Games can have some artistic aspect... but games have to have rules and constraints to still be games... Games themselves cannot be art. That said an MMO doesn't nescessarily have to be a game. You can go do second life... But what you have an aptitude for matters there as well, just in a different way.
Thing is it is starting to sound like you just want a level playing field that ignores seniority...time put in, effort put in...you want to arrive on the scene and be equal to every one else...games, MMO's. life...nothing works like that.
What makes a game a game? What is meant to be ART?
Can art be a game or can a game be a work of art? Do you wish to deny that possibility?
Games can have some artistic aspect... but games have to have rules and constraints to still be games... Games themselves cannot be art. That said an MMO doesn't nescessarily have to be a game. You can go do second life... But what you have an aptitude for matters there as well, just in a different way.
Thing is it is starting to sound like you just want a level playing field that ignores seniority...time put in, effort put in...you want to arrive on the scene and be equal to every one else...games, MMO's. life...nothing works like that.
What makes a game a game? What is meant to be ART?
Can art be a game or can a game be a work of art? Do you wish to deny that possibility?
"Can art be a game or can a game be a work of art? Do you wish to deny that possibility?"
Yay for circular arguments capped off with rehtorical questions, that don't actually mean anything?
"I pursue it."
Like a dog persues his tail... doesn't have to make sense, but it does have to happen (apparently) over, and over, and over.
Your not an existenlist so please stop talking like a poorly educated one...it's like you ran out of points in your first post.
Your not an artist at heart or you would probably know that the definition of art is a theme of debate, so controversial that can not be fully explained or covered by those kind of constraints that you hold so dear.
Why do I chase my own tail, because I want to make a statement or maybe because like a dog, it is part of my instincts?
Who are you to tell us what we are or why do we act?
So... are MMOs more like reality TV or a well written fantasy/sci-fi epic?
D&D didn't invent levels. They simply abstracted what is part and parcel of every good fantasy book.
It goes like this: queue Unusually Dangerous Setting... young person, unaware of their potential, enters stage left... meets wise old fart who becomes The Mentor... young person learns and develops into kick-ass heroic dude... evil is vanquished... BUT THEN.... more evil arrives immune to old ass-kicking method... new skills must be acquired... the end... or is it?
Reality TV: dumbass does soething stupid... dumbass does it again
It's all about learning, developing and acquiring new skills... all MMOs have it in some form so I guess they're more like books than reality TV... works for me.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I Never said that D&D invented levels... But the core roots of MMO's today are planted in a want to make D&D more automatic (instead of having to figure out what stat to roll on and manually role dice...doing all the various little simple math, having that part done for you, so you can get to the point).
First line says it all. A MMO isn't about end game or starts at this level. The problem is today's MMOs have no depth to create a gaming experience that is epic form 1-80. You are not suppose to be watching your level bar but enjoying the game and developing your character. Of course that requires players to actually want more out of a game than action adventure single player story driven game calling itself a MMO.
MMORPGs should be like playing a PnP game not a console game.
Originally posted by Helleri I Never said that D&D invented levels... But the core roots of MMO's today are planted in a want to make D&D more automatic (instead of having to figure out what stat to roll on and manually role dice...doing all the various little simple math, having that part done for you, so you can get to the point).
No you didn't and you have a good grasp of what they're all about.
I just wanted to make sure we all knew that it's not just about "gating content" as a business model nor "end game" stasis... progression is key to the enjoyment in this genre. It's all a smulation of progressively getting "stronger", learning, evolving...It can be done in a variety of ways and people, naturally, like some ways better than others.
One of the key differences between RPGs, including the Massive Multiplayer Online variety, and first person shooters is levels/progression: RPGs have them, FPS not really although some do make you work for the chance to use the more powerful gear. But that's just adding an RPG element to an FPS game. The FPS model is to let you use everything as soon as you join a game. I've always suspected that the MMOers who race to the level cap so they can play the "real" game, are just FPS fans wanting to treat the MMO as if it was that other genre.
I just find questioning progressively getting more powerful in an RPG game an unnecessary bit of navel gazing. It's what these games are all about.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Levels to skill-based systems are like comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones. One is "epic and story-real" while the other is "gritty and simulationist." It's really all about the type of game you want to play -- if you want a "sense of danger," you'll tend to skill-based. If you want the "epic mythological heroicness" you'll tend towards levels.
That said, both systems can deliver both types, it's just ,more baked in and templatized in a class and level based game.
Levels to skill-based systems are like comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones. One is "epic and story-real" while the other is "gritty and simulationist." It's really all about the type of game you want to play -- if you want a "sense of danger," you'll tend to skill-based. If you want the "epic mythological heroicness" you'll tend towards levels.
That said, both systems can deliver both types, it's just ,more baked in and templatized in a class and level based game.
Funny you should mention GOT. My favorite character in both the books and the TV series (what a great bit of casting!), Arya Stark, is all about "levelling"... it's inescapable in fantasy
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Levels to skill-based systems are like comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones. One is "epic and story-real" while the other is "gritty and simulationist." It's really all about the type of game you want to play -- if you want a "sense of danger," you'll tend to skill-based. If you want the "epic mythological heroicness" you'll tend towards levels.
That said, both systems can deliver both types, it's just ,more baked in and templatized in a class and level based game.
Funny you should mention GOT. My favorite character in both the books and the TV series (what a great bit of casting!), Arya Stark, is all about "levelling"... it's inescapable in fantasy
Funny how you use her to promote leveling, you know because she is all about the "skill" she was more skilled than the boys, who were all about practice and training or would you call it "leveling". I would call it honing your skills until you can be as graceful, stealthy and balanced as a cat.
Levels to skill-based systems are like comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones. One is "epic and story-real" while the other is "gritty and simulationist." It's really all about the type of game you want to play -- if you want a "sense of danger," you'll tend to skill-based. If you want the "epic mythological heroicness" you'll tend towards levels.
That said, both systems can deliver both types, it's just ,more baked in and templatized in a class and level based game.
Funny you should mention GOT. My favorite character in both the books and the TV series (what a great bit of casting!), Arya Stark, is all about "levelling"... it's inescapable in fantasy
Hmm, you CAN do an Arya on leveling, but in that show it kind of doesn't matter how skilled you are -- anyone can be killed at any time. Character's don't all have 10,0000 health in GOT -- they all have around the same amount, maybe the big ones a few more. That and a bit of armor help but it's mostly about their skill. You'll never see a Boromir scene where he can take 6 arrows before he's dead. On or two good shots, and that's it.
The thing I always liked about RuneQuest is that your health always stayed pretty much the same. You got better at attacking and defending, but there was ALWAYS a chance you could die from a less-experienced creature if the situation was right and they got very lucky at the same time you got unlucky.
Not saying one is necessarily better than the other -- it's just the style of play you prefer -- mythological/heroic vs. simulationist/realistic.
Levels to skill-based systems are like comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones. One is "epic and story-real" while the other is "gritty and simulationist." It's really all about the type of game you want to play -- if you want a "sense of danger," you'll tend to skill-based. If you want the "epic mythological heroicness" you'll tend towards levels.
That said, both systems can deliver both types, it's just ,more baked in and templatized in a class and level based game.
Funny you should mention GOT. My favorite character in both the books and the TV series (what a great bit of casting!), Arya Stark, is all about "levelling"... it's inescapable in fantasy
Funny how you use her to promote leveling, you know because she is all about the "skill" she was more skilled than the boys, who were all about practice and training or would you call it "leveling". I would call it honing your skills until you can be as graceful, stealthy and balanced as a cat.
Well there's her learning to use "Needle" as well as her assassin training but there's a lot of growth in that character too. Probably the main reason why she's my favorite is that I liked her reaction to personal tragedy best of all... she is becoming all about vengeance and retribution. She didn't start out that way. Yes she was a feisty and capable tom-boy in the beginning but she is evolving into something much darker and a formidable stealthy assassin.
The same can be said of all the other children: Bran learning to be a Greenseer... Jon becomimg the leader of the Night's Watch... Daenerys going from child bride to dragon rider and queen... even wimpy old Sansa is beginning to learn how to play the Game of Thrones from the best possible teacher, Petyr... she might actually do something useful soon
Yes the adults are mostly fully-formed and more static and their adventures are all about dealing with changes using what they already know. But this is also the standard role for adult characters in fantasy books... they don't usually "level."
EDIT: It just occured to me after writing that, that some adults are also "levelling"... like Jaime Lannister when he had to "re-spec" into 1-hd fighting
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Levels to skill-based systems are like comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones. One is "epic and story-real" while the other is "gritty and simulationist." It's really all about the type of game you want to play -- if you want a "sense of danger," you'll tend to skill-based. If you want the "epic mythological heroicness" you'll tend towards levels.
That said, both systems can deliver both types, it's just ,more baked in and templatized in a class and level based game.
Funny you should mention GOT. My favorite character in both the books and the TV series (what a great bit of casting!), Arya Stark, is all about "levelling"... it's inescapable in fantasy
Funny how you use her to promote leveling, you know because she is all about the "skill" she was more skilled than the boys, who were all about practice and training or would you call it "leveling". I would call it honing your skills until you can be as graceful, stealthy and balanced as a cat.
Well there's her learning to use "Needle" as well as her assassin training but there's a lot of growth in that character too. Probably the main reason why she's my favorite is that I liked her reaction to personal tragedy best of all... she is becoming all about vengeance and retribution. She didn't start out that way. Yes she was a feisty and capable tom-boy in the beginning but she is evolving into something much darker and a formidable stealthy assassin.
The same can be said of all the other children: Bran learning to be a Greenseer... Jon becomimg the leader of the Night's Watch... Daenerys going from child bride to dragon rider and queen... even wimpy old Sansa is beginning to learn how to play the Game of Thrones from the best possible teacher, Petyr... she might actually do something useful soon
Yes the adults are mostly fully-formed and more static and their adventures are all about dealing with changes using what they already know. But this is also the standard role for adult characters in fantasy books... they don't usually "level."
How can you compare learning to leveling? With leveling you unlock something, when you unlock it you can start learning how to use it.
Leveling could be applied to the number of times you pick your nose.
How can you compare learning to leveling? With leveling you unlock something, when you unlock it you can start learning how to use it.
Leveling could be applied to the number of times you pick your nose.
Because "levelling" is just a D&D-derived abstraction of "learning." In that sense, yes, learning to wipe your own ass is also "levelling" a new skill which, hopefully, you get better at through repetition.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
How can you compare learning to leveling? With leveling you unlock something, when you unlock it you can start learning how to use it.
Leveling could be applied to the number of times you pick your nose.
Because "levelling" is just a D&D-derived abstraction of "learning." In that sense, yes, learning to wipe your own ass is also "levelling" a new skill which, hopefully, you get better at through repetition.
I didn't literally meant "Hoy can you compare them?" hahaha!
Maybe I am not skilled enough in my use of idioms.
Edit: I wonder if a game could have the both types of players, the ones that are good at leveling would do that and the skilled ones would instead hone their skills. Maybe that idea is too crazy to work...
How can you compare learning to leveling? With leveling you unlock something, when you unlock it you can start learning how to use it.
Leveling could be applied to the number of times you pick your nose.
Because "levelling" is just a D&D-derived abstraction of "learning." In that sense, yes, learning to wipe your own ass is also "levelling" a new skill which, hopefully, you get better at through repetition.
I didn't literally meant "Hoy can you compare them?" hahaha!
Maybe I am not skilled enough in my use of idioms.
Edit: I wonder if a game could have the both types of players, the ones that are good at leveling would do that and the skilled ones would instead hone their skills. Maybe that idea is too crazy to work...
Well I don't really see much of a difference between the two methods.
I also prefer a more "organic" improvement through use kind of system instead of the , "WHAM! You're now level 29 and fully learned how to use these 3 abilities you hadn't even heard of before."
But even though I like to learn through use better, the fact that after 3,000 swings of my axe I can now hit for 100 instead of the 1 I used to hit for when I first picked it up, is just a different kind of "levelling." Its gradual instead of learning it in 5 steps from "Axe Mastery I-V." But I bet you also swung that axe 3,000 times this way--you just didn't get credit for the axe swings. Instead, you got XP for the kills with the axe, which in turn allowed you to reach level 29, where "AXE MAstery V" which lets you hit for 100, is suddenly learned.
Just different ways of accomplishing the same axe proficiency.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Well I don't really see much of a difference between the two methods.
I also prefer a more "organic" improvement through use kind of system instead of the , "WHAM! You're now level 29 and fully learned how to use these 3 abilities you hadn't even heard of before."
But even though I like to learn through use better, the fact that after 3,000 swings of my axe I can now hit for 100 instead of the 1 I used to hit for when I first picked it up, is just a different kind of "levelling." Its gradual instead of learning it in 5 steps from "Axe Mastery I-V." But I bet you also swung that axe 3,000 times this way--you just didn't get credit for the axe swings. Instead, you got XP for the kills with the axe, which in turn allowed you to reach level 29, where "AXE MAstery V" which lets you hit for 100, is suddenly learned.
Just different ways of accomplishing the same axe proficiency.
No, no it is not like that with a skill-based game you would have to learn when, where and how to swing the axe but also how to get past your enemie's defenses and how to read its body language to anticipate his moves and if you do it right then your next time you would make 2 damage instead of 1, IF you do it the same way, and then unlock an alternative option to do a different finishing move but you would have to actually LEARN how to DO it and get used to it maybe even perfect it by doing something that is more characteristic of you (so yes, it couldn't exactly be WHAM! I am god! it would take at least some hours to get used to the complexities and to master all the quibbling that would make you unique).
With a game that revolves around levels and stats and charts you just hit the button and trust in your lucky numbers to do all the dirty work for you, there can be some elements that are skill based (specially IF you go to the more action oriented games) that let you control things such as positioning and timing... but everything still depends on the specs and on how did you configured your attributes and memorizing all the most proficient ways to combine your deck / bar of skills and the weaknesses of all the other types. That of course after you level and grind your way to getting all that you need.
I say that everything that a level-based game can do a skill-based game can do better. But with one exception of course it wouldnt be as friendly for those that can't stand the pace of it. I think that is what makes it more beautiful because if you are not good at something you try an alternative method and suddenly there is a variety of playstyles as diverse as you can imagine and not all of them are about fighting and killing, you could be directing an attack or hidding until its over to collect the loot.
The difference as you said lays in the abstraction. I prefer the realism that lets me feel the most immersive experience.
Well I don't really see much of a difference between the two methods.
I also prefer a more "organic" improvement through use kind of system instead of the , "WHAM! You're now level 29 and fully learned how to use these 3 abilities you hadn't even heard of before."
But even though I like to learn through use better, the fact that after 3,000 swings of my axe I can now hit for 100 instead of the 1 I used to hit for when I first picked it up, is just a different kind of "levelling." Its gradual instead of learning it in 5 steps from "Axe Mastery I-V." But I bet you also swung that axe 3,000 times this way--you just didn't get credit for the axe swings. Instead, you got XP for the kills with the axe, which in turn allowed you to reach level 29, where "AXE MAstery V" which lets you hit for 100, is suddenly learned.
Just different ways of accomplishing the same axe proficiency.
No, no it is not like that with a skill-based game you would have to learn when, where and how to swing the axe but also how to get past your enemie's defenses and how to read its body language to anticipate his moves and if you do it right then your next time you would make 2 damage instead of 1, IF you do it the same way, and then unlock an alternative option to do a different finishing move but you would have to actually LEARN how to DO it and get used to it maybe even perfect it by doing something that is more characteristic of you (so yes, it couldn't exactly be WHAM! I am god! it would take at least some hours to get used to the complexities and to master all the quibbling that would make you unique).
With a game that revolves around levels and stats and charts you just hit the button and trust in your lucky numbers to do all the dirty work for you, there can be some elements that are skill based (specially IF you go to the more action oriented games) that let you control things such as positioning and timing... but everything still depends on the specs and on how did you configured your attributes and memorizing all the most proficient ways to combine your deck / bar of skills and the weaknesses of all the other types. That of course after you level and grind your way to getting all that you need.
I say that everything that a level-based game can do a skill-based game can do better. But with one exception of course it wouldnt be as friendly for those that can't stand the pace of it. I think that is what makes it more beautiful because if you are not good at something you try an alternative method and suddenly there is a variety of playstyles as diverse as you can imagine and not all of them are about fighting and killing, you could be directing an attack or hidding until its over to collect the loot.
The difference as you said lays in the abstraction. I prefer the realism that lets me feel the most immersive experience.
That is only in a skill based sytem that has defence tactics and a system where you can swing to different areas that produce different effects and doesn't have an rng to determine if you even hit the person. Not too many out like that, are there any have all 3?
Typically skill based is exactly as he described. You swing the axe 1000 times and now your better (lvl 2 axe instead of lvl 1 axe), which is somehow different than swing 1000 time and your character is now lvl 2.
Not significant IMO.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
1) Leveling used to take much longer, by the time you achieved max level there would be a new expansion and more levels.
2) Leveling got nerfed so that leveling became easier and quicker.
3) Once players began hitting max level before the next expansion, the Devs needed to give the players something to do while they were waiting.
4) So the devs began creating new dungeons and better gear for the players while they waited. (to keep them busy)
5) Leveling became even easier and quicker.
6) Soon you would level in a month and then have another year or two until the next expansion, so you spent most your time at max level.
7) As a result; now days, "The Game" starts at max level and leveling has become a thirty day tutorial on how to play the game once you reach max level.
That is only in a skill based sytem that has defence tactics and a system where you can swing to different areas that produce different effects and doesn't have an rng to determine if you even hit the person. Not too many out like that, are there any have all 3?
Typically skill based is exactly as he described. You swing the axe 1000 times and now your better (lvl 2 axe instead of lvl 1 axe), which is somehow different than swing 1000 time and your character is now lvl 2.
Not significant IMO.
I know there are not many, all mmorpg games tend to be level-based and now some of them have some marginal skill-based elements or no levels but they are practically the same thing, little colorful icons with buttons that can do a number of things that vary in many ways according to many parameters.
To me its funny when I hear someone calls them more skill-based or action-oriented. The ones that I consider skill-based are those FPS games, but I havent encountered many that I like. Maybe I will try Planetside 2 or something.
1) Leveling used to take much longer, by the time you achieved max level there would be a new expansion and more levels.
2) Leveling got nerfed so that leveling became easier and quicker.
3) Once players began hitting max level before the next expansion, the Devs needed to give the players something to do while they were waiting.
4) So the devs began creating new dungeons and better gear for the players while they waited. (to keep them busy)
5) Leveling became even easier and quicker.
6) Soon you would level in a month and then have another year or two until the next expansion, so you spent most your time at max level.
7) As a result; now days, "The Game" starts at max level and leveling has become a thirty day tutorial on how to play the game once you reach max level.
1) Leveling used to take much longer, by the time you achieved max level there would be a new expansion and more levels.
2) Leveling got nerfed so that leveling became easier and quicker.
3) Once players began hitting max level before the next expansion, the Devs needed to give the players something to do while they were waiting.
4) So the devs began creating new dungeons and better gear for the players while they waited. (to keep them busy)
5) Leveling became even easier and quicker.
6) Soon you would level in a month and then have another year or two until the next expansion, so you spent most your time at max level.
7) As a result; now days, "The Game" starts at max level and leveling has become a thirty day tutorial on how to play the game once you reach max level.
That is only in a skill based sytem that has defence tactics and a system where you can swing to different areas that produce different effects and doesn't have an rng to determine if you even hit the person. Not too many out like that, are there any have all 3?
Typically skill based is exactly as he described. You swing the axe 1000 times and now your better (lvl 2 axe instead of lvl 1 axe), which is somehow different than swing 1000 time and your character is now lvl 2.
Not significant IMO.
I know there are not many, all mmorpg games tend to be level-based and now some of them have some marginal skill-based elements or no levels but they are practically the same thing, little colorful icons with buttons that can do a number of things that vary in many ways according to many parameters.
To me its funny when I hear someone calls them more skill-based or action-oriented. The ones that I consider skill-based are those FPS games, but I havent encountered many that I like. Maybe I will try Planetside 2 or something.
Well yeah. Semantics always get in the way.
When I hear "skill-based" when describing any computer game I envision a desolate landscape somewhere... and there is a huge dragon... and there is also a desk. And at that desk sits a player armed with a keyboard and mouse... now fight!
I could almost buy into the concept if we all used Wii controllers... but even then, not quite.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
"What makes a game a game? This: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/game
"What is meant to be ART?" This: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
"Can art be a game or can a game be a work of art? Do you wish to deny that possibility?"
Yay for circular arguments capped off with rehtorical questions, that don't actually mean anything?
"I pursue it."
Like a dog persues his tail... doesn't have to make sense, but it does have to happen (apparently) over, and over, and over.
Your not an existentialist so please stop talking like a poorly informed one...it's like you ran out of points in your first post.
Your not an artist at heart or you would probably know that the definition of art is a theme of debate, so controversial that can not be fully explained or covered by those kind of constraints that you hold so dear.
Why do I chase my own tail, because I want to make a statement or maybe because like a dog, it is part of my instincts?
Who are you to tell us what we are or why do we act?
So... are MMOs more like reality TV or a well written fantasy/sci-fi epic?
D&D didn't invent levels. They simply abstracted what is part and parcel of every good fantasy book.
It goes like this: queue Unusually Dangerous Setting... young person, unaware of their potential, enters stage left... meets wise old fart who becomes The Mentor... young person learns and develops into kick-ass heroic dude... evil is vanquished... BUT THEN.... more evil arrives immune to old ass-kicking method... new skills must be acquired... the end... or is it?
Reality TV: dumbass does soething stupid... dumbass does it again
It's all about learning, developing and acquiring new skills... all MMOs have it in some form so I guess they're more like books than reality TV... works for me.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
First line says it all. A MMO isn't about end game or starts at this level. The problem is today's MMOs have no depth to create a gaming experience that is epic form 1-80. You are not suppose to be watching your level bar but enjoying the game and developing your character. Of course that requires players to actually want more out of a game than action adventure single player story driven game calling itself a MMO.
MMORPGs should be like playing a PnP game not a console game.
No you didn't and you have a good grasp of what they're all about.
I just wanted to make sure we all knew that it's not just about "gating content" as a business model nor "end game" stasis... progression is key to the enjoyment in this genre. It's all a smulation of progressively getting "stronger", learning, evolving...It can be done in a variety of ways and people, naturally, like some ways better than others.
One of the key differences between RPGs, including the Massive Multiplayer Online variety, and first person shooters is levels/progression: RPGs have them, FPS not really although some do make you work for the chance to use the more powerful gear. But that's just adding an RPG element to an FPS game. The FPS model is to let you use everything as soon as you join a game. I've always suspected that the MMOers who race to the level cap so they can play the "real" game, are just FPS fans wanting to treat the MMO as if it was that other genre.
I just find questioning progressively getting more powerful in an RPG game an unnecessary bit of navel gazing. It's what these games are all about.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Levels to skill-based systems are like comparing Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones. One is "epic and story-real" while the other is "gritty and simulationist." It's really all about the type of game you want to play -- if you want a "sense of danger," you'll tend to skill-based. If you want the "epic mythological heroicness" you'll tend towards levels.
That said, both systems can deliver both types, it's just ,more baked in and templatized in a class and level based game.
Funny you should mention GOT. My favorite character in both the books and the TV series (what a great bit of casting!), Arya Stark, is all about "levelling"... it's inescapable in fantasy
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Funny how you use her to promote leveling, you know because she is all about the "skill" she was more skilled than the boys, who were all about practice and training or would you call it "leveling". I would call it honing your skills until you can be as graceful, stealthy and balanced as a cat.
Hmm, you CAN do an Arya on leveling, but in that show it kind of doesn't matter how skilled you are -- anyone can be killed at any time. Character's don't all have 10,0000 health in GOT -- they all have around the same amount, maybe the big ones a few more. That and a bit of armor help but it's mostly about their skill. You'll never see a Boromir scene where he can take 6 arrows before he's dead. On or two good shots, and that's it.
The thing I always liked about RuneQuest is that your health always stayed pretty much the same. You got better at attacking and defending, but there was ALWAYS a chance you could die from a less-experienced creature if the situation was right and they got very lucky at the same time you got unlucky.
Not saying one is necessarily better than the other -- it's just the style of play you prefer -- mythological/heroic vs. simulationist/realistic.
Well there's her learning to use "Needle" as well as her assassin training but there's a lot of growth in that character too. Probably the main reason why she's my favorite is that I liked her reaction to personal tragedy best of all... she is becoming all about vengeance and retribution. She didn't start out that way. Yes she was a feisty and capable tom-boy in the beginning but she is evolving into something much darker and a formidable stealthy assassin.
The same can be said of all the other children: Bran learning to be a Greenseer... Jon becomimg the leader of the Night's Watch... Daenerys going from child bride to dragon rider and queen... even wimpy old Sansa is beginning to learn how to play the Game of Thrones from the best possible teacher, Petyr... she might actually do something useful soon
Yes the adults are mostly fully-formed and more static and their adventures are all about dealing with changes using what they already know. But this is also the standard role for adult characters in fantasy books... they don't usually "level."
EDIT: It just occured to me after writing that, that some adults are also "levelling"... like Jaime Lannister when he had to "re-spec" into 1-hd fighting
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
How can you compare learning to leveling? With leveling you unlock something, when you unlock it you can start learning how to use it.
Leveling could be applied to the number of times you pick your nose.
Because "levelling" is just a D&D-derived abstraction of "learning." In that sense, yes, learning to wipe your own ass is also "levelling" a new skill which, hopefully, you get better at through repetition.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I didn't literally meant "Hoy can you compare them?" hahaha!
Maybe I am not skilled enough in my use of idioms.
Edit: I wonder if a game could have the both types of players, the ones that are good at leveling would do that and the skilled ones would instead hone their skills. Maybe that idea is too crazy to work...
Well I don't really see much of a difference between the two methods.
I also prefer a more "organic" improvement through use kind of system instead of the , "WHAM! You're now level 29 and fully learned how to use these 3 abilities you hadn't even heard of before."
But even though I like to learn through use better, the fact that after 3,000 swings of my axe I can now hit for 100 instead of the 1 I used to hit for when I first picked it up, is just a different kind of "levelling." Its gradual instead of learning it in 5 steps from "Axe Mastery I-V." But I bet you also swung that axe 3,000 times this way--you just didn't get credit for the axe swings. Instead, you got XP for the kills with the axe, which in turn allowed you to reach level 29, where "AXE MAstery V" which lets you hit for 100, is suddenly learned.
Just different ways of accomplishing the same axe proficiency.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
No, no it is not like that with a skill-based game you would have to learn when, where and how to swing the axe but also how to get past your enemie's defenses and how to read its body language to anticipate his moves and if you do it right then your next time you would make 2 damage instead of 1, IF you do it the same way, and then unlock an alternative option to do a different finishing move but you would have to actually LEARN how to DO it and get used to it maybe even perfect it by doing something that is more characteristic of you (so yes, it couldn't exactly be WHAM! I am god! it would take at least some hours to get used to the complexities and to master all the quibbling that would make you unique).
With a game that revolves around levels and stats and charts you just hit the button and trust in your lucky numbers to do all the dirty work for you, there can be some elements that are skill based (specially IF you go to the more action oriented games) that let you control things such as positioning and timing... but everything still depends on the specs and on how did you configured your attributes and memorizing all the most proficient ways to combine your deck / bar of skills and the weaknesses of all the other types. That of course after you level and grind your way to getting all that you need.
I say that everything that a level-based game can do a skill-based game can do better. But with one exception of course it wouldnt be as friendly for those that can't stand the pace of it. I think that is what makes it more beautiful because if you are not good at something you try an alternative method and suddenly there is a variety of playstyles as diverse as you can imagine and not all of them are about fighting and killing, you could be directing an attack or hidding until its over to collect the loot.
The difference as you said lays in the abstraction. I prefer the realism that lets me feel the most immersive experience.
That is only in a skill based sytem that has defence tactics and a system where you can swing to different areas that produce different effects and doesn't have an rng to determine if you even hit the person. Not too many out like that, are there any have all 3?
Typically skill based is exactly as he described. You swing the axe 1000 times and now your better (lvl 2 axe instead of lvl 1 axe), which is somehow different than swing 1000 time and your character is now lvl 2.
Not significant IMO.
I believe what happened is this:
1) Leveling used to take much longer, by the time you achieved max level there would be a new expansion and more levels.
2) Leveling got nerfed so that leveling became easier and quicker.
3) Once players began hitting max level before the next expansion, the Devs needed to give the players something to do while they were waiting.
4) So the devs began creating new dungeons and better gear for the players while they waited. (to keep them busy)
5) Leveling became even easier and quicker.
6) Soon you would level in a month and then have another year or two until the next expansion, so you spent most your time at max level.
7) As a result; now days, "The Game" starts at max level and leveling has become a thirty day tutorial on how to play the game once you reach max level.
I know there are not many, all mmorpg games tend to be level-based and now some of them have some marginal skill-based elements or no levels but they are practically the same thing, little colorful icons with buttons that can do a number of things that vary in many ways according to many parameters.
To me its funny when I hear someone calls them more skill-based or action-oriented. The ones that I consider skill-based are those FPS games, but I havent encountered many that I like. Maybe I will try Planetside 2 or something.
I would correct the word "thirty" to "three".
Probably right. lol
Well yeah. Semantics always get in the way.
When I hear "skill-based" when describing any computer game I envision a desolate landscape somewhere... and there is a huge dragon... and there is also a desk. And at that desk sits a player armed with a keyboard and mouse... now fight!
I could almost buy into the concept if we all used Wii controllers... but even then, not quite.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED