...they'd just have to design & balance the gameworld twice.

Odds are low.

I prefer it like FO3 were every item was on a fitting location. The items were on their place because of reasons. Not because of randomy.

Item scaling in FO:NV was most apparent at vendors. Chiefly, gun-runners. What level you were when you opened the menu played a BIG part in what was available, and I found it annoying. Why should sniper rifles, riot-shotguns, anti-material rifles not show up until I hit some level, at the place where THEY ARE MADE? How do they magically know that I am 'not high enough level' to purchase said weapons? Everything SHOULD be available, with a minor variance, (production issues, someone else just bought the last one, etc.)

I would prefer that.. Enemies and loot do not scale down, but do scale up. The way it sounded for Fallout 4 is good to me. They're leveled zones, but will scale up with you.

Edit: I liked how in Witcher 3 there were monsters like 20 levels higher. I could take them on and even win, but I'd have to do the fight perfectly and tactically. The downside was monsters didn't scale up with you and you became OP too quickly.

To me level-scaling is an admission that the world literally bends to player's presence and that the world may as well revolve around them.I understand that level-scaling is a TES staple, conversely in Fallout 1,2 and New Vegas both provided a world that supplied challenges indeterminate of the PC (to a considerable extent) and helped substantiate a believable world.One that seemingly will exist with or without the PC's presence

I don't expect people to agree with me, though that in itself is an indictment of the series being ostensibly the elder scrolls.

Edit:

I'm not against level-scaling totally, I just believe that the world becomes ultimately more contrived with it.

Depends on how it's done. If there is some logic to it, then it can work.... In Oblivion, the entire world scaled with you. (vanilla, that is.) You would never run into an enemy that was more than maybe 10 levels above/below you. Modders really disliked that, and so, several mods came out to address it. After those had been out a bit, FCOM came along, and combined several of them, to yield a world that pretty much made sense. The further from 'civilization' you were, the meaner the inhabitants of that region were. Close in to the cities, it was mostly low-level creatures/NPC's, out in the sticks, at low levels, you died. Frequently. Quickly..... There were some notable exceptions...... the Vampire den on the Imperial Isle for instance, but, those were the exception, not the rule. Vanilla oblivion was boring. It was pointless to level up, and I got bored with it in 45 minutes, and set it aside, until I discovered FCOM. (a couple years later.....) It was a whole new ball-game then, and the world was actually challenging. If Beth takes somewhat the same approach here, I suspect we will have a game that we will all enjoy.

Level scaling svcks and doesn't make sense for Fallout. It ruins the game for me, and only the most minimal of scaling done in the right places I would find somewhat acceptable.

As others have said, I don't want the world to revolve around me. It doesn't make sense and ruins the game and my immersion in it.

Like "immersion", level scaling can mean a lot of different things. And it can be done lots of different ways, for varied purposes. It's not "bad" in and of itself.

The arpg/Diablo-like Sacred 2 had scaling - but it was done in an interesting way. Each zone had a level range. At the start, monsters would scale exactly to your level. The longer you survived, the higher the level scaling was tweaked (it also increased the odds of good loot dropping). Until you died, and it then reset. Level scaling used for challenge purposes in an endless-hack-slash game.

The Mass Effect games used it - for the parts where you could go in 2-3+ directions. So, if you went to Planet A first to do that quest branch, Planet B would then get scaled higher. If you went Planet B first, Planet A would be scaled higher. Rather than having set levels, which would force you to do them in a set order.

Oblivion, of course, is the ur-example of level scaling done absolutely wrong.

Personally, I though FO3 & Skyrim did it pretty well.

I find scaling useful in Beth games, because one of the main things I love about them is the freedom to explore how I like. Not having entire regions locked off by set level ranges. (This doesn't preclude there being locations that you want to avoid, like certain ruins/etc. But FO3 and Skyrim had those things, without making the entire game a progression from low-level-area to high-level-area.)

I don't find level scaling of both loot and NPC's useful in video games developed by Bethesda Games Studios at all. It just makes the sense of danger and exploration disappear fast for me and makes my enjoyment of playing video games disappear even faster.

I don't like level scaling of loot. In open world games they don't really need to do that. Place valued items in high level areas and move on. However, scaled enemies are slightly necessary in open world games. I wouldn't want everything leveled to my character at every step.. but how bethesda implemented it in Skyrim was pretty good. Scaled to a certain max level and then stopped... so after awhile a bandit is no longer a challenge but that deathclaw still is. The hardest part has to be how to scale for the story line. They have to account for players who just run through the story and for people who wander about and gaining xp before they get to the story.

No I do not agree that level scaled NPC's are needed in open world video games. I gave explanations many times that it can work.

Level scaled NPC's just eliminate the sense of danger.

Or the sense of "open world", when you're locked into each region by your level/gear compared to those non-scaled enemies.

Of course, this also ties into game difficulty. For the super-duper-uber player who complained back on the FO3 forums that he could step out of the vault at lv2 and slaughter Deathclaws, even on Very Hard, the world holds no feeling of danger. For a less skilled player, who has difficulty with tough enemies even on Normal, there's plenty of danger.

(Me, I play on Normal. In every Beth game, all the time. I find sufficient challenge, since I'm both not super-awesome and don't have a masochistic need to beat my head against a brick wall in order to prove my manliness/self-worth/whatever. )

No it doesn't. I can still freely explore the video game world map in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt without feeling locked out of a bunch of places. If a NPC that is way higher levels than Geralt of Rivia spots him I just run and run and not stop.

Opponents and equipment being weaker/stronger because your character happens to be weaker/stronger makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, fewer things scream 'you're playing a game!' as loudly as level scaling does. I think it should be removed.

It would also be great if Bethesda overhauled high level enemies so that instead of being huge HP sponges they were as frail as their low-level counterparts but had better equipment and were better at aiming, finding cover etc.

.... but I am playing a game.

edit: I do agree that their difficuly system could use an overhaul. I never go off normal, but a better system than "MOAR HP!" could certainly cut down on the post-release complaint threads from the people looking for more challenge.

I really don't mind as long as it isn't Oblivion's broken leveled system... By the Divines, can you imagine a Deathclaw based around Oblivion's leveling system?

not trying start anything but whos to say some new bad guys arn't like that i think skyrim gave them HP sponges svck msg loud and clear with dragons.

some bad guys need Hp thou other wise you would do dbl take like if i saw super mutant behemoth drop faster than mutant master. but i get what your saying .

who knows hows gonna work? were all Grasping at straw ATM.