For those of you who have played Fallout 3 and Oblivion, and who have experienced both of these two games' level scaling systems :
- What are your thoughts on them ?
- Which one do you prefer ?
- Is any of these two systems good enough ?


I have only played Oblivion, so I'm very curious about your thoughts on these two different systems.
http://fallout3.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/desslock-explains-level-scaling-on-fallout-3/

Fallout 3's scaling was much better than Oblivion's level scaling, but I'm satisfied with neither of them. Morrowind did it right.

Of course Fallout 3's level scaling is preferrable. It makes the game that much more randomized. With that system you can be sure to meet enemies of varying difficulty, no matter what level you happen to be. It also allows for more difficult areas that you can only beat once you've reached a high enough level, which in turn makes the game more rewarding. In Oblivion it pretty much didn't matter what level you were, everything was exactly the same anyway. In fact, it seemed like you were punished for gaining levels, unless you managed to find gear good enough to counter the suddenly more powerful enemies.

Edit: That said, Morrowind's was ni my opinion the best one.

Neither.

Fallout: New Vegas and Morrowind is the right way to go.

I prefer New Vegas' system, actually. Fallout 3 was a huge improvement over Oblivion, that much is true. However, it was still a bit lenient. Certain areas had a fixed enemy type (e.g. Old Olney), but a lot of the wasteland itself was just populated by lone, levelled creatures. Super Mutant Overlords, Albino Radscorpions and Feral Ghoul Reavers also appeared way too often when you reached the upper tier of levels. New Vegas does this better.

For one, it doesn't have any insane damage sponge enemies (though the Super Mutants come close). Almost every species in the game has a few nesting grounds where they always appear (e.g. Cazadores near Vegas, Deathclaws near the Quarry, Gecko's near Goodsprings, etc.). If you tried reaching Vegas from level 1, chances are you'd get torn apart by Deathclaws or Cazadores before you even got there. It feels like a world you're just travelling through, not a world that revolves around you (like in Oblivion). Fallout 3 takes the middle ground between these two, but I'd prefer it if Bethesda stuck to the Morrowind/New Vegas style of enemy leveling, i.e. none. Have the weaker enemies stick around the roads and the areas in which the game starts, and have the tougher ones roam the wild, each inhabiting certain parts of the world.

I don't really have an opinion on the leveling of loot. The system they had in FO3/NV (partly levelled, partly fixed) seems pretty good to me.

I find it funny how people think Morrowind had no leveling. But I guess that shows it handled leveling pretty well.

My opinion is that the game should be leveled by geography rather than by player level.

fallout 3 is way way better, but still, any level scaling ,is too much level scaling

From the 2 i'd say fallout 3 but i think morrowind's was best. I didn't even new it had a level scaling mechanic until i started messing with the construction set and noticed that some creatures had level ranges and found out about random level scaling spawn points.

I dont really like beating up mobs made ez by being higher lvl than them though.... would lose fun and Id probably avoid them completely at some point. They could fix the scaling so you would be stronger than mobs but they would still be able to fight back decent enough.

Fallout 3 system would be preferrable. New Vegas' problem is that there are same enemies in same places everytime. It's boring, and enforces linearity by having enemies you can't kill at low levels preventing exploration. If Skyrim is to have similar open-world aspect as Oblivion and Fallout 3, it needs level scaling.

I like oblivion leveling system very much: you have to use a skill to gain experience at it, therefore getting better.The only thing I don′t like is that the enemies level along with the character.Although this keeps the game chalenging, you don′t actually feel your character is getting tougher.
I would prefer enemies have their own level (like fallout) and when you level up you′d be able to choose perks (special magic, powerful attacks,...) depending on your race, level and skills, along with your normal "experience perks".

I also tend to the view that the Morrowind/New-Vegas level scaling system is essentially the better. It does have the disadvantage that it could impose linearity. In a pure sandbox world that would be a big no-no :nono:.

However, the Elder Scrolls games aren't pure sandbox. Yes, it's great to wander off the beaten path, to explore, to find strange and unexpected new places and stumble across surprising quests - but the main quest (if written well) does help to provide a narrative drive and purpose to the game.

If that genuinely isn't what you want, then a completely balanced level scaling system is what you need. But if you do appreciate having a narrative, then an element of linearity is a big plus. It makes perfect sense that you can't simply run to the final destination, and that the ultimate boss isn't scaled down to your level. That can be achieved by magical doorways (as in Oblivion, where the plot was partly controlled by the appearance of Gates), or it can be controlled by the dangers in an area keeping the player at bay until they've levelled up.

Indeed, in Morrowind there was occasionally the need to just go off adventuring in order to level up, so encouraging the player to do some sandbox exploring - a feature missing from Oblivion, which suffered from criticisms that you could just power through the plot without seeing much of the gameworld. Fallout 3 suffered to a degree from the same problem.

I think that the Elder Scrolls games would probably be better if they trod a line between a pure, go anywhere at anytime, sandbox world, and a purely linear plot driven world. The Morrowind/New-Vegas level scaling system seems to be an excellent, immersive and unobtrusive way of doing that. The problem of always having the same enemies in the same areas could be fixed simply by spawning a selection of high level creatures in high-level areas; it is a problem of design, not of principle.

I liked FO3's system. It was relatively seamless and unobtrusive. I hope they implement a similar system in Skyrim. I detest FO NV's scaling (or lack of it). Packs of Deathclaws and Cazadors forming a linear outdoor barrier isn't fun.

I really didn't like FO3/FONV level scaling. Its illogical to be able to 'choose' skill progression without actually using said skill and the perks are ridiculous. How can you spontaneaously become resistant to radiation or gain the ability to make enemies explode?

OB made more sense despite the fact folks didn't like the world scaling with you. Things like bandits in glass armor were stupid but I could live with that.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this wrong but you're talking about progression and level up system not level scaling. Level scaling as you describe, the world and NPCs scaling with you.

I haven't noticed level scaling in NV at all since enemies either drop too fast (random fiends) or simply won't tie (Deathclaws). How was level scaling implemented there?

I dont think there was any in NV either... enemies were always the same lvl/strength.

@Hel Borne

That's not level scaling. That character leveling. Level scaling is usually ment to reffer to the way the world changes based on your level.

I heartily agree. I enjoyed the ability/need to roam in Morowind, and appreciated that the player learns quickly where not to go at low levels. I believe this system more realistic; you shouldn't be able to stroll into sixth house bases or daedric shrines until your character learns what's what. There are monsters in the world, and until the character becomes one of these monsters it is unwise to run recklessly into the wilds. But, once you are able to manage such excursions, the payoffs are great, as opposed to Oblivion where every jackoff has daedric or glass digs at level 20, in Morowind you had to work for that, and it was more satisfying to do so.

Enjoyed the scaling in FO3 having a challenge and needing to retreat, level up a bit and come back with better weapons. :) OB for me become tiresome having to micromanage which skills i use and not to try and get a better multiplyer then end up finding out i may have gimped the character a few levels later on and everything becomes impossible to kill >.<

I would prefer no level scaling at all.

Neither system was what I'd call "good enough" and I'd go as far to say that Oblvions level scaling RUINED an otherwise awesome game. Fallout 3's was still an absolute shambles, although much improved compared to Oblivion. The main problems I had was that they bothe detracted from the world. For the world to be believable the types of enemies need to be locationally based. As someone who appreciates immersion over pure gameplay it's extremely evident and distracting when a gameplay feature interupts that immersion.

The best way to do it is to be almost completely location based ala Morrowind and Fallout: New Vegas. Some things scaled in missions is fine in order to keep a certain challenge (up to a logical point; killing rats should be easy at anything above level 3). It really needs to be kept at a minimum though. If an NPC says theres danger to the south at the beginning of the game, there damn well better be some serious danger to south, so much so you avoid the area to start with.

I preferred Morrowind's system over both of them.
I liked that there were places that, as a lower level character, you just knew not to go because you'd get your ass killed.

That's what I liked as well. For me, one of the most rewarding experiences in an RPG is to return to an area that you visited before (where you were easily killed) and you find that you have grown powerful enough to not only kill the inhabitants, but dominate them.

Another rewarding aspect of RPGs that is diminished by level scaling is obtaining awesome weapons/armor/items that should be difficult to find. In Oblivion, once you get a formerly scarce item you can nearly guarantee that numerous NPCs and bandits/marauders now have that item too. In fact, that's probably how you acquired it yourself. What was cooler in MW than getting daedric pauldrons?

Glass helmets in OB?

* General loot, yes, but only up to a certain point. At lvl 20 you should still only find items of lvl 5-10.
* Powerful unique items, yes. Otherwise you'll end up with a power character in the next playthrough, way too early.
* Powerless unique items, no. If items have only an aesthetic value (like some should, rather than everything being enchanted to kingdom come), they don't need to be scaled.
* General bandits, yes, but in suitable intervals. If you cleared a route, it should stay cleared for a good while.
* Wildlife, no. Startup wildlife should be static in that you simply can't expect to survive everywhere.
* Main quest, yes and no. Some scaled that you know you can handle. Some unscaled that forces you to wait.
* Side quests, yes and no, depending on the reward. But no more "go fish" where you come back after a few levels and the fish slaughter you more easily
* Important NPCs (like the single one having that last piece of armor), no in general. This one may have undergone training since last time you met him. Maybe killing his trainer would leave him at last level?

Who are those four people who voted for Oblivion's system :brokencomputer: