I completely agree. A lot of what your post is addressing is the balance related to the world's internal cohesion. Claymores should be much longer than daggers, for example. These types of issues should be of concern to the majority of players, but most people don't ever look at the stats or think about it, despite the fact that it has a major impact on everyone's gameplay.

BGS doesn't put a lot of effort into these issues, so with every game we get spells that are worthless, gear that is either worthless or will be by the time it magically appears in the world, nonsensical and easily exploitable combat (100% running speed backwards), etc. etc. Modders come later and clean it up, but it's a bummer that so many stats are so wrong, and that console players are left in the cold.

Simplified example: By making use of all the stats for armor, you can make most armor have some lasting value and involve trade-offs, which gives you more choice as a player. Balancing ebony by giving it a higher enchantment value than daedric, or orcish by making it very light for heavy armor, gives the player the choice to sacrifice a little protection for extra speed, or more enchantment options for a less protection, etc. Of course, if combat is so easy that armor is just a cosmetic accessory, than it doesn't really matter, but this is a balance issue as well.

OTOH, not everything needs this kind of balance, but it just doesn't make sense to have 1 best sword, 1 best armor, 1 best everything. More attention to balance makes the game more interesting, more realistic, and more satisfying (if you're paying attention).

Agreed

I think that Balance can be over rated. Personally, by the end of the game I want to become a demi-god like badass.

Balance is overrated when it becomes an excuse to cut gameplay options and styles.

Huh? The issues is that npcs can't climb rocks. The issue also is that npcs just stand and take it, in real life they would run. Its not realistic, it stupid, Its an exploit. I very surprise that during the time it took you to write that you did not consider these two things. This has nothing to do with the high ground giving you an advantage. None of what you wrote has any bearing on the fact that npc cannot jump nor are they smart enough to run away.

Balance is actually underrated around these forums. People always say "well don't use it' or "why balance for a SP game"

The truth is most developers do balance for Single player games, and it seems Skyrim is thankfully headed for balance.

But if I cast a save or die spell at him I did earn my kill if the spell system is designed well. In real D&D a save or die spell is a risk/reward system. If I risk going for it on my finger of death spell and he fails his save, awesome, if he makes his save I do trivial damage and I wasted a round of actions. I can play it safe and throw a straight damage spell or something similar and at least do something good to him. Now sure in 3e D&D they totally borked it because it was no longer really a risk. He had to make a save DC of 25+ and his fort save was 10, sure I might fail but odds are I'd kill him in one shot. Go back an edition or 2 and he saved on a 7 or less so odds are I would waste a round and as we leveled up appropriate enemies would save on a 3 or for specials like dragons save on a 2. If I want to make a gamble that with a 15% chance of success to shotcut a few rounds of fighting I think it is fair. Not only did I earn the kill, I earned it with style. And we will talk about that lucky kill a heck of a lot longer than the countless we ground his hit points down to nothing in 3 rounds kills we had. Now in 4e the balance says there are no save or dies or save or else spells. Tough crap people, every fight has to be a hit point grind. If someone shot cuts a fight by being lucky even if it was a risky move that isn't balanced or fair. Now you have to do lame combos for 1,000 DPR if you want to do things in style. God forbid that you turn someone to stone with a spell or crit with your sword of awesomesauce and kill the bad guy solo.

Sorry for focusing on a part of one line of your post, which isn't your main point. But it is a bit related.

Enemies could just have ranged weapons more often. Of course, with bows being the only ranged weapon in the game it would get stale... hey, there's a reason for other types of ranged weapons after all...

Balance is important, but devs have to remember that making something balanced doesnt mean making it almost identical.

But where do exploits start and where does balancing end? You can hardly tell me that Bethesda wasn't aware of the 'jump on rocks' issue. Maybe it was too hard to fix for them - which is bad balancing imo. Same goes for all the other thousands of so called 'exploits' the player can use in Oblivion, like stacking weakness spells, backwards running while shooting arrows or spells (while enemies are unable to hit you no matter how fast they are), spamming and stacking (overpowered) potions, avoiding all enemies by using invisibility, running back and forth through doors, too easily getting resist magic, chameleon and other spell effects to a very high value etc etc. Which of these tactics are exploits and which ones are bad balancing? In my opinion they're all bad balancing.

An exploit is something that requires workarounds or a lot of thinking to use so it's safe to assume the developers simply didn't think of it when they made the game. All of the things I mentioned above (plus jumping on rocks and a lot of other 'tactics') are so obvious that Bethesda must have known about them if they properly tested their game. I know that I found out about them all on my own without explicitly looking for cheap ways to easily defeat enemies and I'm just a single guy and not a whole QA department.

In my opinion balance is the most important thing in a game. Otherwise the challenge will be gone and without challenge there is no fun. Letting the player find the 'Sword of Disaster' a few levels earlier has nothing to do with balance. If the player outsmarted his enemies and got the sword early by using clever tactics and by overcoming a great challenge then it's not badly balanced, it's in fact the opposite of that. High risk, high reward. But if he got the sword without risking anything because an unbalanced gameplay mechanic allows him to kill/circumvent all enemies no matter how tough they are then it's bad balancing and no fun.

I agree with the sentiment. I'm not sure when this whole "game must level alongside the player" trend started but I find it annoying. New Vegas handled it well as there's some powerful loot to be found if you know where to look. I want there to be a couple enemies out there that I have to run from because I'm not quite strong enough to handle it yet.

i believe alot of rpgs have inherent differences when it comes to balance, take diablo for instance.

diablo is a more linear focused rpg in that you progress through the story and locals very without much deviation, whereas in the elder scrolls you can go anywhere at any time, but the major portion for balance in elder scrolls comes from a perspective of scaling or putting in those "soft barriers" that halts a player from going in a certain direction, not due to there being a sequence or requirement that needs to be met, but rather there being a lack in player ability to excel past the point because of lack of strength level or overall skill. And imo this creates the best reward scenario for the players as having situations of "overcoming the odds" is what pushes the player forward, what gives them incentive and drive to continue their adventure in the games world.

Diablo is more structured in that it can be grossly entertaining as an action rpg with alot of loot, but the main driving force isnt truly the adventure, so much as the loot that is acquired, and the loot that IS acquired never truly makes your player stand out for long as it tends to last only a couple of levels before it becomes outclassed by the thousands of other gear your going to inevitably end up finding along a continuous and sometimes monotonous path.

not to crap on diablo, but i believe diablo has lost some of the key driving factors for players because of the sheer amount of balance that the next diablo is going to have. and imo, i believe it to be a game that is just going to end up being overly balanced to the point of players ending up playing it for a few hours and seeing all that will be be seen within that time-frame, minus the actual set pieces of boss fights and creatures, but in the actual rewards that players acquire.

but it will still sell millions no doubt, and im sure i will be one of them.

I think Morrowind ALMOST had the perfect balance. Levitation/Alchemy and to a lesser extent enchantment was arguably overpowered balance wise. Other than that, it felt nearly perfect to me. The Mage sign was okay for a semi-caster/somewhat defensive caster, the Apprentice could do okay for a focused caster/more offensive oriented semi-caster, the Atronach could/can do amazing things but it had a weak spot for that. Then in Oblivion I think the Atronach sign became underpowered, because it really needs that ring that summons a ghost or something. I do think the signs that didn't effect magicka pools, were underpowered though for scaling reasons. And also: In Morrowind I loved all the hard to find artifacts, all the rewards for exploring, the almost constant suspense. The relatively vast variance of power amongst all the creatures, and characters. I personally, PREFER a game where a character has to be very high level to get towards the end of the main story, or else it will be nearly impossible. I like running away in fear as a low level, then coming back for revenge later. I like coming back for revenge, while still fearing a potential threat I haven't yet outscaled. And maybe some extremely rare enemies that always are very dangerous.

I haven't played Morrowind in so long so forgive my memory if it's off, but I loved it's balancing. I felt it only had a few (maybe big flaws), and with a few alterations could have been virtually perfect. I hope that's what happens to Skyrim.

I agree with this. I want balanced to imply realistic and intelligent gameplay, not some cakewalk. I really wish they stop leveling up beasts and enemies to your level, and instead build far out of reach zones and dungeons that are simply too hard for anything but a hero to enter.

I hated how in Oblivion the fauna simply changes after a while and you could just stumble upon a minotaur only seconds after passing by a patrol officer on the main road. Suddenly there's hardly no wild boars and wolves, only these crazy ass beasts that you have to deal with around every bend. It's tiresome and boring. They should reside in the deepest woods and the deepest dungeons and only rarely be seen elsewhere, and they should guard rare and wonderfull stuff. If these beast roamed as freely as they eventually do in Oblivion, the whole world would collape on it's own, even without help of the armies of Oblivion.

Wolves and common thugs should be easy pickings after level 10. Common thug's should even run and hide from you once you reach a certain fame or infamy level, and maybe instead try to attack you in packs, with a leader, if you persist on hunting them down on your own. I think Bethesda should focus on making the quests and distant locations harder, and instead leave the random things that happens along the main roads and near settlements less challenging to a high leveled character. Then you would get the feel that you have finally moved beyond the petty squabbles and problems of the mundane world, and that you really are somebody worth reckoning. That messing with you would actually prove lethal unless it is some demon or whatnot...

Very nice article, I liked it and it was thoughtfully written.
"Balance" is a major sticking point with me as well, it is something that has popped up more of late.
Especially by gamers that use it to mean "difficult".
Those that wish the entire game to be something to beat than play even for those that don't wish this balance.

Oblivion is a good example of poor balancing, but it has luckily some work arounds.

Dragon Age 2 has pulled the same trick as Oblivion but worse even.
With that everything has been balanced, not in the players favour most freedoms and player options of character specialisation have been removed.
To play it, you have to power game constantly as advantages, power, skill, level numbers and choices are all in the favour of npc's.
Talents and abilities of the player are serverly limited and of them only the most obvious and powerful damage and damage AoE are of use.
Making any choice outside of a select few, within a small group useless and unbalanced.
It has no work arounds unlike Oblivion, it's canned balance.

Balance meaning difficulty needs to be handled in difficulty settings, which tbh is what they are there for.
Gimping freedoms, removing choice and making options available then fixing them..
So they're no use due to nerfing so that they don't upset "balance" is poor design choice.

This is what I remember too. I never really finished Oblivion because of scaling and lack of good loot. It's a beautiful game, but with the gazillion hellgates and the same wild beasts roaming all over, not to mention the harmonic and overy relaxed atmosphere in the towns despite the hellbent situation outside their walls, I just get fed up each time I try to finish it... it just feels pointless.

The problem is there is no one correct balance point as different archtypes work best with very different balance points.

Thats an important note to take on board, balance and even scaling (to a degree) are important, a perfect example would be final fantasy 10, when i was a kid i seriously seriously struggled to finish 5, 7, 8 and 9 (i only finished 9, finishing the other two is still on my bucket list) so when 10 came out i spent ages making sure that i would be able to finish the game, then when i came up against the final boss i managed to 3 shot him before he got a hit off...

Thats not fun at all... i spent far to many hours than im willing to share here for a 20 sec fight *spoiler* have my main character become a figment of everyone imagination *end spoiler* then run credits.

Having a challenge is important in gaming and while i agree that Obv scaling and insane balance is bad, i dont think it should be abandoned.

That would be a terribe fix. First off half the things you fight are beast that don't use weapons. 2nd it would be silly for every or even most npc's to have ranged combat skills. Giving mobs the ability to jump and run when appropriate would be a proper solution.

Scaling in games is not the same as ballancing. Its not that people mistake ballance for difficulty, its that they mistake scaling for ballance.

Scaling like in Oblivion was done not to ballance the game, but to make it harder. With scaled loot and monsters, there's always strong monsters out there that give you a challenge and you don't get any loot that takes away any challenge in the game. But while that sounds good on paper, in practice we all know it has a fatal flaw. With that constant challenge, the need to get stronger and find better stuff goes away.

Ballancing on the other hand, deals with the player. Not one fighting style was completely better than another. There were good things and bad things to each style. Ballance means that the player can't get strong easily. It means the player has to work for all that good stuff. And in that regard Oblivion was pretty well ballanced. It had its bad points, such as if a mage made full use of the spell creation thingy, or if a theif got full chameleon, or when a archer ran backwards at a constant speed, or when a swordsman could jump on a rock and hack away...

...but other than that Oblivion was pretty well ballanced, and FO3 was even better.

The problem that ballance ran into in Oblivion wasn't that it was bad. It was because the scaling made the ballance pointless. The player still had to work to get the better gear...it just happened that the monsters around the player got stronger rendering that gear useless. Oblivion wasn't poorly ballanced, the ballance was quite good, it was the scaling that was bad.

I'm just gonna take a moment and comment here. Morrowind was far from balanced, very very far from it.
You said you haven't played Morrowind for a long time, so it's only natural that you can't remember everything.
But things like the Lord birthsign, the Drain Fatigue/Health/Magicka spell effects and all those merchants with pathetic mercantile are just poor balance.


When I read things like "Balance is Overrated" or "A single player game doesn't need to be balanced", in some cases the meaning seems to be more like "Unbalanced stuff are okay, as long as they are in my favor". In other cases, it's the strange belief that balance = restrictions, which is wrong. If you're restricting something, it means you already failed at balancing it. *cough*Oblivion's enchanting*cough*

Things That Were Awesome

The first time a slime ran away from you in Dragon Warrior!

Having accidentally found level 6 before level 3 in Legend of Zelda. Entering, hoping to find some awesome treasure and run out, only to get owned by Like-Likes and Wizrobes!

The first time you threw a freshly severed goblin head at a mob of goblins in Blade of Darkness, and after a moments pause, they run for the hills!

The first time you had nearly killed the red dragon in Adventure (by holding the sword just off the screen), only to have the BAT STEAL YOUR SWORD, and leave you the MAGNET, and a rapidly approaching red dragon. Seriously, has ANY game ever approached the complexity of Adventure's bat? Or the A. I. of the dragons? They RUN AWAY if you are armed. They don't stand at the foot of rock!

In summation, being able to creep into places you should not be is awesome.

Getting annihilated by all that dwells in those places if you get caught is awesome.

Becoming more powerful, and eventually intimidating those bully's hogging the monkey bars is awesome.

A.I. with a believable sense of self preservation is awesome.

I agree.. we need to be able to be overpowered in the end of the game, and we need to svck at the beginning imo

But that is what ballance is. Start weak and get strong with work.

What you want is a scaling system that doesn't cover up the ballance the game has. In Oblivion when you start a mage you can only cast wimpy spells. At the end of the game, you could cast spells gods would have liked to have. That's what ballance is and what it deals with, and it for the most part did an okay job. The problem Oblivion had was not the ballance, but the scaling. The scaling made it feel like you weren't getting any stronger, even though you were, and that the world around you was missing a few screws.

The game's ballance was fine, the scaling just made it all pointless. It doesn't feel right when you start weak and get strong, and everything else gets strong too. There's always that challenge, but it never feels like you get stronger and get that ballance. The ballance is there, but the scaling system makes it feel like a flat road, instead of a mountain.