82 réponses à ce sujet

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

I find myself curious, what do you think the purpose behind the level up mechanic in modern games is? In a game like Mass Effect what is its purpose? What is its purpose in the Dragon Age games? What will be its purpose in Dragon Age 3?

[Althix]

what do you suggest?
(because i find your questions vague as well as strange).

Modifié par secretsandlies, 13 décembre 2012 - 11:05 .

[Wulfram]

1. A sense of reward and progression, which helps people keep playing. Apparently getting fairly regular rewards is important to game design.

2. Allowing a gradual increase in complexity, rather than tossing the player in the deep end.  Controlling level 20 characters would be very daunting for a new player.  Even as an experienced player, I find it difficult to create high level characters straight off - it's nice to be able to create the character gradually, so I can see what sort of talents and attributes I like.

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 décembre 2012 - 11:10 .

[Althix]

krul2k wrote...
 better way

indulge us and voice better way as you see it.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

secretsandlies wrote...

what do you suggest?
(because i find your questions vague as well as strange).

Ask a question and you will get a question, but give an answer and you will recieve the same.

[Celene II]

Game and character progression is integral to the idea of RPGs.

From the great granddaddy of all rpgs to the first computer rpgs. Levels, stats, attributes, ie progression helped a player determine all sorts of things about their character and their game advancement.

Without it, the game because an adventure game no different then say tomb raider or something similar.

The level concept is the ding that psychologically thrills you because now you have access to more and more is better.

[Althix]

i killed that old man you know?

as for the answer: progression and proficiency.

now your turn.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 13 décembre 2012 - 11:43 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

secretsandlies wrote...

i killed that old man you know?

as for the asnwer: progression and proficiency.

now your turn.

I ask the question because I see a lot of people saying they dont want to play as a newb, they want to play a powerful character with a reputation from the get go, for me however this kind of undermines the whole leveling mechanic. For me leveling up is supposed to represent some form of character growth, the character you create isnt a mighty hero at the start but as you progress through the game the trials and obstacles he faces along the journey forge him into one, leveling up to me is supposed to represent this growth.

Looking at Mass Effect I am not sure why they bothered with leveling up, Shepard is already a super badass (according to the game) and since enemies scale in level there is no real sense of progress, sure you may hit harder but then your enemies have more health meaning as far as the gameplay is concerned everything stays the same. It seems in most modern games I see the level up mechanic at best seems to be little more than a gimmick to slow feed players new abilities.

I have no problem with DA:I featuring a more experienced character as the protagonist but is the level up mechanic actually needed?


I know a lot of you might pass this off as an incredibly stupid idea but I urge you to just think about this for a moment, is it truely needed? Challenge your preconcieved notions of what an RPG should have and just think about it for a moment.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:13 .

[Wulfram]

The power disparity basically never makes sense for any character, really. It's not like the Warden wasn't an exceptionally effective combatant at the start of the game, as is shown by the various things they do during the Origin stories.

I think levelling serves a valuable gameplay purpose, particularly in a game like Dragon Age where there's a lot of powers to handle, so I wouldn't scrap it totally. I would like to see the numbers bloat cut down on though - too much of levelling is just giving you bigger numbers, that's in reality countered by the enemy level scaling anyway. So all it does is make the improbable power disparity more obviously silly.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

secretsandlies wrote...

what do you suggest?
(because i find your questions vague as well as strange).

Ask a question and you will get a question, but give an answer and you will recieve the same.

Thats a statement. 

[h0neanias]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I ask the question because I see a lot of people saying they dont want to play as a newb, they want to play a powerful character with a reputation from the get go, for me however this kind of undermines the whole leveling mechanic. For me leveling up is supposed to represent some form of character growth, the character you create isnt a mighty hero at the start but as you progress through the game the trials and obstacles he faces along the journey forge him into one, leveling up to me is supposed to represent this growth.

Looking at Mass Effect I am not sure why they bothered with leveling up, Shepard is already a super badass (according to the game) and since enemies scale in level there is no real sense of progress, sure you may hit harder but then your enemies have more health meaning as far as the gameplay is concerned everything stays the same. It seems in most modern games I see the level up mechanic at best seems to be little more than a gimmick to slow feed players new abilities.

I have no problem with DA:I featuring a more experienced character as the protagonist but is the level up mechanic actually needed?


I know a lot of you might pass this off as an incredibly stupid idea but I urge you to just think about this for a moment, is it truely needed? Challenge your preconcieved notions of what an RPG should have and just think about it for a moment.

You're very right in that the inclusion of level scaling may easily become a blow to the whole concept. If you didn't level up in Baldur's Gate, you were dust very soon. So it indeed used to be the PCs got progressively stronger. On the other hand, to give a particularly tragic example, leveling up in Oblivion actually made you comparably weaker. Nevertheless, you used to get stronger so that 1) you get cute new genocide abilities, and 2) to defeat those progressively stronger enemies. Those two reasons haven't changed. If done right, level scaling merely ensures you have choice in where to go first, instead of following the path of least resistance. If done right, I underscore.

Modifié par h0neanias, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:34 .

[Althix]

There is Dark Souls game. You can complete entire game with SL1 (level 1) character. All you need for that is brains (both, the one in the head and the one in the spine), and understanding of game mechanics. Because in DS game there is almost no restriction on base weapons, and you can kill with base weapons and spells just fine.
It is an option how player can complete a walkthrough. However for majority of players - it looks like masochism.

In ME games paragon/renegade stats are more important than character level. You know because of conversation wheel.
In DA games you start as ordinary men who is forced to overcome difficulties, and leveling represents it.

There is ofcourse an option for let say, you are making a character or picking one avaliable and start playing. And his general stats remains the same as you progress. Which is quite boring if you ask me, to compensate this pc can learn some moves, spells, manuevers through gameplay that suits your original stats or your style of playing. So basically you do not level up through increasing your stats but through learning new tricks.

However if i am going to gym, i become stronger and/or more fit. And leveling system represents it.

Plus if we are about to have multiplayer on our hands (which is scares me), we will have leveling system anyway.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:44 .

[AlexJK]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

I find myself curious, what do you think the purpose behind the level up mechanic in modern games is?

Any or all of:
- to give a sense of progression (usually by controlling access to "better" features eg. abilities until later in the game);
- to create a desire to progress (because having those items/abilities is good - also, bragging rights);
- to manage the challenge level (*generally* levelling is not related to overall difficulty but can control the relative challenge provided by different opponents or areas of a game).

Some games use stat-based levelling (eg. Dragon Age - all of your abilities, chance to hit, etc. are based on your stats). Others have tried approaches based on player proficiency (eg. Oblivion - the more you use a skill the better it gets). Finally there are games like Mass Effect which mix the two approaches (chance to hit based on player skill, effectiveness of abilities based on stats). This is all mainly down to genre (eg. a racing game - steering and control is always down to the player, vehicle upgrades are generally level (or difficulty) based).

Obviously single vs. multiplayer games, vs. MMOs all use any and all of the above to varying extents, but it's all the same principles at the end of the day.

Modifié par AlexJK, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:09 .

[vortex216]

The reason I liked the level-up in origins is pretty much what wulfrum said. That and every attribute subtly mattered. Even as a warrior or mage you needed cunning- a rogue's attribute. Not in DA2, it was more like
Warrior- Strength Constituton
Mage- Magic Willpower
Rogue- Dexterity Cunning
I guess what I'm trying to say is in Origins it was more complex, I still liked DA2's because it still left a sense of reward. However, Origins was a lot better.

[Dabrikishaw]

Without level scaling,leveling up becomes much more important t o get stronger and to show progress.

[AlexJK]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

... is the level up mechanic actually needed?

What do you mean by "the level up mechanic"? A sense of progression - and desire to progress - is always needed, as well as methods to balance and vary the challenge offered during the game. But those things can be provided by lots of different mechanics.

Ultimately, no, the stat-based approach that DAO and DA2 used isn't "needed", but it couldn't just be dropped entirely.

[Navasha]

Leveling is the arbitrary depiction of experience and training.

For example, in the real world. Some teen-age grocery bagger is likely to be a level 1 in combat experience, while a Navy Seal is a level 30. Sure, both of them would die from a bullet to the head, but if you put the Navy Seal and the grocery clerk in a combat arena both armed with a gun... who would you bet on winning?

Leveling of the character represents learned experience and training, while level "scaling" is supposed to represent the still 'mortal' nature of the character.

[NRieh]

Even as a warrior or mage you needed cunning

If you are talking about DAO and coercion skill that requires some cunning - it's next to none, as highest 4th point needed 16, which is very little and non-vital. Rest of points went into "primary" skills anyway, with some variations according to your playstyle (like manapool vs spellpower or hp vs damage etc).

[Althix]

there is still some advantages in investing more into cunning (i guess... two events in a game), but i don't thnik it's worth it.

[Wulfram]

IIRC you could more or less get enough cunning just from the fade bonuses, couldn't you?

[snackrat]

Two or three main reasons:

1) 'Reward' the player for playing. A sense of accomplishment. One of the main reasons we turn to games in the first place, since real life provides little of this.
PRO: Sense of fulfillment encourages play.
CON: None tied to the reward system itself.

2) Learning. One should not simply dump all abilities and spells on new players and expect them to slog their way through learning them. Instead, they are best introduced one at a time to allow players to get used to them.
PRO: Players eventually become well-learned in the relevant areas and applications of their abilities, without heavy 'front-loading' of information.
CON: Tedious for returning players already familiar with components.

3) Supporting varying playstyles. The characters start out generic and fairly poor in every area, allowing the player to experiment with a variety of possibilities. (This is most evident in cross-class games like Skyrim, which allow you to try near everything at once.) As they level up - be it with 'spending points' or by 'earning skill' in favoured stats, a specific character tailored to a favoured playstyle develops.
PRO: Encourages replayability in different playstyles. Allows the player to feel they 'own' the character.
CON: Potentially crippling over-specialisation. (eg: a healer/supporter suddenly soloing a difficult area, an ambusher dependant on sneak attacks taken by surprise in a boss battle)



I would prefer that levelling up increases our available ABILITIES and the different APPLICATIONS of such (eg Heal, then Heal also restores mana/stamina, then Heal CD reduced) rather than just 'here, have some numbers, now press some arrows'. Otherwise you are micromanaging numbers just to RETAIN power against enemies. Want more cunning to pick a lock? Prepare to find level 20 harder than level 2.

It also requires less in the name of level-balancing, AND it means if you like a set of armour or a weapon from early game, you can keep it. If I like this sword because it does some bonus damage against demonds (which I may fight a lot), it saddens me to trade it for that sword that just increases my hit chance by a small portion JUST BECAUSE the new sword has bigger numbers.

It makes it harder to sustain a playstyle if I must constantly replace equipment with better numbers, which is why I actually LIKED DAII's companion armour. I could change runes as I saw fit but didn't have to keep micromanaging their equipment like I did in DAO (where I eventually just stopped giving a sh** and let them go through the game with their starter armour, with the exception of Leliana and Sten - he got the full set found in the same low-level area, and she generally got Daveth's leftover gear).

Modifié par Karsciyin, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:13 .

[Giltspur]

I like the feeling of progression. I don't think I actually care if there are "levels" in the traditional sense.  Do I need stats to increase? Well, if the interesting "twiddle" comes from stat choices then sure.  But if it doesn't then not necessarily.  I actually find ability progression more interesting than stat progression.  But you don't necessarily need leveling in the traditional sense to have ability to progression. See Dishonored. 

I try not to too hung up on mechanics since they're just ways of trying  to accomplish something.  And I think they think you're trying to accomplish is a feeling of progression and personal investment in a player character due to choices you've made about the character.  As long as the choices are there and the feeling of invesstment there, levels are optional.   And optional goes both ways.  They're one way of achieving that feeling of investment.  But I'm also open-minded to the idea of RPG's without levels.