Rahkir Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 But, I honestly prefer the way old games handle it, like BG and Shining Force. Oh, sure. Preferring one over the other is totally valid. Insisting that one is the "correct" way because of some "realism" argument is NOT. I didn't argue from realism, I argued from plausibility within the game world. Which is certainly a valid means of argument for a game's atmosphere. Level is not just an arbitrary number, it is a representative number of general proficiency (It is a comparative scale, 1 is less powerful than 2 which is less powerful than 3 and so on). Would Xzar and Monty, left to their own devices in BG1, really grow as much in power as the PC? Maybe, but probably not, given their general ineptitude without the PC's leadership. So when I come across them later in the game or hear of them, why should they be of equal power to me? Did Xzar maintain an equal level of power with the PC when you met him again in BG2? No. Why not? Because he wasn't a companion. He was left to his own devices and he didn't conquer or triumph over all the obstacles the PC faced. Leveling someone up or making excuses simply because they have the tag "companion" when they would not otherwise, seems silly to me. That is my preference, you are free to have a completely contradictory one, but I maintain that my preference is just as valid as yours. Fun cannot be derived objectively. But, this is a similar idea to why I find it so silly that because my character in Oblivion was super powerful, every random bandit joe that I met in the woods had glass armor and could kill a whole town of people. Companion scaling or enemy scaling, I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now