Weren't the random encounters scaled as well? Or would you always meet a pack of gnolls, no matter your level?

Then you probably seen my "more options not being a weakness for RPGs" too, you just decided to ignore it. Ok.
It's just that I can take your M&M 6 approach AND several others in Morrowind. However several approaches I can do in Morrowind, don't work at all in M&M 6.... and no, I'm not going to repeat myself explaining them again.

On Wiz 8 a bit better, doesnt matter much in that game. Baldurs Gate 2 had next to none, I played through it with single characters very often, which means you are much higher level than normally and I noticed nothing. But probably a bit better. Nethack I dont know.

Level scaling is just lazy, it should be avoided by good game design.

Ultima 3 (or was it 4?) also had level scaling. Would that game also be better without? The enemies you faced would change depending on how many people were in your party, and on your level, though after some point you did have the option to avoid them completely.

As for BG2, same thing I asked Crosmando. Didn't the random encounters change depending on your level? Or were you facing the same enemies no matter what level you were?

Ahh yes, random enemies scaled too now that I think about it. You wouldn't normally notice it but I remember getting encounters with entire mobs of LICHES instead of usual gnolls because of my party's level.

Havent played U3 and 4, but probably yes.

BG2 very minor, but again, yes.

Mine is more that a good designed game doesn't need level scaling. Personally I consider level scaling to be the same as randomly generated quests/loot, invisible walls, un-killable NPCs, etc... a cheap trick used by developers to cut corners. Of course it doesn't mean that a game will automatically suck for using it, like the other similar "tricks" a game can still be great despite it.

Personal opinion on level scaling part would be to scale it at least one of these 2 things in mind.
1) Assume a minimum level for specific areas. The bandit stronghold may have a minimum mob level of 2, while the dragon's lair may have a minimum mob level of 20. Thus you retain a "Don't venture here yet" while not steam rolling everything in your path later on.
2) Assume a maximum level for specific mobs. The bandits may have a level cap of 20, so you will encounter good geared bandits but not godly geared ones, while the dragons do not have a maximum level. So bandits, goblins and wolves may stop posing a challenge at later levels, but dragons, demons and summoned creatures may still be a threat, no matter what your level is.

A combination of those things may yield some very interesting worlds, but it will require quite a bit more finetunning before releasing it, which I'm not sure if any company is willing to do so.

What about Rogue (of roguelike fame)? That had a level scaling of (dungeon level + player level)/2 for mob levels. Or what about Darklands, which also had level scaling? Would those be better without level scaling or not?

That's actually been done so or at least similar in Skyrim.

1. Different locations in Skyrim have different inherent difficulties. In other words, some dungeons are designed to be too difficult for low-level characters to enter. More challenging dungeons are generally located at higher elevations, meaning that early in the game, players may want to avoid mountainous regions. However, more difficult dungeons contain better rewards. In addition, some high-quality items can be randomly found even early in the game.

2. Enemy types also seem to reach a plateau where they stop getting stronger. The strongest bandits (non-boss) are mid-20s. The strongest generic vampire is 54, and guards seem to stop scaling at 50. This implies that the difficulty of many areas will not increase beyond certain levels, except perhaps in frequency of difficult encounters. In other words, dungeons have a level range, where if you do not meet the level requirement, you will face the lowest range of the dungeon. For instance, if a dungeon is ranged from level 15 to 25, and you are level 10, you will face creatures in the dungeon scaled at level 15.

[url=http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Leveling#Effects_of_Leveling]Source[/url]

Edit: fine tuning is another thing and we know, you can't do it right for all and everyone. With the massive success of Skyrim, despite of how wrong they did it with Oblivion, they certainly succeeded at least somewhat. :)

Uh, no, they don't.

When you're level 1 in a pen and paper RPG, you don't go out saving the world. When you're level 10, you don't go hunting rat tails.

The GM picks adventures that are appropriate to your level, he doesn't send you to kill level 10 rats.

I like to level up.

... which is pretty much the definition of level scaling. What you encounter, is around your level, not 10 levels above or below.... that the GM deems it appropriate to depict lvl 10 encounters not as rats, is only common sense.

Oh so we are in agreement after all, Oblivion system bad, Skyrim better. Less level scaling is preffered.

I think you've misunderstood Siannah.

Less level scaling would be better in Oblivion because they really over did it. Less scaling in Skyrim would be worse because it's already done well. No scaling in either case would be awful.

For no scaling to work you'd end up being railroaded which would defeat the purpose of an open world.