Whats the point in leveling up in games?

then don't play RPGs

If enemies level up with you then theres no reason to level up, its dumb

Would Skyrim improve if you'd remove leveling completely?
You'd pick a class, get a bunch of perks and maybe unlock a few more with dragons souls/shout unlocks and quest rewards.

Skyrim has no decent combat to begin with. Gaining new perks is fine but shouldnt break the fucking game.

Pointless cannon fodder to keep the player interested. It's like the leveling system in TF2 casual, it serves literally no purpose but to give the player incentive to grind.

Leveling up wasn't meant for action games, it was meant for turn based games. It was meant to simulate your character's growth (not yours). Everything in an RPG is simulated. The rpg as since been raped by the Japanese then the westerners to become a way to pad games or sell their shitty stories.

Holy fucking autism Batman!

This is how retarded you sound

So… you're comparing it to weight lifting?
Did your lately doze of Naruto burn the cells in your brain?

Abstraction. RPGs are a shitty genre because they rely upon abstraction. Now in Tabletop RPGs, abstraction is required because you can't cast a magic spell or climb up a very high wall while sitting around a table with some friends and pizzas. But, computer games aren't suited to abstraction in the slightest: you can indeed pull off these actions in game, so why do we have abstraction? It's a carry-over, it's all inertia, instead of developing engaging action it's easier to tie things to experience and stats. It's why Bethesda games are so absolutely shit, they have terrible FPS gameplay that's made even worse because its tied to an RPG system.

2/10 bait. You got me to reply.

It's supposed to emulate a feeling of character growth. I have a problem with the way it's implemented in some games, since it's easy to take advantage of the system through grinding, but if you're trying to create the kind of game experience where your character starts out as a nobody and gradually becomes a badass, having some kind of leveling system makes sense.
Then again, you could argue that the same effect can be achieved through steady aquisition of gear. The Stalker games got by like that.
I guess it's needed if building a unique character is a part of the game experience. So you can build a mage, or you can build a warrior, but you can't really have both.

OP, go read this thread and don't post again until you're done: 8ch.net/v/res/12235165.html
History, is the TL;DR answer to your question. Abstraction of real world mechanics represented numerically.

That's a retarded argument. Most RPGs don't even let you fight the end bosses right at the start.

And if you want to see your character expanding, traditional levelling is an awful way to do it. You don't get a feeling of your character growing if it just means the damage numbers they make when they hit things gets higher.

Better ways are when games introduce new abilities to the characters, particularly ones that can change how the game is played, the irony is that you more likely to find that kind of shit in 3d platformers or metroidvanias than you would in rpgs.

It's a reward to give the player a sense of achievement.
If you really didn't figure this out by yourself you must be pretty dumb user.

EVERY FPS worth its salt got by like that. Doom got by like that, the progression from pistol up to the BFG. Duke did it, from pistol to the Devestator with some crazy gadgets like the Freezethrower thrown around here and there. Quake does it. Blood does it. Hexen does it. Exhumed does it. Strife does it. Most games do it. It's the standard form of progression for FPS.

I agree with OP,
whats the point of going to school to learn something when all they are going to do is make you learn something harder.
t.autist

muh gains

do you even grind, brah?

And so by doing well the game rewards the player by making things easier for them.

Face it, it's backwards as fuck.

I specifically bring up Stalker because that game in particular is one where your character is supposed to start out feeling very underpowered. Starting out as a badass who only gets more badass isn't quite the same thing.

would you like a list OP?

These are stupid arguments. It's not a case of "you need to get stronger to lift the weight" when you can also control how heavy the weight is. If we had the kind of control over reality that a developer has over the reality of their game, nothing would ever be heavy.

You don't start out as a "badass" in Doom though, you're just some random nobody marine. Your example being anymore significant hinges entirely on the storyline aspects. All these games share one thing in common: you don't have strong weapons to start off with. The pistol-tier weapon in all of these games is puny compared to the later hardware you get your hands on.

Dark Souls did a good job of leveling. It was a way to grow stronger, but it was never necessary. You could go through the game at Soul Level 1 if you wanted, and it would be difficult, but it was possible.

I'll mention an example from Dark Souls 3, just because it's the one I played most recently:
Very early on, you can kill a friendly NPC in the first major area of the game, and doing so will let you fight one of the lategame bosses immediately.
If this happens to you by accident, and you aren't good at the game yet, the t he challenge feels insurmountable, and you'll come back later.
If you already have a grasp on the mechanics, and maybe this is just a new file for an experienced player, then the challenge is presented but it is very clearly not impossible.

This is recurring throughout the series:
There's a powerful enemy that is clearly several steps above the rest of what you've been facing in the area.
You can leave it be for now and come back later, or you can fight against the odds until you come out victorious. Both are perfectly valid options.

To answer a question presented in the OP:
It is meant to serve three purposes:
If you face them and lose, it is meant to illustrate the player's weakness, and serve as a goal to improve their skills and to improve their character's stats and equipment.
If you come back later in the game and win, it is meant to illustrate the player's growth. You've made a molehill out of a mountain. You've overcome an obstacle that you previously could not. It is progression in its rawest form.
And finally, if you challenge it without grinding, and manage to succeed, it is meant to illustrate the player's – specifically, the person playing the game – skills and mastery over the obstacle.

tl;dr
Leveling up lets the game introduce obstacles early on that are meant to be satisfying to overcome later on, and serve as a goal for the player to strive for.

Even a normal marine is pretty badass compared to a half dead slav scavenging for tins of meat just to stay alive.

There are different ways to give the player a sense of achievement

Forced pacing can be set in far better ways than that. And a common system doesnt necessary mean that it's good

And for all, im gonna use Dragon's Dogma from Capcom to simplify what im trying to tell (It's my fav game and is ruined by a massive flaw).

Its completly fine getting to a new level and unlocking various perks, such as being able to tame animals (TeS). Dragons Dogma does this by giving you new attacks and perks. But in Dragons Dogma, once you reach a certain level, enemies you've encountered in the beginning do 1 dmg. And by one i mean one. Say you have 1500 hp. the npc strikes you and now you have 1499 hp. Its fucking stupid. and this goes vice versa with stronger enemies you encounter. You get one hit killed by a Griffith or Zyclop and even by a casual mob enemy. If u ever played skyrim on the highest difficulty then you'd know what i mean. Getting forced into a insta kill animation by a dragon or dungeon thief boss is stupid.

not if the marine is a woman

I already agreed with your points, but really what can we even do to improve it?

Think of these two paths to making enemies difficult in an FPS game:

vs

now which one sounds easier to implement?

I have been saying for years that RPG 'elements' being used in other genres is a cancer ruining a lot of games. Nice to know that someone else is (kinda) reaching the same conclusion. It is also a sleazy way worm in microtransations via crafting/upgrading systems and level ups.

What ever happened to having pride in their work, and in the video game industry (where is used to be harder = better) of things?

Kill self.

One thing I never got was why there needed to be a leveling system in Castlevania games. Metroid got by fine without it. There's no character building beyond picking your weapon, and no level requirements to use any weapon. All it adds is an option to grind your way past any challenge. In cases like that, a leveling system should absolutely be done away with.

Yeah, you basically said it. Thanks user.

I don't think harder=better was ever the general consensus among anyone but arcade managers.

This actually reminds me of James the AVGN. I think he said something like that about Symphony of the Night

Couldnt come up with other games, user

check em

Leveling
Its a way to design a game to give "depth" and more time spent. One of the means to keep players playing is to give a sense of progression, because to feel that you as a player are changing positively gives a sense of purpose, setting goals, etc.

As with all design philosophy, it must be done in moderation. Not too much and not too little.

Too much progression:
Korean grinding for years along with low lottery drop rates to satisfy the addiction of getting something/the gambler's high.
Too little progression:
The other end is "too little" progression, which can result from two designs: One, absurd leveling curves like korean mmo's and Runescape where upon hitting a certain high level it requires your time spent exponentially high, thus freezing you in progression unless you exponentially waste your life on it. Two, the game's length or other areas are too simply designed to allow for a real sense of progression. Don't need examples for that.

The idea is that grinding, in combination with a steady increase in enemy stats, allows for a simple form of dynamic difficulty: a skilled player is free to rush ahead until he's horribly underleveled and struggling with basic mobs, while an unskilled player can just keep grinding if he ever gets stuck on one area.

Any experience/leveling system that doesn't allow grinding is totally pointless.

I dislike that. I think players should be forced to bash their heads against a challenge until they beat it. You haven't really overcome the challenge otherwise, you just cheated.

Checked.

think of AAA games as movies, and how a VFX artist is part of a movie. if his visual effects don't look perfect, someone notices the flaws, but if they are perfect, no one notices anything at all and he's done his job right.

how is being part of a game dev team any different for the majority of employees? unless you're the art lead, composer, creative director or other responsible position, your work essentially is supposed to be part of the game and either it's well made and thus is used as yet another asset in a catalog of equally professional assets or it's a piece that's shit and people only notice it because it's bad.

see the correlation? as an average employee, your work receives no recognition and you can't take any credit for the praise of a game besides the small sliver that's related to your contribution. that doesn't sound like what you should take pride in, does it?

you want pride, you be the damn concept artist with his work represented in every promotional material or you work at a small enough team where you can essentially point to the game and say, "I made this".

It's no different from picking easy mode from a menu.

It's not just about getting stronger, it's about coming up with a build so you can play the game the way you want to play it. Even if two people play as the same class, they can develop a wildly different styles and tactics based on their choices.

This is actually an argument FOR leveling up. There is little point in returning to grind weak enemies, so it's very convenient that they're easier to kill when you're higher level. Makes traveling across places you've already visit easier.

You're right about this one, I totally understand what you mean, like in Dark Souls it's difficult but feasible to defeat a higher level enemy than is normal, like those black knights strewn about in the low level areas, which later become common enemies. But in a game like Borderlands, fighting a higher level enemy than is normal for your area takes forever and is generally not worth it - but those kinds of games tend to rely on stats far more than skill, so it can't really be helped.

Leveling up can be a good mechanic, but in most games like borderlands and fallout it's used like a crutch for inexperienced players. Can't kill these enemies? Okay just grind until you can tank all of their hits and kill them by spamming attacks.

You're essentially asking why games made for casuals are so casual.

(I haven't played Witcher though, so I can't really comment on that.)

Learn how to link. Like this:

And a level system (properly implemented) is one of them. Kill yourself you underageb& faggot.

I don't play shitty games, so no, I don't. What fucking year were you born and how closely related were you parents for you to even consider playing Skyrim?

Some of us don't like to make judgements on games we haven't actually played.

Checked

Because autist need to have a sense of progression? Because stupid people can't tell they are advancing?

Honestly, I'd get rid of most mechanics. No HP inflation, no pointless bullshit.
Only sensible skills. Only progress by DOING.

Tecnhically, it isn't necessary. Take a look at Super Mario games. Is the Mario at end game stronger? In a sense, yes. The player got more skilled, and thus, Mario is also more "powerful". But it's not numerical power - it won't show up on any statistic screen. The fact that Mario reached the end is display of power in itself.

Zelda is one of the easiest fucking series ever, no hearts.

It isn't needed if all leveling up means is more health, more damage. It's neccessary in a game like Dark Souls where you build a character, and there has to be a system in place to stop you from being the best warrior, the best mage, the best cleric, and so on, all at once

sick post faggot

Levelling makes sense when it's recursive. The more you use a weapon skill the quicker you can draw it, reload it if it's a gun, modify it, maintain it if there's a durability mechanic etc. Or the more you use a speech skill the better the options are, and you can use it more effectively against smarter people.
It's dumb when you level a skill so you can get some shitty perks that somehow make your bullets do more damage or make your skin somehow more resistant to damage.
It only makes sense when you have to work for it, and the results are practical. Not "everything you buy is magically cheaper because you chose this one perk" shit, which is sadly what most modern games use when they want to pretend to be an RPG.

Is it dumb because of an actual reason, or because its "unrealistic"?

Being "unrealistic" is a reason, unless there's an in-universe explanation like dermal armour in Deus Ex. I'm referring to Skyrim perks where if you wear heavy armour then pick a perk and it suddenly weighs nothing. That's not just unrealistic it doesn't make sense as a progression of the skill. It should be that you're able to carry heavy things more easily after a long time of wearing heavy armour, or that you're able to move faster over time even in heavy armour, because you've been conditioned to using it.

Stop referring to Skyrim then. It's been said countless times that games like it are not RPGs, they're action games with RPG elements.

It is a mark of bad design if you (assuming an amateur) can beat a fighting game on the hardest difficulty without much effort. At the same time it is a grave sin in fighting game design if a beginner can beat a pro in player vs player matches. There is no leveling up in fighting games that isn't a superficial short tutorial at most, and those difficulties makes Dark Souls look like a cake walk.

Some people prefer using math, planning out a strategy to victory and seeing the strategy play out, and accumulating absolute measurable power laid out in absolute tiers. If that doesn't appeal to you then you are not the type of audience RPGs will ever appeal to you (or be geared towards.) Besides how would you like AI management in real time while you're fighting the monsters at the same time, I'm sure the real time micromanagement won't piss you off fierce.

dead god, everyone who agrees with OP is a giant fucking homesexual retarded jewkek.

look. it IS SO FUCKING SIMPLE.

levels in games SIMULATE real life experience.

a soldier starts are a fucking twat who through training and experience BECOMES elite.

a scholar (mage if you will) studies and learns shit until he IS THE source of knowledge.

a thief, HONES his skills until he is the MASTER.

now go fuck off

inb4 reddit spacing, suck my dick.

The point of my post was point out what a good levelling system looks like. Skyrim is just an easy way to compare that to a bad system.

But your basing that entirely off "It's unrealistic!" so it's a stupid point in the first place.
Heavy Armor that previously weighed 10 units weighing 0, and me being able to carry 10 units more weight are functionally identical, the only difference being one is relegated to the skill in question and the other is a generic upgrade. Me being able to do more damage with small arms the more I use them is how the game ensures I am adequately equipped if I choose to run small arms, otherwise why the fuck bother when even the greatest small arm using character is better of using rocket launchers?
And perhaps the most important point is that again, you clearly don't play RPGs since you use action games as an example of how to/how to not design them.

progression, pacing and specialization.

The first two dont even apply to fallout(im assuming you mean the new games) because of enemy scaling, but what all those games have in common is that you have to specialize your character to fit a role (almost like its a role playing game). you cant be a mage and a warrior at the same time unless you compromise heavily.

not to say there arent problems. games that did progression very well would for example be gothic 1&2. You start out as a hobo who has to stick to the roads because everything in the forest will kill you and end up as a demigod with a giant cock made of magic ore and an army of demons and skelletons at your back.

A bad example for progression is witcher 3 where not beeing able to kill the exact same enemies you slaughtered 5 minutes ago, just because they have another number over their heads breaks immersion compeltely and doesnt make any sense.

And a great example for specialization would be games like daggerfall and to a lesser extend every other elder scrolls game.

it's also dumb just because it's fucking pointless. perks, talents or whatever you choose to call them should be skills/abilities or adjustments that change how your abilities function, not percentage increases. not only is it stupid, it's also lazy game design.

You can do more damage with small arms if you can modify a gun to shoot faster, or get a gun that uses higher calibre bullets, or use hollow-point or armour piercing ammunition. There's a lot of reasonable ways to make sure all forms of weapon skills can be viable for end game use that don't just boil down to "this low calibre ammunition type now magically does more damage"
Nice one you fucking retard, but that shit doesn't work here. Literally everyone has played RPGs.

RPG elements well implemented in RPG games or Strategy games like Xcom 2 offer a sense of progression and give the play new abilities to tackle newer, stronger enemies beyond just a bonus to stats. You can totally fuck it up by not scaling up late-game bosses enough or making unlocks bland as fuck, though. Bethesda, for example, has always sucked at balancing out giving you cool shit and scaling the difficulty to match.
As for RPG elements in non-RPGs, sometimes it's a pointless, tacked on gimmick. But there were also plenty of games that were happy to let you upgrade your health and unlock new weapons and shit before the "let's add RPG elements to everything" craze modern game development seems to be caught up in. Nobody cared that SotN had one foot in ARPG territory years before anyone would give a fuck - it was a platformer that figured out how to make backtracking not suck..

The gothic and witcher comparison was great. If i come to think of it, gothic was quite another experience for me.

Last time I checked Skyrim didn't have a "small arms" skill numbnuts, and encumberence is pretty basic RPG shit.
Why use a more roundabout system to achieve the same ends all for the pleasure of one autistic faggot who gets upset at character progression? You're suggesting replacing your character progression system with various forms of loot progression, which is done alongside the character progression system in RPGs. You are the densest motherfucker, I can't believe somebody who is railing against character progression because he's so autistic that he's upset characters have stats that influence combat is trying to lecture others on the ins and outs of RPGs.

Last time I checked with the people "here", spouting "logical fallacy!" was something autistis did. You may have played an RPG, but you clearly don't play RPGs.

You seem upset. Maybe you should take a break.

Did you forget you wrote this? Sounds a lot like you're saying that Heavy Armour perk is just fine and dandy, but I'm sure that's not at all what you meant.
So you think you should be able to use the weakest pistol and ammo type in a game all the way through to the end? Should you be able to keep choosing perks to make a shitty iron sword deal the same damage as end-game weapons? The loot system and the levelling system aren't mutually exclusive faggot, especially for weapon skills. You find a better weapon that fits the weapon skill you've picked, you pick it up and start using it, and the further you go the better the weapons get, and the better you get at using them.
Where have I been railing against character progression? My first post was explaining what good character progression with levelling looks like, i.e you can reload a weapon faster, you can draw and shoot it faster etc. You know, reasonable skill increases that reflect real-world progression in using guns. I have no problem at all with character progression, and in fact the most enjoyment I get in games is from being able to develop skills. You need to understand that just because someone disagrees with you on one point doesn't mean they hate everything you like.
You're seriously saying this while at the same time spouting shit like "you don't play RPGs" because we have different interpretations of character progression?
I do play RPGs, or I wouldn't be in this thread talking about them. Stop acting like you're the only "True RPG Fan"

Witnessed.

Are you unable to read or are you just choosing not to do so? I'm saying your proposed "solution" is a roundabout way of a achieving the same end-goal just more nebulously.
No. Do you think you should be defined by nothing except your gear and your ability to modify your gear? Should your character design mean nothing to your damage output?
Wow it's almost like loot systems aren't a replacement for character progression, and that's why games aren't doing what you want them to and scrapping character progression for the sake of loot progression. Weird that, ey?
You just said it. You want it to be "realistic" because you're a dense faggot.
If someone says "Racing games should be more like Skyrim" would you then assume they play a lot of racing games, or would it be apparent they have shit taste and play mostly flavor-of-the-month action/adventure titles?

There's plenty of others.
Just not you.

Because games are boring as fuck without a sense of progression. What a dumb thread.

progressing in the arc is no progression? fucking autist

But all games offer a sense of progression, and not all games have a leveling system.

Becoming overpowered through leveling feels amazing if you have a direct hand in how it happened (making build/stat/gear choices, minmaxing, etc.), but when leveling does nothing but increase numbers without your control, and the level of your character itself is what decides how strong it is, that's usually tedious and unneeded.

No, which is why I explained the difference between shit like Skyrim making your armour weigh nothing and becoming stronger and therefore being able to carry more despite its weight. It might be the same thing when you get down to brass tacks, but the distinction is still important.
That makes zero sense faggot.
I never said they should you stupid fucking nigger. Getting better loot is as much a part of RPG systems as the levelling system is. They are intertwined. Getting better with guns should mean you are more accurate and faster with them. I don't have any problem with the idea of perks, I dislike the lazy "you deal more damage now" perks that are more and more common with modern games.
What the actual fuck are you reading nigger?
All I've been saying is that levelling systems should NOT be like Skyrim. How did you come to the conclusion that I want RPGs to be more like Skyrim when every time I've mentioned it I've been saying how shit it is? Are you seriously such a retard that you think someone saying "Skyrim's levelling and perk system is bad" means they want it to be used more?

If you can easily kill an enemy but the enemy still is a threat and can kill you if you make mistakes

= good

If you can easily kill an enemy and he makes no harm to you whatsoever + you enjoy that

= bad and you are a stupid faggot

Not every game is an action game.
If an enemy kicks your ass because you built your character like shit, but is easy when you build your character properly to counter that enemy, that's a decent RPG system.

Wait why the fuck did my ID change between posts.

The distinction being one is related to a skill, the other is completely nebulous and all-purpose. You have to be wearing heavy armor to obtain the 0-weight bonus, you don't have to be doing so to be able to carry more.
Well given that the strive for endless "realism" has killed many genres, I'd say it's pretty accurate.
It's fair to say modern games are far more lazy with their leveling systems and if that's what you've been trying to say this whole time I guess I'm the autistic one and I apologize, but what I'm saying is that increased damage due to level progression is pretty necessary in most systems. It's less "realistic" but it's more intuitive for the player and doesn't ensure leveling up is wholly less important than loot drops. Faster reloading is cool and all but it does little for you in systems where combat is anything other than real-time.
It's a hypothetical lad.
You're essentially agreeing with their goals but disagreeing on their method though.

It makes things easier for them, which allows them to face harder challenges which may have been unsurmountable or which may have required a much greater amount of resources and effort to overcome.

Please think before you post.

But thats stupid. Those gameplay mechanics have been made for games with no real fighting mechanic. Im not playing a fucking turn based game.

Except I don't want endless realism. The only sticking point I have is I think that making bullets do more damage is stupid and lazy, and a developing gun skills while gaining better equipment is much more interesting and dynamic.
That's reasonable, but it still works in turn-based combat with reloading taking less AP or turns or whatever the system has to do. You might start off requiring one move to reload, but then develop into being able to do it instantly at higher levels. I do agree that needing to increase damage output is necessary, I just take issue with the laziness with which that damage increase is usually implemented. And I accept that bullet damage increase is necessary, I just don't particularly like it, and I think if there was more stuff like New Vegas' ammo system then gun skills could be a whole lot more interesting.
I hate everything about Skyrim's system though. Not just the shitty perks, but the fact that there's no actual attributes and the Speech skill is basically useless.
The perks from Fallout 1/2 are a much superior example because they complement the natural progression of your skills by increasing their effectiveness, damage and/or speed. Skyrim's system is one of the worst.
Anyway I feel like this entire argument has been two autists screaming at each other over what amounts to a very minor disagreement, so I'll go ahead and apologise too.

Then don't play turn based games.
Though there are other games that it works in. ARPGs (diablo clones I mean, not actual action RPGs). RT (or RTWP) isometric RPGs. Basically anything that doesn't have a dodge/i-frame mechanic works well with the concept of character-building and pre-planning being just as important to your survival as reflexes (or more important than). Shooters obviously exempted due to the ranged nature of them.

In games like Skyrim it doesn't act the way you're describing it.

Levels don't address area specific difficulty. The entire game levels together with you. Their only purpose is as a reward mechanism for you to progress your character and give you the ability to further customize how your character operates within the game world.

The perks in skyrim are pretty bland and boring, but the system itself when tweaked by mods is actually pretty fun. It's nice being prevented from just being able to do literally everything and be a god character. Even skyrim doesn't manage to do that well, and like I said you need to limit yourself through mods and individual head canon role play.

It's the same thing that killed WoW. No one tailors their character to be exactly what they want it to be anymore and every class is homogenized. There's a reason why the most played classes in the game are all hybrids in retail WoW now compared to Vanilla where it was the complete opposite.

Why play a rogue and be forced into the fotm dps spec you don't like when you could just play a druid and excel at DPS, Healing, or Tanking? You can just switch between all 4 specs at any given moment and preform relatively well in low tier content.

Whereas in vanilla/tbc respeccing is costly and gearing for two different specs is much more difficult.

The talent and leveling system exists to pigeon hole you into a unique and specific role. Prot paladins in TBC are a good example of this. Best tanks? Not by a long short. But you need them on a few fights. They are viable as off-tanks and certainly not amazing, but they were turned into a spec that you needed to have in your roster somewhere more or less. TBC perfected niche specs and made every single spec viable in some way.

kill yourself
seriously
you are the cancer

Bloodborne is not worse for leveling. The hits you can take, the spells you can cast, the number of dashes you can do, and the speed with which you can kill are all visceral variables. Those numbers correlate to important shit regarding how you interact with the game world, and the order in which you choose to increase them matters just as much. Most importantly, those numbers allow you to approach the same situation several different ways.

Parasite Eve uses a loot based system with linear progression, and it's boring. Luckily the combat system and story is good.

Parasite Eve 2 uses a loot based system with pseudolinear HP/MP/Magic/Damage progression and it's great.

Skill trees suck in video games and I have never liked them: Dead Island, Memelands, Skyrim, etc. I didn't like it in Ass Effect either, when they started adding that shit in (not that 1 has a good system, point-buy at least makes some kind of sense).

Final Fantasy leveling is pointless except in X which is an extremely flexible skill tree, and 8, in which you don't want to level at all but you want a strong Triple Triad deck and leveled GFs instead. Learning skills from loot like in 9 and Tactics is lame and Skinner boxian.

The true answer is to dig all the way back to Dungeons and Dragons and find out why the fuck anyone levels.

whats the point in this thread?

OP IS UNDERAGE

Games with absolutely gigantic skill trees filled with game-changing nodes can be a lot of fun to play with, finding/designing new builds and shit.
Small ones, or limited perk trees, can eat a dick though.

It's simply, dont use rpg mechanics in rpg's

read the title

sorry about the name
english grammar is crap
enemies is the plural, you degenerate autistic brat

i just cant believe youre actually asking that question with any degree of sincerity.

Which game is that? FF?

acts like knows everything about gaming, autist

...

I kinda preferred FF8's leveling system most. Tying stats to items and spells while having monsters just scale so that they constantly present some challenge.

WoW has multiple issues, but a big one may be that they have individuals who focus on a single class that they manage. They don't have one lead with a definite vision for each class that the others try to enact. So things get twisted and morphed to make it easier to manage everything rather than to fit a particular person's vision.

FFXI did this a lot better. They had a particular idea about what the various classes/jobs should be like and when asked about why some jobs like thieves weren't as good for DPS as other jobs, they blew it off because the jobs weren't meant to be equal and each had their own individual benefits. Which is how it should be, classes in games shouldn't need to all be equal. Though I don't know how a game like WoW could do that now that they largely try avoiding requiring specific classes for certain content in game. Like I can't imagine them doing an encounter now like the one in Naxxaramas where you had to mind control a couple of the students to tank the boss.

get out of here russian

Well as with the example you gave of Fallout 1 and 2, there's no reason a system can't do both. Some damage needs to be increased if you're going by a system of armor and base damage, but it doesn't need to be flat, it can be a multiplier.
I can get behind this. Obviously if the only difference between level 1 and level 10 is that you can "shoot guns harder" then it's a lazy system, but there's no reason damage can't be implemented with other changes. New Vegas ammo system is a good example because it implements a skill and it isn't a one size fits all situation, where you only need one ammo type because it's clearly so much better than every other one.
I mean I'm not saying you're supporting Skyrim's perk system, it's pretty much universally acknowledged that the change from straight up skill enhancement to a "perk system" is one of the signs of casualization. Perk trees aren't inherently bad, see for a great perk tree/skill tree system, but the fact that there's nothing stopping you from getting every perk at once or having to choose between any perks is shit.

Meh, I'd rather it that way than the alternative. Angry ranting is good for the soul.

It's because of an old concept and because it tricks people into thinking they are making progress. It's the same with stats and turn base. The game practically plays for you, you are just tricked into thinking you are getting better, but your character is, not you. You aren't thinking how the enemy moves (in the case of Real time RPGs), behaves, attacks, your position, your skills, dodge, etc.

Games that do it right are HLD, Furi and the recent BoTW (From the start you can go straight to Ganon). Don't know much else.

You're an autist who's never played those games and doesn't understand them because you play nintoddler garbage, kill yourself

Thats part of why its shit

What a sentence.

But that's what you do in all fucking games. You prove you're able to overcome a challenge and so you go on to do a harder challenge. Ultimately he game acknowledges that your ability to play the game has gotten better and and you're ready to fight harder enemies. You don't have the game decide to make things easier for you so that the harder challenge doesn't become harder, what's the fucking point? You're essentially adding additional moving parts that do not need to be there and just leads to bullshit like grinding or enemies becoming pathetically easy due to over levelling.

You talk about thinking before you post, and yet here you are defending some incredibly vapid game design.

...

Sense of progression
Even being granted new skills is pretty much the same thing as levelling up.
Progression through being granted points which you are free to distribute to specialize or not.

Explain

Are there any good counterexamples? Are there any games where you become progressively weaker? It sounds like a cool game concept.

Sense of achievement to make up for the time and/or money you just wasted.

Because they're skinner boxes though I'll admit there's genuine appeal in going from being a scrub to a total demigod in something like Morrowind, this has no place in games with action combat though.

Anons mentioned it before but the simulation of the character matters. Abstract mathematical formulas that you add symbols to see it as a concept of progression. Now games like Oblivion are counter productive because they create paradoxes to this logic. You become stronger yet there are minotaurs everywhere. It doesn't add up to you. RPGs follow a sense of going forward. We claim its replayable but in its purest most abstract form, you don't revisit areas. You don't go back to the first dungeon because you already explored it. This is why the 1 dmg enemies become a thing. Breaking away from this formula leads to consequences or an entirely new genre.

But the most important thing is how we give meaning to them. Skyrim pisses off people since it doesn't even bother giving abstracts.

check 'em

Holy shit OP is a dumb piece of shit. More so than usual.

checked

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with leveling up in action games, so long as leveling up actually provides you with game-changing new abilities and traits rather than just simple attack and defense boosts.

Fuck you, Borderlands was awesome, Borderlands 2 was pretty good

7/10 i kinda mad

You must mean Borderlands 2. And even then?

RNG? Borderlands games?

U wot m8?

Unless you mean the loot and sotre purchase system, in which case yeah….

Borderlands 2 fucked in. Loot was onkybworth really looking for if you were max leveled. Otherwise, equipment two tiers down would render it irrelevant in like 3 levels.

And your trash that youd sold wasnt worth it, because the shop rarely if ever had anything worth a shit.

…..but the first game was great. Rolands skilltree was the main flaw tho. That and on pc, no click zoom