Anyone Else Tired of Progression Systems

[skywalker0957]

As the title states, wondering if anyone else is tired or progression systems particularly in multiplayer games. Lately I have been playing fewer and fewer multiplayer games due to time and the amount of hours required to get anything out of them. I've pretty much come to just playing Insurgency Sandstorm as CoD and other shooters have just lost my interest entirely. One thing I enjoy in Insurgency is that all weapons and gadgets are just available from the start and what you can use is dependent on the class you pick rather than how much time you have put into it. I don't know if I'm just older now and my time is more limited but I really dislike games now where if I want to use X gun or something I have to dump a considerable amount of time to level up just to unlock it and on top of that no attachments are available either and have to take time to unlock. It seems like most multiplayer games (I know not all are like this but I just don't know of them) particularly shooters are all following the same unlock progression formula that is just annoying to me at this point. I bought the game I just want to play with the weapons I like without having to dump dozens or hundreds of hours into it just to get to play with what I paid for. What do you all think? Maybe there is better way to have progression and unlocks or maybe you enjoy that type of system?

[Erebus]

Not really. It gives you something to work towards. Much better than a system where everyone tries to camp weapon spawns.

[skywalker0957]

Making matters worse is they're very noticeably inhibiting the rate of progression to make the game feel grindier and try to push people towards microtransactions, especially certain companies I could mention.

This for sure, it feels like xp gain in many games is just to inflate play time. Even in games where you can't pay to skip the grind is inflated to say you are playing and being retained so it sounds nice in investor meetings. Its annoying and I dislike it.

[skywalker0957]

Good point you bring up here. Here's a link to a short article about social interaction in games, which you might find interesting:
https://onlinealchemy.wordpress.com/...-social-games/

A few highlights:

• Solitary play: just playing by yourself, ignoring others around you
• Onlooker play: noticing others around you, but not doing anything with them
• Parallel play: implicitly recognizing the play of others around you, doing some of the same things and playing in the same cognitive space, without overt social interaction. Think of two kids building sand castles near each other that resemble each other, even though they never said a word or joined together at all.
• Associative play: light social interaction with others nearby, but without involving play as a topic or structure
• Cooperative play: socially interacting and organizing using play as a structure on which to build these interactions. Note that this implicitly includes competitive play, as the social structures involved necessarily require in-group (our team) and out-group (the other team) interactions.

Generally most competitive MMOs are designed for cooperative play, but I think more and more these days we only see truly cooperative play from pro and hardcore players. As you get towards the more casual end of the scale, we slide backwards down the social ladder to parallel play (average), onlooker play (casual) and even solitary play (super casual).

With games becoming more mainstream, the percentage of casual players is increasing, leading to less social interaction.

Anyways....just an observation, I could be completely off the mark.

This is definitely very interesting in terms of the different stages or types of players there are. From my experience with CoD, Battlefield and more main stream online shooters is it often feels like the game is designed to be team oriented and require teamwork though most of the players a re simply playing solo and everyone else just happens to be with them. This is very telling in my experience with the past two Battlefield games(I played BF1, have not purchased 5) where the game wants you to work together but in no way do people work together on a consistent basis. Also the game is conflicted with its design with this too, i.e. in BF we need different roles to have your squad be effective but DICE decided that Scout (sniper) class will have some of the best killing and point potential which that role is more of a solo role. Hence most games you see 20+ players on one team as a scout. Or with tanks being workable by one player where as before 2 or 3 players were needed to be very effective. Its this strange idea that the game wants to be team based but the design inside of it doesn't reward or encourage it. Again this is my experience with it and often notice that "hardcore" games like Insurgency or Arma or stuff of that nature have more people geared to talking and filling roles as needed to win vs just doing whatever.

[skywalker0957]

I'm getting tired of the newer progression systems being implemented. Seriously, who thinks that after dropping $60 if not more in most cases (Gold/Deluxe editions etc.) there should be microtransactions to 'skip' things like earning a weapon or cosmetic. I hate being like "Back in the golden days of gaming..." but honestly we're going to see less and less of the progression systems of old, in lieu of things like 'battle pass' and 'pay $5 to skip to...' in upcoming games. One of my favorite progression systems was in Conker: Live and Reloaded, in multiplayer if you took the time to earn a medal, you unlocked a weapon or vehicle that others that didn't have couldn't use. Power ups were available in map to get access to some weapons that could be perma-unlocked with these medals, but other things were strictly locked behind this kind of progression system. Hell, even your online rank was something that showed that kind of effort that you put in. The final ranks were 'marshals', and depending on the classes that you favored it would show when you reached this final rank. Players who favored sky jockey, got the title Sky marshal, Assassins got the Stealth marshal and so on.

Thinking back on old progression like Modern Warfare, maybe I liked it so much because right out of the start you had the M4, M16, Ak47 (personal favorite), Mp5, M40A03 (personal favorite), etc right from like level 1 or got it at level 4. These are some of the best weapons in the game and also my personal favorites where as later unlocks are more niche and or provide a alteration to one of the starting weapons. LIke the Mp44 was a lvl 55 unlock and was mostly just cool and interesting rather than needed to succeed. Nowadays most of my favorite weapons or the viable ones are locked away though sheer grind and high level requirements and it feels like this is done so because devs know what people generally like and to keep people playing will lock it away. I just don't like feeling hindered anymore when playing a multiplayer game, I just want all the tools and make something that works for me.

[Ram'n]

So games are transforming into social media.
*shudders*

[MadMummy76]

I'm not your buddy, guy.

[Animusisters]

You decide if you want to progress or not, not the game.

[PriestTroit]

Never liked that myself since I hate having to decide on what guns or perks I want to buy and in what order. CoD Black Ops probably did it the best, but I'd much rather a linear path or one tied to challenges instead.

[PriestTroit]

So I take it that you play games "in character" all the time, then? Yeah, okay buddy.

[OldDragonSlayer]

I'm getting tired of the newer progression systems being implemented. Seriously, who thinks that after dropping $60 if not more in most cases (Gold/Deluxe editions etc.) there should be microtransactions to 'skip' things like earning a weapon or cosmetic. I hate being like "Back in the golden days of gaming..." but honestly we're going to see less and less of the progression systems of old, in lieu of things like 'battle pass' and 'pay $5 to skip to...' in upcoming games. One of my favorite progression systems was in Conker: Live and Reloaded, in multiplayer if you took the time to earn a medal, you unlocked a weapon or vehicle that others that didn't have couldn't use. Power ups were available in map to get access to some weapons that could be perma-unlocked with these medals, but other things were strictly locked behind this kind of progression system. Hell, even your online rank was something that showed that kind of effort that you put in. The final ranks were 'marshals', and depending on the classes that you favored it would show when you reached this final rank. Players who favored sky jockey, got the title Sky marshal, Assassins got the Stealth marshal and so on.

[Irritablesquid]

I don't mind them in single player games if done right, they can add something to the experience.
Sadly it's getting rarer now.

[MadMummy76]

Good point you bring up here. Here's a link to a short article about social interaction in games, which you might find interesting:
https://onlinealchemy.wordpress.com/...-social-games/

A few highlights:[LIST][*]Solitary play: just playing by yourself, ignoring others around you[*]Onlooker play: noticing others around you, but not doing anything with them

How the hell do you not notice others around you? I wish I could learn that magic trick. I'd rather not play MMOs, because I hate to share the game world.
There is always some idiot trying to talk or acting out of character. I can't deal with that, therefore I stick to single player games.
If I wanted to socialize I'd be in a chatroom or discord or whatever. Not in a videogame.

I'm definitely not a "casual" player, but I refuse anything but solitary play. As soon as I acknowledge other players the 4th wall is not just broken but comes down entirely.

[MetroidJunkie]

Making matters worse is they're very noticeably inhibiting the rate of progression to make the game feel grindier and try to push people towards microtransactions, especially certain companies I could mention.

[Smackems]

Nope. I need progression in games now or I lose interest quickly.

But maybe it'd be better if instead of unlocking things x levels down the line, everything is unlock able from the start and you just have to use an in game currency to do so.