Why do people hate Oblivion so much?

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

That is like putting a Daedra Lord right next to the interviewer in Morrowind and claiming the player should have known not to go there.

Consistent world design is not your strongest suite? Also why do you bring tutorial as example?
Daedra Lord has no place in Census Office, unless it's established the interviewer is master conjurer or Daedra worshipper.

Consistent world or not, no RPG (computer or otherwise) starts with you being able to run into something that is way out of your league. That is the whole point. The second you start to control what players should run into at a particular point in the game, you have engaged in level scaling. Some games makes is blatant as hell (e.g., the aforementioned palette swapped creatures). Others try to disguise it with a whole bunch of different creatures with different abilities. DnD 3.x, for example, makes it very plain that this is a desirable thing: You should not overwhelm your players unless it is a special boss or you are out to punish them. That is what the entire CR system was supposed to do (that it fails to do so is not a reflection on the intent of the system).

Level scaling exists in all games, or tutorials would be murderfests.

Lol what?

Dragon Warrior: NES. Enemies had a fixed level and were based on location. If you walked to the cave with the dragon right after starting a new game, you get fucking killed by the dragon.
Final Fantasy 1: Enemies again based on location. This is why the peninsula of power leveling exists. Quite possible to get over your head.
That's a very common way to design things in RPGs or any game where the player character grows in power. Level scaling doesn't exist in all games, no matter how much you torture the definition.

 

[Cael]

That is like putting a Daedra Lord right next to the interviewer in Morrowind and claiming the player should have known not to go there.

Consistent world design is not your strongest suite? Also why do you bring tutorial as example?
Daedra Lord has no place in Census Office, unless it's established the interviewer is master conjurer or Daedra worshipper.

Consistent world or not, no RPG (computer or otherwise) starts with you being able to run into something that is way out of your league. That is the whole point. The second you start to control what players should run into at a particular point in the game, you have engaged in level scaling. Some games makes is blatant as hell (e.g., the aforementioned palette swapped creatures). Others try to disguise it with a whole bunch of different creatures with different abilities. DnD 3.x, for example, makes it very plain that this is a desirable thing: You should not overwhelm your players unless it is a special boss or you are out to punish them. That is what the entire CR system was supposed to do (that it fails to do so is not a reflection on the intent of the system).

Level scaling exists in all games, or tutorials would be murderfests.

Lol what?

Dragon Warrior: NES. Enemies had a fixed level and were based on location. If you walked to the cave with the dragon right after starting a new game, you get fucking killed by the dragon.
Final Fantasy 1: Enemies again based on location. This is why the peninsula of power leveling exists. Quite possible to get over your head.
That's a very common way to design things in RPGs or any game where the player character grows in power. Level scaling doesn't exist in all games, no matter how much you torture the definition.

The fact that you don't even understand what I said about game design principles is pretty hilarious. When you finally understand what level scaling is for, we can have a discussion about game design principles.

 

[Ravielsk]

The fact that you don't even understand what I said about game design principles is pretty hilarious. When you finally understand what level scaling is for, we can have a discussion about game design principles.

You are not describing level scaling, at least not how its used today. You are simply describing the concept of character levels. Based on your logic Gothic has extensive level scaling because each chapter forces the player against monster relatively around the same level as the player. Those levels however are just rough estimations by the developers they do not change in response to player level a.k.a they remain the same whether you approach them on level 1 or level 50. The "scaling" you keep talking about took place in the designers room, what people are talking about is the scaling happening in game as you boot up the executable. Those are two radically different things.

 

[Cael]

The fact that you don't even understand what I said about game design principles is pretty hilarious. When you finally understand what level scaling is for, we can have a discussion about game design principles.

You are not describing level scaling, at least not how its used today. You are simply describing the concept of character levels. Based on your logic Gothic has extensive level scaling because each chapter forces the player against monster relatively around the same level as the player. Those levels however are just rough estimations by the developers they do not change in response to player level a.k.a they remain the same whether you approach them on level 1 or level 50. The "scaling" you keep talking about took place in the designers room, what people are talking about is the scaling happening in game as you boot up the executable. Those are two radically different things.

There is some level scaling involved in just about every RPG. Even Baldur's Gate had it. NWN definitely had it. While they don't do it to the extent of level for level that Dragon Age Origins did, there is definitely some levels ups and numbers involved in the mobs you run into at different levels.

What I am saying is that level scaling is not a bad thing when done right. After all, the whole point of most Codexians playing RPGs is the powerwank caused by level scaling. Oblivion's sin is that Bethesturd used the lazy method of same mobs except betterer to do their level scaling. That is what sets people off. If they had used different types of daedra, throw in a few giants, dragons or the like, the game might not be as hated. Which, funnily enough, is what they did in Skyrim, from what I see of trailers and game vids. And just as funnily, Skyrim isn't as hated.

 

[Trojan_generic]

I used to hate it, the expectations for the game were enormous after Morrowind. It was console cancer at its purest brought to our PC's. But then: I would possibly never have found Codex without Oblivion and their forums. That said, I have no idea how people nowadays end up here.

Remember the Elder Scrolls forums replacing all links pointing to this site with "iloveoblivion.com"?

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

That is like putting a Daedra Lord right next to the interviewer in Morrowind and claiming the player should have known not to go there.

Consistent world design is not your strongest suite? Also why do you bring tutorial as example?
Daedra Lord has no place in Census Office, unless it's established the interviewer is master conjurer or Daedra worshipper.

Consistent world or not, no RPG (computer or otherwise) starts with you being able to run into something that is way out of your league. That is the whole point. The second you start to control what players should run into at a particular point in the game, you have engaged in level scaling. Some games makes is blatant as hell (e.g., the aforementioned palette swapped creatures). Others try to disguise it with a whole bunch of different creatures with different abilities. DnD 3.x, for example, makes it very plain that this is a desirable thing: You should not overwhelm your players unless it is a special boss or you are out to punish them. That is what the entire CR system was supposed to do (that it fails to do so is not a reflection on the intent of the system).

Level scaling exists in all games, or tutorials would be murderfests.

Lol what?

Dragon Warrior: NES. Enemies had a fixed level and were based on location. If you walked to the cave with the dragon right after starting a new game, you get fucking killed by the dragon.
Final Fantasy 1: Enemies again based on location. This is why the peninsula of power leveling exists. Quite possible to get over your head.
That's a very common way to design things in RPGs or any game where the player character grows in power. Level scaling doesn't exist in all games, no matter how much you torture the definition.

The fact that you don't even understand what I said about game design principles is pretty hilarious. When you finally understand what level scaling is for, we can have a discussion about game design principles.

Nobody understands what you mean, because you're using real terms in the wrong way. You are calling a thing level scaling that is not level scaling.

Level scaling is when content scales to your level. Trying to disqualify me from participating in the discussion is, indeed, retarded, especially when it's you who has no fucking idea what they're talking about.

 

[Cael]

That is like putting a Daedra Lord right next to the interviewer in Morrowind and claiming the player should have known not to go there.

Consistent world design is not your strongest suite? Also why do you bring tutorial as example?
Daedra Lord has no place in Census Office, unless it's established the interviewer is master conjurer or Daedra worshipper.

Consistent world or not, no RPG (computer or otherwise) starts with you being able to run into something that is way out of your league. That is the whole point. The second you start to control what players should run into at a particular point in the game, you have engaged in level scaling. Some games makes is blatant as hell (e.g., the aforementioned palette swapped creatures). Others try to disguise it with a whole bunch of different creatures with different abilities. DnD 3.x, for example, makes it very plain that this is a desirable thing: You should not overwhelm your players unless it is a special boss or you are out to punish them. That is what the entire CR system was supposed to do (that it fails to do so is not a reflection on the intent of the system).

Level scaling exists in all games, or tutorials would be murderfests.

Lol what?

Dragon Warrior: NES. Enemies had a fixed level and were based on location. If you walked to the cave with the dragon right after starting a new game, you get fucking killed by the dragon.
Final Fantasy 1: Enemies again based on location. This is why the peninsula of power leveling exists. Quite possible to get over your head.
That's a very common way to design things in RPGs or any game where the player character grows in power. Level scaling doesn't exist in all games, no matter how much you torture the definition.

The fact that you don't even understand what I said about game design principles is pretty hilarious. When you finally understand what level scaling is for, we can have a discussion about game design principles.

Nobody understands what you mean, because you're using real terms in the wrong way. You are calling a thing level scaling that is not level scaling.

Level scaling is when content scales to your level. Trying to disqualify me from participating in the discussion is, indeed, retarded, especially when it's you who has no fucking idea what they're talking about.

Right. The old "I am stupid, so you need to talk down to my level" excuse on your part. Unlike Codex poseurs, I am not an arrogant clueless retard and don't intend to speak like one.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Unlike Codex poseurs, I am not an arrogant clueless retard and don't intend to speak like one.

Top kek.

I don't need to use "real" definitions of "words" just because, like, "society" says those are like, the "right" "words", man.

 

[Cael]

Unlike Codex poseurs, I am not an arrogant clueless retard and don't intend to speak like one.

Top *something*.

*something somethings more something*

I don't speak Dingbat. Please speak English.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Unlike Codex poseurs, I am not an arrogant clueless retard and don't intend to speak like one.

Top *something*.

*something somethings more something*

I don't speak Dingbat. Please speak English.

Mate the issue here is everyone is talking about level scaling- where content is scaled to your player character's level instead of placing content/monsters of static level.
You on the other hand are talking of content being levelled, irrespective of whether it is scaled to the player's level or otherwise.
I don't even get where you are coming from equating levelled content to level scaled content.

There is some level scaling involved in just about every RPG.

Fairly certain that Gothic employs static levels to the various entities in the game. As in they do not scale with the player. A level 10 bandit gonna be level 10 irrespective of whether the player encounters him at level 1 or 20. That's levelled content, rather than level scaled content.

NWN definitely had it.

Had a bit of both, I think. Some of the modules just spawned enemies matching your level rather than hand placed pre-levelled experience dispensers.

What I am saying is that level scaling is not a bad thing when done right.

Content that is constantly matched to the player's level at all times is not an element that has been done well.

I mean I think you are using level scaling as in the "level of measure/scale of measure" concept as opposed to level of the content scaled to the player, which is uniquely a videogame/rpg concept that is gonna be out of field to any normie, but it's fairly common jargon in video games. I mean as long as we aren't using some kraut loanword for it.

 

[Cael]

Unlike Codex poseurs, I am not an arrogant clueless retard and don't intend to speak like one.

Top *something*.

*something somethings more something*

I don't speak Dingbat. Please speak English.

Mate the issue here is everyone is talking about level scaling- where content is scaled to your player character's level instead of placing content/monsters of static level.
You on the other hand are talking of content being levelled, irrespective of whether it is scaled to the player's level or otherwise.
I don't even get where you are coming from equating levelled content to level scaled content.

There is some level scaling involved in just about every RPG.

Fairly certain that Gothic employs static levels to the various entities in the game. As in they do not scale with the player. A level 10 bandit gonna be level 10 irrespective of whether the player encounters him at level 1 or 20. That's levelled content, rather than level scaled content.

NWN definitely had it.

Had a bit of both, I think. Some of the modules just spawned enemies matching your level rather than hand placed pre-levelled experience dispensers.

What I am saying is that level scaling is not a bad thing when done right.

Content that is constantly matched to the player's level at all times is not an element that has been done well.

I mean I think you are using level scaling as in the "level of measure/scale of measure" concept as opposed to level of the content scaled to the player, which is uniquely a videogame/rpg concept that is gonna be out of field to any normie, but it's fairly common jargon in video games. I mean as long as we aren't using some kraut loanword for it.

What I am saying is that the monsters ARE scaled to your character's level. If you follow the path that the devs expect you to, the monsters are always scaled to a level you can defeat, unless it is a sidequest type deal. You are never, for example, faced with a level 20 encounter that you are expected to win at a place the devs expect you to be at level 1. That is level scaling, just not as blatant as what Oblivion and Dragon Age did. Some games try to hide further it by guiding your character back to the same area at a later level. However, if you follow the devs' path, you would not be anywhere near the level 20 mob.

Most CRPGs also hedge their bets by making those mobs scale within limits. This can be very easily seen in NWN. Take a level 17 toon and start Chapter 1 of NWN OC and compare it with your typical level 3 toon and note the difference in creature type and group composition.

As I said before, the whole point of RPG is for the player to get a sense of accomplishment levelling their toons to seem stronger. After all, they are now mowing down T-Rex instead iguanas. But what, really, is the difference between a T-Rex and a level 8 iguana in terms of combat abilities? Both still claw, claw, bite.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

What I am saying is that the monsters ARE scaled to your character's level.

Not quite. Hang on, I'll try to respond in detail in a bit.

 

[Reinhardt]

Fucking leftard cuntard mainlanders!

 

[grim1234]

Oh my God, reading about how copying the same asset in the editor makes the game take up more space was the funniest thing I've read today. The guy thinks that copying an asset literally physically copies the model and textures... Man.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

What I am saying is that the monsters ARE scaled to your character's level. If you follow the path that the devs expect you to, the monsters are always scaled to a level you can defeat

But they don't change dynamically based on your current level when you happen to encounter them.

You don't understand what level scaling is.

 

[Funposter]

What Cael is calling "level scaling" most people would just refer to as "game design"

 

[Cael]

What Cael is calling "level scaling" most people would just refer to as "game design"

Since when was level scaling not game design? That some people hate it with a passion doesn't mean it is not a game mechanic.

 

[jackofshadows]

It is a game mechanic and a part of game design but it's not what you are referring to. Level scaling implies in-game system which automatically change levels of stuff (mobs, loot, rewards etc) according to player's level/stats as opposed to hand placed/set approach to things. Although again, how some already pointed out, sometimes games use both approaches simultaniously.

 

[Valdetiosi]

https://www.giantbomb.com/level-scaling/3015-608/

Level scaling is a gameplay conceit used in some RPGs to provide a continuous, consistent challenge to the player. As the player's character rises in level, aspects of the world will change to accommodate that character's growth. The most basic form of level scaling will increase the level of the enemies encountered, allowing their power to grow in step with the player. However, level scaling may also influence other aspects, such as the type and quality of loot found or the availability of certain quests.

Just googled up level scaling definition. Don't find anything remarking about "Following intended game path scaling enemies to your level" bullshit here.

 

[Squid]

Pretty sure it's worth noting that Oblivion had enemies that stopped scaling with you eventually. Some were stupid high thresholds, like bandits. Goblin chieftains or whatever always scaled with you. Pretty sure those guys were the toughest enemy you could fight in the entire game if you kept levelling beyond a normal playthrough amount.

Didn't Umbra's sword also scale to your level?

Also yeah Cael what you're speaking of here:

What I am saying is that the monsters ARE scaled to your character's level. If you follow the path that the devs expect you to, the monsters are always scaled to a level you can defeat, unless it is a sidequest type deal. You are never, for example, faced with a level 20 encounter that you are expected to win at a place the devs expect you to be at level 1. That is level scaling, just not as blatant as what Oblivion and Dragon Age did. Some games try to hide further it by guiding your character back to the same area at a later level. However, if you follow the devs' path, you would not be anywhere near the level 20 mob.

Is not level scaling in the sense most people refer to it. In Oblivion certain enemies might start at level 20 and only scale to level 40 or start at 1 and end at 10. That's the idea. So yeah, the devs wouldn't put a base level 20 in your path while you're likely under level 10. They'd use the enemies that scale from level 1 to 10 instead. Sometimes trash mobs get thrown in and whatnot because of course they do so you'd still encounter things that only scaled to a lower threshold.

 

[Cael]

Is not level scaling in the sense most people refer to it. In Oblivion certain enemies might start at level 20 and only scale to level 40 or start at 1 and end at 10. That's the idea. So yeah, the devs wouldn't put a base level 20 in your path while you're likely under level 10. They'd use the enemies that scale from level 1 to 10 instead. Sometimes trash mobs get thrown in and whatnot because of course they do so you'd still encounter things that only scaled to a lower threshold.

I don't care what most people call something. As a scientist and an engineer, the consensus argument means nothing to me.

As the guy above you posted, "Level scaling is a gameplay conceit used in some RPGs to provide a continuous, consistent challenge to the player. As the player's character rises in level, aspects of the world will change to accommodate that character's growth. The most basic form of level scaling will increase the level of the enemies encountered, allowing their power to grow in step with the player. However, level scaling may also influence other aspects, such as the type and quality of loot found or the availability of certain quests." This is exactly what I said, but of course, the idiots will start splitting hairs to make it seem as though what I said is not that at all.

Level scaling exists in all RPGs as it is the main reason why people play RPGs. It is a powerwank to see your toon that can barely take on goblins in the beginning barely take on dragons later. And yet, if you give the goblins mage levels, you can get the same kind of challenge. From a game design point of view, there really isn't a big difference if it is level 21 goblin mage or an ancient red dragon. They are both level appropriate challenges for a level 20 toon. The enemy had scaled up from level 1 to level 20 because of the PC. That is level scaling. If level scaling do not occur, then the entire RPG genre would be dead. There is simply no point in high level characters going around nuking everything in sight with no repercussions at all. That is boring as hell. And that is why it doesn't happen in RPGs.

 

[PulsatingBrain]

Dumb fuck is determined to continue to be fucking dumb.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Is not level scaling in the sense most people refer to it. In Oblivion certain enemies might start at level 20 and only scale to level 40 or start at 1 and end at 10. That's the idea. So yeah, the devs wouldn't put a base level 20 in your path while you're likely under level 10. They'd use the enemies that scale from level 1 to 10 instead. Sometimes trash mobs get thrown in and whatnot because of course they do so you'd still encounter things that only scaled to a lower threshold.

I don't care what most people call something. As a scientist and an engineer, the consensus argument means nothing to me.

As the guy above you posted, "Level scaling is a gameplay conceit used in some RPGs to provide a continuous, consistent challenge to the player. As the player's character rises in level, aspects of the world will change to accommodate that character's growth. The most basic form of level scaling will increase the level of the enemies encountered, allowing their power to grow in step with the player. However, level scaling may also influence other aspects, such as the type and quality of loot found or the availability of certain quests." This is exactly what I said, but of course, the idiots will start splitting hairs to make it seem as though what I said is not that at all.

Level scaling exists in all RPGs as it is the main reason why people play RPGs. It is a powerwank to see your toon that can barely take on goblins in the beginning barely take on dragons later. And yet, if you give the goblins mage levels, you can get the same kind of challenge. From a game design point of view, there really isn't a big difference if it is level 21 goblin mage or an ancient red dragon. They are both level appropriate challenges for a level 20 toon. The enemy had scaled up from level 1 to level 20 because of the PC. That is level scaling. If level scaling do not occur, then the entire RPG genre would be dead. There is simply no point in high level characters going around nuking everything in sight with no repercussions at all. That is boring as hell. And that is why it doesn't happen in RPGs.

"I'm a scientist and an engineer so I use common terms to mean different things than everyone else uses them to mean, because accurate communication is not at all important in engineering and science."
- An idiot

No Cael, you are 100% wrong. And instead of just doing the sensible thing and taking in this information and using it to stop being wrong, you have decided on the "LOL I'M A RETARD" route of doubling down on your wrongness and insisting it's everyone else who is wrong.

Level scaling means scaling content based on your character's level. A pre-placed asset, whether it's a level 1 goblin or a level 20000 dragon, by definition isn't level scaled because it's not scaled at all. It simply is what it is. On the other hand, if a location, instead of spawning a level 1 goblin, checked a table, compared the players level to the chart, and placed a monster that matched that player's level, the content has now been scaled.

As an "Engineer and scientist" (You mean petroleum distribution engineer and customer service scientist right?) you really should know what "Scale" means in this context. It never means "Exactly the same regardless of any other factors".

Super Mario Brothers has harder content as you clear more levels. World 8 is harder than world 1. But Super Mario Brothers does not have level scaling, or any kind of content scaling. World 8 is the same level regardless of how easy or hard it is for you to clear. The fact that world 8 is harder than world 1 is called "Game design" and not "Level Scaling".

 

[grim1234]

What's with this thread and absolutely retarded takes. First I someone thinks that more copies of the same tree in a game = more disk space usage, now there's someone who thinks that level scaling is somehow the same thing as predefined enemy placement.

You can't make this shit up. Comedy gold.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

What's with this thread and absolutely retarded takes. First I someone thinks that more copies of the same tree in a game = more disk space usage, now there's someone who thinks that level scaling is somehow the same thing as predefined enemy placement.

You can't make this shit up. Comedy gold.

It's not just this thread. It's not even just the entire internet.

People, in general, are fucking retards. Logic or even basic critical thoughts aren't in these people's toolboxes. Ad hominem reasoning is the pinnacle of their thought processes. At least Cael has seemingly heard of logic, although obviously he doesn't quite get it...

And then, of course, there's trolling. Maybe Cael is laughing his head off that we're responding at all to his obvious bullshittery. Maybe he's only pretending to be retarded, so the joke's on us. Probably not though, usually you can measure how much butthurt is present in a post simply by measuring how long it is. At least, it makes for inefficient trolling.