Want to follow someone on twitter who almost never engages with that trashfire of a website? Boy do I have the account for you! twitter.com/Thefearalcarrot Want to give me money so I can buy more swet, sweet cocai- I mean make more fun videos? www.patreon.com/ArchitectofGames
Mariano Cavallero Forager is a fun game, I've been playing it for the last few days, most of the game is about progression, combination of levels and islands and everything on them. However there's one issue I have with the level progression, I now have had a few times that I leveled up, spend the point on something, and then realized I can't do anything with it because I'm missing another level up somewhere else on the grid that allows me to make a product to even get what I just unlocked. It's nice to have a dynamic way to progress with the level ups, but I feel like if you unlock something that requires you to have e.g. leather to make use of it, you shouldn't be able to unlock it yet as it will feel like it's wasted. (and one minor thing if you read this, key bind rbm, sell all/move all isn't in keybinds) Other than that, it's a fun game and I'm enjoying it.
@jocaguz18 Ok, The progress systems he is referring to in his videos are not mechanics, just natural progression in games. How I see it, He spoke of progression in general, a progression system would be something mechanical that simulates progression. I actually do not disagree with anything he said in the video, but having Progression and a Progression system are different things and mixing them is just confusing. Progression systems simulate progression with incrementing numbers or unlocking of more (to word it poorly) 'things' usually new gears/skills/allies. These examples are usually their own identifiable system. Progression is just a part of a progression system, but Progression systems are not the same as progression. If I Level up that is usually a part of a progression system (usually character progression), If the story progresses then that is just progression. A way to spot the difference, is if what ever happens leads the player closer to the conclusion of the game DIRECTLY (eg story progress, new areas, and improved player skill) that is just Progression, but if whatever happens is a mechanic in the game and does NOT DIRECTLY lead to the conclusion of the game the it is probably apart of a system (eg. Leveling up and upgrading gear). There is an argument to be made saying that Leveling leads you to the conclusion, however it does not DIRECTLY do so, usually all that stops progression is simple obstacles (enemies, puzzles, etc.). And leveling up HELPs you over come said obstacles, but in some cases it is possible to do it without, (Souls games are a good example), not interacting with a progression system does not stop Progression. usually games will tie these together, in most RPGs its impossible to beat the game at level 1, but hypothetically if you removed the progression system and gave the player good enough stats or damage values the game would still be possible to complete. Thats the difference. Adam had nothing wrong in his video, and it is quite a good look into Progression just not progression systems. he just combined two concepts that are not interchangeable, it is reductive to discussion if all forms of progression were considered a progression system. "Should our game have a progression system?" becomes a useless question with this mentality. of course that is just how I see it.
Some (most?) games have more than one progression system. Hollow Knight has all three, with upgrades (nail, health, soul, spell) being direct, new abilities being independent, and charms being customizable.
John Doe I think you hit direct and customizable right on the nail, but the abilities also help you progress to new areas, thus are also direct upgrades.
@@jetajiranuntarat Though they are required to progress, the order you obtain them is customizable. Not to mention, the majority are skippable. In a normal playthrough you only need Mantis Claw, Dream Nail, Vengeful Spirit, and Crystal Heart to beat the game. In low% speedruns, people skip Crystal Heart using a glitch; bringing it down to only 3 required items. Anything besides those items would just be customizing a playthrough.
@@Tymbee Good catch. That's a fair point. When I was commenting, I was already thinking of the ability upgrades and how they're not exactly necessary for game completion, but I mainly commented on OP's categorization of the abilities as being independent, so I didn't feel like making a detailed distinction between different abilities. Good thing you're here to cover all the bases lol.
Yeah, I was going to say that he uses the leveling system in Pokemon as an example of direct, but the variety of Pokemon could used as an example of either indirect or customizable.
www.customink.com/products I haven't ordered one myself, but you can customize your shirt and order it online. You can also request a sample if you think it won't fit or if you think it might be uncomfortable. Because I haven't designed one myself I'm not sure how much it costs though, you can try it out if you want.
Also, a bunch of folks I know run little campaigns when they design a shirt to get a bunch of people to group together to buy it so they all get a significant bulk discount. So if you make one, let us all know.
I love the thing where you start a video from the 1st second and I don't have to listen to 3 minutes of sub and smash that like button. Great job as always, keep it up :D
I've found that corner of youtube where I literally never hear that shit. I've avoided every clickbaiter and poptuber for years and freakin' years, yet still have been able to find new and plenty of content on the site. I only know it's a thing because of the memes, honestly.
I'm a bit sick of the trend that all games have to be infinitely playable. A good 6 hour game can be just as much worth it, as an RPG you can spend 200 hours in.
completely agree. I'd much prefer a really neat, funy and compact 10-30hrs God of War over inflated, stretched out weeks in WoW (in new patches, you literally cannot play everything till a few weeks after)
I sorta like being able to play a game and properly invest myself into it, get good at it and master it in certain cases. Quite often I am turned off by single player games like that where I have a few hours of nice fun, but left feeling like I didn't achieve anything. It completely is dependent on the person and most of us are different, and I will always lean towards incredibly immersive games (such as skyrim) that can be played for a long time, or highly competitive games (ex. CS:GO / LoL) and even MMORPGs. I'm glad that fun and short SP games still exist but I wouldn't like to oppose the trend of making people replayable, competitive or progressive games that provide hundreds of hours of fun.
The appeal of longer games like MMOs is the investment, it sort of feels like you have a second life within the game even. I still do enjoy shorter more well made games, but when a game is finished there's an empty feeling within. Like when you finish a book knowing it's over. So I usually still play a long term game to keep me entertained in between well built shorter games.
Wait, actually being conscious about the media we consume? And what's more, not financially supporting companies that engage in unethical behavior??? Voting with your wallet?! Lunacy
Oh how naive. You can not be buying the F2P junk and still be supporting it. Ever heard of F2P whales? If you feel like the game is unethical in how it charges money, don't play the game at all.
@@GKCanman I agree, if one is conscious about the media they consume, they'll probably realize that games are benefitted from free players too, which is why my 8 year boycott of EA has included not touching the free/free-weekend games. I understand name calling if someone disagrees with you, sure it's still immature, but I don't think I understand why you'd engage in that if no one has said anything that contradicts your beliefs.
@@Ouvii Sorry, i probably came across more insulting than intended. I just find the whole concept of voting with your wallet to be largely naive, not you specifically. If a game starts aggressively pushing gambling mechanics in their game and the developers gave a line like "if you don't like it don't buy it, vote with your wallet," then i'd be rightly pissed. I'm certain you would be too, but when games are services now you can pull some really nasty bait and switches on people.
@@GKCanman yeah, i agree with you, but until we finally get our torches and pitchforks and burn ea headquarters down. "voting with our wallets" and making clever yt videos educating people is kinda the only thing we can do. and don't get me wrong. when we get our torches and pitchforks, i'm first in line, but for now it doesn't seem realistic. (GAMERS RISE UP!! (pls don't kill me xD))
I really like terraria's progression system, which is kind of like a skill tree, but because your skills and abilities are fully dependant on the items you get, you can switch between being a ranged character to being a melee character nearly instantly. the game discourages this because actually getting enough stuff to make that total change costs a lot of ingame money, resources and time, but the class system is always player imposed, which i think adds a lot of freedom to the game that is very critical in sandbox games.
The Monster Hunter series is very similar to this, though the gameplay is quite different. Your skills and abilities are tied to your armor, weapons, and equipment, not your character. You can swap from a Lance build to a Bow build just by changing equipment.
I find it interesting that you only differentiated Progression systems based on direction. The way I split them up is between the core element being "progressed". You've got: Numerical Stats - the raw beefing up of numbers Options - the number of possible choices you can make Player Skill - Essentially "git gud" Knowledge - Simply knowing what enemy is weak to what and where to get what you need You also have to balance these types of progression based on the type of game, the type of audience, and what kind of experience you're trying to convey. They're also critical to keep in mind when designing for Difficulty Settings, as certain types of increased difficulties will only challenge certain types of progression.
@@ArchitectofGames neat. Both are important of course, and it's less a matter of choosing one and more about tweaking what you go with to mitigate the issues caused by any of them. Talking about Progression Systems as not something new but as something that's always been there makes me think of what I've been doing, too. It doesn't apply to just games, but education and even work. How best to guide the learner to become skilled at the targeted task, identifying the core element they're best or worst at to tailor an appropriate progression curve, or even the simple act of evaluating what it is you're trying to DO by direction or core.
Yeah there's lots of ways to divide it up, the options and numerical stuff, for example, can be interesting when you put your loadout together, but how about the changes it has after the fact? When you actually take your gear setup for a spin? Progression is really tricky to do right
I really love the horizontals myself, whether it's being given something and having to adapt or choosing carefully what kind of power to utilize in a situation, or a balance of course. I love when the vertical is simply giving you more options in the horizontal, consisting of basically balanced options that are contextually imbalanced for you to take advantage of in clever and engaging ways.
It's a great game but it's not for everyone, there's a free demo on itch.io you can try out before you buy it to see if you're willing to spend for it.
Speaking of Progression systems I'm generally not really a fan of direct upgrades in strategy games, although a lot of them seem to have them nowadays. The main reason is because much of the strategy aspect in those games can be overshadowed by raw stats. Grinding early levels or 'random encounter' levels often found in many strategy games nowadays can easily result in overpowered units that can clear entire levels with pure stats alone. This can also accidentally happen if you happen to want to see all the sidequest type missions or just found a certain 'training' stage really fun. Alternately, if you happen to make it past several stages without really stopping to level up your characters, you can easily be forced to backtrack and grind your troops to level because the enemies are now simply too high level for you to beat without some more stats on your troops. Some games balance their troop growth and stuff really well, but some games, it feels like I'm just supposed to mindlessly grind and just try to puzzle out how I kill 25 enemy units in 6 turns for that gold medal.
I love DICs, I want them in all my games. Finding out what DIC fits into your game is a challenge I know all too well. When I write my own games I like to fit in a little taste testing of all kinds of DICs, to see which kind goes well with it.
I've always been a fan of progression systems when they work. But that's just it: they have to WORK. A surprising number of games have a progression system that seems like an afterthought or is nothing more than a hindrance. Progression systems can be interesting and can actually add to the experience of a game when they are done well. In Zelda games, for example, you could go out of your way to explore secret areas in the hopes of finding a heart container. Did you NEED it to progress? No. But it made the extra time feel like it was a worthy investment, and progressed the strength of your character by a noticeable amount. Dark souls has similar mechanics where hidden paths and optional encounters can lead to many benefits. Path of Exile has a massive point tree where you can really fine-tune your character as you level in a way that tailors more to your desired experience than most ARPGs. It's an interesting system of progression where you aren't really getting "skills", but instead picking up small "perks" each level. A big part of the progression in the game is learning the tree itself--which can be an enjoyable experience of it's own. Even the traditional RPG progression system is enjoyable to me as long as it is in the correct genre of game (that is... when it's in an RPG...). Many adventure and action titles nowadays seem to slap an RPG style progression system to stretch the playtime of the game. It's just not something that works well in those types of games (I'm looking at you, Assassin's Creed).
yeah, PoE, I am playing a witch, and wasnt too interested in totems... until I found 2 spells... one creates corpses (and puts corruption on the ground) that are level scaled with the enemies in the area, the other spell blows up corpses... doing damage that scales with the corpse's max HP, thus, my desecration corpses have roughly the same max HP as the general enemy population, so I create bodies directly to create more bodies through murder, Side note: there's also the use of the type 1 progression in leveling up your gems, and the type 2 in the form of the fact that you can stick different gems on the equipment to make them synchronize in weird ways, for instance, there's a spell that makes you dash through enemies to deal damage, but out of curiosity, I gave it the gem that gives it the totem modifier, and now the totem is dashing through enemies, and that can be used alongside the totem laser connection to put the totem on the other side of the enemy, zapping them continuously after the dash,
I kinda disagree about every gaming having a progression system. If we're being technical enough to call "progressing through a level" a progression system, at which point it starts being a bit meaningless of a term altogether, there are several with none. Does life have a progression system merely because as time goes on, stuff happens? Does "cleaning" have a progression system, because as I clean, stuff gets cleaner, and therefore I am progressing? I'd say no, and honestly, if you'd say yes, there is no point at all in using the phrase. If everything is a progression system, then nothing is. But that aside, there are many games without an *overarching* progression system. For instance something as simple as Dota 2, no matter how many games you play, there is no change to the game for doing so. You can buy cosmetics, but not earn them, and a money-bought cosmetics change is not, in my opinion at least, progression. Though that said, the Dota 2 battle-pass system connected to the international, could fairly be called a progression system, so I suppose you could say dota has one, but only for 1-2 months a year. I'd also argue that games where the only progression, is in unlocking new levels/stages/missions and advancing the story, are inherently different from those with character levels and ability unlocks. Games like Halo, where the gameplay and the character you control stays the exact same for the entire game, no powerups of any sort, aside from weapons and vehicles, which are static, temporary parts of each mission and not at all the same thing as a standard progression system. I do not see the need for there to be a system that shows you your growth, one-shotting level 1 enemies because I am now level 50 is not at all satisfying to me. Being able to easily handle the enemies on level one, because I, as a player, have gotten good enough to beat level 10, is all I need. In many games, character progression is an obstacle to player growth. Even in games like Dark Souls, which prides itself on being for "those that like hard games", the satisfaction of being easily able to handle enemies that once troubled you is diluted to the point of bitterness, by the fact that it is not a simple result of you getting better, but also of your stats increasing, and your equipment being better. I'd argue that Dark Souls could drop its level and weapon upgrade system altogether, and be a better game for it. TL:DR: Progression is inherent to everything, including all games. A progression system is not.
I'm scarred from the word rimjob and will never hear rim right again for the rest of my life. thanks internet. probably one of the few times it's truly managed to scar me mentally.
Something about Skyrim's level progression system always struck me as wrong. It's the same problem as the one you mentioned Destinty 2 having, that enemies level up the same as you do, wherever you are. So you don't feel like you're getting more powerful. Sometimes you can end up feeling like leveling up is making you weaker instead!
I think you are stretching the definition of a progression system. It's not the same as progression further in the story or simply going forward. It's also not improving as a player (opposed to a player character). It's a *system*, where your character or account *levels up*. And it's the form of progression that's often used to exploit players and give them an artificial means of progression by doing the same things over and over. Of course it's not always bad, but it's the one most problematic in its purest form and it's the one that is most likely referred to when saying "progression *system*" and when talking about *levelling up*. Simply going farther in the game is not levelling up.
(In your description, you forgot to include "Thronebreaker: The Witcher Tales" which you show at 11:40 after Gungeon a second time! Just so you know! I think it would be listed after Hitman 2 in your list.)
Lmao. *Plays rpg that focuses on equipment rather than levels* Albion Online gang. *Realizes that your equipment is achieved and used based on a system nearly identical to the leveling system, but just portrayed differently* Still Albion Online gang, _but something's off_
After 10 years of esports, I am unable to enjoy leveling systems anymore. It's not like I don't care for the power fantasy, but a game is just more interesting to me if it's about me getting better at it than if it's about my character getting better at it. If a player can beat the game's final boss at level 1 by being smart and badass, I find it cool. If an absolute idiot can beat the game by accident, by simply grinding long enough, I find it boring. The Witcher 3 is a prime example of this. I remember exiting White Orchard for the first time, and getting to Velen. I explored for a while, because open worlds are cool. And then I ran into a bunch of deserters. At that point in the story, Geralt was a mutant with superhuman senses and reactions, with a hundred years worth of battle experiences, a few thousand kills to his name, and the sharpest swords this side of the Yaruga. At that point of the story, the deserters were drunk and had clubs and wooly shirts. But because the game decided Geralt was level 3, and the drunkards were level 10, it took me 20 sword blows to kill each deserter. Throughout this 5 minutes long fight, one of them managed to hit me, instantly reducing me to a couple hit points. There was nothing more immersion breaking than this. In this instance, the game failed to deliver on being a roleplaying game, and a system originally designed to make the game feel more rewarding made it feel shitty instead. What's worse? A couple hours of gameplay later, Geralt went into the crypt of some random idiot a thousand times less badass than he, found a rusty piece of iron... And it was twice as good as his Witcher's sword. To this day, I've yet to finish that game, and not for a lack of trying to enjoy it. I tried lowering the difficulty, so that enemies wouldn't be bullet sponges... But the way difficulty is coded in that game makes it so enemies also become idiots as the game's difficulty setting is lowered: they stop using their shield, attack less often, etc... I tried using mods to start the game at level 15... But at that point Geralt is so strong he has the Superman problem of not ever being in true danger instead. What I want to see... What I REALLY want to see... Is a game where instead of a difficulty slider, you'd get difficulty sliderS, plural. I wanna get a slider for enemy health, another for enemy damage, another for enemy AI, another for loot drop chance, etc... I want a game to trust me when I tell it that I know the kind of experience I'm looking for. I've recently started getting into tabletop rpgs - D&D, mutants and masterminds, etc... And the thing that makes those games great, is that you get to tell the game master what kind of experience you're looking for. I can tell my game master that I'm perfectly happy playing an entire adventure without leveling up or finding a single magic item if I want to. Because it's so free-form, they can change the rules, cater the experience to the players at the table.
Ark survival evolved (while being a mmo) has that if you play single player or on an unoficial server. I too think that this should be a standard, just like mouse sensibility, keybindings etc
I agree full-heartedly. In a videogame, we don't need to see the character grow stronger to feel growth, we the player can get better instead. That doesn't mean the game can't have a progression system, but that the system should open more options, not make existing ones better. That's why I love games like Rayman 3, though there is some progression through getting more health and such (if I recall correctly, been quite a few years), the main progression is in unlocking new types of power-up suits, and learning to use them effectively. Beating the final boss doesn't require you to have bigger stats than at the beginning, but does require you to have properly mastered all the different elements of the game, that have gradually unlocked throughout your playthrough. THAT is what a progression system should aim to do. Not just increase some number.
@@oddyslay I also enjoyed rayman and like those skill+"new tech" systems. Although platformers are a very distinct genre than RPG's. I think that RPG's can have some kind of stat boosting progression. This progression is much more interesting if it comes with traits, for example in most elder scrolls games being a vampire comes with pros and cons. You get stat boosts, better ilusion etc. but you are weak to fire and the sun lowers your stats or straight up kills you. Another example could be being able to shoot and reload 10% faster but have your aim kind of move so your accuracy is lowered.
@@OrionJunqueras I think it is doable to make a good RPG with no stat progression. But it is certainly easier to make one with stat progression, so I don't expect or even necessarily want the change to happen. But I do wish for a return to the times when your choices mattered. For instance, if you compare perks from the original fallouts, and Fallout 4, gone are the interesting perks like "animals are no longer hostile", replaced almost in entirety by perks like "do 10% more damage".
Even the original Doom and Doom 2 had progression systems which were ENTIRELY optional. Namely, the guns. If you wanted, you could go through the entire game with just a fist and pistol. It'd be insanely difficult, but possible. Unless I remember wrong, and you need to pick up a gun to progress, but still.
I think another reason we’re getting so bored is the focus on _incremental_ progression specifically. In GMTK’s episode on balance, Mark Brown notes that you want to make differences really stark, really shine, so that your selection doesn’t feel monotonous. ‘Shoot baddy w/ boolet, deal 2% more damage & .03% more status chance’ doesn’t accomplish that. You use the same option the same way for a sprinkle more payoff, which you’ll soon stop noticing. Especially in your enemy scaling examples. If advancement on all three paths felt like real _change,_ it would have more staying power.
Beyond Good and Evil has a really great progression system of movement (for your vehicles). Going from a rinky-dink hovercraft, to a rinky-dink hovercraft that actually works, then can boost, then can hop, and eventually hook up to a flying ship, which itself can then be upgraded to fly into space. Hopefully BGE2 is able to continue that system in a way that doesn't feel cheap, though it's Ubisoft, so there will probably be character levels and perks as well...
908th. Before watching comment: I'll say it outright. Forager beta was more fun, without all the dilution by weird quests that feel off and aren't explained with any depth most of the time. Haha! Gotcha! I didn't play it! I watched a lets play like 2 years ago!
I feel like direct progression systems in the near-ubiquitous RPG/shooter hybrid game completely rob the shooter genre of any weight and power that usually comes with the weapons you can use. Putting a big number on the screen and making the monster's health bar go down a bit is no substitute for the satisfaction of using the right weapon on the right enemy. In a game like Doom or Call of Duty if you were to shoot a human-sized target with a rocket launcher, chances are they'd be blown into a fine powder... but in a shooter/RPG like borderlands or fallout, if the numbers say the target survives then that's that. Even if they only pull through with one hit point, that rocket launcher suddenly doesn't feel like a rocket launcher anymore... and the same can be applied to just about any other weapon.
I think that's true but I also think it could harm the gameplay. For example you should be able to ohko someone without armor by stabbing him with your sword. Being able to chain lore and gameplay together is very useful and dificult and I haven't seen a lot of games like that.
I don't think it's fair to consider Pokemon as having a linear progression system. The game is very much an example of a customizable system. You can chose from hundreds of monsters in the game, and build each of them in a number of different ways. The only thing linear about the progression is maybe the evolution, and... even that can be chosen, sometimes.
It will be in a lootbox that costs $$. Don't worry, it's just cosmetics. It might LOOK like you're firing guns with a gun, but those are actually just normal bullets that LOOKS like guns.
Honestly, I hate games that pretend to offer choice, but really only a few combinations of choices are good or even viable, because then you either need to look up what to do, or suffer and only receive the benefits on multiple playthroughs. I'm not playing a game again just because I made a bad choice developing my character, and I will resent the developers for forcing a game to be an obnoxious number crunching chore.
I greatly appreciate your clear and simple classification of progression systems. The naming is intuitive (and hilarious), the icons are descriptive enough on their own merit, and the explanation with specific examples further my understanding of the concepts. Great content per usual, Adam Millard!
I'm sorry but from the gameplay footage you've shown you seem to be very bad at Don't Starve. You've literally charged right into the tallbird as it was going to attack you in one of the clips. Combat in Don't Starve is VERY skill based, meaning that if you can kite correctly and move out of the way of attacks you can't kite, you'll die much less. If you can combine that with knowledge of the world and mechanics, you will most likely almost never die Most of the interesting characters don't even get unlocked through xp in the first place. You should really read a basic guide or something and try again because... come on. It's not the game's fault.
Progression systems I like: - Ones that allow to choose your skills or power-ups along the way, that have a tangible effect on how I will continue to play the game. These will progression naturally while you play the game and your character improves. For example Oblivion - Choice making at certain point that rules out the others and means exclusivity, often by a perk system - Ones in which narrative progression or level design drives your characters journeys, and there is no ulterior levelling system - Ones in which your sense of "progression" is exterior to the game, such as Minecraft, which has no ultimate goal in itself. - Very enjoyable one is about gathering resources and improving your game like that, many farming, industry and survival games and Minecraft fall into category Progression systems I hate: - Ones in which the sense of progression is purely cosmetical, and might only mean in practice that you must complete certain areas before other, when in reality, everything is level-scaled anyway. See Witcher 3 and AC Odyssey for example, as much as I love these games. - Ones in which the choice of a certain strategy or perk will make the game incredible easier, and thus render other options useless. - Ones in which you can use different skills or choose between different perks, yet gameplay is almost exactly the same in any case.
Speaking of customizable progression... I hate seeing people just want EVERY game to have a skill tree and stuff.. like that won't work in a standard Mario game.. can't just be like "hey wanna upgrade your jump height or your run speed?" because then you have to design a level to accommodate for someone to come into it with max of either and.. that wouldn't fun to have a Mario level designed for Sonic that can also be beat with a slow af dude who jumps to space...
I'm sorry but for God of War you said "It helped their journey without strealing the limelight" You didn't specify exactly what it did to not get in the way of the travel. You're still going through menus, you're still managing armor and weapon stats and youre still unlocking skills through trees, forcing you to start gimped just so you can artificially gain the new abilities in an obtrusive mechanical fashion through EXP. If anything I think it did steal the limelight by only making enemies at higher level even more annoying to fight because of the value differences, and it takes away from the core game design of using your abilities by making you manage extra things just so you have access to all your things and not spend an eternity trying to defeat a foe because youre not doing optimal amounts of damage. I love your videos dude, but unless you're going to elaborate, you can't just say something out of the blue like that without backing up the point
1. That was excellent! Thanks. 2. The "it sucks because they want us to keep playing it forever" is extremely on point. To me, it feels very related to everything Jim Sterling has been saying of late.
ChronoCross gets a lot of flack for being related to Chrono Trigger, but holy hell does that game have replayability off of it's progression systems alone. Not only can you customize the character playstyles, but you can't get all of the characters in a single playthrough. There are no "I picked the wrong choice" moments, because you don't even know they exist until you stumble upon them. Simply choosing differently on another playthrough will progress you in a completely different way, and I find it incredibly beautiful.
"Why have progression systems become ubiquitous?" Simple. It's easier to monetize progression systems. Mobile games are nothing _but_ progression systems, and by gating progression behind money/time barriers, you can make bank.
I just found your channel through RU-vid suggesting this. I liked the video overall, but the text asides really pulled me out of the video: it was sometimes a double whammy of 1. Having to go back and pause to read it and 2. Feeling like my time was wasted because I didn't get the joke I paused to read. If you cut half of them and put the other half in the spoken script, it would work better for me personally. Also, the comment about some flying mount almost made me close the video. Certainly video game characters are designed to be sexy, but I neither expect nor appreciate what feels like a horny teenager comment in the middle of a serious analysis video. I want to emphasize I really liked your analysis and plan to watch a few more videos to see if I want to stay subscribed.
13:38 love the 'Battle for Wesnoth' shoutout. I really like the way they made each unit seem like your own player character, so it made you want to keep them alive once you leveled them up just one time.
it's fun. I cheesed a campaign or two by spamming the turn reload keys. all in all it's solid and has lots of mods and in game add on for new units and campaigns. mostly a single player game though from my experience. @@ethandowler4669
Infinite scaling rubs me the wrong way. There is no reason my level X character shouldn't be able to one shot a skeever. Sure, at level 1 when I can barely hold a sword, that makes sense. But if I can kill a dragon, I should be able to one shot a skeever. No questions asked. Basic grunt enemies need to slowly be cycled out of the enemy pools as you progress, or at least multiply how many of them there are, like goblins in DnD. Sure, at level 1 you may take on like 5 goblins, but at level 10 you should have many more at a time, not goblins that are progressively beefier for no reason.
My feel as though Video Games are a unique artform in that to fully experience a body of work you must become adept enough in it to progress. Therefore, a progression system is, by and large, a quantifiable handicap (no negative context implied) to less capable players to promote progression of a story. I can't imagine too many designers expecting players to NOT complete a game.
7:39 How can you compare getting random cards in a card game to lootboxes in Overwatch? By getting more cards in Hearthstone you actually progress somewhat and may become stronger. In Overwatch the lootboxes unlock entirely cosmetic things, they don't make progress in any way
You want a terrible, god-awful, bullshit monotonous, grindy progression system, an example that I hope no other game ever follows and takes inspiration from? - War Thunder
Hey AOG please consider actually playing roguelikes when you want to refer to their progression system I can assure you, that progression system is just a Enter The Gungeon thing, and not a roguelike staple
The game Tyranny is the perfect example of how to not do a level progression system. It has a similar system to Skyrim where you gain skill points based on how much you use said skills, and can buy them from trainers and when you pass a certain xp threshold you level up and can choose attributes. The issue is that many of the skills are just useless for particular builds and due to the level scaling it means that improving those skills and thus leveling up actually makes you weaker instead of stronger since the enemies also scale in levels and they don't have this issue. Thankfully Tyranny has an option to artificially not gain xp in certain skills even if you use them, which fixes this issue for the players that know about it but is backwards game design to say the least.
@@Tymbee doesn't have to be ASCII, but yeah you could call me an enthusiast for 'traditional' Roguelikes (don't like calling them traditional, since there are ones that are still innovating with new mechanics etc within the framework of Rogue, and so calling them traditional doesn't make a whole lot of sense - for games that are innovating, look at some of this year's 7DRLs such as Inner Life, and Quinta Essentia. Also Cogmind is another good example)
@@VikingSchism I gotcha. You might like Dungeons of Dredmor, if you haven't played it already. I don't know if it's super innovative, but it's definitely a worth playing.
Y'know...most Fire Emblem games don't actually have finite experience if you think about it. The arena features in many of the games, and provides a source of infinite gold and exp. It comes at the risk of losing your units, but you can use it to your hearts' content. Additionally, four games have random encounters to grind, as well as Awakening and Fates' exp DLC
At this point, the term "roguelike" says nothing anymore. A twinstick - bullet hell - shooter and a survival game are both "roguelike", while a DF clone is a "management game".
Personally I love those progression systems that allow you to choose your own path as it makes you feel like you have more agency in the world you play. Its not just progression. It growing into the game and even better, when the game world itself recognizes this.
I don't think you used the best example of the "independent" progression type, because I believe it more applies to individual class selections than merely progression by acquiring more options. In your Enter the Gungeon example gun unlocks fall more under the "custom" type as players still choose if they want to use said gun, making it more down to player choice/skills to determine if that gun unlock was actually "progress". On the other hand, you must use one of the game's predefined classes every time you play, but you can unlock more of these predefined classes to choose at the start of a run. This is a choice that is "independent" of the player's will for when said progression occurs, but the player has options for this mandatory choice. Maybe I just didn't understand your classifications and both systems could be considered independent based on how you look at them, which is why I appreciate this video, to keep the discussion going.
Sorry for the late reply, but I disagree about the gun unlocks. Yes you can choose whether or not to use a certain gun while in a game, that isn't where you unlock them. You unlock guns (which then randomly spawn) by completing challenges. After completing a challenge, you can't say "I would rather unlock this other gun instead". Basically (at least it sounds like) you were getting confused by unlocking guns vs getting guns in a run
Hard disagree here, there is little that will get me to not play a game faster than customizable progression systems. Exponentially more so if the ‘progress’ has increasing costs for the same upgrade, or if I have a limited supply of ‘investment resource’. I think it’s more so the case of having 20 different types of progression that’s annoying as opposed to no flexibility over them.
Can you give me an example of a game that you stopped because of a customisable progression system? I think it's only natural that you'd have to prioritize and focus your resources to get optimal results so I've never had anything bad to say about the concept
Wittling down the distinction between the progression of leveling/upgrade systems and progression in terms of a game's story or levels... doesn't explain how the former became so prevalent. There is just no comparison between going to the next level in mario and unlocking a grappling hook. I'm disappointed
It wasn't a major point, but it was there: A good story is a great direct progression system, but useless if your goal is infinite playtime. But that is currently the core target of AAA games, as infinite playtime (with constant pushing of micro-transactions) equals infinite money. At least when you're pitching your game to the producers to give you near-infinite amounts of money in advance. That's also why you still get great story-driven games from indy developers and in crowdfunded games like Tides of the Numenera.
@@sourcererseven3858 I can see the point about story/level progression being replaced by skill trees/upgrades as you describe. However I do still think equating the two like he does in the video, saying games have always had progression systems, is wrong. Though you could argue it's technically right, it's more of a language trick than anything. It's... deceptive use of language.
Also, I'm pretty sure games that classical have self-contained 'matches' don't have any progression system. (See unreal tournament, age of empires, etc) And if we're to say that we ignore multiplayer, these games still have single player AI matches that work exactly like multiplayer. Unless you count your progress during the match in beating your opponent or your competitive rating as a 'progression system'.- which is then whittling down even more distinctions.
Progression in a game does not mean it has a progression system. You getting better at a level does not mean it is the games system doing the progression.
I haven't played AAA game for a long time. This video explained why. I hope in time AAA studios will see a decrease profits and will try to do things differently instead of copy-pasting "working formulas" with a different setting!
Dude you need to do a Factorio video. its literally 2am right now and i was up playing factorio... i started playing when i got home from school 10 hours ago ive done NOTHING play. 10 hours well spent.
i always tell myself i'm an RPG player (because i like fantasy) but if i could i'd probably just play games like metroid, zelda and darksiders. ...and binding of isaac for downtimes or when i'm bored. i like games that are easy in concept, but the concept itself has a lot of depth. i really enjoyed into the breach last summer. probably the best game of 2018 xD. and then stuff like darkest dungeon to round it out. kind of an rpg? kind of a dungeon crawler? not too much mechanics, but lots of depth in storytelling and gameplay. i hate cheap progression systems with a burning passion. i just want to play a fucking game. i don't care about your stupid skill tree. make me interested in the game and lore and story first. then give me complexity.
Excellent video! Seems like you took a sociological approach to figuring out how the progression system works. Must have taken a long time. And you also have all the games you showed in the description. I love it! I think a found a new awesome channel
