EDIT: to be clear, I either like or love all of these games, and many other RPGs. Look at my avatar. This post is not about banning Final Fantasy - it's about a small change to it's game design that I think would make the game much more rewarding. And it's tongue-in-cheek! My apologies to those I've offended; in all likelihood, we like the same games : )
I know I sound crazy, but hear me out.
I have nothing against RPGs. I have played and loved many different RPGs over the course my life. Some of my best friends are RPGs.
However, for every RPG i have played over the course of my life, I have liked it not *because* it was an RPG, but *despite* it being an RPG. I love the stories, characters, art direction, exploration, meaningful choices, customization, and combat systems that games in the genre offer. I love the sense of exploring a living, breathing foreign world, with its own history, rules, and personalities.
But in order to experience all those elements, I have to tolerate the boredom and the ludonarrative dissonance that comes with the awful idea that there will be certain enemies I cannot defeat, not because my reflexes aren't sharp enough, nor because my battle strategy is substandard, but because my *level* is not high enough. There's nothing more disappointing, more immersion-breaking, than being faced with an enemy that's level 20, and you *know* you're skilled enough to beat it or at least try, but you can't just yet because you're level 10, so the game requires you to mindlessly defeat dozens of random enemies for minutes (or hours) so you can raise your level and face your enemy.
Is this fun? No. Does it teach the player anything? Also no, in the vast majority of the cases you are not really honing your skills (strategic prowess for turn-based RPGs and dexterity for action RPGs) while leveling up. Does it make sense in-universe? Absolutely not. This tiny rabbit shouldn't ever be more difficult to defeat than that huge dragon, but because of the way games lay out their progression, it frequently ends up being the case that the rabbit might be level 40 so it's much more difficult to defeat than that level 20 dragon you defeated in a boss battle a few hours ago.
Levels are a crutch. They are bad game design. They don't add fun to the game, they are not a test of player skill, and they never make sense in-universe. Yet, so many of the greatest games of today and yesterday insist on basing themselves completely around the idea of defeating enemies, with no challenge, to increase your stats before you can face other enemies. This needs to stop. We need to ban leveling up from games. Let's free RPGs, which are some of the greatest games ever, to become even better by freeing them of the experience points to level up paradigm.
Let's talk examples. The Witcher III. Great video game, one of people's favorite games of this decade. A lot of people criticize the combat in this game – I am one of them – but there's a lot of interesting ideas and a lot of depth. Battles in The Witcher III can be dramatically easier or more difficult depending on the player's choices, both before the battle (what skills you choose, what equipment you wear, what potions and oils you have concocted) and during it (when to use which sign, which potion, when to attack). There's a lot of skill involved in the combat system, and it seems clear to me you could make enemies easier or more difficult to defeat without relying on levels. Would this game be better or worse without levels? Why are random bandits in Skellige impossible to defeat compared to random bandits in Velen? Because I'm "only level 5"? What does that even mean?
Let's look at another much beloved video game, Dark Souls. Dark Souls is much celebrated for its interconnected world, and non-linearity, and rightly so. It feels like a very cohesive world to explore, and it is great that you're allowed to go to areas you're not yet supposed to visit. However, the supposed non-linearity is a little bit of smoke and mirrors. Yes, you can go to the Graveyard when you get to Firelink Shrine, and you can even get a very powerful sword there, but you will struggle to defeat the enemies in that direction if you choose to go there that early as opposed to later in the game. Now, Dark Souls is famous for being tough as nails, so someone might be thinking "git gud". However, there's no "gittin gud" here; the challenge isn't that your reflexes aren't sharp enough to deal with these enemies, but just that you deal too little damage, they have too much HP, and you can't use your very powerful sword because you need to get to a higher level by defeating other random monsters that are on the critical path before the game will allow you to wield your sword. The Taurus Demon may look much more intimidating, but it's actually this random skeleton has almost as much HP and deals almost as much damage as a boss that's 10 times it's size. A beautifully designed world, once again tarnished by the cursed inheritance we've received from Dungeons and Dragons.
EDIT: many people have mentioned you can beat Dark Souls at level 1. I think that's great and more games should be like that. The smaller the difference between level 1 and level 40, the better.
Finally, a classic and one of my favorite games ever, Xenoblade Chronicles. I beat it last night; there are many different builds for each character, and many different combinations of characters to form your party. The game is deep, offers a lot of choice both outside and during battle, and it also requires you to be quick on your feet to make the right decisions at the right time. the final boss battle was great, one of the most epic confrontations I've seen in a video game. I am not going to spoil it here. But it was slightly disappointing for me, because it was actually quite a bit easier than some of the earlier boss battles in the game. It wasn't easier because it required less strategy – on the contrary, the boss had a wide gamut of options at their disposal, and it brought together many different skills from many different enemies from throughout the game. No, it was easier because I was maybe two levels above the "recommended' level, whereas for some of the other bosses I had been two levels behind. Meanwhile, before trying the final boss, who's the *most powerful entity in this universe*, I tried exploring a cave that opened up in the game, but I had to turn away and run immediately, because there were bunnies and bats inside the cave that looked identical to the ones I came across when I started playing this game, except they weren't the same. No, you see, Mr. Rabbit here is *level 90* (not to be confused with his level 10 brother Mr. Drabbit, that's an early game enemy; they look similar but you'll notice the palette swap) so he's much more powerful than that final boss you hear about. There's no way in hell you're strong enough to defeat level 90 Mr. Rabbit if you don't defeat at least 100 level 85 Mr. Nabbits first in order to get stronger.
Hey devs, here's an idea for your RPG you're developing right now. Ditch levels. It's pretty easy, set every player character and enemy to an arbitrary level (say 20), and try balancing your game around that. If you have a turn-based system, or a slower form of combat, you can require more strategy for enemies that are supposed to be more difficult, and less strategy for those that should be easier. If you are developing an action RPG, it's going to be all about tuning the reaction time and the precision each enemy will require of the player. It will require some work to re-balance the game, but perhaps not as much as you think. On the other hand, you will have the opportunity to elevate your game beyond every other RPG out there, and once people try it out, I don't think they will ever want to go back to what things were like before. You could be to RPGs what Mario 64 was to 3D platformers, what Resident Evil 4 was for third-person shooters: a watershed moment.
Abolish levels. For now, I'm going to play The Last of Us part II, feeling happy that whether at the very first enemy or at the final boss, my knife will do the exact same amount of damage – it's all riding on my skill, which is exactly what games should be about. Skill, not leveling up.
I know I sound crazy, but hear me out.
I have nothing against RPGs. I have played and loved many different RPGs over the course my life. Some of my best friends are RPGs.
However, for every RPG i have played over the course of my life, I have liked it not *because* it was an RPG, but *despite* it being an RPG. I love the stories, characters, art direction, exploration, meaningful choices, customization, and combat systems that games in the genre offer. I love the sense of exploring a living, breathing foreign world, with its own history, rules, and personalities.
But in order to experience all those elements, I have to tolerate the boredom and the ludonarrative dissonance that comes with the awful idea that there will be certain enemies I cannot defeat, not because my reflexes aren't sharp enough, nor because my battle strategy is substandard, but because my *level* is not high enough. There's nothing more disappointing, more immersion-breaking, than being faced with an enemy that's level 20, and you *know* you're skilled enough to beat it or at least try, but you can't just yet because you're level 10, so the game requires you to mindlessly defeat dozens of random enemies for minutes (or hours) so you can raise your level and face your enemy.
Is this fun? No. Does it teach the player anything? Also no, in the vast majority of the cases you are not really honing your skills (strategic prowess for turn-based RPGs and dexterity for action RPGs) while leveling up. Does it make sense in-universe? Absolutely not. This tiny rabbit shouldn't ever be more difficult to defeat than that huge dragon, but because of the way games lay out their progression, it frequently ends up being the case that the rabbit might be level 40 so it's much more difficult to defeat than that level 20 dragon you defeated in a boss battle a few hours ago.
Levels are a crutch. They are bad game design. They don't add fun to the game, they are not a test of player skill, and they never make sense in-universe. Yet, so many of the greatest games of today and yesterday insist on basing themselves completely around the idea of defeating enemies, with no challenge, to increase your stats before you can face other enemies. This needs to stop. We need to ban leveling up from games. Let's free RPGs, which are some of the greatest games ever, to become even better by freeing them of the experience points to level up paradigm.
Let's talk examples. The Witcher III. Great video game, one of people's favorite games of this decade. A lot of people criticize the combat in this game – I am one of them – but there's a lot of interesting ideas and a lot of depth. Battles in The Witcher III can be dramatically easier or more difficult depending on the player's choices, both before the battle (what skills you choose, what equipment you wear, what potions and oils you have concocted) and during it (when to use which sign, which potion, when to attack). There's a lot of skill involved in the combat system, and it seems clear to me you could make enemies easier or more difficult to defeat without relying on levels. Would this game be better or worse without levels? Why are random bandits in Skellige impossible to defeat compared to random bandits in Velen? Because I'm "only level 5"? What does that even mean?
Let's look at another much beloved video game, Dark Souls. Dark Souls is much celebrated for its interconnected world, and non-linearity, and rightly so. It feels like a very cohesive world to explore, and it is great that you're allowed to go to areas you're not yet supposed to visit. However, the supposed non-linearity is a little bit of smoke and mirrors. Yes, you can go to the Graveyard when you get to Firelink Shrine, and you can even get a very powerful sword there, but you will struggle to defeat the enemies in that direction if you choose to go there that early as opposed to later in the game. Now, Dark Souls is famous for being tough as nails, so someone might be thinking "git gud". However, there's no "gittin gud" here; the challenge isn't that your reflexes aren't sharp enough to deal with these enemies, but just that you deal too little damage, they have too much HP, and you can't use your very powerful sword because you need to get to a higher level by defeating other random monsters that are on the critical path before the game will allow you to wield your sword. The Taurus Demon may look much more intimidating, but it's actually this random skeleton has almost as much HP and deals almost as much damage as a boss that's 10 times it's size. A beautifully designed world, once again tarnished by the cursed inheritance we've received from Dungeons and Dragons.
EDIT: many people have mentioned you can beat Dark Souls at level 1. I think that's great and more games should be like that. The smaller the difference between level 1 and level 40, the better.
Finally, a classic and one of my favorite games ever, Xenoblade Chronicles. I beat it last night; there are many different builds for each character, and many different combinations of characters to form your party. The game is deep, offers a lot of choice both outside and during battle, and it also requires you to be quick on your feet to make the right decisions at the right time. the final boss battle was great, one of the most epic confrontations I've seen in a video game. I am not going to spoil it here. But it was slightly disappointing for me, because it was actually quite a bit easier than some of the earlier boss battles in the game. It wasn't easier because it required less strategy – on the contrary, the boss had a wide gamut of options at their disposal, and it brought together many different skills from many different enemies from throughout the game. No, it was easier because I was maybe two levels above the "recommended' level, whereas for some of the other bosses I had been two levels behind. Meanwhile, before trying the final boss, who's the *most powerful entity in this universe*, I tried exploring a cave that opened up in the game, but I had to turn away and run immediately, because there were bunnies and bats inside the cave that looked identical to the ones I came across when I started playing this game, except they weren't the same. No, you see, Mr. Rabbit here is *level 90* (not to be confused with his level 10 brother Mr. Drabbit, that's an early game enemy; they look similar but you'll notice the palette swap) so he's much more powerful than that final boss you hear about. There's no way in hell you're strong enough to defeat level 90 Mr. Rabbit if you don't defeat at least 100 level 85 Mr. Nabbits first in order to get stronger.
Hey devs, here's an idea for your RPG you're developing right now. Ditch levels. It's pretty easy, set every player character and enemy to an arbitrary level (say 20), and try balancing your game around that. If you have a turn-based system, or a slower form of combat, you can require more strategy for enemies that are supposed to be more difficult, and less strategy for those that should be easier. If you are developing an action RPG, it's going to be all about tuning the reaction time and the precision each enemy will require of the player. It will require some work to re-balance the game, but perhaps not as much as you think. On the other hand, you will have the opportunity to elevate your game beyond every other RPG out there, and once people try it out, I don't think they will ever want to go back to what things were like before. You could be to RPGs what Mario 64 was to 3D platformers, what Resident Evil 4 was for third-person shooters: a watershed moment.
Abolish levels. For now, I'm going to play The Last of Us part II, feeling happy that whether at the very first enemy or at the final boss, my knife will do the exact same amount of damage – it's all riding on my skill, which is exactly what games should be about. Skill, not leveling up.
Last edited:
