Really depends. Exp points range from a mere UI feature for skill progress (you’ve picked a lock you’re this much closer to getting better at picking locks), over fungible skill progress (you’ve picked 100 locks so you get stronger and can spend a skill point on archery), to pay2win madness.
Structurally exp points come into play each time any progression in a game is not immediate – “defeat the guardian at the gate, now you can go through the gate” has a 1:1 relationship between things-you-do to more-access-to-things, if you have to collect ten fox skins to gift to the guardian to let you through that’s a 10:1 relationship. Doesn’t sound like exp but in the raw game mechanics those things are isomorphic.
…to bring that later point a bit into perspective: Imagine a card game where you have five stacks of ten cards. You draw cards from the first stack (not just the top card) until you get a certain card that’s guaranteed to be in there (say the ace of spades), once you have it you can continue to draw from that stack, or move on to the second stack. Once you’ve drawn the special card from the last stack the game is presumed over though you’re free to both draw from any stack that still has cards on it, as well as sit around on the table doing nothing.
Doesn’t sound like a game? Uninteresting? It depends: It’s the mechanics of your usual walking simulator and they can tell very good stories. It’s progression by (semi-)random n:1 actions. If the environmental storytelling is good, if the setting is engaging, if the mystery is enticing, then time will pass like nothing. If you’re doing it with actual cards yes it’s pure grind.
tl;dr: It’s (modulo pay2win bullshit) not about the raw game mechanics, but how they’re dressed up, that make things grindy or not.
There are lots of other ways for progression instead of inflicting more damage because of some numbers.
I think of:
Just getting better at jumping/slashing/tactics
Having limited gear that you have to switch out or improve throughout the story
Gaining new abilities or allies
And just that if you keep “improving” and inflicting more damage and have higher defense, at the same time the opponents become stronger, it would have been the exact same difficulty level if the numbers just stayed the same.
And just that if you keep “improving” and inflicting more damage and have higher defense, at the same time the opponents become stronger, it would have been the exact same difficulty level if the numbers just stayed the same.
There’s two main aspects to this:
You want the difficulty curve for the PC to be steeper than for the player for well balanced gameplay, if it’s the other way around or stays completely flat things tend to get sluggish and/or boring fast. That is, while the PC character goes from nobody to world-saving superhero legend the player only needs to have a modicum of skill increase to get an erm sense of pride and accomplishment. You can challenge player skill by giving them more to handle when it comes to controlling the PC, say that extra move a skillpoint unlocked now needs additional timing and tactics, to use it properly the player, not the PC, will have to learn that skill, too.
Then, levelling up PC power also provides a check on what regions the player can (sanely) access giving a natural way to unlock regions over time, prompting players not to run everywhere but stay in a region for a while, explore, see things, etc, without feeling boxed in by “find key to unlock door” tropes. That way you can have an open world and still write a (mostly) linear story, in principle even without having a main quest. Of course, don’t auto-level enemies then. If enemies would be trivial at the PC’s power level rather make them run away.
That player skill progression doesn’t work if the optimal gameplay in each and every situation no matter what character you start out as, over the whole game, is to play a stealth archer, looking at you Skyrim. Meaning that it’s important to triple and quadruple-check whether your design allows players to optimise the fun out of the game which they will invariably do if given the chance. That btw is why killing things in Witcher 3 gives so little XP: If you want to grind XP the most efficient way is to do side quests, those dastardly game designers really trick you into playing the game, how devious :)
Usually you should have an experience in mind and bullet-proof your mechanics to provide that experience. Or at the very least be aware of what kinds of experience can be cheesed out of mechanics that you brainstorm. Whether you discover an experience you want to convey from mechanics you come up with or you craft mechanics to elicit a particular experience: Ultimately a game isn’t about the mechanics, they’re a tool to direct player behaviour and with that player experience.
If you cannot complete a task cause you aren’t strong enough, you have to either grind for exp or get better gear by collecting pointless objects and doing the list based crafting.
These things have nothing to do with any story progression and just suck up time and that’s the point of the meme. You can perfectly design a game that uses less lazy ways of giving players a rewarding feeling that don’t hold off the story line or take loads of time.
There is nothing wrong with gamers that want to have this, it’s that every game that goes this route is not for a lot of casual games so it’s not nice that almost every rpg goes this route.
Why I’m dragging pay to win into this, I don’t know. Frustration with current generation games probably 😆 Also that they want you to spend lots of time in the game so you would spend more money in it, while I want to just play 1-2 hours and have a nice experience and story.
Doesn’t experience points based progress imply grinding?
There are more ways to have progression and I agree that exp points is a lazy (or pay2win) solution.
Really depends. Exp points range from a mere UI feature for skill progress (you’ve picked a lock you’re this much closer to getting better at picking locks), over fungible skill progress (you’ve picked 100 locks so you get stronger and can spend a skill point on archery), to pay2win madness.
Structurally exp points come into play each time any progression in a game is not immediate – “defeat the guardian at the gate, now you can go through the gate” has a 1:1 relationship between things-you-do to more-access-to-things, if you have to collect ten fox skins to gift to the guardian to let you through that’s a 10:1 relationship. Doesn’t sound like exp but in the raw game mechanics those things are isomorphic.
…to bring that later point a bit into perspective: Imagine a card game where you have five stacks of ten cards. You draw cards from the first stack (not just the top card) until you get a certain card that’s guaranteed to be in there (say the ace of spades), once you have it you can continue to draw from that stack, or move on to the second stack. Once you’ve drawn the special card from the last stack the game is presumed over though you’re free to both draw from any stack that still has cards on it, as well as sit around on the table doing nothing.
Doesn’t sound like a game? Uninteresting? It depends: It’s the mechanics of your usual walking simulator and they can tell very good stories. It’s progression by (semi-)random n:1 actions. If the environmental storytelling is good, if the setting is engaging, if the mystery is enticing, then time will pass like nothing. If you’re doing it with actual cards yes it’s pure grind.
tl;dr: It’s (modulo pay2win bullshit) not about the raw game mechanics, but how they’re dressed up, that make things grindy or not.
There are lots of other ways for progression instead of inflicting more damage because of some numbers.
I think of:
Just getting better at jumping/slashing/tactics
Having limited gear that you have to switch out or improve throughout the story
Gaining new abilities or allies
And just that if you keep “improving” and inflicting more damage and have higher defense, at the same time the opponents become stronger, it would have been the exact same difficulty level if the numbers just stayed the same.
There’s two main aspects to this:
You want the difficulty curve for the PC to be steeper than for the player for well balanced gameplay, if it’s the other way around or stays completely flat things tend to get sluggish and/or boring fast. That is, while the PC character goes from nobody to world-saving superhero legend the player only needs to have a modicum of skill increase to get an erm sense of pride and accomplishment. You can challenge player skill by giving them more to handle when it comes to controlling the PC, say that extra move a skillpoint unlocked now needs additional timing and tactics, to use it properly the player, not the PC, will have to learn that skill, too.
Then, levelling up PC power also provides a check on what regions the player can (sanely) access giving a natural way to unlock regions over time, prompting players not to run everywhere but stay in a region for a while, explore, see things, etc, without feeling boxed in by “find key to unlock door” tropes. That way you can have an open world and still write a (mostly) linear story, in principle even without having a main quest. Of course, don’t auto-level enemies then. If enemies would be trivial at the PC’s power level rather make them run away.
That player skill progression doesn’t work if the optimal gameplay in each and every situation no matter what character you start out as, over the whole game, is to play a stealth archer, looking at you Skyrim. Meaning that it’s important to triple and quadruple-check whether your design allows players to optimise the fun out of the game which they will invariably do if given the chance. That btw is why killing things in Witcher 3 gives so little XP: If you want to grind XP the most efficient way is to do side quests, those dastardly game designers really trick you into playing the game, how devious :)
Usually you should have an experience in mind and bullet-proof your mechanics to provide that experience. Or at the very least be aware of what kinds of experience can be cheesed out of mechanics that you brainstorm. Whether you discover an experience you want to convey from mechanics you come up with or you craft mechanics to elicit a particular experience: Ultimately a game isn’t about the mechanics, they’re a tool to direct player behaviour and with that player experience.
It implies a reward for work, which is a basic model all games use for basically everything you do.
How is it pay 2 win if you’re not paying anything?
[edit] Okay, you said “or” xD Yeah, I’m sure Call of Duty would sell it to you.
If you cannot complete a task cause you aren’t strong enough, you have to either grind for exp or get better gear by collecting pointless objects and doing the list based crafting.
These things have nothing to do with any story progression and just suck up time and that’s the point of the meme. You can perfectly design a game that uses less lazy ways of giving players a rewarding feeling that don’t hold off the story line or take loads of time.
There is nothing wrong with gamers that want to have this, it’s that every game that goes this route is not for a lot of casual games so it’s not nice that almost every rpg goes this route.
Why I’m dragging pay to win into this, I don’t know. Frustration with current generation games probably 😆 Also that they want you to spend lots of time in the game so you would spend more money in it, while I want to just play 1-2 hours and have a nice experience and story.