Level scaling and its misuse

[Sylvius the Mad]

Some other questions based on this logic:

Whilst you practice and grow stronger, level scaling would imply that the "mobs" are training too. That they learn new things and that they are out in the world getting stronger by numbers, gear, or whatever.

This explanation never makes any sense. The population of bandits in the world is of roughly constant level. Yes, any individual bandit might get stronger, but some of them die or retire, and new bandits start their careers. In the aggregate, bandits shouldn't grow stronger over time.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Sylvius the Mad

[Lephys]

Level scaling is a terrible mechanic and should never, ever be included in an RPG. An RPG is about character development (improving stats and equipment) in order to face tougher areas with tougher enemies. With level scaling a large portion of the character development is completely redundant. In Other words: If you go to an area too early, then you should be prepared for a really tough fight that you will only survive if your plans are tactically and strategically top-notch.

 

You're assuming levels will always be scaled straight to the character's current level, in every single instance of combat in the game. The fact that level-scaling can and has been used in countless other specific forms is the reason why I defend it. Personally, I agree that encounter-scaling (basically scaling the difficulty without fiddling with level numbers, as opposed to using level numbers) is the better option. But, if a developer can and wants to use levels to do what they want done, then I say go for it.

 

The funny thing is, you might not even know if level-scaling was used, unless it was done shoddily. You get to a group of enemies, and they're as tough as you expect them to be. Boom... all is well. Does it matter that they were GOING to be 3 levels lower than they are now if you had gotten here before completing some other content? No. You didn't know that just by playing. You just knew how tough they were when you got to them.

 

If you fight some rats at Level 3, and they're level 2. Then, you encounter some more rats in the world later on, when you're level 20, and they're level 8, is that really ruining the whole entire game so terribly much? You're still going to wipe the floor with them. Just, initiating combat and issuing attack commands won't literally take longer than actually killing the rats. Obviously, filling a level ~20 dungeon with level 8 rats would be annoying as balls, but that has nothing to do with the use of level-scaling.

 

You can advance beyond the power of something else without getting to the point of gaining an "I literally win in an instant" button that you are forced to click every time you encounter that weaker foe. It's nice when I become more skilled than others at Halo, but I don't wanna sit down and play Halo against an unconscious person, then rejoice when I win, shouting "Yeah! I beat you SO HARD! I'm reveling in my own feeling of power and skill right now!"

[Helm]

You're assuming levels will always be scaled straight to the character's current level, in every single instance of combat in the game.

Well, that is how level scaling is practically always implemented.

 

There are of course a few exceptions (e.g. only the bosses and mini-bosses are level scaled), but that is generally how level scaling is implemented.

 

The funny thing is, you might not even know if level-scaling was used, unless it was done shoddily. You get to a group of enemies, and they're as tough as you expect them to be. Boom... all is well. Does it matter that they were GOING to be 3 levels lower than they are now if you had gotten here before completing some other content? No. You didn't know that just by playing. You just knew how tough they were when you got to them.

Sawyer implemented level scaling extremely well into New Vegas, so It took me personally a while until I noticed it. Only the main campaign was level scaled, everything else was static.

 

So, in New Vegas, you could either ignore every side quest or do EVERY side quest. It didn't matter, the difficulty of the main campaign would be the same. This is actually a huge problem imo, I will go into more detail if you wish to hear my opinion.

 

If you fight some rats at Level 3, and they're level 2. Then, you encounter some more rats in the world later on, when you're level 20, and they're level 8, is that really ruining the whole entire game so terribly much? You're still going to wipe the floor with them. Just, initiating combat and issuing attack commands won't literally take longer than actually killing the rats. Obviously, filling a level ~20 dungeon with level 8 rats would be annoying as balls, but that has nothing to do with the use of level-scaling.

There is no problem if a developer takes a level 2 rat, raises it's level to 8 and changes the name (to "evil rat" or something) and then sticks it in the game, but then again that is not level scaling, that is just a way to diversify the enemies without spending too many resources (a good example is WoW, the game uses this extensively).

 

If the game is level scaled, then the rat also levels up when you level up. And that is the problem.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Helm

[Valorian]

The funny thing is, you might not even know if level-scaling was used, unless it was done shoddily.

 

The funny thing is, you might not even know if all "choices" lead to the same consequence or if all dialogue options lead to the same response, unless it was done so shoddily that you don't even have to replay the game to notice it.

[Lephys]

Well, that is how level scaling is practically always implemented.

 

There are of course a few exceptions (e.g. only the bosses and mini-bosses are level scaled), but that is generally how level scaling is implemented.

 

This is true, but my point was only that, there's a difference between the way in which level-scaling is generally implemented being terrible, and level-scaling, itself, inherently being terrible. It is merely scaling using changes in creature/character level. The ratio of those changes can be 1:1, 1:10, 5:1... anything, and can be applied to any specific portions of game content that you wish.

 

So, in New Vegas, you could either ignore every side quest or do EVERY side quest. It didn't matter, the difficulty of the main campaign would be the same. This is actually a huge problem imo, I will go into more detail if you wish to hear my opinion.

 

I'd actually love to hear your opinion on it, . Really and truly. It might contain something I hadn't really thought of before, or a new perspective on something I've thought of.

 

There is no problem if a developer takes a level 2 rat, raises it's level to 8 and changes the name (to "evil rat" or something) and then sticks it in the game, but then again that is not level scaling, that is just a way to diversify the enemies without spending too many resources (a good example is WoW, the game uses this extensively).

 

Well, but this is actually just level-scaling in a piddly disguise, unless the rats are a completely different creature all together. You've literally thrown rats at the player that are better than the previous rats they fought. Same as with just scaling the exact same rats up to level 8, but with a prettier package. It's kinda like those micro-transaction stores in games that now have you find "chests," and then say "Ooooh! You've got magnificent loot there! All you have to do is buy a key to open it!". Except, buying the key to open the "chest" in your possession is exactly the same thing as buying the chest in the first place and it not requiring a key to open. It's only perceived differently.

 

I'll admit, it's more immersive to perceive the rats as different, and therefore better rats. But, in that scenario, you yourself said it would be just fine. So, my point with the "You might not even know there's level-scaling in use" bit was that, no one's complaining that they're fighting level 8 Dire Rats INSTEAD OF Level 2 Wuss Rats. But, the second you TELL someone "Hey, those are level 8 Dire Rats because we based the challenge of the foes in this area on your character's level," and they might start getting really upset.

 

Obviously, if you present the wrong level of challenge in the wrong area, people are going to be upset. How you determine that level of challenge is completely irrelevant, so long as it's the appropriate level of challenge. So, yes, rats are a pretty good example of something that probably shouldn't ever really need much scaling. There's not much of a story reason for you to EXPECT rats to still present some form of challenge later on. However, sentient, humanoid things, like Goblins, work much better. You're much more likely to run into skilled, expert goblins as opposed to lazy, rookie goblins than you are to run into skilled, expert rats. So, IF you have a game in which goblins are there at level 5 and suck, and you need goblins in (for story/lore coherency purposes) later, I see absolutely nothing wrong with scaling them up, based on your character's level (not necessarily TO your character's level).

 

I'd love to hear thoughts on what would be good scenarios in which to use scaling, but my point stands that, IF used in good scenarios where it makes sense, it can be a very beneficial system of delivering the appropriate level of challenge to the player at a given point in the game.

 

 

The funny thing is, you might not even know if all "choices" lead to the same consequence or if all dialogue options lead to the same response, unless it was done so shoddily that you don't even have to replay the game to notice it.

 

You're right. Now if we just had a bunch of people complaining about how different dialogue choices leading to different outcomes was inherently "feces," that would be an extremely useful point. 8D

[Valorian]

 

The funny thing is, you might not even know if all "choices" lead to the same consequence or if all dialogue options lead to the same response, unless it was done so shoddily that you don't even have to replay the game to notice it.

 

You're right. Now if we just had a bunch of people complaining about how different dialogue choices leading to different outcomes was inherently "feces," that would be an extremely useful point. 8D

 

Look, there's a cat!

 

Hey cat, are you jelly of your pink cousin's deducing skills?

 

: No, not really.

[Helm]

I'd actually love to hear your opinion on it, . Really and truly. It might contain something I hadn't really thought of before, or a new perspective on something I've thought of.

 

Level scaling evocates the degenerate gaming phenomena known as empty leveling and monotonous progression. Empty leveling because moving up a level has very little outcome on gameplay, in other words the levels are "empty" and monotonous progression, because the player is robbed of his sense progression in character development (character development is of course a key factor in in an RPG).

 

If the player's character rises in level in a level scaled game, aspects of the world will change to accommodate that character's growth. If you level up, then the level of the enemies you encounter will also increase accordingly, as if the world only revolves arounds the level of your character or party.

 

This prevents the player from feeling any true sense that his/her character has grown in power. You will also never face an unsurpassable obstacle and never have the option to remove this obstacle by becoming more powerful. This where side quests come in, they allow a player to grind with variability in order to become more powerful and to overcome obstacles in the main quest.

 

That is why I hate level scaling.

 

There is no problem if a developer takes a level 2 rat, raises it's level to 8 and changes the name (to "evil rat" or something) and then sticks it in the game, but then again that is not level scaling, that is just a way to diversify the enemies without spending too many resources (a good example is WoW, the game uses this extensively).

Well, but this is actually just level-scaling in a piddly disguise, unless the rats are a completely different creature all together. You've literally thrown rats at the player that are better than the previous rats they fought. Same as with just scaling the exact same rats up to level 8, but with a prettier package.

Not really. That rat will always be level 8 if the game is not level scaled. If I fight it with level 2 (and barely survive) or level 12 (and annihilate it), it doesn't matter, that certain rat will always be a level 8 rat.

[Helm]

Again with the same song. You don't hate level scaling you hate this implementation of level scaling. It can be done different ways like we posted before. It doesn't even have to be scaled to player level it can take multiple factors in to consideration.

Well, then enlighten me and tell me in which games I loved level scaling.

 

Anyway, Player centric level scaling is how level scaling is always implemented in games. And yes, it sucks. It always sucks.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

Well, then enlighten me and tell me in which games I loved level scaling.

 

How can I know what games did you played?

 

Anyway, Player centric level scaling is how level scaling is always implemented in games. And yes, it sucks. It always sucks.

 

But it can be implemented differently. Physics in games sucked until someone had it done right, voice acting was pure **** until the companies started to hire actual voice actors and not make programmers to "act". Just because something was badly one it doesn't mean it cannot be done better.

Then give me an example of a game where level scaling is done extremely well and makes the game just as good if not better than an RPG without level scaling.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

[Then give me an example of a game where level scaling is done extremely well and makes the game just as good if not better than an RPG without level scaling.

 

A few of them have some good LS:

- Borderlands (have min-max range, bosses have player level +x, have set levels)

- Dark Age of Camelot have very good LS

- Dragon Age have good ranges and LS but the game mechanics are to tweakish

- The last Remnant

 

I knew you were gonna bring up Borderlands and Dragon Age (after a Google search).

 

Well Borderlands really isn't an RPG and Dragon Age Origins does not level scale, it uses a hybrid scaling system including elements of player centric scaling. BioWare calls this system challenge scaling. The system has been criticized, but it certainly is not as bad as player centric level scaling, a lot better actually, seeing that does not totally throw the feeling of progression out the window.

 

So is PE going to use the Dragon Age Origins system or what? It certainly is not a good system, but it is not terrible like level scaling is.

 

Btw. Dark age of Camelot only scales instances to group size just like many other MMOs. That is not level scaling.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

Btw. Dark age of Camelot only scales instances to group size just like many other MMOs. That is not level scaling.

No, it's scaled by level range of dungeon, character level and party if you have any. It's a more complex system than for example diablo 2 where the only factor is size of the group.

I've never played dark age of camelot, but lord of the rings online uses the exact same system for instances (dungeons) which I played for a few months.

 

You are correct though, technically it is level scaling, but on the other hand it also an MMO which dynamically level scales instances to group size (and the lowest player level... in Lotro at least).

[Valorian]

 

You don't hate level scaling you hate this implementation of level scaling.

 

 

We don't hate the absence of choices and consequences, we just hate the implementation of the absence. If we don't notice the absence; it's fine!

 

Therefore, it's totally not about the concept of fake "choices" being awful, it's about implementing it in a way that doesn't make it too obvious.

 

A level scaling fake choices range (i.e. not going too wild with it) will indubitably fix the issue.

[Racker]

In a good game, in my opinion, minions should become easier to kill as you level up, while boss mobs and other special encounters should become more difficult. I think that it takes a combination of good level design and encounter scaling to achieving this to a workable degree in most games. Perhaps in conjunction with an encounter-changing difficulty slider.

[Lephys]

Not really. That rat will always be level 8 if the game is not level scaled. If I fight it with level 2 (and barely survive) or level 12 (and annihilate it), it doesn't matter, that certain rat will always be a level 8 rat.

 

Yes, "that" rat. You've missed my point, methinks. Let's go with an opponent that's a better example than a rat. How much of a difference is there, in functionality and effect, between level-scaling the "same" bandits (so that the player fights level 5 bandits at level 5, level 6 bandits at level 7, level 7 bandits at level 9, level 8 bandits at level 11, etc.) and making 4 different groups of bandits with slightly different models and textures who are, respectively, level 5, level 6, level 7, and level 8? Pretty much none. "Ohhhh, they look different... I see."

 

A) I'd expect each individual bandit to look at least slightly different (hair, skin tint, height, size, equipment, etc.), ideally, as limited only by finite development resources.

B) If A is the case, then you can't really make "Dire Bandits" like you'd do with rats or some other creature that pretty much always looks the same.

 

This is why I used Goblins as an example so much. An intelligent, humanoid enemy can vary DRASTICALLY in combat prowess, ability, and toughness. Therefore, IF you're able to tackle a quest involving a Goblin cave at level 5 before doing some other stuff, OR do the other stuff first, THEN tackle the Goblin cave at level 9, how much sense does it make to say "Doesn't matter... the Goblin cave quest should be tailored to level 5 players, u_u."? Also, I am specifically not suggesting the scaling of the Goblin Cave to level 9 just because the player is level 9. Maybe it's level 8 when the player is level 9. Or even level 7. The point is that it COULD've been level 5, if that level of challenge were appropriate for the player's characters' capabilities when partaking in the quest.

 

Here's another way to look at it. Take a game that isn't level-scaled, and it's 100% linear, so they know exactly what level you'll be when you get to a boss. Let's say you'll be level 5. So, let's say the boss is level 5. You can never, ever be higher than level 5 when you get to this boss, so he's set accordingly to be a good challenge.

 

Now take the same scenario, but the game has optional content and level-scaling. You could do all the quests before facing the boss, and be level 10, or you could go straight to him and be level 5. How is making him level 5 in the linear example above ANY different from making him level 10 if you're level 10? Assuming there's still only a limited amount of XP to be gained before facing him.

 

Whether or not you want unlimited XP gain (from respawning enemies or other repeatable content), and, thus, the ability to level far beyond any and all foes is a completely separate question. Either way, you've still got to have some level basis (or range in the case of the optional content example) for designing the challenge of the content as you go.

 

If you're saying that the boss in a 100% linear game should be below you in level, then your goal is accomplished via difficulty settings. If you're not saying that, then why on earth would you want him to be level 5 when you're level 10? Even if you don't scale anything, and everything's level 5, you're going to have to tackle a quest or two at level 5, maybe 6, before making your progress up to the point where you're level 10 and the other stuff's still level 5. So, you're okay with the fact that the first optional quest wasn't 5 levels below you, but you DEMAND that the latter quests be ultra-easy?

 

It seems we're having two different arguments, here. Some of us are arguing the merits of level-scaling implementations, and others are arguing the merits of level-growth limitation. The two are completely independent of one another.

 

 

A level scaling fake choices range (i.e. not going too wild with it) will indubitably fix the issue.

 

I'd absolutely love to know how using level numbers to present certain degrees of challenge inherently creates "fake choices," but I have a feeling you aren't going to tell me.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Lephys

[Valorian]

 

A level scaling fake choices range (i.e. not going too wild with it) will indubitably fix the issue.

 

I'd absolutely love to know how using level numbers to present certain degrees of challenge inherently creates "fake choices," but I have a feeling you aren't going to tell me.

 

Is colossally missing the point your hobby?

 

Let's reiterate, again, the basics for you:

 

1) "Using level numbers", i.e. having levels to present certain degrees of challenge is not level scaling. It's a system with levels.

 

2) Level scaling is when enemies in the world have their levels changed on the fly based on the player character's level.

 

 

Level scaling is similar to fake choices in the way that no matter what place you choose to explore the consequence (potential enemies) will be faked/changed to cater to your character's level.

[Lephys]

2) Level scaling is when enemies in the world have their levels changed on the fly based on the player character's level.

 

*Gasp* Waaaait a gosh darn minute... You're... You're saying that the word "levels" can be used independently from the word "scaling"?

 

... God help us all... o_o

 

In all seriousness, I can't miss a point I've already addressed that you keep deciding to re-iterate while disregarding my responses. Also, "changed" on the fly, or "decided" on the fly?

 

Let me just ask you this one, simple question (well, followed by a series of contextual, follow-up questions to support the main question). We'll see if you answer it, or just pretend I said "I still have no concept of mathematically deriving level values using other level values as a basis."

 

If a story boss is only encountered once in a playthrough, and the player gets to him, at whatever level, and he's some particular level, what was his level changed from? Was he a different level, before, when he wasn't even an entity in the game, before you got to him? Would your game experience be fine for the whole first playthrough if you didn't know the basis for his level, then immediately be ruined on your second playthrough when you found out that his appropriately-challenging level was derived from math based upon your party's levels instead of from a static value in an Excel spreadsheet?

[Valorian]

If a story boss is only encountered once in a playthrough, and the player gets to him, at whatever level, and he's some particular level, what was his level changed from? Was he a different level, before, when he wasn't even an entity in the game, before you got to him? Would your game experience be fine for the whole first playthrough if you didn't know the basis for his level, then immediately be ruined on your second playthrough when you found out that his appropriately-challenging level was derived from math based upon your party's levels instead of from a static value in an Excel spreadsheet?

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

If a story boss is only encountered once in a playthrough, and the player gets to talk to him, and ask him a variety of interesting questions. They lead to the same response though, but the player doesn't know that because the dialogue system doesn't let you repeat previous dialogue nodes. Would your game experience be fine for the whole first playthrough if you didn't know that it was all fake and immediately be ruined on your second playthrough when you found out that your dialogue with him and others was a fake-fest with questions massively leading to the same response?

 

Yes, I would be bothered by both examples. Although, I wouldn't need to play the game twice to know there's level scaling and/or lots of fake choices. I inform myself about the game beforehand.

[Dream]

Yes, I would be bothered by both examples. Although, I wouldn't need to play the game twice to know there's level scaling and/or lots of fake choices. I inform myself about the game beforehand.

 

So had you not informed yourself then you wouldn't have known beforehand and thus the experience would not have been ruined. Based on that then your decision to inform yourself rests in what exactly? Masochism?

 

It's like spoiling a twist ending and then complaining the twist was easy to spot.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Dream

[Valorian]

Yes, I would be bothered by both examples. Although, I wouldn't need to play the game twice to know there's level scaling and/or lots of fake choices. I inform myself about the game beforehand.

 

So had you not informed yourself then you wouldn't have known beforehand and thus the experience would not have been ruined. Based on that then your decision to inform yourself rests in what exactly? Masochism?

 

It's like spoiling a twist ending and then complaining the twist was easy to spot.

 

Oh yeah, if you pretend something doesn't exist, it goes away. Like... boogeyman!

 

 

 

Come on, are you that desperate for analogies that you pull one out of your behind that doesn't make sense in the least?

Spoiling yourself about story twists is not the same thing as "spoiling" yourself about, you know... gameplay mechanics.

 

And right, who cares about replay value. You play it once, don't "spoil" yourself about the inclusion of horrible gameplay mechanics like level scaling and then when on the second playthrough you discover without doubt it is indeed present; you shelve the game forever.

 

The main difference being; I can still very much enjoy the game if I discover beforehand the game doesn't have any level scaling (do'h), but my enjoyment of the game will be diminished if I discover in advance important twists and how the story plays out.

[Lephys]

If a story boss is only encountered once in a playthrough, and the player gets to him, at whatever level, and he's some particular level, what was his level changed from? Was he a different level, before, when he wasn't even an entity in the game, before you got to him? Would your game experience be fine for the whole first playthrough if you didn't know the basis for his level, then immediately be ruined on your second playthrough when you found out that his appropriately-challenging level was derived from math based upon your party's levels instead of from a static value in an Excel spreadsheet?

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

If a story boss is only encountered once in a playthrough, and the player gets to talk to him, and ask him a variety of interesting questions. They lead to the same response though, but the player doesn't know that because the dialogue system doesn't let you repeat previous dialogue nodes. Would your game experience be fine for the whole first playthrough if you didn't know that it was all fake and immediately be ruined on your second playthrough when you found out that your dialogue with him and others was a fake-fest with questions massively leading to the same response?

 

Yes, I would be bothered by both examples. Although, I wouldn't need to play the game twice to know there's level scaling and/or lots of fake choices. I inform myself about the game beforehand.

 

You know what's not very effective? I wonder how level-scaling creates fake choices, and you give me an example of dialogue (that has nothing to do with levels, or scaling) literally and blatantly offering fake choices, all together in a little dialogue interface, all at once, and then say "...See?"

 

How's about we take an actual level-scaling scenario and point out, within that same scenario, what fake choices are offered.

 

I can tell you about a lack of choices. In a game that offers 10 level-5 quests, you give the player the choice of completing all 10 of those quests, in any order he chooses. But you know what isn't an option? Actually having quests 4-10 retain challenge. Sure, if you want to go bask in your level-5-stuff-stomping abilities, you can. The person who wants to do that has a field day. But what about the person who wants to help this faction, or explore this cave, or rescue this kidnapped child? Why should he be presented with dilemmas which are progressively easier and easier, no matter what?

 

You know how you solve the "Oh my crap, nothing's incredibly easy as I progress!" problem? You vary the difficulty of content. At level 10, you might be confronted with some easier quests, and some more difficult quests. And guess what... if you somehow reach level 15 before you get to this batch of level 10, range-of-specific-difficulty quests, and the game ups them to level 13 (not 15, you might notice), they're STILL easier because you leveled up, and some are STILL easier than others.

 

See, here's the point you're missing, because you just don't care to even consider it: If your argument is "THOSE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LEVEL 10! YOU'RE RUINING THE PLAYER EXPERIENCE!", then what's to stop you from having the exact same argument about them in a non-scaling game in which you couldn't go above level 10? What if you thought one was too easy, and it should've been more challenging? Or you thought they were too challenging, and should have been easier?

 

Whether or not the challenge presented is appropriate for each bit of content is the only thing that matters, not how you arrive at that value.

 

If you ask me to add 2 and 2, I can scribble an entire page of ridiculous math, and as long as whatever I did results in 2, and I just write down the answer and hand it to you, then the problem was solved.

 

If you're trying to say that it's the principle of the thing, that an enemy's level COULD be 8, or it COULD be 10, and that very possibility is inherently wrong, then you automatically hate actual (non-fake) dialogue choices and different outcomes, which you so love to use as examples. "Oh snap! If you play the game specifically THIS way, you get one outcome for the rest of the game, but if you play it THIS way, you get another for the same conversation?! THAT'S EVIL!" Your argument, in such a case, would be against mutually-exclusive circumstances in games. Because, in a single playthrough, you can't encounter that boss 2 different times at 2 different levels. So, whatever level he is is whatever level he is when you fight him. If it's too high, then they did it wrong. If it's too low, then they did it wrong. Whether it's scaled, or just a static value. It doesn't matter.

 

As a matter of fact, your whole "What if all dialogue options produced the same outcome?" example is more pertinent to static levels than it is to any form of scaling. No matter what you do, you get the exact same encounters. With scaling, you actually get MORE possible outcomes. Combined with encounter-scaling (numbers and makeup, instead of just levels) and you've got a system that is capable of providing much more robust encounters that are never arbitrarily stupidly impossible or not-even-worth-your-time easy relative to your given area/level/capabilities.

 

So, please, if you would be so kind, explain how THAT'S bad. Not how level-scaling's badness is bad because it's bad. How about what makes it bad, without ignoring everything I've just addressed?

[Dream]

Come on, are you that desperate for analogies that you pull one out of your behind that doesn't make sense in the least?

Spoiling yourself about story twists is not the same thing as "spoiling" yourself about, you know... gameplay mechanics.

 

And right, who cares about replay value. You play it once, don't "spoil" yourself about the inclusion of horrible gameplay mechanics like level scaling and then when on the second playthrough you discover without doubt it is indeed present; you shelve the game forever.

 

The main difference being; I can still very much enjoy the game if I discover beforehand the game doesn't have any level scaling (do'h), but my enjoyment of the game will be diminished if I discover in advance important twists and how the story plays out.

P:E is going to be 20-30 bucks for a 40+ hour campaign. Even if you get zero replay value out of it how is that a bad deal?

[Valorian]

P:E is going to be 20-30 bucks for a 40+ hour campaign. Even if you get zero replay value out of it how is that a bad deal?

 

You don't inform yourself about elements which are important to you in games or products that you're potentially going to buy? You just blindly purchase things? You're the ideal consumer!

 

 

Lephys, I see you're back at writing fiction and walls of text. Like I said, I'm not interested in your novellas. Compress all unnecessary words in 1 succinct paragraph and I'm probably going to read it and reply.

[Helm]

Not really. That rat will always be level 8 if the game is not level scaled. If I fight it with level 2 (and barely survive) or level 12 (and annihilate it), it doesn't matter, that certain rat will always be a level 8 rat.

Yes, "that" rat. You've missed my point, methinks. Let's go with an opponent that's a better example than a rat. How much of a difference is there, in functionality and effect, between level-scaling the "same" bandits (so that the player fights level 5 bandits at level 5, level 6 bandits at level 7, level 7 bandits at level 9, level 8 bandits at level 11, etc.) and making 4 different groups of bandits with slightly different models and textures who are, respectively, level 5, level 6, level 7, and level 8? Pretty much none. "Ohhhh, they look different... I see."

I really don't think that you get my point. In a level scaled game the level of these bandits will rise if you go up a level. The difficulty will practically always be the same. The only obstacle is trying to overcome your boredom while wandering around aimlessly.

 

Level scaling leads to degenerate gameplay in an RPG. If you have a level scaled game, then you might as well just turn the game into a hack & slash without any levels or stats at all, seeing that leveling up will have practically no outcome on gameplay, which in turn leads to monotonous progression. Btw, you seem to have just plainly ignored what I wrote here.

 

An action RPG like does not have to be bad, it can be very good like in "A link to the past". The only thing is that the Nintendo DID NOT rob the player his sense of progression, there are obstacles in that game that cannot be simply overcome. You had to collect many items (heart containers, better swords an other magical items) in order to continue through the dungeons and eventually complete the game. So even in a game like Zelda you had to develop your character to win (which is a key factor of an RPG) - this is not true for these terrible level scaled games.

 

[rest of post]

You really write a lot...

Edited January 9, 2013 by Helm

[TrashMan]

Level scaling is of the devil.

 

Or should I say, leveling as it is done today is of the devil.

 

 

 

Difficutly only becomes a problem because the level power differences are so extreeme.

[Ganrich]

 

An action RPG like does not have to be bad, it can be very good like in "A link to the past". The only thing is that the Nintendo DID NOT rob the player his sense of progression, there are obstacles in that game that cannot be simply overcome. You had to collect many items (heart containers, better swords an other magical items) in order to continue through the dungeons and eventually complete the game. So even in a game like Zelda you had to develop your character to win (which is a key factor of an RPG) - this is not true for these terrible level scaled games.

 

 

Zelda is linear. You go do dungeon 1, and then make your way to dungeon 2, and so on. They don't have to level scale because of this. Games like TES require some level scaling because you can ignore the main quest till you are near max level. At which point the difficulty would be non existant. Any single player game with rpg progression that is open like that had to consider that.

 

It isn't necessary in iwd to level scale because it is linear. I hope PE is more open, and allows me to do what I wish, when I wish. Which means they may require some level scaling. Sounds to me like you want it to be more of a funneled experience than I do. It is all personal taste, but I prefer a little freedom vs funneled story arc.