Leveling Up and What I think about it - Games

Leveling Up. The term has become synonymous with RPGs and gaming in general, but why should a number determine how good (or bad) I am? In older video games they did seem to have a place. How is it hard to simply select the head of an enemy and have me attack it? Because we couldn't quite judge these things, we have random chance and experience points, a more rudimentary method when compared to a players quick thought-out input. What bothers me the most: Why should a person who has invested more hours (Whether hard or not) be better than another person? In some games they still do have a place, but I hate it when the mechanics leak into other genres that seemed to be fine without it. Whatever happened to natural progression and just getting better at something? I don't mind a little random chance here and there, as it can spice up the gameplay.

Leveling up basically means your character has gotten stronger. Its like saying that someone who works out should be equal to someone that eats and watches TV all day. [editline]26th October 2010[/editline] but level restricted items are pretty retarded

I believe the idea is that you're not getting better, your character is.

[QUOTE=Drasnus;25665734]I believe the idea is that you're not getting better, your character is.[/QUOTE] But what if I simply played it more than you, yet got better. I just did the same repetitive task more than you, so my character is better.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25665760]But what if I simply played it more than you, yet got better. I just did the same repetitive task more than you, so my character is better.[/QUOTE] It creates a feeling of progression, and like Drasnus said, showing your character is improving.

[QUOTE=Alvaldi;25665788]It creates a feeling of progression, and like Drasnus said, showing your character is improving.[/QUOTE] But since the player has gotten used to the mechanics of the game, should he not become better at it and by extension the character he plays as? [editline]26th October 2010[/editline] Character trait based stats like Strength and Speed I don't mind as much as shit like "SMALL GUNS" in Fallout 3. What's wrong with getting better equipment? [editline]26th October 2010[/editline] STALKER-like is what I'd love to see. The player must naturally get better to succeed, and part of getting better is finding and getting used to new equipment. The player gets good with his equipment and progresses through the game. Small, non-permanent items (artifacts) may help him along. Those items, like the equipment, are available with better and better traits as the player progresses.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25665801]But since the player has gotten used to the mechanics of the game, should he not become better at it and by extension the character he plays as? [editline]26th October 2010[/editline] Character trait based stats like Strength and Speed I don't mind as much as shit like "SMALL GUNS" in Fallout 3. What's wrong with getting better equipment?[/QUOTE] Some stats are ridiculous. Like going from unloading an entire clip into someones forehead, to only needing a single bullet in the foot to kill them. Games need to stop doing that, as it's annoying and I agree with you there. But physical character aspects like muscles, stamina, etc. and maybe a few mental aspects should definitely stay. [QUOTE=DDSNv2;25665718]but level restricted items are pretty retarded[/QUOTE] A lot of games use that ploy to a stupid degree. I think this should be changed to something like knowledge of how a weapon operates, along with constant use of the weapon would reduce recoil and improve things like reloading speeds. Or perhaps getting a "knowledge of the weapon", would simply raise your skill in that weapon to a certain base level if it isn't already there or beyond, because constant use of an unknown weapon would eventually make you better at it regardless of getting a beforehand knowledge, although it could cause dangerous results, like finding out for the first time that the blast radius of a rocket launcher or grenade is a lot bigger than you thought. Level systems being entirely retarded? No. Developers taking leveling systems to a retarded degree? Yes.

Level progression like the ones that are leaking into FPSes like Bad Company 2 and MW2 are fine, in my opinion. I would've stopped playing them long ago if I didn't have a goal, they're kind of like achievements except standardized. You're not just playing to kick ass and get the top of the scoreboard, you're playing also for that kickass new emblem or that new gun. It's a bit annoying when everybody else has better guns and equipment than you but I personally get a rush from gaining levels and unlocking new stuff, so I like it.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;25666086] A lot of games use that ploy to a stupid degree. I think this should be changed to something like knowledge of how a weapon operates, along with constant use of the weapon would reduce recoil and improve things like reloading speeds. Level systems being entirely retarded? No. Developers taking leveling systems to a retarded degree? Yes.[/QUOTE] Agreed. I just hate when my ability is too heavily augmented by some number. [editline]26th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=lorden;25666098]Level progression like the ones that are leaking into FPSes like Bad Company 2 and MW2 are fine, in my opinion. I would've stopped playing them long ago if I didn't have a goal, they're kind of like achievements except standardized. You're not just playing to kick ass and get the top of the scoreboard, you're playing also for that kickass new emblem or that new gun. It's a bit annoying when everybody else has better guns and equipment than you but I personally get a rush from gaining levels and unlocking new stuff, so I like it.[/QUOTE] And in this case it's mostly better equipment and small upgrades that disable you from picking others in the same category. Atleast it's trying to find a balance and not all about pure invested time.

You should play Global Agenda I think you'd love it!

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25665642]Leveling Up. The term has become synonymous with RPGs and gaming in general, but why should a number determine how good (or bad) I am? In older video games they did seem to have a place. How is it hard to simply select the head of an enemy and have me attack it? Because we couldn't quite judge these things, we have random chance and experience points, a more rudimentary method when compared to a players quick thought-out input. What bothers me the most: Why should a person who has invested more hours (Whether hard or not) be better than another person? In some games they still do have a place, but I hate it when the mechanics leak into other genres that seemed to be fine without it. Whatever happened to natural progression and just getting better at something? I don't mind a little random chance here and there, as it can spice up the gameplay.[/QUOTE] XP exists in RPGs because it is an effective way of measuring how much your character has progressed with regards to skills and the like, in a way that makes sense and can be easily interpreted by you and the computer. And, as the elder scrolls' weird levelling system has taught us it's probably the best way to deal with that kind of shit. I do, however, think that all this shit is kinda out of place in the context of shooters, though.

i liked oblivion's system, where you got better at skills by using them

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25665801]But since the player has gotten used to the mechanics of the game, should he not become better at it and by extension the character he plays as? [editline]26th October 2010[/editline] Character trait based stats like Strength and Speed I don't mind as much as shit like "SMALL GUNS" in Fallout 3. What's wrong with getting better equipment? [editline]26th October 2010[/editline] STALKER-like is what I'd love to see. The player must naturally get better to succeed, and part of getting better is finding and getting used to new equipment. The player gets good with his equipment and progresses through the game. Small, non-permanent items (artifacts) may help him along. Those items, like the equipment, are available with better and better traits as the player progresses.[/QUOTE] STALKER is not an RPG. Stalker is... well, it's quite unique, but it's primarily a shooter.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;25666237]STALKER is not an RPG. Stalker is... well, it's quite unique, but it's primarily a shooter.[/QUOTE] But in it the RPG elements don't seep over to where they shouldn't. RPG elements in heavy RPG games, games where you tell the character what to do instead of directly controlling him in combat (Pokemon, Final Fantasy), are fine. They work because the entire genre is about time investment and sometimes team management. But in games where the player has much greater control and finesse, I don't like many RPG elements in it.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25665760]But what if I simply played it more than you, yet got better. I just did the same repetitive task more than you, so my character is better.[/QUOTE] Your character has progressed more, and is therefore more able to take on the challenges of later in the game. Increasing the stats of the character as time goes on is a good way to ease them into the game and introduce new items/enemies. Regardless of your skill, if you try to take on a deathclaw in Fallout: New Vegas at Level 1 you're gonna get raped. And if you found a gun with an enourmous amount of damage in borderlands at level 1, and there were no level restrictions, the rest of the game would become piss easy. Not to mention the addictive quality of unlocking new skills and finding new equipment. [editline]27th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25666337] RPG elements in heavy RPG games, games where you tell the character what to do instead of directly controlling him in combat (Pokemon, Final Fantasy), are fine. They work because the entire genre is about time investment and sometimes team management. But in games where the player has much greater control and finesse, I don't want too many RPG elements in it.[/QUOTE] In games like Call of Duty, I can see where you're coming from. In games like Mass Effect, no. Also, I loved how you used Pokemon and Final Fantasy as shining examples of traditional singleplayer RPGs. Had a hearty chuckle at that.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;25666341]Your character has progressed more, and is therefore more able to take on the challenges of later in the game. Increasing the stats of the character as time goes on is a good way to ease them into the game and introduce new items/enemies. Regardless of your skill, if you try to take on a deathclaw in Fallout: New Vegas at Level 1 you're gonna get raped. And if you found a gun with an enourmous amount of damage in borderlands at level 1, and there were no level restrictions, the rest of the game would become piss easy. Not to mention the addictive quality of unlocking new skills and finding new equipment.[/QUOTE] There's no reason why such a gun couldn't have been found LATER in the game, except for the open-worldedness of it all, but it'd work if you just made the baseline of weapons based on where the player has been or what he has accomplished.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25665760]But what if I simply played it more than you, yet got better. I just did the same repetitive task more than you, so my character is better.[/QUOTE] Also, no-one's encouraging grinding here. It's the worst part of any game and is one of the many reasons why I hate MMOs.

OP I think you're just not an RPG person, you're basically saying you don't like every aspect of RPG games.

To me level restricted weapons are fine as long as they are balanced. It's not fair to have the level 50 guys have a machine gun equivalent to a cannon while you have a rifle that takes longer to kill than a standard pistol. As long as balance remains I'm ok with it.

Nowadays I think it's just the addictive quality of it. Not because they HAVE to, but because they want to. Some people feel they are entitled to something for playing a game otherthan than a good time. I can't tell you the number of times I've been sucked into some RPG only to find out how boring it is once the leveling has stopped. They've spoiled me and many others, to a degree. Granted, they were mostly hybrid RPG's.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25666409]There's no reason why such a gun couldn't have been found LATER in the game, except for the open-worldedness of it all, but it'd work if you just made the baseline of weapons based on where the player has been or what he has accomplished.[/QUOTE] With regards to games like Fallout 3/New Vegas/Oblivion, 'Later in the game' is often synonymous with 'Higher level'. By the time you've reached the endgame, you'll be a higher level and the enemies and equipment you encounter will be a higher level too. And if you wanted to just fuck off and complete sidequests, then that would be fine too, the game world would level with you in the same way.

[QUOTE=OutOfExile2;25666451]OP I think you're just not an RPG person, you're basically saying you don't like every aspect of RPG games.[/QUOTE] I don't mind little bits of it. However, when it heavily augments a players actual ability, I don't enjoy it.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25666548]I don't mind little bits of it. However, when it heavily augments a players actual ability, I don't enjoy it.[/QUOTE] Well then you only like RPG elements, not core RPGs. RPGs are more strategy games than they are skill based and the only way your character gets better is by leveling up and increasing stats, or getting weapons with better stats.

[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;25666509]With regards to games like Fallout 3/New Vegas/Oblivion, 'Later in the game' is often synonymous with 'Higher level'. By the time you've reached the endgame, you'll be a higher level and the enemies and equipment you encounter will be a higher level too. And if you wanted to just fuck off and complete sidequests, then that would be fine too, the game world would level with you in the same way.[/QUOTE] In reference to open-world games, "Later in the Game" would be the player going a little too far out of bounds and reaching a point where his current skill and equipment could no longer handle the challenges there.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25666453]Nowadays I think it's just the addictive quality of it. Not because they HAVE to, but because they want to. Some people feel they are entitled to something for playing a game otherthan than a good time. I can't tell you the number of times I've been sucked into some RPG only to find out how boring it is once the leveling has stopped. They've spoiled me and many others, to a degree. Granted, they were mostly hybrid RPG's.[/QUOTE] That's the same catch with achievements. I like the addictive element of an RPG. The fact that spending time directly correlates with character development sucks me in. I want to make the strongest most badass motherfucker on the planet. Which is why I go through every quest, and grind as much as possible. Not a single bit of experience shall be wasted. Which is why Oblivion pissed me off so much. There wasn't that much empowerment since everything leveled with you. Somehow I can't stand grinding in MMOs. I'll grind for ages in a singleplayer RPG.

[QUOTE=OutOfExile2;25666587]Well then you only like RPG elements, not core RPGs. RPGs are more strategy games than they are skill based and the only way your character gets better is by leveling up and increasing stats, or getting weapons with better stats.[/QUOTE] You'd be correct. It seems I only like elements of it.

Personally, I just love leveling up. I find lots of satisfaction in it. I don't find it fun if it becomes 1 hit kill god mode, but lots of small upgrades are welcome in any single player game. Even in Killing Floor, where you could get big upgrades in multiplayer, I still found levels fun. Leveling up also becomes an alternative way to beat levels or portions of a game you are stuck on. If you keep trying and cannot beat it, come back later and try again when your character is better.

[QUOTE=SomeFaggot;25666453]Nowadays I think it's just the addictive quality of it. Not because they HAVE to, but because they want to. Some people feel they are entitled to something for playing a game otherthan than a good time. I can't tell you the number of times I've been sucked into some RPG only to find out how boring it is once the leveling has stopped. They've spoiled me and many others, to a degree. Granted, they were mostly hybrid RPG's.[/QUOTE] You have MMOs, which have almost no story. They exist for the levelling, and the whole objective of the game is to level up. That is bad. You have traditional Singleplayer RPGs like Dragon age, which traditionally have a very good story, a robust levelling system, and combat based entirely on your skills. THe game is generally evenly split between the story and the skill based combat. This is good, if done right. You have action RPGs like Fallout 3, where the combat is more dependent on player input, but there are still RPG elements which determine your character effectiveness with speech, weapons, bartering etc. This is good, but the balance between shooting and RPG elements needs to be right otherwise you end up with something like Alpha Protocol's combat. And you finally have shooters with RPG elements like Bioshock (Maybe, though it isn't multiplayer), Bad Company 2, Call of Duty, etc. The unlocks exist to provide an addictive edge to keep people playing, not to make some characters more powerful than others. If some weapons are undisputedly more powerful than others, then that is just a sign of poor balance. These can't really be classed as RPGs, they just use the XP system to provide a sense of progression.

[QUOTE=GrassyBat;25666683]Personally, I just love leveling up. I find lots of satisfaction in it. I don't find it fun if it becomes 1 hit kill god mode, but lots of small upgrades are welcome in any single player game. Even in Killing Floor, where you could get big upgrades in multiplayer, I still found levels fun. Leveling up also becomes an alternative way to beat levels or portions of a game you are stuck on. If you keep trying and cannot beat it, come back later and try again when your character is better.[/QUOTE] And in the case of Killing Floor, leveling up didn't mean too much if you and your team didn't stick together. Thread title should be, "RPG Elements in Non-RPGs and What I Think about them"

Wait, are you complaining about Fallout 3 because it's an RPG/FPS hybrid instead of a full FPS? Don't make me use one of those "The point" diagrams.