Does your browser not automatically translate it for you?


I think their criticisms of Skyrim can equally be applied to Fallout 3 which had mostly levelled enemies, but still had different challenges based on number of enemies, terrain, presence of traps etc. I find it highly unlikely they've gone back to the Oblivion system when so many of their changes seem to have been to make Skyrim "Fallout with swords". I'm expecting a Fallout 3 style experience where some fights I could win easily, some would be close, and some I'd have to run from - no matter what level I was. In Fallout if I had certain weapons the outcome of fight would change, or if I had too little ammo then it would become much harder - much more conducive to role playing.

If that's true I'm not going to buy Skyrim on day one, if at all. Oblivion level scaling was the worst thing that ever happened to TES games. That may sound overly dramatic but that's how I feel about it.

i think they just misunderstood the concept of level scaling when they said it was in.
there is level scaling in skyrim but it takes the areas level bracket in a higher priority than the player's level unlike oblivion which only considered the player's level.
there was never going to be a fixed leveled areas in skyrim (they can do it however using the level scaling system, by making the minimum and maximum level the same number in the area level bracket)

Level scaling and everything associated with it is the main thing that ruined Oblivion's exploration for me. And exploration is the main reason I play this series.

Because when enemies and loot are scaled to your level at all times, you will never find anything interesting. When I go in a dungeon in Oblivion it's because I want to train my skills and maybe find something slightly better than what I'm using, not because I am hoping to find anything interesting inside. Because there almost never was anything.

Seriously, every time I hear something I don't like about Skyrim, I keep the 'oh well, at least the exploration is going to be fun like in Fallout 3, now that they've ditched Oblivion's level scaling' in mind. They really can't afford to screw this up as well.

So I really hope this is a misunderstanding.

Here's, also, to hoping the article is inaccurate as well.

Level scaling was a genuine game-killer, and completely wasted my momentum. Yes, yes, challenge is good, but constant challenge- in a world where almost everything increases in difficulty as you increase in strength- is just bad design. Yes, it keeps dedicated players from ending up as an Endgame God, higher level than anything and being able to easily stomp everything, but that's part of the fun. Working and putting in the effort to outclass even the toughest entities in the game.

Furthermore, and far more importantly, level scaling takes the svck and the sting out of low-level characters. At the start of the game, you're not supposed to be able to hold your own against almost anything, anywhere in the game world. Morrowind, for instance. Travel too far off the beaten path- up north, for instance, or inside the Ghostfence- and you're going to repeatedly have your backside handed to you by everything around you. Level Scale that, in a manner similar to Oblivion, and even a fresh-off-the-boat Newbie would have minimal difficulty, as opposed to outright impossibility. The challenge is gone, so goes the need for effort.

A few days ago at gamescom, Pete still claimed that "level scaling has been fixed". I'm inclined to believe this new article is just wrong.

what you've given is an example of bad level scaling, like in oblivion where all that was considered was the player's level (the higher the player's level, the higher the enemy's level)

in skyrim, they've added another factor to the level scaling, area level brackets.
this means that there are areas and dungeons of level 1 to 10 or level 30 to 40 and so forth, and maybe even special areas where the minimum and maximum is the same making the level of the area fixed.

ex: if you enter a level 30 to 40 dungeon at level 15, the bulk of the enemies there will be level 30
if you enter a level 30 to 40 dungeon at level 50, the bulk of the enemies there will be level 40

bethesda please get it into your head that we like dying!. or not even dying but real real danger we have to stay away form and work to, it makes you play more and actually want to level up to disocover. as much as i enjoyed oblivion i was only able to ever do one play through, ever time i try to make new characters i cant do it because i have no motivation to explore and level up, you can do everything at level one.

Back in what? February maybe, when they first mentioned level locked dungeons, and easier and harder areas, a load of people said it was each dungeon has a fixed range, and if you enter a 30-40 dungeon at level 1, it locks to 30. I said how do we know it's not simply easier, average, and harder dungeons, locked to player level -5, player level, and player level +5. Everyone said of course it won't be like that, each dungeon definitely had a fixed range independent of character level.
I asked how everyone was so sure, still waiting for the answer to that last question.

You guys are overreacting. Pete has confirmed MULTIPLE times that the level scaling is closer to FO3, while continuously admitting that the level scaling in Oblivion was a huge mistake. I saw an interview from just last week where he stated that we will no longer see bandits running around in glass and daedric armors. Gotta love this forum. A couple lines from a foreign article and you get people making hasty threats that they're never gonna buy the game, omg, omg! :rolleyes:

That's how I understood how it works and I hope that will be how it works. Maybe with a slightly smaller scale (like dungeons from level 1-5, 35-40 so the level scaling is not that extreme). But although I'm not a fan of any level scaling at all I could easily live with that concept. In the article it sounds very different however, especially the part where they say



worries me a lot. It sounds as if they changed their mind to make sure any idiot playing the game can run around everywhere he wants without having to fear anything. Imagine how frustrated the average IQ <90 player could become if he would die while exploring the world.

And I hope that this is really the case, this French article seems to suggest otherwise. They're probably wrong though.

What you're mentioning is much like the Fallout 3 system, and what they have said in the past that Skyrim would be like.

In one way, I'm glad I won't be able to exploit the way I "planned" to. No, not a plan to exploit but rather a consequence of my playing style. Which is to explore as much as possible before I even start gaming. That includes a lot of wilderness traveling (I'm a hunter), and peeking into dungeons I find only to find that I'm having my ass kicked. So when I do begin the real dungeon crawling and questing because I feel strong and developed enough - now it means that I may actually find creatures there that are still challenging.

Although I prefer some none scaled high level creatures every now and then, they would more be highly suggestive that I stay away. But for the general of creatures, I don't mind them to be "level scaled", because that's just what a GM of flesh and blood would do.

True story from a rolemaster campaign we did ages ago: So we heard a rumor of some sorceress (?) who were keeping slaves to do mine work. Immediately we formed a plan to take her out and grab some good loot. When there, one used a skill to determine her "level" which turned out to be in the 100s, while we were just whimpy lvl 5-35'ish, without a chance going at her without loosing most if not all of our characters. We ended up talking to the guards, and suddenly we found ourselves working for her. Working FFS! And we all went like, "uhm, guys, how did this happen". In the end, turned out the real loot was obtaining ownership (some steady income) of the mine after we managed to kill her using some real cunning (some landslide spell or something, which took a while to set up) the GM adapted to, and the fame for freeing the slaves using real hired work instead. We had a few fluke streaks combined with some pretty bad rolls for the sorceress, which I believe was "influenced" by the GM as a reward for doing proper role playing and planning. Had we just assaulted her in plain sight - that would not be awarded at all by the GM, and a few characters were lost due to extremely bad decision making on our part.

So, adaptive foes, in an interesting way, for me beats a static world every time you play by a long shot! I'm not saying that Oblivion did it particularly well though

That's what they previously claimed. Let's hope it remains that way.

Again, can anyone provide a link that definitely confirms a representative of BGS said the dungeons have a fixed range? All I have ever read is some areas easier, some harder.

Oh? Maybe I didn't understand what I first read a while back. What I thought was going to happen was the first time you entered and area it scaled the mobs to a few levels above/below you and locked it there. So after that, X area would always have level Y +/- mobs in it. But that's not right? There will be specific designations, such as you mentioned above? (Which I realize had level ranges that may just be an example for demonstation purposes.)

Yes, this. Almost exactly this. In Oblivion, you can theoretically complete the game at what level? TWO (2)! Though only because that's the lowest level you can legitimately get a Daedric Artifact for the Main Quest. You CAN beat the game at Level 2 without cheating, and that's just wrong on so MANY levels.

Now, Morrowind. Attempt this, and you will be a fine red paste before you even set foot near Red Mountain. It gives incentive, challenge, and a reason to try. Making your players work toward something is not a crime. Not all players of this genre of game are offended by being smacked in the face by something that FAR outmatches us in power, and essentially told "You svck, go work harder so you can svck less."

you're mostly correct, after entering a dungeon, the level of the enemies is locked. and it scales the mobs to a few levels above/below you according to the area.

above you if your level is below the minimum

below you if your level is above the maximum

Those French and their understanding of an American game...

Yes, it's annoying if the areas adapt to your level too much, but did anyone in this thread ever hear about mods? The first no-level-scaling mods will be out after a few days.

Yeah. I thought Morrowind's system was fine, and never understood why they wanted to fix something that wasn't broke.

I technically agree, but you can complete Morrowind on level 1 without cheating, speedruns do it all the time.

I feel like crying abit.


I was counting everyday since the announcement came out, now im not going to buy it. Totally the biggest deal-breaker that could happen for me.

Personally I never trust the French. I'm sure the game will be the way they've been telling us in press releases and interviews all along. A mixed level scaling and fixed level system where some areas will be off limits for baby characters and some will scale to your abilities. It would be interesting if areas themselves locked the same way that dungeons will. Lets not forget that there are hulking 20 ton dragons flying all across the map as well, and I doubt they care very much whether your a level 2 herb-gatherer squashing bumblebees and picking daisies or a level 30 beastmaster blasting mammoth herds with dragon shouts.

Also 1st language if you are from France. :ahhh: