Defining Progression Within Games

GameSetWatch is running a piece discussing some of the ways in which gameplay can progress from simple to complex. The author talks about how acquiring items, new abilities, or just increasing the player's overall effectiveness can make it difficult for game designers to keep their content balanced and interesting. Quoting: "What do I mean by progression? There are at least two distinct types of progression in computer games, which I'll label player progression, and character progression (narrative progression is arguably a third). Player progression is the increasing aptitude of the player in mastering the game: whether through learning and understanding the technical rules of the game (surface play) or the implications of those rules (deep play). ... Character progression is the unlocking of additional rules of play, or altering the existing rules, by choices or actions within the game."

Comments

Touches on something lacking in RPG's

[CannonballHead]

Interesting comment, asking whether or not rewarding players is because there isn't enough in the gameplay or story to keep them playing.

Also interesting was the question about a level 50 warrior's gleaming sword being nothing really more changing than a level 1 character stabbing at a giant rat. This is something that I have felt often in games - as you progress, nothing changes much except the prowess of your enemies. This requires some interesting story mechanics - why didn't the level 35 people just come down and kill you right off the bat if you were so important? Some stories can overcome this difficulty because the story is otherwise so good (e.g., Baldur's Gate, a personal favourite).

I have also tended to think of what would happen if instead of you and enemies becoming so ultra-powerful that you could essentially wipe out an entire town in on spell, would there be a way to instead have your power come from being able to deal more quickly/efficiently with multiple enemies at once? Let's face it, you can train all you want, but it still takes only a few slashes with a sword to kill you. Battle skill comes in killing the other person before he can kill you. The better you are, the faster you can do that while taking fewer hits.

With this approach, "tanks" would not really be in existence anymore; battles would be seen more as a part of a larger scale battle, not you+4 verses 60, and you just have "that much health." Magic, unfortunately, throws a wrench into the equation.

Another interesting RPG comment, this time by me - I have always felt that the most pleasing RPG experiences, with regard to story and gameplay, are those in which I was part of a larger battle, not fighting on my own. Example would be in Baldur's Gate II when you defend your "keep" (Nalia's family's castle). You defend it along with the keep's guards. Seemed much more realistic.

Re:Touches on something lacking in RPG's

[Saint Fnordius]

I think it's a problem with a lot of games, that the more powerful you become the less of a challenge the game becomes. Get Fuzzy brought it to a point when Rob was playing a Rugby video game, trying to unlock the best team. "So to get the team that lets you beat all other teams, you have to first beat all the other teams and prove you don't need them?"

I personally think the Bigger Guns With Experience metaphor is slightly broken. You don't reward the Good Stuff after you finish the adventure, really. The best reward is unlocking a new part of the game, or other sorts of information. Complete the level to get the next mission, collect the bits you need to get the McGuffin and so on. Characters levelling up may be fun in, say, Diablo, but it's not realistic. Years of training are compressed into a single night (or a few days in the sequel).

Re:Touches on something lacking in RPG's

[somersault]

That's why I've never been as interested in RPGs as everyone else seems to be. Spend enough time and you will generally be able to get better equipment or more experience points and whatnot. Better players may be able to level up more quickly, but given enough time anyone can get to level 70 and get decent equipment by doing raids with their clanmates or whatever. I prefer games like FPSes where the characters are all equal and the difference is all about player skill (or very slightly by equipment you know how to find, or can afford).

I know that there is an element of skill involved in RPGs too, but it is severely frustrating when you know you've got no chance of winning at all just because someone is a higher level or has better equipment, and that you would have that stuff given another few months of playing. I haven't played WoW, I'm saying this from experience with MUDs.

You can decide to leave PvP to only the highest level (if there even is one in the game you are playing - it's much worse if there is no level cap), but then you're just left slogging through hordes of mobs that you know you can beat easily, with no way around going through the levels to get to the part of the game where skill really comes into play. If levelling up involves something that is so simple that I could just write a dumb script to do it (which I have done in the past with MUDs for example, but won't if it's against the rules), it doesn't really feel like a game anymore - it just feels like work. This isn't just a problem in RPGs, it's a problem in any type of game where you have to save up small amounts of points or money from doing repetitive or otherwise dull tasks. Kind of like real life. I've had enough of my job during the day thanks - that's why I'm playing a game for crying out loud!

Having said that, there is something strangely addictive about games where you level up and get rewarded for completing certain tasks. I hardly ever replay a game once I've completed it, but recently with a game called Uncharted on the PS3 I played it through a few times just to complete all the different challenges that were set, and just because the game itself was quite well made, fun to control and nice to look at. When you had completed a certain amount of challenges you unlocked a slow-motion mode, etc. It's a similar idea to unlocking skills or spells in RPGs when you level up. It certainly adds something to the appeal, but if the game has no more to it than that then it quickly gets boring once you have reached the top level and unlocked everything. That's where a game needs to have good 'deep' gameplay as well as just the surface stuff.

Re:Really.

[SomeJoel]

Not every discussion of a feature that WoW poached is a discussion about WoW. Paladins, as a character class in an RPG, predate WoW by a few decades. So, take your whining about your retribution Paladin to a discussion board that cares... if you can find one.

Re:This is why mages in D&D are stronger than

[Mad Merlin]

As someone who's actually made a game (Game! - The Witty Online RPG) I'd say that balance is very tricky to maintain, probably even the hardest aspect of designing a game, but yet extremely central to having a fun and challenging game. You can plan out a scale of progression initially, but unless you plan out everything in advance (which is basically impossible), you'll still end up with things that are tricky to effectively balance later on.

You mentioned the idea of giving particular classes more abilities than others, and just by chance at least some of those will be overpowered, making the character overpowered. That's true, but you also have to consider the interaction between different abilities, and with more abilities, the number of combinations grows exponentially.

Starcraft is a great example of balance done correctly, and I think that's the main reason it's still popular today. Speaking of Starcraft, I doubt Blizzard anticipated that people would become so adept at microing just about everything (try watching a game between two good players these days!), and that changes the balance of the game a lot too.

Re:Call me when they have a real AI to run a CRPG.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

What you're looking for isn't a CRPG, it's real life. That's the only way you're going to get the infinite span of choices that you seek.

Balance

[Jabbrwokk]

Perfect BALANCE made Starcraft the best RTS ever made.

And in which patch was that finally achieved?

While I enjoyed Starcraft, personally I thought Myth II was the "best RTS ever made" because of its balance of finite units. You would be given a handful of seemingly pathetic units -- a few archers, a few berzerkers and one dwarf -- and yet the balance, and strategy, made it possible for you to hold off wave after wave of enemies.