Yeah you would know, if someone talks too much nonsense its would be nonsensical to reply and correct it. So I'll stick with the things that need to be addressed.

Darklands. Level Scaling. Play it. Then tell us you hate level scaling.
Yes, I will be pulling that one forever, along with Pen and Paper. So if you have 1 example of bad level scaling, I'll be bringing more of good level scaling.

Also, about a non level scaling game.

Neverwinter Nights (the original boring bland campaign) gave you 3 tasks to complete, of which you had to do only 2 to progress. If you did all 3, you would be overleveled, so the next chapter would be trivial. So by doing everything the game gave you to do, you had no challenge later on. Yay for placed mobs and loot I guess? Not sure.

On the other hand, Neverwinter Nights is also the best example of a proper RPG, assuming you do multiplayer with a dedicated GM, since he can then react to any of the player's actions. Good luck setting that up though :(

The whole point of a game (on a computer or otherwise) is that you're agreeing to abide by certain rules, or at the very least not actively contradict them. It's one thing to set self-imposed challenges (e.g. not using any magic weapons, with or without a story reason of "my character doesn't trust magic"), but pretending to be a farmer or whatever in Skyrim is arguably contradicting the game since it does not implement a "turn your back on your destiny" option. You're here to save the world whether you like it or not.

Actively snubbing the established rules to go play pretend roles that do not exist in the mechanics eventually leads to the horrifying end result that is [url=http://www.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=Oblivion:Roleplaying&oldid=151634]Oblivion:Roleplaying[/url].

Here's a better question: why scale challenges to player level for any reason other than providing an insulting level of babying and hand-holding? Developers spend all this time making an open-world with NPC schedules and day-night cycles and so forth that happen without player involvement, but enemies and loot--two of the things that matter the most to the player's interaction with the world--are entirely reliant on the player character's level. There is no plausible in-universe explanation for this.

Scaling based on factors of the simulation (such as time) is another matter altogether. Depths of Peril has an interesting mechanic where bosses gain power over time (the in-universe explanation is that they amass followers or something) and may eventually attack the village if they are left undefeated for too long after the player learns of the threat (rival NPC factions can even decide to kill the boss on their own). The Mount&Blade series also revolves around simulating a world independent from the player; NPC parties go about their business, declaring war and signing treaties, fighting each other and capturing castles and so forth, and all of this is happening no matter where the player is (these events even keep going if you are imprisoned).

So? Why is any of that wrong as long as you enjoy it? While I agree that out of TES games, I get a lot of that effect via mods (like the one cutting the main storyline entirely), but it doesn't change the fact that those games are designed around the idea that the player will just do whatever and create his own fun. Why is it wrong in any way, shape or form? If people didn't enjoy doing so, the wiki article you have linked would have never existed.

Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion do not need Steam if they are released in the original disk format (as evidence by the images provided they are) Skyrim has a built in requirement. Originally Skyrim worked without steam when launched directly without the launcher but they patched in the requirement for some reason by the 3rd patch. Oblivion comes with launchers and mod mangers that fully bypass the default launcher and can fix any "requirements" that might exist. if it comes as it did at launch you would have the original TESV.exe that doesn't need steam ^_^

I will try it, but after the Skyrim debacle I don't have high expectations for that. Not so sure either about what you claim for pen and paper, some people have previously contradicted you on that. So you can pull those forever (very witty btw), but until I know more about them, your pulling will mean nothing to me.
Also I am thinking you just googled for "level scaling good" or something, otherwise we'd have probably heard details by now of why Darklands system is so great, instead of just throwing the name into the thread. But my guess is that it is so limited and miniscule that it is basically irrelevant and not really required, just like in Wiz8.

Source? There was 1 person claiming that P&P doesn't use level scaling, and his example was a perfect level scaling one. So please do post those examples, or retract your statement.

I had told you about Darklands in the previous thread as well. If you don't notice the level scaling, then it is done well. Especially if doing the things in a different sequence still makes the encounters feel natural.

You didn't comment on the bad area scaling btw. Any comments on that, or will you ignore the example?

You don't explain anything about Darklands there, you just mention the name. What bad area sclaing?

Because whatever happens it is completely the players choice. Level scaling leaves it open to the player what they want to do, in whatever order they want to do it (if done right), without getting punished for it. Correct level scaling will not handicap a player, because they chose to go one path, instead of another. Level walls are good for narrative, it is how you channel and funnel a player towards specific paths, but in my opinion - true sandbox games do require a form of scaling if they want to stay true sandbox, anything else and you will be playing the game in way the designer designed it, and on the paths it is designed for, i.e. restricted. (you can argue this is the case with sandboxes also, that they are designed like this, but I hope you know what I mean). Level scaling done proper does not need to be babying and handholding, it just removes the need for grinding and gives the player more choice.

You can say that proper level scaling is more difficult to implement, which is why we see so many bad examples of it also, but it is my belief that as a lodological mechanic it can offer more to the player then level walls. Narratively level walls can offer more than scaling, but you could also ask what is most important - the narrative the designers want to tell, or the narrative the players can make themselves.

Personally I thoroughly despise any game mechanic which introduce any form of time pressure. I am a very slow player, and I like to explore (not sure if it is big E or small e...) and experiment when I play. I take my time, I look at everything, try to go everywhere. I have tried a few games with time scaling, and the result is always the same - I take too much time, and then I meet an overpowered enemy... (I am generally also very slow when playing, which is why I hate timed puzzles)

Bad Area Scaling is what I encountered in Neverwinter Nights, as mentioned in post 212.

In Darklands, the enemies you encounter while wandering the town at night do depend on your characters' skills and equipment. While at first you only encounter poorly equipped robbers, later on you will encounter better equipped ones, and quite possibly more of them as well. Same for Raubritters, it will take longer for them to come out. Not sure if you will be able to keep that at the same level by not practicing your skills, but the game does require you to work your skills if you want to succeed. Of course, you can safely ignore the main quest and just explore the Medieval Germany.
Oh, and the scaling only works one way. It won't scale the enemies down, only up. So you won't be able to take on Dragons and Raubritters early on, unless extremely skilled/lucky.

P.S. Still waiting for those people who posted about me being wrong for the P&P games using level scaling, or you retracting the statement.

Thank you, you just reminded me why I ignored your posts before. I will go back to doing it again.

Darklands...sounds pretty bad, bit like spells of gold, where outside of cities everytime you get attacked by bandits, and they are always your wealth level. Makes the whole game pointless, that and the terrible actionclickfest combat.
I did not comment on Neverwinter Nights because I didnt like the game at all, so the scaling probably sucked as well.
And you might have the dedication to spend hours looking through olds thread to find some quotes for arguments, I am way too lazy, so you can search for the other guy and how you told him off.

@amok Stop pouting, some day you can play with the big boys,too, until then just watch Jmich, or even Siannah. (which is pretty sad)

Darklands has a main quest? :P

Read my post again. It only had "Area Scaling", or what is known as "Hand Placed enemies". This is what you are advocating for.

I linked to the only post I recall about P&P not having level scaling. I wasn't the one to reply to it. So either go and find the posts you are referring to, or retract your statement. Unless you have a habit of knowingly post erroneous statements.

Yes. The Big Bad B. You'll know what I mean if you've encountered him, even though defeating him doesn't end the game.

OK, forget what someone nether of you can remember said in a thread neither of you can find; If it's not scaling, what would you prefer to call it when a DM looks at his characters and hand-selects enemies and challenges that won't be either too easy or too difficult for their level?