Have you played Skyrim? Because things scale, and yet every dungeon seems to be a unique experience for me. And many of them have completely unique items inside. Crazy, isn't it?

The (very good) point that the OP was making is that if you don't have level-scaling, it forces the game on a linear path. I can't go and explore the whole world right off the bat, because I have a good chance of getting my ass handed to me by some ridiculously hard creatures. Now, with Skyrim, they've implemented the best version of level-scaling to date, because I still have the chance of getting crushed by a giant if I'm not careful about where I go. At the same time, as I level up, I'm going to start encountering some harder enemies in the wilderness, instead of hordes of wolves and low-level bandits. So my higher-level character doesn't feel constrained to exploring areas where harder enemies are. The end result is that the game is more fun and feels more open. Which is a good thing for most people. Unless you hate fun.

Bingo. And that is why Oblivion is so much better with OOO.

Skyrim's scaling is much better than Oblivion's but still leaves much to be desired.

I don't like directly returning arguments online as I think its frankly quite petty, but when you keep putting such condescending points its hard not to reply.

Its totally your own prerogative to feel different ways about level scaling. But the argument I quoted just shows how simple minded you really are. Can you not see there is more to leveling than just numbers? I love using some of the new perks and spells I get at higher levels, which otherwise were inaccessible. Same with gear and loot. I don't really mind that my enemies scale with me, and provide the same level of challenge throughout. If I wanted to be rewarded for getting into a high level area, or getting to the 'hardest' dungeon in the game I'd go out and get another game. TES is, and always has been, about the freedom of exploration. Sure the level scaling isn't even exactly what I'd want it to be. But what you're arguing is just redundant.

Without level scaling you end up with situations like Morrowind where you are stronger than everything in the game already by level 15.

I understand your points very well, it's just that they're invalid points because that's not how the scaling works.

It had some scaling to my recollection... But how was it linear where it didn't scale?

A couple quick things:

- level scaling goes both ways, and the actually important part isn't when it lowers the challenge to your level, but when it bring it up.
An example. Fairly early in the game, suppose you're given a quest to go to a dangerous ancient tomb to fight a daedric prince. Two scenarios:
1. the game doesn't feature level scaling. Thus, you end up fighting a daedric prince that is something like level 24 (as the quest is given to you around level 20). This leads to a few problems, many of which are exactly what those who complain about level scaling lament, including the fact that if for some reason you left this quest behind you'll easily end up strolling through the dungeon and oneshotting the daedric prince at level 40, or that later in the game you'd end up fighting bandits apparently more powerful than some daedric princes.
2. the game features level scaling; if you go to the dungeon at level 10, the prince is level 20 and you get hammered to death. If you go at level 25, the price is around level 25-30 and you get an appropriate challenge. If you go at level 45, the prince is level 45 and you still get an epic fight.

You may argue that you shouldn't be fighting daedric princes at level 24. The result of that is a game where you fight bandits until level 20, move on to tougher mobs at 25, and fight all the big guys in the endgame. In short, a linear game with stifled exploration. You're thinking of a JRPG - I love those too, they have undeniable benefits over TES games, but I like TES how it is.

There's a LOT of misinformation so I begin.

THERE IS LEVEL SCALING IN MORROWIND, and no, it's not even just "minor" it's nearly the same as Skyrim has, except Skyrim does not add suddenly stronger enemies in places where you've already been. Many of the stronger enemies only appear on higher level, like random Ascended Sleepers or random Golden Saints. Yes, it did have some static enemies, BUT SO DOES SKYRIM.

No, OOO/FCOM doesn't remove level scaling either, it makes it more random. Most of the items are still scaled, enemies with daedric weaponry only appear on higher levels, but they can appear on lower levels as well on an extremely low chance. On low levels most enemies will be weak, except some of the more stronger Boss characters or named characters.
Also whoever thought it is a good idea to put a frost titan next to Bruma needs to be shot.


There are still challenges in Skyrim that cannot be done without leveling up, and to open up more options, you have to progress in your skills.

Was the bolded really necessary? You're not adding strength to your "argument".

As for your "point", there's a point in the leveling system even if scaling is in place because leveling systems in RPGs are much more than difficulty sliders. The most important aspect of leveling is customization.

Even assuming a strict 1:1 scaling progression was enforced (something nobody would advocate I hope), so that every time you level EVERY mob in the game levels with you, a leveling system would still have 90% of its reasons to exist, exactly because it's not a difficulty slider.

Giving an example.
You begin the game, pick up a sword and shield, and go swing at some undead in a tomb, because that's all the option to have.

Now, 20 hours later, even if the mobs scaled with you and you're still taking virtually the same time to down them (as numbers have merely inflated, as you point out), you may be doing so by sneaking around and taking shots with your bow, by using a two handed axe, by summoning elementals while shooting fireballs and so on. Your character "progressed", he's not a grunt with a sword and shield anymore, but he plays (and gameplay is still king, in a videogame) different. He's an accomplished character, and if he tried to down those mobs with sword and shield after he's spent 20 hours playing a caster, he would be maimed - so the statement that nothing changed is also false.

Leveling systems = character customization, not difficulty sliders. Sure, some progression is fundamental, but it's not all there is to it.


As for the problem with exploring unique places and getting unique items, of course everything has a pro and con. Linear RPGs with strict progressions generally do loot better, as the game knows exactly when you'll get to that place, at which level, and what other options you will have. TES is about freedom; asking to be able to explore everywhere, and to be anything, and then complaining if a certain dungeon doesn't offer upgrades over the blacksmithing craft you've spent 10 hours on is delusional. You can't have the best of both worlds.

You can see it this way if you want: linear RPGs are more fantastic in nature. Later in the game you fight godlike entities that would oneshot your 20-levels-ago persona easily, and you find weapons that deal hundreds of time the damage your first blade did. TES games take a simulational approach: a level 50 fighter isn't dozen times stronger than an ordinary man. A sword, even if magic, is still some pounds of metal, and obeys the laws of physics. Sure, the level 50 character can achieve what ordinary men can only dream of, but if he kills a giant, it's not because he deals hundreds of times the damage an ordinary guy does when swinging a sword, but because he has collected the skills to stay alive long enough to deal a killing blow.
Why do bandits scale in TES? Because a level 50 character still dies if he gets shot in the head with a bow. Sure, you're gonna be much better off then you were at level 1, but because YOU are stronger, not because everything else is weaker.

And here's the explanation of a leveling system in a level-scaled game: things grow up with you, because at level 50 you're still human and you don't have the health of 30 bandits stacked together; but by having a leveling system in place, the person you're playing at level 50 isn't a random guy with a sword, but someone (still human, not godlike) with a phenomenal set of skills.

The first example still makes sense to me as it doesn't disregard my characters progression. If I leave the DP quest behind to return later when I've grown better, it should be easier -- at level 10, the prince should be deadly, at levels 20-30 I should match him, at levels 40-50 it should be fairly easy. Again, if I can't get better than the DP, what is the purpose me trying to get better to begin with, other than merely reaching his minimum? And if I end up fighting bandits stronger than the DP, that means there is scaling happening, or that the DP wasn't even meant to be much of an opponent in the first place.

And no... I don't like JRPG's.

I just don't think that one of a kind artifacts should be scaled, particularly daedric artifacts. Have the Daedra or whoever insist on a more powerful champion.

That's not a good point, that's caricature and fallacy. It's not because the entirety of a game is not doable from the get-go that a game is linear.
And that's bad how ?
I mean, you can't do everything right from the start ? So ? Isn't that the POINT of getting stronger, being able to do what you couldn't before ?


Man, I admit I'm guilty of being condescending, but it's hard not to when you see arguments being blindly ignored just to repeat the same overused mantras that have been proven wrong ten times already, especially when they are completely illogical and are still hailed as the pinnacle of common sense...

TES is about huge world to explore, sure. And that's precisely why level scaling is so damaging to the game. It makes the world blander, less exciting and less consistent, and remove a lot about the uniqueness of places. It destroy the suspension of disbelief (unless you're willfully blind, it's not really possible to not notice that suddendly very rare materials have become relatiively common because you reached an arbitrary treashold) and it cheapen any feeling of achievement (because you know everything is tailored to you).

No, it just means the game was undertuned, which is a completely different point.
As a side note, that is exactly one of the "overused mantras that have been proven wrong ten times already" I spoke about earlier. Don't wonder if you infuriate people with it.

Sounds great, makes sense. Unfortunately, the OP was asking why people were hating on TES' levelling system and Skyrim's in particular now. And to repeat myself, it's because of the random thieves suddenly also wearing end-game gear while trying to mob you for a few coins, or dragons being so piss easy early game that it makes you wonder what the threat is all about. Immersion is being broken left and right, which is killer in an RPG.

What you described would be a perfect case scenario. Skyrim isn't. People are angry because they expected the above gone after Oblivion. Question answered.

I covered this. If you meet NO bandits after level 24, it means bandits are meant to be low-level opponents, meaning all areas featuring bandits are to be cleared at low level (else they're trivial/meaningless).

In short it means the game would be A. linear, and B. the kind of game in which you fight bandits at level 10, and dragons at level 60.

Which is why I said what I said on JRPGs: you may not like them, but they feature what you want. What you're asking for is the linear progression of JRPGs.

Morrowind had scaling it was very much like skyrim. Oblivion was most everything if not everything scaled. Skyrim has scaling of course i mean i'd hate for the random dragons to be like 25 and then when i hit 30 i just roll them and at 50 i 1 shot them in [censored] gear because i outleveled them. Some places in skyrim i find very hard to do at 37 and other places are very easy. The fact that dungeons lock when u enter you can make your own scaling. Go get to every dungeon at level 1 or most of them then you can have the north be dungeon you zone in first at 50. OF course that'd be dumb because you'd have to die sooo many times b4 u managed to get to half the places since half the stuff in the game has a set minimum level lol

That would be awesome.


Ok you like levelscaling and other people dont. But dont say levelscaling is necessary. Its necessary to you and necessary for developers to save time. Thank you.
PS: You should really try Gothic 2. Its a full static leveled game and its awesome...without levelscaling. Wow, how can this be. Did you ever play Oblivion with some nice mods against levelscaling? After I did I cant get enough of oblivion. Without these mods oblivion was boring. So... somehow an openworld rpg wihtout levelscaling is working too. But I give up, there are 1000 of threads like this. But yours is the one with a lot of sonsense stuff. Use the search function are read about the better ones. Yes there are good arguments pro levelscaling, but in your text I cant finde any of them.

I am the OP btw .

And if your point is that Skyrim isn't perfect, well, it's not.

But it features some of the best level scaling I've ever seen. Things level up with you, but some powerful things can never be lower than a certain level (making them impossible to do soon in the game), some things never level too much (giving the game a sense of progression), and things are locked in level at the range when you first reach a place, making sure things don't level up when revisiting the place.

Yes dragons are too easy, and yes loot is lackluster. It's not perfect, but it's better than most TES games.

I have not noticed any thieves or thugs or other random NPCs being that well equipped. In fact, my Level 16 Character does not even check bodies for loot anymore unless I am in a dungeon and I just killed the boss.

As for Dragons, they are more a plot device than an epic boss fight, so they should not be the end all be all of enemies. Your mission is to stop the dragons from coming, not to kill individual dragons.

I am still getting killed in fights in this game, and that never happened to me in Oblivion.

Level scaling is definitely better than Oblivions. I can understand why its necessary as Morrowwind did get too easy.

The fact is here as fun as that would be it seems like many of the people on this forum on stuck in the past of RPGS in the 90's and such. Games have changed. I for one LOVED that set as a kid in MM7 and such where if you went somewhere to early you get [censored] slapped but i also LOVE skyrim where i can go to winterhold early on and do some quests there and not be stuck on the same quest line all the time.

I see all these people refering to all the "kiddies" and these are the "hardcoe" rpg players from the 80s or some [censored]. I don't think u realize how fast the gaming market is growing and how much its targeted towards teens and young advlts in their early to mid 20's not the 40 year olds. Yes some games will be but for the most part they aren't. The games still amazing and i feel it doesn't break immersion at all.

And this bandit crap you all post about it. Think like this, Bandit is an accomplished bandit who's robbed many travelers and may have gathered enough coin for good gear or was out actually making it. Maybe they robbed a level 1 storeowner and the person had some elven armor. Also aren't bandits supposed to be these greedy people? If i was a bandit in full daedric armor i wouldn't be like o ok i got the best gear and it took me 30 years of my life imma go back to being a good guy. No i'd be like IM WEARING DAEDRIC [censored] ARMOR GIMME YOUR MONEY NOW!

i like the level scaling...would get bored otherwise...due to crafting and "side activities" and the i get stronger feeling i'd simply make it that enemies only gain like 80% of your level (or depending on the enemy type) - but judging from the fact that you can one-hit kill enemies which you couldnt with lower level i guess thats the way its handled

Level Scaling is actually the result of a poorly designed RPG, but a well designed Action/Adventure game.

In an RPG, you are supposed to become more powerful as you play until you reach a point where you are epicly powerful. Balance and RPG are two terms that do not belong together.

In an Action/Adventure game, you are supposed to be evenly matched against enemies regardless of how far into the game you are.

Because the TES series is an Action/Adventure series with RPG elements (it cannot be objectively called an RPG anymore), level scaling should be expected. That will not make RPG fans happy (myself certainly included), but that is the truth of the matter.

As I said, you're limiting levels to difficulty sliders. It's not how it works in TES, and if that doesn't suit you, there's multiple sagas that work the way you want. But TES is about exploration and customization, and both make level scaling a necessity.

I'm sorry if my answer is so succint, but your arguments are drowned in generic insults and arms flailing about mantras; in your urgency to dismiss opposing points in the quickest way possible, you seem to struggle in bringing up an argument that I can actually answer to. I still didn't get what your point here is, or how you would marry exploration with the lack of level scaling (aside from generic "there's a few areas of your level to pick from" MMO solutions).

If, and it is a big IF, everything scales in-line with everything else.

In Skyrim, it doesn't.

Even if it did.. so what?

There seems to be a group of people of an undefineable number who seems to regard the game as nothing more than an inssult JUST because it has level sclaing. Everything else, the quests, the sights, the fights and the main stroy, are all, somewhow, rendered worthless, because of level scaling.

IN addition many of the anti-scaling proponents conveniently overlook that level sclaing is LEVEL scaling, not necessarily combat-level scaling. So the idea that enemies are *always* the same 'relative dificulty' is innacurate whenever the player choses a non-combat boost.

As such level-scaling is not by any means a straight linear progression irror'd perfectly by the MOBs: it CAN be, if you play it that way, but it does not have to be.

Many anti-level-scalers appear to be min-max gamers who overlook the large number of others gamer who are struggling in the game, finding it very difficult.

Clearly there are varied opinions and experiences, so the idea that the system is nothing more than linear infaltion of numbers, is operating in a false environment where "all other things being equal" are just that.

In skyrim, for most players, they are not.


Most importantly, perhaps, is that there are fewer gamers who want to travel for 3 hours to find a cave but not be able to go into it because they are the wrong level...than those who are happy to take 3 hours only to have to "come back later". DO you use "fast-travel"? If so then how can you complain about level-scaling? Both are there for the same intended audience - the one who pay the most bills.

Is that dumbing down the game for the masses? Perhaps, but the masses allow for games 6, 7 and 8 being bigger and better. (for varying levels of 'better').

Welcome to the world of multi-million $ games production.

It was linear because you were literally forced to go from Zone A to Zone B to Zone C, etc. Straying off that path lead to you encountering swarms of enemies you couldn't even hope to begin taking on. New Vegas lead the player on rails, not with walls and boundaries but with enemies that were basically end-game.