Probably because you don't know any better. I would imagine most players find Rivet City before they find GNR ... at least those who actually play the game rather than blindly following quest markers.

Besides, it's better to deal with Three Dog on your own terms and do his quest in return for the location of a weapons cache than to have him put you at grave risk just to tell you your father went to a place you were bound to visit on your own anyway.

I did it on my first playthrough.

Did the NCRCF part first and explored the area a bit and collected a bunch of them, went back to Goodsprings to fully explore that area and found those Cazador's. Got killed, reloaded and planted Explosive Charges and baited them into 'em and killed them off with the Single Shotgun. Only reason I didn't press on was because I dislike going into big cities because I find them overwhelming with quests and NPC's and wanted to do the smaller stuff first, so I went back to Goodsprings and continued down to Primm.

I didn't really "plan" much at all. Unless reloading and taking a more cautious approach is considered "planning" based on "advanced knowledge".

More than anything, I would hate to be locked out of all those perks for that long.

i think it would be better to not set an area in stone as to whether its got high levels enemies or not, so for instance lets say you have area A B and C, maybe if those areas would have some type of random high level enemies or not from playthru to playthru so maybe sometimes area A B and C has higher level enemies and maybe sometimes area A B and C have lower level enemies or maybe area A only has the higher or lower level enemies or area B and A or B and C have the higher level enemies, in other words if its random and not always a certain area that has the higher level or lower level enemies.

That's how it is for the most part. An area that you travel through that's level 10 at one point, could be level 30 when you visit it later then level 10 again after that. Hence, the 'rubberbanding'. Most posters have misinterpreted Todd's comments because they are trying to fit the leveling system into what they know of previous games systems. But, when Todd says, "We call it rubberbanding; we'll have an area [where enemies scale from] level 5 to 10, and then this area will be level 30 and above. You'll run into stuff that will crush you, and you will have to run away," he's not talking about two different areas, but rather one area at two different times.

the Op is basicly right

it kills the concept of a ' open world rpg' by taking away the idea of free exploration

it forces the player to go in one direction only and only one on making the game basicly linear and very repetitive in the long run killing and replayibility

i Hated the endless invisible walls and pack of deathclaws in new vegas , this irubberband scalling is just a political correct way of saying sorry guys we f ----- up your idea of what is a open worlld rpg to suit ththe demand of the casual players who do not have the brain capacity or the imagination to find the way on their own and make even more money , but instead we givin you the oppotunity to build settlements

Fairly certain you do not know what this means at all.

It means that when you are a low level the game wont say, "aww a new player lets make sure nothing hurts him lets make sure all the bandits attack him with nerf plated swords"

Likewise when you are a high level player the game doesn't feed mudcrabs enough spinach that they can block swings from umbra.


Finally a BGS game wont cater to the casual player by making sure they never meet a dangerous enemy.

That's right. I clearly heard Todd Howard say in the E3 presentation:

"Player freedom remains our absolute number one THING TO CRUSH!"

I used to love in Morrowind when I'd only just started out and my character was still vulnerable. I would sneak around in some really dangerous locations to get a few cool items, and it was the most exhilarating experience! When I'd later return, I could properly take care of the enemies that I previously had to sneak past.

Nothing beats the sense of satisfaction when you do this, so I'm hoping that this will be what Fallout 4 feels like in some places at least.

The scaling of an area with (reasonably) higher enemies is NOT the same as an invisible wall. The world is certainly "open" for you to try and explore. Whether or not you are successful and survive what you find (or finds you) there is purely player dependent. Yes, invisible walls are lazy and horrid things to use in a game that is "open world", but that is a completely different discussion than talking about enemy scaling as the game progresses.

The fears of the OP are unfounded. You can still go wherever and do whatever you want. The "rubberbanding" Todd Howard referred to just means that there will be risk involved when you explore and that you will never be too at ease or get bored from the experience. This is because Fallout 4, like Fallout 3 and Skyrim, will not have a general level-scaling system for all NPCs. Oblivion did, and this kind of level-scaling where everything is literally scaled to your level killed the entire experience of the game. This is why there is more variety now in the fact that you'll find enemies on your level or significantly higher. It changes the dynamic, adds variety, and keeps the gameplay interesting. "Rubberbanding" is a good thing. I honestly don't know why Todd even brought it up as it's something BGS has done since after Oblivion, but I suppose they may have tweaked or perfected the system.

BGS has never made impossible enemies, in skyrim you could kill giants at level 1 if you were prepared to spend the arrows and time to run awa as needed.

While some games (witcher 3, destiny) make it so that an enemy is somehow invincible until you become x level BGS never has done it.

They are just eliminating the crappy system where once you hit lvl 20 all the random bandits suddenly are wearing daedric armor.




"I honestly don't know why Todd even brought it up as it's something BGS has done since after Oblivion, but I suppose they may have tweaked or perfected the system."

I think he just means that there will be a few areas that just have better stuff and rushing there immediately wont be good for your health. Skyrim & Fallout 3 still leveled with you with the exception of a few NPC's.

While you will never come across an enemy that is immune to damage (such as The Witcher 3 or Destiny progression), there are some enemies that are essentially impossible to kill in Skyrim. Giants and mammoths are easy as long as you kite them and stay out of their melee range. Enemies that can actually hit from afar, such as a dragon priest (which have a static level and don't scale to your level), would be much more difficult to kill due to their range and AOE abilities. The point though is to just give the illusion that there is a wide variety of enemies with different levels of challenge in the game. Gear scaling (highwaymen in Oblivion wearing daedric based on your level) is different from general level scaling and hasn't been an issue since Oblivion due to the large fan outcry.

Skyrim and Fallout 3 would somewhat level scale the exterior world to your level. Caves and dungeons, on the other hand, were static, to an extent, and set at a certain level range. As far as the way Todd described it, he was suggesting that high level enemies may not be that far away from lower level enemies at the player's level. This suggests there is much more density and places may not be as spread out as they traditionally have been in previous games.

I take exception that Oblivion's scaling system "ruined the entire experience of the game". The Oblivion scaling enemy system was only partially to blame for the potential issues you could face at higher levels. The REAL problem was the ability to exploit the leveling system to reach quite high character levels without developing combat skills sufficiently. At that point, the scaling system would generate fairly tough and very well equipped enemies across the game that would simply be too powerful for an improperly leveled character to stand toe to toe with.

The combination of systems allowed for the player to develop a high level character that was incapable of surviving combat with even basic enemies. Frankly, it was a huge design flaw in the system, but it only happened at higher levels and only if the player ignored developing combat skills while leveling. It certainly did not ruin the "entire" game experience (tho playing for 50+ hours only to find yourself with a PC that gets slaughtered by 3 goblins (in Glass Armor) is a ruined experience in of itself).

Not a fan of no level scaling because with the exception of the Soulsborne series and maybe Dragons Dogma to a certain extent, I have always had a broken character who makes the game a snoozefest. While Oblivion over used level scaling I wasn't destroying everything left and right, felt like it was fine in that game overused and some annoyances like enemies having glass armor everywhere but it worked for the most part. Skyrim it worked too although you never got rewarded for exploring the world which is probably my biggest problem with Level Scaled games. Fallout 3 had the best system a mix of both but you really didn't notice the scaling unless you stared at it hard enough. Also Fallout 3 had plenty of preset stuff like Lincoln's repeater which rewarded you for exploring but you also weren't a god because of Repair which I liked a lot.

Dark Souls works for me because you can still get all powerful but also die in 3 hits which is completely fair. Dogma I could overcome the easiness of it by only having my main pawn with or going it solo which makes the game harder and more fun. Both of those systems work and the dream would be for Fallout 4 to have something like this where you can die very easily but the enemies also die easily. I don't think we will get that though as it will probably be more of the same.

I do like the system that Fallout 4 is using but I'm concerned that certain areas will be too easy and more of a snoozefest like New Vegas was (Outside of OWB and Lonesome Road). I do like that game a lot but you also could get incredibly powerful and make the game a snoozefest and without mods it's kinda hard to adjust difficulty and no 100% more damage 50% less is not difficulty but extending the time of combat. I don't want Fallout 4 to be the most hardest thing ever made but I want some effort in getting the cheese and being able to shoot everything in one shot is incredibly boring.

This system seems great. If you want to beat strong enemies at a low level, just lower the difficulty to "very easy." Complaining that a Bethesda game might be hard is kind of nuts, considering how easy almost all of their past games have been on the "normal" difficulty.

I'm assuming it will be similar to Skyrim's system - A hybrid of sorts

Overall though, I'm not that concerned about it. I flipped when I heard this to be the case in Witcher 3 but playing through the Witcher 3 now it is mostly well-implemented

Fallout has alway had "no go" areas. If you are level 1 and you only have a pistol. A Deathclaw in a area, this area is a "no go" area. You will die quickly. You wait until you get better equipment and more levels. Then you go back and kill the Deathclaw.

The assertion that previous games have all let you explore and tackle anything from level 1? Complete nonsense. Fallout 3 is the only one that even came close, and even there... I remember wandering to Old Olney at level 3 and getting my ass handed to me by deathclaws. Deathclaws, behemoths, power armored troops? They aren't a joke, and you shouldn't be able to tangle with them at level 1 with a pistol or a bb gun.

Yeah, Old Olney in Fallout 3 is such an area

I just don't understand the lack of confidence in Beth displayed here and across the net. Except to say that these people are either nasty trolls or they have no experience with the studios products. That's not to say I'm a mindless really devoted fan I like many fans was very let down by Skyrim... but only after having spent a lude amount of hours playing and loving it. Every game has flaws but Todd howard and his team are some of the best. I have no doubt Fallout 4 will be replacing Oblivion as my number one favorite game of all time. (I have to mention Kerbal Space Program, there's really nothing else like it!). At least until fall 2016 when MEA and who knows what else will compete, but more than likely this will be the case until TES VI ~2019? Unless someone really pulls off a Star Wars game (come on BioWare- Knight of the Old Republic 3 anyone?).