Level gaining

Sellsword · Post by **Sellsword** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:27 pm

What is this thing about gaining levels? -

Arguably the most commonly used cheat in BG was the Experience Cap remover.

When SoA first came out everybody was really excited about it letting you reach the heady-heights of 17th-23rd level.

One of the things which really excited people about ToB was the prospect of reaching 40th level.

Heres the point; not matter how high you rise, the game never really changes!

In BG you battered kobolds with your warhammer.

In SoA you returned to batter some liches with your warhammer +5.

Finaly in ToB you got to batter your half-brothers and sisters with two warhammers +5, while looking pretty damn sleek in you new suit of full plate mail +4.

What is the point? Ultimately all that happens is that the weapons get bigger, the spells get bigger and the monsters get bigger. Indeed, the developers found themselves in a rut when they ran short of monsters! Faced with power-inflated PC's the developers were forced to make a stop at liches'r'us and lashed out on far (FAR) too many of them (but I've been over that before). "Standard" AD&D 2nd edition rules only allowed for advancement as far as 20th level anyway and the expectation was that that would be rarely reached (though now dead PC's just don't seem to stay dead...).

Now this may be something which I rant about a lot, but why is the aim of level gaining allowed to replace the pleasure which may be derived from a decent PLOT!

Are developers incapable of producing a plot which grabs hold of you of you in the way a good book does? Wouldn't a sense of "I have to see what happens next" be enough to draw people back to play a game some more the next day? Is the possibility of acquiring a "Howitzer crossbow +7" really required to keep people playing. Although it appears to, level gaining does not actually present players with fresh challenges, because, as I've already noted everything increases in proportion!

It may seem extreme, but for a moment lets just imagine a game were the characters don't gain experience points/levels at all and where powerful items (magical or otherwise) are extremely rare or don't exist at all! Good books engage their readers emotionally and well-plotted games should be able to as well. The rewards for completing quests etc, would be the same emotional payoff that you get when something happens in a book that your reading. This would result in far greater player involvement and ultimately, greater player identification with the PC!

Just a thought...

=============================================

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Sellsword ]

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:52 pm

Your jsut full of all these ants, aren't you sword.

. You make some very good points, they are also points I have noticed at times as well. The only reason we are allowed to achieve such levels as 40th, is because of the supposed challenge ToB presents to us. Well, instead of swamping us in a quagmire of Dragons, Liches and level 30 Mages, maybe just make the A.I. incredably intelligent, and more practical. Instead of casting the most powerful spells for an enemy mage, why cast the minor annoyances, then when the PC is busy, then cast things like Fireball and such. It's simple tweaks like that in the A.I that can make it so much more interesting play, and without the need to allow level 40 characters.

Also, as stated in the other thread, they over did all these supposedly rare and powerful creatures, because of the XP cap they allowed. That, again, can be fixxed by lowering the cap, and the amount of "I am God" monsters, and tweaking the A.I. to an extent where they are smart (A concept they don't seem to grasp). Oh, and how would we, as the PC, deal with the super smart Liches? Simple, give us the better A.I. scripts for our companions (Come on, how many people cast nothing but Magic missile in a fight like the A.I. does for me?). That way, you can let your friends do their thing with little interferance from you, and you can focus on your own character.

In addition to the challenge increase accompanied with A.I. They could focus more on story, plot, and character development, instead of making them husks of people. That could create better replayability, and gain a wider audience of gamers. Anyway, thats my little rant on the subject.

Kane · Post by **Kane** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 12:53 pm

I am a carpenter/builder and with 15 years EXP. consider my self skilled and able to take on any job that presents itself.
I certainly do not miss the days when i started as a labourer digging holes in the ground.
Similarly and perhaps more relevent:-
I have played golf and tennis for many years'
the games are just as tough now as when i started.
But how i would love to not be able to keep that tennis ball in.
And wouldnt it be great to go round the course in 40 aver par?

NOT

Sellsword · Post by **Sellsword** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 1:11 pm

Its not just a question of how level gaining could be limited. I would not see a problem if the tone of the game changed as you became more powerful, say taking on a more political slant.

This is not unrealistic; as your character becomes more powerful, it is only natural that they should become a force within the Realms as a whole, able to influence major player, even whole countries (and perhaps even coming to rule one themselves). Instead of clearing out the bands of orcs plaguing the countryside PCs might be called upon to avert a war between two nations (see, a test of diplomacy; not muscle mass!). If the game changed in this way then level gaining might be both useful and rewarding, but sadly...

=============================================

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:17 pm

So possibly get into the whole cloak and dagger thing. A little more political intrigue. I like that whole diplomacy thing, that would've been a real fun thing to do (Aside from just the Paladins diplomacy quest, which sucked). It would've tested the gamers true wits and problem solving abilites to find a solution to avert a war.

stolider · Post by **stolider** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 2:59 pm

Sellsword, First of all, please take no offence from this message, and read the whole of it. It was written in a friendly tone.

<- friendly!

I Understand you're search for a more in-depth plot, but you must understand a few basic facts:

1. This is, after all, a PC Game - not a book. The point of the game is to entertain it's target audience. I understand that 'decent plots' have that effect on you, yet others do get 'pleasure' from gaining levels. Besides, the BG saga is one of the most plot-embued games I know. If you want a decent plot - read a book.

2. Although I don't stand umongst Bioware's developers, (yeah, I copied Anomen!) I know for a fact that they have worked very hard on coming up with a plot (not to mension everything else...), and I think it's even decent enough to create a movie based on the game's plot.

3. For a moment, let's imagine you're idea would come to pass. Characters would not gain levels, powerful items would not exist, therefor monsters would not get stronger (if they had, players couldn't stand a chance against them). Now, how does this make you (the player), more attached to the ("indecent") plot? By channeling you're emotions to the plot instead of the rewards? Not a chance. What would really happen, is that the player would get frustrated and angry that he got no reward or earning from his quest. I don't know about you, but I really like getting expirience and gaining levels (As, I presume, most gamers do). Each time I have decisions to make, I make them based upon what my character will gain. Now, you may call me materialistic, but I tend to gain my 'emotional payoff' from Movies, Music, Books and the likes. In games, I just want to kick ass, if you know what I mean.

That said, I want to apologize for my spelling mistakes (I'm too lazy to proofread), and bid you a nice day.

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: stolider ]

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 3:25 pm

[Sorry about my poor english]
I think better don't go with extremal changes like no level pass, no items, same monsters. For my understading Sellsword talk in figured way. And he got nice points

BgI and BgII have nice plots and good story enviroment, not cinematic/literature intrigue but I like it very much

But in TOB they send all to Hell. Things interesting(like the dream with Imoen in BgII) simply don't happens. The game is terrible for an evil character roleplaying, this is the wrost problem, your aligment just don't make diference. The plot sucks. They upgrade all, items, level, monsters; but forgot the romance/chronicle/story

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:27 pm

Originally posted by Sellsword:
What is the point? Ultimately all that happens is that the weapons get bigger, the spells get bigger and the monsters get bigger.

Well, that does bring a bit of variety into the game. You learn new spells that enable you to try different strategies, you can finally defeat such-and-such that used to intimidate you so much (which is rewarding), you get new toys to test out every so often, and you get new enemies to play with that may require alternative tactics to handle.

However, it shouldn't have to be so extreme, IMO. No need to go from a +2 vanilla weapon to a +3 with loads of specials. And why a level 13 party has to fight level 20 monsters just to have a challenge is beyond me. Level 13 monsters should be dangerous to them, since they would only have 1-1 odds. But nooo. The party has the Can Opener +6 and 12 Scrolls of Protection from Cheese, while the enemies have a Potion of Protection from Fire and a Scroll of Identify...

Originally posted by Sellsword:
It may seem extreme, but for a moment lets just imagine a game were the characters don't gain experience points/levels at all and where powerful items (magical or otherwise) are extremely rare or don't exist at all!

Those are called "adventure games", if I recall correctly, and are set apart from RPGs by a complete lack of character development.

Originally posted by Aegis:
Instead of casting the most powerful spells for an enemy mage, why cast the minor annoyances, then when the PC is busy, then cast things like Fireball and such.

Well... Symbol - Stun, Symbol - Fear and Symbol - Death certainly aren't on my Mages' memorization lists... Those genius Int 18 level 20 Liches must see something that I don't. There is no enemy in the game that casts Simulacrum or Project Image (two of the most powerul spells available) that I know of, and you don't exactly see Imprisonment, Power Word Blind and Nature's Beauty very often either. Those are spells that kill high level adventurers. Not those stupid Symbols or Delayed Blast Fireball.

Ah well, at least this game offers several different fronts to gripe about.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:40 pm

Sellsword welcome to the post-Diablo atmosphere of RPGs.

Deal with it. Bioware is a company. Companies need to sell games to make money. The way the current RPG-genre is, only games where you gain power through levels/items are successful. You want something to complain about? Complain about the power-gamers, not the game makers.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 4:46 pm

Originally posted by Quark:
You want something to complain about? Complain about the power-gamers, not the game makers.

How does 'power gamers' effect your game?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 5:22 pm

Are developers incapable of producing a plot which grabs hold of you of you in the way a good book does?

Of course they aren't capable of that. They're programmers, not writers, and code doesn't have anywhere near the flexibility of a good book's variety of narrative, description, etc.

But check out Planescape: Torment. You should like that.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 5:26 pm

@Quark: How will complaining about Power Gamers help us any? First off, they don't affect us, and secondly, if they want to power game, let them. The companies have nothing to do with power gaming.

Also, Bioware did one hell of a job with BG2 and ToB, and we're not critizing their product. What were doing is having a discussion onf what could've made their product that much better.

@Sellsword: I am in complete agreeance with the whole symbol spells. I find little use for them, but apparently all the liches, and dragons, and high level mages love them, and thats the sort of A.I. flaw I'm talking about. They cast useless spells during a time stop. Instead of casting one or two imprisonments, (theoretically of course), they decide to cast symbol death, symbol stun, and symbol fear on me. And it never works. I then just turn around, and clumber the snot out the mage for annoying me. It's no challenge.

I think the major flaw of this game was it's A.I. Even though it is better then previous games, it still isn't challenging enough as to not resort to riduclously high level gaining. If only they could tweak it a bit more, offer that extra umph. IMHO, a Liche with int. of 18+ would not be stupid enough to cast symbol stun more than once on an oppenant, yet it happens! They would also be smart enough to notice particular magical enchantments on people, and recognize what would work, and what wouldn't. If their ability to control magic is that powerful, and they can't even tell if the armour that gu is wearing will negate a spell? What kind of Liche is that! It's A.I. like that that will eventually kill the genre, and they can't afford to have the genre dead, as it is a large amount of income for developers.

Valorhan · Post by **Valorhan** » Sat Jul 28, 2001 5:42 pm

Sellsword had a point there. Basically all that's happening is that you become more powerful, the monsters become more powerful, and the rewards get better. Of course I believe that the plot is good (one of the best plots I've seen in an RPG game), but ToB just doesn't make sense in the Forgotten Realms.

Take a level 40 character for example. If you are a fan of Ed Greenwood's novels, you would know that the most powerful archmage in all the realms is Elminster. In the Forgotten Realms campaign setting for 2nd edition, they say that Elminster is a 29th level wizard and a chosen of Mystra. Chosen of Mystra or not, a level 40 character can easily destroy the legendary Elminster. Also, a battle between 30th level demigods (Bhaalspawn) would cause a catastrophe that would probably destroy Faerun. In terms of balance, ToB just doesn't cut it.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 3:13 am

Originally posted by Valorhan:
In terms of balance, ToB just doesn't cut it.

Hmm... Don't have ToB yet, but from what I read about it, I have a hard time imagining a party of six Elminster-equivalents being bothered with quests such as "fetch my spellbook"...

nickygoh · Post by **nickygoh** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 5:54 am

Nice topic Sellsword!

I'm not going to reiterate the points above, many of which I agree with. However, one point that people tend to overlook is this: Non-linearity.

Why do I say this? When new rpg/adventure games come out, reviewers will often slate a game they feel is too linear and doesn't leave you alone 'to do your own thing' (what some might call the 'Republican' outlook, but let's leave that out of this

). What I find personally is that when games leave you to do your own thing completely (eg BG2 Chapters 2,3,6) I get bored instead. Whether non-linearity is good or not, the point is that if you're not advancing a plot, but merely doing your own thing, then character advancement becomes the main goal, since if there is no development, in terms of plot or your character, I doubt anyone at all would be playing.

I think the comparison with plot development / characterisation one finds in a book is interesting, but flawed; if you've read my spiel above, you'll probably guess why! *Books* *are* *linear*. By their very nature. Therefore, unless a game's plot is very linear also, it's difficult to get as much depth as in a book. There are games with wonderful plots though, such as (suggested above) Planescape: Torment, and Final Fantasy 6 (3 in the US). Interestingly, the latter was much criticised for being too linear compared to its sequel... which many fans felt was actually inferior.

Anyway, better stop b4 you all start falling asleep on me! I don't think the balance in BG2 is *so* bad though... just look at the number of 'power-gaming' posts on this very board and you'll see that obviously Bioware have made the vast majority of people happy!

Yours in the plot devoted minority

Dimensional · Post by **Dimensional** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 6:23 am

Why do I say this? When new rpg/adventure games come out, reviewers will often slate a game they feel is too linear and doesn't leave you alone 'to do your own thing' (what some might call the 'Republican' outlook, but let's leave that out of this ). What I find personally is that when games leave you to do your own thing completely (eg BG2 Chapters 2,3,6) I get bored instead. Whether non-linearity is good or not, the point is that if you're not advancing a plot, but merely doing your own thing, then character advancement becomes the main goal, since if there is no development, in terms of plot or your character, I doubt anyone at all would be playing.

good point - my feeling when people talk about linearity and non linearity what they are actualy talking about is the illusion of linearity or the lack of it. it matters not if you are forced to do a cerain thing if you feel that there are actauly options and your choices have led you to where you are.

while sell swords point about xp rewards/stuff reards is valid. It is still necesary for some reward to motivate the player . and plot rewards are vaild if they work properly - example you get your statues put up in trademeet (great reward b) but A0 I can never recognize them as being me. and B) no one ever seems to comment on the fact.
if when i finnished trademeet i was given 3000 gp and the statues but the statues had effect at latter points - some quest requires you do do some minor deed to prove your worthiness to some noble so you can marry his daughter but scince he has seen the statues he is awed by your heroics and offers his daughter straight away.

or when you become lord of De arnise keep people outside the keep would recognise this (being called Lord <CharName> by some of the people in the govt. district would be so cool.

The romances are examples of how plot reards help motivate people . how may of you base your party on who you are romancing (whic does little in terms of party power but is a great plot reward element)

the introduction of more plot rewards in stead of monetary/magical thigumy/XP rewards would go along way to scalling back the ridiculouse rate of leveling in BG@ and TOB

When leveling becomes a ow well some one leveled sort of thing it sucks - In BG1 when some one leveled it was just the best thing

in TOB - who cared after a while

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 8:14 am

Originally posted by Dimensional:
my feeling when people talk about linearity and non linearity what they are actualy talking about is the illusion of linearity or the lack of it. it matters not if you are forced to do a cerain thing if you feel that there are actauly options and your choices have led you to where you are.

Very good point.

One of the things I love about BG1 is the enormous amount of freedom you are given. I wandered around in the wilderness for weeks before going to Nashkell. Although various hints were given from several sides, nobody forced me to go there. Same goes for the Bandit Camp. There must be about three totally different ways to get there; which one you take is entirely up to you. The game is still linear (Naskell Mines, Bandit Camp, Cloakwood, Baldur's Gate, Candlekeep, back to Baldur's Gate), but doesn't really feel linear for 75% of the time. I think that's great.

Sellsword · Post by **Sellsword** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 12:19 pm

Wooooooooaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhwwwwwwwww...

CONTROVERSY!

(I love it!)

Let me see now...:

Stolider - Did I say that actions within my example would go unrewarded (or indeed punished)? I think that actions within RPG's should affect the world within which the RPG is set! Why shouldn't characters become (im)famous? Dimensionals example regarding the Trademeet statues is an excellent one! You don't change; the world and its perception of you does! Very few people enjoy the acquisition of money for its own sake; rather they enjoy the comfort, security, power and influence that money brings. Yet just about the only thing that players are allowed to do with their money in BG II is spend it on bigger weapons, tougher armour, higher level scrolls and more potions. The amount of money that you have does not effect the way in which characters within the game view you. The quality of your actions only effects this very rarely (you've destroyed ancient evils and saved towns. Does anybody care...).
As to this being a game and not a book come on! You know quite well that BG games have always been marketed as all but an interactive novel ("...immersive plot...world of intrigue and mystery...you're actions affect the game world as a whole as well as plot course!").

Incidently, what do you mean by an "indecent plot" (such kinkyness should not be allowed on a family-friendly forum...).

Xyx - I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but adventure games are marked out not only by their total lack of character development, but also by their near total lack of plot and focus on all-out action (Tomb Raider anyone?) and so have little relevence to my point.

Quark - Go easy on the fatalism; this is a light hearted and entirely hypothetical discussion!

Fable - If they can't then maybe they ought to think about working with someone who can!

Aegis - Improved AI would indeed go some way towards alleviating the problem of power inflation.

Valorhan - Good point, well made.

Achilles - What you say is true; a truely non-linear single-player game is unlikely to work (they would likely be doomed to becoming known as "wander-em-ups!")

Dimensional - As I've already said, you're idea about the statues is an excellent exaple of what I'm talking about, but I would like their existance to have a far further reaching effect than simply making one quest easier!

(I'm BUSHED.)

=============================================

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Sellsword ]

KillerKid · Post by **KillerKid** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 12:31 pm

Well this is my second post yay go me, hehe. Well i think that in a way your right but what you are talking about i know this sounds cheesy but what you are talking about is like a holodeck program from those chessy startrek shows. The only reason we can do that on computer is because of the memory. It would take to make such a program and how long it would take to make hell by the time they make that game for computers, holograms might acually be out. Because in order to make every NPC act difrently would require then to have real AI or about 80 million difrent possible responces. I to have said to my friends that would be the best game ever, but i relize that they cant make such a game. It would take at least like 80 freaking CDs or have the devolopment of easy actual AI. I would LOVE it if they could freate such a program but it just isnt possible.

P.S. sorry about all the puncuation errors im still in summer and i aint takin the time to fix stuff hehe

Sellsword · Post by **Sellsword** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 12:51 pm

I think to say that what I suggest is impossible is an exaggeration; it would not require 80 million possible responses as you suggest. Just ten variables would be a refreshing change and they would lead to a game of almost unparalleled replayability.

=============================================