Level One

[Matseb2611]

I have noticed this as well that most likely the characters start above level 1 when they already have some battle experience in order to create some sort of immersion, but I think with stuff like that it can also do the opposite and ruin the immersion if not done correctly. For example you could have a veteran warrior start the game at lvl 10 and throughout the game get to lvl 40 or something. It becomes unrealistic that within the events of the game he/she would gain much more battle skill than they would throughout the rest of their life prior to it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the levels are arbitrary numbers. They can simply signify the character's improvement throughout the game without taking into account their experience before and after the events of the game. Plus I think it makes it a lot neater if all your characters keep up with the same levels. That way I can tell if one of my party members is lagging behind and needs more levelling up for example.

But overall I think it's down to convenience and developer's preference. Either way can work fine. I personally like to start my leading character at lvl 1, and anyone else who starts the game in the player's party, whereas characters who join later I tend to enter the party at the same level as you'd likely to be at that point in the game (e.g. if the party is likely to be lvl 5 when they meet the next character, then he/she will join in at lvl 5, and so on).    

 

[Eschaton]

I've played games where the player character starts at 1st level and they are an accomplished tournament fighter, a star pupil wizard, a seasoned archer, a former Dark Lord of the Sith, a former Jedi General, or an N7-designated special operator.  Best of the best.  Level one.

Your argument for starting at level 20 to represent a veteran is invalid.

Levels aren't supposed to be integrated into the story like that (Paladin Cecil notwithstanding.  That was fairly well-executed).  They are supposed to represent to the player the character's advancement.

 

[Lowell]

I've played games where the player character starts at 1st level and they are an accomplished tournament fighter, a star pupil wizard, a seasoned archer, a former Dark Lord of the Sith, a former Jedi General, or an N7-designated special operator.  Best of the best.  Level one.

Your argument for starting at level 20 to represent a veteran is invalid.

Levels aren't supposed to be integrated into the story like that (Paladin Cecil notwithstanding.  That was fairly well-executed).  They are supposed to represent to the player the character's advancement.

Yet some developers choose to use this method to represent a characters ability in the game.

For example have you played a game where you have a temporary party member several levels higher than your main party?

More often than not they're in place as a guide or a veteran in whatever situation the player is placed in.

It isn't something that can simply be dismissed because you think they're not supposed to be shown that way. Levels normally don't relate to the games plot in any way or form and are primarily used to give the player something to do while they progress through the game but when they are, they're either used to show the difference between the player and a guest members abilities or used for some other story/gameplay mechanic (Such as locking missions and mission difficulties depending on the players level in PSO2.)

 

[Tai_MT]

I like that everyone is focused ENTIRELY upon levels as a means for "who is the most powerful" instead of stats.  Level 1 for a Pit Fighter might be something completely different than Level 1 for a Trained Soldier.  The level itself is arbitrary and pointless and mostly just serves as a meter you need to fill in order to get your next set of stats.

Also, the act of gaining a level is somewhat enjoyable to most human beings as it's a reward for continued play.

It is entirely possible to have one really experienced and strong knight at level 1 and a completely inexperienced knight fighting alongside him at level 1.  The difference in their training would be their skills and stats.  The level up system is merely an indicator as to when they will get their next set of stats or learn their next skill.  It actually serves no greater purpose than that.  It's a yardstick that a lot of gamers have seemed to take to mean "the more yardsticks, the more powerful!" when that's not that case at all.  It's a case of quality over quantity.  Doesn't matter how many levels a character has, they can still suck in terms of stats and equipment.

Because of this, I see no reason to start a player at any level other than Level 1.  It's a yardstick.  Level 1 is the first amount of experience points you need to gain before you get your next set of stats.  Starting someone off at Level 7 is rather silly.  It makes an arbitrary number even more arbitrary.  At that point, the "level 7" thing just translates to "this should be level 1, but we liked the number 7 better".

 

[Xortberg]

I've played games where the player character starts at 1st level and they are an accomplished tournament fighter, a star pupil wizard, a seasoned archer, a former Dark Lord of the Sith, a former Jedi General, or an N7-designated special operator.  Best of the best.  Level one.

Your argument for starting at level 20 to represent a veteran is invalid.

Levels aren't supposed to be integrated into the story like that (Paladin Cecil notwithstanding.  That was fairly well-executed).  They are supposed to represent to the player the character's advancement.

So you're saying that an argument is invalid and then giving an example of that exact same argument being valid. You don't see the problem with this?

Having levels be nothing but a measure of character advancement is perfectly valid, but so is integrating them into the story. Calling one method invalid (especially when you contradict yourself in your very next sentence) is, dare I say, invalid.