Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[3]

I don't have a source either, but I'm fairly sure HL2 generates items based on what you need, just in a fairly subtle fashion. Not like that's relevant to enemy scaling. HL1... no, never heard anything on that front.

[G-Flex]

Expanding on what I said earlier - there isn't anything explicitly wrong with level scaling; in fact, it's a great idea, it's just when it's used to cover holes in lazy design that it's a problem. To relate to the above conversation, if every element of a given game's design was as compelling as the combat system, there wouldn't be any problem with everything being level-scaled, because it'd be relevant to everything.

I still would have a problem with it, sorry. In certain types of games, I don't like the entire world to mysteriously revolve around my character, and in addition to that, I feel that there's little point in my character advancing if every other damn thing advances with him. It completely screws over the feeling of progression.

You might feel otherwise, but please don't assume that nobody would have any problem with level-scaling if it were done in a more even, across-the-board manner. Some of us still would, because sometimes it does not feel appropriate.

[Zangi]

Well, I think L4D runs on the same engine as HL2 or something similar?  Co-op difficulty is partially scaled by how well the players do and some of their actions. 

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I wish the game would have a starting option, "Scaled" or "Static", so everyone can be happy.

[3]

You might feel otherwise, but please don't assume that nobody would have any problem with level-scaling if it were done in a more even, across-the-board manner. Some of us still would, because sometimes it does not feel appropriate.

I was stating my opinion. No need to take offense.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

   If your stating an opinion of your own say so or else it sounds like you assume everyone agrees and since this is the internet that would be quite wrong.
   Anyway another beef of mine with scaling is that it removes progression. If you level up to level 2 and instead of having 10 hp you have 20 hp its not progression if all of the all enemies which had been doing 2 damage are suddenly doing 4 damage. That is simply number inflation. Now if the enemies in area A still did 2 damage it would be progression as you now die half as quickly to area A monsters. Of course the current state of the game industry is such that they don't want to kill the player if they can help it so the fact that area B monsters kill the player twice as fast as they want if the player goes there at level 1 makes them freak out. Here is the catch though. If a player dies too quickly in an area they will not go there until a higher level or at least until they feel they can take it. Basically the guy who only wants to collect herbs would be able to linger in area A getting levels till his ability to fight in area B is to the point that he can survive and then he goes there to collect the new nicer herbs and on the other side of this example some guy who is all combat all the time may actually end up going to area B while level 1 because he is so good he just can. Basically its a player controlled difficulty, you want it tough go to tough areas, you just want to pick flowers then stay near the starting area till you have more levels. Of course this could be abused by having someone level grind in area A then be able to cake walk not only area B but C, D, and F as well. This is not a bad thing though as its a choice the player made and if they want to grind let them because as long as the grind is not forced on a player its alright.

[Paul]

I've always hated level scaling too. It makes the world feel fake and breaks immersion imo.

Games could have progression and differing levels of challenge without scaling anything, and you could make that progression apparent through NPC interactions and the scenery of places.

Starter areas might be parts of a city and the surrounding countryside. Your early challenges might be petty thieves (with missions to collect stolen items or catch a pickpocket), hunting animals (deer, wolves, some fantasy creatures that don't look too threatening), and the like. NPCs in the city could comment on dangerous creatures spotted in certain places, giving the player an idea of where he might find a challenge when he wants it. Like rumors of an orc encampment, drake lair, rampaging bear, or even advanced threats within the city like a job to hunt down a skilled assassin or band of robbers. Other areas could be a mystery, but the difficulty level could be hinted at by what the place looks like. Corpses of creatures that the player has encountered before and knows the strength of could be used to show a strong predator is in the area. See a big pile of bones outside a cave, including some that you can recognize as the bones of a dire bear? Yeah, that cave is probably home to something a lot more dangerous than the bear. A dark and spooky looking forest with webs on the trees might cue you in that this is that nasty forest full of giant spiders and dangerous things that you heard about in the city's tavern.

For powerful humanoid opponents you could have banners and signs and things that the player can learn to recognize. Approaching a fort, you see a banner flying for the Red River Bandits - and you know from seeing the wanted posters around town with high bounties that these are some serious criminals. Other camps might have the same banner, alerting you to either stay away or go there if you've managed to take them down before. Or even other things that would be recognizeable as certain groups - skulls on poles, graffiti, etc. You could even design "safe" ways for people to learn about these groups without having to go in and die - maybe you witness a battle between city guards and these bandits, and the bandits almost win - you've seen the guards in action before against weaker critters, so if the guards are dieing you know these guys are a threat you need to avoid until you're tougher.

People would still die if they ran off oblivious to the piles of smoking dead adventurers and mammoth bones and rushed into a dragon lair, but they should die for being that dumb. If a player can just rush in anywhere and be fine, the game has just lost all sense of challenge and most of its entertainment value. Even if the player has to die a few times to figure out his boundaries it isn't a bad thing, it just gives him a reason to advance to the point that he can break those boundaries. And forcing the player to run screaming for their life after biting off more than they can chew isn't a bad thing either - as long as it isn't one of those annoying forced retreat encounters some game designers program in with plot armored enemies.

[Draco18s]

Sometimes I want to walk into an area and be "the man", but it never happens. It seems like the world is just a continual struggle, just like it was at the very beginning.

I'll just drop this here for you.

Difficulty is fairly even across the whole game and I don't think enemies are scaled at all (other than having to fight the occasional helicopter).  Playing on....Easy? I think it was, makes you actually feel like the supersoldier you're supposed to be.  Normal is fairly normal, and Hard is for wanting the game to kill you and kill you lots.

I think I played on easy, for that supersoldier feel, and I think I died all of like four times.  All on the same mission.*

Not saying the game was a cakewalk.  There were places where I had to really think about things or I would die.  Game doesn't hold your hand, even on easy, but it pulls its punches, but not so much that you can just ignore that sentry turret.

*Oh, and then there was the one "failure" on a boss fight.  It was timed.  I missed the time by 2 seconds, WTF.  (To be fair, the game had a really good reason for the time limit).

[Alastar]

And I hope I'm not the only one whose best memories of some games involve getting into a far too hard area, not noticing/accepting in time and having to fight tooth and nail to get out again (possibly dragging a cartload of PC corpses to the nearest shrine for resurrection with the last man standing...).

[G-Flex]

I've always hated level scaling too. It makes the world feel fake and breaks immersion imo.

Games could have progression and differing levels of challenge without scaling anything, and you could make that progression apparent through NPC interactions and the scenery of places.

This is another thing that bugs me that I didn't quite address in my last post. In many games, I expect a world to be believable. This becomes completely broken when the power of various things in the world becomes inexplicably tied to that of my character.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

I don't have a source either, but I'm fairly sure HL2 generates items based on what you need, just in a fairly subtle fashion. Not like that's relevant to enemy scaling. HL1... no, never heard anything on that front.

Well, I think L4D runs on the same engine as HL2 or something similar?  Co-op difficulty is partially scaled by how well the players do and some of their actions. 

Half-Life 2 and Left 4 Dead both run on the Soruce engine however the Left 4 Dead engine is a much more upgraded engine than the Half-Life (Now the Episode 2) engine.
Left 4 Dead featured the "AI Director" who would spawn health and ammo when things were bad and zombies when ever the fuck it felt like it.
Half-Life 2 lacks this feature and is instead a shinning example of perfect level design that can feel different almost every time you play. With well placed health packs that offer a risk/reward gameplay and great location of enemies with very few scripted spawning events.

There's a reason it's still considered the best FPS of all time.

[G-Flex]

Half-Life 2 lacks this feature and is instead a shinning example of perfect level design that can feel different almost every time you play. With well placed health packs that offer a risk/reward gameplay and great location of enemies with very few scripted spawning events.

There's a reason it's still considered the best FPS of all time.

Whoa, I didn't realize Valve's marketing people posted here. Do you know Gabe!?!

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Yeah, we would go to bars, get drunk and bitch about Origin loudly.

Might of over did it a bit but I just went from playing a really bland cover based modern shooter which I got as a gift back to Half-Life saga for a nostalgia trip and found just how well designed the gameplay is.

[Darkmere]

Half-Life 2 lacks this feature and is instead a shinning example of perfect level design that can feel different almost every time you play. With well placed health packs that offer a risk/reward gameplay and great location of enemies with very few scripted spawning events.

There's a reason it's still considered the best FPS of all time.

Whoa, I didn't realize Valve's marketing people posted here. Do you know Gabe!?!

As the last man on the planet that hasn't played HL2 (yet, I have it, slogging through 1 is a chore though), I feel the same way every time someone mentions the game. Nothing can live up to that hype. Nothing.

Still, isn't the AI Director basically an auto-scaling device? If you're good, the game gets tougher based on how good you are. Likewise if you perform poorly. Should this be included in the original topic, then? The world's directly responding to you, after all.

[blackmagechill]

You could get really lucky and have it be unusually quiet, but I bet there's something in place to prevent that from happening.