ince the player has gotten better himself, the game poses much less challenge and becomes boring. In more linear RPGs the problem is easily solved by pitting you against stronger foes, but in a sandbox game like TES where you can go where you want and do what you want, that isn't really possible. Hence, level scaling.
I wouldn't say it's impossible. Just develop content that provides an interesting challenge to the player
and his character. Of course, that means you need probably better enemy AI, features that work better, systems that aren't as easily to exploit, more interesting higher-level content, and that sort of thing, whereas Bethesda can't even manage to make a spell system (in Morrowind, at least) that doesn't give you two different spells with different costs/difficulty even if they have the exact same effects.
Frankly I would happily sacrifice some of that freedom in exchange for some semblance of realism. Just have the starting areas less dangerous and the further away you move from stuff like cities, the tougher challenges you face.
Yep. I don't even think that would sacrifice "freedom", at least not in a meaningful sense. I don't like "freedom" in a game like TES if it's defined as being able to do anything at any point. I like the kind where I can choose from any available options that make sense to my character and playstyle at a given time. That way, it means more to me when I
can venture out and brave the scary tombs/jungles/whatevers, because there's more a sense of wonder and anticipation.
I think the "go where you want" thing was the driving force behind Oblivion's horrible level scaling system. I consider it an affront to TES lore that they came up with weakling dremoras just so even a level 1 character could go into sodding Oblivion and fight them. That "go anywhere" philosphy wasn't present in Morrowind. A huge area right in the middle of the map was walled off, with big "KEEP YOU" signs posted at the entrance. And just try picking up the gems in front of a Daedric shrine at level 1, see what happens.
I've mentioned as much before, but I think this has to do with how, in modern commercial game development, the idea is that content should be available to the player more or less immediately, even where it wouldn't make much sense for the individual game. They don't want to discourage the player from doing what they want to do, even if what they want to do involves jumping the gun like crazy. In other words, the idea is "the player has fun doing the quests and going to Oblivion and fucking things up without having to put much foresight into it or being discouraged because his character isn't good enough yet".
They're not necessary. They're never necessary. The class system isn't necessary, nor is Fatigue, or Magicka, or Birthsigns, etc..
Oh, come on, you know what I mean. I mean that if certain aspects are properly designed, then the leveling system is not needed in order to accomplish the functions it's designed for. In other words, if you design an open-world game correctly, you don't have the problems that level scaling is intended to fix.
Yes. I agree. But unless you've accounted for every reasonable situation or simply completely avoided risks, there should always be the possibility of any player being able to complete anything. This is because games are based around solving problems, and if the game's designed so that, for whatever reason, I can't solve a problem through no real fault of my own (there's a level 46 lock, my skill only allows me to even attempt opening ones up to level 45 because I didn't pick it at chargen), there's little point in the obstacle existing in the first place.
I agree to some extent. Obviously, some things have to be player-driven, and you need to be able to account for player ingenuity. On the other hand, if (using your example) there's a very difficult lock and your character absolutely sucks at picking locks, I do not think it's necessary to allow him to. In your extreme, the lock is meaningless from a player-driven perspective, and in mine (a lock being pickable no matter what your stats), then the stat itself is meaningless and, if you know the system well enough, so is the lock.
The key here is that it doesn't matter what the player can't do, because what the player can't do is irrelevant to the design, and shouldn't be implemented in the first place.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Yes, stuff the player can't do is irrelevant. We're not talking about stuff the player can't do, we're talking about the conditions under which he can do it, and those aren't necessarily a bad thing. Not ever character or player needs to see 100% of the game's content, especially in a large, sprawling, open sort of game like this.