wow. you say you still don't see the difference between the game deciding the level of your next enemy and you as the player choosing the level of your next target? well, then i have to reevaluate your attempt to spice up this thread as lame trolling. i'll leave you to your level scaling enhancement essays, hf.
Yeah, indeed.
Got it. So basically every CRPG in the top 50 except for some open world ones like Morrowind and the Fallouts are shit. Because all of them tie enemy difficulty to player level because you can't avoid to level up and the designers increase difficulty for later parts of the game obviously. In many cases (especially random encounters) not because it makes any kind of sense but because they know you are level X therefore the enemy has to be approximately level X too.
And what would that reason be exactly? Besides being entertaining escapist stuff.
I cant believe you are this dumb, but ill play along. As the story progresses its normal for the player to face bigger and bigger challenges, until it reaches a climax, its just story telling, the world is not accomodating the player, more like the characters experiences allow them to face new challenges as they present themselves.
And what would that reason be exactly?[/QUOTE]
Why the fuck do you explain this obvious stuff to me? And where did I write that I want levelscaled games only. Heck, I don't even need that mechanic except maybe for broken shit like Morrowind.
Dunno, mang. The eternal enigma of role playing games. They are pointless, but still much too addictive to stop playing.
No level scaling and fixed loot was the single best thing from morrowind.
We are not discussing linear games here.
Yeah, and its shit when it happens, good games will give you a list of reasons as to why these late games thugs are so good.
Its both, taking on elite bandits on baldurs gate, or even that adventuring party of mercs made you feel like a threat to the iron throne, to the bandit alliance, etc. It gave context to your actions and your raise in power.
Why would you think its needed, dispaching mere bandits as a high level character can be extremely fun even if it lacks any challenge, especially if there are morale systems in place. Shit M&B does this masterfully.
Why the fuck are you even bringing it up if you are ignorant about it? And you are suposed to know if you are bringing that point in an argument.
No it doesnt
This is fun, load your game, try something else.
Is it? what path does fallout want me to do?
There is no recommended path, the game doesnt scold me, the game doesnt care what i do, and i love that.
Sometimes you do, you can bite more than you can chew in fallout even on the easiest "recommended" route. Again, the game doesnt care, it leaves the player to deal with it because it trusts the player has more than a solitary functioning braincell.
You should be playing facebook games.
What does this have to do with level scaling?
Why? a lot of it is shit.
You can find hard stuff released in the last decade too.
We are not talking gears of wars here, so ill just call you a faggot. Faggot.
What does it matter?
Fair enough.
exactly, i don't want games to be scaled to my pc's level, no matter how efficient and balanced the scaling algorithm may be. i want a game world where ridiculously easy enemies, challenging encounters and suicide missions may peacefully coexist. well, until i come around, of course...
But there's a difference: If everything is level-scaled, then you can never find anything that is easy or hard, because everything, everywhere, is always the same. If the level distribution is done through locality, you can seek out greater challenges, or find some trash to test your new sword on, just so you can watch it go SCHWING through their scrawny pencil necks.
Pffft ... dat elitism.
A game has to work perfectly for players of various skill levels to begin with, which is often not the case.
If I made a wrong call hours ago on who to take on as an NPC or on which skill to concentrate on, making the current fight extraordinarily difficult, who are you to tell me to suck it up and replay all those hours and not save-scum-brute-force my way past the encounter at hand?
When overdone, save scumming can mess with a game's balance - see X-Com, where you could finish an entire game without losing a soldier if you save-scummed enough ... but like Crevice tab wrote, the player makes the call, and if someone plays a single player game in a manner that differs from your approach and enjoys it, why do you care?
I wouldn't say I'm an excessive savescummer, but I've engaged in the practice every now and then to get me through a particularly difficult spot or to preserve hours of lifetime poured into a roguelike with permadeath - so what?
It's horrible that many games these days do not allow me saving and reloading wherever the heck I please to prevent savescumming.
_____
rezaf
why not have both?
what? since when is save scumming a design choice? it's the player's choice in what way he/she makes use of the option to save and load during the game. game designers provide the playground, the rules and the tools for the player, but even if a game allows you to save always and everywhere, that doesn't mean it's designed to be save scummed. doesn't mean it's bad game design, if i'm able to save scum the hell out of the dialogs in shadowrun dfdc and optimise my character build to explore most of the special stat/skill check dialog options; other codexians were able to play the game just fine without it. hey, let's go a step further and declare moddability of a game as the antithesis of game design! i mean, when you are able to edit out all the challenge of a game with a mod, that's bad design right? nope, cause it's still the decision of the player to play the game with or without mods.
Save-scumming is sort of a design choice in the sense that the designer has created a game that encourages such behavior, such as by putting pass/fail elements of the game in the hands of RNG instead of the player. The player therefore has other option for getting an optimal outcome other than than to savescum it. You see this a lot in D&D in the form of "save or die": Whether or not you survive that is decided entirely by RNG. When the game starts spamming such things, well, save-scumming has become an expected design. If you have, say, a 90% chance of surviving an attack, this would, on the surface, seem pretty survivable, but it also means that if the game contains only 10 such attacks, your odds of finishing the game without save scumming are close to only 1 in 3. And the typical game generally contains a LOT more than just 10 random attacks that you'll survive 90% of the time.
Why not both, impossible challenges and levelscaling? The designers could make certain encounters winnable for certain builds only. Doesn't exclude the possibility of levelscaling.
