It will be fine as long as the level lock for most dungeons is dynamic and removes itself once the dungeon is cleared or the boss is defeated... Makes sense for the dungeon to be repopulated with level apropriate content after you clear it, and I don't think that was the issue people had with level scalling.

The issue most people had with level scaling was that there were no hard areas that became easier as you grew and to a lesser degree no areas that remained easier.
both of these are resolved if you need to clear the dungeon for it to re-level upon populating.

This. For more information, see New Vegas.

Asking for previous dungeons to level with you is asking for the Oblivion system. Without locking, you do castle Kvatch at level 1, it's a bit hard, so you go away, level up, come back, and now the enemies are tougher as well, no point in levelling up. With locking, you come back to Kvatch at level 3, you still face the same monsters as level 1, it's a lot easier. Levelling up was actually worth it. I really can't see a problem with that. Isn't the entire point of levelling to get more powerful, not stay the same relative to areas you have already visited?

[And levelled quest rewards. No one likes them, but that's a fourth wall problem. You know Chillrend will be better at level 20, your character doesn't.]

I really hope dungeons are respawning.

That's the only real issue I have with it, operative word being "forced" - as in forced to conform to a predetermined path. That's contradictory to "non-linear," "open-ended" and "sandbox," terms traditionally used to describe the Elder Scrolls games.

That was one thing I enjoyed about TES over another game series I really enjoyed: Final Fantasy. I was a little frustrated the first time I played Final Fantasy 7. That was my first intro to that series, and I had already played Daggerfall and Arena beforehand. I found it really annoying that you were forced to progress in a specific manner with the story. In other words, it was linear, or "scripted." You couldn't really just go off and explore and do your own thing, other than very limited exploration of restricted areas (using cliffs and mountains and other objects to keep you in a small area).

However, the Elder Scrolls have always been non-linear and open-ended, and not only was the player free to explore in any manner and do anything he or she wanted in any order, but it was encouraged and even advertised as part of the game's features.

That said, I do realize that true open-ended and non-linear exploration is going to lead to a problem that has plagued that last couple of TES games, which is that if you explore too much too fast, you'll end up burning through all the content with very little good loot to show for it and no challenges left. I can see the virtue of dungeon level locking, I'm just not sure it's the best answer. And people need to be careful using "realistic" with a fantasy game. So that bear cave you explored at level 10 now suddenly has daedra in it at level 50? So? How is that not "realistic?" You cleared out the cave. Should it now remain empty for all eternity? Somebody else moved in, and it just happens to be a much stronger somebody else.

I guess I just don't see how respawning creatures scaled to the player's level is that bad. I do think it's a good idea to have content that is simply too hard for the player at the beginning however. Thus I think having set minimum levels for dungeons would be a better solution. For example, Dungeon A might be for level 10 and up, and every time you visit, the creatures are scaled to your level but never lower than 10. Dungeon B is a level 50 and up dungeon, so that every time you visit it, the creatures will also scale to your level, but never lower than level 50. Thus, it is too hard for a level 20, but still provides content for a level 75.

What happens if you choose to the main quest first and then go exploring? Now suddenly half the dungeons in the game might be trivial and pointless to explore, because you already "missed your chance." Missing your chance sure doesn't sound non-linear to me.

The "solutions" that people are proposing in this thread are largely things that were already in the game, and in fact aren't really even anything new. There's another game in the TES series that operated on the min/max level with scaling in between thing: Morrowind. The monsters in the dungeons were, of course, dungeon-appropriate, with NPCs/monsters at set levels, with the dungeon being populated as you entered. Where they [censored] up in Oblivion was having individual monsters scale to your level and also to apply the damn principle globally, so that EVERYWHERE you went it was set to your level. If you went into an Oblivion gate it was the same as going into a crappy goblin-infested cave. If they're describing it accurately then Skyrim will be a lot more like Morrowind in feel, just more flexible in implementation due to the whole Radiant Story thing.

Frankly I have no concerns whatsoever about the world of Skyrim, though I remember to maintain realistic expectations. While some concerns about certain mechanics remain I have faith that we'll see a Skyrim that does the lore justice.

I'm sorry but that is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. I think you are forgetting that Skyrim is NOT the real world, it's a game (and besides, the real world doesn't have levels either) and nothing BUT a game...jeez

What!? Maybe you mean nearly every BETHESDA RPG.

Level scaling is just stupid. Period.

Not sure it will matter much to me. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I re-entered the same dungeon.

the new system is even worse than leveled dungeons. They are discouraging people from exploring until higher levels so all the dungeon's arn't locked at really low levels.

That is simply not true.
There will be high level areas and dungeons from the start.

If you enter a lvl 25-35 dungeon at level 10, dont prepare to come out again.