Poll: RPG's with no level caps?

[SextusMaximus]

With it, I guess - but it just adds up very limited amounts of points to spend on 'skills'

 

[Alex_P]

For reference I'm going by the standard of no level cap being 99/100, 255, 999 or whatever as the max limit depending on the specific game or console. Just saying NOOOOOOOOOO to going past say 20 is a dick move to anyone who actually enjoys levelling.

Who cares what kind of number you slap onto it? A game mechanic that has numbers that go up to 10,000 isn't necessarily any different from one where everything is simple single-digit math.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

Level scaling, this is one of the worst things an RPG can do.

Agreed. Not only does it turn the entire "level" system into a pointless exercise in self-deception (hey, some numbers went up! and the numbers coming out of the enemies went up to match! this is progress, I'm sure of it!), but it also tends to create situations where characters can easily get worse rather than better (stop pumping points into your Sword skill after each level-up and your character will go from being an excellent swordsman to a crappy one as all the enemies get more and more pumped-up over time).

-- Alex

 

[Olrod]

This was most noticeable on Final Fantasy 8, you actually had an advantage by never fighting battles and never levelling up. By building up Diablos near the start of the game you could get the Zero Encounter ability, so Boss monsters were the only enemies you ever fought, all the way through the game.

As they were scaled to your level, you can fight the end-game boss when it was level 10, yet you could still Junction the most powerful magics as you could draw them from points on the map no matter how high or low your level was, and add them to your stats and be over twice as powerful as any Boss you'd ever face.

For example, assume at level 10 all your stats were 25, yet you can Juntion 100-stat point magics to make all your stats 125, and Boss monsters would still have their own stats set at 25 because they were scaled to your level, not your ability.

Naturally, the lower your level, the bigger the impact the Juntioned magics were (simply because of the percentage value differences).

It would be the same with any other RPG system where enemies are scaled to your level number, regardless of how powerful the equipment was that you used.

This levelling system is deeply flawed as it actively discourages the player from fighting battles, which is one of the mains parts of an RPG game.

 

[Jenova65]

I really don't like level capping at all, so what if people who grind can kill monsters stupidly easy? If they have put the hours to train they should be able to kick the game's ass. The thing is level capping takes away a choice, where there is no cap you can choose to fly by the seat of your pants or you can be all boy scout 'be prepared', level capping says do it our way or don't do it at all.
The level cap for ME was OK at 60, but a backwards step in ME2, level 30? What the hell is that, BioWare? It is annoying because if you starting a +game there is nothing new to learn since level 30 can be achieved on the first play through. And I hate seeing skills I know I can't ever get.....

 

[e2density]

I assume that by "no lvl cap" you mean the games where you can get to lvl 99 or 999, given enough time

No, I think he means by "no lvl cap" he means there is no level cap...it's self explanatory... As in you can keep leveling up forever.

Let me quote the response of the guy in question (OP) for this one:

I assume that by "no lvl cap" you mean the games where you can get to lvl 99 or 999, given enough time. Like in the olden days.

If Im right, than yeah, I prefer those kind of games.

that's right ! you know what i mean!

Morale of the story: Read before you post, it was posted 2 hours before your post, its on first page, thers no excuses for such amount of laziness.

EDIT: Sorry if it came out harsh or offensive, but that just ticked me off.

There is also no excuse for using 3 commas in a single sentence without starting a new one, leaving an awkward phrase in your post. There is also no excuse for spelling "theres" without and "e". There is also no excuse for not revising your posts before you post them, at the expense of quality and value.

Before you start correcting other people, make sure you know how to do it right. Congratulations on making yourself look like a retard. Luckily there are enough of you people out there to the point where no one cares.

 

[Alex_P]

It matters, a lot. How many RPGs do you play without a levelling cap, compared to ones with a cap?

Non-sequitur. I said there was no automatic functional difference between a game that scales things from 1 to 10 and a game that scales things from 1 to 100,000, so your obsession with bigger numbers is misguided. Here's a simple example: Diablo 2 had a hundred character levels. Final Fantasy X had some number much higher than 20, I'm sure -- and yet both those games ended up with roughly the same number of selectable character powers as Dragon Age did, and they're not notably longer than Dragon Age. So, besides the psychological validation of seeing a bigger number, what's the difference? "This one goes up to 11"?

But, hey, I think about half of the games I've played have included some form of "level cap" mechanic. Mass Effect 2 and Guild Wars, two of the RPG-style video games I consider to be strongest game-mechanically -- that is, on the level of moment-to-moment gameplay rather than just atmosphere or storyline -- pretty much neutered "levels" altogether. You don't get any automatic stat increases (like hit points) for leveling up in ME2, and GW really just uses "levels" to give you an extended tutorial.

Hell, in the pen-and-paper world, tons and tons of games just plain don't have levels. And, generally, they've better off for it. I've been quite happy with certain games that eschew conventional character-advancement mechanics altogether.

...

The level cap for ME was OK at 60, but a backwards step in ME2, level 30? What the hell is that, BioWare? It is annoying because if you starting a +game there is nothing new to learn since level 30 can be achieved on the first play through. And I hate seeing skills I know I can't ever get.....

I figure not being able to take every single power for a class makes games better by introducing, well, choices. You can always spend a bit of Eezo to retrain and swap in a new skill you want to try out, anyway.

-- Alex

 

[Brad Shepard]

without would make no sence, no lev cap means a lot of grinding to get so powerful nothing can stop you, at least with a lev cap, you get a challange, even if its from a superboss

 

[Jenova65]

It matters, a lot. How many RPGs do you play without a levelling cap, compared to ones with a cap?

Non-sequitur. I said there was no automatic functional difference between a game that scales things from 1 to 10 and a game that scales things from 1 to 100,000, so your obsession with bigger numbers is misguided. Here's a simple example: Diablo 2 had a hundred character levels. Final Fantasy X had some number much higher than 20, I'm sure -- and yet both those games ended up with roughly the same number of selectable character powers as Dragon Age did, and they're not notably longer than Dragon Age. So, besides the psychological validation of seeing a bigger number, what's the difference? "This one goes up to 11"?

But, hey, I think about half of the games I've played have included some form of "level cap" mechanic. Mass Effect 2 and Guild Wars, two of the RPG-style video games I consider to be strongest game-mechanically -- that is, on the level of moment-to-moment gameplay rather than just atmosphere or storyline -- pretty much neutered "levels" altogether. You don't get any automatic stat increases (like hit points) for leveling up in ME2, and GW really just uses "levels" to give you an extended tutorial.

Hell, in the pen-and-paper world, tons and tons of games just plain don't have levels. And, generally, they've better off for it. I've been quite happy with certain games that eschew conventional character-advancement mechanics altogether.

...

The level cap for ME was OK at 60, but a backwards step in ME2, level 30? What the hell is that, BioWare? It is annoying because if you starting a +game there is nothing new to learn since level 30 can be achieved on the first play through. And I hate seeing skills I know I can't ever get.....

I figure not being able to take every single power for a class makes games better by introducing, well, choices. You can always spend a bit of Eezo to retrain and swap in a new skill you want to try out, anyway.

-- Alex

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I however prefer the concept of 'actual' choice over imposed choice. As I said, if someone wants to fly be the seat of their pants they can, they can defeat a the minimum number of enemies to achieve the minimum level required to get through the game, great for them not great for those who prefer the actual freedom of being the best they can. And I don't want to retrain a limited number of skills (I know you can do this I'm not new to ME) I want to be able to train as many skills as I am supposed to have as Commander Shepard, saviour of the Galaxy, level capping at 30 prevents that and makes the bonus skill at the beginning and the 'stolen', skill in game just two more things I can't complete which irritates me.
This is my opinion to which I am equally entitled ;-)

 

[asam92]

I would of loved it if Secret of Mana was unlimited levels, however I never bothered to max out the levels anyway. The Health Bar would not accept more than 999 for the hero and I think 850 for the other 2, not sure what levels that they are at at those HP limits though, But I wanna be able (giving finding a good enough game to do it) to go so high that I can do a standard attack and kill the final boss in one hit. Back on Secret of Mana again that would also be impossible because the maximum amount of damage you could cuz in one hit was 999 so even if you had the ability to hit over 999 damage the game stopped you from doing so. Sigh...

 

[Olrod]

without would make no sence, no lev cap means a lot of grinding to get so powerful nothing can stop you, at least with a lev cap, you get a challange, even if its from a superboss

Curious you should say that, as from my perspective, grinding to get so powerful nothing can stop you IS the challenge I enjoy.

 

[Alex_P]

So by your logic we should never do anything that can resemble something else then? Unless it's entirely different we shouldn't do it, no matter what.

... Where are you getting this from?

The point is that it's useless to let us build up our characters if you're going to tell us how much we can and when we have to stop. "You can build your character however you want! Except you can't because we say so." You can't make your characters godly strong because of the level cap unless you exploit glitches, some people enjoy arbitrarily making over powered characters. Removing that aspect of an rpg is completely pointless while leaving it in adds in some replay value and another goal to people who otherwise might be bored of the game.

"You can grind as much as you want" is hardly "You can build your character however you want". There are much better way to design character-building choices into an RPG-style video game.

Adding support for endless grinding isn't always as simple as you make it out to be. It's not really an approach that works well for games built around carefully-placed set-piece battles rather than wandering in the open wilderness picking up "random encounters". There's also the issue Axolotl mentioned on page 1: if you don't add "level scaling", players are likely to over-grind and then turn around and find that the rest of the game isn't interesting because they've made their characters too potent, whereas adding "level scaling" is really the same as just giving up on the concept of levels altogether.

-- Alex

 

[Brad Shepard]

without would make no sence, no lev cap means a lot of grinding to get so powerful nothing can stop you, at least with a lev cap, you get a challange, even if its from a superboss

Curious you should say that, as from my perspective, grinding to get so powerful nothing can stop you IS the challenge I enjoy.

i mean, grinding is fun, but i love a challange, i brought down Omega weapon in 8, 10, and 1 at a preety low level (77, 78, and 80, in that order) and Yizema or however you spell the superboss's name in 12 at around 60, way to easy in my view sence you can run your ass away and heal up every time.

 

[Guttural Engagement]

I don't know if it has a level cap or anything cause I haven't beaten it or played it for a couple months (busy with school and friends); but I'm just going to quickly say that;
Secret of Mana is one of the best RPG's I've EVER played TO date.

Only rpg's I've played that beat it are TES:Arena and TES:Morrowind.
With Morrowind 1st, Arean 2nd, and Secret of Mana 3rd.

OT: No level cap - I don't see the point of having one? Leveled enemies are annoying (Cause your fighting the same monsters OVER AND OVER AND OVER (But they still get harder which makes it a sort of mindfuck)) - but standable; and at least it's better than no level cap and non-leveled enemies.