Feeling of Progression in RPG's

[BrotherRool]

If this wasn't restricted to RPGs my vote would probably be Devil May Cry 3 =D It's awesome when the first boss fight ends up being a mook that you plow through by the end.

Planescape and both KotoRs were good by tying the sense of progression strongly into the story with their own unique twists. Final Fantasy X was quite good at that as well and the sphere grid was a nice visual demonstration of growth. I can't think really of an RPG that I've played that would win. FFXIII had you fight a boss from the beginning towards the end and it's set up and then you blow it away in one hit which was a nice touch but the game as a whole is terrible at giving a sense of progression (there's no opportunity to backtrack). So I don't really think there's a best out of the games I've played, Planescape and KotoRs don't allow backtracking which stops them from winning, although both allow you to mow through some mooks at the end. Pokemon? I like the game where the armour visibly gets better as the game progresses. The Lord of the Rings RPGs were could at that, but neither allow backtracking and The Third Age has the enemy level up with you.

I suspect MMOs do it best

As I mentioned previously, ME2 worked by keeping enemies fixed throughout, the only thing that changed was the player's Shepard. Challenge came in the form of enemy immunities, increased numbers and more frequent lieutenant/boss level mobs.

See for me, the Mass Effect franchise is general is my number 1 example of getting this wrong. In fact Mass Effect getting it wrong is one of my big criticisms of the franchise and Bioware, that they add stuff because other games do it without seeming to understand the broader design.

Mechanically it may be fine as you point out, but it utterly fails to have any meaning in the game. Narratively, Shepard isn't meant to be getting stronger (heck in 3 you could make an argument for her getting weaker). She's not meant to be a nobody who became a badass, she's meant to be the badass who was so amazing she was considered for the first human spectre and was the only person who could be trusted with saving the galaxy. She's not meant to get strong, she's meant to be strong. It actually backfires in its goal. If you look back and think 'wow Shepard has become stronger' then that raises all sorts of bizarre questions.

And nothing about the game in feel or talk is about progression, it's about fighting and struggles and cycles (lol). It's not even about exploration or finding new frontiers, but uncovering the secrets behind what you already know. (The dialogue in ME1 is equally bad for this. There's lots of conversations where Shepard asks questions along the lines of "Whats a Solarian?" which not only isn't really a suitable question for a Spectre candidate, but frankly isn't suitable for someone with a functioning brain in the ME universe.)


They dig get it right with the actual combat though, or rather adapted the game to fit, because 2 was a squad based character thing and they understood how to describe someones character by combat. Even in 1, seeing Wrex eat bullets and blast people with a shotgun was gave a much better character understanding than the practically non existent dialogue and weak loyalty mission.

... Sorry that ended on a bit of a tangent. (Also it never lets you go back and fight the simple battles to see how far you've come)

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

The bosses actually get less complex (Quelag or *maybe* the tag-team guys is a turning point) and more hp inflated near the end, with the final one being just a mook (combat style wise) with super-speed and extra hp.

I'm willing to criticize the things I adore, and I'll agree that there's some merit to this. I'd say that the journey towards that lightning sword is what matters. Seeing it in your hand, remembering what it took to have it, and actually feeling the power that it wields because of how harsh life was before it. It would be pretty bunk if you just found a +5 lightning anything in a chest, and of course remember that you don't have to use it. I nerf myself quite often just to get that rush back.

Spoiler

I'll concede that Gwyn was somewhat of a let down. It wasn't as bad as the true King in his miserable status, but I had built him up in my mind as God-master of ultimate power. I would've scratched my head when I saw a regular dude standing there, if he didn't fly across the room with his giant flaming sword. I'd say the sword was more intimidating than gwyn himself. I was very tempted to cheese it during one of the walks through the kiln, but it felt alright to finally beat him. If you want the rush, fight him by trying to riposte. That's a hell of a test of timing, at least at first.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

See for me, the Mass Effect franchise is general is my number 1 example of getting this wrong. In fact Mass Effect getting it wrong is one of my big criticisms of the franchise and Bioware, that they add stuff because other games do it without seeming to understand the broader design.

Mechanically it may be fine as you point out, but it utterly fails to have any meaning in the game. Narratively, Shepard isn't meant to be getting stronger (heck in 3 you could make an argument for her getting weaker). She's not meant to be a nobody who became a badass, she's meant to be the badass who was so amazing she was considered for the first human spectre and was the only person who could be trusted with saving the galaxy. She's not meant to get strong, she's meant to be strong. It actually backfires in its goal. If you look back and think 'wow Shepard has become stronger' then that raises all sorts of bizarre questions.

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. From a story perspective, I'll grant that you may be right but I think this aspect is one in which we're supposed to suspend disbelief. Shepard is a capable leader, an experienced soldier and is made a SPECTRE because of his/her ability to see things through. Actual combat prowess is largely irrelevant in this regard; the story isn't linked to how many skills or which weapons Shepard has or uses.

But my description of the level-up mechanics was for ME2-3 at any rate. ME1 quite clearly scaled enemies to match Shepard's level. Certainly in terms of hitpoints and damage output at least. It was 2 & 3 where enemies remained the same throughout, only Shepard's weapons/gear and skills improved (and IIRC his/her health increased too). Ignoring your quite well argued points, as a level-up system I think it's quite a clever one. That's not to say I wouldn't have liked more than just 5 skills, just the the mechanic of levelling the player in relation to a fixed world managed to give a good feeling of progression. Cooldowns decreased, effectiveness, range and/or power increased...the two guards that had Shepard pinned down at the start of ME2 became a minor inconvenience later.

Introducing the Collectors, those big robots and so on kept the challenge up, whilst men and smaller machines went from threat to shotgun fodder. That is an enjoyable mechanic.

 

[BrotherRool]

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. From a story perspective, I'll grant that you may be right but I think this aspect is one in which we're supposed to suspend disbelief. Shepard is a capable leader, an experienced soldier and is made a SPECTRE because of his/her ability to see things through. Actual combat prowess is largely irrelevant in this regard; the story isn't linked to how many skills or which weapons Shepard has or uses.

But my description of the level-up mechanics was for ME2-3 at any rate. ME1 quite clearly scaled enemies to match Shepard's level. Certainly in terms of hitpoints and damage output at least. It was 2 & 3 where enemies remained the same throughout, only Shepard's weapons/gear and skills improved (and IIRC his/her health increased too). Ignoring your quite well argued points, as a level-up system I think it's quite a clever one. That's not to say I wouldn't have liked more than just 5 skills, just the the mechanic of levelling the player in relation to a fixed world managed to give a good feeling of progression. Cooldowns decreased, effectiveness, range and/or power increased...the two guards that had Shepard pinned down at the start of ME2 became a minor inconvenience later.

Introducing the Collectors, those big robots and so on kept the challenge up, whilst men and smaller machines went from threat to shotgun fodder. That is an enjoyable mechanic.

You make I good argument actually, I think the core mechanics were really good, it was just not used in a way that I feel was effective. (I feel this is Bioware all over. They can improve everything individually, they can have better cinematography, improve the mechanics, the actual dialogue etc, they just can't fit it into the overall frame in an interesting way. Particularly with ME2 and ME3, the walking round talking, the story and the combat sections felt almost like completely different games). And now you mention it, going from firing fire off a warp every now and then at the start of ME3 to taking out whole chunks of people with one biotic combo after another was cool. Especially with Ceberus, because you start of trying pretty hard against them and then in the later Cerberus combat maps you can stroll through. I hadn't really thought about it before and I'm glad you've pointed it out to me. It's something to watch out for on the next playthrough

It's just a shame about the suspension of disbelief. Good games should have mechanics that help the story and this was kinda the opposite. And RPGs are normally pretty good, pretty much all the great RPGs are stories about discovery or getting stronger, or recovering abilities that were lost or going on a spiritual journey etc. They know that growth is an important factor in RPG mechanics. (I haven't played them, but the Persona games seem super great at this, tying player growth directly to story relationships)

 

[Stavros Dimou]

What I'm gonna tell you might surprise you,but the game that did that best for me was S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Pripyat.
Yes I know that it's not a classic RPG,but a hybrid of RPG,FPS,and sandbox.

But progression is paced well and you can feel the difference,and while you become more powerful later on, the game doesn't loose its challenge.

You start off with a standard leather jacket and a not so accurate ak74s.
If you go to storm a mercenary camp with this starting equipment,you will get your ass handed to you. You will be dying seconds after the enemies face you,and you will hardly manage to kill one of them.
But if you do quests you might find a better weapon and money. With the money you can buy a new suit and install upgrades.
If you find the lost tools and bring them to the technician you will unlock another tier of upgrades.
If you search around you will also find artifacts that offer buffs. So later on instead of wearing a leather jacket you will have a state of the art Exoskeleton full of Kevlar and motor assisted joint movement,a gas and radiation protection mask with built-in infra red and night vision systems,and a unique of its kind Gauss Rifle,and you will go back to the mercenary base and it will feel so much easier,you will kick their asses. But once you have done all that,the more dangerous enemies like Chimeras will start appearing randomly every now and then... So the game doesn't loose its challenge.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

I honestly can't get into RPGs where you don't get to create your own character anymore.

 

[Tom_green_day]

After beating a dragon within an hour, I felt like it was hard for a monster to be more imposing.

I think you misunderstood the game. Most people after going to Riverwood, as far as I understand, then chose to explore a lot before continuing with the main quests, and Bethesda relied on their open world to create the progression. Personally I was level 25ish when I fought my first dragon, and I know people who were a lot higher.
The problem with progression in an open-world game is that the creators don't know what order you'll do things in.

Monster Hunter Tri is phenomenal at this.

Isn't this the same with all MH games? Apart from Freedom 2 where you were a hunter before and was beaten by the Tigrex.

Far Cry 3 has a rather broken leveling system. The skills are unlocked through playing story missions so if you're playing like I do

Wait what? You can get XP just as easily from exploring, overtaking outposts and completing side-quests as you do from doing the story missions, and you use the XP to level up and get the skills.

Personally I think that apart from the previously mentioned MH series, Fallout 3. On Galaxy News radio, it starts with just 3 Dog being cool, and gradually as you complete side missions etc he talks more and more about you until you reach the final level, where he gives the speech about how you are the Last, Best Hope for the wasteland in a moment of my gaming career I'll never forget.

 

[Ranorak]

After beating a dragon within an hour, I felt like it was hard for a monster to be more imposing.

I think you misunderstood the game. Most people after going to Riverwood, as far as I understand, then chose to explore a lot before continuing with the main quests, and Bethesda relied on their open world to create the progression. Personally I was level 25ish when I fought my first dragon, and I know people who were a lot higher.
The problem with progression in an open-world game is that the creators don't know what order you'll do things in.

When I make a new game, I usually rush until I beat that first dragon and never go up the mountain.
That way I still have random dragon's spawning and get to spend souls for shouts.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

One game no one's mentioned yet that did a good job of this is Chrono Trigger. Most of the time, when you unlocked a new skill, your combat potential increased significantly. This is especially true for when you get your first multi-enemy attacks, and the wide variety of such attacks (attack all enemies on a line, attack all enemies within a zone, attack all enemies on the screen) made getting each new skill exciting and effective.

There were multiple times on my first run through where I was stuck at a boss, looked at my skills list, realized the next skill would probably be awesomely useful, leveled until I got it, and then was able to beat the boss.

Of course, the enemies don't level up with you, so if you go back to earlier levels, which the time-traveling mechanic actively encourages, you get to curb stomp enemies that were significant before. And finally, near the end of the game Lavos takes on the properties of several earlier bosses that you fought, so you get to have the satisfaction of killing with a single blow bosses that took your team down the first time around.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Far Cry 3 has a rather broken leveling system. The skills are unlocked through playing story missions so if you're playing like I do

Wait what? You can get XP just as easily from exploring, overtaking outposts and completing side-quests as you do from doing the story missions, and you use the XP to level up and get the skills.

Quite true. You get EXPERIENCE POINTS from exploring and taking over outposts and yes the XP eventually brings you to higher levels BUT the skill points you get with each level can only be spent on specific skills that are unlocked during story missions. I explored and built up my level but I also had about 9 skill points I couldn't use because I hadn't unlocked the skills during story time.

Not that Far Cry 3 is a bad game because of it. I'm loving it at the moment.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Quite true. You get EXPERIENCE POINTS from exploring and taking over outposts and yes the XP eventually brings you to higher levels BUT the skill points you get with each level can only be spent on specific skills that are unlocked during story missions.

Actually that's true, I forgot about that and I apologise.
One thing I realised while thinking about this topic- in Mass Effect trilogy there isn't a whole lot of progression. You start as some space-faring badass who has done countless heroic actions only mentioned at, and you finish more-or-less the same.