Philosophical discussion: "Experience" in RPGs

[metagloria]

This is a very similar concept to the experience gained by Pawns in Dragon's Dogma. Yes, there is generic experience for levelling up when they hang out with you personally, but they don't gain this experience when loaned to other players. What they do gain, is a three star rating of world and enemy knowledge. Fight an enemy a few times, and they'll be able to identify it easily ("Wolves, master! ). Fight in many times, and they'll become more accustomed to its attacks (they warn you of a wolves mauling attack, for example). If you use a variety of elemental and status effects, you can gain the final star as they become more knowledgeable about the enemies weakness ("They're weak to fire! Try blinding it! The cyclops' eye is its weakness!" etc). This also works with world knowledge. Enter an area, and they know about it (Oh trout, Gran Soren! etc) . Explore it fully and they'll be able to tell you things about it ("You can find chests hidden away behind buildings! There's a chest down there! Maybe we can leap down... etc"), and it also applies to the wildnerness ("There are often wolves prowling around this area... Beware of bandits, master" and so on).

It's a really unique system, and I find it adds a lot of depth to what are essentially handmade NPCs.

This is exciting! Dragon's Dogma is sitting in my drawer right now because a friend basically forced me to borrow it ("Here, play this"). I just beat a massive RPG in Kingdoms of Amalur, so I didn't want to start another one right away, but I'll probably play it soon!

[Quindiana Jones]

PS3 or 360?

[metagloria]

PS3. I don't play anything on the 360 unless I have to (Lost Odyssey).

[chionos]

It can happen in a realistic manner and still be fun. That's the challenge for developers, yes, but it's a realistic challenge. Not talking about hyper-realism, here, but systems that make sense and aren't arbitrary

Guess that is where we have to agree to disagree. I think making designers consider how to make their systems not arbitrary is artificially confining, and just serves to hamstring the design process.

I'm not saying that you can't go for something more like you describe if that is what the game devs feel will work best with their game, I think the decision should always ultimately be a mechanics/immersion one rather than based on some meta-level value system they are working under.

I see what you're saying. I guess sometimes what makes a game immersive for one person doesn't quite have the same effect on another. I'm not saying that every game should have the same depth in its leveling system. For instance, TES are a series of games that approach realism on every level of gameplay, so of course their leveling systems should be complex and on some level approach realism too. However, a similar system implemented in a game like Kingdom Hearts would not be appropriate to the overall expression of that game's aesthetic. Those games have an entirely abstracted and unrealistic system of leveling, but it fits the story and the feel of the games so it works (at least for me).

I agree with you to the extent that realistic leveling (or any other specific type of leveling) should not be the focus or priority of any game. Each game should find its own system that works for it. However, no system in a game should be arbitrary (outside of games that are parodies or meant to be ironic). It has to make sense or it's going to annoy/frustrate the gamer, even if it's aesthetically pleasing somehow, or matches the developer's vision.

Also, Quin, you're probably right. That is a silly (arbitrary) system, lol. Not that I didn't enjoy hunting and sniping the little bastards, but it really doesn't make any sense. Well, maybe it makes Team ICO sense, but not normal human sense.