"What if we leveled backwards?" Article

Sounds more like leveling sideways to me. But the idea of a PC's power slowly transferring from one area to another over time seems interesting.

One way that I think a leveling down mechanic could work is if you use it to encourage the player to try out other options. In other words, make strategy A weaker while leaving strategy B alone so the player will switch to B. Maybe you have an Asskicking Equals Authority character that has just gotten his/her minions/team mates/whatever, but they get slowly weakened over the course of the game, resulting in the player having to rely more and more upon whatever system is available for commanding allies.

What we need is an RTS about a Forever War. It would start with hovertanks and end with bolt-action rifles. Support powers could help maintain variety. Game mechanics could also shift towards recycling, and there could be an inverse tech tree. Say, the player could decommission supersonic laser fighters (which needed now-exhausted resources, anyway) in order to receive better tanks and grenades.

I like the idea. Granted, it's not for everyone (but no single game is) and it'll have to be handled with more care than, say, normal leveling, but if handled well, it will allow the player to go from blowing away enemies to gradually becoming far more tactical in battle and win in manner that's rewarding just in of itself.

The strength that the player character has should be taken away at set intervals for story justifiable reasons so the player isn't annoyed at the fact. They shouldn't be contrived coincidences, getting injured after every single boss is just dumb. A mystical contract does sound like the best idea as far as this goes.

The actual abilities the player has shouldn't be taken away, though. A full arsenal is mandatory as it allows the player to find new and better ways to handle enemies using what they have instead of, say, wack with your basic sword weapon, run, come back, repeat.

The actual weakening should come in the form of the abilities having less and less effect. You've got the ice arrow and at first it permanently freezes enemies. But then it only lasts 60 seconds. Then 45 seconds. 30 seconds. So on until you've got 5 seconds to do what needs to be done. However, by this time, the player should have learned how to use other abilities in combination to defeat the enemy within those five seconds.

And the most important part, remind the player, you're weaker than ever but you're still kicking lots of butt, you're awesome. The game play should be rewarding not in the typical "Doo doo! You got better stuff!" but in a manner that makes you feel awesome for being able to come at the level in such a manner that you won through sheer skill, not power.

That being said, Demon Souls played with this idea via the New Game+. Granted, you got stronger during each game, but each new game+, the new enemies got stronger faster unless you did some grinding (which after a certain point in that game got to be absurd), forcing the player to become a better demon hunter in every regard.

Games don't work that way. Games are about positive experience (fear too can be positive experience).

Making a game about how you actually lose powers and become unable to take on things you took on from the start is not a positive experience. There is no incencitive to play it. No reward, no exploration, no nothing, just defeat.

The article should be renamed to "Why do we have sex instead of whacking our testicles with a hammer"

edited 3rd Mar '11 5:39:23 AM by Aminatep

Not even for the plot? I mean, I'll admit it's quite a niche idea, but...

Games don't work that way. Games are about positive experience (fear too can be positive experience).

Making a game about how you actually lose powers and become unable to take on things you took on from the start is not a positive experience. There is no incencitive to play it. No reward, no exploration, no nothing, just defeat.

Who says? Just because you're losing power doesn't mean you'd be unable to take things on and get defeated. That's the point of it, that learning to win with less and less power becomes its own reward.

Also, story is not to be underestimated as an incentive to progress. I know I wasn't going through Silent Hill 2 to get the next strongest weapon.

edited 3rd Mar '11 5:54:10 AM by PhiliusLupae

Two lovers, one of which is dead. The other dives into the depth of Hell to rescue the recently deceased. By way of a Faustian deal, s/he begins to fight demons to reach the other only to find that the deal is slowly crumbling. But that lover keeps on fighting anyway, willing to lose everything to regain the single most important person in his/her life. And you can escape Hell and be happy with your beloved one.

It's about the goal this time, not the journey.

Also, this would never work MM Os, I don't believe. This needs a finitely long game and MM Os just aren't finite usually.

Yahtzee, there's already a game where leveling up makes you weaker. It could work if you made becoming weaker central to the plot, but the risk of backlash combined with the insane development costs of modern games means that no developer would try it.

edited 3rd Mar '11 5:56:01 AM by Redhead

Oblivion mishandled it. You either played a class about combat and got stronger or you got into non-combat skills and got weaker and there was nothing to help you back up, resulting in people completing the game at level 2 because it was a lot more possible that way, not easier, possible.

I wish I was a game designer.

So why not make some games then? Nothing's stopping you.

Here's Yo Yo Games, they have a product call Game Maker that simplifies the process greatly (but you'll still want to look at the tutorials). Back in middle school before I got into actual coding, it served as an easy gateway into logic and making games. Works for Windows.

I believe there's also a program that makes games on Mac that's doing well right now but I can't remember its name.

edited 3rd Mar '11 6:35:26 AM by Usht

I've had an idea about an entire game that goes backwards, from the player's arsenal to the music, storytelling devices, and gameplay conventions; with everything slowly stripped away until the very earliest examples of each. The final boss battle would be a dialogueless fistfight, with both your character and the enemy badly bruised, tired and desperate; and the Song of Seikilos playing in the background.

edited 3rd Mar '11 6:40:06 AM by Null

> Not even for the plot?
If you need to tell the plot and you can't make the gameplay any fun, use another media.

> That's the point of it, that learning to win with less and less power becomes its own reward.
Enemies cannot become more and more cunning and diverse because you won't be able to beat them. Thus they will stay the same. Also known as boredom.

You don't really understand how difficulty and rewarding works, do you? If, when you beat an enemy, you are rewarded with stripping you of yet another one of your powers and provided an opportunity to take on an enemy that is not harder itself, it is simply not rewarding, there is no fun to it, it is NOT fair. It is fake difficulty.

edited 3rd Mar '11 6:42:38 AM by Aminatep

So why not make some games then? Nothing's stopping you.

To make a game on my own, I'd have to handle these things:

• Writing
• Programming
• Art
• Modeling and animations
• Music

Of those things, I can write and make music. My ignorance concerning the process of modeling and animation is second to none and I have only the most basic skills when it comes to programming. As an artist, I am a little better than your average punter but less than mediocre.

^ I think you're imposing your personal values concerning games on us, here. Personally, I love tension in games. While it's not quite negative progression, some games are absolutely fine with no character progression in any facet. Take the Alien Vs Predator games, the Alien campaigns in particular; you never gain new weapons or skills, so to complete the middle and late sections of those campaigns you simply have to become better.
The concept here is the same, except some options are gradually removed, forcing you to adapt. Much like how when, in an RTS, an enemy destroys a strategic resource or object and you must improvise to win without its benefits. Or, in the very highly thought of Amnesia The Dark Descent, where your psyche diminishes over time and makes you more vulnerable to your adversaries.

Personally, I don't play games solely for character progression, and character progression does not equate to fun for me. An interesting environment and plot with interesting obstacles are all I personally need to play a game and have fun.

edited 3rd Mar '11 6:52:13 AM by MadassAlex

Suddenly I wonder if it isn't functionally similar to facing the boss and being pleasantly surprised that not only are they immune to most status effects (you know, the ones that would have actually helped), you also seem to be doing only half damage.

> That's the point of it, that learning to win with less and less power becomes its own reward. Enemies cannot become more and more cunning and diverse because you won't be able to beat them.

Thus they will stay the same. Also known as boredom.

Or... you can make enemies even more varied as the game goes on, but not necessarily more powerful, each with a multitude of different possible strategies to use against them, getting ever more situational as to which strategy that you developed that you should deploy.

> earning to win with less and less power becomes its own reward

You don't really understand how difficulty and rewarding works, do you? If, when you beat an enemy, you are rewarded with stripping you of yet another one of your powers and provided an opportunity to take on an enemy that is not harder itself, it is simply not rewarding, there is no fun to it.

You're treating this like regular experience points. How about at gateway points, like after an unavoidable boss of the area? See, you should weaken the player at a set rate so they don't end up in a really, really bad situation and feel its unfair.

Plus, look at non-RPG games like, say, Mario. At the end of the game, you're still a plumber, you didn't become anymore powerful, chances are, you lost the mushroom along the way, but you still saved the Princess and won, and that feels awesome. So long as you can maintain the fun by having interesting design, a balanced system, and, well, general enjoyability, whether or not the player gets stronger or weaker shouldn't matter. The reward is playing in of itself and enjoying it, the added reward is saving the Princess.

> each with a multitude of different possible strategies to use against them
Except your game will give you less and less possible strategies as you get less and less choice and customization as the game goes on.

> Plus, look at non-RPG games like, say, Mario. Exactly. Those games work by raising the challenge by making your enemies harder, not making yourself weaker.

Imagine Mario starting the game by saving the princess, then gradually doing less and less heroic deeds until you become an ordinary plumber.

edited 3rd Mar '11 7:23:09 AM by Aminatep

> each with a multitude of different possible strategies to use against them

Except your game will give you less and less possible strategies as you get less and less choice and customization as the game goes on.

I never said that. You should get numerically weaker, not weaker not the array of things you can use. Thus the point of being Weak, but Skilled.

> Plus, look at non-RPG games like, say, Mario. Exactly. Those games work by raising the challenge by making your enemies harder, not making yourself weaker.

Imagine Mario starting the game by saving the princess, then gradually doing less and less heroic deeds until you become an ordinary plumber.

Enemies never got harder after they were introduced. It was simply a matter of getting better at the one thing you did, jumping, and getting really good at it. Levels would become harder but you'd improve in your choices of when and where to jump, not how well the character jumps.

And tell me this, if you're up against the final boss, lost your mushroom along the way, wouldn't it be more dramatic? Especially if since you won due to the level of skill you've gained?

The point is to make the player smarter about what they do and using that not shrinking array of tools at hand to win instead of just being able to hit the "fight" button and hit for cap damage. If you're solely playing a game to get stronger instead of enjoying it for the game that it is, the game has failed at being fun and you're just grinding through the plot.

edited 3rd Mar '11 7:34:16 AM by Usht

The article should be renamed to "Why do we have sex instead of whacking our testicles with a hammer"

...Can I turn that into a signature?

One of the videogame idea threads had this sort of neat idea. It was a Raising Sim of sorts, about an old veteran hero training a party of scrappy young children to battle some impending apocalypse demon or something. You would play the mentor, a grizzled old Magic Knight who would begin powerful, but become older and more frail with each passing year. Eventually, you will have to pass the torch on to the party you have spent the last decade training and pray to God they know what they are doing.

edited 3rd Mar '11 7:48:31 AM by mrsaturn

^^ Besides, we're talking about negative character development. We've said nothing about reducing the scale or challenge.

edited 3rd Mar '11 7:53:33 AM by MadassAlex

Enemies cannot become more and more cunning and diverse because you won't be able to beat them. Thus they will stay the same. Also known as boredom.

Again, who says? You're forgetting that as a game goes on, the player gets more skilled and can handle new or more clever enemies with strategy. Difficulty is not just a function of player character power vs. enemy power.

Here's the thing about leveling up: it's a Skinner box mechanic. The game makes you go forward by giving you a cheap reward for doing so: a flash of light, an increase in power, something to hit the pleasure lobes in your brain and make you want more. Rather than a compelling storyline or fun challenges. Otherwise, please explain to me how leveling to Level 70 and blowing the final boss away with Super Hellfire Dragon Storm Death Punch Attack is more fun than fighting him in a weakened state and being given a challenge you must overcome through your own skill, cunning and strategy.

I would have played Silent Hill to the end even if all they gave you was that pistol and that pipe. It wasn't powering up that kept me going, it was the story of the haunted town and the single dad looking for his daughter. I wanted to find my daughter and I also wanted to find out the truth behind the town. None of this needed powering up to achieve.

I played Resident Evil 4 several times with all sorts of load-outs, but I found the most fun way (the only way to play, in my opinion) is to forget the Merchant and all weapons and stick with the starting pistol, at original power, for the entire game. This was fun because the game has so many different enemies and situations you have to face, each one needing you to formulate a strategy to get through it with just your pea shooter. This was far more fun than buying high-powered rifles and rocket launchers and just shooting everything with ease.

And of course, it deals with that narrative problem that games always have, that the player always has to win and get more powerful even though this goes against narrative structure. It allows games to do something different.

I think people who think they need steady powering up for a game to be fun are way too close-minded. There are many ways to make a game fun.

Oh, also:

Imagine Mario starting the game by saving the princess, then gradually doing less and less heroic deeds until you become an ordinary plumber.

No one suggested such a thing in this thread. You misunderstand us.

edited 3rd Mar '11 9:14:11 AM by PhiliusLupae

The best way to kill enemies in Resident Evil 4 was always, ALWAYS to kick their head off in a Cherry Tapping sense. Always made me feel gitty on the inside to see the Chunky Salsa Effect.

Weren't there a couple Final Fantasy games that had some characters whose stats decreased as they leveled?

Yes, but they were crutch characters and not all of their stats decreased.

Otherwise, please explain to me how leveling to Level 70 and blowing the final boss away with Super Hellfire Dragon Storm Death Punch Attack is more fun than fighting him in a weakened state and being given a challenge you must overcome through your own skill, cunning and strategy.

Fun is subjective.