A topic that was recently locked was trying to state this point, however was severely misinterpreted, and I felt it deserved a real discussion.

I've seen a lot of posts recently asking for realism togglers, being forced to sleep, or various things about the world to make it more realistic. I think we have to remember two things.

1) It's set in a fantasy realm, an unrealistic world is perfectly okay.

2) Too much realism in a game, and it stops being a game. We play games because they are unrealistic, if they were like reality, why would we play them?

What do you guys think? For or against realism? Or are you in the middle?

I think realism is over-rated by gamers but everyone has their own ideas and ideals about what makes a game they want to play. Some realism has it's place but fun and enjoyable game-play are a higher priority, for me at least.

You misunderstand the debate. Verisimilitude is the word you're looking for, which is the quality of seeming to be consistent or believable. Simply put, it's why it's not okay for Luke Skywalker to ride a unicorn over a rainbow to get from Tattooine to Dagobah. What people want is not "realism" so much as a game world that seems like something that could be real.

It's not about 'realism,' it's about immersion and believability. It is all up to interpretation but as games become more and more sophisticated, gamers demand more and more immersive elements to keep them buried in the game's atmosphere.

I personally want a LOT of realism that leads to immersion, but some might find certain elements oppressive, like the need to eat, drink and sleep.

Sure, it's a fantasy world, but the best fantasies are always the ones firmly rooted in reality, and that's part of what makes Elder Scrolls so good and unique.

EDIT: Verisimilitude, yes.

I'm fairly certain a good portion of the debate is realism, rather than verisimilitude. I'm familiar with the art of varisimilitude, as I play D&D and am often a DM, so I need to utilize it. However TES has always done a great job with the consistency aspect, the examples I mentioned were definately realism related.

Whatever you cant find from Bethesda will be modded in, that is why the PC version is always the better investment.

It's all about what takes you out of the experience, breaking down one's immersion. Realism for realism's sake is pointless, but if it is more immersive to have a character need certain basic survival elements as was the example, and the lack of them makes players occasionally go, 'don't I need to eat at some point?' then those elements become more necessary in making sure the world stays believable.

You gave one example, and that was being forced to sleep. Incidentally, unless you have a Ring of Sustenance you have to do that in D&D too... well, unless you play a thri-kreen or a warforged. Personally I've never found character body needs to be all that compelling. STALKERS have to eat, yeah, why not, and so does Am Shaegar if he's going to save Arx. Didn't add much of anything to the gameplay, so in that regard I'd agree. It just makes more busy work, not fun or challenge. As far as other things go: I am absolutely demanding that archery act more like real-world archery to make it more distinct from magic and melee. Stuff like that is important. Gameplay always comes first, and "stop asking for too much realism" is not a statement that makes as much sense as "stop asking for bad design."

I completely agree, sorry if it came off as though I was against any level of realism. I think you stated what I was trying to say far better.



There are a lot more ways to get around the need to sleep, A LOT. I also usually play AD&D, so no Thri-kreen or Warforged.

Also, D&D can allow for far higher levels of realism and still keep it a game simply because of its game type... If that makes any sense.

What are you talking about? Thri-kreen were introduced as a player race in AD&D Dark Sun. They had their own fluff for Spelljammer, even!

Some people are asking for too much realism, and some people are asking for too little. I think we need more though.

Lol, I guess I never really saw them before 3.5e Expanded Psionics Handbook. I'll have to check them out! Maybe throw a couple as monsters at my PC's... MWAHAHAHA.

I'd say it depends on who's asking. I'm quite happy for games and real life to remain seperate myself, I don't need my games to try to be real life, I get enough of real life when I'm not playing games, when I start up a game, I just want to have fun. Now, more realism in a game isn't automatically a bad thing, it just isn't automatically a good thing either, really, it depends on how it affects the game. Sometimes realism can just add unnecessary annoyance to the game, other times, it may actually make for a fun and meaningful addition to the gameplay, sometimes, it really doesn't impact gameplay at all, realism is only good if it changes the game for the better.

i enjoy realism to a point. i'm cool with hunger and such in a game if it actually adds to the game, but in STALKER and New Vegas it's just a thing that doesn't add any depth to the game at all, and serves more as an annoyance than anything else.

now, if there was a required animation to eat, which would force you to stop and grab a bite and actually CONSCIOUSLY THINK ABOUT THE ACTION, then that would be fantastic - but in both games all you have to do is assign food to a hotkey and just hit it whenever YOU'RE HUNGRY pops up on the screen, and it's stupid as hell.

hardcoe mode in New Vegas would've been a good idea if it had been implemented with any degree of GOOD, which it wasn't. i doubt a hardcoe mode for Skyrim would be any different.

the problem with people here is you've got people going I WANT TO CATCH HYPOTHERMIA IF I SWIM IN A COLD RIVER NAKED which is straight up just a [censored] idea and it makes me glad nobody here actually designs videogames for a living. realism should NEVER trump fun. even in a simulation, realism and fun should be balanced. Silent Hunter is the perfect example of this.

The problem is that this is a world where every other character has to eat and sleep, and no one else can use a magic map to teleport wherever they want to go. Some people want certain elements that enhance the role playing experience for them, even if you don't think they would enhance the game for you.

What would be the problem with having settings for these things? There is no combination of these aspects that BS could use to fit everyone.

everyone misinterprets sarcasm, this is a video game forum, its serious business

If I wanted realism I'd go chase chipmunks around the backyard with a claymore.

Those who cry realism are having an effect though. Take MW -> OB. The lower level critters in MW were all original. Kagauti, Scribs, Nix Hounds, Cliff Racers, etc. Lower level critters in OB went all realistic on us and we got wolves, bears, cougars, etc. IMO ho hum, nothing to see here you couldn't see outside. (No really, most of these animals are natives in my state) Not a slice of original thought in the low level critters in OB but people I guess like it because it was realistic.

"Realism" IMO is killing the fps genre. It seems today people like fat space marines that chug around the map at .5km/hr and need to duck behind cover every ten seconds. These guys are apparently so fat and slow that there's not even a jump function. Yes I'm looking at you Gears of War/Bulletstorm, Epic hasn't made anything worth playing since 2004 and the Unreal engine becomes more and more irrelevant every day. Kinda sad because at one time they made some really good games, but I digress. For the most part I like the older shooters where your character ran around the map at 90mph like Doom/Quake and the Unreal Tournament series. They were fast paced frantic fun in the past, today it's just a matter of "I saw you first so your dead." The only "next gen" shooters I own are Battlefield Bad Company(the first game in YEARS that made me feel like a kid again) and Borderlands, the rest just hold no appeal.

I think the case for realism makes it's strongest point when talking about a simulation, tactical military sim , or an e-sport shooter like the Battlefield series. I say cram all the realism and balance that a dev team can into these types of games because they're meant to simulate a visceral combat experience.

Realism has it's place, but I say let games be games.

I don't think the creature choice for Oblivion had as much to do with adding "realism" as it did with putting the game in a more traditional European fantasy realm, which BS thought would be best for Cyrodiil. And that really has absolutely nothing to do with eating/drinking/sleeping requirements.

And as people said above, "realism" isn't exactly the right word. Think "believability." The world should add up and make sense to be a better experience. At least that's what some of us think.

The OP wanted opinions about realism in games. I gave mine. I started a thread about the need to sleep, I say it needs to go. There's also nothing in the OP about eating and drinking although I'll say if they add that in as something my character HAS to do I'll never play another Elder Scrolls title. I just can't be bothered to role play in a single player game and I'm seriously shocked that so many on these boards actually do. Want to play some D&D? Fine, I'll bust out my dice and manuals. You'll find that I'll role play my character quite proficiently then, but not in a single player adventure game.

Again, what's the problem with having them as options for people who do like the deeper role playing aspects?

Like an optional hardcoe or role players mode or something? With "vanilla" having no requirements to sleep, eat, etc? I totally support that.

Yeah, that's my whole point. It's hard not to like the idea, because it lets everyone play the game how they want. My idea: either when you are starting a new character or when you access the game menu, have a menu for immersion/realism/whatever you want to call it options. Inside, there are options that let you change things like eating/sleeping/drinking requirements, map-based fast travel being available, how dark the nights are, etc. Then have two buttons that load presets for the settings, one for regular (Oblivion-like) settings, and one for hardcoe. My whole point is there is simply no one combination of these options that everyone will like.

Yeah that seems like what it's coming down to. I lack the patience for certain things, but find it in others. My characters wouldn't need to sleep, eat, or drink, but they wouldn't use fast travel either.

Here's what I'm for: If the hardcoe RP crowd wants to have the option to necessarily sleep/eat/write mom once in a while to keep her from guilt-tripping, then I say have at it. I don't see why you could just, yunno, do these things, but I'll grant that I'd love not to have the ability to teleport from city to city in the blink of an eye at no cost to me. If it's there, I tend to take the easy way; if not, then I'm happier for not having had to deal with the temptation.

What I'm not for: I can't imagine that it'd take a huge amount of dev work to get something like this going. To do it well might be another story though, and that brings up two problems. If the devs are busy doing this kind of stuff instead of making the game better for the majority of its players such that the overall game experience is diminished, then it's not worth it. Sorry, but like I said, you can just RP these events without the -1 AGI, -1 END. The second problem is that if it's not done well, Beth loses. hardcoe mode fans aren't happy, reviewers aren't happy, investors aren't happy, and man-hours are taken away from improving the general experience with no benefit to anyone.

I'd love for Skyrim to have these options. But only if Beth handles them with care instead of throwing them in as a hasty last minute appeasemant, and only if they can do it without the idea becoming a major resource drain.

I don't want diseases in the game, or locks on doors or chests either, and I sure as heck don't want to have to pay for things. I get plenty enough of that mundane, boring crap in real life. This is a fantasy game after all, so some level of unrealism is okay. Add too much realism and it stops being a game.