Level scaling is the only reason I would NOT buy Skyrim. I will have to wait and know for a fact that level scaling is not a problem before a drop a penny.

I will buy a new computer, I will spend whatever I have to spend, not a problem. The other issues, graphics, story, voice acting, etc... not a problem. On these issues I have total faith in the devs.


I loved Morrowind, and Oblivion was a huge disappointment. I have never played the other games you guys are using to compare different methods of level scaling. All I know are the two very different methods used in Morrowind and Oblivion. One was great, one svcked.

The thrill of getting in over my head early in the game and then coming back for revenge is absolutely necessary. When I have conformation that Skyrim will destroy a lower level player that wandered into the wrong cave or dungeon, I'm all in.

a level 30 character usually has a tougher life than a level 22 character.

Here's one from me: Around levels 5-7, critters in the West Gash became blighted. This added a lot of randomness to fighting (on low levels, one couldn't dream of having enough cure-blight potions at hand, let alone cure-blight s

Thing is: If GStaff had said that Skyrim's levelscaling is like that in Morrowind, I'd be rather okay with that. But FO3 is a different story. I don't want to repeat what I wrote http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1156332-is-level-scaling-backnoooooooooooo/page__view__findpost__p__16937933, but FO3 with Broken Still does suffer from the Oblivion syndrome: a level 30 character usually has a tougher life than a level 22 character. In vanilla FO3 this might be better, but I'm not sure (the level cap of 20 svcks, because it makes it too easy to mis-skill).

I think they did a great job but I was frustrated by not being able to go to some areas of the map at all until I leveled. It wasn't just certain dungeons or buildings I could not go but open areas. I felt railroaded down a linear path prescribed by the devs and really did not like that. There were many who complained about that same issue.

As long as there is only hand placed high level armor and weapons and loot, I'm ok with how they decide to do it. For me FO:3 was about the right amount of scaling for a TES game. Maybe even a bit more to allow us to re-enter places and have new challenges later in the game. I also really did like how some of the barrels and such in MW had loot that would respawned higher level loot as you leveled up. And loved how in MW at a low level you would clear out a dungeon full of skeletons and later go back to the same place and some higher level creature had moved in (respawned). It bothers me when I clean out a tomb or dungeon and it stays forever empty. I mean, if it was a good home for one creature (or bandit) wouldn't another figure it was vacant and move on in? Kept things interesting to me.

I thought that was the point. Not being able handle until leveled up appropriately - under the sun areas and all. It made the world feel much more alive and undependant of the player. I can relate to the criticism of it too obviously guiding the player to the "right" path with extremely high level enemies so close to the starting point (though it never bothered me), but that's easily fixed by arranging the zones differently (both geographily and enemywise) while still maintaining the feel that the world is not created around the player - that even close to the beginning, there is a danger of stumbling upon something above the capabilities of a low level character. For me, Fallout 3 felt a little too open and centered towards the players abilities (like how the higher level zones felt like they were hidden close to the edges of the map where the player would only stumble randomly while exploring) as there was very little sense of danger (even at higher difficultysettings) the setting tried to ooze.

I hope they manage to do it right.

I think to each his own. And anywhere from Fallout:3 to FO:NV is fine with FO:NV being a too little leveling for my taste. In either one it was not real noticeable but the far less in NV did to me make it to linear. :shrug: But this is TES and it feels and is a very different game. I dare say many would rebel with NV style leveling, but I am only guessing. I just hope for it to feel right. Sandbox openness and exploration is important to TES players. But I might just be all misinformed about what most want.

I also think that many who ask for no scaling have probably never played an rpg with zero scaling and just don't realize it. Many think there is none in NV but indeed there is.

Ok first off the level scaling in Oblivion was horrible and as much as I hoped it would not return in Skyrim it seems that it will show its ugly face once again, I do not want it at all and anytime anyone brings it up you can be sure to see someone reply with something along the lines of "Have no fear guys, Skyrim's level scaling will be more like Fallout 3 and not Oblivion" as if that is supposed to put our fears to rest, how was the level scaling in Fallout 3 better? Ok sure you wont see common raiders running around in power armour but that still does not change the fact that every encounter, every dungeon and the loot you find within will be scaled down to your level, sure you wont enter a dungeon at level 20 and find a bandit rushing at you with a glass sword but instead he will be replaced by a skeleton or something with a glass sword. Level scaling makes leveling pointless, if you are going to scale everything down to the player's level you might as well just cut the whole leveling system altogether, just get the player to pick his starting stats and proficiencies and keep it at that.

I can see why some people may want a level scaling system in regards to the outside world however it still makes no sense that once you reach a certain level ogres start infesting the main roads (however it is quite funny when they complete your Dark Brotherhood contract for you) nor does it make sense that a level 1 character can enter the deepest, darkest and most dangerous corners of the world and find nothing but mildly agressive bunnies.

Hmm I seem to have gone off track here, oh well my question was how is the level scaling in Fallout 3 better than Oblivion's?

me and u played a totally different game..... my lvl 30 could wink at a death claw and it would explode; it ur talkin about the albino scorpians or reavers, they were jus put in there to give 'challenge' but they jus ended up being bullet spunges.

Believe it or not, I have never played through Broken Steal so can't discuss that part. But otherwise, I felt it was a well balanced game as for scaling.

I also think that many who ask for no scaling have probably never played an rpg with zero scaling and just don't realize it. Many think there is none in NV but indeed there is.

Having Fallout-esque level-scaling would be a step up from Morrowind level-scaling. I steam rolled that game so hard. I didn't even have to try that hard and frankly I'd rather not play a game that is easy.

...something along the lines of "Have no fear guys, Skyrim's level scaling will be more like Fallout 3 and not Oblivion" as if that is supposed to put our fears to rest, how was the level scaling in Fallout 3 better?

I've been wondering this all along- both games (Oblivion, Fallout 3) gave me the same "Hand held on kindergarten field trip" feel of everything being tailored to make sure I was rarely (if ever) in any real danger. Other than the incessant assurances about no power-armored raiders meaning there won't be Daedric-armored Marauders, I don't find the whole "It'll be like Fallout 3" thing particularly comforting- more "Don't worry, it won't svck completely, it'll svck a bit less." :shrug:

I've been wondering this all along- both games (Oblivion, Fallout 3) gave me the same "Hand held on kindergarten field trip" feel of everything being tailored to make sure I was rarely (if ever) in any real danger. Other than the incessant assurances about no power-armored raiders meaning there won't be Daedric-armored Marauders, I don't find the whole "It'll be like Fallout 3" thing particularly comforting- more "Don't worry, it won't svck completely, it'll svck a bit less." :shrug:

I've been wondering this all along- both games (Oblivion, Fallout 3) gave me the same "Hand held on kindergarten field trip" feel of everything being tailored to make sure I was rarely (if ever) in any real danger. Other than the incessant assurances about no power-armored raiders meaning there won't be Daedric-armored Marauders, I don't find the whole "It'll be like Fallout 3" thing particularly comforting- more "Don't worry, it won't svck completely, it'll svck a bit less." :shrug:

I've been wondering this all along- both games (Oblivion, Fallout 3) gave me the same "Hand held on kindergarten field trip" feel of everything being tailored to make sure I was rarely (if ever) in any real danger. Other than the incessant assurances about no power-armored raiders meaning there won't be Daedric-armored Marauders, I don't find the whole "It'll be like Fallout 3" thing particularly comforting- more "Don't worry, it won't svck completely, it'll svck a bit less." :shrug:

LOL sure.

Your level one player went where ever he wanted with no problem. :facepalm:

If you had actually played Morrowind you would understand the problem we have with Oblivion. The people that actually played the game would get crushed if they went in the wrong place too early. I believe you really never had that problem. You should try Morrowind, it's fun.

One of the first tombs in Morrowind my lvl 1 character went into had a greater bonewalker in it. I was like, ok its on! *equip iron sword* I got my ass served back to me in pieces!! he drained my endurance down to nothing, I couldn't move, I couldn't hit him because my longblade skill svcked so much xD but after a quick death, I kinda satt in my chair with a smile on my face, that was inntense I thought, this game don't joke around. And so I became in love with Morrowind every step you take on Vvardenfell may be your last.

Exactly. And the awesome thing about Morrowind was that you could get uber cool stuff even at a low level if you could handle the challenge associated. It was always exciting to fight your way through a place because there might, just might, be an incredible reward at the end. In Oblivion you got a garrot in the looked chest, if you were lucky.

And I think that is what is all about: playing with the high hope of getting a great reward just around the next corner.

As far as I'm concerned there was a very distinct evolution taking place in Role Playing Games between Oblivion and New Vegas. Oblivion was flawed, Fallout 3 fixed some issues only it still wasn't difficult, and New Vegas gave the world more life by adding an appropriate level of challenge. When I heard they were using Fallout 3 as the model, instead of New Vegas, it was as if they said "Well folks, we decided to take two steps forward then one step backwards, shrugged our shoulders and called it a day.".

Well New Vegas wasn't really done by bethesda, so they haven't taken the extra step. The problem of Oblivion lvl scaling was that it made things harder, not, contrary to popular belief, that it made things easier. People who says it got easier are people who haven't played for past lvl 10.