I want to preface my post by saying that I've not played the 2.0 version of Cyberpunk, so my thoughts throughout it will be regarding level scaling in general rather than delving into specifics about its Cyberpunk 2077 implementation.
For me personally, it is strange to see such a fundamental change to the core experience in a game 3 years after its release, so I can understand people being disappointed with it on that basis alone. I'm trying to imagine anticipating an expansion for an existing game (and thus having certain basic expectations of what that means) for that long, only to find out it's not the same game anymore in some very impactful ways. At this point, we're not talking about polishing up existing systems and QoL changes to make what is already there better, but an outright overhaul of the experience - so, from the get go, it is entirely understandable that some people will inevitably feel uneasy about it.
Delving deeper into the difference between having levels scaling vs. not, such a change impacts several different aspects of a game. Both approaches can have their upsides and downsides, and both can be implemented poorly - that does not render either concept irredeemable.
So, I think it's important to understand the goals of each approach, compare it to the goals of the game in question and then, with that in mind, try to understand the motivation of using one over the other.
If we look at the world of Cyberpunk 2077 - Night City - from a conceptual level, it's all about the city itself uncaringly stepping over any ambition or dreams an individual might have. If you want to leave a mark, it is up to you to face up to the challenge, rather than expecting the city to bend to you. With that in mind, introducing level scaling to the game world makes it so that exactly the opposite effect is achieved - the city morphs itself around the player character, defeating any attempts by the game to give the impression that the city indeed does not care about the player character. Therefore, on a conceptual level, I think levels scaling works against the goals of the game world.
Let's then consider Cyberpunk 2077 as a role-playing game from a mechanical standpoint. Now, Cyberpunk 2077 , you would think, is in the lucky position of actually being based on an existing tabletop roleplaying game. However, the developers decided that attempting to emulate it in video game form is not the approach they'd like to take. Indeed, Mike Pondsmith himself has said on several occasions that he doesn't believe in doing a straight translation of the tabletop ruleset. For the purpose of this discussion, I will ignore video games that have successfully achieved this, and instead only look at the pure mechanical differences between the 2 approaches that the developers landed on - namely, level scaling and set levels in an open-world action RPG, and how those relate to the role-playing experience.
What you get with level-scaling:
- More consistent challenge throughout the game, but with low variance, as this is bounded by the underlying stats for that level.
- Less restrictive open world, you can go where you want without worrying about areas being too difficult (or areas you've skipped becoming too easy)
- Main quest pacing entirely in the hands of the player - you can play the main quest at your own pace, knowing that it will always scale to your level. You can rush through it, or do as much side content as you'd like before even touching it - you will not feel under/over-levelled.
What you get with set levels:
- A wider range of challenge, but with less consistency. If you want you can challenge yourself by going into more dangerous areas early on, or you may try to do as much level-appropriate content as you can in order to smooth out the difficulty curve.
- A world that opens up more as you keep playing and improving your character, but feels more closed off at the start and with fewer areas where challanges can be found towards the end.
- Main quest pacing still largely in the hands of the player, but at a difficulty cost. Challenge will vary depending on how much side content you've done.
Of course, there are many more mechanical differences, but those generally seem like the main ones. So, then, ignoring how successfully these are implemented, the question becomes what type of game does Cyberpunk 2077 want to be. If you wish to allow the player more open world freedom, then level scaling seems like a no-brainer - they get to experience what they want, when they want it. If your desire is to enhance the feeling of progression and offer a more directed path to unveiling the world to the player, then clearly having set levels offers you more tools to achieve this. In both cases, you can have an implementation that doesn't live up to the potential of the chosen approach, and I don't think Cyberpunk 2077's implementation of set levels was particularly good to begin with, personally. Switching systems isn't necessarily the solution to that problem, though - iteration is just as viable.
What impact does it have on actual role-playing? I would say minimal, if any. Both appoaches offer different styles of role-playing, but neither is more "RPG" than the other. The role-playing on offer will depend largely on how these systems are implemented, as well as the ruleset and its application throughout the game.
Given that Cyberpunk is meant to be a story-driven game, I personally lean more towards having set levels in the game, as that allows for a more directed experience. I also prefer not having enemies that change depending on my character, as it diminishes the illusion of a living world for me, which in turns makes it more difficult for me to get engaged with the story. Whether level scaling is achieved by spawning enemies with the appropriate equipment to match their danger level, even if they don't really belong in that area, or it makes common thugs as powerful as a well-equipped mercenary, it will always shatter any pretense that this world is more than a theme park. For some, that is more than fine, and I recognise this, so what i am saying is not meant to disparage the desire for such an experience. It's simply not the experience I've come to expect from CDPR games nor the one that i want from them.
So, it is imporant to recognise that there is more to the mixed reaction to this overhaul than "I don't like change". It's often more a case of "I don't like this change". At the same time, CDPR can of course make whatever games they want to make, and those game will find the audience that they target. It can be tricky, however, when such a change is attempted over the course of a single franchise, let alone a single game, and I think this is what we're seeing here.
