Satisfying RPG progression versus instant gratification--PCG article and your thoughts, please....

[ZedClampet]

Dying Light 2 is my favorite game right now, and one great things about it is the RPG progression. You begin the game a slightly above average person, but after you put maybe 20 or so hours into it, you'll be doing something and say, "Holy hells, did you see that? Did you see what I just did? I'm a damn super hero!" And at that point you still have more skills to unlock, both combat and parkour, and more tools to get (like the grappling hook), and you aren't even remotely finished with the game yet. There's still plenty of game left to enjoy all your newfound wonderfunesss. It's just amazingly satisfying progression.

Compare this to the cookie cutter Far Cry 6, which completely abandoned all progression, no skills or anything, and gave you all the best weapons at the beginning of the game. As a player, what is there to shoot for in this case? What are you striving for? All you are doing is finishing a mediocre story that you've already heard many times before in previous games, just with different characters. You are basically playing the Far Cry end game for the whole game. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, but it feels a bit cheap, hollow and hurried.

Shortly after Dying Light 2 came out, PCG published this article:
I really wish Dying Light 2 wasn't an RPG
"... there are other ways to keep players on the hook without resorting to the dreary task of watching an experience meter slowly increase. The entire RPG side of things is really just bloat. "

Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more. Your thoughts?

 

[Colif]

i can see it in another way. Its the difference between when you get power armour in Fallout. In Fallout NV its almost at end of game when you pretty much powerful enough with out it, compared to Fallout 4 where they give it to you in first 15 minutes removing all the point. I know there are more types and better versions but its like... minigun and power armor right at start... where does it go from here?

I preferred NV, it had progress I could see.

I am unsure if I agreed with you or not

 

[Pifanjr]

Needless to say, I couldn't disagree more. Your thoughts?

Why do you think XP works better for Dying Light 2 than just unlocking perks/skills at specific locations or as reward for specific quests?

EDIT: Also, I'm happy this forum is a lot more polite than the comments under this article.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Hard to have a proper opinion having not played Dying Light 2.

I can say that I enjoyed the sense of progression in DL1, at the start it was fun being weak and having to plan on avoiding large groups of zombies to finish missions. At night it was very tense in a good way, because you knew any volatiles would nail you if they caught you. By the end of the game when youre exploding heads 5 at a time with an electric wrench it felt great because you'd been through the early game having to be so much more careful.

If DL2 is like that, I'd probably be fine with it. I guess what makes things a grind for me is if theyre repetitive. If the side quests are varied and engaging, having to do them to level isn't really a grind.

 

[ZedClampet]

It actually works both ways in DL2. For items, you have to finish specific quests. For skills, you need XP. But I like XP better because it rewards hard work, exploration and side activities. If everything were unlocked as quest rewards, you would be more likely to skip all that stuff and rush through to get those rewards. And once I'm past a certain point, I usually don't go backwards.

edit: also this makes more logical sense. as you do things, you get experience and get better at doing them. You wouldn't become a better jumper just because you finished a mission. That's also why items are quest rewards. You do something for someone, and they give you an item as payment. If you reversed that and after you hit a certain experience level you just suddenly had a grappling hook, it wouldn't make sense. Same thing applies to xp. It wouldn't make sense if you completed a mission and got wall run, but it makes sense that while you are out trying to climb and run along walls that you figure it out.

If the side quests are varied and engaging, having to do them to level isn't really a grind.

Side missions have been great. But you don't even have to do them at all. There's no grind required. You can level just by doing the main story. Doing side missions rewards you by letting you get things earlier in the story, is all.

Why do you think XP works better for Dying Light 2 than just unlocking perks/skills at specific locations or as reward for specific quests?

EDIT: Also, I'm happy this forum is a lot more polite than the comments under this article.

also, people fundamentally misunderstand the game. they think it's a zombie/parkour game, but what it really is is a superhero coming-of-age story. you need the rpg aspects for this to be impactful. he's not handed his transformation, he works for it (along with two other circumstances that happen early to make this possible).

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

It actually works both ways in DL2. For items, you have to finish specific quests. For skills, you need XP. But I like XP better because it rewards hard work, exploration and side activities. If everything were unlocked as quest rewards, you would be more likely to skip all that stuff and rush through to get those rewards. And once I'm past a certain point, I usually don't go backwards.

edit: also this makes more logical sense. as you do things, you get experience and get better at doing them. You wouldn't become a better jumper just because you finished a mission. That's also why items are quest rewards. You do something for someone, and they give you an item as payment. If you reversed that and after you hit a certain experience level you just suddenly had a grappling hook, it wouldn't make sense. Same thing applies to xp. It wouldn't make sense if you completed a mission and got wall run, but it makes sense that while you are out trying to climb and run along walls that you figure it out.



Side missions have been great. But you don't even have to do them at all. There's no grind required. You can level just by doing the main story. Doing side missions rewards you by letting you get things earlier in the story, is all.



also, people fundamentally misunderstand the game. they think it's a zombie/parkour game, but what it really is is a superhero coming-of-age story. you need the rpg aspects for this to be impactful. he's not handed his transformation, he works for it (along with two other circumstances that happen early to make this possible).

Devils advocate might say that if you wanted to skip it to continue the story it maybe wasn't that fun to do anyway.

Agree it makes sense to gain experience by doing things. I've always liked the idea of that kind of system. Just have to make the minute to minute gameplay fun enough to do so its not a grind. Parkouring around in DL was engaging in itself because it made just moving around the map from place to place a kind of puzzle.

Definitely going to grab it at some point, I really liked the first game.

 

[mainer]

I really wish Dying Light 2 wasn't an RPG
"... there are other ways to keep players on the hook without resorting to the dreary task of watching an experience meter slowly increase. The entire RPG side of things is really just bloat. "

Somehow I missed that article. I completely disagree with that statement, as well as the article. I realize that it's not a review, but more of an opinion piece, but I found it extremely negative in context. The RPG elements that were mentioned are not bloat, at least to me, they add depth and a sense of character development and progression and make you earn your place in the created world. Nothing is handed to you, you have to work for everything you get, whether it be skills or equipment. There is no place for instant gratification.

At least that's my opinion as opposed to the writer of the article. Now granted, I haven't played DL2 yet as you know, but after reading that article, I want to try it more than ever because of the RPG elements. What the writer listed as negatives, are all positives to me.

 

[ZedClampet]

Devils advocate might say that if you wanted to skip it to continue the story it maybe wasn't that fun to do anyway.

No that's not it for me. For me it's about doing things in the right order and when they make sense. Every single side activity in this game has been fun,

 

[Pifanjr]

It does seem like the author's main issue is simply the time it takes to unlock skills, not necessarily that it costs XP or that there are unlockable skills. And from the comments it seems the opinions are divided about whether it takes like 10 hours to unlock some basic stuff or it only takes 2 to unlock half the skill tree.

Reading through the skill list, it does seem some of these skills could have just been unlocked from the start. Things like Power Attack, kicking enemies while in the air, stealth kills or Slide seems like things you should be able to do from the start of the game.

Though it's not quite as bad as, for example, the Treasure Hunter skill from Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, which let you pick up loot by walking over it instead of holding a button, which should have really been the default behaviour.

 

[Brian Boru]

Why am I reading a RPG article? Help.

opinions are divided about whether it takes like 10 hours to unlock some basic stuff or it only takes 2 to unlock half the skill tree

Probably the usual divide between those who like to experience games and those whose focus is to beat games.

author's main issue is simply the time it takes to unlock

That's how I read it too. As a non-RPG outsider, it seems ridiculous that a trumpeted experienced Survivalist protagonist is unable to slide under a wall or make slightly longer jumps—just one example.

From other genres—FPS, RTS, 4X, more—I can totally empathize with the author's lament:
"I no longer have the patience for games to eventually get good".
We probably covered some of this ground before in this thread:

Playing how the game was intended to be played

Topic came up in the current "How often do you save your game?" thread. Three main views: 1. Games should be played as the devs designed it; 2. Games should enable the player to play how se wants; 3. Compromise via options. Please vote, and if you have something of interest to say—ie a lot...

forums.pcgamer.com

It seems the author has lost his appetite for RPG's staple of long drawn-out self-inflicted pain, which is naturally going to get quite a reaction from the legions of masochists who wallow with gusto in the red mist. I find reading the stirring tales of multiple severe-pain episodes endured by many of you to be quite enough—I can't imagine actually 'playing' thru such ordeals.

Please, no need to thank me for poking some more pain your way, it was your pleasure

 

[Colif]

Probably the usual divide between those who like to experience games and those whose focus is to beat games.

i was a mod on a PlayStation forum and knew people who had to finish the new game just to be ready for the next game. I don't see point in playing games to death and hating them by end just to complete them.

I hope they are realistic about the games they play, some aren't designed to be played fast. Sacred 2 would grind them to a pulp if their idea of finishingis a max level character. 500 hours to reach. Mind you I can't think of any arpg where you start with everything and don't have a skill tree. defeats purpose of game really.

 

[Zloth]

Please, no need to thank me for poking some more pain your way, it was your pleasure

He's going all Cenobite on us!

Shooters have been doing the same thing. Start out with a pistol, then get a shotgun, then get a chain gun, then start finding different kinds of ammo for those guns, then get a sniper rifle, then the grenade launcher alternate fire option for the shotgun, then the BFG.... It's the same as getting magic missile, then fireball, then cone of cold, then the charm monster, then open up the ability to modify your spells for increased range/damage/whatever, then polymorph, then power word kill. Either way, it's all about increasing your choices and keeping the game play fun.

So really, shooters are practically RPGs to begin with. They just put more weight on the action - maybe one main story and a few side stories. RPGs will have lots and lots of little side stories, and you'll sit there and listen to them whilst NOT shooting things.

Frazer seems more worried about pacing. Having an RPG where all you get is the fool magic missile for the first 20 hours would be boring, too. Plus it sounds a bit like the game is saying this guy is supposed to already have experience instead of using the classic "farmer boy who's village was just torched by the baddy" trope.

 

[Brian Boru]

Shooters have been doing the same thing

Not just shooters:

From other genres—FPS, RTS, 4X, more

I'm fine with catering to the make-me-suffer and make-me-earn-it player bases, but please not at the expense of the rest of us. Not in so many genres.

It should be doable to provide suffering via starting Level and/or Difficulty level. If there's extra fun in using a below-par rifle compared to a decent one, it passes me by I'm afraid. Thankfully there are often 'unlock' mods for games worth replaying.

 

[Pifanjr]

Mind you I can't think of any arpg where you start with everything and don't have a skill tree. defeats purpose of game really.

While Dying Light 2 is classified as an arpg, it seems to me it could have just as easily been an action-adventure game if they took out the skill tree by giving most of the skills at the start of the game and perhaps gave a few as upgrades during the main story line. It doesn't seem like the purpose of the game is to unlock stuff, it's to do cool parkour stuff and bash zombies.

 

[Colif]

I know its an old argument/discussion/dead horse around here but I still question how so many different types of games all fit into same categories, to me ARPG is something like Diablo, not what Dying light is. Nothing against game, its probably fine but its just not the same. You can only stretch a definition so much before it is meaningless. Ive seen Mario 64 described as an Action RPG. If it is, nothing is.

starts a revolt, need more descriptions. More genre descriptors. More variety... less roguelites. less copy the latest trend and make that games. Explodes.

 

[Pifanjr]

to me ARPG is something like Diablo, not what Dying light is.

I've always called Diablo's Hack & Slash, but that term is apparently also used for completely different games.