Problem is the "doing it to an extent" is up until level 50. After that no enemies, or rather very few enemies, scale against the player or are at higher levels than 50.

A good balanced system would be to put three or four Deathclaws (insert Skyrim equivalent here) in a certain region that are a much higher level, but being as there are only three or four you can evade them and it doesn't make the territory completely untouchable.

That's because those games are designed to have content all teh way up to the highest level. Bethesda designed a leveling system to guide and enhance play, and seperately planned out content. They made the two systems entirely seperate, which I think is a very smart thing to do.

Plus, they said the game has 300+ hours of content, so unless it took you 300 hours to get to level 50, I think you skipped a few things. And if you have and just don't want to do them, then you've clearly played the game plenty. Enjoy your 100+ hours (Or however much you've played), and take a break. Or start a new character.


But they did do that, to an extent. Ever try doing a dwemer ruin at level 5? Not possible. Hell, it's impossible until like level 30.

Beyond that, they didn't want to overdo it. Then you just start sealing off parts of the world, and it quickly destroys the open world feel. Take New Vegas for example. You start out, your thrust out into the open world of Goodsprings. Oh, wait. Can't go west, mountains. Can't go east or north, deathclaws and cazadors. Your only option is south. I immediately went, "Oh... alright." and shuffled off towards Primm. That was SO directed and destroyed the open world experience.

However in Fallout 3, you step out of Vault 101 and can go virtually any direction, as is with Skyrim.

They did some leveling, but they balanced it, I think wonderfully.

yeah but mainly the point of this thread was also that I'm just tired of rerolling chars and stopping and rerolling and doing the same thing and another thing I'm asking is: if Skyrim really is 300+ hours. where is that other 200 +? (I'm not trying to appear like I'm bashing Bethesda OR Skyrim. I'm a passionate fan of both the creators and TES <3 I'm just a little taken back by this)

True. Or they could have just capped leveling to level 50? But they chose not to. The soft cap is, I think they said 55. The game is designed to provide new content until level 55. After that they either figured few would play past that, or they couldn't make enough content to go past. Or that just felt right.

Think about how long it takes you to level. Would a few 'Skyrim deathclaw equivalent's keep you entertained for long? No. You be level 50-60, and you'd go fight them for an hour then they would be dead and you'd still be out of content. You want content for another 30 levels (to 81). That's 60% (30/50) more content. They simply didn't add that much.

Yes, and that's the bad part.

As both a gamer and a designer I am of the firm belief that you should not add content that you are not going to balance for. The monster-to-player relationship content is not designed or balanced well once you hit level 50-55 because there are simply too few, or zero, monsters that are either leveled past level 50 or continue to scale with the player's level. The idea of thought behind the design of "we don't think players will go that far," to me is absurd because I question why the player is even allowed to reach level 81 in the first place if there will be no challenge incentive (i.e. harder enemies) to look forward to.

The player should have either been restricted to level 50-55 or enemies (read: some) should have been leveled to post 50-55 and continue to scale as the player levels higher.

But then I'd be sitting here with someone else asking, 'Why can't we level past 50?' 81 is the hard cap. They didn't pick it, then design around that, it's simply where the numbers lined up. This game is not designed for you to max out all 21 skills and hit 81. It's designed for you to play and enjoy the content, until you run out. It's as simple as that. It's not designed in a spreadsheet manner like most MMO's are where all the levels line up perfectly and you always have your allotment of fetch quests and 'walk ten feet and kill 30 things' quests.

This is simply not that kind of game.

It's always a bad idea to go "all the way" with one character for any Bethesda game. make each character follow a specific path and do only about 1/4 of the available quests then retire the character.. not only to improve replayability but to avoid the problem you described

Bethesda most certainly did pick level 81, it's not simply "where the numbers lined up." And again, if the game is not designed for the player to level all the way to 81 why is it there? Bethesda most certainly knows (or should know) how to put a hard cap on things (i.e. monsters, the actual 81 cap, etc). It is simply bad design to offer the player the ability to do something but offer them no content for that mechanic. Can you imagine if the enemy cap wasn't at 50-55 but rather at 20 yet the player could still reach 81?

And why you're comparing it to MMOs is beyond me, because having enemies following the player to the allowed player maximum is standard RPG fare.

Wow. I'm not criticizing here, but I have no clue how some folks get through so much of the game so quickly. I feel bad for you. Really.

I'm at about 140 hours in, with one character. I rp a little, but not overly so. I haven't started the civil war, or played the MQ much beyond meeting the greybeards, or participated much in many of the guilds. I also don't just wander about like a goof looking at the sunsets or admiring the water. I do stuff. Lots of stuff. Lots of quests, side quests, talking to everyone in towns. Finding new locations. Clearing dungeons. There's some wandering about picking up alchemical ingredients, but not a ton.

Again, not picking... but I don't know how anyone can feel they've worn out the fun in Skyrim after 100 hours. Seriously. I literally can't even fathom what sort of playstyle you have. I look at my one character, and I've just barely scratched the surface of what is offered here. No joke, there are still whole cities I haven't visited yet.

I'd like to know, honestly, what your playstyle is like. I just can't figure...

You know, it just occured to me, perhaps they plan on adding the higher level content in a DLC? Maybe they'll make a super deadly 50+ area...

I'd frown on that, as per my earlier comments on locking too many places off, but it's certainly a possibility...

This is where I am.

I'm thinking either the OP has a crazy playspeed, or they're simply unaware of a huge amount of content. Hell, like I said, 180 hours mostly on one character; I've yet to do a single guild quest chain, or visit Windhelm, Winterhold, or much of Solitude. Most of the NE 4th of the map has been narely explored too.

The game is short.
How is there an argument here?

How is completing quests in succession without buggering around "playing the game wrong"?

It's not. It's just playing the game the 'short way'.
If you slow down, you'll get a much longer life out of a character. If you simply do quests, you won't find your character lasting as long.

And if the game catered all the way up through level 50 to level 70, you'd complain that after 70 there's nothing to do, right?

There's only so much content. Once you beat it, there is no more. It has nothing to do with level. And limiting content by level is no way to go about making an open world game. (WoW, anyone?)

It's not. It's just playing the game the 'short way'.
If you slow down, you'll get a much longer life out of a character. If you simply do quests, you won't find your character lasting as long.

Except, of course, it's a TES game. After many of the quests and/or quest-routes, there's still quite a bit left to explore and do, as far as "traditional" TES.

Skyrim vehemently lacks these qualities. Somewhat. The OP at the very least has a point regarding 40+ gameplay.



What the [censored] are we playing games, RPG games at that, if not for purpose sought through quests and experience?

So I have a question. Am I the only one who thinks Skyrim caters to the lower levels?

Like, seriously past level 50 (late 50s, early 60s) there are little to no quests to do.
And by this time in the game nearly every (if not all) locations are discovered so it's like, the game loses it's value.
This is a real dissapointment and I can't stand that I have to keep making new chars once you get to a certain point in the game


But I was wondering if anyone out there agreed with me? Disagree?
thoughts?

You have to consider that not all the players invest hundreds/thousands of hours into the game with only one character.

However,i have one of them at level 74 and still i find new locations and quest to do,so its impossible that at level 50 you have "done everything" like you said sorry (without "exploits" of course,i mean on a "clean playtrough)

The only way to keep the game challenging at these levels is of course a sort of auto-control with some self-imposed rule,otherwise you will have little fun in combat.

Another problem is that someone underestimate the "radiant quests"..

e.g. doing the "rescue missions" for the companions without using fast travel will make the game almost endless and a perpetual challenge,and so other similar quest from the college,Db or Tg

If only there were level 60+ monsters in the game...