Did Bethesda screw up with level scaling or is it necessary?

[Perkel]

Keeping your design decisions pure and untainted by savescumming and cheats is a matter of properly designing the game from the bottom up and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion. A properly designed game should have save games, fast travel, cheats and other such stuff for replay value and convenience- not as a part of the core game design. A good game gives you the option of playing and completing the game without any 'OC' aids.

Switching friendly fire off by default is retarded because it is one of the core features and mechanics of the game.

Fast travel may or may not be retarded depending on how it is implemented- Morrowind's in character fast travel system is good. Skyrim's OC fast travel system is less than good.

It is not fast travel when you need to go to some city 5 minutes away.

Oblivion esqe travel system was laveled fast travel and it created decline

 

[zero29]

It is design choice same as fast travel or resting everywhere. You don't need to do it but designers of game would create game differently if those options wouldn't exist.

claim it all day, without proof it's still bs. how do you know what designers/developers would do if option x didn't exist? are you psychic? i only know how i play and what others tell me about their play style, and there save scumming is not encouraged by any design, it's purely made possible by a game design that allows saving and loading everywhere.

Save scuming is literally part of STALKER game and many other

again, claim without any proof, i played the stalker games without save scumming, did i miss an integral part of them by your definition?

Fast travel destroys localization of quests to some area so good luck chasing whole map for some stupid herb because designers decided that since you have fast travel you can just teleport there.
Resting everywhere in Infinity engine games destroyed pacing. Mages instead of focusing on scrolls and other stuff like wands amulets and so on didn't need that and when you memorized spell book run out you would need to find safe place (almost everywhere) and sleep it off or just save scum unsafe location.

seriously, why do you change the topic to the pro and contra of fast travelling?

So yes they are options but only when game designers don't design their game with them in mind where such a case is almost nonexistent considering games released in history of gaming.

again, telepathic powers. how do you know that the designer(s) of e.g. xcom designed the game(s) to be save scummed by some players?

Secondly there is also willpower of player.

If you agree that "teh option" is no problem then how about cheats that are unlocked from get go and are under keypress like f5f9 lets say f7 How about cheat that will give you infinite money in Stalker or all weapons in FNV + all map markers.

Do you have willpower to fight with it everytime ? Yes then awesome. But not all players want to fight with themselves and fewer have actually willpower to power through with their choices when easy way out is at click of a button.

Would you find DS to be a good game when you would have scalable deficulty Easiest, easy, normal, hard, hardest ?
Never understood why save scuming is treated differently than broken balance in game or fast travel

so you need the game design to hold your hand through the game, forcing you into the right way to play it? then go play more popamole mainstream shit. i like game design that provides me with meaningful choices and in the end even save scumming or not is one. your whole willpower argument is shit btw, cause save scumming isn't something one has to be ashamed of, you just use it if you want and in the next playthrough or even 5min later you can decide to refrain from taking advantage of it. but don't blame the designer(s) if your game brain only likes easy mode.

oh and my favorite:
Infinity engine games had by default switched off friendly fire. Imagine playing 2D&D without friendly fire. Yeah that is how most of people played it because instead of making it core of game they made it an option and instead of making FF default they choose it to be option.

what the flying fuck? friendly fire in what? i don't know which infinity engine games you are talking about...

 

[Crevice tab]

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.
Or make it so that the game calculates the enemy difficulty of the next zone after you unlock it (if it's not a complete open world game). Then you could still have fights you can't win when you first encounter them but when you did most of the content of that zone and collected those sweet XP or the only weapon that can harm that particular foe you can win it easily.

I'd argue that the only reason most designers don't use elaborate levelscaling mechanics is that they are pathetically bad at math.

whe

Why would you need inanely complex level scaling mechanics when you can obtain almost the same effect with good game design? Why? Do people have a fetish for the overly complicated and insanely impractical?

It is not fast travel when you need to go to some city 5 minutes away.

Oblivion esqe travel system was laveled fast travel and it created decline

The problem with fast travel in Bethesda's more recent works is that the game revolves around it (and all the other gimmicks).

 

[Lhynn]

Perkel We have discussed this, players dont want to save only on safe areas, while i found DMS more enjoyable with this, because it forced me to live with my screw ups and make due, there was a lot of crying over being unable to save in missions. I like roguelikes where you gotta live with your mistakes and move on, it is liberating not to have to save all the time.


Also, stalker wasnt that deadly, you just had to git gud, and get decent gear, and you should be by the mid part of the game.

 

[NotAGolfer]

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.
Or make it so that the game calculates the enemy difficulty of the next zone after you unlock it (if it's not a complete open world game). Then you could still have fights you can't win when you first encounter them but when you did most of the content of that zone and collected those sweet XP or the only weapon that can harm that particular foe you can win it easily.

I'd argue that the only reason most designers don't use elaborate levelscaling mechanics is that they are pathetically bad at math.

whe

Why would you need inanely complex level scaling mechanics when you can obtain almost the same effect with good game design? Why? Do people have a fetish for the overly complicated and insanely impractical?

I certainly do.
It also just dawned on me that you can already get very far and possibly far enough to make any additional tool unnecessary through the well-tried method of implementing difficulty settings. Could still be a little uneven because some people (and by that I mean me) are obsessive completionists who try to collect every XP point available in the game. Since games are never balanced for my species the effects accumulate and late-game tends to get overly easy even on difficulty level "impossible" or "nightmare" or whatever scare word they're using. Therefore I'd either like to have an additional difficulty level for late game ("dead man walking", "Chuck Norris only" ...) or levelscaling to take care of that shit instead of difficulty levels.

 

[Xenich]

IBut there's one thing which caught my eye and made me hesitate. I think he argued level-scaling is a means to ensure your opponents are not impossibly hard, so why not apply it everywhere? This way, if there's a bug or a bad design oversight, the level-scaling wil fix it. The problem I have with this is level-scaling itself can have bugs. It can be designed badly too. It all boils down to how much adversity do you want your player to experience? Should they ever have to retreat? How hard should it be? How easy should it be? In all this mes, there's lots of room for oversights and encounters which are near impossible to win in specific circumstances. To ensure everything is doable, you very nearly have to make the game easy.

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.
Or make it so that the game calculates the enemy difficulty of the next zone after you unlock it (if it's not a complete open world game). Then you could still have fights you can't win when you first encounter them but when you did most of the content of that zone and collected those sweet XP or the only weapon that can harm that particular foe you can win it easily.

I'd argue that the only reason most designers don't use elaborate levelscaling mechanics is that they are pathetically bad at math.

I never liked level scaling. It is so fake, so manufactured and makes me feel like I am incapable of playing the game with any responsibility. Not only that, but it makes no sense that every encounter is always "within reach" in terms of story and play. Why is everuything going to be doable? If everything is always doable, then it invalidates character progression. That is what was completely retarded about games like Oblivion. It didn't matter what level, skill, ability you were, why... everything in life will always meet you part way so it is "doable". If I wanted to play a game like that, I would play non-development based games (ie action/arcade/FPS) because every encounter will always be "doable" then.

The problem with your suggestion (and inherently scaling) is how are you going to balance that game to me? You aren't, you are going to generically balance the scaling to fit the lowest common denominator and then put in some generic scaling slider that will allow me to make it more difficult which will result in nothing but gimmick generated content that will likely still be ridiculously easy, or... stupidly difficult (ie HP bloat or defensive scaling). Now if you design static content, you can design the encounters more intelligently and designed for a specific level of character progression. That way, those who are terrible can come back once they are higher level to attempt the content and people who skilled in character development and tactics can attempt content higher than them. This way you don't destroy key cRPG content because people get bruised egos or suffer from major bouts of OCD when they can't have their way right at that moment (ie beat any content they come across).

I personally think that the constant demand for content that is always "matched and within capability of the payer" is due a type of crowd that is are better suited playing action/arcade games. I mean, it kind of explains why these ideas are always the result of appealing to the ADD console crowd. /shrug

 

[Perkel]

Perkel We have discussed this, players dont want to save only on safe areas, while i found DMS more enjoyable with this, because it forced me to live with my screw ups and make due, there was a lot of crying over being unable to save in missions. I like roguelikes where you gotta live with your mistakes and move on, it is liberating not to have to save all the time.


Also, stalker wasnt that deadly, you just had to git gud, and get decent gear, and you should be by the mid part of the game.

Because they simply don't know better.

Stalker is deadly we covered it in my SoC thread and how damage is calculated along with other stuff. Basically ending is hard because you need to fight at very close range. Enemies don't have any debuf thus your armor is paper thin for them where you have to shoot almost two full mags of AP ammo into exo suits close range because damage is calculated in burst in such a way that the longer burst is the lesser damage it does.

so if you fight at longer range you have good chance to survive. Come closer and enemies will shreed you like paper. Problem is that last mission is essentially fighting with 5-8 dudes at same time in corridors.

Thus save scuming

 

[Xenich]

Because they simply don't know better.

Stalker is deadly we covered it in my SoC thread and how damage is calculated along with other stuff. Basically ending is hard because you need to fight at very close range. Enemies don't have any debuf thus your armor is paper thin for them where you have to shoot almost two full mags of AP ammo into exo suits close range because damage is calculated in burst in such a way that the longer burst is the lesser damage it does.

so if you fight at longer range you have good chance to survive. Come closer and enemies will shreed you like paper. Problem is that last mission is essentially fighting with 5-8 dudes at same time in corridors.

Thus save scuming

I will have to see once I get there, though when I was on a kick with FPSs around 15 years ago, I got to the point where you could put me in a room with that many people and it resulted in them being dead in seconds and that was with real players. I did notice some of what you were saying about close range, but I learned to do a lot of strafing and quick aim to the head get around it (not to mention health items) so while I think it may be hard, I don't think one needs to save scumm. Though personally, It doesn't bother me if someone does. After all, its their game, they can play it as they like. All the games I have played where they have designed them to fight save scumming, well... I always found them to lack challenge. I would rather have them focus on difficult content with the thought that people can just get better or lean on saves if they need than dumb the content down so people can feel good about completing the content without reloading.

 

[NotAGolfer]

I never liked level scaling. It is so fake, so manufactured and makes me feel like I am incapable of playing the game with any responsibility. Not only that, but it makes no sense that every encounter is always "within reach" in terms of story and play. Why is everuything going to be doable? If everything is always doable, then it invalidates character progression. That is what was completely retarded about games like Oblivion. It didn't matter what level, skill, ability you were, why... everything in life will always meet you part way so it is "doable". If I wanted to play a game like that, I would play non-development based games (ie action/arcade/FPS) because every encounter will always be "doable" then.

The problem with your suggestion (and inherently scaling) is how are you going to balance that game to me? You aren't, you are going to generically balance the scaling to fit the lowest common denominator and then put in some generic scaling slider that will allow me to make it more difficult which will result in nothing but gimmick generated content that will likely still be ridiculously easy, or... stupidly difficult (ie HP bloat or defensive scaling). Now if you design static content, you can design the encounters more intelligently and designed for a specific level of character progression. That way, those who are terrible can come back once they are higher level to attempt the content and people who skilled in character development and tactics can attempt content higher than them. This way you don't destroy key cRPG content because people get bruised egos or suffer from major bouts of OCD when they can't have their way right at that moment (ie beat any content they come across).

I personally think that the constant demand for content that is always "matched and within capability of the payer" is due a type of crowd that is are better suited playing action/arcade games. I mean, it kind of explains why these ideas are always the result of appealing to the ADD console crowd. /shrug

You make a lot of assumptions. Instead you could read what I wrote.
No, not everything has to be within reach of your character(s) all the time. The game can be prebalanced like one without level scaling with some encounters being way too difficult at start (like in the Gothics or some side stuff in BG2), nobody is arguing against that. And the reason I don't wanna dismiss that tool is that I want to have stuff made more difficult for me, not more easy. The level scaling mechanism can be included after all the balancing is done, as a way to finetune things.
Wouldn't it have been great if orcs or human NPCs in Gothic 1 or 2 would become stronger over the course of the game (maybe from chapter to chapter just like the game added stronger filler enemies at places you already visited between chapters)? Would also have made sense, because why should only the PC learn, train and get stronger. And that part, the NPCs and selected enemies like orcs getting stronger could be tied to how fast the player is leveling up. Or not, I don't care.
I don't care because the games are already fine as they are. Difficulty isn't everything, the combat in the Gothics is fun even when it's easy, you can always improve your torero skillz.
And I don't care because I don't buy the "leveling the enemies depending on player level is defeating the purpose of leveling for the player" argument. If the only thing the leveling system has going for it is that it makes your char stronger than the enemies then that's a really pathetic RPG combat system. Good systems should open up new tactics and approaches or even gameplay mechanics for you with each new level you gain, not just make you stronger. In fact your char shouldn't even get that much "stronger", but more versatile and also loot progression should make up most of your power gain (and I never argued pro levelscaling for loot). The new tools you got when you come back to the before impossible encounters plus the new equipment should help you to finally overcome them, no matter if the enemy earned 5 levels in the meantime or got replaced with a more dangerous one.
I also wrote that I would prefer replacement enemies or enemies getting stronger to be explained by the game so the player doesn't feel cheated. If there's another, stronger orc chieftain where you met another one 2 chapters before then why don't you let me see a scene where the new one kills the old one or at least let me see him defile his corpse.
Sure, it still revolves around PC levelups in the end, but again, the basic balancing in every CRPG already does the same, so don't oversperg things plz.

Most people will only play a game of that length once, so why shouldn't designers care about if these people have a good time with the game?
Either add difficulty levels or the possibility of grinding (but don't make that too appealing or completionists like me will break their game using it) or add level scaling done right (read: not like Oblivion, and not lazy).
Different strokes for different folks, designers have to take care of everybody (who is willing to accept the basic standards of the genre). :incloosive:
The game gets too easy too fast? No problemo, here are stronger foes and here's the explanation where they are coming from.
The game is impossibly hard? Ok, we'll just give you the basic experience then, but I'm afraid we can't make it easier than that. Read the manual, replay the tutorials, try to understand the mechanics. Here are some additional hints, don't be afraid, you too will be able to pop some moles in this game eventually.

 

[Xenich]

Different strokes for different folks, designers have to take care of everybody (who is willing to accept the basic standards of the genre).

I don't agree on many levels, but we are getting into subjective territory and well... I have no interest in such discussion. Lets just say that I see your point, I just don't agree on many things.

I do want to comment on the above though... I think that is bullshit that they have to cater to everyone. You make a game as you the designer want it to be. Remember, this is an artistic realm, not a factory pumping out shoes. A lot of older games used to be made based on the designer wanting to see their idea come to life (you know... "I made this game because I always wanted to see, do, have... XYZ"). All that matters is that, not this silly idea that there has to be a formulated approach to appeal to every idiot out there. There are cRPGs I like, some I don't, some I absolutely hate, but... they are a matter of style and that doesn't make them good or bad, just not my taste. I would be a completely clueless and narcissistic fool to believe that every game should attend to my tastes. Look where that development focus has gotten us these days.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

(...)

(...)
And I don't care because I don't buy the "leveling the enemies depending on player level is defeating the purpose of leveling for the player" argument. If the only thing the leveling system has going for it is that it makes your char stronger than the enemies then that's a really pathetic RPG combat system. Good systems should open up new tactics and approaches or even gameplay mechanics for you with each new level you gain, not just make you stronger. In fact your char shouldn't even get that much "stronger", but more versatile and also loot progression should make up most of your power gain (and I never argued pro levelscaling for loot). The new tools you got when you come back to the before impossible encounters plus the new equipment should help you to finally overcome them, no matter if the enemy earned 5 levels in the meantime or got replaced with a more dangerous one.
(...)

(Please forgive me commenting out the rest. It cuts down on the size of my post. I also do so because I only have so much time. This thread is toooo long to comment on everything. So I'll just focus on what's quoted above.)

The whole benefit of level-scaling is reliant on the fact it's usually based on HP/DPS formulas and can all be wrapped up in a neat software package. If you start throwing in more complex mechanics which're not as measurable or formulaic, good luck keeping it all cheap and quick. Good luck coding the AI! Odds are you'll keep adding to development time trying to keep things "scaled" to the myriad abilities of the player; abilities which YOU let snowball until it was an avalanche.

Maybe you're not realizing that adding all these extra routes or methods to defeat an opponent is something the player has to cope with and learn. It sucks to be swatted down by a level 100 monster when you just entered the game, but it'd be just as sucky if you were swatted down by a monster using abilities in a combination and with a skill you don't yet have. For example, when I first started playing Quake 2 back in the day, I didn't do well. It required practice for me to train my hand-eye coordination to the amount needed to start kicking a**. I also had to learn the maps, so I had some idea where the good shots were (or coming from). There were other tricks too. This is not the best example, but it's a start. Granted, I much prefer natural learning over the HP/DPS paradigm. And yet just because it's a bit more natural and intuitive, doesn't mean frustration never hapens. It most certainly does which is exactly why I tried to sometimes be an a**hole to vent my frustration. In a game with more natural learning, game makers have to find a way to balance the challenge of a fight against the frustration when a player fails somethign.

Players have to demand more circumstantial RPG combat than the cookie cutter HP/DPS grind/snoozefest we all grew up on. And game makers have to figure out how to supply this while cost effectively ensuring the content is appropriate.

My personal opininn is many players WANT an RPG-combat snoozefest because: a) their rl is demanding and they ned something easy to pick up and play 2) they like story more 3) lot easier to get challenge from FPS games or other PVP type games.

 

[Crevice tab]

And I don't care because I don't buy the "leveling the enemies depending on player level is defeating the purpose of leveling for the player" argument. If the only thing the leveling system has going for it is that it makes your char stronger than the enemies then that's a really pathetic RPG combat system. Good systems should open up new tactics and approaches or even gameplay mechanics for you with each new level you gain, not just make you stronger. In fact your char shouldn't even get that much "stronger", but more versatile and also loot progression should make up most of your power gain (and I never argued pro levelscaling for loot). The new tools you got when you come back to the before impossible encounters plus the new equipment should help you to finally overcome them, no matter if the enemy earned 5 levels in the meantime or got replaced with a more dangerous one.

More versatile is stronger. Strength doesn't mean just a HP boost or a +5% damage in any decently designed game. If you have more options then you're stronger- because not only can you surpass a challenge in different ways but because you can do other quests to gain more loot and experience etc.

The question here is- what does the game gain by using level scaling? Does level scaling actually improve something?

If the answers are nothing and no then don't use level scaling.

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

I have no problem with level scaling within 1-2 levels up or down, as long as it prevents it from being Kingdoms of Amalur, where you become unbeatable toward the end. Moderation is key. I still want a challenge, but leveling should also give me a sense of power, and accomplishment, over mine enemies.

 

[Xenich]

I have no problem with level scaling within 1-2 levels up or down, as long as it prevents it from being Kingdoms of Amalur, where you become unbeatable toward the end. Moderation is key. I still want a challenge, but leveling should also give me a sense of power, and accomplishment, over mine enemies.

Any mobs within 1-2 levels are not a problem, which means... I am unbeatable. The problem with scaling as you mention is that unless they make level differentiation dramatically difficult per level so that 1-2 levels is night and day, it will be chump change for most competent players. Now you could balance it so that it is inline with the very small percentage of skilled players to be able to beat the content that is 1-2 levels above them, but then... what do you think most people will complain about concerning the game in general? So, it is better to have static levels that each individual can measure themselves against at the levels they feel they are capable of (ie you have to wait a few levels to be able to beat the content while I am able to beat it at earlier levels). Scaling always ends up being a face roll designed for the lowest common denominator.

 

[rezaf]

I have no problem with level scaling within 1-2 levels up or down, as long as it prevents it from being Kingdoms of Amalur, where you become unbeatable toward the end. Moderation is key. I still want a challenge, but leveling should also give me a sense of power, and accomplishment, over mine enemies.

KoA decided to go for the worst of both worlds - late game combat (possibly boss-encounters aside) is technically not really challenging, as (like you wrote) you're hardly ever in danger of actually dying, but due to many unblockable attacks and other mob abilities that break the flow of combat, every battle is an annoying slog where you have to whittle down enemies' oversized health pools.
_____
rezaf

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

I have no problem with level scaling within 1-2 levels up or down, as long as it prevents it from being Kingdoms of Amalur, where you become unbeatable toward the end. Moderation is key. I still want a challenge, but leveling should also give me a sense of power, and accomplishment, over mine enemies.

KoA decided to go for the worst of both worlds - late game combat (possibly boss-encounters aside) is technically not really challenging, as (like you wrote) you're hardly ever in danger of actually dying, but due to many unblockable attacks and other mob abilities that break the flow of combat, every battle is an annoying slog where you have to whittle down enemies' oversized health pools.
_____
rezaf

I have no problem with level scaling within 1-2 levels up or down, as long as it prevents it from being Kingdoms of Amalur, where you become unbeatable toward the end. Moderation is key. I still want a challenge, but leveling should also give me a sense of power, and accomplishment, over mine enemies.

Any mobs within 1-2 levels are not a problem, which means... I am unbeatable. The problem with scaling as you mention is that unless they make level differentiation dramatically difficult per level so that 1-2 levels is night and day, it will be chump change for most competent players. Now you could balance it so that it is inline with the very small percentage of skilled players to be able to beat the content that is 1-2 levels above them, but then... what do you think most people will complain about concerning the game in general? So, it is better to have static levels that each individual can measure themselves against at the levels they feel they are capable of (ie you have to wait a few levels to be able to beat the content while I am able to beat it at earlier levels). Scaling always ends up being a face roll designed for the lowest common denominator.

If I was forced to choose, being able to unlock more difficult areas later on, optionally, might add replayability, as in Dark Souls, where you must return to certain areas to progress, but once you slog your way past them you find an even more difficult zone to conquer.

In a tactfully done game, level scaling is never really necessary, but when a game loses challenge, it becomes an embryo, where the world is no longer challenging, the plot loses relevance.

 

[rezaf]

In a tactfully done game, level scaling is never really necessary, but when a game loses challenge, it becomes an embryo, where the world is no longer challenging, the plot loses relevance.

I either disagree or misunderstood your statement.
When you go to tackle the evil demigod whose minions are invading the world himself, that should always be challenging. But when you return to the Shire after having disposed of the One Ring in Mordor, you shouldn't be killed by Farmer Maggot's dogs which have been upscaled to a strength that would enable them to one-hit-kill the Witch-King of Angmar.

 

[Black]

Did Bethesda screw up

Yes.

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

In a tactfully done game, level scaling is never really necessary, but when a game loses challenge, it becomes an embryo, where the world is no longer challenging, the plot loses relevance.

I either disagree or misunderstood your statement.
When you go to tackle the evil demigod whose minions are invading the world himself, that should always be challenging. But when you return to the Shire after having disposed of the One Ring in Mordor, you shouldn't be killed by Farmer Maggot's dogs which have been upscaled to a strength that would enable them to one-hit-kill the Witch-King of Angmar.

Totally misunderstood. Level scaling is unnecessary as long as enemies are tactfully placed, in such a way that you encounter easier monsters in a way that proceeds harder monsters, yet the occasional stumble on a hard zone or area whets the appetite by introducing you a few scattered toughies earlier in the game, making you hunger for the skill to kill them later, and the psychological reward of doing so once you've gained competence.

As I mentioned, Dark Souls prepared you by allowing you to encounter a few tough monsters earlier in the game, or monsters you would later return to, but after clearing an area you would make way for an even more difficult area, which progressively increased the challenge while whetting the appetite.

 

[Obama Phone]

Oblivion scales like a motherfucker. VD turned me onto RPG Codex back in the day with his hilarious review. That said, I still remember good times with the game. The crystal dungeons were alright and provided a decent challenge.

I only beat the main quest once though since I used Oblivion as more of a testing ground for how many mods I could squeeze into it. I reckon I spent more time downloading bullshit and trying to install it without fucking up the game than I ever did actually playing the damn thing.

The vampire cure questline did make the game for me. It beats the dumbass Diablo gates by a looooooooooooooooong mile. Overall, I've gotten used to dialogue wheel games with no C&C. Oblivion was one of the first that I remember of the last 10 years that threw real RPG aspects out the window. Again, given that most RPG's are made like this way nowadays, I look at them more as "action/fantasy" games with dialogue cuttscenes thrown in to advance the story. This is no different than "emails" in Doom 3 or "journal pages" in Metro Redux.

 

[Lord Carlos Wafflebum]

I've found I enjoy Skyrim a whole lot more with the Skyrim Redone module that removes level scaling. There are just some places you can't go at level 10 where you won't get utterly destroyed. Makes things more interesting.

 

[Bulba]

Level scaling in small ammounts is fine if devs know what they're doing (see wizardry 8), problem is most just get too obsessed with removing restrictions and trying to shove down players' throats this unnerving sense of "freedom to go anywhere/open world" and level scaling is the laziest solution they could come up with.

Iirc New Vegas had SOME level scaling as well but because the world is build intelligently and you have clear restrictions on which areas you can tackle from the start and which you can't it's barely noticeable which is, again imo, a good implementation of level scaling.

dunno lvl scalling in wizardry 8 was a killer for me... can't play the sort of games where lvl progression is pointless

 

[Makabb]

Level scaling makes Skyrim so boring. I was replaying BG 2 the other day and I was dying to the red dragon and yes i WAS reloading but thanks to that after xxx ammounts of try i DEVELOPED a tactic that allowed me to kill it finaly. In Skyrim he would die on first try. That's what Dark Souls series is, about developing a proper tactic on fifth or ninth try, something that most games of today lack.

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

The point with level scaling would be to make it minimal as possible, so those who hit a high level zone don't whiz through it with the best equipment, since they've levelled up significantly, as well as having the best loot, by scouring everything.

I hated Skyrim. Linear dungeon design; mandatory puzzles thrown in your face, untactfully; and no references to Nordic lore besides the occasional arrow to the knee joke. Needs 20% more Conan, and 20% less "FATALITY!" style kills to compensate for combat that was poorly iterated, when Dark Messiah already had a good melee system for first person, one more progressive than even Skyrim, and more visceral, without the SPESHUL EFFEKTS.

Oblivion was merely overscaled. Artificial difficulty, as opposed to sensible dungeon design. Irkingly, the problems I've always had with Bethesda are always to do with the dungeons, since I buy game of the year editions, after they edit out the bugs.

 

[racofer]