I think this is Bunnyhop's pet-peeviest, nit-pickiest, pettiest video ever. But no. Seriously. Video games, please stop doing this. This video uses music from audiomicro.com
Yes! I've lost count of the amount of times I've walked in on my brother navigating endless menus and weighing up options, asked what he's doing, and realised he's actually playing Destiny or Tomb Raider. It's so outside the game it looks like he may as well be comparing prices of toilet paper online.
+ffishfinger Actually many of Destiny's upgrades do effect you gameplay. Each time you pick a new one for your character you get a new way to use a preexisting ability, like turning you AoE Ultra basically into a missile or making your grenades into cluster bombs or light people on fire.
+Xenovia Why? Surely you can tell how subjective what you just said was. If the upgrades in Destiny change how you tackle situations, I'd say they're doing it better than most of what's listed in this video. Although really Destiny treats it's upgrade system more as load outs than anything. Using Destiny as an example of this is really weird anyway, considering it's most definitely an rpg, rather than just an action game that throws it on there for some last minute variety. This is basically the same thing as arguing Borderlands shouldn't have a skill tree menu. It's ridiculous. Tomb Raider on the other hand I can understand.
reNINTENDO When you have go between different upgrades just for a 0.5% dmg increase its extremely dull and pointless, that kind of upgrade system sucks.
Sir Cheddar Fallout and Mass Effect are great examples of moral systems that really straight up ruins a large part of the game. There are so many gray choices in both of those games, especially Fallout, yet the game decides whether or not what you did was right, or wrong. It's just mind boggling to me how the creators feel the need to do this, just, why? To make what ending you get just much simpler for them to decide, so that instead of having authentic hard decisions to make that can have just about any consequence, they just make a good or bad variable and there you go. "Different" endings.
+William Lazerdust Well honestly some choices in Mass Effect and Fallout are outright wrong or questionable. The whole moral relativism argument doesn't work. Also I love moral systems. They're fun and nice for Rpgs.
I wouldn't call it generic, they are noble decisions and Renegade is just you being amoral and disregarding people's feelings and being much more aggressive. I like the dialog wheel but I think having 4 options is ideal for this kind of a system
No, it's out next month. However, previews and images have confirmed that things like quick turns and raising your legs (2 things that were fairly important in the original Mirror's Edge) are locked behind an XP upgrade system. Pretty shitty, all things considered.
and the enemies have health bars for some reason, even though they take predetermined damage from attacks lol, i don't understand the fad of every game being released trying to be an rpg, uncharted 4 is a breath of fresh air imo
I really enjoyed Mirror's Edge Catalyst on the whole, but the skill tree in it just seemed so... unnecessary. You get the moves you need pretty early on and then everything else is pretty much filler. Hell, some of it I don't know if I've ever even gotten the chance to use (like taking down drones or something).
This isn't nit-picky at all. Video game developers seems to just copy and paste from one another without trying to find out the purpose of these systems. It's the video game equivalent of square pancakes.
That's actually a very insightful comment, it's not that taking inspiration from or even copy pasting is bad, it's that it needs to have a purpose. You can't just blindly copy success, but that seems to be the dominant trend in the AAA world nowadays. It's kind of like the industry's obsession with set pieces which kicked off with Half Life 2 and Resident Evil 4. But the thing is, the set pieces in those games are entirely interactive, with the thrilling prison assault in Half Life or the boss fight on the lake in RE4. When you look at set pieces today, it's just ripping control away from the player so that they can watch a tightly choreographed cinematic play out. Copying without realizing the purpose. Copying without realizing the purpose.
***** I am not sure I would credit Half Life 2, specifically, with much - it was the original that was more influential in FPS's being something more than a Doom clone. If you want to have anyone/thing to blame for the modern game's obsessions with set pieces, look no further that modern warfare 1. It was literally pace-less, just set piece to set piece to set piece - and reviews praised this "cutting out the cruft" to no avail. I mean, set pierces have been a part of gaming, ripped off from movies, but most game from the past ten-ish years seem to be responding to what I will call "the COD affect".
BINARYGOD I wouldn't agree with that, CoD 4 has arguably the best campaign of the series, it's still not paced amazingly well, but it does have peaks and crescendos. Switching back and forth between the British S.A.S and the American Marines made use of two different combat styles and mission structures. While the Marines are all about stomping through an overcrowded war zone with superior firepower (in classic CoD fashion.) The S.A.S are all about sneaking, ambushing and other guerrilla style tactics. The game will switch from a frantic tank defense in the middle of a bog, to a stealth mission trying to avoid the spotlight of an attack chopper. I think it's actually designed quite well, in the other CoD games there is virtually no difference between switching PC's it's just always the same Michael Bay infused action sequences. MW2 was where the series went straight down the toilet and relied on constant set pieces.
Those last words George, "They might end up trying to be okay for everybody, and as a result be great for nobody" you just summed up the current video game industry. This is the bread and butter of big triple A game development. Make game that appeals to as many people as possible without any sort of personality or risks, why? Because in their minds it dosen't matter that you thought the game was okay, the only thing that matters is that you bought it and were satisfied enough to not completely regret your purchase. This is why I think it should be important to have some sort of lead vision behind every game. If you look at every game made by Platinum for example, you notice that there is always a director, and that director tends to have very similar types of vision and despite these games being made by alot of people they're not without personality and vision, and that's because there is one guy tasking other people to deliver his vision, instead of a giant team of people all giving ideas and then getting input from the focus groups. For example Hideki Kamiya has listed Space Harrier and Link to the Past as his favourite games, so we have a console adventure game and a skill based arcade shooter. He made Okami, so thats him making a zelda game and almost everything else he has made is very arcade like. They're more about playing skillfully rather than just getting to the end of the level. And there was a after burner level in Bayonetta for no real reason other than Kamiya wanting one in there. Why? Possibly because he likes after burner and he could get away with it because sega was involved. Kamiya is very much an old school gamer trying to give people the same kind of joy he felt playing older arcade games while slightly modernizing said games. And I think Shinji Mikami is of similar mindset, after all Vanquish is pretty much a long arcade game with scores and everything. Having scores nowdays is kind of a bold move because most people aren't gonna care, but it was made for people who do care. And if you do try to compete for the score in Vanquish the game becomes a different thing altogether. For example it has the same hide behind a cover mechanic to replenish health mechanic that other games do, but if you dont hide behind anything the score constantly goes up. Meaning the game dosent want you behind a cover, it wont stop you completely but it rewards you for making the game harder for yourself. Kinda like what you said about God Hand few videos back (also by mikami). The same personality thing applies to indie games mostly because they have range to do what they want and thats exactly what they do. I could go on but this comment is already way too long as it is. Point being I agree 200% about those last words you said.
Very good first paragraph. A good organization always has a competent, charismatic, and noble leader. The "democratic" way of doing things always gets you nowhere, including in politics. There is no doubt in my mind that the most talented game designers didn't ask for their teams for suggestions; they had an idea in their minds and ran with it. I'll bet that now, the designers are given by marketing a list of features a game must have.
Craig McPherson The best desingers in the world have an idea and they ask their team to make it happen. Along the way the team might chime in to give out a cool idea they have, and the desinger will either say yes or no. But the thing is he still has the final say on the project because its supposed to be his vision. That's how it should be IMO. But usually nowdays in triple a development, there are entire teams chiming in on one game, and while that might now always be a bad thing it does produce a product with no personality. And the reason for that it's simple, it wasn't made by one guy with likes and dislikes, it was made by several people with different ideas. While several people with differing ideas might be good for some things, it is definetly not so for art and entertaiment.
+Deadagent That's why I love Final Fantasy games. AAA with a focus. They always feel like a focused small team made it, with far greater polish and budget then most modern games receive.
To me, what separates a bad upgrade system from a good one is how it begins. For a good one, I think the player has to start out totally worthless, I'm talking like Fallout 2 or System Shock 2 worthless, like missing 60% of hits and getting killed by the weakest of foes I like upgrading my character to become even slightly competent. When you start out already competent (Skyrim) and just slap on arbitrary bonuses that make you slightly better, it's just horribly unsatisfying. Going from missing 60% of hits to one shot vaporizing fully armored enclave soldiers is a gameplay experience that's satisfying, going from struggling to kill a single hybrid with a wrench to melting the faces of groups of giant gorilla mutant hybrids is an experience that's satisfying. You have to start out bad for the end result to feel like you underwent progression, and that's just not something most gamers are going to be on board with. Games are too afraid to really punish the player and make them work for those upgrades, they use them as optional extras instead of making them necessary for survival.
+Kolbe Howard on system shock i made the mistake of going with psych... i felt completely worthless in the middle of the game... thats not the best upgrate system really...
Paulo H PSI is not worthless at all. You just have to use it right, you can build PSI powers towards amplifying your weapons, build it towards your PSI combat abilities, or build it towards non-combat passive abilities. All are useful, you just have to build your character smart, not just put points into stuff that sounds cool.
***** i guess i'll have to replay the whole game then, i simply stopped playing when i discovered how overpowered firearms were... gonna retry the psi though, firearms are overrated.
mikeduels I’d be fine with it if you got a lot of whatever upgrade currency where each unit increased 2% or something but you have multiple units at a time so you could spread the currency or focus it on certain aspects
I'm so happy you talked about this. I hate an un-organic upgrading system. I feel it's better for the player to be rewarded for playing the game a particular way and let the gameplay evolve with the player rather than reducing it to an arbitary choice box which simply 'improves' accuracy. The only exception to this was SS2 because from the start you feel helpless so every little upgrade got you somewhere (despite the fact I found myself using the wrench for half the game).
Interesting and after playing Tomb Raider I would agree. The best upgrade system IMO is the one in Doom, where you upgrade your gun by finding a bigger gun.
I think the average gamer likes these upgrade systems and makes them subconsciously feel good when leveling up. I predict were going to see these systems for a long time.
i completely agree, most casuals love these upgrade systems, the argument everyone brings up when saying rottr is better than uncharted 4 is because it has a skill system and crafting system lol
It terms of how "boring" these systems are, I don't know how you'd make these blights on creative game design *not* boring. But I will tell you thing: people love collecting stuff, even if they're simply collecting numbers to make other numbers go from one to ninety-nine. When discussing how Soul Memory forces upward character progression ("USP," so I don't have to constantly write it out) in Dark Souls II, and how antithetical the mechanic is to one of the core reasons the first two Souls Series were so re-playable, "UCP" is a common argument as to why Soul Memory isn't a problem. In their eyes, constantly leveling-up is a reason to play the game. They have a 2 and will not test until that 2 is a 3. You'll often hear critics call this "addictive gameplay," but in a positive way, like we don't use the word "addictive" in relation to dangerous things. I've heard many call Borderlands "addictive," but they aren't really talking about the gameplay or story. What they *are* talking about is the crazy natural impulses we all have; the natural impulses the game manipulates. We all crave the next "tier," no matter how insignificant the next tier may be. Skinner boxes, all that jazz. We eat 'em up. To put it simply, when playing CoD, when's the last time you heard someone say "I'll play one more game, I'm almost prestige" with any sort of enthusiasm? The system has nothing to do with shooting people or becoming better, it's simply a sub-system to reward playing *often*. This a common thread through most AAA games now, too -- "UCP" seems to be a core reasons as to why many people play games in the first place. You mention how worthless the upgrades in Watch Dogs are, and yet character progression was not Ubisoft's goal when devising said system -- "Here's some stuff, now do stuff to get this stuff" and you have yourself a high-budget Cookie Clicker with some interesting gameplay on the side. This post turned out to be ten-times longer, and ten-times less succinct (ramble-ranty) than originally intended, but I'll just end my CZcams novel with this: We live in a gaming landscape where people bought the *godawful* Silent Hill HD Collection simply because it offered achievements. Let me say that again: *There are people that bought a collection of buggy, broken, unfinished, and destroyed versions of story-driven horror masterpieces simply to collect 1000gp worth of achievements.* And developers are very aware of the fact that people love collecting stuff, no matter how inconsequential.
Maybe I'm strange but I've never cared for upgrade systems in games. I've always prefered games to lie on strong mechanics good game design or a compelling story to keep me playing. It's the big reason I will never go back to Skyrim. In Skyrim there is never a true challenge for the player. The enemies level with you you are never actually required to level up. I prefer for RPG's to offer upgrades that require you to keep leveling and keep playing so you can unlock new missions, learn new skills, or discover new areas. If this isn't the case the rpg element just feels like a cheep way to get me to keep playing that one game for no good reason. I've never prestiged in COD or made it to max level in Skyrim because I never had the desire to do so.. I've had more fun in the uncharted series a game which has no skill tree, but instead gives you a compelling fun story that I go back and play again and again.
I don't really play Dark Souls (1 or 2) for the leveling. It's nice to see my attribute scores climbing, but it's because I know that those scores exist in service to the gameplay. More Strength means more damage dealt with my Longsword, means more economic DPS, means enemies become ever so slightly easier to fight (fewer blows to land on an enemy to kill it), and it all adds up to a feeling of improvement and progression and accomplishment. I don't stay up 'til 3AM thinking "One more Soul Level, just one more..." I stay awake thinking "Okay, I FINALLY beat that boss, but OOH what's over here? A new area? Sweet! New enemies to fight and new stuff to collect so I can survive a little bit longer! I wonder what movesets these enemies have-- OH JESUS THEY CAN CAST HEXES NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE" Perhaps that's just me, but I feel much more rewarded by overcoming Dark Souls' challenges and enemies and discovering the new places I can go, rather than "MOAR LEVELS BAAWWWW". Some players challenge themselves by doing SL1 playthroughs, but at that point they've already mastered the basic mechanics and know all the tricks enemies can pull. For a first playthrough of Dark Souls, leveling up is all but necessary if you want to survive for long. Weaponry is more of a taste-based thing that guides what stats you increase. In this sense, I feel DS is a "pure" RPG experience, if that doesn't sound too asinine. Everything you find can be made use of, but you have to improve yourself in some way or else you're going to have a hard time of it. When I'm putting points into my stats, I don't feel really care about the numbers; the rush I feel is born of the challenges I face, and knowing that, with each increase, I'll be just a little more prepared to handle them.
CrayolaAutumn I have to agree with you on why I liked leveling in Dark Souls. You also left out the fact that upgrading those stat.s allowed you to use wildly better & different weapons. What'd make it even better was if they added some skill unlocks to push playstyle specific things. Like being able to wallrun, leviation w/ magic and weaker combo-able spells, being able to cast from any melee wpn w/ a mag infusion, lifting and throwing enemies, being able to sprint through an armor hit, etc... Something to correlate to every stat and skills that require 2 diff. ones. Those are the type of upgrade systems I look for at least. As long as its implementation doesn't feel like the creators locked away all of the cool & fun stuff until endgame.
CtisGaming Good standards. I think skillcaps on strategies and playstyles is a much better way to go about it than either locking them away or hiding them like an item. Sure, weapon movesets are important, but it's more important to know how to implement a moveset in a given situation rather than just spam RB until you win.
RPG elements give you the illusion of development. They're artificial and thus do not suit reflex-based games. Sure, they can help less-reflexive players get a leg up to finish the game, but in the past, that's what difficulty-meters and cheat codes were for.
oh George how I abso-fucking-lutely love the work you do but why did you have to put the unatco theme in the background around like 6:25 - i'm getting this intense urge to swim in the deus ex 1 soundtrack and the game's awesome conversations seriously though, thank you for all the work you put into this bunnyhop thing - really appreciate it
Super Bunnyhop i was trying hard to not use that line lol i just recently played through it again; the morpheus conversation makes the state of our world seem so hopeless
If you like fan-made renditions of videogame music, check out Overclocked Remix. There is a pretty awesome compilation for Deus Ex. ocremix.org/album/44/deus-ex-sonic-augmentation
I liked the upgrade systems - especially the magic and weapons, but the XP ones were a bit weak. They were very simple % increases to things. In a game whose pace was fast - I see his point. I think it could have been done better, but at the same time - I love the shit out of that game.
Definitely agree about how Deus Ex 1 did it right with you *needing* to upgrade any one playing style for it to be your exclusive means of getting through the game. When you start out with a character who can do anything, there's really no need to add stat upgrades. I think another good way of doing it is how Castlevania: Symphony of the Night would have you unlock *combos* that you still needed to execute to do. That way you get both the reward of unlocking it, plus another feeling of mastery once you can actually pull off the special attack. I have a feeling that even if its done in a quick-time or minigame sort of way, the future of these action rpgs will be unlocking combo attacks which slowly have their range upgraded, or status effects added to work on new enemies or something. I think it was a bit ambitious for CSOTN to assume that platforming fans would all take to a Street Fighter-style combo system, but I think that kind of mechanic is coming back as more people get more skilled at games in general.
I think that a difference between meaningful and useless upgrades can be seen in FC3 and FC4. In Far Cry 3, the upgrades mattered. You started as a total wuss and had to learn everything. You start the game helplessly running from enemies and it takes some time to get the useful moves. In Far Cry 4, on the other hand, you already start as a good fighter. The game starts with an action sequence with you shooting maybe 10-20 guys. The upgrades don't really change your gameplay style and are of quantitative nature (more health, better sprint, stronger syringes) rather than giving you completely new skills. In FC3, I used almost every skill point right after I got it, but in FC4, I often ended up with 5 unused points simply because I didn't want to read through all the upgrade descriptions.
Far Cry 4 ruined my gaming experience. Boring and repetitive mask of "yolung" , propaganda posters, treasure crates, looting bodies and gathering leafs over and over again. 5 different in-game currencies, limited equipment that forced you to do a lot of hunting in the very beginning, forced stealth(if you didn't take an outpost without stealth, you would've lost 1/3 of the xp you deserve), multiple layers of locks on weapons and upgrades that forced you to progress vastly in story and side missions(instead of simply buying a weapon with money), etc. Don't get me wrong. The game was fun, but the fun part(story missions + a few of side missions) was only 10% of total gameplay. The game forces us to spend 90% of the time doing all the boring and repetitive stuff. If money was the only in game currency to unlock weapons and abilities and there was at least a "New Game Plus" option, the game could've been a lot more fun. But the boring struggles unfortunately over saturated the game, killing the fun we expect from the idea of the game. (I don't know how other far cry games work. I haven't played any except FC4.)
Nit-picking? This is one of your best videos! This "Jack of all trades, master of all" ideology is killing good and original game design and making lazy, copy-pasted skill trees the norm.
If you've read Frank & Keith's "Races of War" (a source-book on D&D3.5, part of the "Tome" series), you'll probably read about "The Failure of Feats", which discusses the same phenomenon in the context of a leveled pen-and-paper game. The same things happen in a different dice-rolling context: one D&D3 Feat grants an abstract 5% increase in the likelihood of landing a blow with specific weapons. This means, of twenty attempts, only one extra attempt manages to connect. Do you know how many Rounds go by until you see twenty attempts on the same enemy? At least twenty. Wanna play-test it to see how long it takes to get bored and frustrated from having spent one (of often just seven) Feat Slot on that kind of bullshit? Or to do so seven levels in, whereas the Wizard, on coasting along in its class, gets level-appropriate abilities without having to think too hard? There are far worthier Feats, true, but not many. In all, the same points are raised here in this video. In terms of D&D3.5, the authors of "Races of War" devised a scaling system (i.e. new powers from one "Feat" are unlocked according to Base Attack Bonus, Skill Level, or Caster Level) that meshed with the leveling system, which in turn allowed Feat-dependent player classes (namely Fighters) compete with the existent mechanical superiority of Wizard Classes. Creating an upgrade system that isn't numerical or incremental, like what they have out now, requires some level of programming finesse and reevaluation on character handling at the start of a game. Either they go out of their way or nix the concept altogether, but how do you keep playing after that?
I've spent the last several days going through your video archive and consuming the design related info, particularly the critical close ups. I appreciate your nitpicking, your knot pulling, your questioning the purpose of mechanics and your discussion of their greater place in video games. Please don't stop pulling games apart, your insight is really useful as a game designer. I love what you're doing here.
good talk man, i'm getting into game design and development and I love all your videos for this reason. When I develop a game, I will keep your pet peeves in mind
Hearing the Deus Ex Unatco tune, my smile turned into a huge grin. Excellent video! I would've liked to see more focus on Deus Ex 1's systems and mechanics though but Human Revolution is a good modern example to use there too.
lol currently writing a term paper in media studies about how the annoying and unnattached the upgradesystem in control is as always your videos will be a great source :)
FPSARPGS. I'm in tears. George, you are my favorite youtube gaming journalist. You're honest, direct, and well researched. Every video on Bunnyhop has serious purpose and dedication along with a touch of whimsy and humor. It's great. Just great. I love it.
I really like the way Dark Souls handled upgrades, it's almost more like a difficulty adjuster than anything. But yeah, more often than not upgrade systems in action games feel more like a swindle than a progression. I think that developers often use this as a trick to level the playing field between casual and veteran players. Everyone starts with less capability to do things rather than letting players rely on their skills on the get-go. Veteran players would likely just surf through most of the game and be bored.
Finally, someone else who sees this annoying BS trend. I'm sick of open world or RPG progression systems being shoved into everything all the time. Scott Pilgrim was being hailed as a great beat 'em up and it was looking fun till I realized I had to upgrade my character in the dumbest way. What happened to just playing through a beat 'em up that was made to just get more difficult?
+Sexual Tyranasaurus Too short doesn't really matter when they have a lot of replay-ability. Games like Streets of Rage and Final Fight are still talked about as the best and are still played years later.
I discovered during my time with other industry professionals, that these kind of systems are generally implemented as a cheap way to keep a player engaged, via another reward system other than just the core gameplay. It's why they are most prominently tacked on in the big AAA sandboxes that you speak of, along with by the numbers side missions. That last sentence of yours resonates with my incredibly strongly and is why I went indie in the first place. Over time as I grow as a developer I hope to have a fan base eventually, but I'm more than slightly aware that much of what I will want to do will be considered niche in relative terms (not so much now as my plans for the future). It's the same old shtick of big budgets making companies risk adverse. They try to have the widest appeal possible in order to maximise their sales and recoup the costs of these ridiculously, unnecessarily large worlds in some misguided attempt to give people a sense of place, when there are games even on the SNES that I've been far more invested in.
It's not a pet peeve and not a nitpick. Why do the systems even exist? They do because they are a way to make the game feel meaningful to the player. They are there so every instance of play makes the player feel satisfaction. Think about this. If games add systems to the game whose sole purpose is fake feelings of satisfaction... ...Then it's an indication that the game itself is lacking, that without them, most instances of play would not give the player satisfaction. It's the equivalent of adding flavor enhancers to food because without it, the food would be bland. You yourself say it. The games are just... okay. And the rpg systems are a big, big hint of this. That's what they are there for, to hide it.
Wow. You really caught on to something there. It's 2021. The ending line describes how I feel about games now really well. They're just ok for everybody, and great for nobody. I can't find a game that satisfies me and keeps me engaged and not bored now, except for only Overwatch.
Poorly implemented upgrades is not nit-picky. A lot of games have it just to give the player the feeling of progression. But, that is usually an add on or replacement to properly designed and balanced gameplay. While blurring the lines isn't always a good or bad thing, it just needs to be used appropriately, if at all. Not as a crotch game mechanic.
I like watching your old videos as an accurate historical perspective, and it speaks to the truth of your opinions that the only things telling me "this is an old video" are the old video games in the background. What I mean is, your views on gaming as a whole are so valid that even to this day they remain accurate, despite the rapid way the industry changes. Truly quality stuff.
Great video, man; you are just honing your essayist craft, George. I'm glad you pointed out that "Now the RPGs have twitchy combat and the twitchy combat games have RPG elements."
First of all, English is not my first language so I offer my apologies in advance for any unintended mistake. I was watching the first five minutes or so of this video and I was thinking "Deus Ex, Deus Ex, Deus Ex" and I was very relieved when Adam Jensen appeared at last because Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a brilliant masterpiece in soooo many ways, being the upgrade system one of them, That system (and other mechanics like the inventory) forces you into a state of mind in which you are evaluating the "opportunity cost" of every decision you make. And that´s exactly the reason every player remembers the way he used to play with Jensen and everyone forgets about the way he upgraded, e. g., Edward Kenway or any other character of nearly every Ubisoft game. Anyway, kudos, as always, for your exceptional work George.
Fantastic video. Finally, a realistic analysis on character progression, and why it worked for CRPGs back in the day. You hit the nail right on the head when you defined the abstraction of character upgrades in said games.
Greetings from the world of tomorrow! I feel like those progression/upgrade systems are kind of obligatory in modern world where you need to have a carrot and a stick to hold "gamer's" attention on a game for even somewhat extended period of time. P.S. Old Bunnyhop logo is so cute and cozy~
you have a talent to point out things i don't like but can't really put my finger on it and make a good video about it. I don't even remember the specific games to be honest but it became somewhat common for me to forget that i can upgrade something because chosing between some special effects in certain situations that rarely happen or some % quote is not fun to me... i don't like watching numbers in games to be honest. A good upgrading system imo should be constantly in your mind while watching your level, somethign you really want to get and not just a tool to keep the difficulty on a manageable level.
I see the Watch Dogs thing differently, by having 3 separate play styles from the beginning available, players can opt to mix and max and improvise to victory (for example start sneaking in, get into a firefight, hack some people's equipment, blackout and sneak around them, car chase etc.) This gives more experimentation right from the beginning. Also note that there is few options for traditional car to car combat like in GTA. This is where the upgrade system actually becomes smart, since you are limited to primarily hacking in car chases (and is the most powerful thing in on foot mode as well) you are subtlety led to seriously upgrade where you are weak while the other upgrades only complement your strengths,". And covering for those weaknesses can actually turn them into strengths as well (e.g low phone battery at first limits the powerful hacks you can do, requireing some gameplay from the other styles, but the player sees the cool stuff like steam pipes and knows that is the best in car chases and new to this game so they invest in improving that). The crafting and focus upgrades only assist rather completely improve but not for the armour upgrades which are geniuanly more useful than a lot of the other upgrades. The upgrades for side quests encourage players to follow through on more of the unique ones like poker and drinking, and further reward people for doing their favourites like Gang hideous
I think this is actually a bigger issue that's well worth complaining about. Maybe the boring upgrade screens aren't the end of the world, but they come hand in hand with gameplay that is less intrinsically rewarding. Developers have been using RPG elements to artificially lengthen their games. It's a shortcut so that they don't have to spend time and money to make unique content. Instead, they can just recycle the same enemies and maps, knowing that players will keep playing for the next upgrade.
I like how the recent(ish) Doom structured its upgrade systems. There was no "increase x by 10%" or something like that. Either the upgrade gave you something new you could do, or it improved something you could already do in a simple and _tangible_ way. Furthermore, it only did it once, twice at most. They were simple and concise, and didn't leave you stuck in the menu for several minutes doing unnecessary calculations or the like.
I was hoping you'd bring up Human Revolution when I started the video! The way it uses upgrades to enhance your preferred style of play as well as allow for exploration was really fun, and playing the game "factory zero" was really challenging. Obviously though it's convenient to play as a cyborg who can literally have upgrades built in.
I'm so glad this video exists. I was saying this to my friends about how much I hate skill trees in a lot of these games. There's no reason for there to be a skill tree when it's linear progression. Just give the player bonuses automatically if you want them to be rewarded as they progress. And if you can unlock every skill, then a skill tree is kind of pointless. I like it when a skill tree is complex and doesn't let you get all of the upgrades, making each experience a little more unique.
It's a cheap way to add "value" to a game without actually adding real value to the game. A way to make you feel like your purchase was more justified; that you got your money's worth.
Did Crackdown do upgrading and skills perfectly? I haven't finished the video so I'm not sure if it gets mentioned, but in crackdown upgrades change the gameplay a lot, encourage exploration and level based on what you do.
I'm glad CZcams autoplay caused me to stumble across your video! I easily get caught up in the whole "ooh, talents and feats and enhancers" reaction that some games attempt to impress upon me, even despite the fact that I'm often very critical of them as derivative and, what's worse, uninspired and boring. One of the reasons I've kept my eye on WoW ever since I got into it back in 2007 is that it changes so much over time as features are identified as being fun or unfun, balanced or unbalanced. It's been useful as a dev to watch how the talent/specialization system shifted from 3-prong trees with lots of boring yet necessary crap, (1%/2%/3%/4%/5%+ to dodge/parry/hit/expertise! fascinating!) to simplified trees that pared down on filler, to the current hybrid-averse system where most every talent choice feels active, meaningful, useful, and game-changing, instead of passive, mandatory, and forgettable. I really like the idea of action RPG type games. I love to watch games gradually get more complex as I gain techniques and skills, upgrade weapons and equipment, design and switch between gear loadouts, and improve abilities, as well as the complexity which simply arises from getting better at a game. I nerd out over that crap. But as you've correctly pointed out, a lot of the time these systems are simply tacked on and/or uninteresting, making them a chore -- especially if the choices do matter despite feeling like they don't. If there's one way to turn me off of a game, it's turning it into a chore.
I wouldn't really consider this all that nitpicky. What you were basically complaining about was a mechanic/system that had no business being in the game, conflicted with the core design of the game, and was poorly designed, and by extension complaining about the fact that this is such a common design element, that games in general seem to be striving to be an experience that everyone can consider mediocre. And that is a very real and serious problem with the industry.
The best, most satisfying and logical upgrade system I've seen is in XCOM. Find stuff, research stuff, build stuff, equip and use stuff...makes sense in both gameplay and story terms.
Such a great video that presents a really good argument. I liked how you looked at Deus Ex as a game that gets the upgrade system right. It's an RPG first, and a bad upgrade path will make the game unbeatable. You could have also used Bioshock as another modern example. Gunplay is average at best, and in order to gain the upper-hand you have to either spend EXP on spells or effectively upgrade the stopping power and ammo capacity of your best weapons.
Huh, looking through my steam library and the only action games (well.. FPS's) without any RPG elements are Serious Sam Classic/HD, Receiver, and Half-Life 2 (plus Eps of course). I've always found HL amazing as Gordon doesn't get any beefier (permanently) than the first time you slip into the HEV suit, instead you have the organic flow of new weapons, scrounged ammo, and your own skill level. Also I totally agree that one side effect of boring upgrades is that they will effect balancing without changing the gameplay significantly (ex: "I die less, but play exactly as I did before upgrade" or "I hit harder, but play exactly as I did before upgrade"). One that stands out is SR3, after fully upgrading The Boss, you are in permanent godmode, making the game actually *lose* flexibility.
I hate most upgrade systems. Like you said, so many games do NOT need them... I remember playing EA MMA on PS3 in career mode, I had to train to unlock basic moves... I'm training to compete in a pro MMA fight and don't know how to throw a high kick? k. I actually stay away from a lot of games that have skill trees and such.
It's funny that you mention EA MMA on PS3. I loved that game because you felt like you earned every move, win and title. Something like 3 years of EA MMA secretly being my favorite fighting game of all time and I finally see someone else mention it.
I think that the games with boring upgrade systems have those mainly for two reasons. One is that they want to produce the feeling of progression without the story actually progressing ,basically making side missions worth it which for most modern sandbox games are pretty repetitive tasks. And by having the player select an upgrade it doesn't feel that much like arbitrary character progression even if it is. The other reason is to take player skill out of the equasion. Upgrades that are straight up damage upgrades and the likes don't serve any other purpose in twitch based gameplay. Giving the player straight up more damage more health etc is basically making the game easier so that basically anyone can complete a game if he grinds a few sind missions. (I blame the consoles and their thumb based aiming for that) The problem with those uninspired upgrades is that the developer no longer has to figure out how your characters skills and his world are related. Like in Gothic you had to visit a trainer to achieve skills and pay for them, its still an abstracted way of upgrading but its integrated into the game world. RPG elements have their place in twitch based gameplay for increasing the options one has to fight but not to straight up increase power of the player because getting better at a game is way better than pressing on the +20% dmg Upgrade button.
I think alot of games could do without RPG upgrade systems all together, I hate it, for example, when you start an action game with a super weak avatar because you need to unlock your health bar, combat efficiencies and special abilities. DOOM gave you the character moveset in the first level that it expected you to beat the Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind with, Wolfenstein 2014 makes you start the game with half your maximum health bar, gimped reload speed and clip sizes and a ton of other things you need to unlock to make your dude actually good at his job. Whilst there's totally a place for upgrades and skill trees in other genres it really is the curse of modern twitch games.
I know this is an old video, but it reminded me of the parody game DLC Quest, where you have to "purchase DLC" in order to unlock such amazing features as being able to jump or move left.
4 years later, this stuff is still as true as ever. The worst thing being that (im a game design student) even in game design class, we're being taught how to make skill trees etc, not how to make a good character upgrade system. Feels pointless at times. And when our teachers are executives at Ubisoft, if you ask them they'll say "yeah, we're trying to move away from those a bit, but slowly..." but in reality, if you confront them about those same systems in the games they made, they'll defend them with their lives.
So I played a Doom mod this weekend. It's called Heretical Doom and it has a leveling system. But instead of having to stop and spend dumb points, you simply keep picking up the various items lying around until you get a text line on the screen telling you that you are more badass now. All that does is expand your health and ammo pools, and some levels unlock an alternate firemode for a weapon you have. Mind you, the normal modes on these weapons still kick ass, but it's sweet to keep expanding a moveset. I like how elegant it is. Wanna use the cool stuff? You can't yet. But as you gather up stuff, you gradually expand your arsenal in the least intrusive way possible. Sure I don't know if it represents you sucking up the magic from all the mumbo-jumbo-junk you keep hoovering up and thus becoming that ultra-warlock demigod you wanted to be, but it would be a nice reason for all that to exist. Bottom line - it flows. It's no slow ass menu that tells me to spend my magic points on stuff, it just keeps making my character better as I keep playing. And that's nice to me.
I really love dynamic progression, where skills and techniques are picked up automatically as you use them. It works hand in hand with a pseudo leveling system and none of it requires the unnecessary menu hopping. Take Darkfall for instance, it is an action RPG roguelike kind of game that utilizes a skill system upgrade style that is rarely often seen, because of how much extra programming is needed to achieve it. When you use a skill, it gains background experience points, along with the experience you gain normally, and as you use that skill it steadily progresses in faster looting times, faster crafting times, etc etc. Definitely want to see more of games with that system in mind, so if anyone has any suggestions for me, shoot me a message or reply to this comment.
I'm only a little bit into the video and I know this isn't really what the video is about, but the other day I thought about how I really like when an action game doesn't require you to commit to upgrades. You could simply unlock a tier of abilities/gear, and swap things out on the fly or at regular intervals, or something along those lines. Even in action-rpg's like Dark Souls, I have a lot more fun when my stats are pretty much over with and I can experiment with the gear, I don't feel like I need to stop and think in case it bites me in the back in the long run. I know long-term consequences are important to a lot of kinds of games btw., but it can really stop the action and prevent you from messing around with a system in my experience. The variation that is possible with a highly adjustable loadout also goes great with what I assume most action games want to achieve, I think.
Farcry 3's upgrades add new features like the chain-takedowns and the wingsuit. Infamous' upgrades add new attacks and ways to traverse the environment. If you're doing upgrades in an action game, make each one (each one the player has to manually activate at least) have an effect on playstyle.
What do you think about Skyrim perk system (Vanilla vs. modded) ? There is one example, where I really can't decide if the current Progression-System trend is good or bad. It is the lockpicking. In the old days, you had to have a certain skill in lockpicking to get the chance of opening a chest. In Vanilla Skyrim, you can open a master chest with no skill at all. On the one hand, the old system simulates the "abstraction" (that you mentioned in the vid). On the other hand, it breaks immersion, atleast for me. Why I can't try (and fail) a chest if I want to? Many games (Skyrim included) fail to implement a system where the skill-progression is required to progress in the story, but do not force the player to take the skills by silly barriers.
I've also been really fed up with useless useless upgrade systems for a while. Good job putting it into words, George. I think this kind of thing just exemplifies the "me too" mentality in AAA game development nowadays. Because your competitors have a feature, you also got to have that feature, regardless of whether it fits into your game or not. Upgrade systems, crafting systems, etc. All of it just shows this acute lack of thought about it all fitting together.
I like upgrades in games I like. Makes me feel like I'm making progress or working toward something. What I don't like, is having to read long descriptions for upgrades that all seem monotonous in games that I'm less engaged in.
Unfortunately, people who attempt Metroid's style usually end up making using that upgrade pointless past when you first acquire it; such as putting every red door after the point when you get the missile instead of in lots of branching paths prior to acquisition.
The last sentence you said is exactly what i fear when a game is announced to have single and multiplayer, when it's predecessors were all single player
No made so much sense to me, I haven never noticed it before but now that I think about it I have seen this done time and time again. Eloquent work, hopefully game designers of tomorrow are watching this.
It's fun bashing ubisoft, but they are actually really good at art direction, the animation in their games is very polished, and the settings are usually really rich. I mean, as much as they lack a vision for assassin's creed since the 3rd, they are pretty good at making their stories thematically consistent, something not so many AAA games achieve. So while their open-world formula is growing old, and they seem to paint it with thick layers of conflicting features, they are doing some things very well.
I think the game "Shenmue" had the best upgrade system. The more you train, the better the character Ryo gets naturally. The moves you do alter into something new when mastering and training on your martial arts techniques. It was a brilliant way to get better and involved dedication instead of a upgrade tree list. For example. If I wanted to improve Ryo's jab, I would have to wake up every morning, go to the training area, and jab all day if I wanted to improve his jab. OR I could just progress through the game and let it improve naturally. It was reflecting on improving in a realistic manner, rather than a points skill tree system. I could easily upgrade all my base techniques at the beginning of the game and become stronger because I decided to put work into it. Then later throughout the game improve the techniques that I learn along the way. It's a well thought out system and another reason why I love Shenmue so much. Thanks for the video! :)
It is probably to give players some sense of progression in games where mechanical accuracy and consistency it flattened to be more accessible to new players, sluggish input method variances and so on. And not require a reroll to correct bad investments
Yes! I've lost count of the amount of times I've walked in on my brother navigating endless menus and weighing up options, asked what he's doing, and realised he's actually playing Destiny or Tomb Raider. It's so outside the game it looks like he may as well be comparing prices of toilet paper online.
+ffishfinger Actually many of Destiny's upgrades do effect you gameplay. Each time you pick a new one for your character you get a new way to use a preexisting ability, like turning you AoE Ultra basically into a missile or making your grenades into cluster bombs or light people on fire.
thats extremely dull though.
+Xenovia Why? Surely you can tell how subjective what you just said was. If the upgrades in Destiny change how you tackle situations, I'd say they're doing it better than most of what's listed in this video. Although really Destiny treats it's upgrade system more as load outs than anything. Using Destiny as an example of this is really weird anyway, considering it's most definitely an rpg, rather than just an action game that throws it on there for some last minute variety. This is basically the same thing as arguing Borderlands shouldn't have a skill tree menu. It's ridiculous. Tomb Raider on the other hand I can understand.
reNINTENDO When you have go between different upgrades just for a 0.5% dmg increase its extremely dull and pointless, that kind of upgrade system sucks.
this video spoke to me on a spiritual level
Nobody has replied yet? Ok, Hello!
I think he's asleep. Let's draw a mustache on his face.
There is something muc, much worse than unneeded upgrade systems.
Unneeded moral systems.
Sir Cheddar Fallout and Mass Effect are great examples of moral systems that really straight up ruins a large part of the game. There are so many gray choices in both of those games, especially Fallout, yet the game decides whether or not what you did was right, or wrong. It's just mind boggling to me how the creators feel the need to do this, just, why? To make what ending you get just much simpler for them to decide, so that instead of having authentic hard decisions to make that can have just about any consequence, they just make a good or bad variable and there you go. "Different" endings.
Sir Cheddar COUGH COUGH DISHONORED
+William Lazerdust Well honestly some choices in Mass Effect and Fallout are outright wrong or questionable. The whole moral relativism argument doesn't work. Also I love moral systems. They're fun and nice for Rpgs.
I wouldn't call it generic, they are noble decisions and Renegade is just you being amoral and disregarding people's feelings and being much more aggressive.
I like the dialog wheel but I think having 4 options is ideal for this kind of a system
I think your idea of pragmatic is very different then what is portrayed in Mass Effect.
Mirror's Edge Catalyst is the worst example of this. Basic Parkour moves are locked behind a skill tree.
is that out now?
No, it's out next month. However, previews and images have confirmed that things like quick turns and raising your legs (2 things that were fairly important in the original Mirror's Edge) are locked behind an XP upgrade system. Pretty shitty, all things considered.
and the enemies have health bars for some reason, even though they take predetermined damage from attacks lol, i don't understand the fad of every game being released trying to be an rpg, uncharted 4 is a breath of fresh air imo
I really enjoyed Mirror's Edge Catalyst on the whole, but the skill tree in it just seemed so... unnecessary. You get the moves you need pretty early on and then everything else is pretty much filler. Hell, some of it I don't know if I've ever even gotten the chance to use (like taking down drones or something).
Super-late but isn't that the opposite of what George is complaining about, upgrade systems that don't really affect how you play the game
This isn't nit-picky at all. Video game developers seems to just copy and paste from one another without trying to find out the purpose of these systems. It's the video game equivalent of square pancakes.
100% agreement.
Truth.
That's actually a very insightful comment, it's not that taking inspiration from or even copy pasting is bad, it's that it needs to have a purpose. You can't just blindly copy success, but that seems to be the dominant trend in the AAA world nowadays.
It's kind of like the industry's obsession with set pieces which kicked off with Half Life 2 and Resident Evil 4. But the thing is, the set pieces in those games are entirely interactive, with the thrilling prison assault in Half Life or the boss fight on the lake in RE4. When you look at set pieces today, it's just ripping control away from the player so that they can watch a tightly choreographed cinematic play out. Copying without realizing the purpose.
Copying without realizing the purpose.
*****
I am not sure I would credit Half Life 2, specifically, with much - it was the original that was more influential in FPS's being something more than a Doom clone. If you want to have anyone/thing to blame for the modern game's obsessions with set pieces, look no further that modern warfare 1. It was literally pace-less, just set piece to set piece to set piece - and reviews praised this "cutting out the cruft" to no avail. I mean, set pierces have been a part of gaming, ripped off from movies, but most game from the past ten-ish years seem to be responding to what I will call "the COD affect".
BINARYGOD I wouldn't agree with that, CoD 4 has arguably the best campaign of the series, it's still not paced amazingly well, but it does have peaks and crescendos.
Switching back and forth between the British S.A.S and the American Marines made use of two different combat styles and mission structures.
While the Marines are all about stomping through an overcrowded war zone with superior firepower (in classic CoD fashion.) The S.A.S are all about sneaking, ambushing and other guerrilla style tactics.
The game will switch from a frantic tank defense in the middle of a bog, to a stealth mission trying to avoid the spotlight of an attack chopper.
I think it's actually designed quite well, in the other CoD games there is virtually no difference between switching PC's it's just always the same Michael Bay infused action sequences.
MW2 was where the series went straight down the toilet and relied on constant set pieces.
Those last words George, "They might end up trying to be okay for everybody, and as a result be great for nobody" you just summed up the current video game industry. This is the bread and butter of big triple A game development. Make game that appeals to as many people as possible without any sort of personality or risks, why? Because in their minds it dosen't matter that you thought the game was okay, the only thing that matters is that you bought it and were satisfied enough to not completely regret your purchase. This is why I think it should be important to have some sort of lead vision behind every game. If you look at every game made by Platinum for example, you notice that there is always a director, and that director tends to have very similar types of vision and despite these games being made by alot of people they're not without personality and vision, and that's because there is one guy tasking other people to deliver his vision, instead of a giant team of people all giving ideas and then getting input from the focus groups.
For example Hideki Kamiya has listed Space Harrier and Link to the Past as his favourite games, so we have a console adventure game and a skill based arcade shooter. He made Okami, so thats him making a zelda game and almost everything else he has made is very arcade like.
They're more about playing skillfully rather than just getting to the end of the level. And there was a after burner level in Bayonetta for no real reason other than Kamiya wanting one in there. Why? Possibly because he likes after burner and he could get away with it because sega was involved. Kamiya is very much an old school gamer trying to give people the same kind of joy he felt playing older arcade games while slightly modernizing said games.
And I think Shinji Mikami is of similar mindset, after all Vanquish is pretty much a long arcade game with scores and everything. Having scores nowdays is kind of a bold move because most people aren't gonna care, but it was made for people who do care. And if you do try to compete for the score in Vanquish the game becomes a different thing altogether. For example it has the same hide behind a cover mechanic to replenish health mechanic that other games do, but if you dont hide behind anything the score constantly goes up. Meaning the game dosent want you behind a cover, it wont stop you completely but it rewards you for making the game harder for yourself. Kinda like what you said about God Hand few videos back (also by mikami).
The same personality thing applies to indie games mostly because they have range to do what they want and thats exactly what they do.
I could go on but this comment is already way too long as it is. Point being I agree 200% about those last words you said.
Very good first paragraph. A good organization always has a competent, charismatic, and noble leader. The "democratic" way of doing things always gets you nowhere, including in politics. There is no doubt in my mind that the most talented game designers didn't ask for their teams for suggestions; they had an idea in their minds and ran with it. I'll bet that now, the designers are given by marketing a list of features a game must have.
Craig McPherson The best desingers in the world have an idea and they ask their team to make it happen. Along the way the team might chime in to give out a cool idea they have, and the desinger will either say yes or no. But the thing is he still has the final say on the project because its supposed to be his vision. That's how it should be IMO.
But usually nowdays in triple a development, there are entire teams chiming in on one game, and while that might now always be a bad thing it does produce a product with no personality. And the reason for that it's simple, it wasn't made by one guy with likes and dislikes, it was made by several people with different ideas. While several people with differing ideas might be good for some things, it is definetly not so for art and entertaiment.
This is why i admire Developers who make games for a specific audience
+Deadagent That's why I love Final Fantasy games. AAA with a focus. They always feel like a focused small team made it, with far greater polish and budget then most modern games receive.
Love definitions that use the root word in them.
Thing: A thing.
+Haphazardization Pissing me off since elementary school.
I finally found a reviewer that correlates with my feelings towards things.
To me, what separates a bad upgrade system from a good one is how it begins. For a good one, I think the player has to start out totally worthless, I'm talking like Fallout 2 or System Shock 2 worthless, like missing 60% of hits and getting killed by the weakest of foes
I like upgrading my character to become even slightly competent. When you start out already competent (Skyrim) and just slap on arbitrary bonuses that make you slightly better, it's just horribly unsatisfying.
Going from missing 60% of hits to one shot vaporizing fully armored enclave soldiers is a gameplay experience that's satisfying, going from struggling to kill a single hybrid with a wrench to melting the faces of groups of giant gorilla mutant hybrids is an experience that's satisfying. You have to start out bad for the end result to feel like you underwent progression, and that's just not something most gamers are going to be on board with.
Games are too afraid to really punish the player and make them work for those upgrades, they use them as optional extras instead of making them necessary for survival.
+Kolbe Howard on system shock i made the mistake of going with psych... i felt completely worthless in the middle of the game... thats not the best upgrate system really...
Paulo H PSI is not worthless at all. You just have to use it right, you can build PSI powers towards amplifying your weapons, build it towards your PSI combat abilities, or build it towards non-combat passive abilities.
All are useful, you just have to build your character smart, not just put points into stuff that sounds cool.
*****
i guess i'll have to replay the whole game then, i simply stopped playing when i discovered how overpowered firearms were... gonna retry the psi though, firearms are overrated.
I hate it when games give you the option to upgrade the X stat by 2%
mikeduels I’d be fine with it if you got a lot of whatever upgrade currency where each unit increased 2% or something but you have multiple units at a time so you could spread the currency or focus it on certain aspects
So you hate stat systems? Stat systems can be very interesting when done well.
@@nachfullbarertrank5230 Imagine not being able to read.
Cookie Clicker says hi.
@@nachfullbarertrank5230He doesn’t hate stat systems. He hates uninspired, lazy upgrades.
I'm so happy you talked about this. I hate an un-organic upgrading system. I feel it's better for the player to be rewarded for playing the game a particular way and let the gameplay evolve with the player rather than reducing it to an arbitary choice box which simply 'improves' accuracy. The only exception to this was SS2 because from the start you feel helpless so every little upgrade got you somewhere (despite the fact I found myself using the wrench for half the game).
Yeah. I wish just one company would take the risk to make a triple A game how WE want it, and they would see what gamers really want.
MrBurntSausage Hopefully Destiny will figure it out. If it boils down to merely stat maxing as opposed to playstyle and variety I want out.
Wolfenstein the new order had a great system but it barely felt that you are upgrading,
Interesting and after playing Tomb Raider I would agree. The best upgrade system IMO is the one in Doom, where you upgrade your gun by finding a bigger gun.
I think the average gamer likes these upgrade systems and makes them subconsciously feel good when leveling up. I predict were going to see these systems for a long time.
i completely agree, most casuals love these upgrade systems, the argument everyone brings up when saying rottr is better than uncharted 4 is because it has a skill system and crafting system lol
the problem is not that these systems are there. It's that they are half baked. Make the upgrades fun!
It terms of how "boring" these systems are, I don't know how you'd make these blights on creative game design *not* boring. But I will tell you thing: people love collecting stuff, even if they're simply collecting numbers to make other numbers go from one to ninety-nine.
When discussing how Soul Memory forces upward character progression ("USP," so I don't have to constantly write it out) in Dark Souls II, and how antithetical the mechanic is to one of the core reasons the first two Souls Series were so re-playable, "UCP" is a common argument as to why Soul Memory isn't a problem. In their eyes, constantly leveling-up is a reason to play the game. They have a 2 and will not test until that 2 is a 3.
You'll often hear critics call this "addictive gameplay," but in a positive way, like we don't use the word "addictive" in relation to dangerous things. I've heard many call Borderlands "addictive," but they aren't really talking about the gameplay or story. What they *are* talking about is the crazy natural impulses we all have; the natural impulses the game manipulates. We all crave the next "tier," no matter how insignificant the next tier may be.
Skinner boxes, all that jazz. We eat 'em up.
To put it simply, when playing CoD, when's the last time you heard someone say "I'll play one more game, I'm almost prestige" with any sort of enthusiasm? The system has nothing to do with shooting people or becoming better, it's simply a sub-system to reward playing *often*.
This a common thread through most AAA games now, too -- "UCP" seems to be a core reasons as to why many people play games in the first place. You mention how worthless the upgrades in Watch Dogs are, and yet character progression was not Ubisoft's goal when devising said system -- "Here's some stuff, now do stuff to get this stuff" and you have yourself a high-budget Cookie Clicker with some interesting gameplay on the side.
This post turned out to be ten-times longer, and ten-times less succinct (ramble-ranty) than originally intended, but I'll just end my CZcams novel with this: We live in a gaming landscape where people bought the *godawful* Silent Hill HD Collection simply because it offered achievements. Let me say that again: *There are people that bought a collection of buggy, broken, unfinished, and destroyed versions of story-driven horror masterpieces simply to collect 1000gp worth of achievements.* And developers are very aware of the fact that people love collecting stuff, no matter how inconsequential.
Maybe I'm strange but I've never cared for upgrade systems in games. I've always prefered games to lie on strong mechanics good game design or a compelling story to keep me playing. It's the big reason I will never go back to Skyrim. In Skyrim there is never a true challenge for the player. The enemies level with you you are never actually required to level up. I prefer for RPG's to offer upgrades that require you to keep leveling and keep playing so you can unlock new missions, learn new skills, or discover new areas. If this isn't the case the rpg element just feels like a cheep way to get me to keep playing that one game for no good reason. I've never prestiged in COD or made it to max level in Skyrim because I never had the desire to do so.. I've had more fun in the uncharted series a game which has no skill tree, but instead gives you a compelling fun story that I go back and play again and again.
I don't really play Dark Souls (1 or 2) for the leveling. It's nice to see my attribute scores climbing, but it's because I know that those scores exist in service to the gameplay. More Strength means more damage dealt with my Longsword, means more economic DPS, means enemies become ever so slightly easier to fight (fewer blows to land on an enemy to kill it), and it all adds up to a feeling of improvement and progression and accomplishment. I don't stay up 'til 3AM thinking "One more Soul Level, just one more..." I stay awake thinking "Okay, I FINALLY beat that boss, but OOH what's over here? A new area? Sweet! New enemies to fight and new stuff to collect so I can survive a little bit longer! I wonder what movesets these enemies have-- OH JESUS THEY CAN CAST HEXES NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE"
Perhaps that's just me, but I feel much more rewarded by overcoming Dark Souls' challenges and enemies and discovering the new places I can go, rather than "MOAR LEVELS BAAWWWW". Some players challenge themselves by doing SL1 playthroughs, but at that point they've already mastered the basic mechanics and know all the tricks enemies can pull. For a first playthrough of Dark Souls, leveling up is all but necessary if you want to survive for long. Weaponry is more of a taste-based thing that guides what stats you increase. In this sense, I feel DS is a "pure" RPG experience, if that doesn't sound too asinine. Everything you find can be made use of, but you have to improve yourself in some way or else you're going to have a hard time of it. When I'm putting points into my stats, I don't feel really care about the numbers; the rush I feel is born of the challenges I face, and knowing that, with each increase, I'll be just a little more prepared to handle them.
CrayolaAutumn
I have to agree with you on why I liked leveling in Dark Souls. You also left out the fact that upgrading those stat.s allowed you to use wildly better & different weapons.
What'd make it even better was if they added some skill unlocks to push playstyle specific things. Like being able to wallrun, leviation w/ magic and weaker combo-able spells, being able to cast from any melee wpn w/ a mag infusion, lifting and throwing enemies, being able to sprint through an armor hit, etc... Something to correlate to every stat and skills that require 2 diff. ones. Those are the type of upgrade systems I look for at least.
As long as its implementation doesn't feel like the creators locked away all of the cool & fun stuff until endgame.
CtisGaming
Good standards. I think skillcaps on strategies and playstyles is a much better way to go about it than either locking them away or hiding them like an item. Sure, weapon movesets are important, but it's more important to know how to implement a moveset in a given situation rather than just spam RB until you win.
I appreciate that RuneScape reference in the beginning of this.
RPG elements give you the illusion of development. They're artificial and thus do not suit reflex-based games. Sure, they can help less-reflexive players get a leg up to finish the game, but in the past, that's what difficulty-meters and cheat codes were for.
example of good upgrade systems: the last of us and transistor
Last of us? With that crafting?
oh George how I abso-fucking-lutely love the work you do
but why did you have to put the unatco theme in the background around like 6:25 - i'm getting this intense urge to swim in the deus ex 1 soundtrack and the game's awesome conversations
seriously though, thank you for all the work you put into this bunnyhop thing - really appreciate it
It's Deus Ex though. As soon as someone mentions it, you gotta reinstall.
Super Bunnyhop i was trying hard to not use that line lol
i just recently played through it again; the morpheus conversation makes the state of our world seem so hopeless
If you like fan-made renditions of videogame music, check out Overclocked Remix. There is a pretty awesome compilation for Deus Ex.
ocremix.org/album/44/deus-ex-sonic-augmentation
Super Bunnyhop OK FOR EVERYBODY ... GREAT FOR NOBODY
GAMING INDUSTRY IN ONE SENTENSE !! PLEASE MAKE MORE VIDEOS
Shadow warrior had great skills to learn! New magic to use and new weapon styles changed gameplay quite a bit
He's not saying the whole upgrade system is broken, listen to 8:39
Yeah I know, I understand the straight 20% damage upgrade-style unlocks. However there are more meaningful upgrades upgrades that boring ones
I liked the upgrade systems - especially the magic and weapons, but the XP ones were a bit weak. They were very simple % increases to things. In a game whose pace was fast - I see his point. I think it could have been done better, but at the same time - I love the shit out of that game.
Definitely agree about how Deus Ex 1 did it right with you *needing* to upgrade any one playing style for it to be your exclusive means of getting through the game. When you start out with a character who can do anything, there's really no need to add stat upgrades. I think another good way of doing it is how Castlevania: Symphony of the Night would have you unlock *combos* that you still needed to execute to do. That way you get both the reward of unlocking it, plus another feeling of mastery once you can actually pull off the special attack. I have a feeling that even if its done in a quick-time or minigame sort of way, the future of these action rpgs will be unlocking combo attacks which slowly have their range upgraded, or status effects added to work on new enemies or something. I think it was a bit ambitious for CSOTN to assume that platforming fans would all take to a Street Fighter-style combo system, but I think that kind of mechanic is coming back as more people get more skilled at games in general.
I think that a difference between meaningful and useless upgrades can be seen in FC3 and FC4. In Far Cry 3, the upgrades mattered. You started as a total wuss and had to learn everything. You start the game helplessly running from enemies and it takes some time to get the useful moves. In Far Cry 4, on the other hand, you already start as a good fighter. The game starts with an action sequence with you shooting maybe 10-20 guys. The upgrades don't really change your gameplay style and are of quantitative nature (more health, better sprint, stronger syringes) rather than giving you completely new skills. In FC3, I used almost every skill point right after I got it, but in FC4, I often ended up with 5 unused points simply because I didn't want to read through all the upgrade descriptions.
Far Cry 4 ruined my gaming experience. Boring and repetitive mask of "yolung" , propaganda posters, treasure crates, looting bodies and gathering leafs over and over again. 5 different in-game currencies, limited equipment that forced you to do a lot of hunting in the very beginning, forced stealth(if you didn't take an outpost without stealth, you would've lost 1/3 of the xp you deserve), multiple layers of locks on weapons and upgrades that forced you to progress vastly in story and side missions(instead of simply buying a weapon with money), etc.
Don't get me wrong. The game was fun, but the fun part(story missions + a few of side missions) was only 10% of total gameplay. The game forces us to spend 90% of the time doing all the boring and repetitive stuff. If money was the only in game currency to unlock weapons and abilities and there was at least a "New Game Plus" option, the game could've been a lot more fun. But the boring struggles unfortunately over saturated the game, killing the fun we expect from the idea of the game. (I don't know how other far cry games work. I haven't played any except FC4.)
Nit-picking?
This is one of your best videos! This "Jack of all trades, master of all" ideology is killing good and original game design and making lazy, copy-pasted skill trees the norm.
If you've read Frank & Keith's "Races of War" (a source-book on D&D3.5, part of the "Tome" series), you'll probably read about "The Failure of Feats", which discusses the same phenomenon in the context of a leveled pen-and-paper game. The same things happen in a different dice-rolling context: one D&D3 Feat grants an abstract 5% increase in the likelihood of landing a blow with specific weapons. This means, of twenty attempts, only one extra attempt manages to connect. Do you know how many Rounds go by until you see twenty attempts on the same enemy? At least twenty. Wanna play-test it to see how long it takes to get bored and frustrated from having spent one (of often just seven) Feat Slot on that kind of bullshit? Or to do so seven levels in, whereas the Wizard, on coasting along in its class, gets level-appropriate abilities without having to think too hard? There are far worthier Feats, true, but not many. In all, the same points are raised here in this video. In terms of D&D3.5, the authors of "Races of War" devised a scaling system (i.e. new powers from one "Feat" are unlocked according to Base Attack Bonus, Skill Level, or Caster Level) that meshed with the leveling system, which in turn allowed Feat-dependent player classes (namely Fighters) compete with the existent mechanical superiority of Wizard Classes. Creating an upgrade system that isn't numerical or incremental, like what they have out now, requires some level of programming finesse and reevaluation on character handling at the start of a game. Either they go out of their way or nix the concept altogether, but how do you keep playing after that?
I've spent the last several days going through your video archive and consuming the design related info, particularly the critical close ups. I appreciate your nitpicking, your knot pulling, your questioning the purpose of mechanics and your discussion of their greater place in video games. Please don't stop pulling games apart, your insight is really useful as a game designer. I love what you're doing here.
Love your work, SuperBunnyHop. Keep it up, man. I can see what you mean about upgrade systems, it definitely can detract from a game's experience.
good talk man, i'm getting into game design and development and I love all your videos for this reason. When I develop a game, I will keep your pet peeves in mind
To be fair to Shadow Warrior though, there are a fair amount of interesting upgrades. Not a huge amount, but they are there.
So much of this applies to Fallout 4's levelling system. And that game was actually supposed to be an RPG.
just started watching your videos. they are amazing and interesting!
Hearing the Deus Ex Unatco tune, my smile turned into a huge grin. Excellent video! I would've liked to see more focus on Deus Ex 1's systems and mechanics though but Human Revolution is a good modern example to use there too.
lol currently writing a term paper in media studies about how the annoying and unnattached the upgradesystem in control is
as always your videos will be a great source :)
FPSARPGS. I'm in tears.
George, you are my favorite youtube gaming journalist. You're honest, direct, and well researched. Every video on Bunnyhop has serious purpose and dedication along with a touch of whimsy and humor. It's great. Just great. I love it.
I really like the way Dark Souls handled upgrades, it's almost more like a difficulty adjuster than anything.
But yeah, more often than not upgrade systems in action games feel more like a swindle than a progression. I think that developers often use this as a trick to level the playing field between casual and veteran players. Everyone starts with less capability to do things rather than letting players rely on their skills on the get-go. Veteran players would likely just surf through most of the game and be bored.
I don't know why but this is one of your videos I rewatch the most. I'm full of pet peeves too, I guess that may just be all.
Wow. I'm so glad I found your videos from the Salt and Sanctuary review. You have great content and are very well worded. Thanks for your reviews.
Finally, someone else who sees this annoying BS trend. I'm sick of open world or RPG progression systems being shoved into everything all the time.
Scott Pilgrim was being hailed as a great beat 'em up and it was looking fun till I realized I had to upgrade my character in the dumbest way.
What happened to just playing through a beat 'em up that was made to just get more difficult?
too short
+Sexual Tyranasaurus Too short doesn't really matter when they have a lot of replay-ability. Games like Streets of Rage and Final Fight are still talked about as the best and are still played years later.
I've thought about this problem a lot. You pretty much described exactly what I had been thinking. Awesome video.
I discovered during my time with other industry professionals, that these kind of systems are generally implemented as a cheap way to keep a player engaged, via another reward system other than just the core gameplay. It's why they are most prominently tacked on in the big AAA sandboxes that you speak of, along with by the numbers side missions.
That last sentence of yours resonates with my incredibly strongly and is why I went indie in the first place. Over time as I grow as a developer I hope to have a fan base eventually, but I'm more than slightly aware that much of what I will want to do will be considered niche in relative terms (not so much now as my plans for the future). It's the same old shtick of big budgets making companies risk adverse. They try to have the widest appeal possible in order to maximise their sales and recoup the costs of these ridiculously, unnecessarily large worlds in some misguided attempt to give people a sense of place, when there are games even on the SNES that I've been far more invested in.
It's not a pet peeve and not a nitpick.
Why do the systems even exist? They do because they are a way to make the game feel meaningful to the player. They are there so every instance of play makes the player feel satisfaction.
Think about this. If games add systems to the game whose sole purpose is fake feelings of satisfaction... ...Then it's an indication that the game itself is lacking, that without them, most instances of play would not give the player satisfaction. It's the equivalent of adding flavor enhancers to food because without it, the food would be bland.
You yourself say it. The games are just... okay. And the rpg systems are a big, big hint of this. That's what they are there for, to hide it.
Fen Y that’s games in general a fake feeling of satisfaction that you did something
You are the ultimate reviewer/critic! I love your videos. I really hope you get to direct a game.
Wow. You really caught on to something there. It's 2021. The ending line describes how I feel about games now really well. They're just ok for everybody, and great for nobody. I can't find a game that satisfies me and keeps me engaged and not bored now, except for only Overwatch.
Good insight. What I read from this is that there should be two difficulty meters; the second one being the default starting level
Talk about a video that aged like fine wine and is more relevant than ever.
Poorly implemented upgrades is not nit-picky. A lot of games have it just to give the player the feeling of progression. But, that is usually an add on or replacement to properly designed and balanced gameplay. While blurring the lines isn't always a good or bad thing, it just needs to be used appropriately, if at all. Not as a crotch game mechanic.
I've always viewed weapon pickups in the earlier first person shooters as an "upgrade system".
I like watching your old videos as an accurate historical perspective, and it speaks to the truth of your opinions that the only things telling me "this is an old video" are the old video games in the background. What I mean is, your views on gaming as a whole are so valid that even to this day they remain accurate, despite the rapid way the industry changes.
Truly quality stuff.
Great video, man; you are just honing your essayist craft, George.
I'm glad you pointed out that "Now the RPGs have twitchy combat and the twitchy combat games have RPG elements."
First of all, English is not my first language so I offer my apologies in advance for any unintended mistake.
I was watching the first five minutes or so of this video and I was thinking "Deus Ex, Deus Ex, Deus Ex" and I was very relieved when Adam Jensen appeared at last because Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a brilliant masterpiece in soooo many ways, being the upgrade system one of them,
That system (and other mechanics like the inventory) forces you into a state of mind in which you are evaluating the "opportunity cost" of every decision you make. And that´s exactly the reason every player remembers the way he used to play with Jensen and everyone forgets about the way he upgraded, e. g., Edward Kenway or any other character of nearly every Ubisoft game.
Anyway, kudos, as always, for your exceptional work George.
Fantastic video.
Finally, a realistic analysis on character progression, and why it worked for CRPGs back in the day. You hit the nail right on the head when you defined the abstraction of character upgrades in said games.
Greetings from the world of tomorrow!
I feel like those progression/upgrade systems are kind of obligatory in modern world where you need to have a carrot and a stick to hold "gamer's" attention on a game for even somewhat extended period of time.
P.S. Old Bunnyhop logo is so cute and cozy~
I'm just happy that you are finally playing System Shock 2, George!
you have a talent to point out things i don't like but can't really put my finger on it and make a good video about it. I don't even remember the specific games to be honest but it became somewhat common for me to forget that i can upgrade something because chosing between some special effects in certain situations that rarely happen or some % quote is not fun to me... i don't like watching numbers in games to be honest. A good upgrading system imo should be constantly in your mind while watching your level, somethign you really want to get and not just a tool to keep the difficulty on a manageable level.
Final line is brilliant.
I see the Watch Dogs thing differently, by having 3 separate play styles from the beginning available, players can opt to mix and max and improvise to victory (for example start sneaking in, get into a firefight, hack some people's equipment, blackout and sneak around them, car chase etc.) This gives more experimentation right from the beginning. Also note that there is few options for traditional car to car combat like in GTA. This is where the upgrade system actually becomes smart, since you are limited to primarily hacking in car chases (and is the most powerful thing in on foot mode as well) you are subtlety led to seriously upgrade where you are weak while the other upgrades only complement your strengths,". And covering for those weaknesses can actually turn them into strengths as well (e.g low phone battery at first limits the powerful hacks you can do, requireing some gameplay from the other styles, but the player sees the cool stuff like steam pipes and knows that is the best in car chases and new to this game so they invest in improving that). The crafting and focus upgrades only assist rather completely improve but not for the armour upgrades which are geniuanly more useful than a lot of the other upgrades. The upgrades for side quests encourage players to follow through on more of the unique ones like poker and drinking, and further reward people for doing their favourites like Gang hideous
I think this is actually a bigger issue that's well worth complaining about. Maybe the boring upgrade screens aren't the end of the world, but they come hand in hand with gameplay that is less intrinsically rewarding. Developers have been using RPG elements to artificially lengthen their games. It's a shortcut so that they don't have to spend time and money to make unique content. Instead, they can just recycle the same enemies and maps, knowing that players will keep playing for the next upgrade.
I like how the recent(ish) Doom structured its upgrade systems. There was no "increase x by 10%" or something like that. Either the upgrade gave you something new you could do, or it improved something you could already do in a simple and _tangible_ way. Furthermore, it only did it once, twice at most. They were simple and concise, and didn't leave you stuck in the menu for several minutes doing unnecessary calculations or the like.
I was hoping you'd bring up Human Revolution when I started the video! The way it uses upgrades to enhance your preferred style of play as well as allow for exploration was really fun, and playing the game "factory zero" was really challenging. Obviously though it's convenient to play as a cyborg who can literally have upgrades built in.
Lmfao I love Far Cry 3, but I'm so happy you opened the video with it. I think about 3 upgrades in the whole game actually enticed me.
I'm so glad this video exists. I was saying this to my friends about how much I hate skill trees in a lot of these games. There's no reason for there to be a skill tree when it's linear progression. Just give the player bonuses automatically if you want them to be rewarded as they progress. And if you can unlock every skill, then a skill tree is kind of pointless. I like it when a skill tree is complex and doesn't let you get all of the upgrades, making each experience a little more unique.
this is LITERALLY, THE best video on youtube.
It's a cheap way to add "value" to a game without actually adding real value to the game. A way to make you feel like your purchase was more justified; that you got your money's worth.
Did Crackdown do upgrading and skills perfectly?
I haven't finished the video so I'm not sure if it gets mentioned, but in crackdown upgrades change the gameplay a lot, encourage exploration and level based on what you do.
Awesome video! Now could you please make a video about the ridiculousness of the concept of "loot" in video games?
System shock 2 & the original deus ex are action-RPGs (ARPGs). Watchdogs etc. are action games with RPG elements.
I'm glad CZcams autoplay caused me to stumble across your video! I easily get caught up in the whole "ooh, talents and feats and enhancers" reaction that some games attempt to impress upon me, even despite the fact that I'm often very critical of them as derivative and, what's worse, uninspired and boring.
One of the reasons I've kept my eye on WoW ever since I got into it back in 2007 is that it changes so much over time as features are identified as being fun or unfun, balanced or unbalanced. It's been useful as a dev to watch how the talent/specialization system shifted from 3-prong trees with lots of boring yet necessary crap, (1%/2%/3%/4%/5%+ to dodge/parry/hit/expertise! fascinating!) to simplified trees that pared down on filler, to the current hybrid-averse system where most every talent choice feels active, meaningful, useful, and game-changing, instead of passive, mandatory, and forgettable.
I really like the idea of action RPG type games. I love to watch games gradually get more complex as I gain techniques and skills, upgrade weapons and equipment, design and switch between gear loadouts, and improve abilities, as well as the complexity which simply arises from getting better at a game. I nerd out over that crap. But as you've correctly pointed out, a lot of the time these systems are simply tacked on and/or uninteresting, making them a chore -- especially if the choices do matter despite feeling like they don't. If there's one way to turn me off of a game, it's turning it into a chore.
I wouldn't really consider this all that nitpicky. What you were basically complaining about was a mechanic/system that had no business being in the game, conflicted with the core design of the game, and was poorly designed, and by extension complaining about the fact that this is such a common design element, that games in general seem to be striving to be an experience that everyone can consider mediocre.
And that is a very real and serious problem with the industry.
The best, most satisfying and logical upgrade system I've seen is in XCOM.
Find stuff, research stuff, build stuff, equip and use stuff...makes sense in both gameplay and story terms.
i get you man!
i shudder at the thought of master chief having a complicated upgrade system...
Here's a mash up I'd like to see: pit that dude from Watchdogs against Shodan. “Look at you, hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone..."
Such a great video that presents a really good argument. I liked how you looked at Deus Ex as a game that gets the upgrade system right. It's an RPG first, and a bad upgrade path will make the game unbeatable. You could have also used Bioshock as another modern example. Gunplay is average at best, and in order to gain the upper-hand you have to either spend EXP on spells or effectively upgrade the stopping power and ammo capacity of your best weapons.
Huh, looking through my steam library and the only action games (well.. FPS's) without any RPG elements are Serious Sam Classic/HD, Receiver, and Half-Life 2 (plus Eps of course).
I've always found HL amazing as Gordon doesn't get any beefier (permanently) than the first time you slip into the HEV suit, instead you have the organic flow of new weapons, scrounged ammo, and your own skill level.
Also I totally agree that one side effect of boring upgrades is that they will effect balancing without changing the gameplay significantly (ex: "I die less, but play exactly as I did before upgrade" or "I hit harder, but play exactly as I did before upgrade").
One that stands out is SR3, after fully upgrading The Boss, you are in permanent godmode, making the game actually *lose* flexibility.
I hate most upgrade systems. Like you said, so many games do NOT need them... I remember playing EA MMA on PS3 in career mode, I had to train to unlock basic moves... I'm training to compete in a pro MMA fight and don't know how to throw a high kick? k. I actually stay away from a lot of games that have skill trees and such.
Avoiding the game completely becuase of an upgrade system seems a bit extreme to me
It's funny that you mention EA MMA on PS3. I loved that game because you felt like you earned every move, win and title. Something like 3 years of EA MMA secretly being my favorite fighting game of all time and I finally see someone else mention it.
I think that the games with boring upgrade systems have those mainly for two reasons.
One is that they want to produce the feeling of progression without the story actually progressing ,basically making side missions worth it which for most modern sandbox games are pretty repetitive tasks. And by having the player select an upgrade it doesn't feel that much like arbitrary character progression even if it is.
The other reason is to take player skill out of the equasion. Upgrades that are straight up damage upgrades and the likes don't serve any other purpose in twitch based gameplay. Giving the player straight up more damage more health etc is basically making the game easier so that basically anyone can complete a game if he grinds a few sind missions. (I blame the consoles and their thumb based aiming for that)
The problem with those uninspired upgrades is that the developer no longer has to figure out how your characters skills and his world are related. Like in Gothic you had to visit a trainer to achieve skills and pay for them, its still an abstracted way of upgrading but its integrated into the game world.
RPG elements have their place in twitch based gameplay for increasing the options one has to fight but not to straight up increase power of the player because getting better at a game is way better than pressing on the +20% dmg Upgrade button.
I think alot of games could do without RPG upgrade systems all together, I hate it, for example, when you start an action game with a super weak avatar because you need to unlock your health bar, combat efficiencies and special abilities. DOOM gave you the character moveset in the first level that it expected you to beat the Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind with, Wolfenstein 2014 makes you start the game with half your maximum health bar, gimped reload speed and clip sizes and a ton of other things you need to unlock to make your dude actually good at his job. Whilst there's totally a place for upgrades and skill trees in other genres it really is the curse of modern twitch games.
I know this is an old video, but it reminded me of the parody game DLC Quest, where you have to "purchase DLC" in order to unlock such amazing features as being able to jump or move left.
4 years later, this stuff is still as true as ever.
The worst thing being that (im a game design student) even in game design class, we're being taught how to make skill trees etc, not how to make a good character upgrade system. Feels pointless at times. And when our teachers are executives at Ubisoft, if you ask them they'll say "yeah, we're trying to move away from those a bit, but slowly..." but in reality, if you confront them about those same systems in the games they made, they'll defend them with their lives.
Last sentence was an excellent summary: Videogames are experiencing a flattening process, that will lead to poor variety
So I played a Doom mod this weekend. It's called Heretical Doom and it has a leveling system. But instead of having to stop and spend dumb points, you simply keep picking up the various items lying around until you get a text line on the screen telling you that you are more badass now. All that does is expand your health and ammo pools, and some levels unlock an alternate firemode for a weapon you have. Mind you, the normal modes on these weapons still kick ass, but it's sweet to keep expanding a moveset.
I like how elegant it is. Wanna use the cool stuff? You can't yet. But as you gather up stuff, you gradually expand your arsenal in the least intrusive way possible. Sure I don't know if it represents you sucking up the magic from all the mumbo-jumbo-junk you keep hoovering up and thus becoming that ultra-warlock demigod you wanted to be, but it would be a nice reason for all that to exist.
Bottom line - it flows. It's no slow ass menu that tells me to spend my magic points on stuff, it just keeps making my character better as I keep playing. And that's nice to me.
I really love dynamic progression, where skills and techniques are picked up automatically as you use them. It works hand in hand with a pseudo leveling system and none of it requires the unnecessary menu hopping. Take Darkfall for instance, it is an action RPG roguelike kind of game that utilizes a skill system upgrade style that is rarely often seen, because of how much extra programming is needed to achieve it. When you use a skill, it gains background experience points, along with the experience you gain normally, and as you use that skill it steadily progresses in faster looting times, faster crafting times, etc etc.
Definitely want to see more of games with that system in mind, so if anyone has any suggestions for me, shoot me a message or reply to this comment.
Inspiring work, I'd say! You have my thumbs up, mate.
I agree. I really can't think the last time I played a game that did upgrading right.
I'm only a little bit into the video and I know this isn't really what the video is about, but the other day I thought about how I really like when an action game doesn't require you to commit to upgrades. You could simply unlock a tier of abilities/gear, and swap things out on the fly or at regular intervals, or something along those lines. Even in action-rpg's like Dark Souls, I have a lot more fun when my stats are pretty much over with and I can experiment with the gear, I don't feel like I need to stop and think in case it bites me in the back in the long run.
I know long-term consequences are important to a lot of kinds of games btw., but it can really stop the action and prevent you from messing around with a system in my experience. The variation that is possible with a highly adjustable loadout also goes great with what I assume most action games want to achieve, I think.
This needs to be seen by everyone.
The voice in the background saying "fups-arrgs" was great.
I got anxious at 1:49 when I saw that that tangled spider's web of a skill tree.
Farcry 3's upgrades add new features like the chain-takedowns and the wingsuit. Infamous' upgrades add new attacks and ways to traverse the environment.
If you're doing upgrades in an action game, make each one (each one the player has to manually activate at least) have an effect on playstyle.
What do you think about Skyrim perk system (Vanilla vs. modded) ?
There is one example, where I really can't decide if the current Progression-System trend is good or bad. It is the lockpicking.
In the old days, you had to have a certain skill in lockpicking to get the chance of opening a chest. In Vanilla Skyrim, you can open a master chest with no skill at all. On the one hand, the old system simulates the "abstraction" (that you mentioned in the vid). On the other hand, it breaks immersion, atleast for me. Why I can't try (and fail) a chest if I want to?
Many games (Skyrim included) fail to implement a system where the skill-progression is required to progress in the story, but do not force the player to take the skills by silly barriers.
I've also been really fed up with useless useless upgrade systems for a while. Good job putting it into words, George.
I think this kind of thing just exemplifies the "me too" mentality in AAA game development nowadays. Because your competitors have a feature, you also got to have that feature, regardless of whether it fits into your game or not. Upgrade systems, crafting systems, etc. All of it just shows this acute lack of thought about it all fitting together.
I like upgrades in games I like. Makes me feel like I'm making progress or working toward something. What I don't like, is having to read long descriptions for upgrades that all seem monotonous in games that I'm less engaged in.
oh boi, that "trying to be ok for everybody and as a result be great for nobody" made my day
I think this video influenced TotalBiscuit's recent video, "A case study in pointless progression and how it hurts everyone"
Great vid as always.
Unfortunately, people who attempt Metroid's style usually end up making using that upgrade pointless past when you first acquire it; such as putting every red door after the point when you get the missile instead of in lots of branching paths prior to acquisition.
They even put that into ori and the blind forest.
You can grind experience to get the triple jump in that metroid-esque game!
The last sentence you said is exactly what i fear when a game is announced to have single and multiplayer, when it's predecessors were all single player
No made so much sense to me, I haven never noticed it before but now that I think about it I have seen this done time and time again. Eloquent work, hopefully game designers of tomorrow are watching this.
Interesting video, nice work guys!
The rule is... If it's an Ubisoft game, it doesn't do anything right.
It's fun bashing ubisoft, but they are actually really good at art direction, the animation in their games is very polished, and the settings are usually really rich.
I mean, as much as they lack a vision for assassin's creed since the 3rd, they are pretty good at making their stories thematically consistent, something not so many AAA games achieve.
So while their open-world formula is growing old, and they seem to paint it with thick layers of conflicting features, they are doing some things very well.
Logic Reason I like Ubi games, but I play just one a year, so I don't get bored with them.
I think the game "Shenmue" had the best upgrade system. The more you train, the better the character Ryo gets naturally. The moves you do alter into something new when mastering and training on your martial arts techniques. It was a brilliant way to get better and involved dedication instead of a upgrade tree list.
For example. If I wanted to improve Ryo's jab, I would have to wake up every morning, go to the training area, and jab all day if I wanted to improve his jab. OR I could just progress through the game and let it improve naturally. It was reflecting on improving in a realistic manner, rather than a points skill tree system. I could easily upgrade all my base techniques at the beginning of the game and become stronger because I decided to put work into it. Then later throughout the game improve the techniques that I learn along the way.
It's a well thought out system and another reason why I love Shenmue so much. Thanks for the video! :)
It is probably to give players some sense of progression in games where mechanical accuracy and consistency it flattened to be more accessible to new players, sluggish input method variances and so on. And not require a reroll to correct bad investments
6:25 i'm rewatching this and noticed you trying to pronounce "FPSARPGS" on the background, it's hilarious.
I love the upgrade system in shadow warrior