I remember a day when old RPG games had either a level cap or a definite ending. From Pool of Radiance to Secrets of the Silver Blades to Final Fantasy the game had a final boss or stage and often had some type of level cap. Today, gamers don’t want it to end, they’d rather have the option to wonder around aimlessly or completing minor quests in order to soak up every ounce of money they spent on the title.
Now even Bethesda is saying “we’ve learned our lesson” from the whiplash of ending their game title and capping levels. Gamers want to go back and re-try content they missed, they want to run side quests and talk to everyone in the world they want to grind themselves to über powerful levels and become a god in their fantasy world. Can you blame them?
You can’t really blame them for wanting to maximize the content, although it’s slightly more evolved than RPG’s of old. Perhaps it was World of Warcraft and other MMORPG’s that brought us to the stage in life where we all want to squeeze every last RPG dime out of the title. As a kid I wondered the world of Hyrule and covered every tile of graphical color, burned every bush, bombed every stone looking for all the content. However, even Zelda had an end with scrolling credits – you didn’t just land on a platform with your master sword and a dream.
Other titles have used level caps to limit you and draw you into the next release of the game. This was popular in the D&D world because the game is designed to target specific levels of difficulty. They may only allow you to gain level 10 because the enemies are no tougher than level 13, allowing the challenge to be good but not overwhelming. If they allow you to get to level 50 they’d have to design the game so all the enemies grow powerful along with you — that’s not always a desired result.
Final Fantasy is a popular franchise that typically allows you to grow infinitely powerful depending on how much time you want to spend repeat killing the same enemies. Gamers aren’t always into the grind, they just want to grind “enough” to make the challenges a little more do-able.
Today, however, with larger storage capacity, larger development teams and the desire to build more value into your gameplay experience titles have dozens of side quests and sub-plots that are totally optional. The result of so many sub-quests results in a player who is much more powerful at the end of those quests compared to a player who sticks to the narrow path of the main plot. So, games much grow dynamically challenging to keep the fun per dollar high.
Do you like your RPG’s to have a definite end and a high but capped level?
Will Wright Leaves Electronic Arts
This week’s episode is the final episode before E3, and next week, an outtakes episode filled with Dr. Who and Game of Thrones discussion will run. After that, we’ll have some serious E3 2013 discussion, especially about what happens with Microsoft and Sony in particular.
I wasn’t pissed off when the sale was made. I was mildly disturbed when Wizards of the Coast said they’d be revamping and fixing the game – by allowing things like level 20 halfling mage-slash-thief-slash-paladin-slash-monk-slash-fighters.
I became angry when 4.0 game out and they succeeded in turning it into a computer game version of D&D, and sucking the life out of the actual roleplaying. Computer RPGs are the way they are because they LACK the ability to have an intelligent GM. It’s the tail wagging the dog now.
At least GURPS is still out there.
3.0 was my first experience, so I had no ill will toward WotC. It wasn’t until Hasbro took over that I got ticked. And yeah, 4.0 is utterly pointless for pen-and-paper purposes, in my opinion.
Also, not to get needlessly nitpicky or anything, but I don’t think you could actually be a thief/paladin/monk, could you? Unless that was a 3.5 change. ‘:)
2.0 was the best. Period.