Yes.
One of my most persistent complaints about RPGs is the sheer number of sentient beings my character is required to mow down, apparently without thought, consequence or -- more relevant to the thread -- any opportunity to let some of them live when my character's clearly overwhelmed them. Monsters might fight to the death, but most people will give up as soon as it's clear their current path ends with them being slashed in two by a claymore.
My heroes often have no reservations about cutting sentient beings to pieces (kill 'em all and let the gods sort them out), but I don't like it when RPGs assume that's the kind of character I'm playing; and confound the situation by making their NPC enemies utterly meaningless as characters - that is, psychotically brave and/or dangerously unwise.
An elegant point.
Yes, always seems that humans have absolutely no self preservation instincts. I think in one-on-one combat, many enemies that don't have a personal grudge against you would attempt to flee if things went south., seems sort of pointless and meaningless to get killed at the age of 30 in a small skirmish with a dungeon pillager.
But I hate it when it happens. Because if I'm role playing a good character (which is my preference) I feel some obligation to stop and let them run away. However then they come back I take one swing and then they run away again.
"I didn't like the way melee fighting worked in Oblivion so I don't think there should be melee fighting in Skyrim."
This is the same logic you are using, it doesn't make any sense. You didn't like the way it was implemented, so you don't want it
implemented in the next game, even if it's implemented
differently? :confused: