Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: On Bungie and the Value of the Player's Time | |
| Posted By: Wayward Spleen™ | Date: 12/13/10 2:38 p.m. |
In Response To: On Bungie and the Value of the Player's Time (Cody Miller) [snipping for shorter post] Excellent read - a few comments. WoW has backups of their backups because the information is stored server-side (so that folks can't cheat their way into having things they shouldn't). So your listed situation is as close to impossible as is feasible. Regardless. I had a conversation this weekend with my fiancee about what Bungie was going for with Reach's player-investment system, and where I felt it ran afoul of things. Like you've noted, the entire system of skill-related ranks was replaced with something that merely rewarded continued playing. Where I used to play for fun - I've found myself tailoring my playing around what challenges are present. Which, since Bungie is trying to keep people mixing things up, tends to be all over the place. I still have fun doing so, but not nearly the level I did prior-to-grifball in Halo 3 (GB changed my entire focus and in a sense, "ruined" vanilla Halo 3 for me). Regardless - I'm a wow player just like the designer who created Reach's investment system. I understand where it came from and how it differs from WoW as well. I also think, they got it a bit wrong. I don't like pointing to online numbers, but it certainly seems that Reach has waned in popularity much more quickly than its predecessors. I concede some of that is simply because people themselves are more likely to enjoy more-lowbrow games, but I also think that's over-simplifying things a bit. (TL;DR, more folks seem to like games that I think are more poorly designed) ANYway - the comparison with WoW isn't as direct as you'd think, and I'm one of the few people I know who hasn't yet picked up the latest WoW expansion (I know how much time THAT is going to suck out of me). But I have to agree that the removal of skill-based ranks and the combination of Social and Ranked hoppers might have a lot more to do with the population decline than a simple splitting of interests. I'm not, however, concerned about future titles - the guys there freely analyze what they've done and continually revise things. I'm not sure how much of the current investment system CAN change, but I do believe, when it comes to future titles, that it NEEDS to change. Putting in time with only more armor to choose from and a "rank"? Anyone else do the math and realize that more than half of the credits we'll need for inheritor must come exclusively from jackpots and completion bonuses since commendations will probably be maxed out? Dunno - not sure everything scales appropriately, though I will admire the system for its attempt, and I don't think simply putting in 1-50 ranks is any kind of fix...
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |