Although I'm not a fan of Bioware and their inflated ego, I must say they have done it nicely in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. With BG 1 being a more open-world game than the sequel.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 142
Scaling in RPGs (...Dragon Age)
- Thread starter Tan
- Start date
Although I'm not a fan of Bioware and their inflated ego, I must say they have done it nicely in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. With BG 1 being a more open-world game than the sequel.
That's odd since I cannot think of a system which allows a lot of side quests, thus experience points, consequent level-ups and equipment upgrades without level-scaling or any other possible device to keep the game balance. It would make a great difference in terms of gameplay difficulty between players who finished as many as side quests and those who do only the main quests. Especially when the game is focused on tactical game play, it would ruin the core game play experience. In such a game, ideally, it should exclusively be difficulty level adjustment which can be consciously used by the players what changes the difficulty of the tactical game experience (e.g. a difficulty slider).
Even if you were right, there must be some ways to deal with the game difficulty in BG series. What I can say is that the pieces of information you gave here contradict each other and are probably wrong or, at least, there must be some other factors we overlooked. I'm not a huge Bioware fan, either, but, at least, I don't think Bioware will make a blunder in this area.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 278
Just because you can't think of such a system does not mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't possible. Do'h.
What pieces of information I gave here contradict each other, exactly? Or were you just trying to bla-bla-bla a bit more to fill up a paragraph?
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 142
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Absolutely! Level scaling in Oblivion is done absolutely horribly, it ruins the game for anyone other than casuals. But then there are lots of pretty god-awful design choices in Oblivion, starting with the way it's possible to become master of all guilds and boss of all factions, regardless of their relations with each other.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
According to what source? Link please.
BG1 has no scaling whatsoever. BG2 has so little scaling it's almost irrelevant.
Your assumption that someone hasn't already made it is dubious. I stand by my examples. I'm sure there are other examples, but since I haven't played all the rpgs in existence I can name only those exaples I know of.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 142
abharsair
Grumpmaster
The main arguments of the level-scaling proponents seem to be that in a non-linear game one could get too powerful for the main quest, or that the main quest is too challenging if one sets out on it without any sidetracking.
However, I disagree with the necessity of level-scaling based on those arguments, especially in the case of the latter one. In my opinion someone should have to explore, grow, and fulfill arbitrary tasks before he can set out on his/her path of glory (main quest), and to me this is one of the appealing aspects of a non-linear world. This might not be a popular view in this age of casual gaming, but it's my personal preference. No pain, no gain. I actually feel cheated if my choices, training and grinding do not pay off.
Concerning the argument that one gets too strong and the game becomes too easy if one would do everything before he sets out on the main quest: well, why not? If a game offers a main quest with a captivating story (or maybe alluring rewards, or generates otherwise enough interest), then the chances are high that most of the players go along with it before it becomes too easy. If the main quest lacks appeal and is too boring/confusing/unimaginative to begin with, then not even level-scaling will save it. And if someone is so obsessed with completing just about everything else and the game lets him become a demi-god before he starts the main quest, then I fail to see why everyone else has to be punished for it by making levels redundant and turning monsters into doppelgangers of the player's character. That's just a style and a hand-holding which I dislike deeply.
Naturally, that's just my personal opinion and preference. I know others like a more linear, fast and dynamic approach to things, and then level-scaling is probably a good rather than a bad thing.
However, I disagree with the necessity of level-scaling based on those arguments, especially in the case of the latter one. In my opinion someone should have to explore, grow, and fulfill arbitrary tasks before he can set out on his/her path of glory (main quest), and to me this is one of the appealing aspects of a non-linear world. This might not be a popular view in this age of casual gaming, but it's my personal preference. No pain, no gain. I actually feel cheated if my choices, training and grinding do not pay off.
Concerning the argument that one gets too strong and the game becomes too easy if one would do everything before he sets out on the main quest: well, why not? If a game offers a main quest with a captivating story (or maybe alluring rewards, or generates otherwise enough interest), then the chances are high that most of the players go along with it before it becomes too easy. If the main quest lacks appeal and is too boring/confusing/unimaginative to begin with, then not even level-scaling will save it. And if someone is so obsessed with completing just about everything else and the game lets him become a demi-god before he starts the main quest, then I fail to see why everyone else has to be punished for it by making levels redundant and turning monsters into doppelgangers of the player's character. That's just a style and a hand-holding which I dislike deeply.
Naturally, that's just my personal opinion and preference. I know others like a more linear, fast and dynamic approach to things, and then level-scaling is probably a good rather than a bad thing.
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Right here on this thread: [ http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1060954910&postcount=12 ]
You're (possibly) right about BG1, so I'll withdraw that comment. I haven't played it, though, so I can't really say anything much about it.
However, BG2 *does* have level scaling, and IMO it's *not* irrelevant. On the contrary -- once over the initial (and insanely badly-designed) early game, it manages to maintain a very solid level of challenge all through, without feeling nerfed like Oblivion. IOW, the latter half of BG2 represents a good example of how to do level-scaling properly.
I'll turn that right back at you; I haven't played all of them either. However, I have played cRPG's that do have level scaling where it doesn't feel ham-fisted -- Baldur's Gate 2, for example. I've also played games that don't have it, and consequently have serious end-game balancing problems -- Gothic 2 and NWN2: MotB, for example. Probably others, too; I just don't know whether they use level scaling or not.
That, IMO, proves my point that it can be a useful ingredient. Like any design feature, it can be used badly, well, or not at all. It has no inherent worth in and of itself, nor is it inherently bad in and of itself. I don't see any reason why a designer should refuse to use it out of philosophical conviction. A poorly-balanced game is a poorly-balanced game, no matter how it got there, and the same goes for a well-balanced one.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
I'm sorry if I hurt your feeling but your hostility to level-scaling seems to make you blind from the reason behind the existence of such device in CRPG, where no human game master is available.
Most people agree that Oblivion's level-scaling is too aggressive to keep the feel of the consistency of the world. So, we have the game balance issue on one hand and the world consistency issue on the other hand.
To me, this sounds like a power-gamer preference rather than those who enjoy tactical combats. Levels won't be redundant since, in a decent system, it will expand available tactical choices. I'd rather feel sad to see these expanded choices are simply for massacring the weaker opponents rather than for more challenging ones.
I agree that it comes down to personal preferences at the end of the day.
Or for those who enjoy tactical combat gameplay. I like non-linearity but, according to my knowledge, it is hard to balance both aspects.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 278
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
If you get that feeling, then clearly the game designers have failed: they've been too obvious and too heavy-handed about the level-scaling. Too much salt will ruin an otherwise good dish; too much level scaling will ruin an otherwise good game.
Because it gets *boring,* that's why. Gothic 2, for example -- I barely bothered finishing it because by the time I got near the endgame, I felt like God.
The same goes with Fallout -- toward the endgame, I'm at the point where almost every aimed shot at the eyes hits, and almost every hit kills. That means those climactic fights against hordes of supermutants become as tedious as the sewer crawl after Rat Keeng in FO2. All because it's poorly balanced and let me get over-powerful.
But there's the rub -- once you're powerful enough, the rewards become meaningless. All that's left is the story, and as some of the folks on your side of the fence put it, in that case, why not just read a book?
True -- but it can maintain a level of challenge that makes the game worth finishing for gameplay reasons. And it can enhance a well-written, appealing main quest, so that there's more to keep you going than just wanting to find out how it finished. BG2 is IMO the best example of this working -- the story just got better as it unfolded, and the challenges remained tense and varied enough to keep things exciting.
Absolutely. It's an example of badly-done, cack-handed level-scaling, which should be avoided at all costs.
On the contrary, level-scaling works best at enhancing games with wide-open worlds, lots of optional content, and lots of character-building options.
The mistake y'all are making is thinking that Oblivion represents the only way level-scaling can be done. It doesn't -- it's an example of how NOT to do level-scaling.
(For another example of a game that does level-scaling extremely well, try NetHack, by the way.)
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
There are different type of "non-linearity" between BGII and FO/FO2/Arcanum, though. The latter type of non-linearity is definitely harder to realize. However, I agree that BG2's formula would work in DA, too.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 278
Zaleukos
Bum
- Joined
- November 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
PJ is pretty much stating my opinions. Balancing and subtlety is key, and the poster-boy of level scaling failed abysmally at these two.
Ironically the heavy-handed level scaling in Oblivion pretty much stems from Bethesda feeling that they didnt scale enough in Morrowind (where the max scale was capped for each area), and that players complained about the previous title being too easy once you were past a certain level
I'm pretty sure about the lich patrols as I found those encounters highly annoying There are two places that AFAIK introduce lich-lead patrols if you revisit them later a higher level. The "undead village" on the way to the unseeing eye, and the dungeon that leads to the shadow dragon. Watchers keep's first two levels are definitely scaled (I usually go there early to snag myself unlimited arrows and bolts). Go to these places in chapter 2 and in chapter 6 and you will see a significant difference in the monster fauna. BG1 doesnt have scaling as far as I could tell (and there wouldnt be much point since a low level world with weak items doesnt have the explosion in player power seen in BG2).
Anyway the "scaling" is sufficient enough to make postponing as many sidequests as possible to chapter 6 a viable strategy if you want to maximise your level. Doing as few sidequests as possible in Chapter 2 + postponing Watchers keep for as long as possible adds up to almost a million extra XP per character for a party of six IIRC.
Of course, if we use Oblivion as an example again and playing as a thief who hasnt raised combat skills... Again it is all about balancing.
I dont think it is quite that clear cut. Either approach requires competent balancing and can result in an enjoyable experience. I dont disagree with your analysis of why devs choose level scaling though, laziness is often a significant factor there
So can I, but most of them were relatively linear in structure, making it fairly easy to balance areas to a predictable player power. BG1 and (the original) Pool of Radiance are two exceptions that spring to mind. My all time favourite RPG (partially for involved combat) Gothic 2 has the functional equivalent of scaling with its repopulation every chapter (I really dont think it matters if enemies are beefed up according to char level or narrative chapter).
Baldurs Gate 1 does it very nicely. The further you go from the main road the nastier the wildlife gets, and you usually know where to go next... It's not Bethsoft in terms of openness though. As far as BG2 goes I'll partially concede Tan's point, the scaling is in the optional areas that can be accessed anytime from when your characters are naked level 8 weaklings to fully equipped level 13 killing machines. If there are changes in the main story areas they are more subtle.
Ironically the heavy-handed level scaling in Oblivion pretty much stems from Bethesda feeling that they didnt scale enough in Morrowind (where the max scale was capped for each area), and that players complained about the previous title being too easy once you were past a certain level
I think you're wrong here. The percentage of scaled encounters is really minimal in BG2. And in BG1 I don't remember instances of scaling at all. Trust me, I did some research back in the days with tools like TeamBG's creature maker. As I've already said, it's limited to adding a few more powerful monsters in some places. And you're certainly exaggerating about tiny undead patrols suddenly containing liches, as those were mostly boss encounters.
I'm pretty sure about the lich patrols as I found those encounters highly annoying
There are two places that AFAIK introduce lich-lead patrols if you revisit them later a higher level. The "undead village" on the way to the unseeing eye, and the dungeon that leads to the shadow dragon. Watchers keep's first two levels are definitely scaled (I usually go there early to snag myself unlimited arrows and bolts). Go to these places in chapter 2 and in chapter 6 and you will see a significant difference in the monster fauna. BG1 doesnt have scaling as far as I could tell (and there wouldnt be much point since a low level world with weak items doesnt have the explosion in player power seen in BG2). Anyway the "scaling" is sufficient enough to make postponing as many sidequests as possible to chapter 6 a viable strategy if you want to maximise your level. Doing as few sidequests as possible in Chapter 2 + postponing Watchers keep for as long as possible adds up to almost a million extra XP per character for a party of six IIRC.
It could be the other way around, couldn't it?
Of course, if we use Oblivion as an example again and playing as a thief who hasnt raised combat skills...
Again it is all about balancing.I dont think it is quite that clear cut. Either approach requires competent balancing and can result in an enjoyable experience. I dont disagree with your analysis of why devs choose level scaling though, laziness is often a significant factor there
So can I, but most of them were relatively linear in structure, making it fairly easy to balance areas to a predictable player power. BG1 and (the original) Pool of Radiance are two exceptions that spring to mind. My all time favourite RPG (partially for involved combat) Gothic 2 has the functional equivalent of scaling with its repopulation every chapter (I really dont think it matters if enemies are beefed up according to char level or narrative chapter).
Prime Junta said:
Baldurs Gate 1 does it very nicely. The further you go from the main road the nastier the wildlife gets, and you usually know where to go next... It's not Bethsoft in terms of openness though. As far as BG2 goes I'll partially concede Tan's point, the scaling is in the optional areas that can be accessed anytime from when your characters are naked level 8 weaklings to fully equipped level 13 killing machines. If there are changes in the main story areas they are more subtle.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
So,were the bosses I faced in BGII weak since I have played quite a lot of side quests? Well, I didn't find they were too challenging but I thought that's because my party member were quite tough. They were Anomen, Minsc, Jaheira, Nalia and Yoshimo/Imoen, ending up with quite formidable front liners and two competent mages.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 278
Zaleukos
Bum
- Joined
- November 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
Possibly, but IMHO a few extra levels make less of a difference than the equipment in late BG2 (a feature of the stupid 2nd edition AD&D ruleset). That is a pretty solid setup. You have two healers as well. As long as your PC isnt a bard or a thief I'd that party should kick ass.
On second thought casters are helped a lot by a few extra levels, but for melee characters it makes little difference whether you are level 12 or 14 (an extra half attack per round, big deal when you are hasted and have aplenty already).
Those without ToB one will hit the level cap either way, making the whole discussion moot
With ToB extra you get HLAs past the level cap that possibly can be a bit overpowered for the late OC.- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,013
Yes, my PC was a quite strong warrior, too. During the course of the game, losing a thief made me worry first but eventually I found the game very combat intensive. Also, when I wrote there must be some other factors we overlooked in my first reply to Tan, I suspected the level advancement of AD&D. If DA's level advancement is more dramatic, then, 5 levels of scaling will make sense.
Thanks for the explanation. I have played BGII only once and my memories fail at times. I guess you covered quite a bit of lost pieces of this puzzle.On second thought casters are helped a lot by a few extra levels, but for melee characters it makes little difference whether you are level 12 or 14 (an extra half attack per round, big deal when you are hasted and have aplenty already).
Those without ToB one will hit the level cap either way, making the whole discussion moot
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2007
- Messages
- 278
abharsair
Grumpmaster
I agree that Gothic 2, as excellent as it was otherwise, became too easy toward the end. However, I dare to say that the problem wasn't a lack of level-scaling, but a lack of design. In Gothic 2 it almost didn't matter what you did in the chapters before, but once you acquired certain spells ("wave of death" or "summon demon"), the end game was pretty easy. Giving the orcs a couple more levels wouldn't have mattered much. No, the balancing itself had far more serious and fundamental issues.
But see, a good and well-designed game doesn't let you become all-powerful, at least not easily. The placement of the infamous glass armor in Morrowind which is so often cited as an argument for level-scaling is not what I would call "well-designed". An open world does not mean every item and every area should be accessible for everyone at all times. It only means that your restrictions are based on whether you survive it or not rather than a hard-coded level restriction.
I perfectly understand why "level-scaling" is done, but I disagree with its use, because it encourages less well thought out game designs. It's far easier to give monsters and loot a level range depending on the player's character level, than to actually anticipate the actions of said player and make the key elements of the plot intriguing enough to have people actively pursue it.
Concerning BG2 it would be interesting to know what the level range in said areas was, how wide-spread those "scaled" areas were, and what effect they actually had on the main story line.
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Hey, don't knock bards! A Blade is almost as much of a God-mode cheat as a monk, as long as you remember to use your offensive (and occasionally defensive) spin as designed.
(ToB was boring, btw.)
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Prime Junta
RPGCodex' Little BRO
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Except... if you didn't bother much with sidequests and just pursued the main story -- as I did in my first playthrough -- the late and endgame were balanced more or less OK. I did my second playthrough siding with the Mercs, did all the sidequests I could find, and ended up swatting dragons like flies. I haven't even tried a mage build on it.
Exactly -- but in a game with lots of optional content with rewards (XP and phat lewt), you *will* become all-powerful if you go through it, if the main quest is balanced for someone who, say, only goes through a half of the optional content.
Ah, so you don't actually object to level scaling at all -- but merely to the indirect effects it may have on the game designer's psyche, in that it encourages laziness and otherwise poor design?
OK, I guess, but IMO that's a bit of a convoluted argument.
Perhaps a game should be designed without level scaling, and level scaling should only be applied at the end, during the balancing phase, when tweaking the game to suit different types of players.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 8,540
Thrasher
Wheeee!
It sounds like you've convinced yourself that DA's level-scaling as described by David is justified?
Perhaps if DA level-scales in isolated spots, intelligently and carefully like BG2, it could be OK. Otherwise, it could really suck.
Perhaps if DA level-scales in isolated spots, intelligently and carefully like BG2, it could be OK. Otherwise, it could really suck.