43 réponses à ce sujet

[Kantr]

New enemies and creatures were also supposed to move in when you wipe out others. Doesnt really happen though

[Aurok]

I always figure the difference between levels is always just exaggerated too much. If going from lvl 10 to lvl 20 only made you say 10-20% stronger it (coupled with a similar improvement in gear and unlocking abilities) would give you more than enough advantage over lower level enemies to feel it, without rendering them completely unthreatening.

Yes it makes sense for you to become more proficient over the course of the game, but not to the point where armed combat ever becomes completely trivial.

[In Exile]

Or not relying mainly on fighting to do content ?

I wasn't aware that the two first Fallout games were considered comically linear (in fact I was always certain they were the polar opposite of it), and funnily, they didn't had a shred of level scaling in them.

They had gating encounters and level ranges. The reason they worked to allow you to go to 1+ place was that 1+ place was level appropriate, and when you went outside that gate you died immediately and comically.

Just like in BG1. BG2 just story locked the zones and level gated you in content that way.

[Provi-dance]

There's always going to be level scaling in a game. It's either that or make a comically linear game. Or the third option of making levels functionally meaningless unless the level gap is huge.

 

Your assertion is comical and nonsensical.

There are non-linear RPGs with excellent combat, meaningful level progression and without level scaling.

[In Exile]

Your assertion is comical and nonsensical.
There are non-linear RPGs with excellent combat, meaningful level progression and without level scaling.

You're just wrong. Every single 1990s to early 2000s RPG - FO1-2, BG1-BG2, PS:T, and IWD1-2 - use gating encounters in lieu of scaling. Their non-linear aspect comes from using what is mechanically equivalent to multiple zones that scale at the same rate, in the way DAI is doing it.

It's pure math. You can be in denial about if you want. Not my loss.

[Akka le Vil]

They had gating encounters and level ranges. The reason they worked to allow you to go to 1+ place was that 1+ place was level appropriate, and when you went outside that gate you died immediately and comically.

Just like in BG1. BG2 just story locked the zones and level gated you in content that way.

 

The only comical thing is your exageration.

It's actually perfectly possible to win Fallout 1 with a level 1 character if you know what you're doing. Sure, Supermutants, Centaurs and Deathclaws are much more dangerous than raiders or radscorpions, but they are because it's logical, not because you entered a "level X zone". They also are present at the places where it's logical for them to be, not just because you've reached "level X".

Supermutants are strong because they are supermutants, regardless where they are, old frail men are weak even if they are leaders among the Church, and so on. That's the antithesis of dumb, retarded "level scaling", and a natural way to have levels meaningful.

 

As for BG2, it's pretty dumb to speak about gating (all areas but Spellhold, the Underdark/Undersea and the Elven Tree are available right from the start, how exactly is it gated ?), but it had level scaling (though much less egregious than modern games, for all its flaws the ADD system at least kept a somehow believable scale of power that didn't entirely disconnect the numbers from the creatures they were supposed to represent).

[Provi-dance]

You're just wrong. Every single 1990s to early 2000s RPG - FO1-2, BG1-BG2, PS:T, and IWD1-2 - use gating encounters in lieu of scaling. Their non-linear aspect comes from using what is mechanically equivalent to multiple zones that scale at the same rate, in the way DAI is doing it.

It's pure math. You can be in denial about if you want. Not my loss.

 

 

Do you understand that GATING (for story reasons or any other reason) is not even remotely similar to level scaling and can't emulate it in any shape or form? Do you understand that with GATING the game can still be very much open and the player can still have a lot of freedom where to go and what to do?

You're patrolling this forum 24/7 apparently. Take a break and do some research before spouting comical and nonsensical claims.

[Provi-dance]

With scaling: "Bioware LIED!!!"

 

 

Aren't you a precious sweetheart. 

 

You know, there would be no reason to say they lied... if they hadn't lied. And in case you're not aware, lying is bad. It's a big no-no. 

[AlanC9]

Do you understand that GATING (for story reasons or any other reason) is not even remotely similar to level scaling and can't emulate it in any shape or form? Do you understand that with GATING the game can still be very much open and the player can still have a lot of freedom where to go and what to do?
You're patrolling this forum 24/7 apparently. Take a break and do some research before spouting comical and nonsensical claims.

How is a gated game "open"? I get the feeling you guys aren't using the word to mean the same thing.

If you're not planning on just staying in arrogant rant mode, examples of what you're talking about would be useful.

[Akka le Vil]

How is a gated game "open"? I get the feeling you guys aren't using the word to mean the same thing.

If you're not planning on just staying in arrogant rant mode, examples of what you're talking about would be useful.

 

"gated" means that there is an effective barrier preventing the character from going further in a particular direction. It hardly makes a game non-open unless the gating is so complete and so effective you are funneled in a single direction.

There is a huge range of gating, from "so noticeable and strong you can barely leave the rails" (that would be many MMO during leveling, where any difference in levels will kill you quickly and force you to go from one zone to another) to "no real gating after all" (that would be Fallout, where the "gating" is actually pretty inexistant, as described above it just is a natural consequence of having logically stronger creatures in logical places).

[Zanallen]

Um, a game isn't any more open just because the gating used seems more logical to you. Using stronger enemies to effectively block off areas of the game is typically how gating works. Doesn't matter if those stronger enemies come in the form of super mutants or highly skilled highwaymen or steroidal bears. Sure, there are ways to cheese the system and get to those areas. Building a high stealth PC, for example. However, that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to be there yet and the designers placed those high level enemies in that area for the purpose of keeping you out until you leveled up as well.

[Akka le Vil]

Um, a game isn't any more open just because the gating used seems more logical to you. Using stronger enemies to effectively block off areas of the game is typically how gating works. Doesn't matter if those stronger enemies come in the form of super mutants or highly skilled highwaymen or steroidal bears. Sure, there are ways to cheese the system and get to those areas. Building a high stealth PC, for example. However, that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to be there yet and the designers placed those high level enemies in that area for the purpose of keeping you out until you leveled up as well.

 

Such overly encompassing definition of "gating" makes the word completely meaningless, because by then they can just mean ANYTHING.

You also can't barge in the King's bedchamber right at the beginning of the game, because guards obviously won't let you pass. I hardly see how it's comparable to putting arbitrarily invincible mob at a crossroad, that should be strong enough to conquer entire swathes of lands by themselves as roadblocks, but somehow just stand there waiting.

 

If you don't take into consideration the logic of the obstacle, then anything between you and the ending credits is basically "gating" - and by then, as said above, the word's has lost absolutely all meaning.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's always going to be level scaling in a game. It's either that or make a comically linear game. Or the third option of making levels functionally meaningless unless the level gap is huge.

That third option is what they should do. Make the power curve much shallower, so small level differences don't matter.

[Provi-dance]

How is a gated game "open"? I get the feeling you guys aren't using the word to mean the same thing.

If you're not planning on just staying in arrogant rant mode, examples of what you're talking about would be useful.

 

You need an average or above average IQ to perfectly grasp the point.

Also, every game is "gated" and "closed" because you can't make your rpg character Alan Snowflake Knine pop out from the screen and shake hands with him in your basement.

[Provi-dance]

Doesn't matter if those stronger enemies come in the form of super mutants or highly skilled highwaymen or steroidal bears.

 

And what happens if a player manages to defeat these stronger enemies much sooner than "intended"? Is the game suddenly non-gated and open by your standards?

 

The point is precisely that you *can* attempt to fight stronger opponents, in a non-scaled game. This makes its openness much more rewarding.

[Zanallen]

And what happens if a player manages to defeat these stronger enemies much sooner than "intended"? Is the game suddenly non-gated and open by your standards?

 

The point is precisely that you *can* attempt to fight stronger opponents, in a non-scaled game. This makes its openness much more rewarding.

 

I addressed that in the very post you quoted. You can often cheese the system by making certain builds or playing in a certain way. Doesn't change the fact at all that the developer never intended for you to be there at that level. The game is still gated. You just managed to jump the fence, so to speak. Then you'll probably have people calling out the devs as liars about the time it takes to complete the game.

[Provi-dance]

I addressed that in the very post you quoted. You can often cheese the system by making certain builds or playing in a certain way. Doesn't change the fact at all that the developer never intended for you to be there at that level. The game is still gated. You just managed to jump the fence, so to speak. Then you'll probably have people calling out the devs as liars about the time it takes to complete the game.

 

You'd prefer an impassable wall instead? Because you'd hate to experience temper tantrums and blame Bioware forever as a result of accidentally (pure luck/cheese) defeating an encounter that you're "not meant" to defeat? You'd like Bioware to hold your hand till the end, am I correct?

[Akka le Vil]

I addressed that in the very post you quoted. You can often cheese the system by making certain builds or playing in a certain way. Doesn't change the fact at all that the developer never intended for you to be there at that level. The game is still gated. You just managed to jump the fence, so to speak. Then you'll probably have people calling out the devs as liars about the time it takes to complete the game.

 

Again, the world is not binary. The "gating" can be just a gentle nudging to push you toward the expected pass, but still allowing you to legitimely overcome it and still play the game normally, or it can be a straightup designed-as-impassable obstacle that you can only defeat through exploit, and which would break the sequence. I also adressed this in the post right below your previous one.

[Zanallen]

You'd prefer an impassable wall instead? Because you'd hate to experience temper tantrums and blame Bioware forever as a result of accidentally (pure luck/cheese) defeating an encounter that you're "not meant" to defeat? You'd like Bioware to hold your hand till the end, am I correct?

 

Personally, I don't give a damn either way. I don't mind exploration. Nor do I mind a more linear experience. I play video games for fun, to wind down after a long day at work. Personally, I'll take something like Suikoden II over DA:O any day of the week. But you are just an antagonistic troll and I am no longer going to waste my time talking to you.