Blast from the Past: Abstract vs. Non Abstract Levels
Welcome to Blast from the Past where i look at game design decisions from ye olden times and compare it to the games of today, and see what has changed. And no, this isn’t a “old games are automatically better” or “Man it sure is great how much more civilized we are now” series, quit fanboying
Ok so lets talk about a major difference in the early day of Bioware vs. the latter days of BIoware, Baldur’s Gate vs. Dragon Age. Specifically the Notion of Abstracted Levels vs. Non Abstracted Level.
Ok so a Level is something that we are familiar in most gaming, you’re character has an abstracted “Power Level” which is determined by you’re level. So if Lin and Fu are both characters in the same game, but Fu is level 4 while Lin was level 7, Lin is objectively more powerful. Leveling up is fun, you can slowly advance you’re self and bit by bit (The SOVIET MACHINE ADVANCES). And that is all fun. But there is sort of a question of how integrated into the world levels are, obviously its a gameplay convention but how seriously are we suppose to take them?
An Abstracted Level is basically a level a level that exists purely as a gameplay convention. So as an example, lets use Dragon Age:Inquisition
So when you start the game, you’re companion is Cassandra, one of the elite soldiers of the Church of the Maker, established early on to be one badass person, the impression given in the first game is that she is one of the toughest and legendary people in the world and now she is next to you kicking ass. And when she joins...she is Level One. And over the course you’re adventure, Cassandra the Dragonslayer goes from Level One to Level Twenty Seven through you’re adventures. It gets a little stranger when you take into account the presence of Varric, a character from Dragon Age 2. In that game you took Varric from Level 1 to at least level 20, and when he joins the party he is...Level 1
So we can presume that Level 1 in Inquisition is about equal to Level 20-25 in Dragon Age II, so the Level is just describing the epic level power level. After all you’re first three companions are Varric Hero of the last Game, Cassandra the champion of the Church, and no one of importance.
And then we meet Sera, and the whole thing kinda breaks down. Because Sera is basically just a local skilled rogue, clearly talented, but no where near on par with Cassandra or Varric. Except when she joins, the party, she is like level 4
So are we saying that Sera, a random street urchin is more powerful than all of the main characters of Dragon Age II and Cassandra at the start of the start of the game? That doesn’t make any sense...Like what, are the Red Jennies killing fucking dragons?
Except of course, it isn’t suppose too. Because these levels are thoroughly abstract. Why are Cassandra and Varric the same level which is Level 1? Because that is what is needed for game balance. Why does Sera join the party at about you’re level of XP? Because they want you’re companion to be roughly the same level as the rest of the party. The type of gameplay they are going for is to keep everybody at roughly the same level at all times. And this isn’t a bad thing, the suspension of disbelief is based upon the notion of everybody operating on the same power level. Cassandra at Level 1 vs. Level 27 isn’t really different in universe, it is just a mechanical quirk for the gameplay, as far as the story goes, Cassandra might not have even improved in skill over the course of the adventure (Solas certainly hasn’t). Varric at level 1 doesn’t really mean anything in relation to the world, he basically has a set power level that doesn’t alter over the course of the game.
(200 year old vampire elf and he starts the game at...level 2)
So for point of contrast, lets go look at Baldur’s Gate. In Baldur’s Gate, Level aren’t just “The rough power level of the party” it is far more interrelated into the world. A level 1 character in Baldur’s Gate is objectively by the standards of the world, a novice, easily killed. While a level 20 character is objectively extraordinarily powerful, this is reflected in the lore and the mechanics of the universe. One major difference is that levels don’t exist as soley for you’re characters. In Inquisition, you’re enemies are just sort of set creatures, a Red Templar just has a set of powers, health, and bonuses, they aren’t tied to a class necessarily. In contrast, the third boss in the game Davaeron, literally is a wizard, he is a level 11 wizard and you could hypothetically build a character to perfectly reflect him
If you are totally psychotic you could just wait for him to eventually run out of spells and he will start to attack you in melee, just like you’re own wizards (he seems to have unlimited teleportation though). The friendly mayor of the town of Nashkel, Berrun Ghastkill, is a level 6 elven Ranger, you could build a clone of him. And if you randomly decide to murder him (you monster) he will display the skills of that class. he even has the racial enemy of ogres, though he will almost never encounter one in game. Levels mean something in the world of Baldur’s Gate, they are a tangible in universe equation, even if nobody actually references them by word. If you encounter 2 different neutral NPCs of different level, they will react entirely differently.
So why are these games different? Well two major reasons. Firstly, Baldur’s Gate isn’t its own system, it is an adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons, and so it is taking an existing system and integrating it into a video game, so because of that, the system is actually a lot larger than it actually needs to be, like for serious, Baldur’s Gate is much larger mechanical set than is purely necessary. Most RPGs are built from the ground up with their own system, so they don’t need to represent this stuff in more detail.
The second reason is that is Baldur’s Gate is going for a totally different experience, one where there was a lot more mechanical story telling. Randomly killing people and taking their stuff was a totally valid play style that was quite rewarding, aimlessly wandering the land as a murder hobo was pat of the game itself. Dragon Age:Inquisition by contrast has a very centered story, one that is reliant upon arcs, a central constant narrative and far more banter, conversation, and a much more conventional form of storytelling which is mostly separate from the mechanics.
So, what approach is better? Well it depends, the Balder's Gate style opens up a lot of alternative approaches to story telling and I am always a fan of gameplay/story integration, but I don’t think Dragon Age could have had that style of game it was going for with the Baldur’s Gate’s Approach, it is just too much work for not enough pay off in that game. Remember, the Baldur’s Gate approach is a lot harder. So it depends on what you are going for, as always, there are no simple answers.
But yes this is an old school game choice I wish would come back.
