RPG-ification in games

[RockyRan]

(I might expand this to an op-ed piece on PXoD, but for now I want to get you guys' thoughts on the matter)

 

It seems that as years pass, basic RPG concepts seem to be shoehorned into more and more games. It's getting to the point where every single developer who wants to have a meaningful sense of progression in their game thinks they need to shoehorn RPG elements into their game.

 

How many times do we have to hear this line in a review?

As you complete parts of the game, you gain [skill/experience/buff/whatever] points, which you use in a [insert game's theme here] shop to buy upgrades, weapons and skills.

 

This line pops up everywhere. Obviously in RPGs, but also shooters, racing, even sports games.

 

There seems to be this stagnation in the concept of game progression. Game developers, IMO, have started to rely a wee bit too much on things like experience points, leveling up, skill trees, item buffs, etc., in order to give off this illusion of the protagonist getting stronger. Everything always falls back on some universal currency, where you purchase abilities, etc., using this currency.

 

There are many ways as to why this kind of progression is simply lazy design. By implementing cash shops the developers really don't have to concern themselves with the actual pacing of these upgrades. Think, for instance, which is easier: you're playing Banjo-Kazooie, and instead of finding Bottles and having him give you a specific upgrade in a specific location, these upgrades are rather all thrown into a gigantic skill tree list. You gain "experience" by killing enemies and getting Jiggies, then you spend these points into the skills. The way Rare originally did it actually took more effort, because they had to take into account the location of where this skill was to be found, how long the previous skill was found so as to not bombard the player with new mechanics, making sure it can be acquired at the time they wanted, design further levels around this skill around it but make sure the previous levels don't make said skill absolutely necessary, etc. In short, it's quite the job to implement this skill in a natural, organic way. Doing it the "new" way, however, the developer doesn't have to think of any of this. Simply have the player get more and more experience and, ultimately, the burden of progression is left up to the player.

 

The same applies to level design, because rather than physically cutting off a player from entering an area based on a lack of skill or abilities, they simply use generic stat-based systems to accomplish the same thing. In games like Super Metroid, area accessibility had to be controlled via organic obstacles that prevented the player from accessing an area until a specific point was reached, and that point was determined by the careful placement of an upgrade in a specific place. But rather than doing this, a lot of games simply keep the player off an area by playing "the numbers game". Their stats numbers don't match yours? Too bad, you're gonna get killed in one hit. The problem with this approach is that it's completely inorganic. Most of the time, in games like Borderlands, enemies of different levels get organized into completely arbitrary areas, placed for no reason other than to control where the player goes. Enemies in some areas are ridiculously stronger for absolutely no reason. It's neither organic nor physical, it's just enemies being arbitrarily stronger in one corner of the map. Which is easier? The Super Metroid approach, which requires really complex planning of level design and pacing, or the Borderlands approach, which requires fuck all other than spawning a bunch of high-level enemies in a nondescript area that you don't want the player to visit just yet? Obviously the latter.

 

Not to mention the fact that the sense of progression is completely neutered under the "Let's PRG-ify everything" approach. Again bringing up Super Metroid, there are absolutely no stats to speak of. You never find "shield buffs" or "+ attack boosters" or any other items that are, quite honestly, meaningless. You find Super Missiles, morph bombs, the Screw Attack, etc. You find completely new abilities, like the Gravity Suit, rather than getting an esoteric, stat-based upgrade that has no visible change. Again, which is easier? The Super Metroid approach, or the "let's hide stat boosters everywhere" approach? Obviously the latter. With Super Metroid, you get stronger by having more abilities, by being able to open all kinds of doors or navigating some difficult morph ball maze. In other games, you get stronger by "leveling up" and just doing more damage.

 

All in all, I think games that aren't RPGs need to move away from RPG elements. For the longest time I thought these elements added to the depth of a game until I realized it was only being done to REMOVE depth from a game and let developers be lazier at level design, pacing, and delivering a good sense of progression. I find it increasingly difficult to find games that don't continuously throw numbers at you "YOU GAINED ___ EXP!!! YOU LEVELD UP!!!!!" to give you a false sense of progression, and rather than scattering and controlling unique abilities you're instead given everything in a gigantic laundry list and being told to exchange your Space Bucks for those. And rather than having the game itself dictate the pacing, all progression is instead relayed to the game's universal EXP/Level curve. Let's just go back to games that don't think that throwing numbers at you means you're getting stronger.

 

Thoughts? Comments? Death threats?

Edited September 18, 2011 by RockyRan

[Mister Jack]

Too distracted to do a wall of text, so the short answer is that I like games that do it both ways such as God of War and Arkham Asylum.

[Hot Heart]

Hey, buddy, you're steppin' on my toes!

 

I don't know if you look at the PXOD GDocs but there's a thing up there I've been working on. I was getting a bit sick of upgrades too.

 

My old thread from before: http://forum.pressxo...075

Edited September 18, 2011 by Hot Heart

[DocSeuss]

I am in pain. This might not make sense.

 

The mechanics are more visibly involved ("I performed X action and got immediate Y result"), so people tend to think they're "smarter." What I mean is... well, most people seem to think that RPGs are the smartest genre out there. Mass Effect 2, which is a piss-poor third person shooter, was hailed as one of last year's greatest games, as if it was somehow so much smarter than, say, Gears of War. It really isn't. In terms of game design, it screws up all over the place, the writing (in terms of lack of character development, lack of plot, terrible pacing) is pretty sub-par, and the gameplay is... fluid but weak.

 

With RPG skills and a conversation system, however, it's considered the greatest RPG of all time, not only according to people who like hyperbole, but also according to Metacritic.

 

On one hand, I like it. It adds a layer of gameplay that wasn't there previously. If Mass Effect 2 was just a TPS, you'd pick up guns through the various maps as you go along, or maybe have a R6V2 style loadout system. With an RPG, you can add skills to certain things. Fear 3 lets you increase the time you spend in bullet time as a reward for doing various things in-game, which is quite clever, and arguably more effective as a training mechanic than Valve's "give achievements that help the player be better at the game" thing they tried for Left 4 Dead.

 

Personally, for a shooter, I prefer System Shock 2's way of doing things. You upgrade by finding chips throughout the world that enable you to do so, and/or receive them as a reward for completing missions. Another preference is to earn cash to buy things, a la STALKER: Clear Sky/Call of Pripyat. If you do mission X, you get Y rubles, which can be used to purchase health or guns or upgrades or whateer. I think in that way, STALKER's a better RPG than most, because it removes vestigial tabletop gaming elements ("because the DM can't effectively calculate bullet drop or whether an enemy turns invisible and runs away, it must be judged by turn-based dice rolls") while keeping the core ideas of character improvement and choice within a game world. It's got quests and multiple outcomes... honestly, it does everything an RPG ought to without being overtly RPG.

 

Where was I going with this?

 

Hm. People are weak to instant gratification and as a result tend to think it's smarter, which is why so many crappy RPGs seem to get a free pass. They're a part of a genre that gets loved and allow a sort of immediate freedom. And maybe, in some cases, it is smarter (like System Shock 2 and STALKER). However, I don't think it necessarily hurts games we wouldn't consider RPGs, though you do have a good point about Banjo-Kazooie.

 

Ultimately, I think people have implemented it because they want a deeper interaction with the game. Hard Reset lets you choose which guns you want as you progress, rather than depending on which guns the designers have for you. People like being able to pick which skills or items they get rather than progress slowly through the game and get whatever the developer feels they ought to get.

 

Man, I'm hurting bad and probably incoherent. I think I'm going to go lie down.

[GunFlame]

To be honest, I'd be happy to remove the tag 'RPG' from games entirely. Not because I am sick of it, but because all games are RPG's. They all allow you to play a different role; a sports game, racing game, shooting game, fighting game. You can deepen that role more by creating an fictional back story. I will play Tekken and feel like I am Kazuya Mishima. So, for starters, I think that needs to be cleared up. But it's not exactly in line with the question.

 

What you are asking, is really if Character Progression is a substitute for Level Design.

 

Let's take Level Design for one a moment. With the games that have been released this gen, we have seen the 'Sandbox' genre grow more and more. With this growth, we have also seen the complaint of Linearity. So, is Character Progression what we have to accept if we want less linear experiences? At the moment, it is.

 

Banjo Kazooie, Tooie, Metroid are games with great Level Design, but they are incredibly linear. Yeah, Metroid is incredibly linear. Although I can wander around, there is always only one way forward. It's like playing Mario and walking around a level for 2-3 hours (if there wasn't a time limit). Regardless of how long I stay, there is still only one exit.

 

Character Progression creates an illusion of freedom, the player can dictate an area of the game. Regardless of what we might think, if a game has a story, it is linear if you want to follow that story. You can only do what you are allowed to do. Character Progression allows you to tailor the experience for yourself. You have an area of the game that is yours to control. You play Banjo, and you control nothing. You just follow the path that is in front of you.

 

As we have progressed in gaming, we have desired more and more freedom. Until games can be programmed with very advanced AI, the most freedom that we will get, is tailoring the character you play as.

 

There are some games that want to be linear, and offer nothing more than an specific experience of play. They are happy with what they provide. But that is one that can only be experienced in a single way. There are other reasons from Character Progression as a mechanic, it allows a reward and goal. It's a quick cycle of satisfaction. We all love leveling up!

 

But, we have room for those games don't we? I mean, if we have games that have Character Progression and games that have strong Level Design, then it's win-win!

Edited September 19, 2011 by GunFlame

[Johnny]

@GunFlame: I find that, because all games are interactive, even in the most linear games people will manage to find their own playstyle and stick with it wether it's effective or not. No game is truly able to be only experienced one way.

[GunFlame]

@Johnny: I'm talking more about the experience provided rather than the experience that the player has. We are all provided with the same package when we boot up a game, but I agree that each players individual experience is something else.

 

Maybe that's something for a separate topic. But it that aspect, the individual experience is the crux of gaming.

[FMW]

@GunFlame - I think you have a really smart way of framing this, but your example is a bit iffy. Metroid actually isn't linear, it's possible to find alternate passages through the worlds that let you skip massive chunks of the game (and the corresponding upgrades!). Metroid Zero mission probably had the best "sequence breaking", but it's also in Metroids I, II, and III. If we change your example to post SotN Castlevania then I'm totally with you.

 

@RockyRan - Instant gratification is where the money's at dude, and level ups provide that. Think about achievements, isn't this type of progression built into the very video game hardware of this generation? I don't even think that it's necessarily bad to have this kind of progression in a non-RPG, you can get into a very fun progression spiral even in driving games. Blur did this well, and Jerry wrote a very relevant post about it:

 

http://penny-arcade.com/2010/03/12

[Vargras]

The mechanics are more visibly involved ("I performed X action and got immediate Y result"), so people tend to think they're "smarter." What I mean is... well, most people seem to think that RPGs are the smartest genre out there. Mass Effect 2, which is a piss-poor third person shooter, was hailed as one of last year's greatest games, as if it was somehow so much smarter than, say, Gears of War. It really isn't. In terms of game design, it screws up all over the place, the writing (in terms of lack of character development, lack of plot, terrible pacing) is pretty sub-par, and the gameplay is... fluid but weak.

 

Gears might be the better shooter, but don't even say it had the better story. Some of the characters were much better written than the others, with Jacob being a glaring example of just how bland the writing can be. The writing may have been shoddy in some places, but overall, I still highly enjoyed it and thought it was worth the time invested.

 

"Greatest RPG of all time" is an opinion. Not everyone will agree with it. Some people may feel, for example, that Half-Life is the greatest game of all time. Others may disagree and think Halo is the greatest game of all time. At the end of the day, neither of them are wrong, because neither side sees themselves as being "incorrect".

 

Back on topic, games keep getting "RPG-ified" because the leveling aspect of things creates a time sink and a bit of an incentive to keep playing.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Vargras

[DocSeuss]

To be honest, I'd be happy to remove the tag 'RPG' from games entirely. Not because I am sick of it, but because all games are RPG's. They all allow you to play a different role; a sports game, racing game, shooting game, fighting game. You can deepen that role more by creating an fictional back story. I will play Tekken and feel like I am Kazuya Mishima. So, for starters, I think that needs to be cleared up. But it's not exactly in line with the question.

 

Well, it depends. In Japanese games and some Western games, it's more likely that you play the game in a... (people are going to interpret this the wrong way) board game sort of way. You're less likely to actually be immersed within the game. This is part of the reason that you don't see Japan developing games like Deus Ex or Fallout 3. There's a mindset prevalent in Japanese game design that is more akin to the mindset present in older Western design (adventure games, RTS, etc), this idea of, like... playing the game like a game, rather than using the game to be in another world. I'm less likely to feel I'm playing a role in Civilization IV and Sim City, more likely in Homeworld 2 and World in Conflict, even more likely in Red Dead Redemption or Gears of War, and, at its peak, I'm totally immersed in the living, breathing world of an immersive sim. That's where I'm totally playing the role, because it's the closest to being inside the experience that gaming can provide.

 

Obviously this is different for some people; they can somehow bypass the weird "well, if I'm this guy, how am I seeing my body and how is he not a marionette?" aspect of third person games, like most RPGs and still be immersed in it and really feel attached to the role. Others can do it with turn-based games. Generally, though, using elements of human interaction, especially eye contact (in a Bioware game, people look at the main character like a really bad movie; in Deus Ex, people look at you), allows you to immerse yourself into a role.

 

Where was I going with that? Iunno.

 

Anyways, then there's the idea of really playing roles. I think you're confusing the core concept of playing a role with... like... playing a role. The RPG is about inhabiting that guy, which is why games like The Witcher are so divisive. Some people can get into the role and others say "he doesn't look like I want him to look," and back out of it. The ideal RPG is one that allows us to inhabit the role of a character. An actor in a movie is acting out a predefined script. A roleplayer is a player who is free to act as they see fit within a given fictional scenario. You could say that improv actors are roleplayers, in a way.

 

What that means is that Dead Space 2 is not an RPG while The Witcher 2 is. The RPG is, at its core, all about the choices you have to define your character. Any game that doesn't do this is not really an RPG, and is really just game with a stat system. Honestly, I'd say most JRPGs, like Earthbound, are adventure games with stat systems, rather than RPGs.

 

Unfortunately, that will get my head bit off because JRPG fans have lived with that term for so long and built up the word RPG into a sort of holy grail thing that cannot be touched. If you call their genre by another name, to them it seems to feel like an insult--like you're saying they're less than the RPG, or not worth, rather than just different.

 

Also, I am Heihachi, and you must die.

 

Let's take Level Design for one a moment. With the games that have been released this gen, we have seen the 'Sandbox' genre grow more and more. With this growth, we have also seen the complaint of Linearity. So, is Character Progression what we have to accept if we want less linear experiences? At the moment, it is.

 

Banjo Kazooie, Tooie, Metroid are games with great Level Design, but they are incredibly linear. Yeah, Metroid is incredibly linear. Although I can wander around, there is always only one way forward. It's like playing Mario and walking around a level for 2-3 hours (if there wasn't a time limit). Regardless of how long I stay, there is still only one exit.

 

Wow, that's a reall good point and I hadn't thought about it like that before. At first I was going to disagree, but you're right, it really does go through logical linear progression, even if you have some freedom within that linearity. But... I'm not sure. I'm playing Conker right now, and I can go back to the arena where the bull is if I want, for instance, so by definition, it's nonlinear, but unlike most nonlinear games, once I've beaten it, there's really nothing for me any more.

 

What do you think about games like Red Dead Redemption? They open up more areas to you but are fundamentaly non-linear in terms of world design.

 

Character Progression creates an illusion of freedom, the player can dictate an area of the game. Regardless of what we might think, if a game has a story, it is linear if you want to follow that story. You can only do what you are allowed to do. Character Progression allows you to tailor the experience for yourself. You have an area of the game that is yours to control. You play Banjo, and you control nothing. You just follow the path that is in front of you.

 

Two things: first, why do you call that an illusion of freedom? How is it not freedom?

 

Second: Couldn't we agree that we are not talking about literal linearity? GTAIV lets you traverse its world however you see fit, even if its story or character progression is linear.

 

I would suggest that linear and non-linear games are defined not by their story or by their character progression or whatever, but by maps. A linear game drives you forward through a map. You go from map A to map B to map C to map D. Half-Life 2 may let you wander around the maps some, as will Bioshock, but ultimately, they're linear games. Meanwhile, games like Saint's Row 2 say "here is the map! Go wherever!" and the story sends you around the map, rather than from map A to map B to map C to map D.

 

It's not a totally literal definition of linearity, but once choice is factored into the mix, you've kind of lost any sort of linearity, and all games are reliant on choices, so we can't go with an entirely literal definition.

 

As we have progressed in gaming, we have desired more and more freedom. Until games can be programmed with very advanced AI, the most freedom that we will get, is tailoring the character you play as.

 

And, I would suggest, affecting the world around you. If you capture a certain character in The Witcher 2, a much different scenario plays out than if you don't.

 

There are some games that want to be linear, and offer nothing more than an specific experience of play. They are happy with what they provide. But that is one that can only be experienced in a single way. There are other reasons from Character Progression as a mechanic, it allows a reward and goal. It's a quick cycle of satisfaction. We all love leveling up!

 

But, we have room for those games don't we? I mean, if we have games that have Character Progression and games that have strong Level Design, then it's win-win!

 

Yup. Ideally, we should have both. Even better, we should have both in the same game!

-----

 

Gears might be the better shooter, but don't even say it had the better story. Some of the characters were much better written than the others, with Jacob being a glaring example of just how bland the writing can be. The writing may have been shoddy in some places, but overall, I still highly enjoyed it and thought it was worth the time invested.

 

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but there are, in fact, rules for good writing, and when followed, they allow great stories to be told.

 

Gears of War is not a great story; it's pretty bland, though it tries hard. Gears of War 2 is a good story, but not a great one. It is, however, vastly than Mass Effect 2, which is godawful, even if you did like how some of the characters were written (and for that matter, I liked how some of the characters were written! Characters alone do not a story make!), and I'll write about it at some point.

 

Back on topic, games keep getting "RPG-ified" because the leveling aspect of things creates a time sink and a bit of an incentive to keep playing.

 

While I'm sure this is true to a degree (especially in multiplayer games), I'd suggest that some game designers do this because they honestly do want to add more to the gaming experience. As GunFlame points out, it's more conducive to a non-linear experience in terms of character progression (Red Dead Redemption essentially offers XP in terms of money which you can then use to buy better guns and equipment, which, given their drastic differences and the way the player users them to interact with the world, are effectively skills in-game) than shaping the levels and level progression in a way that the character

 

Also regarding multiplayer games: people just will not buy multiplayer combat games without unlocks these days.

[Vargras]

Also regarding multiplayer games: people just will not buy multiplayer combat games without unlocks these days.

 

Does Counter-Strike count as having unlocks?

[DocSeuss]

I'd call 'em unlocks. A different style certainly, but unlocks nontheless.

[excel_excel]

Great piece, surprised you didn't bring up Dead Island, that seems to be exactly the kind of thing that this would apply to. I think the 'levelling up skills' and characters has its place in some games and not in others. Bringing up Super Metroid, its also something that has stayed through out the series. Games like Ninja Gaiden or God of War, they are so linear, they can't really do the finding weapons and skills, so they have to provide some incentive for your characters progression, some way that makes you notice how your character is growing while your playing.

 

Trying to think of games here that don't need the RPG style skills......I think Demon's Souls doesn't. In fact to me, I think having a 'level' in that game takes away from the fact that its so supposedly skill based. buying weapons, magic with souls that's fine. But having a level, upgrading your stamina and HP? I didn't understand the need for that in it. To me, if your basing a game on being that demanding and unforgiving, you shouldn't have the need for levelling up stats. Its supposed to be about learning where you went wrong, and punishing you for rushing in, yet there's an arbitrary number on your stats.

[Yantelope]

Really what unlocks and level ups do for gamers is provide a sense of reward. It's the same reason why people hunt achievements. A game is more enjoyable if it is constantly rewarding you in little ways rather than only rewarding you for a final completion. For this reason game developers figured out that hiding level up and power ups and unlocks and such things across games tends to make them better reviewed. It's also what they figued out in online shooters. It's more rewarding to play online if you're working toward a new gun or hat rather than to just play for the fun of playing. Rewarding players is a big deal and developers have really zeroed in on that.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Yantelope

[Thursday Next]

Pretty much agree with Yante. Games are goal oriented. Get a high score, get to the end of the level, save the girl, etc. If you can add smaller goals along the way you sustain the players interest. Being rewarded is great, having an achievable reward just around the corner is even better. I can't count the number of times I've played one more round to get the last 500, 1,000, 100,000 exp needed to get the next upgrade, unlock or what have you.

[Pojodin]

On the contrary, I think more games could use RPG elements.
/Oldest joke in the book. XD Edited September 19, 2011 by Pojodin

[RockyRan]

I disagree with the idea that games can only be truly rewarding if we turn them into number games and grinding. In fact, I'm of the idea that it's the exact opposite.

 

I've never really made that connection between "numbers game = instant gratification". I'd wager it actually goes the other way. For me, a game that truly hooks me in has new mechanics and items sprinkled throughout its experience, hidden in alcoves, offered as rewards for missions, etc. I rarely do a mission if all I get is extra XP and/or cash.

 

One of the reasons I disliked exploring in recent Zelda games like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess was because exploring caves and other side areas always resulted in the same two rewards: rupees or heart pieces. Yes, yes, "instant gratification by small rewards" and all that jazz, but for me it quickly got tiring and I completely lost interest when I knew everything I did always amounted to one thing. For that same reason I'm uninterested in games like Borderlands, who have nothing to offer me other than more numbers as reward. When you homogenize progress into one universal currency, you lose the element of surprise. There's no wonder of the unknown or surprises to be had when all you get is some generic currency, and I'm of the belief that developers rely on this generic currency because it's just an easy (might even go so far as to call it lazy) way of giving a sense of progression. Do 30 damage. Get something. Now do 31. Hooray. Certainly easier than having to work out the mechanics and placement of a new move in Banjo Tooie if you ask me.

 

I love to find little areas in games like Oblivion, specifically the Shivering Isles, where rewards aren't just about "MOAR EXPERIENCE" or "MOAR GOLD", but rather weird, funky loot with completely random magical attributes. It really amplifies the sense of progression, because I get new, unique weapons and items as part of my arsenal and gives a bit of an identity to each object that I find. I'm completely against the idea that instant gratification and progress are fostered in grinding games where doing any one thing is rewarded with generic Space Bucks and XP Points, with the burden being placed on you to find what to spend it on and all that crap. Being drip-fed these items as they are, in a more controlled environment (which is where I depart from my comparison with Oblivion) could even allow game designers to actually work the rest of the game AROUND these unique items. And that, in the end, is where I believe that true progress in a game lies, where the game itself expands as well as your arsenal of items that are actually useful in their own ways. I just don't see how throwing numbers at you is satisfactory in any way. I've never subscribed to that notion, actually (which is why I wouldn't touch 99% of MMOs with a ten-foot pole, WoW included).

Edited September 20, 2011 by RockyRan

[DocSeuss]

I disagree with the idea that games can only be truly rewarding if we turn them into number games and grinding. In fact, I'm of the idea that it's the exact opposite.

 

Is anyone really saying that, though? I mean, I would suggest that games are more likely to get sales because grinding and numbers acts on our hunter-gatherer impulses, but I'd never suggest that that's the only way they can be rewarding, or even that they are superior.

 

I've never really made that connection between "numbers game = instant gratification". I'd wager it actually goes the other way. For me, a game that truly hooks me in has new mechanics and items sprinkled throughout its experience, hidden in alcoves, offered as rewards for missions, etc. I rarely do a mission if all I get is extra XP and/or cash.

 

That's how you deal with it. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn't normally do that. It's quite odd. Basically, if you give us numbers and flashy things, you'll addict us. Every time we see numbers popping off of an enemy as we do damage to them, it makes an element of our brains go ziiiing! Dunno why exactly this is, but it is how human brains tend to work.

 

Loot is really basically the same thing.

 

I prefer games where you're essentially rewarded with new game content, usually in the terms of locations. What I mean by that is, like... you get a quest to an area you haven't visited before. That quest essentially unlocks that area. Cool, now I get to do more exploration. That's one reason why games like STALKER are so valuable to me.

[Yantelope]

I love to find little areas in games like Oblivion, specifically the Shivering Isles, where rewards aren't just about "MOAR EXPERIENCE" or "MOAR GOLD", but rather weird, funky loot with completely random magical attributes. It really amplifies the sense of progression, because I get new, unique weapons and items as part of my arsenal and gives a bit of an identity to each object that I find. I'm completely against the idea that instant gratification and progress are fostered in grinding games where doing any one thing is rewarded with generic Space Bucks and XP Points, with the burden being placed on you to find what to spend it on and all that crap.

 

I guess that's where I disagree. I found 99% of the drops and loot in fallout to be worthless. I didn't care that I had found yet another assault rifle and had to meld it with my old one to keep it working. I go back to the fact that the easiest way to play Oblivion was to just remain level 2 for the whole game.

 

NM just wrote it far better than I could have: "Here’s an actual, true story of me playing Oblivion, which I’ve recently decided to replay: my lovely level three Dark Elf is one skill away from leveling. She needs to level up two points of blunt or blade so she can get five points of strength upon leveling up, because otherwise she’ll only get three or four points of strength and will fall behind the leveling race with the rats of the world. I’m in a cave, surrounded by monsters. My relevant skills (Blade, Restoration, Conjuration, and Destruction) are all major skills and all very close to leveling, which they can’t do because then I wouldn’t get very much strength. I find a sort of boss enemy, a wizard, and, for the sake of leveling up properly, I go at him with my rusty war axe of incompetence instead of, you know, doing anything I’m actually good at. All so I can level up properly.

 

I don’t even need to explain how shitty this is. I’m going to stop before I stab myself through the eye with a trowel. Let’s move on. Please."

 

I think one of the better reward systems is Assassin's Creed 2. Upgrading your fort/home is fun and rewarding. I liked that part of Zelda: OOT too how you were slowly healing the world. Also in AC2 you get to buy better armor and ultimately unlock the sweetest coolest looking armor and weapons and they don't really break the game either. It's a good balance. Batman AA had a great unlock/progression system too.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Yantelope

[RockyRan]

I guess that's where I disagree. I found 99% of the drops and loot in fallout to be worthless. I didn't care that I had found yet another assault rifle and had to meld it with my old one to keep it working. I go back to the fact that the easiest way to play Oblivion was to just remain level 2 for the whole game.

 

NM just wrote it far better than I could have: "Here’s an actual, true story of me playing Oblivion, which I’ve recently decided to replay: my lovely level three Dark Elf is one skill away from leveling. She needs to level up two points of blunt or blade so she can get five points of strength upon leveling up, because otherwise she’ll only get three or four points of strength and will fall behind the leveling race with the rats of the world. I’m in a cave, surrounded by monsters. My relevant skills (Blade, Restoration, Conjuration, and Destruction) are all major skills and all very close to leveling, which they can’t do because then I wouldn’t get very much strength. I find a sort of boss enemy, a wizard, and, for the sake of leveling up properly, I go at him with my rusty war axe of incompetence instead of, you know, doing anything I’m actually good at. All so I can level up properly.

 

I don’t even need to explain how shitty this is. I’m going to stop before I stab myself through the eye with a trowel. Let’s move on. Please."

 

I wasn't talking so much the leveling as I was talking about the actual loot to be found in Oblivion. Oblivion loot I found differed from other RPGs in that the stats provided were minimal, but rather what differentiated one advanced piece of equipment over the other was the magical properties, and more often than not said magical properties were more than just "+5% shield" or whatever. I wouldn't know about Fallout 3. I've only played New Vegas, but loot-wise it's a pretty boring game. :/

 

 

I think one of the better reward systems is Assassin's Creed 2. Upgrading your fort/home is fun and rewarding. I liked that part of Zelda: OOT too how you were slowly healing the world. Also in AC2 you get to buy better armor and ultimately unlock the sweetest coolest looking armor and weapons and they don't really break the game either. It's a good balance. Batman AA had a great unlock/progression system too.

 

I enjoyed AC2's villa upgrade system, but it was completely broken, unfortunately. I upgraded absolutely everything in the villa about halfway through the game and I proceeded to have practically infinite money. Had there been more and more expensive upgrades I would've absolutely loved that system. OoT was also a good indicator of progress without "NUMBERZ". Like you said, progress was very visual and even changed the world itself. I found Batman's upgrade system to be competent, but kind of eh, because it does exactly what I dislike. You do "things", you get Space Bucks, spend Space Bucks into an imaginary shop where they laundry list all the upgrades. Pretty generic stuff. Although they also did do a lot of what I liked, which was keeping a great pace and introducing new items/mechanics slowly over time independent of the Space Buck Shop, so for me that cancelled out the crappiness from the 'Shop there.

[Yantelope]

I don't mind being able to finish upgrading everything half way into the game. I like to be able to use the best armor for more than just the final boss. In fact I'd say that games where you can't get the best stuff until the very end (or after the end: Final Fantasy) are doing it wrong. It's also funny to me that you don't like Borderlands then if you do like Oblivion's loot system because Borderlands did everything you just talked about.

[RockyRan]

Borderlands was completely awful in its loot system, relying on a very small amount of "elemental damage" types across god knows how many guns and relying far too much on OMG NUMBERZ to differentiate between different guns. Even if the guns had scope or no scope, guns or sniper/assault rifles, etc. the minute-to-minute gameplay still relied far too much on needless grinding and number chasing. It really does very little of what I just talked about.

[Yantelope]

You're really not being fair I think. Borderlands guns changed rate of fire, elemental type, scope, and even the actual ordinance fired whether it's burst shotgun shells, spread shells, single rockets, spread rockets, rapid fire rockets. I don't know how you could have more variety. I also don't know why having the numbers appear is a sin as opposed to the invisible numbers that drive everything in oblivion and fallout. Additionally in Borderlands you get different types of shields and upgrade drops. I'm thinking perhaps your personal tastes are overruling your objectivity in this regard.

[TheMightyEthan]

Honestly, I prefer the numbers to be visible, I like to know exactly what's going on. For instance, though admittedly Mass Effect's inventory system was completely broken and terrible, it was possible to decide which weapons and armor to use because you could compare their various stats, as opposed to Mass Effect 2 in which all you had to go on were super vague verbal descriptions that made it impossible to tell whether gun A was better or worse than gun B.

[Vargras]

Honestly, I prefer the numbers to be visible, I like to know exactly what's going on. For instance, though admittedly Mass Effect's inventory system was completely broken and terrible, it was possible to decide which weapons and armor to use because you could compare their various stats, as opposed to Mass Effect 2 in which all you had to go on were super vague verbal descriptions that made it impossible to tell whether gun A was better or worse than gun B.

 

You get the best of both worlds in ME3. Weapon stats are visible once more.