I'm of the reverse opinion. I prefer it when games offer continuous stat growth, rather than having stat growth divided into discrete levels. (One of the reasons I love the SaGa series.)

Then again, something like SaGa 2's robots (in a turn-based RPG) also works for me. (For those who haven't played it, Robots in SaGa 2 get all their stats (including HP) from equipment. Furthermore, to add more customizability, a Robot can equip any 7 items, even if that means, for example, wearing multiple suits of armor at the same time.)

As for leveled games, I'm more used to the Dragon Quest standard where level 40 (or slightly lower) is the typical end-game level. (In DQ3, the first game in the series to do this, the final spells are learned in the low 40s, and XP requirements stop increasing after level 45. Also worth noting that stat growth past level 45 tends to be rather slow.)

I could also state one other opinion: In (turn-based) RPGs, experience based levels are an outdated mechanic. Reminds me of another one:
* Final Fantasy 8 would be better without XP-based leveling. Make it so that junctioning is the primary (only?) way to boost your stats (including HP), and balance enemy strength with the spell junctions a typical player is expected to have access to at that point in the game. (This, by the way, would remove level scaling, which is a common complaint that game shares with Oblivion.) Not every game needs to be a multi-hour affair where the need to save progress is important. There should be more 30 minute or less games, and I would like to see things like RPG-style growth systems in such games.

Also, regarding story, I prefer no story to a good story, especially in RPGs. Sometimes, it's nice and relaxing to load up an RPG, wander around in circles, killing enemies while paying attention to resources, and watching numbers increase.

It's one of the reasons I sometimes like to replay the original Dragon Warrior. (It also helps that the game constantly shows your XP and GP during battle, unlike later games in the series and remakes of the first game.)

Cheating and so on can indeed make a game better. But it also can make them worse. It's best to temper things and understand what and why you're cheating. As for mastery, many people (I used to, when I had time...) go for mastery in games, and then cheat to set up novel or interesting scenarios to enjoy them even more. But it is true that cheating can reduce enjoyment of a game too if you do too much too early.

Stardew Valley, for instance, the most basic of "cheats" is looking things up in the wiki/guide [even though the game itself is REALLY good about giving lots of hints to pretty much everything]. When people ask, I encourage them to finish their own first play through (2 years in game time) without looking ANYTHING up, then do another 2 years (same game, or preferably a new one) looking up only reference pages that you could easily get in game to save time (like the store catalogs, so you can crunch numbers for what you want to do). And only then open yourself to "anything goes" in the reference material. Too early wide open looking things up really stresses some people, and does definitely ruin some people's enjoyment of the game entirely when they realize certain things. It's also a game where discovery is one of its main pleasure sources. Cheating can break that. But lots of people hate the fishing mini-game and install cheats to go around it; they can't enjoy the game at all without it. (Later the dev added an in-game cheat-like for that that is a half way. Sort of a fishing trainer, but only lets you catch the easiest fish easily while leveling it up so you then catch the normal fish once you've leveled it up a lot.)

Then there are builder games... "Sandbox Mode" is standard in most now. They used to be just available by cheating. But enough people like just to build without scenarios or unlocking trees, etc, that it's a standard feature now. But people who were playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 1 with a trainer and/or sandbox mode save game were playing a very different game than I was going through scenarios and managing money. But we were both having fun.

(But I also likely stuck with the game longer than the cheaters did, who more often burned out sooner and moved on... and that's the #1 problem with early cheat use: you 'burn through' a game faster in most cases... which can be a problem if you have a limited library of options to go on to after.)

FF8 would be much less bad of a game if levels were entirely removed, for sure. It needs a lot more work to turn it into a good game, but removing the level-up trap would help.

If you're in the mood to run in circles and defeat monsters for the hell of it, certainly have fun. But having a 'you are too low of level, go kill monsters for 10 levels and come back' is an annoyance.

Hmmm... though for some RPGMV Maker games, i made a 10x gold/exp booster to kill said grind in those games.

And in other emulated games hacks and codes to increase XP is nice. Had a nice fun play where i got 3000xp per kill in Chrono trigger. No grinding, not too fast of growth and got through the story with few struggles. A 8x-16x multiplier for FF12 was also nice.

Loot is dumb in RPGs. They should all have a handful of common weapons and then some uniques that are hard to earn or find, and that's it. No endless randomly generated swords that are slightly better from chests and shit.

Character progress and general progress in an RPG mainly by getting XPs from combat is a lame and lazy fossil of a concept from the past that lacks imagination.

How about a worst of both worlds approach, where there's only 5 tiers of each of a weapon, but each can have a greater & lesser enchantment applied to them which can range from completely worthless (Mastery in a skill your character literally cannot have) to Godlike (Cast Chain Lightning on impact), so you have to painstakingly compare each new blade or gun to compare against the other?
Alright, so what does your youthful imagination suggest as the replacement?

I dunno, can you come up with a single thing you can do to advance yourself besides beating a 16798 wolves?

I love how the first Witcher handled it. You can basically finish the whole game with your starting equipment, because witcher swords are already among some of the best weapons you could have in this world. You can forge a a sword of metorite metal, which is a quest unto itself, and you can get one super-duper sword near the end. And if memory serves - that's about it. Because that's true to the books (and common sense). Geralt wasn't carrying around dozens of swords, swapping them all the damn time. I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't talking about games that "block" you, I was talking open world vs games that are a linear progression of separate levels, like Jedi Knight, Max Payne, Medal of Honor etc.


Beating 16799 wolves and a boar?

To explain: Early JRPGs and some CRPGs had no world/level barricades; instead you'd just wander into the wrong square and here's a T-Rex to wreck you while you're level 2.

Vomit inducing.
Anyway I misread the title of this thread; I thought it said "strongest" gaming option.

Forgot to comment earlier: I'm sure I've seen this phrase before, probably on tvtropes andor from you. But it's so appropriate. You know how I rather enjoy the generally panned FFX2, but that's in spite of its constant "guide dang it" parts. My primary post in this thread also makes it clear how much I hate "requires a guide" games.
(Yes a separate reply to you on the same prompt. You saw my other reply where I'm good with cheating in many ways. I wanted to take a different approach for this one.)

What about games that DO get you to that power play feeling? Bloodstained that I mentioned here totally goes nuclear with how powerful the main character gets through normal play, even without a ton of grinding. Tesla vs Lovecraft gets you so extremely powerful during later missions that you can't even see the screen to know what's going on in between all of your blasting. Lots of jRPGs quickly become tiresomely easy if you overlevel their content and become powerful like that (which is why many of them include 'megabosses' that far outclass the main game's bosses).

Do you still prefer cheating if a game has rather generous difficulty settings to going for easy?

I don't like tutorials.

In my opinion, playing a game is about discovery and exploration. Not necessarily map exploration, but, conceptual, mechanical and writing (story / lore) exploration. Sometimes game tutorials are invasive to the player, wasting precious time and probable fun through discovery, I think.

Some classic and recent games are masters in this matter. Letting the player actually play the game and experiment with the mechanics previously presented.

My top 5:
-A basic feature: Voices, (instead of considering them as a premium extra thing). No need to say subtitles mandatory!
-Another basic: Dubs/Translations, (instead of an act of compassion)
-Basic: All shmups, beat 'em ups and platformers being at -least- for 2 players co-op same PC, (lan/online as alternatives, not as replacements)
-Basic: Small HDD size. The extreme max limit: 10gb
-VG prices appreciating over time (the opposite of depreciate): The early adopters getting them cheap while the laggards, expensive.

All this personal opinions strange by the reason the vg industry trends go the other side... I share this -strange- opinions as well :)

[Wizardry 4 SPOILER follows] (but it's not a major spoiler and isn't a puzzle solution)

One nice example of a game giving that power play feeling is Wizardry 4. After you manage to escape the rather evil 10 floor dungeon, you can explore the town (same one that was a menu-based town in previous Wizardry games). This means that you can go into the training grounds and slaughter beginning adventuring parties with your team of greater demons and whatever other high-level monsters you summon. (And, of course, you have TILTOWAIT (Nuclear Blast) if you need it, which you clearly do not in these particular fights.)

Then again, the game still has enemies that can kill you even with all those greater demons and other powerful monsters you've summoned.

I wish there were more games like Wizardry 4 (though perhaps make them easier, as Wizardry 4 is maybe too difficult, not to mention not a game for someone unfamiliar with the series).

Have you played Unlimited SaGa?

One problem with voices is that they increase the size of the game.
Not all platformers work with mutliplayer.

I've watched some videos of Super Mario Maker 2 multiplayer, and there are some matches that end in disaster because the level was clearly not designed for multiplayer, and as a result it broke in some way, making the level either trivial or outright impossible. (One way to describe SMM2 multiplayer is that you're playing levels that were developed by amateurs, often without multiplayer in mind. This means you sometimes get excellent levels, but there's also unplayable garbage (the level has to be clearable in single-player to upload, but that doesn't guarantee it being playable in multi-player).)