why can't we name our Guardians? Will that option be available in the full game or are we stuck with our Gamertags/IDs?
The team thought a lot about how best to have players identify themselves in the world. Ultimately, we’ve landed on PSN ID and Xbox LIVE Gamertag, so other people don’t have to manage a third list of identities (real name, platform tag, Destiny character name).
This grinds my gears. This is a solved problem. How are real names a factor in all this anyway? My understanding is you need to be platform tag friends to see another player's real name in the first place, so there's no ‘managing’ involved.
How I always envisaged it would work:
- Each player has a platform-specific tag (e.g. kapowaz)
- That player has a real name, which is only visible to other friends
- Each player can create up to three guardians, with a name, which belong to that platform-specific tag
So; the routes to adding somebody as a friend are:
1. You see me playing and want to add me to your friends list; you add me by character name
2. You already know my platform tag (or I'm a friend of a friend) and so you add me by platform tag
I don't see why this was considered too complicated for people to get their head around (but the interface for adding people to a fireteam for voice chat is just fine?)
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by RC , UK, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:32 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
How are real names a factor in all this anyway? My understanding is you need to be platform tag friends to see another player's real name in the first place, so there's no ‘managing’ involved.
Mentally manage.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Blackt1g3r , Login is from an untrusted domain in MN, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:35 (3780 days ago) @ RC
I think it's similar to how some people just can't mentally manage the filesystem on a computer. I have no trouble with it, but then again I'm a software engineer so I think it's safe to say that I'm wired that way. Others are not.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:46 (3780 days ago) @ Blackt1g3r
I think it's similar to how some people just can't mentally manage the filesystem on a computer. I have no trouble with it, but then again I'm a software engineer so I think it's safe to say that I'm wired that way. Others are not.
I get the analogy, but the fact that this system exists and works very well for Battle.net makes me think it's not as big a mental overhead as is being implied.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Fuertisimo, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:51 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
It's no different than World of Warcraft. Back when I played WoW I had like 8 characters with all different names and it wasn't difficult at all to manage. I actually liked being able to individually name each one. It gave them their own identities.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:56 (3780 days ago) @ Fuertisimo
It's no different than World of Warcraft. Back when I played WoW I had like 8 characters with all different names and it wasn't difficult at all to manage. I actually liked being able to individually name each one. It gave them their own identities.
Yeah, this is the aspect of it that I'm most disappointed about. I liked the idea that I'd be able to give each character a distinct appearance and personality, then they'd have a name to go along with it. Instead each one of them is called kapowaz, which feels less somehow.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:07 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
Do what TTL Demag0gue has done and give them a name anyway. Write stories about them. I see what they're getting at. Real names weren't an issue until the next gen console, but I'm finding myself somewhat overwhelmed. There are a number of people I'm learning their real name, their PSN gamertag, and their Xbox gamertag. Adding three or maybe even six names to that stack is too much for me.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:16 (3780 days ago) @ Kermit
Do what TTL Demag0gue has done and give them a name anyway. Write stories about them. I see what they're getting at. Real names weren't an issue until the next gen console, but I'm finding myself somewhat overwhelmed. There are a number of people I'm learning their real name, their PSN gamertag, and their Xbox gamertag. Adding three or maybe even six names to that stack is too much for me.
But these are players who you already knew in some capacity, right? I suspect the more prevalent use case is players who make new friends through the game, and what the user experience is for them. There's far less complexity involved there, since real names aren't even necessarily on the table; you're only asking a character's parent player tag to accept a friend request.
It will definitely be something that varies from person to person, though. In my experience the name you first know somebody by is the one that sticks; I've got WoW friends whose nickname is derived from their first character (I'm Eleth to some, which I've still never gotten my head around). For others it'll be their name on here, or their XBL gamertag, or PSN ID, or even their real name. None of these is more valid than the other, which is part of why it feels like a shame that character names are completely off the table.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:28 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
Do what TTL Demag0gue has done and give them a name anyway. Write stories about them. I see what they're getting at. Real names weren't an issue until the next gen console, but I'm finding myself somewhat overwhelmed. There are a number of people I'm learning their real name, their PSN gamertag, and their Xbox gamertag. Adding three or maybe even six names to that stack is too much for me.
But these are players who you already knew in some capacity, right? I suspect the more prevalent use case is players who make new friends through the game, and what the user experience is for them. There's far less complexity involved there, since real names aren't even necessarily on the table; you're only asking a character's parent player tag to accept a friend request.It will definitely be something that varies from person to person, though. In my experience the name you first know somebody by is the one that sticks; I've got WoW friends whose nickname is derived from their first character (I'm Eleth to some, which I've still never gotten my head around). For others it'll be their name on here, or their XBL gamertag, or PSN ID, or even their real name. None of these is more valid than the other, which is part of why it feels like a shame that character names are completely off the table.
Yeah, their DBO name is yet another name. I understand your desire to name the character. I want to name mine, too. All things considered, though, I'm glad they've made the call they have.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:42 (3780 days ago) @ Kermit
Well, here's a thought: why even worry about any of this? It would be possible for me to name my characters, but have them ONLY show up to me. Other people I'm playing with would just see my gamertag. Plenty of games do this.
Personally, I'm fine with things the way they are. I just think it's odd that this whole thing has gotten framed the way it has, as if there's a black and white choice between wanting to let people name their characters or not confusing people. It's a conflict that doesn't have to exist.
Honestly, I think a better argument for not having individual names is that it's really tedious to come up with new ones after a while. When Mass Effect 3's multiplayer first launched, you had to name characters each time you promoted a class (reset it to level 1), and you couldn't re-use names. I eventually started just typing random characters because I didn't care anymore. However, I don't think we'll be rolling new characters nearly as often in Destiny.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:42 (3780 days ago) @ RC
Mentally manage.
I appreciate that's what he meant, but I still don't understand why it's a problem. There's plenty of scope for showing a given player's platform-specific tag alongside their character name in the UI assuming you have the prerequisite friend status to see it.
As I say, it's a solved problem. Diablo III and World of Warcraft both have the facility to name characters in addition to having a battle tag (as well as letting friends know your real name), and I've literally given zero thought to it as a mental overhead problem in the past.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Tails , Across the Pond, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 20:31 (3779 days ago) @ kapowaz
So; the routes to adding somebody as a friend are:
1. You see me playing and want to add me to your friends list; you add me by character name
2. You already know my platform tag (or I'm a friend of a friend) and so you add me by platform tag
Something to remember about the "friends list" in the Blizzard games you refer to later is that it is actually two logical lists managed via the same in-game interface. When I come across someone in World of Warcraft, I can add that character as a friend, in which case we only see each other when we're online on those two specific characters, or I can add someone as a Battle.net friend in which case I can see them whatever character they're playing (or indeed if they're playing Starcraft 2 instead).
So in your first example, I added you by character name. Hang on a second, I didn't want you to see me logging on to my other character to play with my other friends or watching My Little Pony on Netflix, I only added you on that character! So do we begin maintaining per-character friends lists in addition to the platform-wide one? I'd imagine this to be a pretty large chunk of engineer time, not to mention all the extra UI/testing/certification involved.
So let's say we just ignore that expectation of friends added by character name being per-character, maybe it's not even an expectation at all for many people (I've no idea). When I added your character "Dave the Warlock", "kapowaz" shows up in my friends list. Hang on, who the hell is "kapowaz" again? I recognise you as "Dave the Warlock". Perhaps I was notified when I added Dave that kapowaz was the gamertag behind him, and perhaps we add character name into console rich presence - e.g. "kapowaz playing Destiny as Dave the Warlock (level 15)". Though of course this doesn't work when you're playing another character (or heaven forbid, not playing Destiny at all). And what shows up on the in-game friends list? I recognise some people by their character name and some people by their platform-wide name (or even their real name). Perhaps again we display "kapowaz - Dave the Warlock"? But remember that presumably, all that displays in-game is "Dave the Warlock" above your head? Either we display the connection between Dave and kapowaz somewhere readily accessible or I have to keep that connection in my head, easy for someone I just added but less so for someone I met in a strike 3 months ago and never saw again. And none of that helps when you log in to "Barry the Titan" and I can't see "Dave the Warlock" anywhere on my in-game list at all, online or offline.
And all this is without exploring other implementation details, like whether character names are unique worldwide or not? Because if not, when I add "Dave"... which Dave do I add? How do I tell who's who? And even if they are unique, would you lock names even after they're deleted? Because if you delete Dave and someone else grabs the name, I'll actually be adding someone other than who I thought.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done. It's definitely arguable a few of the problems I outlined above are even problems at all. I'm just suggesting that the analogy of the Blizzard friends list doesn't fit perfectly (Diablo 3 on consoles would be a slightly closer analogy - what does that do? I've no idea myself) and that some of the sacrifices you'd be prepared to make at the expense of simplicity may not be ones the devs agreed with :)
Disclaimers:
1. This is all off the top of my head. I have no more knowledge of this specific subject than you do.
2. You may or may not have named your Warlock "Dave" and your Titan "Barry".
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by kapowaz, Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 02:13 (3779 days ago) @ Tails
Yes, WoW has two separate logical friends lists, but that's more for historical reasons rather than by choice; the game already had a friends list independently first which was character-based even before the modern Battle.net existed. In all games they've released since then (notably Diablo III since this also has character names) you add friends by Battle tag, far more analogous to XBL gamertag or PSN ID.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by someotherguy, Hertfordshire, England, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:31 (3780 days ago) @ JDQuackers
Also more confirmation of "the raid" instead of "raids"
Im trying really hard not to be pessimistic, but the more I read the more concerned I am about endgame content.
EDIT: Scratch that, the article refers to raids as "they". All is right in the world.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by RC , UK, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:36 (3780 days ago) @ someotherguy
Now suddenly people are worried about it for Destiny?
WTH?
Remember: there are no additional subscription fees, and I've heard nothing about microtransactions.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by someotherguy, Hertfordshire, England, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:44 (3780 days ago) @ RC
Halo never had promises of a "vast universe" you'll want to keep coming back to.
Now they might mean I could just replay missions, except the levelling system means that earlier missions are not going to be fun or interesting if I've already hit the cap and can kill enemies just by looking at them. So there has to be some other incentive to keep playing.
That could be raids, or it could just be "skulls" or some other skill modifier (which I'd possibly argue are a kind of endgame content that Halo does have. Depends on your definition I guess)
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Blackt1g3r , Login is from an untrusted domain in MN, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:49 (3780 days ago) @ someotherguy
The way they designed Destiny it does't really matter if you are a very high level, enemies aren't that much easier to kill.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:00 (3780 days ago) @ Blackt1g3r
The way they designed Destiny it does't really matter if you are a very high level, enemies aren't that much easier to kill.
I don't know if that's really true. I got a number of kill missions which sent me back inside the wall from The Divide where I'd have to clean out a room of level 1 fallen. They all died in one or two shots, but most importantly their own damage to me was trivial. And that was with me only at level 8 — imagine how much more easier they'd be at level 20 (given the attack values of some of the reputation gear we could see for level 20s).
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:44 (3780 days ago) @ RC
Remember: there are no additional subscription fees, and I've heard nothing about microtransactions.
They have talked about DLC though; if you buy the limited/ghost edition you get the first two (?) DLC packages for ‘free’. Everyone who doesn't buy these editions will face a situation where there will be endgame content that other players can access that they can't: this game is definitely going to revolve around the endgame.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by someotherguy, Hertfordshire, England, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:48 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
The levelling system kind of necessitates at least some manner of endgame content.
Playing early missions as an indestructible level 20+ is not really replay value (well maybe once, because power fantasy), so there needs to be something else to do.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:58 (3780 days ago) @ someotherguy
The levelling system kind of necessitates at least some manner of endgame content.
Playing early missions as an indestructible level 20+ is not really replay value (well maybe once, because power fantasy), so there needs to be something else to do.
Aye, the key word here is progression; if you keep playing until you hit the level cap and then there's nothing left to do, you walk away from the game. There needs to always be some sort of progression to keep you interested. What form that progression takes is up to the individual, but I'd argue there always needs to be both a PvE and a PvP route, so as to cater to both types of player.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Fuertisimo, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:54 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
Can totally see a scenario where there's multiple DLC packs as well as a full priced expansion every year. IE Destiny release ---> 2-4 DLC packs ---> 1 year later Destiny 1 Expansion ---> 2-4 DLC packs ----> Destiny 2 1 year later ---> 2-4 DLC packs ---> ad nauseum until we get to Destiny 5 or however many they plan on making over the next 10 years.
At 5-10 bucks a pop for a DLC pack who needs a subscription fee anyhow?
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:58 (3780 days ago) @ Fuertisimo
At 5-10 bucks a pop for a DLC pack who needs a subscription fee anyhow?
Precisely. They're getting their money, it's just not in the form of a recurring fee.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:49 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
Remember: there are no additional subscription fees, and I've heard nothing about microtransactions.
They have talked about DLC though; if you buy the limited/ghost edition you get the first two (?) DLC packages for ‘free’. Everyone who doesn't buy these editions will face a situation where there will be endgame content that other players can access that they can't: this game is definitely going to revolve around the endgame.
It seems like many times when people aren't happy with the choices Bungie has made, it's because they have expectations based on other games, especially MMOs. I'm pretty ignorant about MMOs. I realized reading this that I have no idea what people mean when they say endgame content. What is that, and why do we think that Destiny will have it? Why do we think that this will be part of the DLC? I hear Deej talk about how they have more stories to tell, and they hope to get to tell them, and so when I think of DLC, that's what I think of. Not new games per se, but new stories or perhaps a continuation of certain stories but nothing I would call an endgame. But again, I don't think that word means to me what it means to others in this conversation.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:56 (3780 days ago) @ Kermit
Endgame content refers to content that's meant to be played by people who have maxed-out characters. People who are in a place where there's no XP left for them to increase, and they basically have all the best gear available. Endgame content is typically super-challenging raids that require a max-level character, coordination, knowledge of game mechanics, and especially rare/powerful gear.
It's not totally unique to MMOs. Borderlands had some similar activities which weren't really doable without exceptionally good gear and teamwork.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by someotherguy, Hertfordshire, England, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:08 (3780 days ago) @ stabbim
The way I've often had it described is that the main game levels you up and dripfeeds you abilities and techniques for you to learn and master. Almost a tutorial. Then the endgame is where you get to put those learned skills and abilities to use to do the really interesting, difficult stuff.
Im told by my MMO friends that its often the most rewarding part of the game, and constant updates (via patches in an MMO or DLC in Destiny's case) are what keep players coming back (and therefore, keep them paying).
An MMO-like model without the stigma of a subscription fee, but with DLC at a premium price is actually very crafty on Activision's part.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:13 (3780 days ago) @ someotherguy
An MMO-like model without the stigma of a subscription fee, but with DLC at a premium price is actually very crafty on Activision's part.
Exactly. It'll all come down to timing, but: if you pay $50 for Destiny, then another $100 for DLC over the course of the next two years, then this is still (roughly) the same as the cost of one World of Warcraft expansion plus subscription for the same period. If they can keep that sort of release cycle up, then follow up with a sequel and more DLC for it, then they'll have another massive money spinner on their hands.
Same Boat Here
by DaDerga, Baile Átha Cliath, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:58 (3780 days ago) @ Kermit
- No text -
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:09 (3780 days ago) @ Kermit
I realized reading this that I have no idea what people mean when they say endgame content. What is that, and why do we think that Destiny will have it? Why do we think that this will be part of the DLC? I hear Deej talk about how they have more stories to tell, and they hope to get to tell them, and so when I think of DLC, that's what I think of. Not new games per se, but new stories or perhaps a continuation of certain stories but nothing I would call an endgame. But again, I don't think that word means to me what it means to others in this conversation.
Typically, for MMOs (and certain other games, like Diablo III to an extent), playing the game has two distinct phases: there's levelling up, where you complete quests and progress through the different areas of the game world; and then there's endgame, which is the phase once you hit the level cap.
In both phases you're usually upgrading your gear as you go, but usually far more frequently during the levelling phase than in endgame. You're also typically learning a character class's abilities and making talent choices as you go; these choices are usually done once you get to the level cap, with no new abilities to unlock. Once you're in endgame, you have the ability to change your talent choices, but no new choices are unlocked over time. Also, gear acquisition slows down and becomes more meaningful; rather than earning a shiny new piece of armour or weapon every few hours you may not get a single new item (that's an upgrade) for days of play, but when you do it'll be something very fancy.
Once you consider that you're not upgrading your gear regularly, or gaining new abilities, endgame has to offer variety and interest in some other way, or players will burn out (or get bored) and stop playing. A game like Destiny relies on there being a thriving ecosystem of players in order for it to function (otherwise matchmaking times grow, and it has a detrimental effect on the remaining players), so ‘running out of things to do’ is anathema to that.
But it's a careful juggling act: you can't make this content too easy to work through quickly, or that burnout/boredom will happen sooner. This is part of why I think Cody (and some others) may be misjudging the steepness of the grinding process (particularly when we only reached level 8, and there are bound to be plentiful rewards for missions between then and the level cap). You need the goals to be attainable, but the timeframe has to be drawn out to an extent.
In other MMOs, endgame content is regularly refreshed. World of Warcraft releases new expansions roughly every 2 years, which increase the level cap and introduce new areas to explore, and raids/dungeons to fight through. These are paid updates at roughly the same cost as the original game, so I'd say they're most analogous to a full Destiny title release (i.e. Destiny 2 would be the first ‘expansion’ to the franchise). They also tend to release 3-4 major content patches per expansion, roughly 3-6 months apart. These introduce new items and dungeons/raids within the existing level cap, at staggered intervals; they help progress the storyline, but also give players new goals to achieve. I suspect the Destiny ‘comet’ DLC packages will be equivalent to these, although unlike WoW they won't be free.
Ultimately, whilst most Destiny players will spend a substantial period of time levelling up, they're going to spend far more time at the level cap, on endgame content. So the game will live or die depending on the quality and quantity of that content.
PvP is another matter of course, although I suspect that each Destiny DLC will also unlock more multiplayer maps, so that will serve as a way to encourage PvP-focused players to buy the DLC. Plus game modes like Iron Banner will continue to reward players with the best gear, and so in order to keep improving your gear you'll need to have access to the latest DLC PvE content too…
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:27 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I still don't know how we know the content of the expansions or that they will be for maxed out players. Couldn't the expansions be something like what ODST was supposed to be originally?
There seems to be a certainty that this will work like an MMO.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by someotherguy, Hertfordshire, England, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:52 (3780 days ago) @ Kermit
Based on the promise of a 10-year lifespan, and that we'll (in theory) be constantly engaged, I think they'd struggle to do that without a model at least loosely based on MMOs.
Its the levelling thing. Once you add a constant progression to a character, you limit the player's ability to be "engaged" by the same content over and over like they might with a vanilla FPS.
Its not just MMOs though, most RPGs have endgame content, either built in (bonus dungeons, secret bosses, Ultimate Weapons in most JRPGs) or through expansions (Mass Effect, Fallout).
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:56 (3780 days ago) @ Kermit
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I still don't know how we know the content of the expansions or that they will be for maxed out players. Couldn't the expansions be something like what ODST was supposed to be originally?
How was ODST supposed to work originally? I'm not familiar with that (although I have heard people refer to it as an ‘expansion’ for Halo 3).
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 21:54 (3779 days ago) @ kapowaz
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I still don't know how we know the content of the expansions or that they will be for maxed out players. Couldn't the expansions be something like what ODST was supposed to be originally?
How was ODST supposed to work originally? I'm not familiar with that (although I have heard people refer to it as an ‘expansion’ for Halo 3).
More story, new characters, new settings. Obviously, your character would remain active in a Destiny expansion, but I still don't think I'm imagining what you're imagining. Throughout this thread it seems that you're speaking from a place of certainty that Destiny is an MMO. I'm not convinced that it is.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by General Vagueness , The Vault of Sass, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 22:19 (3779 days ago) @ Kermit
edited by General Vagueness, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 22:23
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I still don't know how we know the content of the expansions or that they will be for maxed out players. Couldn't the expansions be something like what ODST was supposed to be originally?
How was ODST supposed to work originally? I'm not familiar with that (although I have heard people refer to it as an ‘expansion’ for Halo 3).
More story, new characters, new settings. Obviously, your character would remain active in a Destiny expansion, but I still don't think I'm imagining what you're imagining. Throughout this thread it seems that you're speaking from a place of certainty that Destiny is an MMO. I'm not convinced that it is.
It really seems to me pretty much everyone who knows about this except Bungie and people who are very particular about meanings have accepted this is an MMO, and the definition sticklers are just caught up on instancing and party sizes and relatively minor details like those. I would say, having read about it and played the beta, Destiny is a massively multiplayer on-line first-person shooter, with third-person sections and role-playing elements, and if it's not that then I don't know what it is (which would mean either I did an awful job comprehending what I was seeing or Bungie is throwing a curveball like I've never seen before).
Whether you agree about what it is or not, the fact remains that in the game you'll level up, but you can't level up forever. People are referring to a section of the game as the endgame and saying it is the section of the game you have access to once you have finished leveling up. Apparently it overlaps with other parts of the game, but it's well-defined in that anything you do before you have leveled up all the way is not the endgame. Is that a clear enough definition? Does anyone have a problem with that, am I not saying it right?
Do you agree all of those things will be present in Destiny? (I could probably give proof if I kept up with news better, I can only assume Bungie has mentioned different things you can do once you've leveled up to the highest level, because otherwise, well kapowaz explained why it's bad to not have anything else left to do.) As a more interesting question, and somewhat getting back to the discussion, taking that into account, what do you think of what's been said? What would you like the endgame to be?
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 22:50 (3779 days ago) @ General Vagueness
This "endgame" content is part of an MMO model. I don't know how people know that that is the model that Destiny will follow. I would have loved additional Reach story, but I got nowhere near the level cap in Reach, and this model seems to be for leveled up players only.
Maybe Destiny is not a true MMO. Maybe it's Journey with guns.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 23:36 (3779 days ago) @ Kermit
This "endgame" content is part of an MMO model. I don't know how people know that that is the model that Destiny will follow. I would have loved additional Reach story, but I got nowhere near the level cap in Reach, and this model seems to be for leveled up players only.
Maybe Destiny is not a true MMO. Maybe it's Journey with guns.
Funny you mention it, I said something similar just a bit earlier in a different thread :)
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by someotherguy, Hertfordshire, England, Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 01:12 (3779 days ago) @ Kermit
This "endgame" content is part of an MMO model.
Nah, most games with a meaningful levelling system provide some kind of endgame content. JRPGs especially usually have bonus dungeons and secret bosses, or even a remixed, more challenging New Game+. It's not present in the same format, but even RPGs like Fallout or Skyrim take measures to stop you getting too powerful to enjoy playing by levelling the enemies alingside you.
I don't know how people know that that is the model that Destiny will follow. I would have loved additional Reach story, but I got nowhere near the level cap in Reach, and this model seems to be for leveled up players only.
There was no meaningful level cap in Reach. You didn't earn skills or abilities as you went along (IIRC? That's right though I think?), it was just a number representing a cosmetic reward system. So there didn't need to be additional content for overpowered, maxed out players.
The biggest reason to believe that there's some kind of endgame is that they hsve a "Raid" (or raids) that requires you to be at the level cap. By using terminology lifted directly from MMOs they set a certain expectation.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 02:34 (3779 days ago) @ Kermit
This "endgame" content is part of an MMO model. I don't know how people know that that is the model that Destiny will follow. I would have loved additional Reach story, but I got nowhere near the level cap in Reach, and this model seems to be for leveled up players only.
Based on the beta, it seems pretty hard for me to not think of Destiny as an MMO. I suspect the same will be true of anyone who has played one much in the past. So many hallmarks of an MMO were present that it definitely feels closer to one than (say) Diablo III or a Borderlands game. For those who've avoided them entirely (or mostly) I can understand the confusion, but I think Bungie shares the blame there by insisting that it wasn't an MMO, when really they were just trying to keep their core audience (some of whom are pretty anti-MMO) from being disinterested.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 05:45 (3779 days ago) @ kapowaz
This "endgame" content is part of an MMO model. I don't know how people know that that is the model that Destiny will follow. I would have loved additional Reach story, but I got nowhere near the level cap in Reach, and this model seems to be for leveled up players only.
Based on the beta, it seems pretty hard for me to not think of Destiny as an MMO. I suspect the same will be true of anyone who has played one much in the past. So many hallmarks of an MMO were present that it definitely feels closer to one than (say) Diablo III or a Borderlands game. For those who've avoided them entirely (or mostly) I can understand the confusion, but I think Bungie shares the blame there by insisting that it wasn't an MMO, when really they were just trying to keep their core audience (some of whom are pretty anti-MMO) from being disinterested.
Yeah, well, I probably fall into the latter camp. I've avoided MMOs for some of the same reasons that I avoid crack cocaine. If Bungie is making an MMO, then I'll play one, but what I've observed over the years is a studio that borrows from genres to make something different in important ways than the norm. I'm not heavily into strategy or fighting games, but I thoroughly enjoyed Myth and Oni.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 16:21 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
But it's a careful juggling act: you can't make this content too easy to work through quickly, or that burnout/boredom will happen sooner. This is part of why I think Cody (and some others) may be misjudging the steepness of the grinding process (particularly when we only reached level 8, and there are bound to be plentiful rewards for missions between then and the level cap). You need the goals to be attainable, but the timeframe has to be drawn out to an extent.
I'm dropping back in to reply to this:
Drawing things out is probably going to be the biggest pitfall of Destiny. The timeframe does not, and should not be drawn out. As a game designer, you want your players to have fun immediately, and throughout, with as little boredom as possible. Players working through your content too quickly absolutely should never be a concern.
Burnout and boredom isn't a problem if you have fun content to begin with. Did anybody complain about getting bored or burned out with Halo? I don't think anybody did. Some folks worked through Halo in a day. Was that too quickly? Then how did it become the phenomenon it is? Judging a game by playtime is hugely toxic, and designing your game around a certain playtime is even more toxic.
The reason it is toxic, is because if you really only have 6 hours (for sake of argument) of fun things to do in the game, but you stretch that out by delaying or artificially lengthening content, then the experience suffers. Did you hover over the display for crucible marks? You are limited to 100 per week. Why? The only reason is to string out your playtime.
Folks are concerned with the amount of content. Bungie is probably right, and Destiny probably is the biggest game they have made. In terms of geometry and space, Old Russia is pretty huge. But it doesn't FEEL as huge as some smaller games. If you look at the mothyards, there's tons of geometry there, but all you really do is zip by on your sparrow… you're not engaging in it in a meaningful way. Remember the beach battle from Silent Cartographer? Why are there not tons of those, as you make your way across the mothyard, utilizing the hills, and aircraft fuselages as you fight your way across in a story mission? Can you imagine if all of Old Russia were as dense as a Halo story mission in terms of designed encounters and story? You'd have an entire FPS game right there! But you don't…
Destiny is cool to explore, but not as fun as other games. In Destiny, you can look and shoot. In something like Deus Ex, exploration is more meaningful since you have tons of options for interaction: you can open doors, hack, listen to people talk, talk to people, read email, pick locks, find secret items and weapons, etc. Even though the world is physically smaller, there's more to do so it feels bigger. There's nothing wrong with Destiny not having these types of interactions, but this just means that the level spaces need to be utilized in terms of shooting. And they unfortunately aren't that well from what we have seen so far. This is why there is disappointment at one area per planet - because you don't get a lot of bang for your buck with these spaces, thus requiring more for the same level of engagement that FPS games of smaller scope had.
The issue is quality vs quantity. You always want to give players the most concentrated game experience possible, with everything they are asked to do being as fun as possible. Padding it it with things that aren't so fun is not how you create the best experience… I'm not saying it has to be combat at Mach 10 100% of the time, but the spaces have to be utilized to create some kind of flow to the experience.
Again, I don't know why Bungie is worried people will finish the game in 10 or 15 hours or however long it would take. If you can give them a BETTER experience in 10 versus a padded 100, why not go with 10? Who cares?
As far as the endgame goes, in most of the games that I've played that have an 'endgame', that's typically where the most fun is. So the question is, why not eliminate the beginning, and just have everybody start at the 'endgame'? Having an 'endgame' just ensures that your players aren't getting all the fun immediately. There shouldn't be divisions - you should just have 'the game'. You shouldn't have rewards for the missions, the missions should be the rewards. The experience should be valuable in and of itself.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 16:57 (3780 days ago) @ Cody Miller
Drawing things out is probably going to be the biggest pitfall of Destiny. The timeframe does not, and should not be drawn out. As a game designer, you want your players to have fun immediately, and throughout, with as little boredom as possible. Players working through your content too quickly absolutely should never be a concern.
Burnout and boredom isn't a problem if you have fun content to begin with. Did anybody complain about getting bored or burned out with Halo? I don't think anybody did. Some folks worked through Halo in a day. Was that too quickly? Then how did it become the phenomenon it is?
I don't disagree with everything you've written above, but I feel like there's a key misunderstanding or important consideration you've missed here, which is true of Destiny and all other MMO games. At their core, they're social experiences, and the gameplay is a sandbox for that.
That's not to say that Halo was an anti-social game, but the social side of it was far more ad-hoc; that's why communities like HBO came about. The social side is far more implicit than explicit, and the gameplay is definitely intended to support a single player experience, with no mandatory requirement that the player groups up.
Contrast that with other MMO titles and you'll see that reverses: the player can play the game as if it was a solo experience, but they're not getting the most from it. There's an argument to be made that all Blizzard's games follow this format; create a social sandbox and then build mechanics to support it. But in order for a game which provides a social sandbox to provide an enjoyable experience, it needs an active player base. The timeframe over which the audience is engaged with the game is therefore crucial. If most players treated Destiny the way they treated a Halo title, they'd be done with it very quickly and stop engaging. That undermines the social sandbox, and so a cycle of drip-fed engagement is necessary to ensure that players remain invested over a longer period of time.
Inevitably players will drift away from games at times, and the player base will always be evolving. For that reason too, the game has to keep a healthy pool of players around, or the newcomers will find the game deserted. You only need talk to players on underpopulated realms in WoW to understand what effect this has on the enjoyability of the game.
What is important (at least to me) is that whenever the game artificially drags something out, it does so in a way that remains fun. I spent a fair amount of time in the beta levelling up weapons so as to compare them. I did this by hanging around in one area of Old Russia, sweeping the zone in a rotation and picking off fallen as they spawned. Every once in a while the Devil Walker public event would start up and I'd join in with that. Never did it really get boring, because the combat itself remains fun. If anything it was the lack of variety in missions that dragged it down, but that's something Bungie can fix, the most important thing to get right was combat itself.
So, I'm not worried about the grind, although time will tell if they've tuned it too aggressively (or not). We'll know they've dialled it in wrong if the player base shrinks too soon after launch, but I'm betting it won't.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 17:16 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
This speaks to what I've felt so far. There is a "grind" in the sense that you're sometimes fighting or doing missions to level something up. But the word "grind" implies doing something that isn't enjoyable, and at least in the beta, I never reached a point where the basic combat wasn't fun anymore. Especially if I was doing it to level up a gun that was still relatively new to me (meaning I was still getting used to using it).
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 17:17 (3780 days ago) @ kapowaz
I don't disagree with everything you've written above, but I feel like there's a key misunderstanding or important consideration you've missed here, which is true of Destiny and all other MMO games. At their core, they're social experiences, and the gameplay is a sandbox for that.
To me, Destiny seems to be a co-op experience. Not a social experience. Big difference.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by Yapok , Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 17:21 (3780 days ago) @ Cody Miller
The explore with random players, tower, and public events lean toward social experience to me. Thats what I think when I see those to the degree destiny has them. Public events especially rely on a filled social world to make them work. I saw these with FF 14 and Guild Wars 2. Watching random people run up the hill from different directions to accomplish a common goal is a social experience in my book.
How much endgame content was there in Halo?
by General Vagueness , The Vault of Sass, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 17:47 (3780 days ago) @ Cody Miller
The issue is quality vs quantity. You always want to give players the most concentrated game experience possible, with everything they are asked to do being as fun as possible. Padding it it with things that aren't so fun is not how you create the best experience… I'm not saying it has to be combat at Mach 10 100% of the time, but the spaces have to be utilized to create some kind of flow to the experience.
That actually is really close to what I thought you've been saying for a year and a half now, so could you explain what you actually do mean?
As far as the endgame goes, in most of the games that I've played that have an 'endgame', that's typically where the most fun is. So the question is, why not eliminate the beginning, and just have everybody start at the 'endgame'? Having an 'endgame' just ensures that your players aren't getting all the fun immediately. There shouldn't be divisions - you should just have 'the game'. You shouldn't have rewards for the missions, the missions should be the rewards. The experience should be valuable in and of itself.
but people like rewards
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:45 (3780 days ago) @ someotherguy
Im trying really hard not to be pessimistic, but the more I read the more concerned I am about endgame content.
EDIT: Scratch that, the article refers to raids as "they". All is right in the world.
It actually refers to "the Raid," singular, as well. As far as I can tell, this article doesn't clarify anything.
Whatever, I'm already convinced Destiny will have enough content to entertain me sufficiently. Just thought it was worth pointing out that this is still quite vague.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by General Vagueness , The Vault of Sass, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:33 (3780 days ago) @ JDQuackers
Looks like voice chat in the beta is pretty much what we will get for launch, but they are discussions about the feedback provided
Dang it... why should we not be able to hear our team in multiplayer? Where's the sense?
Also more confirmation of "the raid" instead of "raids"
Dang it... will it be rolled into something else? A whole game mode for one map and one mission, and a whole map or a whole area of a map for one mission, seems... wrong; I could put it other ways, but that's the most driving thing, it seems wrong, and if that is how it is I'd like to know why. I'd also like to know what their DLC plans are, because "there's only one of this" screams DLC to me, which is part of why it seems wrong.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Blackt1g3r , Login is from an untrusted domain in MN, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:48 (3780 days ago) @ General Vagueness
Looks like voice chat in the beta is pretty much what we will get for launch, but they are discussions about the feedback provided
Dang it... why should we not be able to hear our team in multiplayer? Where's the sense?
I like hearing my teammates, but the problem I have is that 99% of the players I get matched with are just spouting crap all the time. So much so that I turned off all voice in Halo: Reach. It's too much work to turn off all of your teammates when a match starts based on whether they are going to provide useful conversation.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Fuertisimo, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 13:55 (3780 days ago) @ Blackt1g3r
Simple solution would be to provide people the option to automatically mute all at the start of every match. EZ PZ, get to keep voice chat for those that want it.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by someotherguy, Hertfordshire, England, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:05 (3780 days ago) @ Fuertisimo
Or vice versa. Have it off by default and a quick button press to turn it on. That way people having a conversation with their mum, or playing music or whatever arent automatically on, causing everyone else to switch it off.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Ragashingo , Official DBO Cryptarch, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:26 (3780 days ago) @ Blackt1g3r
Yep. For a while I was having trouble talking to DBO players because I had forgotten I'd turned off most voice chat stuff on my Xbox. One time out of a hundred I'd get people who cared to coordinate during a game. The rest was either music, people talking to each other about something unrelated, or people cursing. I'm fine with Destiny have a switch to enable team chat in the Crucible, but I want the default to remain as it is...
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 14:52 (3780 days ago) @ Ragashingo
It's worse on XBone due to everyone having Kinect (well, most everyone, as the Kinect-less SKU is still pretty new) combined with the fact that it's turned on by default for voice chat in most games. Almost every Forza 5 lobby I get into has someone drowning the room in noise because their kid's screaming, or they're apparently having a party, or someone's vacuuming. At least muting them is quick, but it's still irritating.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by Phoenix_9286 , Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:15 (3780 days ago) @ stabbim
It's worse on XBone due to everyone having Kinect (well, most everyone, as the Kinect-less SKU is still pretty new) combined with the fact that it's turned on by default for voice chat in most games. Almost every Forza 5 lobby I get into has someone drowning the room in noise because their kid's screaming, or they're apparently having a party, or someone's vacuuming. At least muting them is quick, but it's still irritating.
It still blows my mind someone at Microsoft thought this was a good idea, and everyone else agreed and rolled with it.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by kapowaz, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:22 (3780 days ago) @ Phoenix_9286
It's worse on XBone due to everyone having Kinect (well, most everyone, as the Kinect-less SKU is still pretty new) combined with the fact that it's turned on by default for voice chat in most games. Almost every Forza 5 lobby I get into has someone drowning the room in noise because their kid's screaming, or they're apparently having a party, or someone's vacuuming. At least muting them is quick, but it's still irritating.
It still blows my mind someone at Microsoft thought this was a good idea, and everyone else agreed and rolled with it.
That sounds like hell. I'm so glad there's a Kinect-less model available for whenever I look into getting the Halo anniversary collection.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:22 (3780 days ago) @ Phoenix_9286
It still blows my mind someone at Microsoft thought this was a good idea, and everyone else agreed and rolled with it.
Yeah. I'm ok with the Kinect itself, but having its voice chat turned on by default is just idiotic. I think it would have been best to leave it off by default and just have a quick voice command (it could still be listening for commands, just not broadcasting your voice all the time) to turn chat on once you're in a game lobby.
Well the guy in charge DID get fired...
by RC , UK, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 15:31 (3780 days ago) @ Phoenix_9286
- No text -
Well the guy in charge DID get fired...
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 21:23 (3779 days ago) @ RC
Yeah, I wonder sometimes how different the current console landscape would be if Phil Spencer had been put in charge of XBox before the XBone announcement.
Urk answers lots of post-beta questions on IGN
by General Vagueness , The Vault of Sass, Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 18:12 (3779 days ago) @ Blackt1g3r
Looks like voice chat in the beta is pretty much what we will get for launch, but they are discussions about the feedback provided
Dang it... why should we not be able to hear our team in multiplayer? Where's the sense?
I like hearing my teammates, but the problem I have is that 99% of the players I get matched with are just spouting crap all the time. So much so that I turned off all voice in Halo: Reach. It's too much work to turn off all of your teammates when a match starts based on whether they are going to provide useful conversation.
You know there was an option to not hear people, right? Why not bring that back? Just an option in the audio preferences to choose between hearing just your party (because I don't think games can turn that off), your party and your fireteam, or everyone. I'd really prefer for the default to be hearing people but I'd be fine with the default having that option off and letting people turn on the option to hear people, in competitive and hopefully cooperative modes. Individual muting would be good to have too, though, so you could hear people and then decide you don't like what one of them has to say and then with a selection and one or two button presses not hear them any more. Halo has had that since Halo 3, and in Reach they even made it so if someone gets muted all the time they're muted for everyone that doesn't specifically unmute them. Why leave these features by the wayside?