Sometimes, I think it's a bit much. I've been with these forums for a long time, and I've seen some rediculous requests in terms of a more realistic game, including, but not limited to a Bowel Movement minigame.

It's important to note though, that not all requests are just for realisms sake. For example, the numerous "hardcoe" mode requests that seem to creep into the forums daily, aren't so much about "Realism" as they are about a survival element. While Morrowind and Oblivion may be a little more bright, and overall light-hearted, the Nature of Skyim is brutal, harsh and unforgiving. I totally feel that Players that are requesting Fallout: New Vegas style "hardcoe" modes, are well within a reasonable realm of logic with that request.

Survival Elements, change how a player may view the existing mechanics of the game. Just taking a recent example with New Vegas, while most people immedietly take note of the water/sleep/food meters, the two biggest changes, are actually ammo weight and stimpack HoT (Healing over time). Ammo Weight adds an element of foresight to your impending adventure on a level that normal mode players just aren't going to see or deal with. For some, it enriches the experience, for others, it's a cumbersome system. That's why such features should be optional, but with optional features comes the question of overall worth. Maybe developmental resources are better spent elsewhere?

I wouldn't like a fast travel option in the toggle menu. Without fast travel or any other mode of fast transport the game would quickly become very irritating -- especially for little fetch and carry quests.

That's why Morrowind had it right. You could get somewhere quickly but you A. Had to do SOME legwork to reach your mode of transportation, B. Often had to plan your journey by getting a ship and then a nearby silt strider (for example), and C. It made more sense than suddenly being magically svcked out of your character for a day or two where nothing happens on his journey through what is supposed to be a harsh and dangerous environment.

Contrast that with Oblivion, where the option for fast travel just means you're basically teleporting all over the place constantly. As if there's no need for those inbetween quest and town bits. Why not just have away with them, and turn the game more linear with quest choice? You get a quest to clear out a cave, you set that quest as priority and step out the city gates and zzzap! You're outside the cave.

I don't like fast travel, but it would be nice to have a way to travel fast. Know what I mean?



As for eating. It should be an optional thing like most of these other things. I always played hardcoe in New Vegas because I like making my game harder. But in that, it barely made it harder -- it just made it more annoying.

The remarkable thing is that Fast Travel in Oblivion is not teleporting and it is realistic. The problem is that you need a rather strong grasp of the rules of RPGs to see it.

I still want gravity in the game, it's realistic. I play games because they are realistic and because what happens in the games cannot possibly happen in my everyday life. Be it realistic or not.

I absolutely understand where you're coming from. I do not believe it is completely unrealistic, and I do not believe it damages it as an RPG. But I do think it's implementation has been ham-handed and an upgraded version of Morrowind's system would lend itself to the experience better.

I'm arguing that, people who do not like fast travel, should not push for it to be an option, simply because both it being there and it not being there are almost as bad as eachother. But for a comfortable inbetween.

forced sleeping, eating, etc. aren't really that much fun in a game, unless you're a huge fan of the Sims (in which case you should be playing the Sims and not Skyrim). The realism that most people find important is just that there aren't any gaps in the logic, that everything has a purpose in the world. One thing that bugged the heck out of me in oblivion, was that there was food all over the place, inns, stores, etc., but there were no farms to speak of (well, there were a couple, but neither of them produced much due to their involvement in quests, heck one field even got hit with an oblivion gate). Most people aren't looking for true reality, merely an engaging story that is believable. It's the same as if you were to read a book, the characters don't always perform mundane tasks, but they traverse their world in a believable fashion.

I liked the hardcoe option in Fallout: New Vegas, so why not?
If its optional, it satisfies both camps - so its impossible to find an argument against such a toggle.
It'd be even more perfect if you could select the severity level of such features, between casual and realistic.

I think people are asking to much in general... 90% of it is really dumb in the firstplace. Like making a multiplayer option. TES is not that kind of game and gamesas has always stated that TES will never have it. or the ability to change the wallpaper in your house etc etc.

You might be close to understanding where I'm coming I'm coming from, but you're not there yet. Fast Travel is absolutely realistic. There is nothing unrealistic about it.

I disagree. While it is not "instantaneous teleportation" like Divine Intervention in Morrowind, it is teleportation none the less. This is because there are no costs. No gold is lost, no health potions must be used, none of your weapons or armor are damaged. It is as if you are placed in a bubble and moved across the map (at normal walking speed).

In Daggerfall you had to select things like traveling cautiously/recklessly, sleeping at inns/camping, etc. All this would be reflected in overall speed, and possible loss of gold. (I'm not sure exactly how it works but I imagine in uses a percentage system to recreate running into enemies, fighting, healing, etc.

That's why I like Daggerfall's system. Sometimes, if you were sick with a deadly disease and tried to fast travel to a town, you'd die before you got there. So you had to hoof it in 1st person to do it as fast as possible. This introduces elements of survival.

And survivals what it's all about. That's why I like "realistic" fast travel (has costs, however or whatever they are) and at least the option to need to eat, drink, sleep.

I don't advocate stuff like marriage, needing to relieve yourself, etc, because those have no aspect of survival. Almost all adventure stories are rooted in a theme of surviving against the odds, whether real life stories, or epic legends from human history. Now, stuff like marriage has other reasons for being included, like Role Play, but stuff like taking a whiz is really only good for comedic effect. Therefore, while it may have a reason to be included, that reason is not "realism."

Only one comment. I find it hilarious that you and others refer to Bethesda as BS. I'm not sure if that has any facetious element, but it sure sounds like it. :tongue:

Normally, I would be all for a reality toggler. But chances are this would take away from the rest of the game. The time could be better spent elsewhere, on much better mechanics for the game, imo. Oh, and yeah; Hi i'm the new guy.

I am militantly and violently opposed to the kinds of realism people want in these fantasy games.

I am forced to sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, endure long car rides, and all that [censored]... in real life and I absolutely do not want to be forced to deal with it in a video game. I shouldn't be forced to deal with it.

Am I expecting too much by hoping that the game will feature toilets?

---

Immersion>Realism

Often for immersion, realism is modeled. It is just convenient, pretty much every problem is solved in RL. Too much realism can hurt immersion. The urination examples of Duke Nukem and Postal are for a toilet humor.(Captain Obvious) In TES, I like to think such matters are taken care of during the rest. I might think the same for Oblivion fast travel but traveling is something I would like to do myself, I would write my traveling adventures in a journal but not those other things...

Survival was a part of Morrowind. I like to see it improved but to do this it should be balanced correctly. I think in Morrowind with inclusion of Almsivi Intervention, one can teleport to a Temple for healing immediately. That is an awesome touch, but healers(in traditional sense) were nowhere to be found. I imagine a scene where I cast AI and teleport to a Temple where I couldn't even move and people come out of temple and in first-person, move my body onto a stretcher and treat me afterwards.

Another thing is necessities. These are designed with punishments in mind. I once again refer to Real Life where you don't eat to avoid punishments but because eating feels good. It is a bonus to stats. Where in the implementations I saw, PC is always in an ill state which can be temporarily avoided by feeding. That's not realistic at all. The "hardcoe" mode I would like to see, includes health regeneration for example. I am talking about daily regeneration rates. The regenerate rates increase with feeding regularly. When there is no feeding, the regenerate rate simply decreases to a complete halt. A PC will likely to lose health one way or another so this is actually pretty hardcoe. All potions work as temporary speed increases for regeneration. My inspiration here is real life. It is interesting to hear about F:NV's hardcoe mode. Some nice ideas like doctors becoming a necessity. Blood loss and crippled organs(deadlier combat(cuts / slashes / dismemberment / stabbing) with more defense). If carefully designed, these can aid self preservation feel rather than becoming an annoyance.(The answers to the question "What would happen if we could feel no pain?" offer great insight and can be applied to video games.)

Weight is easy. It is totally unrealistic to hold that many items, it turns the game into a looting frenzy. Therefore it must turned into non feasible with the inclusion of feasible counterparts. Real Life can be used as an inspiration. You wouldn't want to collect all the junk in real life, you would like to have a small item which is valuable or functional instead. Skimming through 10 weapons is not good. Selection of a good weapon, a secondary and a third one at best which in arm's reach and a side bag with 2-7 weapons which can't be picked during a fight seems a nice idea to me regarding gameplay pace and enjoyment.

And finally, skill atrophy. Pretty much solves every problem regarding leveling. Enemies should be standardized so that some enemies would always be a credible threat. Everyone has a weak spot and there is only milliseconds between a regular athlete and a world record holder. Good sports games have this kind of systems and you can really feel you are playing with a specific player because stats totally reflect that player. Real life is really inspirational.

My views on the matter are rather controversial(health regen, skill atrophy, anti-loot ), but I honestly feel this way. These things should be discussed, dismissing them completely or inclusion of hardcoe modes at the opposite side of spectrum aren't helping the evolution of immersive RPGs, IMO.

---

A repost.

To answer the Thread Title, Yes. A game needs realism. It needs physics (obviously not though if the game is about screwing with physics).
But people are asking for too much. I would see no point in a game where you HAVE to eat... I mean why would this be a necessity? This is in a game where technically you could use magic to explain anything you wanted (you use magic to fill your stomach - crap explaination, but still plausible).

It's a fantasy game, not everything has to be like real life. If you love real life so much then go and live it.
Games are sometimes seen as an escape from real life to a fantastical world designed to be FUN. Yeah remember fun, where a game doesn't feel like a second job? Having to eat would feel like a constraint on the fun parts of the game, a chore. If anything it should have a toggle to choose whether you want to ruin your game with excessive amounts of realism. I mean if you want to be a vampire and have to worry about sunlight and people hating you, fine go and do it, atleast there are benefits. The same should be true for excessive realism - except it has no benefits... and is pointless...

My general view is all this extra stuff, eating, having a piss etc. is done when you wait or use the horrific teleportation fast travel.

And funnily enough, from what I've seen, a lot of people who want excessive realism like the teleportation fast travel (which isn't realistic) and a lot of people who don't like too much realism prefer morrowinds travel system..
But I think it all comes down to balance. And I'm glad that these people suggesting some of these overly 'realistic' ideas aren't making games xD

I think it's great that you can eat and sleep in TES games if you wish to. For me being required to do those things is just annoying. And I've played games/mods that included such requirements, so it's not a matter of just thinking I wouldn't enjoy having to break off my dungeon crawl to fix supper and take a nap. I know from experience that having such activities eat up my in-game time, just as they do in real life, detracts from rather than adds to the fun.

Well,it kind of depends on what area as well.Many of the realism demands are on weaponry and combat system.If you ask me,yes,I'd like realism but NOT in combat area.

-My expectations of realism lie in AI and NPC behaviour.It includes simple things that lacked in OB like being able to re-hide when detected,realistic NPC sight and hearing area,aka no-psychic guards and enemies.Or ultra-honest merchants.I also would like things like NPCs reacting to your actions like if you were to draw your weapon in the middle of a tavern,people would run/scream/also draw their weapon.Or,when I sneak into a house and bash his silver pitcher to his head,the owner would at least wake up.

-RP elements like hunger or thirst are...well,I don't really know.As someone said,it's not that fun to keep food with you just to avoid prompts and penalties.I'm thinking such "necessities" are not really necassary in a game.It'd be much better if you could cook food and give it to NPCs for relation bonuses...

-About combat realism,I'm personally against too much realism.I'd rather shoot like Legolas than waiting 10 seconds for the bow sway to go away,than shoot only to have my arrow be swept away by the wind.Or still take damage after a %100 succesfull block.I could use a combat system where it's hard to place a blow on the enemy but the blow is very very fatal.(Like Dark Messiah system,only the blows being more deadly.)So even if it doesn't kill the opponent,he'd be crippled and not able to properly fight.(I'm not talking about losing 25% of his speed when taking a blow in the leg,but being barely able to stand or walk)

-Physics should be realistic though.I mean collisions.That makes a game 10 times more fun than it should have been.It's never bad to knock down people when sprinting over them,or sweep the misc items on a table with a sword swing.I think I'd also enjoy it if the PC would be knocked over when colliding with people,or on bad landscape.Maybe even occasionally slip on ice (on sloppy landscapes and possibly in heavy blizzard,having athletics-acrobatics as a modifier of course)

You seriously need to reconsider your logic if you think that *jumping* has any intrinsic value to tactical-focused gameplay.

I personally loathe jumping around like and idiot bunny in first person shooters. It was ridiculous in Unreal and Quake, just as it was in Halo. Jumping adds *nothing* except making everyone treat the map like one giant trampoline.

Jumping around, noscoping, quickscoping, twitchy reflex shots, 180 shots, running around with no thought towards tactics or true teamwork, It's these old, outmoded, archaic gameplay mechanics that I can't wait to see die forever in shooters. Bring on the realism and immersion factor, it only helps me lose myself in a great game and is more satisfying to play than any power-tripping shooter or RPG with 90's era gameplay.

@Comberry: I think you've got the right idea. It depends on what area it is applied to.

I think realism is essential, but depending on the game it changes what aspects should be realistic.

In skyrims case you want it to be realistic but without affecting gameplay.
Farming and mining are cool ideas, but if you HAD to do them... well that wouldn't be ES. It would be very interesting if you had to make food and cut down trees and farm and mine ore for weapons... but it would make it into an entirely different game.
In morrowind you could collect some glass or ebony and get someone to make you some weapons, but you could also go adventure for them (like the main aim of the game is to do) and maybe find them yourself (madness and amber were kidna the same in oblivion..).

Realism isn't necessary in the Lore, the weapons, the armour or tihngs that make the world what it is in ES.
But when it makes the world more immersive and fun (or challenging) then I tihnk its a positive xD
Good physics and believable AI (actions, dialogue, jobs etc.) are all essential things to add 'realism'. And I think a good combat system (to some extent) is necessary as well.

I would have to say that I am more in the middle. What makes RPGs interesting to me is the sense of realism set in a fantasy/historic setting, where I can be someone else entirely (thus somewhat satisfying my need to act when I am unable to get back on stage for awhile). However, I can see how making them too realistic would make the game less interesting, or make it be too much like the Sims...

I gave an inch and you took a mile, I should have known from your smarmy original reply. You are wrong, sir.

Discussion of reality can get tricky. In real life, might you pass through the woods where a bear lives and not encounter the bear? Sure. In the reality of Oblivion, while not using Fast Travel, might you not avoid a conflict with a bear that happens to be wandering between you and your destination? Yes. Maybe you two never see each other. Maybe you see the bear before it sees you and you give it a wide berth. Maybe it sees you, but can't catch you. Maybe it's too busy killing an Imperial Legion Soldier to bother you. When you wander the world and look through your character's eyes, you see how you get from place to place. You swim, or walk, or run, or ride a horse. You don't need teleportation or bubbles to avoid encounters of consequence, so there isn't any need to come up with such unrealistic explanations for how it happens.

There are some people playing Traveller. The player's characters are all sharing a ride on one of the character's Scout ships. They take that ship through a star system known to be occasionally troubled by pirates. The referee (the equivalent of the dungeon master in a game of D&D), has a choice. He can decide to have the characters encounter pirates; or he can let a dice toss determine if the characters encounter pirates; or he can decide that the characters encounter no pirates. The referee doesn't feel like messing with pirates today, so he decides that the players are not troubled by them. What really happens to the characters? They encounter no pirates.

Although it may not be realistic how the referee reaches his decision, what happens to the characters is undoubtedly realistic in the context of the game world.

Should Tolkien have flipped a coin to see if Frodo fell into the volcano with Gollum? Is what happened to Frodo unrealistic because it was determined to happen rather than left to a realistic chance?

The reason your character does not come to loss or harm when you select Fast Travel is simple and realistic -- he has no encounters of consequence.


I was focusing on the realism aspect of what you said about Fast Travel. I agree that Morrowind's travel systems are more interesting and even more fun than Oblivion's Fast Travel, but I am not really against Fast Travel. From the way Keltic Viking and others have described it, Daggerfall's traveling system sounds very good too. I would like to see more done to make overland travel by any method more engaging.

As you said, it's possible that physically moving your character through the woods, he may not have any encounters. But it's unlikely. Especially if you travel back and forth a hundred times. And yet, if you fast travel, 1,000,000,000 times, you will never encounter a soul, or even have the impression that you did.

I really have no objection to the idea of fast travel from anywhere on the map to any location you've been to. Although it is not my preferred method, it obviously saves time and aggravation for a lot of people, and it would be just as unfair to ignore it as it was to ignore other options But when there are absolutely no costs or consequences for it's use, it becomes annoyingly transparent.

Yes, exactly! I play games to escape realism.