Feeling of Progression in RPG's

[Ranorak]

One of the main staples of RPG's has always been the rise from zero to hero.
The stakes rising, the monster getting tougher and your gear getting better.

Now what games do you consider did this the best, and not so good.

I'll start of on what I think was my personal best;
Dragon's Dogma.

I really felt like I was progressing.
Not only were enemies like Cycloses a huge challenge at first, you also looked like a weakling.
Only pretty late in the game you get actual armour, until then your biggest protection is a heavy shirt.
Steel only enters pretty far into the game.

Not so good;
Skyrim.

After you escape the dragon, you wonder the wild.
Fight a wolf or two.
Get send to Whiterun.
Bam! Fight with a giant.
dungeon.
Bam! dragon.

After beating a dragon within an hour, I felt like it was hard for a monster to be more imposing.
As well as the gear, it takes almost no time to get Steel armour, that already makes you look like a knight.

So, what games do you think really succeed in building up the progression?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Dark Souls and Demon's Souls nailed this. Because it felt like it was your skill at the game that was progressing and getting better. Rather than just your characters health, skills, equipment and so on.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

I'd say the earlier games do this stuff pretty well. I just finished Baldur's Gate 1 and Fallout 1 and it's very noticeable here. In Fallout for example, I started off as a barely armed dude that sniveled around for every single bottle cap to a juggernaut in T-51b armour and laser weaponry tearing and slicing super mutants in half without giving a single fuck "Super mutant hits you for no damage". A massive progression.

Same in Baldur's Gate. You go from being annihilated by wolves and bandits to destroying them without even thinking or breaking a sweat later on. With these games, you really feel like your character has come a long way and it's a pretty cool feeling.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Best? Hard to say. I always enjoyed the way classic D&D CRPGs did it, though it really did have a major flaw insofar as wizards sucked to start with, while the hardy warrior types could fend off swathes of rats and kobolds. Later the spellcaster would annihalate all before the +5 full plate-clad warrior could unsheath his mighty weapon (yes that was a double entendre).

The approach I hate is the usual MMO one where the XP required for the next level is a bigger gap than the one prior, AND the next difficulty of monster gives more XP while those "easier" give less. You only need to change ONE of those values FFS, not all of them. Make the gap bigger, and keep the XP gains the same, or decrease the XP gains and keep the gap the same. The end result is the same (increased time/requirements until next level up), but it saves a truckload of unnecessary confusion and makes a system significantly easier to understand.

Another approach I suppose I did like, found effective, even if quite different from most other RPGs, was that of Mass Effect 2, Alpha Protocol and a small number of others. In this approach, enemies do not change throughout the entire game, only the player does. As such, what the player would find is that at first almost everything is challenging. As skill points get invested and accuracy/damage output/effectiveness improves, the player comes to be on par with the enemies. Eventually (s)he will surpass them (though there are (hopefully) always enemies that are tougher (as standard) or require different strategies.

I have to say I found ME2's approach a little refreshing, though I do wish there had been more in-depth customisation. At first, two guards present a life-threatening challenge. Later, with better weaponry and abilities, Shepard can face a room of enemies at once with litle threat. But then, rock-paper-scissors comes in and you have the enemy that can't be harmed much by weapons (stifling the soldier), the one that isn't affected by biotics (hope the adept brought friends), and some who shrug off electronic devices as a mere nuisance (engineer better watch out).

This approach, overall remarkably managed to both give the sense of progression and increased power, whilst still maintaining challenge. Not. Easy.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

As much as I love the "start with nothing" approach, like Elder Scrolls and in fact, most other RPGs, is that the fun and challenge kind of have a shelf-life. A game is like a book, or a movie in at least one way...it's about the journey, not the destination. The journey is in the playing, the discovery, the fighting and surviving, the solving of puzzles and the finding of increasingly effective and valuable armaments, artifacts and treasures and of course, in the case of RPGs, the gaining of levels.

But in all such games, there will come a point beyond which little can present a challenge. While I began Skyrim as a peniless prisoner dressed in a dead man's armour, taken from his still-warm corpse, there came a point where I had more money than I could ever conceivably spend, particularly as I needed very little any merchant could offer. I wielded a sword as good as or better than any Daedric artifact, crafted by me with my maxed out Smithing skill, enchanted with a maxed Enchanting skill. I had many nice suits of armour (most thanks to mods, I'll grant), but only one body upon which they may be displayed.

 

[recruit00]

Monster Hunter Tri is phenomenal at this. When you start the game, you are a weak hunter with crap for gear and a Great Jaggi takes a while to kill. Slowly, you kill multiple monsters and gain more equipment. You get stronger and suddenly, you can kill a Great Jaggi in one screen and are incredibly powerful. So awesome and well done.

Go play that game!

 

[DoPo]

The approach I hate is the usual MMO one where the XP required for the next level is a bigger gap than the one prior, AND the next difficulty of monster gives more XP while those "easier" give less. You only need to change ONE of those values FFS, not all of them. Make the gap bigger, and keep the XP gains the same, or decrease the XP gains and keep the gap the same. The end result is the same (increased time/requirements until next level up), but it saves a truckload of unnecessary confusion and makes a system significantly easier to understand.

I want to build on this - yeah, the whole thing is just ridiculous. Numbers for the number god, basically is what it boils down to. For some reason there are people who are very impressed when they see BIGGER NUMBAHZ all the time. It doesn't matter that it may take 1000 XP to level up, and killing enemies gives you 50 XP each, while a few levels later you need 10 000 XP and you get 500 XP per kill. Somehow that's better than before. But the XP is not the only thing - damage, health, armour, etc - all climb up. At the same time. So you have more health, but enemies do more damage. You do more damage, but enemies have more health. Also there is more armour, too. Why? Why the need to inflate all the values at the same time? Yeah, there is some increase in efficiency - say, if you do 50 damage, you will take down enemies in 10 hits, and a couple of levels later, you will do 100 damage and kill them in 8-9. Which would be the same as just adding 10 damage and leaving the rest as before (more or less).

Going for big numbers for the sake of numbers is just stupid. Trying to keep everything in check is also just stupid. And many developers do fall in this trap - by scaling everything all the time, you might get no advancement at all or maybe one of the many variables scales out of proportion with the rest and is inferior/superior.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Fire Emblem does it pretty well. Every Level up brings shows you exactly how you leveled and makes it look so satisfying. Not to mention that each level up general can significantly affect your units.

And promoting your units is just so satisfying.

 

[The Madman]

The Baldur's Gate series does this best in my mind. A lot of people tend to get frustrated on first trying Baldur's Gate because the first game starts you off with almost nothing, a weakling that struggles to survive on their own and who will, if you're inexperienced with the game, die a lot.

Still I always recommend playing the first game since while that initial frustration is valid, especially to those still learning the game mechanics and DnD ruleset, the feeling of satisfaction you get when you do eventually triumph against those odds and begin to understand how both the game and DnD works just makes it totally worth it. The voyage is better for that initial frustration as well, since when you finally do ascend through BG2 and to the very Throne of Bhall, you *feel* the power. You brought a character through two games, from a little level 1 punk afraid of a rabid dog to this demigod of ultimate destruction challenging the very heavens themselves.

Honestly I wish more game were willing to risk being difficult in the name of creating a meaningful sense of progression, since the more popular modern way to do things seems to be never challenge the player ever for fear they'll toss the game away and play something else, but in so doing create a more shallow and less meaningful experience for those that do stick around.

Just my thoughts.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

The Fallout series does this pretty well in my mind, as leveling up grants you skills and perks that not only help you out in combat but in conversations, you start out an opportunistic fighter without anything good, hoarding every cap and slice of food you find, toward the end you're a badass with bitchin' guns and armor, who can nail a bandit's head from a hundred places, with a variety of knowledge that you can use to impress people. Add to the fact that enemies in Fallout tend not to scale, or don't scale very much, baddies that present a huge challenge int he beginning end up being cannon fodder toward the end.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

The thing with scaling, as mentioned above, is that it's both vitally important to nail and incredibly difficult to do. How can you both keep a sense of progression and keep the game challenging?

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.

And D&D CRPG works by having progressively tougher monsters, in response to the players increasing power. The formerly challenging Lvl 1-2 Kobolds/Goblins make way to lvl 5-6 Bugbears, 8-9 Orcs, 12-13 Elementals, and later planar and dragon creatures.

Oblivion, and to some extent, Skyrim, worked by generating all enemies on the fly, relative to the player, be it -1 level, +-0, +1, etc. This has the advantage of continuous challenge anywhere we travel, at the cost of destroying any sense of progression, and further, making the end of the game, the Colliseum and Oblivion gates no harder than the very first encounter (ie. one could become Colliseum champion (replete with Adoring Fan!) at level 2-3).

Skyrim improved on Oblivion by fixing many enemies' levels, or scaling them only to a point, beyond which the Dovahkiin would continue to progress while they would not. Thus at lvl 35+ the player would have a much easier time with Bandits and Necromancers, but other enemies, particuarly story ones would remain challenging.

I don't know what my ideal preference for such a challenge would be. I think what I'd like is: have areas of increasing difficulty that follow the pace of the story and player's level progression. Keep challenging enemies on par with the player, while fixing generic enemies, instead increasing their numbers and tactical approaches to keep it interesting. XP gains remain consistent, only the amount required till next level changes. Reward heavier skill investment. Rock-paper-scissors approach to enemy distribution.

 

[thesilentman]

Dark Souls and Demon's Souls nailed this. Because it felt like it was your skill at the game that was progressing and getting better. Rather than just your characters health, skills, equipment and so on.

Ninja'd at the second post. I was expecting this.

The reason that Demons'/Dark Souls did this so well was that they stomped you to bits and then expected you to get back up and fight the guys until you could beat them for real.

 

[Christopher Fisher]

Rawww! None of those are RPGs!!! Skyrim isn't an RPG! Dragon's Dogma isn't an RPG!! Dark Souls isn't an RPG!!! FIRE EMBLEM ISN'T AN RPG!! Fallout isn't an RPG!!! NOTHING IS A TRUE RPG!!!! AHHH!!!

 

[Blunderboy]

The Baldur's Gate series does this best in my mind. A lot of people tend to get frustrated on first trying Baldur's Gate because the first game starts you off with almost nothing, a weakling that struggles to survive on their own and who will, if you're inexperienced with the game, die a lot.

Still I always recommend playing the first game since while that initial frustration is valid, especially to those still learning the game mechanics and DnD ruleset, the feeling of satisfaction you get when you do eventually triumph against those odds and begin to understand how both the game and DnD works just makes it totally worth it. The voyage is better for that initial frustration as well, since when you finally do ascend through BG2 and to the very Throne of Bhall, you *feel* the power. You brought a character through two games, from a little level 1 punk afraid of a rabid dog to this demigod of ultimate destruction challenging the very heavens themselves.

Honestly I wish more game were willing to risk being difficult in the name of creating a meaningful sense of progression, since the more popular modern way to do things seems to be never challenge the player ever for fear they'll toss the game away and play something else, but in so doing create a more shallow and less meaningful experience for those that do stick around.

Just my thoughts.

This man speaks the truth. Every damn word of it.

Rawww! None of those are RPGs!!! Skyrim isn't an RPG! Dragon's Dogma isn't an RPG!! Dark Souls isn't an RPG!!! FIRE EMBLEM ISN'T AN RPG!! Fallout isn't an RPG!!! NOTHING IS A TRUE RPG!!!! AHHH!!!

You feeling okay there buddy?

 

[Proverbial Jon]

Not so good;
Skyrim.

Skyrim just seems like a poorly balanced game altogether. Frost trolls and bears were a bigger threat to my character in the beginning than any dragon ever was.

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 (pretty much ignoring the story and doing everything else first) you end up with a pile of skill points you can't use because you haven't unlocked any skills yet!

I'm sure this is to stop players from becoming overpowered too early on but it just seems to make a mockery of the level system.

 

[Smolderin]

I think Skyrim succeeded and both failed at progression at the same time. On one hand, there is a definite strong sense of gaining strength and power throughout leveling. Being Dovakhin, fighting that dragon for the first time was definitely challenging, but as you keep on going, the dragons become progressively easier. I don't think this is much of a problem considering you are basically the ultimate dragon slayer.

And yet...it kinda failed cause the game attempts to undermine that power you gained by spawning tougher enemies in dungeons that are really supposed to be pretty easy once you get past a certain level block. I guess it comes with the open world but I really don't see any harm in say, starting Skyrim for the first time, then entering a dungeon that kicks your ass because you are way to under-leveled. That's fine, I explored Skyrim at my own leisure and curiosity killed the cat, now I know. But on the other hand, I expect to walk into that same dungeon above level and wipe the floor with everything in there. That is what I love about leveling in RPG's, to feel the payoff of all the work that went into my character.

Sometimes I want a challenge, but other times I just want kick in a dungeon door and make a throne out of dead Draugrs.

 

[jehk]

I agree with Dragon's Dogma. However, by the very end of the game I was an such omnipotent god-child that everything was trivial.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Dark Souls and Demon's Souls nailed this. Because it felt like it was your skill at the game that was progressing and getting better. Rather than just your characters health, skills, equipment and so on.

Yep. I like the fact that the boss monsters from the early game (the capra demons and those minotaur things) end up as your basic mooks in the Demon Ruins much later on. It really reinforces how far you've come and makes you feel good about how much you've improved.

 

[Tdoodle]

I didn't get it much during one playthrough, but the second time I went through Dragon Age: Origins and had some sense of what I was doing there was a sense of progression there. The first time round I was blundering my way through fights without much sense, now I was breezing through them with a more balanced and effective team.

In Skyrim, on Master, you get a real sense for it. The first time you fight a dragon you're really relying on the guards with you to distract it - two breaths and you're down, so you need them. As you go on you can start taking them down without help, and because they don't always scale you can keep getting a sense of progression for a while. Bandits are a good measure too, Chiefs will one or two hit you at the start so straight fights can be difficult without a companion or summons, but by the end you're going toe-to-toe with them which is something you wouldn't dream of doing early on.

 

[Legion]

Not so good;
Skyrim.

Skyrim just seems like a poorly balanced game altogether. Frost trolls and bears were a bigger threat to my character in the beginning than any dragon ever was.

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 (pretty much ignoring the story and doing everything else first) you end up with a pile of skill points you can't use because you haven't unlocked any skills yet!

I'm sure this is to stop players from becoming overpowered too early on but it just seems to make a mockery of the level system.

I agree with both points.

Dragons have never been an issue for me, but Giants, trolls and bears were always a pain to defeat up until the point that you can use the full Fus Ro Dah on them. I think a lot of it is down to the Dragons fairly poor AI, as they spend a lot of their time in a position vulnerable to your attacks whereas you can quite easily avoid most of theirs.

FarCry 3 I started off doing everything except the main quest until I'd done everything in the area where the map had been unlocked, and only did main quests outside those areas once I'd exhausted it all. So I at one point had 8 skill points to spend but nothing I really wanted to spend them on. After a while I thought screw it, as I'd get more and spent them all. Did the next main quest and unlocked a whole bunch of abilities but had no points any more.

That's why I prefer consistent levelling where you can pick whatever you like, whenever you like as long as you have the points for it. Obviously advanced versions of abilities need to be unlocked after basics, but I have never liked needing to get an irrelevant ability in order to get one that I want.