Apocalypse on the Horizon: A Fallout 3 thread

[Dominion]

So I'm sure some of you are anticipating the release of Fallout 3 for consoles or the PC. I'm also sure you all already know the path that Bethesda, the handling company, is taking.

After reading forum threads located in both the No Mutants Allowed and Official Fallout 3 websites, I can't help but feel that this game will not be what I am hoping it will be and I sincerely foresee a game that will forever be known as "Oblivion with guns."

I've played Oblivion, or rather I'm still playing it, if only for the sake of saying I've played it and there are a few things I actually find entertaining about it. The level of exploration is the most enthralling aspect about this game. I enjoyed being able to find ruins and shrines and what not just by running across the landscape (though having a big sign pop up saying "You've found -blank-," a little invasive. Another thing I liked about Oblivion was the landscape itself. I liked being able to climb up a mountain and see the Imperial City's Spire in the distance (however the draw distances kind of ruined that experience when trees, shrubs and grass appeared out of no where and ground textures looked like garbage when viewed from a distance).

Despite these two things there were a number of things that I found detracted from game play more than I could bare to roll over and accept:

1) Unorganized Inventory:
With the sheer number of artifacts, keys and spell-scrolls I (personally, of course) was carrying around I found it annoying and cumbersome to have to scroll through it all to find something when this problem could have simply been avoided with a categorized inventory. If I want to view my weapons then show me the weapons screen but allow me to view specific weapon types such as a tab for "swords" or a tab for "arrows," etc or if I want to view Alchemaic tools and ingredients then show me an Alchemy screen but with separate tabs. An unorganized inventory in an RPG just screamed to be "Poor design."

2) Skills dictating levels rather than level dictating skill as well as level caps:
One of the things that made Fallout enjoyable was that I was able to upgrade my skills with experience points gathered from quest completion or combat. Furthermore, there was no level cap, just extremely high experience requirements. The whole idea behind leveling is "hard work pays off." This holds true in Fallout where the experience requirement per level was doubled after every level but hp increases and perk levels were not limited in the slightest making the possibility of being a godly character >through hard work< possible. Also, gaining experience was not limited to combat-only actions; from convincing npc's your was was right to lock picking or disarming a trap were all ways to gain experience. However, I should point out that although skills in Fallout were rated in percentage-chances the highest possible percentage in any chance (such as for aiming or any particular body part with a gun) was 95% even if your skill was increased to over 100.
In comparison to Oblivion, the more you used your main skills, the more you leveled and the only way to level was to use your main skills. This was one of the most annoying parts of Oblivion because I was forced into a plateau I could no longer progress beyond. This in turn negated the whole exploration aspect of Oblivion's vast world because I no longer felt compelled to explore this cavern or this ruin because there was no real reason to, leveling wise. Sure, I COULD go in for some "artifacts" but those artifacts were usually in the form of some weakly enchanted armor/accessory or an item whose affect could easily be replicated with a potion or a trip to the Mage's Guild (mana regeneration items or enchanted weapon recharging, respectively, FYI). After I reached my character's level cap, the only reason I continued to search for new locations was for the mere convenience that in the near future it would be close enough to another location I had to go to in order to complete a quest, thus reducing the amount of time I had to run about in the over world and also reducing my chances of engaging in a non-profitable encounter, with a mountain lion, for instance, which was almost IMPOSSIBLE to shake by running away.

3) Inconsequential remarks:
In Fallout, what you said determined what you could do. You say the wrong thing and a quest or possible solution to a quest became inaccessible.
In Oblivion, during a quest you can say anything, come back, and the character will react the same as when you first initiated conversation.

4) Level-scaled Adversaries:
This is the most asinine idea anyone could have thought up for an RPG game. The most excruciating battles I've had in Oblivion were with Gloom Wraiths not because they were epic in scale and depth but because they took FOREVER TO DIE. They were susceptible to enchanted weapons such as flame enchanted swords but the enchantment didn't last long enough for me to bother recharging them and they also ran out of enchantment half way though chopping down a second Gloom Wraith.
I had originally started out playing the game on hard, for the sheer thrill of giving myself a challenge but when I was forced to punch down a zombie for almost thirty minutes I began to wonder why this was wrong. Firstly, two or three hits from said zombie would kill me and secondly the amount of damage I was doing to the bottom rung of the undead class enemies was just preposterous. Realizing this, I switched over to normal difficulty but still become frustrated fighting Gloom Wraiths.

5) Conversation pies:
If anyone has seen Yahtee's review of Oblivion, then you already know how I feel about conversation pies. For those who haven't seen it, I'll tell you this: don't EVER (if you play Oblivion) have Speechcraft as one of your main skills. The conversation pie is initiated between a character and an NPC and for the purpose of leveling your Speechcraft skill as well as gaining a rapport with said NPC. It is the most boring and tedious aspect of leveling I've ever had to deal with and I've played MMOs.

6) Fast walking(Oblivion) vs Travelling (Fallout)
Fast-walking in Oblivion allows you to travel to any place on the map you have found without the tedium of running there in game however this cannot be utilized if you are being chased by guards (which is bugged) or if enemies are near by or if you are in a house or dungeon. This pissed me off because I had to shake off an enemy that was faster than or as fast as me many times in order to get out of a particular god-forsaken area. Have you ever ran from one side of the map to the other in Oblivion? I have and I have to say it was not immersive or fun; it took an eternity. For some reason I was (still) being chased by guards when I was miles away in a different city for committing a crime, thus hindering my fast-walk capabilities. Whats worse is these guards know EXACTLY where you are on the map and will follow you to the end of it unless they die, which, I believe, is when I finally was able to fast walk again. Also where you travel to has to be an actual location, not a spot on the map you decide to click because it looks interesting. You also cannot fast-walk in the air... or underwater
In Fallout, you could travel (very much the same as fast -walking) to any location on the map, be it a city, ruin or random grid of wasteland, that you choose to click however during your traveling there is the chance you will encounter enemies, merchants or the Knights from Monty Python's Holy Grail (one of many different "special" encounters). You also had the option, if you leveled your outdoors man skill, to avoid an encounter.

There are many other gripes I have with Oblivion but I'll stop there.
The main reason I posted this list is because since Fallout 3 is, from the evidence gathered, being taken in the same direction as Oblivion, I can't help but think that all the things I disliked about Oblivion will be transferred to Fallout 3.
Also, this new VATS system doesn't seem like innovation to me but more like a gimmick.

Above all though, what I am the most concerned about is the fact that this game will be available on ALL gaming platforms meaning that the game will be dumbed down for console gamers in terms of control, leading to a decreased depth of gameplay and, of course, maturity.

Case in point: Battlefield 2. The controls in this game were probably the worst part of it because it felt cumbersome, detracting from game play simply because the controls did not seem refined for a keyboard.

Do any of you feel the same way?

[halfnhalf]

I feel yah, but they know they are getting themselves into and they know they will make it epic.

[Dominion]

The departure from turn-based strategy is one of the things I'm not liking. Also, I recently found out that, unlike in previous Fallout games, having a low Intelligence stat will not change the way characters react to you. In other words, no retard characters. Groin shots (because Bethesda said it was childish) and eye shots (for some reason) are being left out of the final product. I'm just glad I don't have to buy games in order to play them.

Those guys over at No Mutants Allowed seem to have the same views I do on particular parts of the game. Anyone wanting to read more in-depth discussions regarding Fallout 3 other than the "OMG CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS GAME IT LOOKS AWESOME" discussions presented at the official website, should visit the NMA site.

I should point out that the way Bethesda is handling negative feedback about Fallout 3 is by locking their corresponding threads.

[newbified]

The guys at No Mutants Allowed are also generally elitists who think any sort of change in the Fallout franchise is wrong.

I absolutely love the Fallout franchise (with the exception of BoS, which in turn, was a PoS) and I have only been a fan of Bethesda for a relatively short time, as I never played any of the Elder Scrolls series until Morrowind.

Everyone seems to bring up the idea of Oblivion with guns as a bad thing. Now don't get me wrong, there were certainly areas of Oblivion I wasn't a fan of, however I feel that once you lose the top down camera view and turn it into a first/third person action game, what else could you possibly have?

Sadly it's not done by Interplay, as they're in the crapper. I give kudos to Bethesda because they picked up the franchise. And not for a small sum either. They put almost 6 million dollars into acquiring the rights, and in several interviews the creators/developers have expressed they're huge fans of the series.

If you're not interested in it, there's little anyone can do to change your mind. But I have optimism that Bethesda will do right by the franchise itself, and to the fans, to make an enjoyable game in the setting of the Fallout universe, and include some quirky comedic encounters into the game as they've become a staple of the franchise.

On the plus side for you, Interplay retains the right to a Fallout MMORPG.

[Dominion]

Lucky for me I don't play MMORPGs.
It isn't the 1st person view thats got me down. The reason why is because I played a game called STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. While playing through it I seriously felt the same post-apocalyptic vibe I felt when I played Fallout 1 and 2 so having a first person view is, personally, a step up in the game's history. STALKER had an open world but it didn't have messed up questlines, and every place I went to felt like it was bombed the shit out of. Also, even though some people claimed the game looked dated in terms of graphics, I thought it was quite on par and the gameplay was particularly challenging as it was also a survival-horror type of game.

My concerns with Fallout 3 lie solely with implementation, such as gameplay and story because I wonder whether Bethesda can seriously pull the same magic that the earlier games did with those two main items. Some comments I've read say that turn-based strategy is "boring" and a "stupid." I would assume such a character has never played games such as Civilization 4 or Galactic Civilizations and witnessed the sheer depth of gameplay a TBS game can offer.
Right now i side with the "hopeful" camp in that I see the "darkness" that is the pandering to ALL interested parties as well as a control scheme directly solely at console gamers but I also see that there may be some good to come out of it... possibly something that surpasses my rather bleak expectations from what I've seen.

[Aetherfukz]

While I hope that Fallout 3 will live up to its brilliant forefathers, I can't think it will. Using Oblivion as a base is bad enough. Giving you only a rudimentary Dogmeat as a party (AFAIK there are no other party members?) is bad too. I have very mixed feelings about it.

The one thing that ruined Oblivion for me though, besides the fact that I hated the reddish oblivion instances, was that the enemies always were your level. What is the point of levels if all enemies always have the same strength as you?

[Eldo]

The departure from turn-based strategy is one of the things I'm not liking. Also, I recently found out that, unlike in previous Fallout games, having a low Intelligence stat will not change the way characters react to you. In other words, no retard characters. Groin shots (because Bethesda said it was childish) and eye shots (for some reason) are being left out of the final product. I'm just glad I don't have to buy games in order to play them.

The articles I've read say that turn based and real time can be selected, much like Fallout Tactics, in a way. This is important in distributing your stats as well, as agility determines how many APs you get per turn, and etc.

I don't really mind the groin shots being left out, but eye shots were pretty damned important in Fallout 2, given that the Enclave soldiers were full protected by Power Armour, leaving the eyes as the only weak point. And the blindness status ailment is pretty damned important too.

As for party members, I hope they will be included. I personally don't like single player RPGs. I much prefer party members and their interactions; it makes the game more interesting and offer much more diversity than the lone character you control.

However, it's still a tad early to determine whether it's good or bad. I haven't really played a demo of it, and the game's not even out to be judged. I'm sure they're deliver though. Not all the games by Bethesda are like Oblivion. I'm sure they won't make a crap game on purpose to piss off the fans. They seem pretty enthusiastic from the video interviews I've seen.

In other news, Fallout 3 may be banned in Australia.

[The Prince]

While I hope that Fallout 3 will live up to its brilliant forefathers, I can't think it will. Using Oblivion as a base is bad enough. Giving you only a rudimentary Dogmeat as a party (AFAIK there are no other party members?) is bad too. I have very mixed feelings about it.

The one thing that ruined Oblivion for me though, besides the fact that I hated the reddish oblivion instances, was that the enemies always were your level. What is the point of levels if all enemies always have the same strength as you?

I agree I have always hated tiering enemies according to your level, as it ruins the incentive to level from the start. And in some cases making the levels even harder the stronger you get. It also ruins the novelty of exploring new areas, as the relative challenge against your adversaries never change wherever you go.

But somewhere I read that Bethesda will be doing away with this leveling scheme. Which is a plus.

[Eldo]

While I hope that Fallout 3 will live up to its brilliant forefathers, I can't think it will. Using Oblivion as a base is bad enough. Giving you only a rudimentary Dogmeat as a party (AFAIK there are no other party members?) is bad too. I have very mixed feelings about it.

The one thing that ruined Oblivion for me though, besides the fact that I hated the reddish oblivion instances, was that the enemies always were your level. What is the point of levels if all enemies always have the same strength as you?

I agree I have always hated tiering enemies according to your level, as it ruins the incentive to level from the start. And in some cases making the levels even harder the stronger you get. It also ruins the novelty of exploring new areas, as the relative challenge against your adversaries never change wherever you go.

But somewhere I read that Bethesda will be doing away with this leveling scheme. Which is a plus.

Similarly, wouldn't it make the game incredibly boring if you're on such a high level that the enemies are just completely pathetic? My thoughts are with more leveling offers new abilities to use in battle, and therefore more strategies against opponents. Having said that though, I have not played a lot of Oblivion due to its first person nature (I'm strictly a third person gamer), and its third person view makes sword fights difficult to play with, so I'm not as well acquainted as with your points. I'm basing my opinion on Mass Effect, which I believe has the same level tiering feature (and finding it way too easy at the moment).

[Dominion]

I wanna know what the word is on the Wanamingo's ("Wanna-mingle? Whats that?". I haven't read anything about their inclusion in the game so far and I thought they were a pretty good plot device from the 2nd game. Even though they didn't really affect the main storyline they were involved in a pretty lengthy quest. I'd like to see some remnants of the old enemies in there and I wouldn't mind seeing the robots from BoS running around destroying things or even being able to get a brain transfer into a robot body like in the 2nd game (though I never actually pursued that quest, I'm sure it's in there.)

In terms of an ending, I hope Bethesda doesn't try to make a definitive ending where there are simply no more questions to be asked or the game doesn't attempt to raise any new ones. Multiple endings are they way to go, even though I personally dislike having to slave away to gain them I'd rather have multiple endings in a game like that than just the one like in Oblivion. This made me not want to replay Oblivion as I feel theres nothing more to gain from a replay.

[FightClub]

You all should read up some more on this, there's been a lot of development, and I think the game is aimed for release around october. Eldo mentioned that the vats will be used to have some turn-based style, while it is completely optional in use beyond the initial tutorial. (which I think is nice) Plus once a round is completed in vats, it will play out like a live action movie in 3rd person, which I dig. You'll be permitted dog-meat, and I think one extra side-kick all of which can die if you put them in silly places, unlike fable 2's immortal puppies. Dogmeat can be used for a variety of tasks, and I'm sure your other counterpart (if you choose any of them) will be as well.

Equipment from the sounds of it will be pretty much whatever you can gather and throw on, weapons degrade through use, and can be upgraded using blueprints that are discovered through the game. All in all I think Bethseda is doing a pretty good job of trying to make a pretty bad ass game. I'm really looking forward to playing it. Most of all I just hope that most of the content of the game is included in the final version, and wont be reserved for downloads over x-box live. The game will be released for pc as well, which is nice, but is designed for console, which will mean it probably wont be as amazingly expansive or populated as it could've been. But from the looks of it, Bethseda has put a lot of work into it, and they apparently have more than five voice actors for this game (cheers)

Oh and I read somewhere that the game will have 40 or more possible endings depending on how you played the game. Just to answer the above.

As for scaled enemies, you've got a lot of variety in the Fallout universe, rats, giants scorpions, ghouls, humans, super mutants in like five stages of badassness SO you could probably keep difficulty on a fixed level and not really get bored, and possibly have to avoid a lot of encounters just to survive, or conserve ammo.

And I believe max level is around 20, possibly exactly that. They'll still have all the perks and traits, they even had a contest for ones to put into the game a while back -- I dig it, I hope it will as good as I'm hoping for.

[Aetherfukz]

Similarly, wouldn't it make the game incredibly boring if you're on such a high level that the enemies are just completely pathetic? My thoughts are with more leveling offers new abilities to use in battle, and therefore more strategies against opponents. Having said that though, I have not played a lot of Oblivion due to its first person nature (I'm strictly a third person gamer), and its third person view makes sword fights difficult to play with, so I'm not as well acquainted as with your points. I'm basing my opinion on Mass Effect, which I believe has the same level tiering feature (and finding it way too easy at the moment).

While you do have a point, I always felt scaling enemies do away with a lot of the immersion you can have in a roleplaying game. And at least for me immersion into a role is one, if not the, primary aspect why I play RPGs.

So anyway, if the enemies are fixed levels it basically plays out like this: You can go to 1-3 areas all the time, where enemies are around your level, and do quests there. If you try to go to an area above your level, you will probably get your ass kicked. Just like Son Goku / Ichigo / Naruto / [insert random shonen character here] you aren't powerful enough so you have to train harder. And you do. And some levels later you come back and kick the big bad monsters ass, and you feel good about it because you earned your right to chew through them.

If enemies scale such situations cannot happen. You are level 1 and killing rats. You level up some time, level 10 now. While your quests have you killing undead farmers now which come at you with pitchforks, when you go back into the rat infested cellar, those damn rats still are a challenge to kill. You can go basically anywhere without too much problems, but everywhere you go you will find enemies which are challenging to defeat, but none of them are so hard that you do not stand a chance against them.
This is just completely unlogical. To make a real world example: I can beat up a random nerd just fine, but I wouldn't want to fight with a black belt because he would rip me a new one. So if I wanted to fight with a black belt I would have to train a lot / level up. It would be completely illogical if I had an engaging fight with both the nerd and the black belt, who both would suddenly be as strong / as weak as me.

Maybe the first one caters more to roleplayers while the latter one is made for... I dunno, casual gamers? *shrugs*

Like I said before, IMO, what good are levels, stats, even equipment, if all the enemies are your level? If so, just do away with levels and give your character a new ability every hour from a quest.

Also scaling content with the player brings up HUGE problems with game balance. In Oblivion you pretty much had to make a fighter/offensive mage to get by on later levels. My first (and only) character was trained in speechcraft and stuff, plus some minor skills, I dunno anymore, 'twas a long time ago. But anyway, I didn't really level up my fighting skills, so I had huge problems with mobs my level because I didn't do enough damage, and didn't have enough health. But I was good at speaking to NPCs and making them do what I want because I was fucking charming. I just remember, I was also good at stealing stuff. But stealing was also broken because you could only find stuff at your level, whereever you would go. So you couldn't make money off it, and you couldn't get any better items than you usually had with you anyway.

So the game punished me for the decision to play more of a social character instead of a fighter. Not much of a roleplaying game then, eh? And that's why I never got more than maybe 20 levels on that character... then I went back to playing Morrowind which still today is brilliant.

[lon3vvolf]

I'm just glad that someone decided to pick up the Fallout license. Since Interplay is pretty much gone. I'll definately be picking this game up. Bethesda softworks is about 10 min from my house Since its set in DC I hope they use the local areas as reference for the game.

I tried to visit them once, I didn't get past the lobby.

[Loeviz]

I hope the game will kick ass, but there is a fair chance they will f*ck it all up...
Oh all the good times Ive had with Fallout 2.
Must have played that game over 10-14 times all in all, a real masterpiece Id say.
That and Jagged Alliance

[The Prince]

As for scaled enemies, you've got a lot of variety in the Fallout universe, rats, giants scorpions, ghouls, humans, super mutants in like five stages of badassness SO you could probably keep difficulty on a fixed level and not really get bored, and possibly have to avoid a lot of encounters just to survive, or conserve ammo.

And I believe max level is around 20, possibly exactly that. They'll still have all the perks and traits, they even had a contest for ones to put into the game a while back -- I dig it, I hope it will as good as I'm hoping for.

No scaling.....you need to read up on that.

BTW...Aetherfuckz hit the nail on the head regarding the illogical nature of level tiering among adversaries. Eldo is wrong, as level tiering is for sissy boys.

[Eldo]

If enemies scale such situations cannot happen. You are level 1 and killing rats. You level up some time, level 10 now. While your quests have you killing undead farmers now which come at you with pitchforks, when you go back into the rat infested cellar, those damn rats still are a challenge to kill. You can go basically anywhere without too much problems, but everywhere you go you will find enemies which are challenging to defeat, but none of them are so hard that you do not stand a chance against them.
This is just completely unlogical. To make a real world example: I can beat up a random nerd just fine, but I wouldn't want to fight with a black belt because he would rip me a new one. So if I wanted to fight with a black belt I would have to train a lot / level up. It would be completely illogical if I had an engaging fight with both the nerd and the black belt, who both would suddenly be as strong / as weak as me.

I see your point. I haven't really played Oblivion, and not quite sure how the level scaling in that game works (if the monsters you fight are incredibly weak as a result of your low levels, or how the difficulty of an opponent is dictated). I agree with fixed levels only for turn based RPGs. It's just that I prefer the enemies I fight to be harder, not easier, and I thought that level scaling would possibly help with that. In a fixed level setting, if I did a bunch of side quest and leveled up tonnes, the rest of the game would be just smooth sailing that I'd be playing it just for the story, and not really for the game itself, you know? This happened to me with one of those turn based RPGs I was playing, and just kind of lost interest in it. I was worried that this might happen with Mass Effect, when I did a bunch of sidequests first before the main missions, but it didn't really happen at all. The difficulty was still consistent throughout the game.

With your real life scenario, wasn't level scaling made to accommodate real life ie. the monsters train while you're training? Say, if you beat down a random nerd, but he goes home and train while you're training as well, and similarly applies to black belt character. So if his training regimen is similar to yours, he should be at the similar difficulty when you face him (this is based on a video game context - it definitely doesn't not occur in real life, where the statistical increase in strength is in a linear proportion) I do see your points though. Similarly, a level 1 character can finish the game without doing any fighting and heading straight for the last boss.

Maybe the first one caters more to roleplayers while the latter one is made for... I dunno, casual gamers? *shrugs*

Like I said before, IMO, what good are levels, stats, even equipment, if all the enemies are your level? If so, just do away with levels and give your character a new ability every hour from a quest.

New strategies to use to accommodate for 'harder' enemies (as they increase levels), I suppose. It really all depends on how you well you invest on your stats. Say, if your fire spell does x amounts of damage every x seconds, and upgrading it does more damage and increases duration, wouldn't that change the way you fight? Or similarly, strengthening a cure spell, increasing duration of a buff spell, etc. I can't really cite much examples, since I've just been playing Mass Effect. It's like comparing apples and oranges, which is what I might be doing with posting my thoughts on level scaling.

Also scaling content with the player brings up HUGE problems with game balance. In Oblivion you pretty much had to make a fighter/offensive mage to get by on later levels. My first (and only) character was trained in speechcraft and stuff, plus some minor skills, I dunno anymore, 'twas a long time ago. But anyway, I didn't really level up my fighting skills, so I had huge problems with mobs my level because I didn't do enough damage, and didn't have enough health. But I was good at speaking to NPCs and making them do what I want because I was fucking charming. I just remember, I was also good at stealing stuff. But stealing was also broken because you could only find stuff at your level, whereever you would go. So you couldn't make money off it, and you couldn't get any better items than you usually had with you anyway.

So the game punished me for the decision to play more of a social character instead of a fighter. Not much of a roleplaying game then, eh? And that's why I never got more than maybe 20 levels on that character... then I went back to playing Morrowind which still today is brilliant.

Isn't that the way of the world? Similarly, if you created a thief based character or bard, regardless of what game you play (FInal Fantasy, etc), they are always the weakest characters. If you further invested your points on some miscellaneous stats (say speechcraft/intimidate/appraise) then what use is your character in a battle-orientated game, regardless of level scaling or fixing? You probably won't manage fighting monsters at the same level as your character even on fixed levels. You'll have to fight it out with weak enemies at a lower level that offer much less experience to the monsters you could have been fighting if you had invested your skills properly.

Eldo is wrong, as level tiering is for sissy boys.

Quite possibly or very much so, as I'm basing my level tiering experience on purely one game (MASS EFFECT!). I'm not advocating or agreeing with the level scaling system, but I can certainly see the pros and cons of both sides. I thought level scaling would be much harder than level fixing, as I don't really want to wander around the area map and fight weak enemies that waste my HP/MP and time fighting them when they're not worth the effort. But yeah, I might be completely wrong on this, I'm might be trying to force a cylinder through a square shaped hole. I'm just happy with a good RPG, regardless of what level system they use. I'm not picky.

[The Prince]

Eldo is wrong, as level tiering is for sissy boys.

Quite possibly or very much so, as I'm basing my level tiering experience on purely one game (MASS EFFECT!). I'm not advocating or agreeing with the level scaling system, but I can certainly see the pros and cons of both sides. I thought level scaling would be much harder than level fixing, as I don't really want to wander around the area map and fight weak enemies that waste my HP/MP and time fighting them when they're not worth the effort. But yeah, I might be completely wrong on this, I'm might be trying to force a cylinder through a square shaped hole. I'm just happy with a good RPG, regardless of what level system they use. I'm not picky.

Ah.....Damn. You should be a politician.

I'd vote for you.

Still I've never been a fan of level tiering since Ultima 4. Never even bothered to cash in on experience to gain levels as it basically made the game harder and more tedious fighting normal monsters with a kajillion HP's. Without tiering enemies, a good RPG will always have places to go to face off against tough competition, to provide a diverse world that allows places to stand out from one another. While providing a better sense of reward from taking out enemies that stand out from those in other locales. And if you reach a point where your character is over-leveled to the point of rarely being challenged wherever you go, maybe its time to kill the final boss and move on to another game.

[Aetherfukz]

I see your point. I haven't really played Oblivion, and not quite sure how the level scaling in that game works (if the monsters you fight are incredibly weak as a result of your low levels, or how the difficulty of an opponent is dictated). I agree with fixed levels only for turn based RPGs. It's just that I prefer the enemies I fight to be harder, not easier, and I thought that level scaling would possibly help with that. In a fixed level setting, if I did a bunch of side quest and leveled up tonnes, the rest of the game would be just smooth sailing that I'd be playing it just for the story, and not really for the game itself, you know? This happened to me with one of those turn based RPGs I was playing, and just kind of lost interest in it. I was worried that this might happen with Mass Effect, when I did a bunch of sidequests first before the main missions, but it didn't really happen at all. The difficulty was still consistent throughout the game.

I play Mass Effect since sunday on the PC - great game. Anyway I read that above level 20 the game gets much easier (it's about the right difficulty at level 18 now) because of you equipment catching up? Anyway, what you propose would be a mix of fixed and tiered enemies: Fix their starting level so you cannot fight them right at the start of the game with level 1, but let them level up if the player is a higher level then them. Anyway...

With your real life scenario, wasn't level scaling made to accommodate real life ie. the monsters train while you're training? Say, if you beat down a random nerd, but he goes home and train while you're training as well, and similarly applies to black belt character. So if his training regimen is similar to yours, he should be at the similar difficulty when you face him (this is based on a video game context - it definitely doesn't not occur in real life, where the statistical increase in strength is in a linear proportion) I do see your points though. Similarly, a level 1 character can finish the game without doing any fighting and heading straight for the last boss.

Haven't thought of it like that. But while the training applies to the nerd here, why can I beat the black belt (if he is tiered and not fixed) without any hassle? Shouldn't he be, by default, stronger than me?

New strategies to use to accommodate for 'harder' enemies (as they increase levels), I suppose. It really all depends on how you well you invest on your stats. Say, if your fire spell does x amounts of damage every x seconds, and upgrading it does more damage and increases duration, wouldn't that change the way you fight? Or similarly, strengthening a cure spell, increasing duration of a buff spell, etc. I can't really cite much examples, since I've just been playing Mass Effect. It's like comparing apples and oranges, which is what I might be doing with posting my thoughts on level scaling.

Hmm I wouldn't say getting a new rank of fireball x would change the way I play / fight. I always took scaling spells/abilities a granted, or getting new ranks if they do not scale every few levels. NEW Abilities on the other hand will change the way I fight, but only if they matter. I play a soldier in Mass Effect and there aren't really a lot of abilities I can get. *shrugs*

Isn't that the way of the world? Similarly, if you created a thief based character or bard, regardless of what game you play (FInal Fantasy, etc), they are always the weakest characters. If you further invested your points on some miscellaneous stats (say speechcraft/intimidate/appraise) then what use is your character in a battle-orientated game, regardless of level scaling or fixing? You probably won't manage fighting monsters at the same level as your character even on fixed levels. You'll have to fight it out with weak enemies at a lower level that offer much less experience to the monsters you could have been fighting if you had invested your skills properly.

Maybe that is the way of the world. But you have tons of more options in the real world than in a controlled game environment. Do note that I base my expierence here on Oblivion, which really took auto-scaling to a new level (and not in a positive way): If I am a thief and I surrender my fighting capabilities so I can sneak around, pickpocket, and all that stuff - then why the hell do I still find only crap copper rings in mansions that are bigger than the temple? Hmm... because I need to level up / fight enemies so that higher loot can spawn in chests. *shrugs*
On the other hand: When a soldier fights a "good" thief, I wouldn't bet on the soldier 100%. A thief has a lot of dirty tricks, just throw some sand into your opponents eye or something. Those things usually can't be done in games though. You have to fight as a soldier then even if your stats say you're a thief not made for close combat.

On retrospect, maybe scaling enemies isn't the root of all evil, but it has to be done very careful, and loot and levelup option have to be done accordingly. While it may add atmosphere that monsters "train" as you do, but it also takes away a lot of atmosphere when suddenly a sewer rat is extremely deadly and drops a Sword of a Thousand Truths every second time.

If you're not careful with scaling enemies things like mine happen: I couldn't play my charming Thief anymore in Oblivion because the enemies were too hard for me because they "leveled up" with their combat abilities, while I got my level ups by training my thief and social skills. So I had no chance to level up any further because every enemy in the whole world was to hard to defeat. Things like that shouldn't happen in an RPG. Things like that may, and do, happen in the real world I'll give you that. But I suppose we don't play games to have a 1:1 mirror of the real world. Otherwise we could just go out the door anyway.

Regards

[Eldo]

I play Mass Effect since sunday on the PC - great game. Anyway I read that above level 20 the game gets much easier (it's about the right difficulty at level 18 now) because of you equipment catching up? Anyway, what you propose would be a mix of fixed and tiered enemies: Fix their starting level so you cannot fight them right at the start of the game with level 1, but let them level up if the player is a higher level then them. Anyway...

Equipment does have something to do with it, I suppose. I found the difficulty pretty consistent though on veteran difficulty. I'm not quite sure how the mixture of fixed and scaling would work though, it's most usually one of the other. I've hardly ever die in Mass Effect, but besides getting overzealous and not healing myself when the enemy has very little health left and going all out. My mistake.

Haven't thought of it like that. But while the training applies to the nerd here, why can I beat the black belt (if he is tiered and not fixed) without any hassle? Shouldn't he be, by default, stronger than me?

If we're talking about video game context, then I would say tactics has something to do with it. In a tier system, if the enemy you're facing is the same difficulty throughout the levels, then it's pretty fair to assume that both your character and the black belt are training at the same proportion, hence there is no shift in difficulty and the difficulty remains consistent.

Hmm I wouldn't say getting a new rank of fireball x would change the way I play / fight. I always took scaling spells/abilities a granted, or getting new ranks if they do not scale every few levels. NEW Abilities on the other hand will change the way I fight, but only if they matter. I play a soldier in Mass Effect and there aren't really a lot of abilities I can get. *shrugs*

Well, I'm playing as biotic on my second play (I was soldier as well on my first playthrough), and it does have a difference in the play style and strategy used. But once the biotic skills are maxed, the enemies are pretty much easy to kill - regardless of what level the enemies are. If you have Liara in your party, max out lift and singularity to see. Have her cast those spells on your enemies, it lifts them up and suspends them in the air for a fair amount of time, in which your soldier would have plenty of time to kill your enemies easily. I played the first time without reading the manual, so I really didn't experiment on biotics or how to cast them properly in HUD mode, or using the cursor to target the enemies. The AI is pretty damned stupid - they may spend most of their time shooting at walls than actually helping you out in battles, especially when you're taking cover.

I guess the only example of new abilities for soldier is First Aid - you will really suffer if you did not invest on that skill points. You suffer more damage in later levels, and the amount you heal and recharge time is pretty crucial if healing once is insufficient to fully recover your health.

Maybe that is the way of the world. But you have tons of more options in the real world than in a controlled game environment. Do note that I base my expierence here on Oblivion, which really took auto-scaling to a new level (and not in a positive way): If I am a thief and I surrender my fighting capabilities so I can sneak around, pickpocket, and all that stuff - then why the hell do I still find only crap copper rings in mansions that are bigger than the temple? Hmm... because I need to level up / fight enemies so that higher loot can spawn in chests. *shrugs*
On the other hand: When a soldier fights a "good" thief, I wouldn't bet on the soldier 100%. A thief has a lot of dirty tricks, just throw some sand into your opponents eye or something. Those things usually can't be done in games though. You have to fight as a soldier then even if your stats say you're a thief not made for close combat.

Hah, when I meant 'way of the world' I guess I was referring to how that it is generally applied to most if not all games world, not as a real life context. I agree that the item scaling is a major flaw on their part. Perhaps in future games, they're fix this up. The scaling of items you get in Mass Effect are pretty damned decent as you increase in levels. Perhaps I have not played Oblivion to experience this flaw, so I don't really know what to say. I have heard many complaints about it, the majority of people who has played Oblivion has complained about this and hopefully they're fix it. Similarly in Mass Effect, Engineer-type class is useless in battle because...well, they only really open doors and chests, but that's about it. Better leave it to your party members for that. Most of the time in soldier, you'll have to go solo anyway because the AI isn't really that great.

On retrospect, maybe scaling enemies isn't the root of all evil, but it has to be done very careful, and loot and levelup option have to be done accordingly. While it may add atmosphere that monsters "train" as you do, but it also takes away a lot of atmosphere when suddenly a sewer rat is extremely deadly and drops a Sword of a Thousand Truths every second time.

If you're not careful with scaling enemies things like mine happen: I couldn't play my charming Thief anymore in Oblivion because the enemies were too hard for me because they "leveled up" with their combat abilities, while I got my level ups by training my thief and social skills. So I had no chance to level up any further because every enemy in the whole world was to hard to defeat. Things like that shouldn't happen in an RPG. Things like that may, and do, happen in the real world I'll give you that. But I suppose we don't play games to have a 1:1 mirror of the real world. Otherwise we could just go out the door anyway.

Hey, this might happen in fixed levels too. If you dedicated your skills towards social abilities, then the enemies you face at your own levels will kick your arse. You pretty much have to fight low level enemies, say, that offer you 100 exp, when you need 50000 exp to level up. Do you gain experience by successfully executing your social/diplomacy options? Perhaps that's the only way you could level up properly. Run away from your battles and handle diplomacy options instead.

Ah.....Damn. You should be a politician.

I'd vote for you.

Still looking for a suitable running mate.

Still I've never been a fan of level tiering since Ultima 4. Never even bothered to cash in on experience to gain levels as it basically made the game harder and more tedious fighting normal monsters with a kajillion HP's. Without tiering enemies, a good RPG will always have places to go to face off against tough competition, to provide a diverse world that allows places to stand out from one another. While providing a better sense of reward from taking out enemies that stand out from those in other locales. And if you reach a point where your character is over-leveled to the point of rarely being challenged wherever you go, maybe its time to kill the final boss and move on to another game.

The first Ultima game I played was on the SNES, and I believe it was VI. Over-leveling can kill the difficulty of the final boss, which has generally been regarded as one of the most challenging fights in the game, but if it happens in the middle of the game, I lose interest. But regardless of level scaling or tiering, if you have some tactics for beating the last boss, say, Sephiroth in FF7 then the difficulty would be easy. I tried to beat him without Knights of the Round, mimic, auto-cast Phoenix on my characters, and it's pretty hard. But with them, it's really simple.