Who came up with levelscaling? FO3

[Haskel Dolph]

So i recently read about Beths brilliant idea of implementing the much loved levelscaling.
To my suprise , not even the Beth fans seem to like the idea.
Not that Beth is going to listen to them anyway.
I personally hate LS. It's stupid beyond words.
LS feels more like a lazy attempt to balance the monsters vs player.
Althrough Beth said the LS isn't going to be as extreme as Oblivion, they still plan to keep it.
The LS in Oblivion was poor implemented to say the least.
The more you leveled your character, the more difficult the game.
Of course, FO3 could be an exception.

But maybe im wrong, maybe these guys now what they are doing.
I mean they developed Morrowind and Oblivion after all.

 

[JarlFrank]

In Morrowind it wasn't that bad, but Oblivion sucked ass, and they seemed to realize it [they still don't admit it though]. Also, in one interview somewhere they said there won't be OB's level scaling in FO3, you can go to high level areas and be smashed and you can still encounter weak enemies in low level areas. At least they've gained a bit of sense.

 

[aries202]

In all the crpgs, I have played, there were some sort of levelscaling. From very small levelscaling in BG1 where endbosses (and their Ogres!) were scaled to your level to the endbosses in BG2. There were also levelscaling in Morrowind etc. but in Morrowind it was done in a much smaller way than in Oblivion where both the level and the loot were scaled to your (current) level. This means that bandits etc. would wear daedric or glass armour, when your character hit level 20 or so. This annoyed a lot of people, like the loot scaling. The loot is scaled to your level which means that if you do a certain quest etc. say when your level 5 or so, you won't get as good an item, if you do the quest etc. when you're level 10 say. This also annoyed a lot of people. (understandably so).

Now, the level scaling (for the enemies) in FO3 will be diifferent. It will be zoned levelscaling. Irrc, BG1 etc. did have certain areas? in which you hadn't much chance of survival should you dare venture into these areas. It will be the same thing in Fallout 3. There will be zones which has say level 8-10 supermutants in them etc. where you level 1 character would have difficulties surviving.

This is much better than the level scaling in Oblivion, since this means that your character can come back to the level 8-10 supermutants and whack them, when he (or she) have gotten much more experience, and is much stronger than a level 1 character.

 

[Balor]

It's both yes and no. There still level scaling - however, there are 'bounds' of now.
For instance, an area can be level 10-15... if you will arrive there at level 1 - it would still be level 10, and 15 - for level 20.
Also, areas are locked once you arrive - so, if you will arrive at the area at level 13, it will later respawn as level 13 even if you return as level 20...

Still kinda sucks, but leaps and, heh, bounds better then Oblivion system.

 

[Texas Red]

Yes, even the Beth fanboys hate the scaling. I used to read the official forums when Oblivion was released and every 3rd thread was complaining about the level scaling. What surprises me though, is that no reviewer found it as a problem .

 

[RK47]

TWD, it's because reviewers only spend 2 hours in the game. you never notice it till you play it till level 10-20s range.

 

[Lemunde]

Yes, even the Beth fanboys hate the scaling. I used to read the official forums when Oblivion was released and every 3rd thread was complaining about the level scaling. What surprises me though, is that no reviewer found it as a problem .

Reviewers like anything in a game that helps them review.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

In all the crpgs, I have played, there were some sort of levelscaling.

You've never played Fallout or Arcanum? Just kidding....

From very small levelscaling in BG1 where endbosses (and their Ogres!) were scaled to your level

Were we playing the same Baldur's Gate 1? The only scaling I can think of in that game was, and I'm not even sure, that the probability of seeing beefier versions of enemies got a little higher, and if you were in the right area that allowed for it. Even then though, I'm not sure if it was just randomization, with no scaling involved whatsoever. I've been attacked by a gang of flinds outside high hedge at level 1 at one time before, so that does stomp a bit on the idea of level scaling. And you might say the fact that Sarevok got tweaked a bit depending on your class could be construed as scaling, I suppose, but it isn't level scaling. But I can reasonably say, no major encounters changed one bit based on your level.

to the endbosses in BG2.

I don't recall any scaling in Shadows of Amn. And if there was, it must have been absolutely minuscule, seeing as my low(er) level parties saw the same stuff as my solo high level characters. Of course it could have been added in a patch, and I would never know....

The thing I don't get....is why the hell is level scaling in Fallout 3? It never was in the original Fallout, and is just another bit of fuel for the "Oblivion with Guns" fire. Not to mention it can be quite the hallmark of a lazy designer to just scale things to your level instead of actually tailoring and balancing areas, or creating a system without a massive disparity in power between player character levels. And funnily enough, it breaks the holy immersion as well, as assuming 100% forward progress of the player character's rivals/foes/enemies is absolutely asinine.

 

[mjorkerina]

If there was any scaling in BG2, the number of time i replayed it with different setups i should have seen the effect of it.
Having a *full* party going through the dungeon of Firkraag at low levels was much more challenging than when i tried to beat the whole game the faster i could with a higher level Wizard+Paladin setup. Well, everything was more challenging with the big party. When i had this two characters party, nothing could stand my encounter. Liches. Demons. Mind Flayers, Drow and Beholders. Dragons were shivering just at the mere thought of seeing me. Irenicus was laughable material.
If there was any level scaling, I never had the chance to feel its existence.

 

[Texas Red]

Edward Murrow, its because bethesda just doesnt know how to make fun games. Their ES games all have major flaws which break the games. They are just not FUN.

 

[Keldryn]

D&D and AD&D came up with level scaling. Dungeon Masters would generally craft encounters to suit the levels and abilities of the player characters that were in the game so that the game would be, you know, fun and challenging.

Long, long ago this was considered part of being a good DM.

 

[mjorkerina]

It has nothing to do with the kind of scaling we are talking about.
The DM isn't going to let you players be king in the whole game world. That's Bethesda Level Scaling 101 : even when you are level one, you are powerful enough to beat everyone at the Arena. You are powerful enough to do any quest. You can become the head of the Mages Guild without being a great mage.

Level scaling is NOT making the game challenging, rather, it makes it impossible for you to discover a "forbidden area" where you are way too weak to adventure to, and it makes the game truly looking stupid when whole species of animals or monsters are disappearing from the forests.
Your ass will never feel a true kick. And when you'll get strong, you'll never truly feel strong. You are forever like a level one player : you already could kick any ass anyway making you never feel any kind of progress.

 

[cutterjohn]

Bethesda developers now only know how to make one game, and that game is Oblivion.

FO3 is just going to be Oblivious with guns, and different graphics.

 

[slipgate_angel]

I thought that Fallout 3 was suppost to get rid of the level scaling. Or so I've read in Game informer...have my sources deceived me?

Doesn't level scaling seem to ruin the whole point of exploring the world around you? That no matter where you go, it'll be the same level of monsters, and same level of treasure? Where was the world of RPGs gone wrong?

 

[katzenjammer]

Doesn't level scaling seem to ruin the whole point of exploring the world around you? That no matter where you go, it'll be the same level of monsters, and same level of treasure? Where was the world of RPGs gone wrong?

It goes wrong whenever the march towards photorealism overtakes other forms of gameworld realism.

 

[slipgate_angel]

Doesn't level scaling seem to ruin the whole point of exploring the world around you? That no matter where you go, it'll be the same level of monsters, and same level of treasure? Where was the world of RPGs gone wrong?

It goes wrong whenever the march towards photorealism overtakes other forms of gameworld realism.

...I guese so.

Funny that developers have proven that they can create photo realistic visuals, but they never build a decent game out of those visuals, or let alone make a compelling universe.

 

[Higher Game]

Ultima 3 had level scaling, and it was just as bad then as it is now.

 

[Jormungandr]

Eh, Daggerfall is completely level scaled, but it's not a problem there. The main difference is this:
1. The variance is much greater; you're basically meeting creatures within 5 or 10 levels of yourself, not 1 or 2 like in Oblivion. This means that yes, you can stumble upon a lich or vampire ancient at level 2--and it will kick your ass.
2. Secondly, you don't stop seeing the easy critters at higher levels. Basically, you just start seeing the toughies more often than you did.

See, at any point in the game, high level or low, there is a chance that you could meet any creature or find any treasure. That chance may be so minuscule it'll practically never happen, but it is possible. It's not that you suddenly never see Creature X and only Creature Y, but that your chances of seeing either change. That's a good way to do level scaling; it feels more natural, because the changes are so gradual that you don't notice (instead of suddenly all wolves in the world being replaced by minotaurs).

Also, level scaling really only works well in a game that has perpetual generation of new content. Isn't that the point, originally, for level scaling, to be able to continue to make content for characters as they get higher and higher level? Because it sucks to get it all done and have nothing left.

 

[Jormungandr]

Double post, ignore this.

 

[Twinfalls]

Loved your Mantellan Crux live walkthrough, Jormungandr.

 

[Jormungandr]

Hah, thanks. It was a pain in the ass to do, both the first time and then again so I could capture the video, but I really enjoyed doing it. Do you know how many times I had to redo that stupid pyramid section? Ack!

 

[Jasede]

Link please! If Twinfalls says it was good it was absolutely amazing. She is one of the few here with real taste.

 

[somnium]

Link please! If Twinfalls says it was good it was absolutely amazing. She is one of the few here with real taste.

The link is in his signature.

 

[doctor_kaz]

I guess that the limited scaling system is at least way, way better than the shitty system that Oblivion had. That was, by far, the game's biggest problem.

 

[Jasede]

Link please! If Twinfalls says it was good it was absolutely amazing. She is one of the few here with real taste.

The link is in his signature.

Thanks. I didn't know what Filefront was.