But the wrong assumption here is that there's something to "invent" and that numeric evidence is what matter. The potentially absurd event (bear is stronger than dragon) never happens because a level 6 dragon and a level 30 bear will never coexist in the game.

And if the practical effect of scaling is that nothing in the game ever changes except your character (as the relative power between monsters stays the same), then the most logical assumption is that scaling is there EXACTLY to make sure the world stays consistent as your character levels up.

The only logical conclusion is that TES isn't following a 1:1 progression between leveling and actual power.

Trying to take on deathclaws early will get you killed and you'll have to run from supermutants untill very late in the game, even attacking a raider camp without getting good weapons and armor first is impossible without getting really lucky so yes, Fallout does have low level and high level areas, and while you can cheese things to beat the game in less than half an hour, the game intends you to things in a certain sequence (shady sands -> junktown -> boneyard -> necropolis etc). The difficulty does scale up gradually if you do things in order and going to some of the later areas first means you'll get killed.



That's a matter of opinions which I disagree with personally, but more so the TES games are build around the fact that you should be able to go anywhere anytime. With the premise that no part of the game should be off limits at any point in the game but still present a challenge, level scaling becomes one of the only viable options.

Don't quote and answer to a message if it's to ignore everything there is in and just repeat exactly the same argument that was counter-argumented in the very same quotation.


Hello.
This sentence :

The only places too dangerous to visit when you're not high-level are the places which are actually logically dangerous and which would be stupid to be tackled on by a low-level guy.

was on the very quote you answered to.


This is a pretty stupid assumption ("hello, I'm a completely inexperienced guy in crappy gear, I should be able to kick elder Daedra Lords !"), and it was only true in Oblivion (for which it was strongly panned and criticized), so from where do you extract this "it should be so because it has always been so" affirmation ?

Those absurd events happen all the time, if you fix that in a supposedly good level scaling, that right there will result in absurdities too. Where were all the dragons all this time? Those are all immersion breaking and level scaling has like a million other cons. When someone says level scaling is good, they always give examples of non-scaled parts and I went http://i.imgur.com/54fyc.jpg.

I mean, as a human, I want to be in the middle. I don't want to start from level 1. Rats are level 1. I want to start from level 10 and go to level 30 in a world from level 1 rats to level 50 elder dragons. And I want my progression to pay 100%. And I want the chance to stumble anything, anytime. That doesn't mean level zones or linearity or level scaling or staticness. The examples given, MMOs or Fallout: NV are not like real world now, are they? You can go anywhere in this world and there is a chance to stumble upon a high level enemy. There are places with fixed chances in big picture but by the nature of chance, it is random and dynamic. There are also places with complete random chances too or places which cycles through content, randomly or scheduled. I wouldn't want the game world to be static, I want it to be random and dynamic with an actual simulative system behind it. A chance based system can make it so not everyone would get a daedric artifact just like that, every level will have the same chances. Spend more time in appropriate places and you will get more. See, it balances itself, you don't have to break the world consistency.

I can go to a trip to African savanna, and due to being so unlucky, I can come back without seeing a lion. But if I get a quest detailing a location or a guide, I am more likely to stumble upon those lions, or if I spent too much time searching for those lions. Or maybe I am really lucky and I encountered my first lion in my first day but what are the chances? Filling a zone with lions, just because, isn't my idea of a non scaled world. The guide or quest is where a radiant story like system would interfere with world. Otherwise, if I am exploring I want to have the chance to stumble upon everything, how low that chance is is for level 50 characters doesn't concern me. If you increase that chance, I would be asking where all these lions are coming from. I just want this chance to be there through the game, just like real world has these chances.

These are what would make a simulation with verisimilitude. Fairly complex than a scaling to a number with no significance, right?

And no, Morrowind didn't do everything right either and Skyrim isn't that bad at all.

But these games should away with level scaling because they are open world games, because they are non-linear, because they give freedom to go anywhere, because they are trying to achieve verisimilitude, because they have character progression. These are all reasons for NOT including level scaling. They should stop trying to mimic linear story-line games with fixed challenge curve. This is a game where we write our own stories, I don't want to go through what is appropriate for my level, level for level. Being locked in content is no freedom at all, I am feeling like a prisoner in a world with filler material. I am 100% sure that we can have a system without level scaling and any of those things you are afraid of can be fixed.

I want to have the chance, I want to decide things for myself, this is the kind of freedom I want.

You claimed fallout doesn't scale up with difficulty when it does, but instead of having enemies get stronger, harder areas "open up" (not literally) when you are strong enough to take them on. It's not a true sandbox game like Skyrim because while you can go anywhere anytime you will get punished for doing so.



The assumption comes from the fact that that's how the game is setup, and it's obvious that this was by design rather than an error. It's about being able to go off and explore anywhere I want and not be punished for running off the intended path. If I find a dungeon I should be able to loot it right then and not have to come back later. If the devs intended dragons to kick your ass early on they would. So the question comes down to, how else would you design a game to give complete freedom to the player?


It comes down to preference, I don't want a game where going into a dungeon or cave will get me killed because I'm too low level for it yet, or get attacked by unbeatable dragons. You do and that's alright too, there is no right or wrong, but Skyrim might not be the game for you then. (untill mods come out anyway, I'm sure level scaling will be addressed in dozens of flavor as soon as the CS comes out)

This is just a pile of nonsense. These areas are difficult because, as said in the quote, there is a REASON they are difficult, not because they are arbitrarily flagged as "lvl X" areas.
What you promote is not a "sandbox" game, it's a NONSENSICAL game. Making Deathclaws non-existent or killable because you're a level 1 rookie is not "sandbox", it's "absurd". Making the heavily-guarded secret base filled with security and super-mutants doable by a level 1 rookie is "nonsense", not "freedom".
Freedom is the possibility to try, not the guarantee of success, and making everything doable right from the start is the antithesis of logic, not the pinnacle of it.


And the point is : it's a BAD design. It's not because something is "by design" that it's "good", and that's PRECISELY the point of the anti-scaling threads.