Depth and replay value without a progression system in mutiplayer games

[Lucky Dan]

This is something that has been bothering me for a while, particularly with FPS games. Honestly when did it become necessary to dangle a piece of candy in front of us every 5 seconds to keep us interested in playing. Most of my favorite FPS games have literally no progression, but you can learn and become better without just getting better equipment or stats. Hell i'm still awful at quake 3 after playing it for years. The one genre that is the best example of this is fighting games, and imo their success and the longevity of some of the games in the genre should be enough to show developers that they don't need to shoehorn in progression to make a game be long-lasting, even though I know that as a genre fighting games can of can get away with it, simply due to the nature of the game

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

This is something that has been bothering me for a while, particularly with FPS games. Honestly when did it become necessary to dangle a piece of candy in front of us every 5 seconds to keep us interested in playing. Most of my favorite FPS games have literally no progression, but you can learn and become better without just getting better equipment or stats. Hell i'm still awful at quake 3 after playing it for years. The one genre that is the best example of this is fighting games, and imo their success and the longevity of some of the games in the genre should be enough to show developers that they don't need to shoehorn in progression to make a game be long-lasting, even though I know that as a genre fighting games can of can get away with it, simply due to the nature of the game

The fundamental reason such systems are in such vogue is actually the result of the design at the heart of, say, Call of Duty. In these games, the player has relatively little mastery of their own fate; the only skill that significantly alters their survival probability is knowing which corridor is most likely to harbor an enemy and point their weapon preemptively. What this means is that there is relatively little room for improvement of personal skill. Adding a progression system adds an external system of advancement to compensate and, what's more, it comes in discreet and notable chunks rather than the continual but relatively indiscernible from moment to moment improvement of a person's abilities.

A secondary effect of this is that it allows for the construction of a skinner box which helps encourage long term participation in an activity that, by itself, may not be particularly satisfying. The need to include such a system for this purpose is likely a symptom of developing a game system that does as much to divorce player skill from player success as possible; democratizing the game in this way makes it fundamentally less satisfying to play for many.

 

[Bad Jim]

The problem with progression by genuine improvement is that the improvement is not necessarily visible. You might think that if you keep playing you'll advance through the leagues, but everyone else is playing and improving too. You have to do the average amount of improvement just to keep your place in the leagues, so half the players will always be losing ground and getting discouraged. This continues until only a hard core of players are left, and those players will enjoy the game but will not be numerous enough to motivate publishers.

Fake advancement on the other hand, pleases lots of players enough to keep them playing, and therefore pleases publishers.

 

[AuronFtw]

When I was young, I put hundreds of hours into Timesplitters 2/FP with friends. The various PvP modes and great, simple mapmaker kept me interested far more than I had been in some other shooters.

But I was mostly "drawn" to it because there was nothing else. I didn't have an Xbox at the time, so I only got to play Halo when I was visiting friends - and Goldeneye was old enough by then that it wasn't as fun to pick back up. The game did nothing to keep me playing aside from being an above-average, engaging shooter game.

Today's massive titles like CoD rip mechanics straight out of RPG games - level up "skills" to get weapons or items related to it (like better shotguns or shotgun mods for high Close Quarters Combat, etc), level up as a player to get access to better looking gear/more impressive rank insignia. You don't necessarily *need* to do it, but it's a skinner box. Those small rewards staggered out over PvP gameplay you'd be doing normally helps keep people interested, even if subconsciously. Doesn't make it a "better" or "worse" game on the whole, just... one using old hat RPG/MMO tactics to keep people playing.

Re: fighting games. I honestly think they're in the same boat as older shooters. You can play them over and over on their own merits - and if you're *seriously* into the PvP (like, so good you go to tournaments) they offer more competition because the skill cap is far higher than your average spunkgargleweewee grenadestravaganza. But the fighting game developers are definitely stuck in the 90s mindset - IMO you'd find if the next marvel or street fighter came out with some kind of a leveling system, even if it only came with cheesy things like optional skins for characters, it would be a fairly big hit.

 

[DSK-]

I hate progression systems in FPS games, but thats because I come from a background of hardcore FPS games. Take for example my playing Black Ops 2 (hey, it was a Steam gift from a good friend and I was feeling bored to tears). I get no satisfaction whatsoever with the unlocks and the ranking up.

If there is a certain unlock for a weapon, attachment or a perk that I feel will incorporate well into my playstyle then I will be forced to chase it down, rather annoyingly. While on the other hand, people who have been playing far more than I have will have everything at their disposal and will have already figured out what is best for them and their playstyle.
In all honesty its' no different to getting spawned killed repeatedly in UT or Quake because you can't get hold of a weapon besides the one you spawned with due to the opposition having maplock.

I think progression systems in the likes of BF and COD are little hooks that help keep the interest and drive of the "achievement generation" even if they do get their asses kicked a couple of times (no offense intended by this remark by the way). Then, when you compare that experience to playing Quake, Warsow, SM or whatever with someone who has more experience and skill than you, and you get trounced with no pats on the back whatsoever from said game, the vast majority of people would stop playing outright because of a lack of positive feedback loops.

Progression systems naturally work (in my experience/opinion) in RPG's and such, where your character grows and more doors open for said character.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I hate leveling systems in competitive multiplayer shooters. Just give me everything at the start and let me try whatever I want out, whenever I want. It doesn't feel like I'm playing the actual game until I fully level up and have access to everything. How is making the new players play lower level guns, attachments, perks/boosters, equipment, etc. a good thing? Not too long ago I played MAG for free because I remember really liking the beta. The max level for people playing for free doesn't even let you have a red dot sight and all the other players have more health than you, that's just stupid.

The gameplay is what keeps me playing an online shooter, not earning things I should've had from the start. I played Metal Gear Online for 4 years, not because I was leveling up, but because the gameplay was the best.

At the same time, RPGs (especially MMOs) should make leveling faster for the most part. I want to spend more time at end game, not getting my character all maxed with awesome powers, abilities, skills, gear, etc. then game over shortly afterward. I would prefer a game like Borderlands getting me to max level like 75% the way through my initial playthrough, not having to do a 2nd playthrough just to get to max level (I want to spend more time playing as max level than time spent leveling). If your game has that great gameplay going for it, I'll play the shit out of it.

The fundamental reason such systems are in such vogue is actually the result of the design at the heart of, say, Call of Duty. In these games, the player has relatively little mastery of their own fate; the only skill that significantly alters their survival probability is knowing which corridor is most likely to harbor an enemy and point their weapon preemptively. What this means is that there is relatively little room for improvement of personal skill.

You don't really understand shooters then. It's not about pre-aiming your weapon into a hallway you think an enemy will run through. If that was the case, the best players wouldn't always have the top score every match because people would learn not to run down that same hallway over and over again. COD doesn't require the best skill to play because there isn't much you can do but more your character and aim whereas a FPS like MoH Warfighter has leaning and slide & shoot mechanic that really makes gunfights a lot more dynamic, and player skill is a lot more important in winning a gunfight. Lastly, in a shooter like Ghost Recon Future Soldier, I can totally kill you just by out-maneuvering and not using my gun whatsoever; if you wanna camp in cover like a *****, I will literally run right in front of you (with you totally aware that I'm coming for you) and knife your ass, and the way to counter that is to not camp in cover like a ***** lol.

 

[Naeras]

Leveling systems don't add neither depth nor replay value to a game, and were never intended to either. They're in the games to give a tangible feeling of progression. Even though that progression is mostly restricted to your avatar, rather than to you as a player, it's a decent carrot to make people play more, because they feel that they're achieving something regardless of whether or not they're any good at the game in question.

For someone like me, whose primary motivation for playing competitive multiplayer games is self-improvement and breaking down how the game works, this adds nothing to my enjoyment of the game. In fact, since significant parts of the content usually will be locked away behind a leveling wall, it usually directly detracts from the entertainment value. Then again, I can see why people like these kinds of systems.

 

[TrevHead]

RPG levelling is the main reason I rarely play modern competitive MP games, I don't want to sink in hours just to make it a level playingfield and it feels cheap getting my arse handed to me by players who are not only more experienced at the game but have weapons, perks and the tactics they enable locked away from me.

 

[MammothBlade]

I would find most shooters very boring without any sort of noticeable progression, or ability to customise your character, improve your skills or equipment. A progression system gives the player a reason to keep playing and coming back for more. But that's my take. I don't care about the competitive scene, I'm awful at the twitch gameplay that most multiplayer shooters seem to involve. There's still a lot of room for competitiveness at the top levels anyway, and those who are very good will reach top tiers quickly where they can be matched with other players with plenty of gear.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I like progression systems when they are kept simple and to the point. Battlefield 3 is an example of what I would consider a bad progression system. Mainly because it just went insane on the unlocks to the point that unlocks have their own unlocks which have even more unlocks. Really it was just way too much shit to unlock.

 

[MysticSlayer]

To me, progression systems in online FPS are really just a nuisance that stop me from playing how I want until I manage to unlock everything necessary for my play style. I rarely ever get through a game with a progression system, simply because I rarely have fun with the limits they put on you early on. Even though my most played online FPS games of this generation are CoD4 and MW2, I spent at least 95% of my time in those games at max level with no prestige, simply because they were fun games at their core. To me, making sure the core gameplay is good is what is key to making an FPS last longer, not some annoying progression system.

Of course, I don't think it is impossible to do a progression system right. CoD4 kept it very simple, and it was easy to reach max level within 10 hours, and any weapon attachment could be unlocked in less than an hour. Battlefield 2 allowed all play styles right from the start, with the unlocked weapons really only giving some minor customization options on what you wanted your weapon to be geared towards (ex. do you want a fast-firing, weak weapon? or do you want a slow-firing, powerful weapon?). However, if they don't follow the quick, simple system of CoD4 or the non-restrictive system of BF2, then I really don't like them. Of course, a bad game will never be redeemed by one of those systems.