Progression systems started out as an attempt to create balance in multiplayer games, and have slowly been corrupted into something that's almost the exact opposite. Take the early Halo games, 2 and 3 specifically. They gave you a rank based on how well you played in specific playlists so that as you got better, you played against people of a similar skill level. This kept competition, in theory at least, fair. No one who was on their 500th game would show up to crush someone on their first ever game. Halo 3 added an overall rank in addition that added another little goal to work towards outside of game type specific ranks. That was all well and good. It may not have been perfect, but it was way better than nothing. Then some people realized that, hey, people really like this system of ranking up by playing. I bet if we offered more things to achieve besides a rank and number they would keep playing our game even longer. This line of thinking was mostly a response to the supposed trade-in culture developers and publishers were so vocal about. Anyway, this led to things like Call of Duty putting guns and perks behind XP barriers. You haven't played 200 matches yet? Well, you can't use this gun you like then, or get this perk that gives you more health. This was certainly a step in the wrong direction, but was still somewhat mitigated by the ranking system keeping the playing field somewhat even. It only got worse from there, though. I know it's basically the poster child for the worst multiplayer progression system, among other things, at this point, but I've got to point to Battlefront II as the ultimate corruption of this idea. Not only do people who play more than others get more powerful weapons and upgrades, but they don't even have to play to get that advantage if they just want to throw money at the game.
Okay, so balance was definitely thrown off by this progression system even at it's best. However, that wasn't even the worst reward system in terms of creating an uneven playing field. Something that became quite popular among the FPS genre is the idea of 'kill streaks' where the more people you kill without dying, essentially the better you do, powerful abilities unlock for you to use. I can see the logic in implementing this system. People like to be rewarded for doing well, obviously, but rewarding that one person for doing well is also punishing everyone else for doing poorly. I think it goes without saying that people aren't to fond of losing, only to then be put at a disadvantage because they're already losing. It would be like a hockey team getting an extra player once they were three goals up on the opponent, or their net was made smaller. Games like COD did try and alleviate this problem a little, but not by reducing or removing the advantage the better players got, but by adding "death streaks" where you get some different bonus, usually not as good, after dying so many times in a row. Now I'm no hard core COD player, in fact I haven't really played one much at all since 4, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard that system never really got fixed.
Jumping to another genre, let's look at fighting games. This is perhaps the most directly competitive form of gaming there is, with one on one fights that follow very specific rules. Granted there's a lot to be said about balance regarding characters, but that's for people way more knowledgeable about those things than me. I do think I can comment a little on some of the systems in use, however. Specifically the 'revenge' and 'meter' systems. The revenge system works as the name implies: the more damage you take, the more the meter fills. Once it reaches a certain threshold, you can unleash a special attack that can't be performed without that meter. This is meant to give players who are losing a chance to make a comeback since there's no retreat or way to recover health (usually) in fighting games. The normal meter fills by dealing damage and landing attacks, which can generally be used to power up other attacks or be saved for a separate special attack when fully stocked. This, naturally, rewards the player doing better, but not exclusively since the losing player is also building these meter, albeit at a slower rate. It is also worth noting that the "revenge" meter does not carry over between rounds, while any normal meter does. The most direct comparison found in some fighting games to things like kill streaks is the dizzy/ stun system, where after getting hit in rapid succession in a short time, a player becomes dizzy or stunned and unable to do anything. This allows the opponent, who was already demonstrating dominance by landing so many uncontested hits, a free shot to do whatever attack, combo, super move, or whatever else they want to the defenseless opponent; another perfect example of rewarding the winning player.
The question these systems bring up is whether or not they're fair or necessary. Personally, I think there's a few lines that could be drawn. First, and least controversial, is that no one should be able to flat out buy an advantage in a game. Obvious, right? As far as progression systems unlocking new items, abilities, weapons, ect. goes, I think they should go as well. To me, that carrot on a stick of constantly chasing a new thing to unlock is unhealthy and unbalances the game. However, I have seen people flat out say they would not buy/ play a game without any unlock system to keep them engaged. As if, you know, the fun of playing a game no longer came from just playing it? At some point the reward for playing a game switched from an intrinsic feeling of just being good, having a good time with the mechanics, to the extrinsic reward of a new thing the game will give me once I fill this meter up. For some things I don't mind this, like costumes or other flavor content that doesn't impact the actual competition (bear in mind I'm speaking exclusively about unlock-able content not anything loot box related, either free or paid in this case).
I guess the big question, or one of them, behind this entire aimless ramble is how we should reward people for doing well, encourage those doing poorly, but without either system affecting game balance. To be honest, I don't think there's any system needed during the course of play. A person on the losing end of a game can make a comeback without an crutch, and a person winning shouldn't be given even more tools to ensure success. In fact, it can feel pandering to be given an advantage when down, and be an aggravating way to lose a game an opponent would've otherwise won. Comebacks are great, and the desire to make as many matches close, nail-biting affairs is commendable on the surface, but these systems are not the way to go about it. Let skill and determination be the deciding factors. If the playing field is balanced, then someone who is down should have just as much opportunity to make a comeback using the same tools their opponent gained their lead with. There is one possibility I haven't mentioned yet, but mainly because I doubt it is often relevant or even worth much acknowledgement since it all boils down to maintaining imbalance, and that is how "kill streak" type systems could be beneficial as a comeback mechanic when a losing player begins mounting a comeback and is given an edge to further close the gap. Again, I don't think this should be necessary, but that's just me. How do you feel when you're on the losing end of a multiplayer game only to see the opponent(s) get more powerful? What about when the roles are reversed? Is winning by skill alone more satisfying, or should it be a race to see who can roll their snowball downhill first? And then there's the same questions about advantages for losing players. Speak your minds, I'm very curious to hear opinions on this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment