I wonder what the community's opinion is on enemies automatically scaling up/down to the PC's level in (A)RPGs.

In regards to both the Sacred games and TES4: Oblivion, I've read a fair number of complaints about this feature, claiming that it ruins your feeling of being almost-all-powerful when the very first enemies in a game do actually pose a challenge if you decide to go back to the starting areas, while it also makes it possible to run through the game with basic equipment, beating enemies of your level easily. While I don't deny these might be true, I do enjoy if level scaling is present in a game, for two reasons.
1) From time to time, I like going back to areas I've already gone through story-wise, and I prefer enemies in those regions to at least pose a threat to them falling before me like crops under a scythe. For example, I like farming for items in the desert in Sacred Gold, which I can do even if I'm many levels higher than I was the first time I went there.
2) It ruins the feeling of a free-to-explore world for me if I run into way too powerful monsters whenever I try to go exploring a bit (or even just go on with my quests, but the game deems my character underdeveloped. Recently, I've encountered this problem in Divinity 2 (without The Dragon Knight Saga) - I tried going to a certain tower to go on with the main quest, but my poor character was SLAUGHTERED by undead 3-4 levels above him, forcing me to go back and comb the previous area for more side quests (the game doesn't even have respawning monsters to facilitate XP collecting). Such experiences repeated a few more times during my playthrough, and I found it to be rather annoying. Fortunately, DKS contains certain improvements which make it much less annoying.
Like I've stated earlier, I don't say people who don't like this feature are all wrong, but I certainly prefer enemies that scale with my char's level (especially if they do so as they do in the Sacred games, with reasonable limits between which they scale with you).

So, what are YOUR thoughts?

Personally I think it would be better if you simply didn't become so powerful in the first place. That way both you and your opponents aren't walking damage sponges. That's true enough of both RPGs with and without scaling.

It just makes the game a lot less fun later on than it is early on. I'd rather you learn new skills and refined your abilities to kill the enemy and protect yourself / team from harm and how much punishment you could take was determined more by things like armour and defensive spells or equivalent.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that you should be much better able to take down your opponents quickly later on. But failure to do so is more likely to see you wind up dead.

My view on level scaled enemies is that it works great if you fight normal enemies, they won't be too hard to kill and they will always be a little challenge too.
On the other hand, I don't like scaled boss fights, I think the boss should be capped at some level and you either need to lvl up to kill it, or use a specific strategy to do so.
I really liked enemy scaling on the usual monsters in Dragon Age: Origins. Fights never seemed too boring.

I have only encountered it in Oblivion. I think the Idea is good since it allows you to go anywhere at any time and the game would still present a challenge.

In the case of Oblivion it was kinda broken since lots of your skills that counted towards your level wouldn't really make you any stronger so you could grow weaker relative to the enemies by leveling up with the wrong build.

Another silly thing, I think, was leveled quest rewards. If you got the best items in the game too early they would remain forever below their maximum potential because you would get a lower level version. Someone made a mod to fix this by making the items level with you.

However with a system where only combat enhancing abilities count toward your level and items either always at max or leveling with you I'm positive towards leveled enemies. It really allows you to go anywhere and do any quest in a open game and still get a good challenge.

I don't care about any of that as long as the game is fun. I've had countless hours of fun with unmodded Oblivion thanks to clever quests and quite a huge world (do NOT start Obliovion sucks discussion, I've had fun with it and I suck for it, live with it)

On the other hand, I hated Gothic because it basically didn't let me go ANYWHERE, world was swarmed by enemies and it was hell to play. I like what they did with Nehrim - you have clearly stated what level are which areas for, and roads were relatively safe everywhere - therefore, you were quite free to explore if you didn't roam off road too much, areas themselves were so huge that there was always something to find even after you got the level required to move to the new ones, and experience was generally quite rewarding.

I hate it, it really does ruin the experience for me.
These are games that are about building up a character with stats and abilities, level scaling just negates your progress.

It's like you are always stuck on level 1. You build up a skill, but because enemies get stronger your build just does not have a big impact on the game.
I like an exponential line in my games, not a staight one.

I love exploring and finding tough areas that are off the main path that you have to revisit, those things were always a fun challange for me.
Take for example Firkraag, or the lich tombs in Amn in Baldurs Gate 2.

In simple terms I think it is a cop-out. Late-game RPG encounters should require the player to use a greater amount of tactics and as much of their acquired skills set as possible, not more brute force. If you are using the same tactics at low levels as you do high levels then that is not meaningful character progression. What is the point in playing an RPG then? It is basically playing with the training wheels on. Dragon Age had relatively good combat, but playing a mage with 2 additional mages and a tank in my party I pretty much beat every battle using the same tactic of paralyzing the stronger enemies in some way and bombarding everyone else with either single target or AoEs. I also think it breaks the fourth wall intrusively when you see that this world doesn't actually exist in its own right, but arbitrarily adapts as you do.

However it can be good if used moderately, especially in RPGs with a lot of backtracking.

I like Sacred's way of dealing with level scaling as the monsters have a minimum and maximum level based on geographical area (at least in the second game, not sure about the first one). This gives the player greater freedom to explore without losing the ability to seek out more challenging areas.

However, I would greatly prefer a system where the enemies simply increase in numbers plus receives better group tactics and skills instead of level. Provided they still give an increased reward as well. Finding level 1 rats to be difficult at level 100 definitely makes you lose some immersion. I don't know any games with this kind of advancement system, though, unless Cranium Rats in PS:T counts :P

I actually prefer it if there is minimal to no scaling. At level one pretty much anything bigger than a goblin/wolf/whatever fodder the game system users should be a challenge. There is a thrill of as your character goes up levels feeling the world grow larger and watching those things that had you running at earlier levels fall to your blade.

There is also the double thrill of finding a sneaky way around those foes too tough for you at low levels or a clever way to take down a big monster that would mince you if you faced it on an even footing. That is one reason Morrowind ranks higher than Oblivion on my personal scale (I mean vanilla - I realise there are patches to fix it). It is also why I am completely hooked on Gothic 2 even though I have a slew of new games to work through.

It ultimately depends on how level scaling is implemented. For example, in Oblivion, all bandits would wield the top tier weapons and armor. Plus, wolves etc. would not appear in the world anymore when you get to a high enough level and they'd be replaced by tough enemies. I've not played the game in quite some time though, so my memory might be murky.

Then, you have the possible problem of levelling wrongly (in terms of being equipped to handle what the game throws at you) and being ill-equipped. If every enemy is scaled, you'd need to bump the difficulty down to handle the enemies or start again should the problem occur. Personally, I've never been a fan of min - maxing.

On the other hand, the system that Skyrim is employing, from what I've heard, seems much better. Dungeons scale to your level but only for the first time you enter them. So, if you first enter a dungeon at level 5, the dungeon will be scaled to that level. If you re-enter the dungeon later when you're level 15, the dungeon will still be scaled to provide a challenge for a level 5 character, with the enemies respawned.

That's a good system in my view.

So, if I had to choose to between a poor level scaling system and one that doesn't scale, I'd choose the non-scaling system any day. If both systems on offer were good though, I really wouldn't be bothered by either system.

I suppose that, as people have mentioned, non-scaling level systems do offer a better sense of reward though.

Hate it.
Encountering a level 20 fireball wielding robber on a country road seems dumb. It's a poor way to cover the lack of difficulty in the game.

I don't mind it in certain games like Fallout where a low level enemy will scale but only to a certain level (mole rats only go from level 1-5) instead of going to level 30 with you.

Hate it. I want challenge.
To me if a game were to use this system, then you should get rid of a level system as well. If the enemies are just gonna become stronger copies of the same enemy or whole levels alter their enemies and place them in odd environments, then what point is there to getting stronger stats? I would like tactical combat, not swing and miss bs.

I'd like this too. Character progression should be more about learning new skills and abilities, and less about increasing stats/health/etc. Guild Wars works that way to some extent, your HP increases as you go up in levels, but the cap is pretty low and it's more about what skills you use and how you use them.

Unfortunately, they seem to be moving away from this a little in GW2, with a lvl cap that's much higher and the addition of stats that govern your dmg/armor/hp/crit chance. Gameplay still looks very skill-based though so I'm hopeful.

As for level-scaling, I hate it. It can be immersion breaking when it's done poorly and even if it's done right, it doesn't really do anything for me. Plus I like being able to tackle enemies and areas that are way too difficult for my low-level character.

I don't mind it as long as there ain't a hidden agenda behind it.