Could an action-RPG work without leveling up?

[Lt._nefarious]

It would have to have some kind of skill gaining system or it start too easy or too hard but maybe instead of leveling the skills you use most could naturally become stronger over time the more you used them which would mean levels weren't needed, i guess...

 

[cerebus23]

But in the last decade, both haven't existed. So the variety that you say we should have, we haven't gotten. Why do you think this whole kickstarter thing even came about ?

The reason why Obsidian needed Kickstarter to get funding for the game isn't because no company would fund that kind of game, it's because no company would fund Obsidian because they are known around the industry for failing to met goals.

Obsidian is known to make games that fail on a technical level, and fail to get both critic, and fan, reviews that can even attempt to match whatever series they are leeching off currently.

Obsidian needs kickstarter because hardly any company left wants to associated with them.

Hell they are reduced to making a South Park game, if that's not a sign of how much people don't want to be associated with them, them nothing is.

Wow much hate for obsidian? Considering that for all the things wrong with their games that they are still listed among the best rpgs of all time and enough dedicated fans to fix the messes those games were.

Black isle/Obsidian makes the best rpgs with the best characters and does enough different that you cannot point to a game and tick off the common plot points and recycled characters like you can with bioware and others that simply reuse the same formula over and over.

With EA owning bioware and people leaving that company like rats off a sinking ship, with bethesda never being able to write a decent story or good characters, with square enix sucking of late to the point they have to remake all their old good game and rerelease them. Who is going to make good rpgs anymore?

I would trust obsidian to make a good one at lest, if it playable is another matter , hopefully they can pull it off, i certainly think they of most any company deserves a chance to do something like this.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Wow much hate for obsidian? Considering that for all the things wrong with their games that they are still listed among the best rpgs of all time and enough dedicated fans to fix the messes those games were.

Black isle/Obsidian makes the best rpgs with the best characters and does enough different that you cannot point to a game and tick off the common plot points and recycled characters like you can with bioware and others that simply reuse the same formula over and over.

With EA owning bioware and people leaving that company like rats off a sinking ship, with bethesda never being able to write a decent story or good characters, with square enix sucking of late to the point they have to remake all their old good game and rerelease them. Who is going to make good rpgs anymore?

I would trust obsidian to make a good one at lest, if it playable is another matter , hopefully they can pull it off, i certainly think they of most any company deserves a chance to do something like this.

Bethesda games stories are only truly told through a myriad series of interviews, out-of-game lore articles, and various super obscure puzzles that 99% of the playerbase will never understand.

There is literally so much about the Elder Scrolls series story that you don't know that would make your head spin, and probably change our views on Elder scrolls stories.

The Elder Scrolls story is really only meant for people willing to take like 20 hours out of the game to read up on it, the games themselves are just made to be hiking sims.

They story still isn't super awesome, but it goes far beyond what most people think it is, with events in skyrim tying back across the entire series.
.
.
Also, Obsidian's characters and plots

Spoiler

in New Vegas
-Boone was a stereotypical "I hate my life and am going to talk in a somber voice" guy
-Cass was a stereotypical cowgirl
-Veronica was a generic peppy cheerleader type girl who was a token lesbian
-Raul was a stereotypical "old guy who complain how much his back hurts all the time"
-Arcade was the normal "I'm a smart, but totally stuck up dick guy with father issues" who was also a token gay
-Lily was a steriotpyical senile grandma

In NWN2 MoB
-Okku was a generic, you have to be good, animal spirit
-Gannayev was the most emo companion character ever, god I wanted to hand him razr blades so he would list his wrists and shut up.
-Kaelyn was a stereotypical white knight character who was blind to her actions real consequences.

Obsidian's characters are all cliches, ones that have been done over and over, and outside of their personal quests, they only ever have one real personality trait that they ram in your face all day.

And whats worse, is that even after doing a personal quest for them, something that should cause a large change in their personality, they remain almost exactly the same, with the only real change coming in a post-game cutscene.

As for their plots
-Alpha protocol was a generic spy guy gets betrayed thing.
-New vegas was a generic "shitty dictatorship, shitty democracy, shitty other dictatorship, shitty independence power struggle
-NWN 2 was a generic "you must stop ancient evil power creatures from killing everyone

I could go on all day tearing down how every Obsidian plot is just a generic pile of cliches that have been overused in the industry for ages, but I don't think I need to.

Obsidian has never done anything terribly original in terms of plot or characters, they are just slightly better at most at hiding it behind pretensions BS.

spoiled to save room

 

[cerebus23]

Wow much hate for obsidian? Considering that for all the things wrong with their games that they are still listed among the best rpgs of all time and enough dedicated fans to fix the messes those games were.

Black isle/Obsidian makes the best rpgs with the best characters and does enough different that you cannot point to a game and tick off the common plot points and recycled characters like you can with bioware and others that simply reuse the same formula over and over.

With EA owning bioware and people leaving that company like rats off a sinking ship, with bethesda never being able to write a decent story or good characters, with square enix sucking of late to the point they have to remake all their old good game and rerelease them. Who is going to make good rpgs anymore?

I would trust obsidian to make a good one at lest, if it playable is another matter , hopefully they can pull it off, i certainly think they of most any company deserves a chance to do something like this.

Bethesda games stories are only truly told through a myriad series of interviews, out-of-game lore articles, and various super obscure puzzles that 99% of the playerbase will never understand.

There is literally so much about the Elder Scrolls series story that you don't know that would make your head spin, and probably change our views on Elder scrolls stories.

The Elder Scrolls story is really only meant for people willing to take like 20 hours out of the game to read up on it, the games themselves are just made to be hiking sims.

They story still isn't super awesome, but it goes far beyond what most people think it is, with events in skyrim tying back across the entire series.
.
.
Also, Obsidian's characters and plots

Spoiler

in New Vegas
-Boone was a stereotypical "I hate my life and am going to talk in a somber voice" guy
-Cass was a stereotypical cowgirl
-Veronica was a generic peppy cheerleader type girl who was a token lesbian
-Raul was a stereotypical "old guy who complain how much his back hurts all the time"
-Arcade was the normal "I'm a smart, but totally stuck up dick guy with father issues" who was also a token gay
-Lily was a steriotpyical senile grandma

In NWN2 MoB
-Okku was a generic, you have to be good, animal spirit
-Gannayev was the most emo companion character ever, god I wanted to hand him razr blades so he would list his wrists and shut up.
-Kaelyn was a stereotypical white knight character who was blind to her actions real consequences.

Obsidian's characters are all cliches, ones that have been done over and over, and outside of their personal quests, they only ever have one real personality trait that they ram in your face all day.

And whats worse, is that even after doing a personal quest for them, something that should cause a large change in their personality, they remain almost exactly the same, with the only real change coming in a post-game cutscene.

As for their plots
-Alpha protocol was a generic spy guy gets betrayed thing.
-New vegas was a generic "shitty dictatorship, shitty democracy, shitty other dictatorship, shitty independence power struggle
-NWN 2 was a generic "you must stop ancient evil power creatures from killing everyone

I could go on all day tearing down how every Obsidian plot is just a generic pile of cliches that have been overused in the industry for ages, but I don't think I need to.

Obsidian has never done anything terribly original in terms of plot or characters, they are just slightly better at most at hiding it behind pretensions BS.

spoiled to save room

If bethesda could tell stores then they would not have to explain them outside the game period. hence they cannot make a game with a good story to save their life.

But i get where you are coming from bethesda fanboy.

 

[SajuukKhar]

If bethesda could tell stores then they would not have to explain them outside the game period. hence they cannot make a game with a good story to save their life.

But i get where you are coming from bethesda fanboy.

Right because admitting that even with the outside game information Bethesda stories are just ok, makes me a fanboy....... not sure if serious?

Also Bethesda doesn't HAVE to tell them outside the games, they choose to, because they know the Elder Scrolls audience isn't buying the game for the plot. They just make up these stories and interviews for the few diehard lore maniacs who buy the ES for the lore. it's something to give the few people who actually care about the plot in the ES games.

 

[Epona]

I wish RPG's would die.
So these threads could die as well.

Would you rather discuss FPS #78657448576567598987 ?

RPGs have been dead, btw. At least until we start getting some of these kickstarter projects coming out.

Funny some people would say RPGs started becoming good once they started abandoning the archaic D&D system, but hey that's just my opinion.

Those are the type of newshit gamers that have ruined the genre and the reason we haven't been able to have nice things in the last 10 or so years.

LARPers coming on here to enlighten us about how Role PLaying is being able to dress up your character and go anywhere you want in some crappy 3D gameworld, and the rest is UP TO YOU or the ones who need to get IMMERSED by emotionally engaging cinematic cutscenes and romanceable elf/alien butt sex.

Hell, even the final fantasy 7 or diablow fandom back in mid-90s weren't as disgusting and humiliating to be associated with as the "herp me plays a roles games derp" populace of today.

Great post (except the part about FF7 fans), I miss World Maps and I miss normal level systems that weren't different just for the sake of being different.

I absolutely don't want to dress up my characters. It's like game devs think we are all 8 year old girls who still play with Barbie dolls and need a castle to run around in while we make up fairy tales to justify it all.

After a few open world games, the thrill is completely gone. It's funny how I have been playing JRPG's for 20 years and still enjoy them more than WRPG's that I only picked up a few years ago.

I was looking into the new Paper Mario game today and apparently they went back to turn based battles but took away Star Points (exp) and levels altogether. I guess you complete side quests to raise stats. Sounds like area level caps to me and fighting would seem to be pointless since you won't get any stronger from it. Oh but you know, it's all about the new age fan who doesn't like to grind. The new Super Paper Mario sounds more like a Zelda game than an RPG.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Also Bethesda doesn't HAVE to tell them outside the games, they choose to, because they know the Elder Scrolls audience isn't buying the game for the plot. They just make up these stories and interviews for the few diehard lore maniacs who buy the ES for the lore. it's something to give the few people who actually care about the plot in the ES games.

I'm not sure if I was more disappointed or less when I thought they were writing mediocre stories on accident. Although I still say there is more in the game then they get credit for, it's just anything that isn't delivered in a Bioware-style cut-scene doesn't exist as far as most are concerned. And I'm talking about the simple stuff, not the meta you seem to be so up on. It definitely makes sense to say they are consciously trying to broaden the ol' appeal, considering the shift to full-on superman power-fantasy in Skyrim. I have literally heard people say Morrowind's story sucked because everybody wasn't singing the Nerevarine's praises from the get-go.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

So.... basically what the OP is suggesting is the SaGa series, only in Action RPG format. Works for me, I guess.

 

[ThePuzzldPirate]

Yes, it does, it is called Monster Hunter.

 

[deathbydeath]

Arguments below for ease of reading.

I said STALKER wasn't an RPG, you said no, and then offered a refutation to my statement.

When someone makes a statement such as "STALKER isn't an RPG", then you spend an entire post refuting that statement, it really kinda seems like you are saying STALKER is an RPG.

Sorry for the failure to communicate on my part, and for the record, I'm not saying Stalker is an rpg franchise, but rather it incorporates many mechanics that are of interest to this thread.

Right, this is a thread about RPGs without leveling mechanics, STALKER isn't and RPG, so it is pointless to the discussion.

This is entirely false, see above.

How is saying how Zelda isn't and RPG, and then showing how STALKER is exactly like it, and thus not an RPG also, thus showing how STALKER is irrelevant to the discussion about RPGs without leveling mechanics, not showing how Zelda is relevant to the discussion?

You're assuming here, and getting ahead of both of us. Wait for the below comment.

Also ALL Zelda games... they all pretty much work the exact same, it's like Pokemon, I don't need to specify one because they all pretty much work the exact same.

The only one's I've played most of are OoT and TP, and if you're saying that they're all pretty much the same, then I'll say that they're not like Stalker at all. Zelda games allow for no character customization in the slightest; you advance your character through a linear and planned path. In Stalker, you're dropped into a world filled with different "zones", with enemies in those areas having a different tier of equipment than others. For example, there's a Loner set of equipment, Bandit, Merc, Duty, Freedom, Monolith, Millitary, etc, and they all use different weapons randomly generated from a specific pool, and they all inhabit specific bases or pieces of land. Which loadout you go with and how you obtain it is up to you, and while there's no strict "level system", there are certainly differences in quality between weapons and armor, which applies to this thread, regardless of the overall genre of the game.

 

[deathbydeath]

Oops, double post. Ignore this please.

 

[sunsetspawn]

Grinding is the real problem, you've got to move the player into a mindset where he doesn't want to grind and where the focus is on the playstyle rather than the leveling (and there's a small conflict there with the desire to level, but games like KotoR do a good job of getting rid of grinding, so it's not insurrmountable)


Basically these systems tend to be really unfun to grind. In fact any grinding system based on using abilities rather than focusing on the end result (FFX-2, LotR:Third Age etc) has this problem, because suddenly we've got conflicting goals. Sure you can kill the wolf, but to level you actually want to land as many hits on the wolf as possible instead, or take as much health damage as possible and the conflict of interests can make things boring or encourage people to stretch out battles.

This problem even goes a higher level up, really in RPGs you want experience for a quest on completing it's object rather than for completing it in a specific way (unless you want to encourage more difficult play ala Deus Ex: HR ). It feels bad if you get less XP for taking the diplomatic option than the kill everything option.

Still if the fun can be placed on playing the game rather than the levelling and grinding, the system should work well and be fun

Holy crap, you just nailed a shitload of my feelings in one post.

KOTOR was brilliant for many reasons, but you just reminded me of a big one. The gameplay was perfectly balanced. I think Dragon Age may also be this way.

Oblivion's stupid skill system is the SECOND big problem with that game. Even after the level scaling has been modded away, (in my case by adding the Nehrim conversion) you still want to fight enemies with a few different types of your weakest weapons (as well as your hands), taking as many swings as possible, so you can get that god-forsaken +5 bonus.

And stupid Deus Ex HR? I was always trying to maximize my experience, which meant sneak up on every 2 enemies and use the Three-Stooges-style double head bonk. You get all types of exp bonuses turning two 10 exp enemies into a 110 exp bonanza, so that's all the fuck I did for the whole game. And thus I was able to max out every mod because the game didn't make me specialize like the first two games did.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

I do like the idea of having experience levels tied to each weapon type which rewards the player being good at it. However, there is a limit on performing actions to gain experience in something such as taking damage = more health is a no-no. Getting hit is a punishment and does not deserve to be rewarded like that.

Instead, using customizeable equipment such as shields or armor to "increase your health" is more suitable as they'll have to work for it. However, this may come at the cost of speed and creates a balance dynamic so the player isn't too powerful. No amount of armor and hard-hitting weapons will save you from being an easy target.

Melee is abit more interesting if the game was not weapon focused so I'm not sure how to reward good combat unless it was tied to ways you defeat enemies. Knocking people off the edge could reward you with a selection of slow but powerful attacks for example.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

Heck...even the Zelda games can be considered RPGs due to the way Link gains new Heart Containers and abilities throught the game. (With Adventure of Link for the NES being a more blatant example with its EXP system.)

Zelda II is the only RPG in the series.

Gaining heart containers is not RPG. That's Action-Adventure. RPG requires XP/levels. Heart containers are found as items and applied, which is different. It's a subtle difference, but still is (and always was) the difference. You don;t have to take my word for it. Look Zelda up. It's an action-adventure (I've had this discussion many times already with others).

I disagree. In most action adventures, certain aspects like your health and relative abilities don't improve over the course of the game. They remain static and cannot improve. This is not the same with Zelda. Through the course of the game, things like your health, magic, and even your skills in certain games increase and continue to do so. One could even argue that the number of hearts you have in the game is almost like a level in a way. Add in the nonlinear gameplay, monetary system, various "equips" that Link can acquire and use...and the elements are all there to classify Zelda as an RPG. An action RPG for sure...but an RPG nonetheless.

 

[BeeGeenie]

An Action-RPG without leveling, you say? They have those. They're called platformer, action, and FPS. *ba-dum-tish*

 

[SajuukKhar]

I didn't really interact with the other characters, which is why I'm not commenting on them, but in what universe is Veronica a 'token lesbian' rather than someone whose homosexuality was referenced ONCE?

[sub]For some reason, despite being an ES fan, I always agree with Anthraxus more when you two have your little flame wars. Love reading them, they're hilarious [/sub]

Veronica makes mention of her being a lesbian, and having her lesbian lover broken away form her, several times when talking to her.

On top of that, you meet Veronica's lover in the Dead Money expansion, yet Obsidian apparently decided against having you tell her you met Veronica or vice-versa.

Also, tokenism
"Tokenism is the policy or practice of making a perfunctory gesture toward the inclusion of members of minority groups. This token effort is usually intended to create a false appearance of inclusiveness and deflect accusations of discrimination. Typical examples include purposely hiring a black person in a mainly white group or a woman in a traditionally male occupation. Classically, token characters have some reduced capacity compared to the other characters and may have bland or inoffensive personalities so as to not be accused of stereotyping negative traits. Alternatively, their differences may be overemphasized or made "exotic" and glamorous."

Veronica fits that description to a t. Her being a lesbian has no real bearing on the story, or her character, and exists solely to say "yep, we have a lesbian in the game"

Veronica is Arcade Ganon's counterpart.

 

[Fishyash]

I cannot think of anything else that seperates an ARPG from an action-adventure game.

I bet if you gave Megaman X a level up system, it would turn into an ARPG.

You don't need levelling up to create a theme of growing stronger, and I think levelling up hinders action games as a whole. Link becomes stronger when he gets a heart container, or when he finds a new item, just like X becomes stronger when he gets a new weapon or picks up a fuel tank.

What you are proposing is nothing new.

If you're worrying about exploits, unless there will be some competetive scene, who cares? Your game doesn't have to be an RPG to be exploitable, and people who will care about exploits ruining their experience will just not do them.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

I disagree. In most action adventures, certain aspects like your health and relative abilities don't improve over the course of the game. They remain static and cannot improve. This is not the same with Zelda. Through the course of the game, things like your health, magic, and even your skills in certain games increase and continue to do so. One could even argue that the number of hearts you have in the game is almost like a level in a way. Add in the nonlinear gameplay, monetary system, various "equips" that Link can acquire and use...and the elements are all there to classify Zelda as an RPG. An action RPG for sure...but an RPG nonetheless.

Sigh. This again. Amazing how many misinformed gamers there are. C'mon you're two years older than me, you should know this... BTW, non-linear, money and equips - the first is a sandbox element. The second is seen across most genres (platformer coins, racing cash, sandbox cash, etc...)/ Equips are in RPGs yes, but they are also in Action-Adventure, Sandbox, FPS, TPS, etc... none of those are RPG elements. XP/levels are though but Zelda doesn't have those... Except Zelda 2.

Zelda is Action Adventure, always was, always will be. Whether you disagree or not, that's the case. Even the series creator says so: http://www.wiiblog.net/the-great-legend-of-zelda-debate-3482/ News flash, he calls it Adventure.

More links for your viewing pleasure about Zelda's genre:
http://ca.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda/nes-5990 (CTRL + F then Genre)
http://www.gamespot.com/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/
http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda_%28video_game%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_A_Link_to_the_Past
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Ocarina_of_Time
http://mynintendonews.com/2012/08/21/vigil-games-if-zelda-didnt-exist-we-probably-wouldnt/
http://nintendo.about.com/od/gamereviews/tp/The-Top-10-Wii-Action-Adventure-Games.htm


Is that enough citations for you? Zelda is not an RPG. It never was. (Except Zelda II)

As for HP increase not being available in most Action-Abventures, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeartContainer

*nods in understanding*

I stand corrected. Unfortunately, this means that the OP's idea just got killed. If EXP is needed to create an RPG, then it becomes impossible to create an RPG without some sort of leveling system.

CAPTCHA: schuza

ALRIGHT! Who killed the Captcha?!?

 

[niktzv]

I think point distribution systems and progressive skill improvement systems all have their place and time. It really depends on what kind of experience the developer wants you to have. Action-RPGs (like Mass Effect) for example; don't really lend themselves towards progressive skill development which is in "slower burning" games like Fallout or the Elder Scrolls.