575 réponses à ce sujet

[LH000]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Rob_R wrote...

No it couldn't.  What I mean is that the Ishal Ogre is designed for weak, low level players.  It is a tough opponent for those (weak/fresh) players.  A deep stalker is a weak opponent, but has been scaled up to provide a (minor) challenge for tough level 20 players.  Therefore .... hypothetically, if the level 20 deep stalker met the level 3 Ishal Ogre, the deep stalker would probably win.  Although in story terms (of course), one is an 'epic' boss and the other is just a nuisance.  That is what makes level scaling ridiculous.

No... simply no. This isn't DnD where 1 level = 1 HD.

Aeducan Thaig, PC = level 17
The average deepstalker is a level 13 critter (yeah, it will never be more than level 13 no matter what your level is) has a little under 200 hit points and hits for negligible damage (single digit).

Tower of Ishal, PC = level 5
The ogre is a level 7 boss, it has over 500HP (possibly quite a bit more, it's difficult to keep track of damage done without a battle log...) and hits for 30-40 damage...

Creature rank is much more significant than the displayed "level". A one-hit kill Archdemon would be just what the name says, a one-hit kill, even if it was level 25.
But of course, the level 5 PC who triumphed over the ogre would probably get raped by the pack of level 13 deepstalker critters that pose no challenge at all to the level 17 PC, but individually, each deepstalker doesn't stand a chance against that ogre, don't be ridiculous...

Why are people having so much trouble trying (<-problem is probably here) to understand that it just do not matter  if lvl13 deep stalker could really kill lvl7 ogre. This is just used to illustrate a feature of the game, which is real. And some of us do not like this feature very much... 

[Dracul_Age]

NumeroS wrote...
 You have to keep in your mind that you are human so you have to think about how to defeat enemy, how and who attack, when use what etc. Ok, it's kinda silly that random bandit, with level scalling , can be as strong as Ultra Elite Bodyguard of the Maker. In this case you have to keep in your mind that bandits dagger is still dangerous weapon even in childs hand for human being like your hero (or elf or dwarf). :-D As you gain more level you gain new skills, you can boost your Mana Points etc.

The way I would have done it is to keep HP static or very slow increase per level, levels instead teaching you new talents, skills, increased chance to dodge/block, and increased chance to land blows.

This way bandits and such remain a threat without level scaling, and it conveys the fragility of your human body.

Although that might not be a very popular game..

Modifié par Dracul_Age, 14 mars 2010 - 07:46 .

[hpjay]

LH000 wrote..

Why are people having so much trouble trying (<-problem is probably here) to understand that it just do not matter  if lvl13 deep stalker could really kill lvl7 ogre. This is just used to illustrate a feature of the game, which is real. And some of us do not like this feature very much... 

What do you mean it doesn't matter.  If it doesn't matter what is you point?  If it does matter than it still stands that a 13 lvl deep stalker is NOT  (I'll repeat NOT) able to defeat a lvl 7 Ogre.    So that is in fact a counter example to the feature of the game you do not like.  

Further,  we face different enemy sets in the main quest areas.  Now, if we faced only kobolds and the kobolds kept getting tougher as the PC got tougher than I'd be inclined to agree with the premise of this thread.  But the fact that the enemies generally change in each quest area makes the leveling question an "orange to apples" comparison. 

Lastly, this is not a feature of the game as much as it is a feature of the genre.  Thats just what CRPGs and D&D generally are.  

[warden guru]

i dont agree at all i have 6 playthroughs you must not be into rpgs then.

[Akka le Vil]

warden guru wrote...

i dont agree at all i have 6 playthroughs you must not be into rpgs then.

/facepalm

Actually, it's BECAUSE I'm into RPG that I can't stand level scaling. Because level scaling is just nonsensical in its very premises, break immersion and believability of the world, and RPG is about immersion and "believing" yourself as being in the world. Maybe YOU like it because YOU are not really into RPG - or do not even understand what a RPG is ?
(see what I did here ?)

Dracul_Age wrote...

NumeroS wrote...
 You have
to keep in your mind that you are human so you have to think about how
to defeat enemy, how and who attack, when use what etc. Ok, it's kinda
silly that random bandit, with level scalling , can be as strong as
Ultra Elite Bodyguard of the Maker. In this case you have to keep in
your mind that bandits dagger is still dangerous weapon even in childs
hand for human being like your hero (or elf or dwarf). :-D As you gain
more level you gain new skills, you can boost your Mana Points
etc.

The way I would have done it is to keep HP static or very slow increase per level, levels instead teaching you new talents, skills, increased chance to dodge/block, and increased chance to land blows.

This way bandits and such remain a threat without level scaling, and it conveys the fragility of your human body.

Although that might not be a very popular game..

Yep, good point to both. That's a way to implement the "shallower power curve".
You could also make the fighting giving bonuses to attackers that outnumbers someone (it's quite hard to repel the attacks of two people at once in reality too, so it's a rather logical concept) so that even if you're high-level, people much weaker can still be a threat.
And no reason for the game not to be popular.

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Creature rank is much more significant than the displayed "level". A one-hit kill Archdemon would be just what the name says, a one-hit kill, even if it was level 25.

Yes.
That's precisely one side of the problem ?
"ranks" exist because levels have lost all meaning due to level scaling.
If levels were actually relevant, you wouldn't need rank, you would just put a high-level monster.
So they put levels in the game, remove the very reason for their existence through level scaling, then re-inject a band-aid version of levels in the game. Rather absurd.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 14 mars 2010 - 11:40 .

[tmp7704]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Yep, good point to both. That's a way to implement the "shallower power curve".
You could also make the fighting giving bonuses to attackers that outnumbers someone (it's quite hard to repel the attacks of two people at once in reality too, so it's a rather logical concept) so that even if you're high-level, people much weaker can still be a threat.
And no reason for the game not to be popular.

Actually the argument why such game could be unpopular is present in your own OP -- by flattening the power of levels to the point where "much weaker level-wise people are still a threat" you arrive to pretty much the same spot you currently get with auto-levels. That is, the combat feeling similar at low and high levels and lack of clear, perceivable advantage from having these extra levels at all.

This is really one of these situations where you have to pick if you want to keep your cake, or eat it. Can't have both. Levels are either meaningful or they aren't. If they aren't, don't complain they aren't. If they are, don't pretend a game world built around them would be any more realistic or more playable than the similarly lacking auto-level mechanics.

[LH000]

hpjay wrote...

LH000 wrote..

Why are people having so much trouble trying (<-problem is probably here) to understand that it just do not matter  if lvl13 deep stalker could really kill lvl7 ogre. This is just used to illustrate a feature of the game, which is real. And some of us do not like this feature very much... 

What do you mean it doesn't matter.  If it doesn't matter what is you point?  If it does matter than it still stands that a 13 lvl deep stalker is NOT  (I'll repeat NOT) able to defeat a lvl 7 Ogre.    So that is in fact a counter example to the feature of the game you do not like.  

Further,  we face different enemy sets in the main quest areas.  Now, if we faced only kobolds and the kobolds kept getting tougher as the PC got tougher than I'd be inclined to agree with the premise of this thread.  But the fact that the enemies generally change in each quest area makes the leveling question an "orange to apples" comparison. 

Lastly, this is not a feature of the game as much as it is a feature of the genre.  Thats just what CRPGs and D&D generally are.  

What I mean is what I said. Lvl 13 deep stalker would be much tougher opponent to Ishal ogre than you would assume from observations in Deep Roads exclusively. That is not an counter example. I don't recall any counter example to this feature in DA:O at all.

As far as I remember, we face same hurlocks and genlocks through the whole game. So we are comparing apples to apples. Even if we wasn't, problem with scaling wouldn't be entirely solved.

No, it isn't. And although it is quite common, it could be done differently. (Plus, DA:O is not D&D.) 

[sumdood]

The good thing about level scaling is it allows you to progress through the game how you choose. Without it, you would almost be required to finish each zone in a specific order. Sure, you could manage to squeeze through an area that was designed for a higher level, but when you are required to go back to the easier areas it would be a cakewalk and you would just be going through the motions without any challenge.



The bad thing about scaling is that it takes the bad-assery out of some of the opponents. It seems odd to me that I can obliterate a room of otherworldly demons, but yet my party gets massacred by a small group of simple thugs later on.



There is a difficult balance in leveling scaling in order to please the wants of gamers. Either you have no scaling and a linear questline, full scaling and a completely open story, or somewhere in between. While no gamer that has an opinion on level scaling will ever be completely satisfied with Dragon Age's approach, I believe it has implemented level scaling very well. Perhaps in sequels there will be an option to turn off level scaling since there are many gamers with a very strong opinion on the matter.

[SFKNIGHT]

I understand why many of you hate the level scaling and i find it a little annoying ( at least its not as blatantly obvious and terrible as Oblivion's though ) , but doesn't the end game take a different turn? What I mean is during the Final Onslaught - wont say any more in case of spoilers - there are a ton of enemies with 20 - 30 hp grouped together with a few high level enemies. Don't want to be too specific in this forum, but in essence its a horde of extremely weak enemies ( ? scaled down perhaps ? ) mixed in with one or two elite enemies. Personally, I found this different approach to end game enemies rather refreshing and allowed my god awful pc to actually seem like a badass as he one hit killed hordes of weaklings only to get his ass handed to him by a miniboss.



So what did you guys thing about out they used level scaling this late in the game, or am I alone in liking its implementation during the last part of the game

[Realmzmaster]

LH000 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The basic problem is no matter what the developer does someone is not going to be satisfied. The other problem is the resources already invested in the game engine. I do not see any radical changes in the forseeable future. It is simply not economical. Radical changes would simply delayed future games. Bioware is on a roll and must strike while the iron is hot unless everyone would rather wait three to five years for the sequel to DA:O to appear.

I don't know nearly anything about programming games, but I think that while changing scaling system (or removing it) would be quite a radical change gameplay-wise, it will not add so much work to programmers to implement it. And since they claim to be changing (at least) graphics quite a lot, they are probably planning to make some changes except of new story etc. It just depends what their goals with the game are.... 

   

Actually any major change (like changing or removing level scaling)  to the game engine will be a lot of work. Graphics are much easier to change. Graphics involve cosmetic changes. Level scaling is part of the game engine upon which everything else is built. It is not just a change gameplay wise, but require restructuring of the engine.

[sedrikhcain]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Yeah, I know that not everyone agree, but I'm frustrated enough that I need to get it out of my chest.

I've tried now several times to make a second playthrough of the game. But each time I try, I'm demotivated by how it feels exactly the same to fight every single foe in the game, whatever the level or the location I am.
The total lack of any character progression relative to the world is really a bummer and remove a lot of the fun I can have from playing.
I know that Bioware use some kind of big worded name for their own version of level scaling, but in the practice it just feels exactly like Oblivion, the only difference being that you don't actually SEE the enemies in full daedric armor - but the difference is purely cosmetic.

It feel exactly the same to fight a same-coloured darkspawn at level 1 or at level 10 or at level 20.

Extremely frustrating, because I'd like to replay the game, but it really spoil my fun to feel like everything is always the same, and to have absolutely no sense of becoming stronger - or fighting "stronger" or "weaker" enemies. Even the enemies themselves don't matter - you'd think that such creature would be quite more dangerous than this one, and that such trained soldier would be stronger than this average brigand. But no. Monsters are simply "mélée", "mage" or "archer" and "white", "yellow" or "orange". Everything else is simply cosmetic, and I don't feel some creature are more dangerous/weaker than other, they simply are "at the same level as everyone".
Make in the end for a VERY bland feeling of "everything is always the same" and a distinct lack of "believable world" and "fluff".

Yes, I needed to rant. Ruining so much fun because of such a stupid feature is really an extremely frustrating waste.

Gah...

While I would prefer they did not scale enemies to your level, I hardly think it has ruined the game. I've had some really difficult battles and also some easy ones. The "bosses" and epic battles (like the redcliffe village one) have been among the toughest, which is as it should be. I mean, isn't that the main thing? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to get rid of it but more for a sense of danger -- as one walkthrough author put it -- than anything else. I just think saying that level scaling ruins the game goes way too far. If every battle went the same say, maybe that would be a fair assessment but there is variety, so I think you're being harsh.

Put it this way, if your in-game experience were exactly same but you didn't know there was level scaling in the game, would you still feel the same way about your experience?

[Realmzmaster]

Let's say level scaling is removed. What is done as a replacement? One way is to structure all the quests. The quests have to be structured to match the power level of the party. You start out your party is relatively weak so certain quests are available to get your weak party up to speed. Quests are then designed to get your no longer weak party strong enough for the next area or set of stronger quests and so on. So only certain quests can be performed until your party is strong enough to take on the more involved quests. Which is what many of the old school CRPGs did. It also made then very linear games.
For me it also limited the replayability of the game. Once I had finished the game I knew what order I had to do the quests to get my party to the next chapter. The order did not change and areas I had to go to did not change.
I will give BG1 as an example. I think BG1 is a excellent game, but still a very linear game. Your character had to follow a set series of quests no matter how many times you replayed the game. I played through BG1. I started a second playthrough and I stopped because It was the same sequence. I put BG1 away and played BG2. I came back recently to BG1. I knew exactly what I had to do.
I am on my sixth playthrough of DA:O. I find DA:O to be far more replayable than BG1 or BG2. The different origins are a hook, but the fact that once I leave the wilds or Lothering I can go to any map location is a big draw for me. The point that I can finish a quest in Orzammar and travel all the way to the Brecilian to start another quest attracts me. I do not have to do the quests in any set order. I am happy with that makeup..YMMV

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 15 mars 2010 - 07:47 .

[Akka le Vil]

tmp7704 wrote...

Actually the argument why such game could be unpopular is present in your own OP -- by flattening the power of levels to the point where "much weaker level-wise people are still a threat" you arrive to pretty much the same spot you currently get with auto-levels. That is, the combat feeling similar at low and high levels and lack of clear, perceivable advantage from having these extra levels at all.

Mmh...
Not at all ?
Increasing slowly in power is absolutely, totally, completely and fundamentally different than level scaling. You DO progress (just at a slow pace) and the foes don't magically become stronger simply by virtue of YOU progressing. Hence the world can have a logical power structure and gaining a level means that you actually become stronger.

That low-level bandits can still be dangerous is not the beef I have with level scaling - that rag-tag bandits are high-level IS the problem.
It seems that regardless of what someone complain about level scaling, regardless of his real arguments and regardless of what he actually write, people will automatically directly jump to the conclusion that the ONLY reason this person dislikes level scaling is simply because he doesn't become a god at high level. Even when this reason isn't even remotely part of the actual real argument.

This is really one of these situations where you have to pick if you want to keep your cake, or eat it. Can't have both. Levels are either meaningful or they aren't. If they aren't, don't complain they aren't. If they are, don't pretend a game world built around them would be any more realistic or more playable than the similarly lacking auto-level mechanics.

That's a very, very binary way of looking at it. And completely absurd. Levels can be "meaningful" in plenty of different ways, and with a widely different scale. That's like saying "either you're moving or standing still, but if you move there is no difference between someone walking and a supersonic jet, they just both move and saying one is too fast/too slow is just wanting to eat the cake and keep it". Which is just nonsensical.

Either you have no scaling and a linear questline

As this point has been disproved about three times each page and I'm becoming tired about it, I'll just answer with one word :
Fallout

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 15 mars 2010 - 09:27 .

[ladydesire]

Akka le Vil wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Creature rank is much more significant than the
displayed "level". A one-hit kill Archdemon
would be just what the name says, a one-hit
kill, even if it was level 25.

Yes.
That's precisely one side of the problem ?
"ranks" exist because levels have lost all
meaning due to level scaling.
If levels were actually relevant, you wouldn't
need rank, you would just put a high-level
monster.
So they put levels in the game, remove the very
reason for their existence through level scaling,
then re-inject a band-aid version of levels in
the game. Rather absurd.

Really? Gary Gygax rolled over in his grave when you posted this, because DnD has used "ranks" for decades to increase the challenge beyond what static levels provide.

[Red Frostraven]

Replace level scaling with more difficult monsters dealing more damage, amidst the creatures of the given level.



That way, an ogre can be an ogre -- while a named elite ogre can be a challenge 10 levels later despite the ogres beeing easy.



...

That doesn't break immersion as much as ogres leveling up being as hard at level 7 as they are at level 25.

[k9medusa]

I have to disagree for an ogre. The 1st time I met one, he mopped the floor with my team -- This mourning, I met one and that was battle was very easy even with level scaling.

[Ravenfeeder]

I was one of those who didn't like 'high' level bandits scattershotting my party into oblivion (no, not the game, Doh!). I, like many here, thought that my 'high' level party should be able to deal with a few bandits moderately easily. But I've been thinking......
Are we really 'high' level? Is there much difference between a 7th level bandit and a 15th level one? Awakening can take our heroes to 35th level. What if DA2, instead of being a new game, is actually a pure sequel, playing the same characters? If DA2 takes us to 60th level and its expansion to 70th then the two sets of bandits are only sightly different and there's no loss of verisimilitude. If standard bandits still scale to 70th level then we have a problem.
Of course this is pure supposition and I haven't a clue how they'd do it.

Modifié par Ravenfeeder, 15 mars 2010 - 03:27 .

[tmp7704]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Increasing slowly in power is absolutely, totally, completely and fundamentally different than level scaling. You DO progress (just at a slow pace) and the foes don't magically become stronger simply by virtue of YOU progressing. Hence the world can have a logical power structure and gaining a level means that you actually become stronger.

I'm not talking of the exact mechanics involved but about the end-result you can experience -- gaining minimal amount of power when you gain levels to ensure the lower level characters are still dangerous means when you actually run into these characters and they still are dangerous then for all intent and purposes these characters could be just auto-leveled instead, as you experience very much the same thing. (the same characters pose danger no matter your level) And gaining a level in when the level power curve is so drastically flattened means you don't actually get more powerful except maybe on paper where your 20 points of hp turns into 21, but as long as single hit still kills you, who can tell the practical difference?

It seems that regardless of what someone complain about level scaling, regardless of his real arguments and regardless of what he actually write, people will automatically directly jump to the conclusion that the ONLY reason this person dislikes level scaling is simply because he doesn't become a god at high level. Even when this reason isn't even remotely part of the actual real argument.

It seems you are not reading too close yourself. I don't have a problem with you complaining about auto-levelling. I'm just pointing out your suggested solutions do nothing to address the supposed points which irk you. Again, i mean the practical end effects of your proposed solutions, not the involved mechanics.

That's a very, very binary way of looking at it.

Of course it's binary, just like your own view on the auto-levelling. I'm sorry but when you start the thread with a claim "it feels exactly the same to fight every single foe in the game, whatever the level or the location I am" then i can only take it you're fine with making sweeping, binary generalizations.

As this point has been disproved about three times each page and I'm becoming tired about it, I'll just answer with one word :
Fallout

Fallout disproves nothing, for two reasons. For one, your starting level character has absolutely zero chance to cut it in the high-level end game parts, which means to certain degree you are still forced to follow the path shaped by level arrangement of the enemies. Just like people point it out. And second, Fallout combat is about the most dull, repetitive experience i can think of -- from the beginning to end you do the exact same things vs every enemy, and they act the same in response. The rats in the starting cave could as well be dressed up as the knife-wielding folks you meet in later villages, and every enemy with a gun could be exchanged with another guy with a gun and doubt anyone would notice. How that game is in your eyes somehow disproving anything or showing supposedly preferable approach is quite beyond me, since it displays the exact same traits you complain about.

Modifié par tmp7704, 15 mars 2010 - 04:06 .

[LH000]

WARNING: SPOILERS

Ravenfeeder wrote...

I was one of those who didn't like 'high' level bandits scattershotting my party into oblivion (no, not the game, Doh!). I, like many here, thought that my 'high' level party should be able to deal with a few bandits moderately easily. But I've been thinking......
Are we really 'high' level? Is there much difference between a 7th level bandit and a 15th level one? Awakening can take our heroes to 35th level. What if DA2, instead of being a new game, is actually a pure sequel, playing the same characters? If DA2 takes us to 60th level and its expansion to 70th then the two sets of bandits are only sightly different and there's no loss of verisimilitude. If standard bandits still scale to 70th level then we have a problem.
Of course this is pure supposition and I haven't a clue how they'd do it.

What does word high-level mean?  Don't forget we have killed archdemon, defeated high dragon and powerful witch, successfully  fighted many powerful demons and plenty others. 

This is not MMORPG with Ferelden being a starting area (I hope ). 

Even if what you said will be true, most problems which some people here have will still persist.

[ladydesire]

Level scaling ruins it for some people; the lack of consequences for doing quests in any order you want annoys me now that I've completed the game once. By lack of consequences, I mean that the quests are at exactly the same point, no matter when you arrive in a specific place, instead of these events having progressed in some way...

[Realmzmaster]

@ladydesire,



You are not talking about level scaling but the lack of event passage due to time. Example you go to the mage tower to get the mages to save Connor. It is suppose to be a two day trip. (one day there and one back). There should be some consequence if the party takes to long to get back. The demon in Connor kills everyone and turns them into undead

You PC is given the Jarvia quest. The party decides to go to the forest to help the elves and is done for threes weeks. The party shoulkd come back to see Jarvia take over the commons and encroaching on the Diamond Quarter. There should be lots of fighting in the streets.

[Akka le Vil]

k9medusa wrote...

I have to disagree for an ogre. The 1st time I met one, he mopped the floor with my team -- This mourning, I met one and that was battle was very easy even with level scaling.

That's because the first ogre is a "boss" (orange) and the latter are "lieutenants" (yellow) or even "normal" (white)...

[Akka le Vil]

tmp7704 wrote...

I'm not talking of the exact mechanics involved but about the end-result you can experience -- gaining minimal amount of power when you gain levels to ensure the lower level characters are still dangerous means when you actually run into these characters and they still are dangerous then for all intent and purposes these characters could be just auto-leveled instead, as you experience very much the same thing. (the same characters pose danger no matter your level)

Completely false.
You do not, at all, experience the same thing with level scaling or small power increase. You do become stronger, not stay at the same relative level, and, more importantly, the foe has a logical power, not an absurd one, which make for more variance and a more believable world.

And gaining a level in when the level power curve is so drastically flattened means you don't actually get more powerful except maybe on paper where your 20 points of hp turns into 21, but as long as single hit still kills you, who can tell the practical difference?

That's called "tuning". Adjust the actual increase so it's noticeable but not too high. 
Adjust the WAY you increase power so that it's more subtly (I already gave plenty of ideas about it).

It seems you are not reading too close yourself. I don't have a problem with you complaining about auto-levelling. I'm just pointing out your suggested solutions do nothing to address the supposed points which irk you. Again, i mean the practical end effects of your proposed solutions, not the involved mechanics.

Well, I can only tell you to look again at the post then, because YES my solutions DO address the points irking me.

Of course it's binary, just like your own view on the auto-levelling. I'm sorry but when you start the thread with a claim "it feels exactly the same to fight every single foe in the game, whatever the level or the location I am" then i can only take it you're fine with making sweeping, binary generalizations.

I'm making generalizations, yes. Doesn't mean they're binary. I generalize because the general impression I get is that I'm just going nowhere when it comes to the supposed increase of my character. I'm able to kick the butt of a supposed kingdom champion at level 1, and the fight is the same challenge (easier in fact) than when I fight some random bandits later and I'm level 12.
Now, fighting a champion at level 1 should get me trashed, not an easier feat than killing a rag-tag bunch of losers.

Fallout disproves nothing, for two reasons. For one, your starting level character has absolutely zero chance to cut it in the high-level end game parts, which means to certain degree you are still forced to follow the path shaped by level arrangement of the enemies. Just like people point it out. And second, Fallout combat is about the most dull, repetitive experience i can think of -- from the beginning to end you do the exact same things vs every enemy, and they act the same in response. The rats in the starting cave could as well be dressed up as the knife-wielding folks you meet in later villages, and every enemy with a gun could be exchanged with another guy with a gun and doubt anyone would notice. How that game is in your eyes somehow disproving anything or showing supposedly preferable approach is quite beyond me, since it displays the exact same traits you complain about.

Well, that's your opinion. I didn't saw any linearity in Fallout for my part. You will get killed if you rush to the Supermutants base directly, or if you go toes to toes with a Deathclaw (as it SHOULD BE), but that's about it. Nearly everything else can be done at any level, and without level scaling.
And if you don't like fight, you can use the peaceful methods, which also work.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 16 mars 2010 - 10:33 .

[Kimberly Shaw]

Lady Desire brings up an interesting point, one I would like to see made in more games (rather than scaling as is)---that you could have your non-linear story path, but where you go first will be a bit easier because of the timeline---the baddies haven't had a chance to make it so terrible yet.



So you go to the Mage Tower early, and the demons haven't quite taken a foot hold yet, they are weaker, less abominations, more mages still "good" and helping out...its a bit easier and you're still lower level. If you go there later in the game, the demons are much stronger, they've taken over more, less good mages left...its harder but now you're higher level because its later in the game. Of course, there should be dialogue and visual cues explaining the consequences of coming here late and rewards/penalties; this would help replay value to the game as well because you'd get different playing experiences depending on the order you choose?



You can still do the quests in any order, and the challenge rises with your character level AND the game world makes sense!



Although I'm sure there'd be people unhappy with that sort of structure and it would take more programmer and machine resources too.