The Need for Experience and Levels

[Tai_MT]

Any other questions?

Yes, you conveniently skipped over the rest of the questions. I figured since you were going to go ahead and answer rhetorical questions, you'd have at least shown me the courtesy of answering them all before asking if I had any more.

 

[xdan]

Yes, you conveniently skipped over the rest of the questions. I figured since you were going to go ahead and answer rhetorical questions, you'd have at least shown me the courtesy of answering them all before asking if I had any more.

To be fair, my question was just as rethorical and that didn't stop you from responding either. In short, I haven't played any of those games even once, so I can't answer a question in the format "Have you replayed X?".

 

[bgillisp]

For purposes of advancing the conversation, I'd be interested if you would list say 3 - 5 of those you played that in your opinion don't have a progression system. I saw this as often times games have a hidden one so you could be surprised as it might exist, but be so subtle that you didn't notice it. And maybe that is more like what you are going for?

 

[Tai_MT]

@xdan The one about more Questions? I didn't take it as rhetorical, I took it as trying to initiate a fight of some sort.

Ever go back and play old games without one?

Well, you did answer it, but I would've appreciated elaboration. It's why I listed some of the games I've played as a question. Namely, giving them as a rhetorical question in order to provide an example so that others may know what I'm talking about (if they'd played those games, anyway).

Games where once you've seen every stage (which is like 4 at max), the gameplay gets dull, because you've already done it? How about Galaga where the levels don't change, but the "enemy patterns" do?

I figured you would've answered this question as well, since you decided to answer the first two. Or, at least, state an opinion here. For or against the idea and reasons why. Maybe something to help continue the discussion?

The other Questions about games are more rhetorical examples.

So... yeah... was kind of hoping that if you'd replied you'd contribute to the discussion you wanted to take place or list examples or something. Maybe argue your point of view on it. Or... I dunno… answer all the questions if you started answering them.

 

[Doktor_Q]

I think there's an important meeting piece in your model- specifically, it's not a "progression system" that is necessary, it's progression, period. In Mario, the first level and the last level are different, and the last level is going to be harder, and expect you to understand more complex mechanics or level elements. This concept starts all the way back at Space Invaders, where the ships got faster the more you destroyed.

In a platformer, your progression is "new levels" and "new elements to the level." In a puzzle game, you might gradually introduce new mechanics or patterns for the player to learn.

In a typical RPG, the progression is new abilities to use and new enemies with their own new abilities to use against you. If this is done poorly, you fight the same thing over and over, but more 0s after every number. If this is done well, the game experience becomes more complex as you progress.

 

[xdan]

I think there's an important meeting piece in your model- specifically, it's not a "progression system" that is necessary, it's progression, period. In Mario, the first level and the last level are different, and the last level is going to be harder, and expect you to understand more complex mechanics or level elements. This concept starts all the way back at Space Invaders, where the ships got faster the more you destroyed.

In a platformer, your progression is "new levels" and "new elements to the level." In a puzzle game, you might gradually introduce new mechanics or patterns for the player to learn.

In a typical RPG, the progression is new abilities to useu and new enemies with their own new abilities to use against you. If this is done poorly, you fight the same thing over and over, but more 0s after every number. If this is done well, the game experience becomes more complex as you progress.

This sounds like an extremely important distinction. Are we talking about progression systems or progression in general?

If we're talking about progression in general, then pretty much no game in existence qualifies. Even Donkey Kong has progression: the more you climb, the closer you are to your goal. You could argue this applies to all fiction: characters make actions that place them closer (or further away) to whatever their conscious or unconscious goal is. You could even apply this to sports.

So, if what is being argued in this thread is that a lack of progression makes games unengaging, then rest assured: such games do not exist.

 

[bgillisp]

Right. The player has to have *some* progress, else it is just the same old levels over and over and over, which is going to bore 99% or more of the players. Some arcade games handle this by looking for improvements in player skill, but even in Mario you don't get the hardest enemies and jumps in level 1 - 1, the game eases you into it. Imagine how well Mario would have done if level 1 - 1 had hammer brothers and ridiculous jumps.

In fact, you can see how that would look, just look up a youtube video for Super Mario Frustration. Now imagine if that had been the original Mario game. Odds are we would not even be talking about it anymore and it would be forgotten.

 

[Grunwave]

Any other questions?

Babies, where do they come from?

 

[Kes]

@Grunwave Please do not spam a thread with off-topic posts.

 

[Doktor_Q]

If we're talking about progression in general, then pretty much no game in existence qualifies. Even Donkey Kong has progression: the more you climb, the closer you are to your goal. You could argue this applies to all fiction: characters make actions that place them closer (or further away) to whatever their conscious or unconscious goal is. You could even apply this to sports.

I'd like to point out that "being closer to your goal" is progress, but not necessarily progression- progression, for the purposes of this, is about how the experience of the game changes with time.

With RPGs in particular, the "menu combat" makes it hard to have a good progression system based solely on changes to the enemies- you want to give the player more options to use, and more resources to use them.

To restate and summarize a portion of the thread:

• An RPG without good progression is probably very boring, because the effect of player skill is more limited than a action game or platformer.
• Progression doesn't need to come from from fighting battles, but it provides additional incentive for the player to fight, because they are earning the helpful part of progression by doing so.
• Random or otherwise non-mandatory battles make up a lot of the combat in most RPGs, so the player should feel like those battles serve some purpose in the long game. It can also allow them to control the difficulty somewhat.
• If you don't do much with non-mandatory or repeated combat, then leveling probably isn't a concern.

 

[xdan]

• An RPG without good progression is probably very boring, because the effect of player skill is more limited than a action game or platformer.

This deserves it's own thread. It seriously does. This is so true even thought the genre has endless potential for it not to be true.