Do people like skill systems where you can 'have everything'

[Stark]

I'm curious. Games like - say - Beth and Bioware games allow characters to eventually unlock everything. In MMOs or Diablo, this isn't possible and you need to have an actual build. In, say, Sacred 2, you can't pick all the boosts but you can have all the actual spells.

My friends were looking at the Borderlands skill trees, and you get enough points at max level to reach the end of two trees (of three) but only 45 points out of about 100 levels of ability.

What's your preference? Do you want late-game to be 'jack of all trades' with everything 'unlocked', or do you prefer having to make decisions and tradeoffs even at high level? How does this affect the early game choices? Poor tooltips made Sacred2 early choices almost impossible - so do 'limited' systems tend toward needing respec more?

[Vympel]

I like where you have to make tradeoffs. I don't prefer being mega-awesome at everything. However, if the choice exists, I of course aim for it (i.e. Fallout 3, by Level 30 you can have 100 in every skill and 10 in every SPECIAL stat if you map it out right, get the right perks re: skill books and skill points per level) because I'm a gamey bastard.

[Stark]

Well in F3 it doesn't even matter, because you'll have 100 in the only three skills that matter at level 13. I'm curious because my response to the Borderlands thing is 'oh dear, after DLC raises the level cap by 20 you'll have pretty much everything and everyone will be the same'. In Diablo-style games - multi especially - your build is what makes things interesting. If you get too many points at high level, it's boring, so I much prefer choices.

[Darth Raptor]

I really don't have much of a preference either way. Like Vympel, if the possibility exists, I will endeavor to be super-awesome at everything because I'm compulsive like that. However, I also really like playing as distinct classes or builds because it forces me to play in ways I probably wouldn't if I could do everything equally well.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I like both, honestly. It comes down to quality of implementation, rather than one system or the other, as well as the context the system is used in.

In EVE, you can 'get everything', but it works for the game's style and theme. Likewise, in Champions Online you're limited to only a fraction of the powers and bonuses available, and it also works.

I usually prefer to play jack-of-all-trades type characters, but most games don't really do well with that by. Most games require you to stack all of x bonus you can get your hands on, even if they technically allow you to branch out and get a little of everything.

[Stark]

The issue is 'late game'; even in late-game EVE you can't do everything (unless you've been playing for four years or whatever). For 99% of people it's build based. It's relevant that those games are multi - I think most nerds like the feeling of Real Ultimate Power of having some massively unbalanced character (exactly the same as eveyrone else's ) in a single player game which is focused on that character, but this works less well in a co-op multiplayer game.

[Oskuro]

It is a conflict for me. On one hand, I understand and support the notion of specialization, as it makes for more interesting challenges, somewhat better replay value, and encourages teamplay on multiplayer games.
On the other hand, I'm a bit compulsive about getting everything the game has to offer, so I have a hard time letting things go and settling for an incomplete build.

It always depends on the game, of course, and I think build systems are better for class-based games, like RPGs or multiplayer games, but if you're making a single player game, like say, a sandbox game, alloeing the player to unlock everything is a way to give completist players something to do once they finish the storyline, sort of like the 100% completion of so many games. It's just padding, but it can be fun padding for the right type of player.

[Stark]

Okay, let's filter. Does anyone like 'having everything' for reasons OTHER than nerd OCD? Actually, this is an interesting attitude - is the distinction between having to 'make' and 'effective' 'character' in MMOs etc, or 'getting' or 'unlocking' all the 'powers' as in most single player games? Most of those games are built from the ground up on the idea that you are x% of full power having unlocked various content, whereas MMOs etc are build on the idea that you can have ACCESS to everything, but must choose where to focus to be effective rather than this being a reward for exploration.

It's valid that 'adventure'-y games need specialisation less than multi-driven stuff, but again they're largely single player only.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I think that in games where it's intended that you play through it only once, I would prefer to "have it all" so I can try out what the game has to offer in the one playthrough. Divergent builds adds to replay value, but if you're likely to only play through once, it's more of wasted content than anything else. That said, I think I do prefer the ability to specialise, at least as an option. I know that I got annoyed in Castle Crashers every time I reached a cap on a skill and had to start focusing on other ones. And in, say, Diablo II, if I could have a character who could throw acid javelins and jump fifty feet onto a goblin and raise the dead and all that all at once, there's very little chance I would have played more than once or twice.

Moving from examples, I think that I prefer the idea of being able to pick a certain path and keep at it. Maybe it just makes me feel like a special snowflake or I like the "freedom" of choosing; I don't know. I'd prefer in games for both ways to be workable, but that's a cop-out answer and rather hard to balance in a game, too. So outside of the conditions I listed earlier, I think I'd prefer the specialisation over having everything.

[Stark]

That's a good point; SP games treat powers as 'unlocks' to allow you do see all the content but at a certain pace, whereas in multi games the content is really the replay anyway.

[General Zod]

I like being able to unlock things so I can try everything out. Then again in order for this to really work and not suck the game has to be designed around that and not just go "okay, here's your options, you can unlock this but you'll miss this sidequest, or you can unlock that but miss that sidequest, because we're giving you OPTIONS, and OPTIONS are good and not just a way of covering up the fact that we made poor balance choices". Most games I don't play through more than twice, if that, so unless it was good I'm probably not going to give it another run-through just to unlock stuff. (Unless it's easy and I don't have anything else to play of course, I'm looking at you FO3).

So what's my point? I guess I don't really have any preference either way but if it takes forever to unlock everything chances are I'll simply wind up losing interest.

[Molyneux]

I don't like games that impose a ceiling to abilities. It sucks that a character can only have, say, 200 skill points - and no matter what you do, once you hit that cap you do NOT get better at anything.

[Bounty]

I'd love a game where you actually have to specialize in a particular set of skills and that choice actually affects gameplay, but either I've been playing the wrong games or that doesn't really exist. Most games I can recall either make the choice irrelevant by making even the low-level skills useful, let you eventually level up anything, or clutter up the tree with useless abilities that you skip anyway so you end up maxing out anything you'd have actually used no matter what.

I'd love to have a game that actually forces you to make hard choices about which abilities to improve, and one that offers a game world that takes those abilities into account, but all too often you get a token choice at the start that's valid for like two hours before you have the equipment/other skills/whatever to make that initial choice purely aesthetic.

[weemadando]

I think the difference for me lies in what kind of skills we're talking about. If it's like Diablo where you can be an crazy fucking were-bear Druid or a passive buff Druid which are clearly deliniated skill trees - none of which end up giving you a "too bad, you chose the wrong skill path, game over" scenario, then that's fine. I actually like that especially from a multiplayer standpoint.

If it's something like Fallout or Deus Ex etc where you end up with a very narrow set of skills to choose from anyway - all of which are going to prove to be important, then I do like to be diverse and have high levels in everything. Especially as in most of these games you're on your lonesome and need to be able to do every fucking little thing by yourself anyhow.

[Stofsk]

I prefer a jack of all trades maybe combined with some kind of build but not dependent on one. It's better to have a system in place which doesn't punish a player for making the 'wrong' decision waaaaay back at the start of the game, like Diablo. Since there's no respec, one misspent skill point in Diablo is a waste. But Diablo is funny, because there are a wide variety of builds which allow you to focus on multiplayer or single player (some builds can solo Hell for instance, like a Berserker Barbarian, while some of the more powerful Sorceress builds are basically single-element builds which are extremely powerful, but are totally useless against monsters that happen to be immune to that element, which necessitates partying up to finish Hell), and if you know what you're doing you won't make a mistake. That said, Diablo is extraordinarily primitive (Titan Quest had respec, which makes a world of difference. I don't know what Sacred 2 is like though) albeit still fun to play.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I prefer games that force you to concentrate on a preferred build. I think it's more enjoyable to be able to say, "Yeah, I completed the game with such and such skills set and used in an interesting fashion" rather than, "Yeah, I maxed everything out and beat it the same way everyone else did."

On the other hand a few games, like the Shin Megami Tensei series, actually do max-skills-for-all right. The general storyline of the game can be completed by the time you're 2/3's your max available level, and taking the time to max out your skills during the storyline, rather than following a general build for each character, is rather boring. On the other hand, the only way to defeat the optional, high end bosses is to essentially max out everyone, so it does a decent job of satisfying both ends of the spectrum. In Digital Devil Saga you can defeat the final boss, Angel, at around level seventy or so with each character devoted to a specific, specialized build. But if you want to take on the optional Demifiend, you pretty much have to have everyone at ninety-nine with a maxed out, specialized skill set to even stand a chance.

[Stark]

Good call - I guess the element here is the actual skill trees. Games where you have to be right frm ge start need to end up at a uniform point to avoid cutting off content, but skill trees are about capabilities and not restriction.

So to rephrase, in Borderlands at max level you have enough points to buy half the skills at the same tme across all three trees abd they've already saud they want to increase the level cap.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

I was going to say that simply for SP I prefer a character that can do lots whereas for MP (coop) games I prefer a character that is specialised - because that leads to teamwork and "Oh god he's immune to fire, save me guys!" moments which are fun.

It depends on the types of skills the game offers though really. Some games offer things like lock-picking/hacking/talking which are irrelevant the vast majority of the time but will occasionally pop-up and grind the player's progress to a halt e.g. you spend 30 minutes cleaving through a dungeon only to get to the end and find a locked chest you cannot open. This is irritating for the player because it feels unfair. I don't even think this is some OCD gamer thing, because it annoys me and I'm not the kind of gamer that tries to complete all the side quests or find every XYZ and don't often even play through a game more than once.

I think the end result of having these "point sink" skills is developers need to give the player plenty of skill points so they actually can unlock these skills no matter what their "build", and the usual end product of this is that the player gets far more skill points than they reasonably need.

For example, by the end of my playthrough of Fallout 3 (just hitting level 20) I was just dumping new points I was getting into random skills because the only skills left were just different ways to accomplish things I could already do - for example taking points in small arms when I had already maxed out energy weapons.

By the way are these Borderlands skill trees kicking about online somewhere? I'd like to take a look if they are.

[Aaron]

Okay, let's filter. Does anyone like 'having everything' for reasons OTHER than nerd OCD? Actually, this is an interesting attitude - is the distinction between having to 'make' and 'effective' 'character' in MMOs etc, or 'getting' or 'unlocking' all the 'powers' as in most single player games? Most of those games are built from the ground up on the idea that you are x% of full power having unlocked various content, whereas MMOs etc are build on the idea that you can have ACCESS to everything, but must choose where to focus to be effective rather than this being a reward for exploration.

It's valid that 'adventure'-y games need specialisation less than multi-driven stuff, but again they're largely single player only.

I'm going to use Fallout 3 as an example, because it's the only one I really remember:

I only like "having everything" if I need to have a jack of trades, master of none to win the game. For a game like FO3 I can put all my points into Small Guns, Repair and Lockpick and get through he game just fine. The game gives you so many options on how to do things that you don't need to put points into other things (like Science) because theres always a work around if you can be arsed to find it.

Actually I can't think of a game that punished me for not putting points into a certain area, not a recent one anyways.

[ZGundam]

I like the fact that is no jack-of-all-trades available so that no matter what you choose, you can still beat almost any opponent.

It makes you think up new strategies depending on the skills you choose.

Being the best at everything takes all the fun out of it.

[Ghost Rider]

Final Fantasy and getting everything occured earlier then FF7, only thing was FF7 had more options to access versus just selecting one FF2 was one where you could get it all...if you were insane enough. FF4 was locked by more then even FF1 in classes, and FF3 was another since you could only access class you had known, but switching during the game.

And FF1 was just like most the RPGs of the day. You had 4-8 nameless yaboos, with specific classes in which you broke the game by either discovering items or grinding the ungodly heights and laugh.

I don't mind getting everything if they have some reason to be there. If not, then it's ego pandering grind to go "My characters can do XXXXXXXXXX damage, what can YOURS do?".

[General Zod]

Final Fantasy and getting everything occured earlier then FF7,

Sure. It was just a famous illustration of the concept.

FF4 was locked by more then even FF1 in classes,

That's not really making choices though, since the game made the class and party choices for you as you progressed. You just found new items and got more experience points to open up the pre-determined skills.

I'm not sure FF1 would be a really good example. Most of the abilities were totally useless, so you really didn't have a lot of choice in what classes to pick if you wanted to make any real progress to begin with.

[Ghost Rider]

For the ultimate silliness of FF1, and how broken items are tangent. People have finished the games with every class, and only one of those characters. So the choices in the end are irrelevant in that perspective.

[Zixinus]

Depends on how the game is structured: if its a linear game, then its just about figuring out which ones the developers favoured the most.

In less linear games, like Diablo, then I find that I can go any way I want to and I'll just end up in the same spot, while wondering whether the other end would have been more fun.

Personally, I prefer skill trees that are there solely to keep the difficulty curve on its merry little way. I hate it when I played trough a game with a certain skillset only to be left wondering whether the other skillsets would be fun: I hate it because I have yet to play a game that wanted me to play it trough again once I completed it (except Dark Messiah, but we all know how that won't happen).

[Vendetta]

This is one of the main things I really like about Final Fantasy 1: you can't have it all. You need to make a choice early on with your classes, then as the game progresses, you have to choose which spells and equipment you want to fill your slots - you have 3 spell slots per level, but 4-6 options for most of them.

There are few actual choices though. Black Mages are pointless because spell damage is not linked to anything, so their strong level up every level in Intelligence (a stat which the game never uses in any calculations) is totally wasted, White Mages are only useful for Life 2 and you're almost certainly better off with the extra melee damage and survivability of a red mage for both anyway. The only real choices are between Warriors, Black Belts, and Red Mages, and whether you want to carry about a Thief, the game's most useless class, for the chance to make him into a slightly rubbish warrior who can cast Fast later in the game.