One of the many problems with service games is that their economic demands can often conflict with the principles of good game design. Gamesindustry.biz portal speakwhy Destiny 2 is currently a clear example of this and whether there are any exceptions to this pattern.
Discussions about how business models sometimes conflict with game design principles have flared up again amid the sad news about Destiny 2. Bungie has been going through a difficult period in its history for a long time, but now the studio's main IP is under threat – it is rapidly losing players.
While there are no statistics for consoles, on Steam online Destiny 2 has set a record for opposition, falling below early 2018 levels, when users were disappointed with the release of the game and its first add-on, Curse of Osiris.
There are many reasons for player churn – any forum post provides a long list of issues and questionable decisions made by Bungie, including some truly bizarre ones. For example, the complete removal of old content (making it difficult for new players to familiarize themselves with the plot) and the devaluation of any activities other than those related to progression.
A significant proportion of player complaints have been heard for quite some time, and in itself it does not explain why the project began to lose such an active audience. But there's another important factor – Destiny 2 is essentially over.
The history of Destiny 2 stretches back to the days of the original game: the plot of the confrontation between light and darkness was developed for more than 10 years, receiving a cinematic conclusion in the supplement “Final Form”. Most of the plot threads woven into the story since 2014 have ended safely.
For many players, Destiny 2's climax is a highly anticipated event. The new threads Bungie introduced into the narrative that sought to continue the story 10 years after the conclusion of the storyline did not receive the same positive response from players. Fans completed Endgame, witnessed the end of the story they had been attached to for 10 years, and abandoned Destiny 2 for good.
For most games, such an outcome would be great – every self-respecting screenwriter and developer wants the story to have a decent ending. But in the case of live ceremonies, such a climax is like a time bomb, and now we see what it can lead to.
It is these conflicts that some players fear when it comes to games created using the free live service model. Any manager or other decision-maker at a gaming company will look at Destiny 2 and learn just one lesson from this situation – that live services will never receive a satisfactory ending. Every ending must be a deciding factor, every answer must raise three new questions. Not a single plot thread can be concluded.
Of course, while the industry knows gaming examples it is still possible to find a balance between storytelling and live service features. For example, the story of Final Fantasy
Genshin Impact is another project where the development of the plot and lore attracts the attention of many players, and it also follows a similar structure. Each main act tells a more or less independent story about the state in which the main character finds himself, while also developing the backstory.
Destiny 2 has a similar concept: large expansions are used to tell somewhat self-contained stories. The problem is that the writers have pushed themselves into a dead end – sooner or later, the background details of the story need to be brought to the forefront lest they be forgotten. FF XIV and Genshin Impact have yet to reach this level; It is too early to judge whether they can solve this problem. Many live services simply don't last long enough for their story to reach its climax, so finding positive examples isn't easy.
This situation is not unique to games. Commercial success stretched many series to the point of no return, in addition, the writers were forced to invent new problems for characters who had long completed their arcs. But Destiny 2 is one of the most glaringly negative examples of how narrative design can conflict with a game's economic model. And since there are more and more similar game services every year, such problems will start to arise more often.
