Throughout game design history, one very common discussion is the fabled one about character advancement design.

Typically, this discussion places people in one of several groups.

There are those who like levels, and those who dislike them.

There are those who like classes, and those who like more open-ended skill-based systems.

Now, game design has eventually figured out that levels, classes and skills aren't all that make a character. People place high value in cosmetics (banners, unique item looks, personal titles, ladder-ranks and similar) and that can be... exploited, when designing systems for a game. Character advancement is no longer restricted by in-game benefits, nor by benefits that relate strictly to the pwer of that character in combat. This becomes more obvious, as more options become available in games.

A comment by me to a previous blog post mentioned labels, and I find them to be fairly important in this case. I've taken part in a lot of discussions about the role of classes, the social aspects of being placed in a box as a class and as a gender ("Females are more likely to play healing classes", et cetera) and I've always come out with the same conclusion:

Boxes and labels exist whether you want them to or not; Whether you want to take control of them or not, only matters in the context of what makes a game more or less fun.

A great example of this, is Diablo. You could strip away all skill trees in Diablo, and simply add the following:

The Hammerdin
The Smitedin
The Firewall Sorceror
The Nova Sorceror
The Whirlwind Barbarian
The Trapasin
The corpse explosion necro
The zoo necro

et cetera, ad nausium.

Or you could become creative, and call them things like:

"Paladin", "Fire Mage", "Berzerker", "Trapper".

In essence, its all the exact same thing. However, had this been done in Diablo, it would've taken away the possibility for players to make bad choices and for players to discover these builds on their own. It also provides the very important illusion that the player is in control;

I garantee you with absolute certainty that at least 80% of the builds made in Diablo have already been charted and thought through by Blizzard; Perhaps more. Control is an illusion in games, in that sense. However, believing that you have the power to dabble and take your character 'where you want', adds a great deal to the longevity of games; Especially when doing things over requires you to play the game over again.

Lets look at another example: Clearly defined labels(Classes). Take class example nr.1: World of Warcraft.

World of Warcraft features 9 classes:

Druid, Mage, Paladin, Shaman, Warrior, Rogue, Warlock, Priest, Hunter.

Each class is unique in its design and approach to the job that the class was intended to perform, both on a solo- level, a group- level and a raid-level. They have 'variety' within their label based on talents, which a player may freely place (and for gold, redistribute if they so wish) in 3 skill trees unique to their class. This allows a player to perform within their label, but still deviate if need be.

In essence, World of Warcraft created 18 classes: The Player versus Enemy version of each class, and the Player versus Player version. The reality is slightly more complex, but the overall effect remains the same. There is a single reason why talent trees are completely irrelevant: The world can't bear it.

Had they created Feral Druids and Resto Druids, PvP Warlocks and low-threat Warlocks, Tanking Warriors and DPS Warriors, et cetera - The effect would've likely been close to the same. The idea of specializing a character is solid, but the basic foundation of the game rests solely on combat for advancement and thus is inherently restricted to combat; as luck would have it, there are two forms of combat: Player versus Player, and Player versus Enemy. As such, there is a single set of talent points which is unequivocally the most profitable for a single person to be using.

Again, the truth is not far from this - Experienced WoW players will argue that talent specs vary on raid-level, gear-level and similar; Yes, this is true. But they do so in a manner which linearly approaches the EXACT same selection of talent points.

Again, I come to the same conclusion: What choice was the user ACTUALLY afforded? In reality, the choice is simple: Do you want to be at a disadvantage (Place talent points wrong for your one of two playmodes), or be on-par with everyone else? (Place talent points correct for your one of two playmodes).

I'll follow this blog up when I have time, with some possible solutions as far as game models go. Until then, I'm curious how YOU feel;

What experience with online games have you had, and what worked and didn't work for you? Do you like class-based systems? Which one, and why was it fun? Do you like levels? Which game with levels did you like and why?

Cheers