Life is not a videogame. But they are videogames in live, so enjoy both worlds. Peace!

This



Also this

And his sarcasm was in the form of jokes, your point? I knew he was being sarcastic as soon as he responded to my post. Plus your an hour or two late.

To make this even more "immersive" and "realistic" to the Elder Scrolls world, maybe after the game is released, every time something is announced (ie DLC, Expansions, etc.) the amount of the NPCs in the world will increase dramatically and they'll all stop you in the game and tell you you're playing it wrong...

While I agree with the general gameplay sentiment that this conveys, it's fallacious in attempting to flesh out the limits and requirements of Mundus as a world. Especially regarding the point of eating 3 meals a day, it's pure Occam's Razor to infer that they do in fact do such things as we would expect from a reality perspective. Fantasy is ultimately rooted in that which reality readily presents, and one of the best rules of thumb there are is to assume that, unless the fantasy work gives information to the contrary, it conforms to the rules of reality. Including eating, sleeping, defecating, normal passage of seasons, etc.

Now, do any of those things make good gameplay devices? Only sometimes, and only on an individual case. The general consensus for the majority of mechanics is, "No, they do not," and I think that's pretty fair. But simply because we don't want our gameplay, which is an approximate representation of a fully conceived world (discrete snapshots versus continuous flowing, as it were), to encapsulate just anything from that world, doesn't mean it's dubitable within the world.

There are dragons in REAL LIFE???? Gtfo!! Where? I want to kill a dragon in real life!!!

It was an example, do I want a dev to come out and address the eating habits of Nirn? No, just saying that Reality=/=high fantasy world. All four major rules of reality: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear force can all be bent or broken in the ES. Things do not work the same way, so inferring that they would work in an Earthly way as long as lore doesn't contradict it, is just as fallacious.

I'll give you a lore example of realistic eating. A Bosmer is fast, real fast, so fast that he would burn through calories at an alarming rate. He'd also need an internal cooling system, in the form of a gland most likely, or he'd only be able of short bursts. This would mean that he would probably need to eat more than the slower races for example. Even with all that said, Im still using logic based in realism. Maybe magic negates a Bosmer from overheating and going into a coma? Who knows, thats why you cant argue any of this unless its already in the lore or touched on by a dev canonically.

And what I'm trying to get across is that {Subsets of Reality} == {Subsets of Any Fantasy World}, where the fantasy world in question does not specify anything alternate. It does not require a developer or writer to come out and address the particulars of anything, because the equality is precisely defined in the absence of any given developer definition.

The things in which TES fantasy DOES do things different is where things obviously conflict with reality. Lore gives us reason to do away with things such as science or evolution (or even our differing understandings of metaphysics), either because they don't match themes or are outright contradictory. Such as the aforementioned rules of physics. I'm not trying to turn this into a "Cram all elements of TES into real life" argument.

It may seem trivial, particularly because I'm agreeing with the gameplay consequences thereof, but the distinction is an important one regarding the understanding of the world.

or realistic

komodo island. bring antibiotics.

Yet you can logically argue against the "subsets of reality" in a fantasy setting as much as you could be for it. Like I did above. The more you actually think about how this stuff would evolve or come to be, the farther away from reality you get. Contemplating and accepting the subsets of reality in Nirn would actually go against logic.

Komodo Dragons don't count..... and they smell bad too... Too bad, i will have to kill some "real" dragons in Skyrim, maybe will not be so hard like posting with android....

there are millions of ways to criticize all this "immersion" [censored] without bringing realism into the equation. it's pretty much impossible to have a thread that intelligently discusses immersion if that very thread also makes comparisons between game mechanics and real life.

i hope someone brings this up again in the future, but without the sarcasm. there's a really big problem with this forum's attitude towards pretty much everything but it's really hard to get to the root of that problem if the whole argument starts off with a joke.

Very well. Your 'logical argument' for the dubitability of eating 3 meals a day, or anything else that isn't explicitly given, lies entirely in the lack of specified in-game information for how much the races eat, or what is required for them to be nourished. The best that can be said, from that position alone, is that we merely have no information. Stating the falsehood of it at that point would fall under precisely the same fallacy as stating the truth of it, which is positing something where there is no information to support it.

The only way you get to either, "[Non-detailed postulation X] is true" or "[Non-detailed postulation X] is false" is by either assuming that 1) Whenever information or articulated inference is not provided, the fantasy world will completely and totally deviate from any semblance of familiarity, or 2) Whenever information or articulated is not provided, the fantasy world will conform to real-world norms.

And in terms of understanding whichever fantasy in general, it is once again Occam's Razor to see that, if an in-world definition, inference, or constructable argument is not given for a particular example, then it is extremely-likely safe to assume that the particular example conforms to standards of reality. Why? For a more tangential reason, virtually all fantasy is constructed to accommodate such, and it's actually considered a good habit when creating it.
I mean, think of the things you'll have to throw into doubt by your standards, things that are never explicitly displayed or stated yet we generally assume them to be true :
Required Food Consumption
Seasons as superficially functioning in the same way
Rain as coming from the sea
six or mating in general as producing offspring
The bodily requirements of excrement
Etc, etc.

The particulars, of course, aren't important, It's the overall whole. If you really want to cast the category into doubt, then more power to you. But from a practical standpoint, I don't see what you accomplish, and from a world standpoint, you end up taking some pretty ridiculous positions.

Also to note, you can have bat-[censored] crazy things in this framework. Cue most of the insanity that is TES lore. And, if there were ever definitions given, say that rain comes from the war-tears of Kyne, or that Altmer engage in magical a-parental offspring-engineering, I would be perfectly fine with that, and depending on the subject would welcome it with open arms. But once again, you do just as much work, if not moreso, in construing it differently when no in-world conflict (as given through some form) is present.

Hmmm. Didnt read entire OP huh? Or did you just not understand it?

The sarcasm was part of the idea, because just like everyone else I figured I would give my ideas for immersion. Anytime something in the game isnt realistic, it now 'ruins immersion'. The point of the thread? To poke fun at peoples blatant abuse of the word, while posting examples of how 'immersion' or 'realism' as some people seem to associate it, is not all its cracked up to be.

If you READ the OP, it actually says feel free to post serious ideas that add to the realism of the game, or to post silly ideas of how realism could ruin the game.

If you cant understand that you can lore wise and logically argue the reason things are without taking the lazy route of "default human ways", then I'm done.

K. If that's what you want. Perhaps my lack of an understanding was a lack of demonstration. Guess I'll never know. :shrug:

As a parting gesture of what I'm trying to communicate, let me link http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/981142-what-are-tamriels-seasons/ from the lore forums, where the argument was attempted (albeit from a different starting perspective) that it was dubitable that seasons in Nirn operated in the same fashion as seasons on earth.

Im guilty of the highlighted as well because I basically want to watch Idiot Abroad and not type, but lets see where it stands.

Your: against lore minded, logical interpretation of a "unknown subsets" and defer to "subset of reality"

While I am: for lore minded, logical interpretation of a "unknown subsets" and do not defer to "subsets of reality"

Even when "subsets of reality" go against all logic? Everything hypothetical of course.

And now we sound like scientists...

Franky, I find Morrowind superior to my previous tes experience; Oblivion. Neither Morrowind or Oblivion truly have great immersion as a whole. Morrowind feels a lot like a game, because everything is based off of chance. Hitting, missing, reflecting, absorbing, blocking, repairing, and casting spells are all dependent on your fatigue, skill level, and luck. Oblivion feels more realistic and slightly more immersive I guess, (if only for the graphics and animations) but I find Morrowind a lot more fun. The lore and factions and books and stories and culture is what really immerses me into Vvardenfell. I never felt more part of the game than when I was reading countless stories and history in Vivec's library. Graphics, animations, fighting, and voice acting will always (for the most part) be improved in the next game of a series. What I want most in Skyrim is culture. Factions. Lore. Story. Myth. Politics and union. Allies and betrayal. This is what svcks me into Tamriel more than anything else.

I felt like I was in Daggerfall at the time, then I didnt care what I felt like and made character's like you would make a scale model(s).

I would have hoped that my quote above would have properly given the indication that I am not 'against-lore-minded.' I fully embrace Insane Split Time-Gods, Lorkhan and Akatosh as an entaniomorphic duality, a Monkey-Prophet being able to construct a union of Time and Space by shattering Aka (shattering the linearity of Cyrodiil's time for 1008 years), the sun and stars as literally being rips in the metaphysical fabric between stasis and void, the world as nothing but the interplay of IS and IS-NOT, thus creating Gray Maybe, Morihaus as literally being a giant bull with wings, Reman as literally being born through Hrol doing love unto a hillock (and thus doing love to Al-Esh), etc, etc. I am by no means attempting to shy away from foreign and downright unreal. Those things and more are why I love TES.

But at the end of the day, none of those amazing things (unless you wish to suggest to me something) give me any of the slightest reason to suspect that the things which they don't cover, eating 3 meals a day being a decent example, deviate from their real counterpart. If someone, say on TIL or in the lore forum (or you), were to detail an interesting account of the food habits of species, I would applaud it as an alternate outlook. If they mounted an argument that persuaded me to be partial to it, or even demonstrated to me that there was a plausible foundation on which to base that interesting account, I might even start adopting it into my own personal view of the world. After all, this is how things work. The theory of the Dwemer becoming the Golden Skin of the Numidium is hardly official, but it makes sense and is persuasive, over and above the far more simple explanations of why the Dwemer disappeared.

So I guess what I'm asking is, do you have an alternate account that is a combination of sufficiently interesting or having the merest shred of plausible foundation? If not, then the best you can do is say, "we don't know for sure!", in which case I would kindly say to you, "Thanks for the obvious, now forgive me whilst I and virtually everyone else go populate that empty void with what I and virtually everyone else are familiar with." It isn't a matter of being lazy. It's a matter of not construing it more than it has to be. That's what fantasy does. It's the place of the author(s) to specify where things are different, because at the end of the day, all the participant in the fantasy has to go off of for a starting foundation is the real world in which they are familiar with. Give them an alternate understanding, and they'll go to town constructing the weirdness of it in their minds. Give them nothing, and they'll populate it with what they know. If you disagree, then find me a collection of alternatives to this pattern.

What was this? Sure its crude and off the top of my head, but its more logical than "subsets of reality"


I'll give you a lore example of realistic eating. A Bosmer is fast, real fast, so fast that he would burn through calories at an alarming rate. He'd also need an internal cooling system, in the form of a gland most likely, or he'd only be able of short bursts. This would mean that he would probably need to eat more than the slower races for example. Even with all that said, Im still using logic based in realism. Maybe magic negates a Bosmer from overheating and going into a coma? Who knows, thats why you cant argue any of this unless its already in the lore or touched on by a dev canonically....Ill add more too that though, the Bosmer mostly eats meat and other Bosmer, meaning they get a bunch of fiber and fat, there obviously must be something in the metabolism to account for this? Oh yeah, they are fast and exude a lot of energy when they bounce around like Robin Williams. This would mean that the Bosmer would not only have to gorge on a diet consistent with Fred Flinstone's, but would need to do it a lot...more than three times a day.

I'm in agreement that it only really matters gameplay wise: "I cant jump nor should my Nord". I also agree that you do have to defer to "subsets of reality" because its just a game. Your getting hung up on my one example though. It was just one bullet from the OPs "list". You use examples that confound logic on purpose. Im talking about trying to understand things that we can relate to, because they fundamentally mirror ours. We can come to conclusion whether they're right or wrong, like we were Darwin washed ashore Nirn, told to explain everything. Its not like any of it would go into the game and we'd be the only ones wondering or caring. We are after all just humans trying to explain a fictional world. That's not my point though, just 'people are going overboard with realism'.

Thanks for making my night.

Hey....No problem.

Im just trying to make my TES experience as immersive as possible

For some, realism *IS* immersion. When realism is lost, you completely "disconnect from character". Realism mods for games are popular for a reason, and it's not because the game becomes more tedious. Lets take an example: Arma2 can be as realistic as it gets (depending on what the engine allows), and it can be fast paced CoD action with instant respawn. But people are different, requiring different levels of realism. My own "hurt level" is 5 minute respawn timer, although I have suffered through an hour with spectating due early accidents. Others can't play unless they don't respawn pretty much immediately. And some have no objections to very long sessions without respawn at all.

For those of us who thinks realism *IS* immersion, the realism is achieved by game mechanics, not by imagining it. Many find it hard to immerse themselves unless there is a consequence governed by game mechanics for not doing it. The reason basic needs often comes up to add realism (and thus immersion), is
1 - Lack of depth in existing game mechanics (economy, magic, fighting, stealth - it's completely dull).
2 - Basic needs are extremely easy to implement, and expands number of game mechanics. It's tables, basic maths, and some booleans. Compare to creating own house!
3 - It feels like a very natural expansion when you're supposed to be in a hostile environment.

In Arma2 I wouldn't like to have basic needs, since mission time is small. Instead added immersion comes from other realms of realism, that wouldn't make sense in Skyrim. The most common argument against hardcoe mode in Skyrim is "it's tedious". And it seems to come from those who never tried role playing (!) with hardcoe active - they *expect* it to be tedious. What is completely ignored (for basic needs) is that it is up to you if you want to live by it or ignore it for prolonged times. So what if you suffer minor starvation or dehydration? Your body will endure. You loose a point of strength and perception (iirc), that doesn't really have that much of an effect. Increase to advanced version (then critical finally fatal), and the penalties become more difficult to live with.

What's the point of having food and drink in the game if it doesn't mean anything? Would you also like to imagine fighting? Would you also like to imagine a fight or that a potion had effects or that you was killed? No, because fighting is important to you. Surviving the elements are important to me. Why this view is being attempted ridiculed is beyond me.

That being said - realism, game mechanics, and immersion - are all compromised:
1) Realism can and should never be implemented fully. Gaming would become impossible. It's always "to a certain point", and where this point lies differs from player to player.
2) Game mechanics are often simplified. To make it a smoother experience, and to require less resources. Many seem to lack the imagination (when lacking skill) to think of a problem from a programmers point of view.
3) You can never achieve full immersion in a game, *because* it is a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nF2HOE8cxs is an example of intense immersion. Towards the end of the movie you can hear it in their voices. Why does this happen? Because the game mechanics support it. If you die, you're out. If it's dark, you can't see well. Speak loud, and your approaching enemy will hear you. But if you're used to CoD, you probably can't imagine why some people think this is even remotely fun.

Of course this doesn't transfer well to TES, but the idea is that underlying realism *DOES* for many create the need to immerse themselves in order to have fun. Equally obvious is that some of it needs to be done on a user preference, as some are more casual than others. What *IS* bad, is that if it's not an optional mechanic and not included at all, console players will forever be deemed casual as they can't get the realism mods. Being there in the first place, also makes it easier to rebalance for modders compared to making everything from scratch.