vagabondwillsmile said:
And Michael de Plater's assertion is ludicrous. Racing games, beat'em ups, shoot'em ups, arcade fighters, puzzle games, platformers, none of these are known to frequently or consistantly impliment RPG elements as he has described them.
I kind of have to disagree with you on this one, with the exception of arcade fighters. More and more games do use progression based on accumulating XP or equivalent, often currency.
For example:
-in racing games to buy better cars, better engines and chassis etc. Essentially working identically to experience and character upgrades.
-beat em up's seem to be getting more and more rpg elements, unlocking new moves, upgrading health.
-Shoot em up's you buy better weapons, more armor. Granted there are a lot of shoot em up's where the skill set is set for each character/ship or you collect items from levels. but there seem to be just as many where you buy some sort of upgrades.
-Many puzzle games unlock abilities that make the game easier and these are often somewhat related to an experience meter of some sort.
-Platformers are one genre that does this a lot less unless they mix action elements like for example guns or sword skills.
His comment was pretty vague though and it can be interpreted in many ways and he might not have thought it this far. Now whether or not this is good depends on the game and i certainly miss the games that have kind of a set challenge and you have to use the abilities you're given to solve them, without having the option to grind better gear etc to diminish the said designed challenge.
Edit:Reread the original argument and yeah, saying you would never do a game anymore without these attributes is ludicrous. They are used a lot but there are great games that do not use experience or equivalent as a method to progress your character, car etc.