GameBanshee Forums

The Wiki page on Morrowind lists him as the project leader, and when we met for our third interview, the team pointed to Howard and called him "our fearless leader." There are also scattered interviews on the Web calling him the project leader. He definitely wasn't for Daggerfall, though he was a kind of adjunct team leader for some areas.

Oh and incidentally, there was scaling in Morrowind, just not so much of it that it ruined the game.

"Not so much" meaning only the very occasional random encounter, which would scale up/down to give you a feeling that the area wasn't uninhabited--nothing that would prevent you from continuing onto one of several hundred non-leveled destinations (caves, temples, etc). To all intents and purpose, it's a non-leveled game. You need to very careful in Morrowind where you go.

And outside the point, in any case. You imply that Howard is a lousy designer because of Redguard and Oblivion, that their use of level scaling was due to Howard, and that there's a relationship between the two ideas . But Morrowind was as much his, a deservedly huge success, with next to no use of level scaling. As Morrowind came between those other two games, I can only conclude that he's led teams producing games that were successes and failures, and that level scaling wasn't something he was necessarily intent upon. He really didn't deserve the kind of slam you gave him.

Voted for: "No, level scaling is abomination"

I really hate it when there's no real sensation of power when you play. You don't progress anywhere. You are the hero of the land and still the demons are as tough as ever. Why would I want to level up when it makes no difference? Sure I get different hits/spells or better stamina, but the enemies are still (almost) as hard to kill. I want to be able to become an all-mighty being during the gameplay. Not to be the as strong/weak compared to others as in the beginning of my adventure. It is also fun to beat a creature that is much stronger that you or massacre masses of easier enemies.

@ Fable

I was wrong, he was definitely the project leader on Morrowind, checked the credits earlier.

It makes it even more baffling that three successive projects with the same leader can be so different and in Redgard and Oblivion, a lot worse.

I think the most noticeable occurrences of leveled monsters in Morrowind was in ancestral tombs, and also with Dark Brotherhood encounters. It was never used in 'human' populated caverns, such as smugglers dens and bandit lairs as I recall.

PS As the project leader, the buck stops there in my view, certainly he deserves credit for Morrowind which was a good (but not great game, it was the third party modders that turned into a great one), he also deserves the brickbats for Redguard and Oblivion.

galraen wrote:I was wrong, he was definitely the project leader on Morrowind, checked the credits earlier. It makes it even more baffling that three successive projects with the same leader can be so different and in Redgard and Oblivion, a lot worse.

I agree, but I also think there was a lot of outside interference in the design process. No, I can't document this. It's only a suspicion. But I remember during our conversation about while Morrowind was in development, that one of Todd's teammates (who had been around since Arena) said they were hoping to make Oblivion more complex, to give real personality to all the NPCs, and to provide background plots involving all the guilds that would continue whether you got involved or not, without necessarily having the same results every time. There was general agreement on all these points.

Hence, my suspicions. Since none of this turned up in Oblivion. They ended up going the other way, dumbing down so much from Morrowind without adding anything save better graphics.

I think the most noticeable occurrences of leveled monsters in Morrowind was in ancestral tombs, and also with Dark Brotherhood encounters. It was never used in 'human' populated caverns, such as smugglers dens and bandit lairs as I recall.

Or in temples, and abandoned dwarven areas. You found it in ancestral tombs? I didn't. I remember wandering into one when I first tried out Morrowind, and getting killed by a 20-something level undead. But that may have changed in subsequent patches.

PS As the project leader, the buck stops there in my view, certainly he deserves credit for Morrowind which was a good (but not great game, it was the third party modders that turned into a great one), he also deserves the brickbats for Redguard and Oblivion.

No question. The best Bethsoft things in Oblivion (which don't redeem the product, in my estimation; the treasure and combat leveling aspects kill it for me) are the pieces whose ideas they got from Morrowind mods. And frankly, the Morrowind implementation was always more elaborate and interesting, as in interior housing improvements.

fable wrote:I agree, but I also think there was a lot of outside interference in the design process.

Not a reference to large. er , 'financial enducements', from Microsoft to aim the game at 11 year old XBox owners surely?!:mischief:

Galraen, you break my heart. Redguard (1998) is one of the best action adventure games ever, despite a few bugs and a less than perfect combat system.

Where's the fear?

Answer: No, absolutely no!!

If you have level scaling, it makes whole character building pretty much worthless or even stupid, like in Oblivion.

Like in Gothic 2, at start you can easily wander to a wrong cave and get killed by a shadowbeast with a single bite. But in the end game, you can killed the shadowbeast with a single strike! Now, you feel yourself truly powerful and strong.

I say sometimes, if implemented properly.

I know 'if implemented properly' has become a sort of a buzz phrase when it's concerning level scaling and that to actually do it would be a coding nightmare, BUT:

- It would actually help create a more believable and immersive world and/or story.
- It would keep things challenging.

Here's what the properly part looks like in my head. All creatures have a base level, meaning that you can't kill off everything at level one and they only scale up to a certain level. The scaling is localized in a way that only certain mobs in certain areas level up and it's based off your combat level, not the level you gain from social skills (I bring this up because of Oblivion). AND the most important/impossible/possibly flawed thing is that the scaling of a creature takes place right before you meet said creature.
What I mean is that the first time you see a certain mob, you establish his strength by your own level and then as you progress you still get the sense of achievement by being able to beat him.

Take Gothic 2 for example. How many of us killed every little thing in chapter one and then found out that slaughtering the very fearsome and powerful orcs in chapter two was easy as pie. I know I sure did being the anal completist I am. I wasn't scared at all to face them even though by that time I'd only been practicing my swordsmanship on chickens. If, however, the orcs would have been scaled above me a few levels, then getting rid of a siege force surrounding a city wouldn't be that easy and the world would make sense and have the right feel to it.
Had I not killed every creature in chapter one and entered chapter two at a reasonable level, the orcs would still be high level seeing as they have a base level which would prevent them being scaled down.
The one flaw that I imagine is that in a completely open world like Oblivion the player could go adventure at level one and meet a powerful creature too early, but this wouldn't really break the system, it would just mean that the player would be facing creatures at their base level.

Not sure it'd work, just an idea.

Celos wrote:I say sometimes, if implemented properly.

I concur.
A major problem in Morrowind since it didn't really level scale is that everything becomes ridiculously easy after about level 15, unless you take significant measures to prevent it. This is why when I play that game I usually pick "unarmoured" since it helps to maintain some challenge.

Why not create an open world with areas that can be accessed from the beginning, but are difficult enough that one's chance of survival is minute?
I realise that MMOs and CRPGs are very different, but despite my misgivings about the MMO genre, I think this is something LOTRO does extremely well. There is a vast world and you can, in general, venture into the more difficult areas.. but it really is not a good idea.
On the same token, your level is measured against any foe and colour coded from grey to purple. If a 'mob' is grey you significantly exceed its level, it won't attack, and you get no experience killing it. If said enemy is purple, you have no chance of hitting it.
IMO, such a system is very effective, and reflects a reasonable degree of realism. You don't face the irritation of being continually attacked by critters like cliff racers when you far out-level them, and there are always a range of foes that present varying degrees of difficulty.

Sometimes, if done right.

I'd just like to point out that Baldur's Gate 2 had level scaling. But it was done right. Since you could undertake certain quests at various levels, the game might throw more or tougher enemies at you. If you went to do Firekrag's quest as soon as you left Irenicus' Dungeon, you'd face different enemies than if you did it as the last quest before leaving Athkatla.

The thing is, BG2 increased the number of enemies or threw nastier monsters at you. That way you felt you were progressing and becoming more badarse. Also, it didn't scale exactly to your level. If you entered the quest at too high level, the game would make it slightly tougher, but won't try to match you point for point. Basically, the scaling was there to compensate for the less linear parts of the game. The game was not built around it.

Oblivion is a great example of how not to do it. To ilustrate, you usually do the Kvatch Castle at level 2-3, and it's pretty easy. I once did some side questing before going to Kvatch, got there at level 8, with decent gear. I was fighting the same enemies, but they were miraculously super strong and I had to drop the difficulty to finish the quest. It wasn't that I played bad, the game just scaled it up too high. Hitting the last mob 40+ times with my Elven Longsword and still not killing it is just wrong. I had to drop the difficulty to finish it (I HATE doing that in any game).

So, scaling is perfectly acceptable to slightly compensate for the less linear games, but it should NOT be the main balancing mechanism since that's lazy and quite prone to faliure (either it scales too fast or too slow). Also, scaling should for the most part be the number or type of enemies, not stats. When your level 256 Demon Warrior of Death wielding the Blade of Thousand Dead Babies has trouble taking down the same Starving Wolf that's been hounding him since day 1, something is very wrong

I voted no . I dislike level scaling .

personally, I think level scaling is an abomination.most games are too easy, even on the hardest setting, so scaling that to a low level character makes it even worse. the same goes for treasure. after an long, epic quest, you deserve something that makes it worth while.

I voted no. Always hated it.

Heck, it's an abomination of course! Remember how cool it was to go to Navarro base in the beginning of Fallout 2? And get that advanced power armor? And then go literally kick some raiders' asses in Den, whith their stupid pistols and shotguns? That was GOOD

After replaying Sacred and starting Sacred II, I can say that level scaling sometimes can be done right. In fact, no level scaling would make these games worse.