What if We Leveled Backwards?!

[zenoaugustus]

I like this idea, but I find it more applicable to FPSs in a sense that it could feel more natural. While I do like the declining powers and loss of abilities as Yahtzee says, I think this isn't what most players would want. Unless the game is completely centered around advancing through the loss of powers (which Yahtzee does say) I think it might seem a tad odd. I think in a FPS setting it could be much more rewarding. You start the game off with the largest, craziest weapons the game has to offer, but due to being sent further through wherever you are, you lose more weapons and by the time you combat the final boss you have but a spear, or pistol or something equally weak in FPS terminology. Just a thought, anyways...

 

[yoyo13rom]

I go to school in Burlington, VT. for Game Design. A team two years ago actually created a game along these lines called "The Eve" that begins with the final boss fight, and then the player must slowly sacrifice their abilities in order to get closer to their love. The levels were themed on the pitfalls of relationships- Pride, Jealousy, Lust, and I believe Deceit. The player chooses an ability- double jump, shield, attacking, and crawling- to sacrifice at the end of each level. They can also end the game early by sacrificing their love so that their love can be free of the curse you're working so hard to undo.

The concept was brilliant, as each sacrificed ability cut off many easier paths in each level. I feel like it's proof of concept for this kind of play.

Stay bastardly, Yahtzee!

Could I buy their product? I mean I'm not interested in the code, I just wanna play this thing. It sound really interesting!

 

[Briggins]

I could see this working in an mmo, but it would have to be vastly different then the current grindfests out there. Rather then your average raid/loot/repeat mmo, it would have to concentrate more on the rpg portion, say every player has to work together to stop some big evil person/event/etc or face a total server wipe.

The basic premise for this is that characters would age over time, becoming weaker as their infirmities took hold. If their character lives long enough, they'd eventually have to decide whether to sacrifice themselves to further stop whatever evil is happening or take the coward's route to stave off death for a while longer.

They'd have an option to go out in a blaze of glory having their character's name forever engraved on a memorial for them. Think Judge Dread style where the judges have to take the long walk at a certain point.

 

[teknoarcanist]

What if you started the game off with several hundred potions, grenades, etc . . .

. . . and you don't get more throughout? No one tells you this; you're just led to conclude it after the first few hours of play. Every time you use a potion, that's one less that you'll have forever. Every point of lost HP becomes a battle of attrition.

Conclusion: mitebkewl

As always though, it should probably be pointed out that cool ideas are a dime a dozen in game design -- it's implementation that matters.

 

[zjspeed]

LAST!

Ha!

 

[Giantpanda602]

Heres one reason nobody would actually enjoy this in practice:
Nobody wants to get used to using good skills and then have them taken away so all they can use are their bad skills. More people would want to simply not level and do stuff with their starting character.

 

[Kebabco]

I think we all do this. I'm pretty sure it's called aging.

Was thinking exactly the same thing

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

This is the best idea I've ever heard. That is all.

 

[Dusk17]

This sounds like an interesting idea. I wouldn't play a game like that but it sounds interesting. Also it sounds like punishing the player for progressing in the game and i dont think it would get past planning or whatever before someone asks "if i lose a level every mission then whats the point?" there has to be some kind of really good hook to keep the average gamers attention in a game like that or a way to compensate for the lost level or skill. Such a thing would make for good story but would present a challenge to incorporate as good gameplay.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

What new would it bring to the table? It's perfectly symmetric with the usual leveling method: you still spend the same amount of time in both weak and strong states. So what's the point? There are better ways to make gameplay more challenging and dramatic: look at Devil May Cry 3, new abilities only complemented your own skills, they weren't doing all the work for you. That's what a good implementation of RPG elements is about: sharp balance and equilibrium between player's and his/her character's skills. That's the core reason why I absolutely despise the traditional point&click RPGs.

There are reasons why some mechanics had been never to rarely used in games. Take Shadow of the Colossus for example. You might argue that the whole point of the game was "to bring a sense of desolation to the player". But all I saw was a world full of nothing and that comes as a really sloppy attempt at selling a poorly designed game as art.

Off-topic: yes, I hated that game so much. I hated its empty gameplay. I hated the fact that the supposed mighty colossi were nothing more than gigantic pushovers. I hated its diluted (yes, I said "diluted") and moronic storyline with ending so ridiculous it would have made the "star child" cry. And most of all I hated the fact that my pagan first impression of the game (I love pagan mythologies, especially the early ones: they're just shrouded in so much magic and mystery I can't help myself) had been crushed by the said absurd ending and replaced by your everyday demonic bullshit, lucifa please.

There, I said it. You may start with the crucification now, it was worth it.

 

[The_Splatterer]

Not a bad idea! perhaps it would benifit from the Call of Duty 'Prestige' system where the hardened (or weakened) players can then go back to the top of it all and chose a different set of powers to lose all over...

 

[Formica Archonis]

Lore Sjoberg once did a Capybara Brothers comic on something like this. Called a Buddhist RPG, the player had just traded in his axe for a stick. Shame his site is down, otherwise I'd link to it. I think this is the right link [http://apocrypha.badgods.com/posts/buddhistrpg].

 

[PhiMed]

I actually had a very similar conversation with one of my friends the other day about Dead Space 2. Even if you consider any portion of the Dead Space games to be scary, the only parts that would qualify are at the very beginning of your first playthrough.

Anyone with any skill and understanding of the leveling system will be able to create a non-threatening situation pretty quickly. This culminates in the end of the game, where there is no fear whatsoever, because even if taken by surprise, you'll quickly dispatch whatever comes at you with little to no damage to yourself.

Goodie. Just what I wanted at the climax of my survival horror game.

 

[Enigmers]

I doubt it'd work in an MMO, but it could work well in a single-player RPG/Adventure game I think. I'd certainly give it a try. The issue, though, is that a complete newbie wouldn't want to use a huge repertoire of skills and abilities, and once you're down to the end of the game, having the gameplay reduced to "press X to not die" isn't fun either; there obviously needs to be some very, very fine-tuning for this to work.

 

[punipunipyo]

Interesting, good for a new game type, and may be an innovating way to make an adventure game out with. I had a concept, one that uses different approach from the traditional "MMO Diablo" game style, instead just "leveling up", try "advancing in rank". sounds like the same thing, but not entirely...

Personal stats only effect players them selves, while "ranking up" will effect how players interact with others. having "ranks" gives players more perspective, and not just "Hulk smash harder". "rank" works FOR other players; when a high rank player gives command, and the low ranker follows, the low ranker gets buff/boots/other benefits thus making the game REWARDING towards team work game play.

The higher the rank, the more complex command, the game starts off with "solider", then players will level up, become stronger/faster..etc, but depends on "success rates", they will also "rank up", much like army, from follower, to squad command, to tactic command (multiple squads), to strategy command (mini world map, basic direction of advancement, and requisition flow, but less visible battle); a built-in chain of command. as the players gets "higher rank" they receives more command access. battles are then won NOT based on how hard you can HIT, but how smart your tactic, and team work all through out the "chain of command".

This could work on 2 VERY well known game titles, WarCraft (wanna be war hammer) and WARHAMMER (and best if it's 40K, where chain of command actually make sense, in a future war). A game where low levelers who are high rank have the creditability to command high leveler (because they have to "RANK UP to that position" by their victory, and NOT how many blue rabbits they slaughtered), where all levels of players CAN fight side by side, and you don't need to "GRIND" to have "real action", you are at the REAL BATTLE the moment you enter the game.

How ever, this type of game will require a few adjustments, from the mainstream MMO-RPG...

No side walk monsters/bosses, players needs to battle "OTHER RACES" like orks vs Space marines; PVP, or PVN(NPC), only.

Changeable world, lands can be conquered, changed, towns can be wiped out, maps can be re drawn (with out a major cataclysmic event, just a major battle, and a fall of a base)

No more death punishment; because players are in a epic war, they are always "needed". and they are always going to be "reinforcement calls" and players could be "ported to reinforcement locations", hence, dead, demote,re spawned, try again, no time lost.

No accumulated wealth, in a war, your "allowance" are based on "rank", not level, there for, you die, you lost the equipments your country "invested on you", next time you get "cloned", you get demoted, and high ranker gets WAY more points to start a battle, because they use 30/70 rule , they are entitled to 30% of their wealth, and other 70%(optional, if not used, it goes toward bonus victory points->ranking), but as a squad commander, your underlings are actually your "investments" for victory... so more likely you'd buy THEM equipment to secure your victory... (hey! how many games welcomes nubs with a free BFG?)

It's just a concept I had that I think could bring positive momentum in MMO-gaming, after all, Levels don't matters any more, you could play with your friends regardless of level difference, there is no need to rush, and you can play for battles, or entire war, it's all the more flexible, yet, still hardcore, because you could be the next level 30 guy who wound up getting owned by a level 20, because his tactic kicks butt!

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Dear god, I think he's on to something.

At first glance, it sounds stupid, but after thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense.

Though I can't think of anything really wrong with it, it still seems odd.

 

[dunnace]

I would be interested to see if you can make the concept work in a single player game, Certainly, you could make it a very interesting story mechanic, the idea you are sacrificing yourself would become overwhelmingly apparent.

 

[MrGalactus]

I've thought this for a while now, concerning multiplayer anyway. As you use guns or whatever weapons, you lose them. That way, your rank actually reflects your skill. The best players can use anything. It would add an extra degree of strategy to playing, rationing off your favourite weapons and getting good at all of them. That and it makes prestige-ing less pointless.

 

[mechanixis]

I really like this idea in the context of a character being gradually beaten down over the course of a story. It might work for the game to have a bell curve to it - starting powerful in the first act, then gradually being whittled away to nothing in the second, and finally regaining all your powers and then some in the third.

It would take a lot of refining to work in an MMO, but I'd love to see it in a single-player rpg.

 

[etocadet]

usually tho enemies are supposed to level up aswell, In Final Fantasy 8 the monsters leveled up with you so certain enemies were always a challenge, even more so as enemies would get new attacks.

If you can level up the enemy certainly must be able to

my idea for the perfect MMORPG would be a city made of rings on the inner circle lies the top level players and on the outer circles lie the lower levels, however when you get enough XP you don't level up till you say so that way you won't be thrown into the inner rings with higher up players if you aren't ready

also MMORPGS should have players be controlled by AI when theyre asleep using the battle system FF 12 had where you could set your troops commands, with cool down periods so that players can't be continuosly bludgeoned to death.

It would be nice to isolate the casual MMO users from the nerdy hardcore ones