What if We Leveled Backwards?!
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
that's kind of true, i mean part of the reason you gain skills over time is so you can learn the basics, then branch out as the game progresses... it would probably work best if the game took an assassins creed type approach where you play a level or two at full power to see what it's like then lose everythingTikiShades said:
i don't know i'm not a developer, but i like the idea
I'm reminded, in part of Shadow of Colossus.
The Wanderer taking out threats increasingly larger than himself while they whittle away at his body and mind until eventually all out losing it all.
Just kind of sounded like the whole 'leveling down' idea.
And I got to say, I like it.
The Wanderer taking out threats increasingly larger than himself while they whittle away at his body and mind until eventually all out losing it all.
Just kind of sounded like the whole 'leveling down' idea.
And I got to say, I like it.
This idea is the opposite of an MMORPG.
Leveling mechanics have two purposes:
1. Reward the player for playing, in order to create incentive to play (Yahtzee addressed this).
2. Divorce gameplay from player ability by allowing players to trade time spent for character power.
Number 2 is really important. World of Warcraft can appeal to such a wide audience because the main way to be good at the game is just to play it for a long time, something you can do with the reflexes of a sloth (or, say, yur mum). But if your character gets weaker the longer you play, eventually the only way to be good at the game is to actually be good at the game. And no one is going to respect an old master who can't secretly kick your ass.
On the other hand, this doesn't apply to other genres, and it's certainly true that game stories will forever be hamstringed until we can figure out how to work in the part where the hero is nearly killed at the end of act two without relying on the sudden onset of cutscene incompetence.
Leveling mechanics have two purposes:
1. Reward the player for playing, in order to create incentive to play (Yahtzee addressed this).
2. Divorce gameplay from player ability by allowing players to trade time spent for character power.
Number 2 is really important. World of Warcraft can appeal to such a wide audience because the main way to be good at the game is just to play it for a long time, something you can do with the reflexes of a sloth (or, say, yur mum). But if your character gets weaker the longer you play, eventually the only way to be good at the game is to actually be good at the game. And no one is going to respect an old master who can't secretly kick your ass.
On the other hand, this doesn't apply to other genres, and it's certainly true that game stories will forever be hamstringed until we can figure out how to work in the part where the hero is nearly killed at the end of act two without relying on the sudden onset of cutscene incompetence.
rpg wise it is a very interesting concept
maybe your character starts out in their prime and gets older as the game progresses
or maybe a curse drining their soul
there are many ways to introduce it to the plot
you could even have it as a plot twist
many games have tried to have a dyanamic difficulty curve but this does sound like a better idea in that respect
maybe you could
as an mmo however it does not
as said in the world of warcraft review people want to be better than everyone else
maybe keeping their stats the same and redistributing them over time and calling it specialising might work
but getting worse as you progress sounds like a bad idea in am mmo
alough it would be the better show of skill
it sounds like a good concept but i doubt the gaming industry would move away from its winning formula
maybe your character starts out in their prime and gets older as the game progresses
or maybe a curse drining their soul
there are many ways to introduce it to the plot
you could even have it as a plot twist
many games have tried to have a dyanamic difficulty curve but this does sound like a better idea in that respect
maybe you could
as an mmo however it does not
as said in the world of warcraft review people want to be better than everyone else
maybe keeping their stats the same and redistributing them over time and calling it specialising might work
but getting worse as you progress sounds like a bad idea in am mmo
alough it would be the better show of skill
it sounds like a good concept but i doubt the gaming industry would move away from its winning formula
I always thought the reverse leveling should be used for FPS online multiplayer, that way the top level people actually have skill rather than just better toys than the newbies. Or decrease the selection of weapons but increase passive skills (ex: mine detection)
And the finale shall be a fist-fight with a sick, old, half-dead rat. That gaming experience has got to be anti-climactic and lack any sense of achievement.
I think this is an awesome idea. If it's done right the trade off should be that by the time you are at the end of the game you have capabilities that still allow for success. Meaning that throughout the game you are learning new ways to fight or progress because of your loss. Thae nature of gaming is such that for it to be satisfying to the player there has to be some form of win scenario, even if it's just watching your protaganist go out like a bad ass.(I.E. Halo Reach) But I think it's how that win would be achieved that makes this idea so interesting. You would have to truly become better at the game as you progressed because your options for how to solve problems would become more and more limited. something which occurs in games already but feels artificial because by the end of most rpgs we've become superhuman juggernauts.
However I don't see this fitting as well with a multiplayer game, this feels like a single player journy to me. Something in the vein of the Prince of Persia games or a more focused Oblivion. As for a story that makes sense, well I like Yahtzee's idea of a pantheon of super beings. Sort of God of War 3 from the Olympions perspective, a massivly over powered people who rule the world being destroyed by some kind of upstart. While also losing what made them the dominant force in the world. A twilight of the gods or Ragnarok where you are part of something powerful and amazing but maybe also corrupt and unnatural that is ending.
However I don't see this fitting as well with a multiplayer game, this feels like a single player journy to me. Something in the vein of the Prince of Persia games or a more focused Oblivion. As for a story that makes sense, well I like Yahtzee's idea of a pantheon of super beings. Sort of God of War 3 from the Olympions perspective, a massivly over powered people who rule the world being destroyed by some kind of upstart. While also losing what made them the dominant force in the world. A twilight of the gods or Ragnarok where you are part of something powerful and amazing but maybe also corrupt and unnatural that is ending.
since when do video games have good enough writing for this to work?
And I feel that I'd constantly be complaining about how arbitrary the ability stealing is.
And I feel that I'd constantly be complaining about how arbitrary the ability stealing is.
How about the player being a demi-god who has his god-like strength reduced by the powers-that-be every time he takes a life. In order to save the humans he lives amongst from some terrible evil, he needs to go off on quests to defeat powerful enemies which obviously comes at a price.
Such a game would involve trying to avoid confrontations as much as possible by sneaking around (think the Thief series) and even running and hiding (Amnesia?) so you can avoid having to kill the lesser bad guys. Killing the bosses would presumably be unavoidable.
In such a scenario the protaganist would likely favour weapons that are less likely to kill, like a staff or a war-hammer, and maybe a slingshot. And how about some fire-weapons similar to molotov-cocktails, that can be used to prevent enemies following you down a corridor.
There could be a scenario where you sneak into some castle and kill some boss in a one-on-one fight, but all the guards you sneaked past then get alerted and to get away some enemy deaths are unavoidable, resulting in your powers being greatly reduced.
The ultimate boss can be a human who's power comes from the army he commands. Maybe it's the emperor of the lands or something, but in the finale when you have no more god-like powers, he thinks he can defeat you in a one-on-one fight. It would be kind of similar to the ending of The Gladiator, where the emperor thinks he can defeat a near-death Russel Crowe!
Such a game would involve trying to avoid confrontations as much as possible by sneaking around (think the Thief series) and even running and hiding (Amnesia?) so you can avoid having to kill the lesser bad guys. Killing the bosses would presumably be unavoidable.
In such a scenario the protaganist would likely favour weapons that are less likely to kill, like a staff or a war-hammer, and maybe a slingshot. And how about some fire-weapons similar to molotov-cocktails, that can be used to prevent enemies following you down a corridor.
There could be a scenario where you sneak into some castle and kill some boss in a one-on-one fight, but all the guards you sneaked past then get alerted and to get away some enemy deaths are unavoidable, resulting in your powers being greatly reduced.
The ultimate boss can be a human who's power comes from the army he commands. Maybe it's the emperor of the lands or something, but in the finale when you have no more god-like powers, he thinks he can defeat you in a one-on-one fight. It would be kind of similar to the ending of The Gladiator, where the emperor thinks he can defeat a near-death Russel Crowe!
In the very broadest sense, sort of. It's this one. http://armorgames.com/play/5355/immortalltomtom94 said:
Alt+Escape talked about it back when Alt+Escape still existed.
OT: This sounds really cool, but it probably would end up less fun than it sounds. One of the main draws for me in playing an abilities centric game is all the cool stuff i'll be able to do eventually. Taking away content would just make the game less and less interesting, because it would take away my choices. I like being able to destroy things in new and interesting ways.
LEVELLING BACKWARDS!?! Yahtzee you devilish madmen that so crazy it just might work, your brilliants is only matched by your rugged goodlooks. Well played sir, well played.
Its never gona work in a themepark MMO but...
I think a single player story RPG could work where your character has some sort of degenerate disease and grows weaker through the game.
This would work as a nice story element, reminding me of lord foul's bane, and also be a way to notch up the difficulty as the game progesses like your suggestion.
I think a single player story RPG could work where your character has some sort of degenerate disease and grows weaker through the game.
This would work as a nice story element, reminding me of lord foul's bane, and also be a way to notch up the difficulty as the game progesses like your suggestion.
As usual, Yahtzee has us a different type of game concept. By responce is that this should be made into some indy game for pure art value. Why? Give a big budget title something like this and there will be complaints. Y'know, like when you lost your power-ups in Metroid Prime when YOU WERE THROWN AGAINST A WALL! Seriously Samus, your armor is stronger than that.