Delta V wrote on 12 Jul 2012 23:51
Experience points are, at this point, lazy (or counterproductive) design. I'd also be inclined to condemn most level, skill, and class systems to the same category. There are better ways to do player progression, without becoming trapped in the same mundane loop. XP encourages grinding (and robs actions such as exploration of some of their intrinsic value), levels subvert player skill (and too frequently lead to artificial gating or purpose-destroying scaling) and classes stifle playstyle experimentation (and generally drive me bonkers, really).
I despise how boring the early sections of most RPGs are, combat-wise, since you're too often not only weak, but have few real options. The skill tree takes time to fill out, your arsenal is pathetic, and in a lot of cases the things which make your chosen class fun are still out of reach. New-Game-Plus options relieve some of that early-going dullness, but if you want to try a different approach to the game, you're back at square one.
It's not that I'm entirely against the entire paradigm of progression and accumulation, but I think it needs an overhaul in RPGs. That same issue comes up in the free-to-play model, frankly - the unlocks you can either earn or pay for can't imbalance the rest of the game too much. The best systems of progress work in that fashion, I find; acquiring new options instead of clearly better options doesn't debase the player's start point. Accumulating "loyalty, loot, and backstory" (as FM5K said in the Win States thread) seems to me to be a much more naturalistic, organic method of marking a player's progress. It also allows for more to be put at risk, which increases the player's investment in more interesting ways.
XP and levels, though, seem like empty calories. Numbers go up (and so very rarely do they come back down). Enemies aren't smarter or faster, just higher-numbered. And activities like exploration get rewarded in obvious, unbalancing manners.
Is this just me? Am I being too picky?
Example #1 (with a bullet): At the beginning of ME1, Shepard (this highly-trained, decorated marine, mind you) can barely shoot straight with a pistol. I for one rejoiced when they took that element out of ME2.
I don't think you're being too picky and you make some good points. I know for myself it can be a bit annoying how weak the character is at the start of the game, but I usually just ignore it because that's just how games are you know? It also helps if the game is really good. :-)
But when you play a game like Arkham Asylum or City where you start out and you are Batman, and your ability in combat is limited only by your skill it is pretty cool. At first you stumble, but after you get the hang of it you feel pretty awesome.
Sure you can unlock moves and what not as the story progresses but I never felt limited in what I could do (aside from the obvious where you can't access an area without a certain gadget.)
One game that really annoyed me combat wise was Fable 3. In Fable 2 you reached a point where no one could touch you and really it did feel a bit bland after a while. But their way of addressing this in 3 seemed to be throwing more enemies at you.
The result being that I found myself constantly being knocked down by packs of Balverines after my character was supposed to be the most powerful person in this world. Maybe more challenging but not exactly more fun.
Since I was an old school Vanguard in ME1, I had that awesome aim-y pistol skill early on; and since I was, am, and will forever be terrible at FPSes, I didn't notice the inaccuracy the rest of the time. It was "aimy thing, adept power, adept power, maybe a few shotgun shots, aimy thing, repeat."
Most JRPGs, you start off with a limited action set that helps you comprehend the categories of actions. I actually like it that way, you just have to be very careful: add new abilities just as the player is starting to get really comfortable with the ones he's earned.
As for experience and levels in general, I dunno. I think all the problems you cite are problems with how developers use xp and levels, not problems with the system itself.
My favorite example of how levels can be used effectively is the DS-era castlevania games. In these games, you gain skills, weapons, and items from finding them around, or killing monsters who have them, but you also gain exp from killing these monsters and level up, increasing stats and health. These were actually the first Castlevanias I beat, and I was decent at them, but not great. I beat most bosses in 1-5 tries, but near the end of the game I finally happened upon a boss I couldn't beat after ten tries. So I went back and farmed a monster whose skill I still needed until I got the skill and gained a level. I went back and tried, died five more times, and went to level off another monster whose skill I hadn't gotten. The skills I was getting from these monsters weren't helping me beat the boss, but those marginal upgrades in stats and health made me feel like I was at least making progress, not beating my head up against the wall forever. Eventually I beat him, I don't know for sure how many tries it took, but when I did beat him I had only a tiny bit of health left… the maybe 5-10% health increase I'd gotten from those several levels did probably help me get through.
I like experience when it works that way, as sort of a gradient difficulty adjustor. Want to be super powerful? Grind. Want to progress without grinding? It's completely possible, but you have to be very strategic.
Quick comment on example #1: You're absolutely right; that is totally unrealistic. In that case, it was for the better they got rid of it in ME2. The XP system was calibrated for the 'humble origins' style of most RPGs, but the story didn't match.
One thing that might be worth keeping in mind is that there's frequently a trade-off between incorporating certain gameplay elements and realism, in ways you might not expect. For instance, the cover system, realistically considered, is completely ridiculous. There's no way Shepard or anyone can see over the cover without peaking his head out, and then position himself in exactly such a way that the moment he pops out, he'll have a shot lined up directly at someone's head. Platformers are similar: You're able to see enemies coming from behind you and jump over them even though your character doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. The only kind of game that gets around these implausibilities, as far as I can tell, are pure FPS-type games. But I don't find those games very fun, so I'm willing to deal with the implausibilities associated with cover, platforming, etc.
My attitude towards experience is similar: Even though XP systems can be pretty unrealistic, I just find that I don't enjoy most games which don't have any progression system. Games in which your character starts out basically as powerful as he or she is ever going to be are games which tend to equate skill with reflexes, hand-eye coordination, etc. After getting killed by those damn falcons in the old NES Ninja Gaiden games for the 1,000th time, I've decided those games probably aren't for me.
@CulturalGeekGirl
Also good points.
I do enjoy the more classic style XP systems like Fallout, as well as more focused ones like TES. And I also enjoy JRPGs like Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy (12 was OK, haven't played 13 yet), and Earthbound.
I suppose it is more games where it feels like you are intentionally made weak at the beginning that irks me. And also like in ME1 as Delta V mentioned, where your super soldier fumbles along. Or MGS where Snake does awesome things in cutscene and then not so much under my control.
If the game is presented in such a fashion that I feel like adequately challenged/powerful, it is usually pretty good.
One game that stands out for me is Earthbound, where you would first enter an area and usually were strong enough to hold your own, maybe a few tough fights. After a while you would do better, and after you beat the boss of the area usually enemies would run away from you, allowing you to gain a preemptive strike if you engaged them.
Eventually you would get to the point where you would encounter enemies in past areas that you would beat without actually going to the battle screen. A true testament to how powerful you had become.
Edit: @osbornep
Good points as well.
I will admit that I do like progressions systems, unlocking new abilities etc. As I said above, I think it's more where I feel like my character is intentionally made weak that it irks me.
Edit2: Although, that can sometimes be good too. Like encountering powerful enemy at the beginning and losing horribly, and then encountering it again later and beating it handily.
Really I have no idea what the ideal system is. I like many different games from many different categories and design styles. I guess if the game is fun and enjoyable to play that's the main thing?
Out of curiosity, what class did you start ME1 with, people who felt Shepard was weak at first? And how familiar were you with FPSes at the time?
I think that some of this may also be compounded by the weakness of non-biotic classes in ME1. Since the first two classes I played were Vanguard and Adept, I really never felt underpowered or weak… (though I initially HATED Kaidan. I didn't understand how to order characters very well, and Kaidan kept getting himself killed. He eated all my medpacks.)
It's hard to feel nerfed and weak when you're hurling fools around with your mind, is all I'm saying. And who aims Shotguns?
As you've mentioned, XP is really a holdover from pen and paper RPGs. In fact, most of the mechanics we have in RPGs are (under the hood) not much more complex than tabletop games.
And that is sad, given the massive computational capabilities available to us.
The tough part is always negotiating the gulf between player skill/character skill/player interest level. I think in a lot of ways, MMOs do this so poorly that it is properly equated with clocking in and entering the cubicle to bang out paperwork. This is the worst kind of grind, and yet players seem to think it is ultimately worth it (this is likely a side-effect of the time investment up to this point, and less about the gameplay).
Personally, I like the idea of systems that both reward player skill and compensate for player inability in other areas. To use Mass Effect as an example: Picture CGG's awesome idea of "Specter Academy". These characters are Specter candidates. They should already know more about warfare than any five of us players combined. They literally possess otherworldly combat capabilities. There may be five humans on Earth who can compare (and they likely aren't gamers). So: how do we get the player to reach a level where we are playing that comfortably?
Start with your class (we'll say for sake of character creation that we are going with Soldier to keep it simple). As a gun class, accuracy matters. Do you spec for rapid-fire weapons (more attempts to hit), close-range scatterguns (shotguns rarely miss, but in a universe without chest-high cover everywhere, getting to the target could be problematic), or do you take a blanket accuracy upgrade that allows for a degree of auto-aiming?
As you compete in training, you are becoming savvy about every race's methods of warfare, and getting a chance to play with everything. It is up to every race to explain and demonstrate their combat tactics, and at the end of a training session, the player has experienced the relevant game mechanics (Solarian STG: the player learned the hacking and bypass minigames, got experience with stealth missions and intelligence gathering), and then have the opportunity to add a single ability (drawn from a list of three), some of which compensate for poor player skills and others that allows a skilled player to have new capabilities. At this stage, knowing you stink at the hacking minigame, do you invest in an ability that increases the time you have to complete it? Or are you thinking longer-term and like that time slowing rapid-fire weapon ability? Meshes well with the prior assault rifle training…
So on and so forth. No need for "experience points" as the relevant perks are applied after being introduced to the core mechanics. This isn't done in a vaccuum either: It is clear by the mission briefings being given in simulations that you will have the opportunity to design your own operational plans (Rainbow Six style), and will have small groups at your disposal (ranging from Blackwatch to mercenaries or specialized non-combat teams).
Perhaps Drayfish, noticing the human's penchant for vehicular warfare decides to invest in Mako driving, gunnery and the ability to ram through walls (reinforced mass effect barrier). Now the only challenge is making sure that he has a pilot able to get his Mako into the right place, and a team ready to emerge from the vehicle to wreak havoc for those spaces he cannot wedge the vehicle into.
So, long story short, give the option of abilities related to improving player skill or character range of abilities, and allow these to be gained following relevant useage. After Drayfish's first epic Mako-mauling experience, he comes to find that everything is rosy until heretic Geth rocket troopers blow his ride in two. Choice: rely less on the Mako (SACRILEGE!), upgrade Mako anti-missile systems, additional troops working alongside for infantry suppression…
Just some thoughts. (Gotta go, maybe more on this later)
I can't talk about this now. I'm playing Borderlands. New Mordecai char … and …
OMG Why The Effin' Rifle Sway!?!? Why, Merciful Batman, Does My CrossHair Keep Moving So Much? Is Mordecai Drunk? Is he !@$% HIGH? It's not enough that what I'm shooting at is moving!? And I suck, Suck, Suck at shooters to begin with, my effin' holy hand-grenade of Antioch, why is a sniper so godawful bad at shooting things why won't their heads just disappear in a spray of blood and gore, why why why???
*clears throat* I … have to go now … I will come back to this when I get a decent gun, enough levels that the sniper rifle sway doesn't make me want to be very, very drunk in self-defense, and I have killed many dudes with my mad sniper skillz.
There was a little known *cough* game called System Shock 2 that had a great way to set this up, and I'd like to see more like it (like Seijin mentioned).
At the start, you picked from three different service branches: Marines ("Urgh! Gun good!"), Navy ("Hey, we're all-around useful sailors!") and OSA ("My mind powers will render your conventional force useless.")
After choosing, the player was given three tours of duty, each with three choices of station. Each station gave a quick recap of the adventures (or not) you had there, and what stats and skills were increased by that experience. Only the final tour, being stationed on the Rickenbacker, was pre-determined, and the game started you there. You still leveled up in the game, but you were given a certain level of professionalism *before* the shit hit the fan.
While the game does show its age, and not all stats/skills were created equal (Assault Rifle w/ Special Ammo > ALL HEAVY WEAPONS), it was a brilliant way to introduce a leveling player character who wasn't questionably shit at his/her chosen profession.
EDIT: Also, JBauck, if you ever get jones-ing for some Borderlands co-op, shoot me a line. I haven't played that game in forever, and I loved it! Can't wait for the sequel, and to try new Siren-sploitz. Also, can i has stick-figyur avater?
EDIT Numéro два: Delta, glad you liked the "loyalty, loot, and backstory" thing. If I were designing an RPG, I'd probably like to see a system where the NPCs had a scalar loyalty bar, which could be increased or decreased depending on your actions to/around them (and some things globally, to stop powergamers from prebuilding special parties for optimal choices, solely based on this mechanic), with solid "orders of magnitude" changes for special events (like loyalty quests, betrayals, accomplishing some life-goal for them, et cetera). Their abilities would hinge on this, instead of on XP, and the more loyal they were, the more abillities they would use (the harder they would fight). Global events could unlock skills, and paths, and loyalty category changes could open those, but the slider would determine how effective they were.
Similarly, "Backstory" would be used to navigate conversation challenges. Sure, you could ramp up diplomacy/intimidate, but it would be more effective (and sometime only possible) to unlock conversation options (and gameplay changes) by hearing/seeing codex events. Oh, you talked to this guy about a certain Mage having an addiction? Well, now you're talking to his boss, and you can use that leverage to change the flow of the game. In another instance, your "boss" might be giving you mission orders, but if you learned about the train shipments and a "special cargo", you could open a whole new approach to the mission.
Loot is… well… loot.
EDIT 0100: Building on that, perhaps the door to the hidden cellar couldn't be opened unless you 'heard about the cellar', or someone in your party had an ability to find it. Don't know it's there In Character? Sorry, you can't just click around to find it.
@CulturalGeekGirl
I played soldier, and while I was probably not what you'd call an expert FPS player, I was somewhat experienced. Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Halo 1&2. It probably didn't help that the shooter mechanics in ME1 did leave something to be desired. Even at level 60 it pretty much meant running into a room and holding down the trigger, with shouts of "Enemies Everywhere" all around.
@Seijin8
Sounds interesting, when can we expect this? :-)
@jbauck
Is it just me or is that dang bird useless?
Edit: @Fapmaster5000
That does sound like a pretty cool way of doing it.