Immersion = perspective and state of mind.

When FO 2 released I was a child and my mind at the time allowed me to be VERY immersed in that game.

It's ridiculous to ask for pure realism in any game, particularly one like this. If pure realism were the case, one bullet in the head would basically be death.

It would be more reasonable to suggest that games would be better if they were "moderately" realistic, which would be best achieved by realistic graphics and animations first and foremost. It should look like a place you could go and visit were it not fictional. We don't need physics and real-world logic to insert themselves in every factor. Just the basic, common sense stuff will do. If it merely resembles the real-world, without having to mimic it precisely, realism is achieved. For instance, hunger is alright because it's straightforward, but nutrition is an unnecessary abstract that detracts from the enjoyment of a game.

In any case either realism is where gameplay is born or gameplay is where realism is born. Realism without gameplay is meaningless. This goes for any game with a narrative focus. Both depend on each other, none should be underestimated, both need to coexist at any situation in the game.

I have never minded a game breaking the rules of reality, as long as it makes sense in that game world. That's why I can be immersed in a game with dragons and elves.

Things that can still throw me off are, as mentioned, the weigh/size of something in your inventory not making sense, being able to open master locks at level one, 'all-knowing' guards and store owners, etc. Some things just don't make sense in any world. Also an 'over-the-top' Easter Egg can sometimes be too much and break immersion.

You must not play many video games then.............

A bullet to the head in an RPG (in any good RPG) does not always mean a bullet between the eyes. Fallout (the original of course), allowed for instant kill headshots, but it also allowed for poorly aimed shots that were only just technically headshots; that may never have even breached bone.

My STEAM account says otherwise. I can tolerate some amount of stupidness in games as you have to in order to play anything.

I had to get over weightless gold and caps, weapons that don't degrade, etc. What I hate most about these though is that the earlier games did it more realistically but then to 'simplify' the game realistic features are removed. That to me is a move in the wrong direction, but we have to cater to the simple minded I suppose.

If I want -Jameson- realism I go out the -Jameson- door and not play a game

But yeah, immersion over realism for me although some realism is of course needed.

Give me a game with a good world design and atmosphere and I'll immers myself in it. No need for realism at all. what under water fire and the only explanation is "because magic" Thats fine with me.
I like to role play as Im the character and Im watching it all through his eyes (one of the reasons I prefer first person view) I will give him or me certain rules to follow but he is not bound to them he may stray from them when he wants just because my character is good doesnt mean he cant cause some mischief once in a while my characters arent 100% set in stone they may also change there view on things during there adventure.
Well thats how I role play my characters anyway.

Great post!

Agree with OP--immersion is more important in an experience than realism.

I've read some stuff lately about people crying about 30 fps being "not realistic enough." This game is going to be HUGE! 30 fps is fine, and probably done so your PS4 doesn't implode due to the sheer size and scope of the game. To those who say this is soooo important--compare the size and scope of the game to others after you play it and tell me again why that "more realistic" 60 fps is so important.

Seems to me like if realism is all one is concerned with, and pushing for...they should re-evaluate how and why they are doing so. These games offer far more than games solely focused on "realism" do by exploring cool and unique ideas and situations--and let you navigate them as you see fit. I don't think I'll ever get where those people are coming from.

*Vault-Tec neither endorses nor condones what the CEO says on his private Bethesda forums account

I like just enough reality going on to make my little mind think about things in the real world and just enough fantasy to take me into an alternate world where I can become immersed.

Of course that balance of realistic and fantasy for immersion is a line drawn in a different place by different individuals so add to that that the mix must be drawn in a place that is pleasing to enough people so that I have people to share the excitement wish and I'd call it perfect.

Reaching that goal in a game I leave up to the creators and developers. They reach it and I'm all in and naturally immersed in the game. Don't hit that and I'm out rather quickly and check off another $60 or so wasted.

They make it, I like it, it's my preference. I don't spend time thinking of how they could have made it better or should make it and all. I'm just in it for the fun.

For me, there is no "set" conditions for me to be immersed in a game. There are some game I start at like, 2 pm and the next time I look at a clock it's 8 pm and I just realize I've been hungry for hours but haven't noticed, that's one fun game. Than there are games where I'm having fun, but not to the point where I can spend hours playing without noticing the time. Than there are just games I have absolutely no fun at all and I'm literally counting how many seconds it takes me too exit the game.

If you spend hours playing without even realizing, that's a keeper... and I've found that often times, it's a game you've probably passed over dozens of times without a single thought too it.

Properly-made (not overdone but set at the right balance) realism is immersive and no, never found FO1 & FO2 as immersive, ever. And by far the most immersive game I ever played (for its time) was Morrowind, tied with Half-Life. And yeah, FO3 & NV was leaps and bounds ahead of what FO1 & FO2 was, immersion-wise for me. In fact, even FoT was way better than FO1 & FO2 for immersion, even though it also had 2D isometric graphics.

Immersion isn't a requirement for me to play and enjoy a game but its presence increases my enjoyment vastly.

As I recall, that happened to me with Quake. My first multiplayer game of Quake, I'd logged into a server at round 7PM and logged out around 8, and got ready to turn in for the night... and then I realized that the Sun was rising, not setting.

Realism in moderation is what I say. I'm playing a video game, and I was raised on JRPG's that played by their own rules, so I can suspend my disbelief on a few things.

Immersion is more valuable to me than Realism, even it means I have to grin and bear it when a head shot does NOT take out my target. It's a trade sometimes.

That's a problem I mostly see in RPGs that have awkwardly been made into first person games. RPG mechanics can [rightly] decide that the head shot barely injures, but a badly made FPP game can depict the player's perfect headshot, and even depict the blood from it... that's bad design, and not something easy to overlook or tolerate ~IMO.

I made a joke out of it, and managed to have my fun with the No-Sell headshots.

Raider's face is all covered in blood from a shotgun to the face.

"DUDE! Are you okay?! How are you even still standing?? Is it the Jet? It's the Jet isn't it? GET OFF THE JET BILLY!"

Granted when it happened to a Super Mutant, face blast and they still comin'...that's scary.

"...This is how it ends."

For me, it's more of a marriage. Immersion is heavily influenced by realism. Realism, in my eyes, is not the removal of fantastical elements, per say but it needs to make sense or at least have logical support. The need of an ingot used at a grinding wheel to improve a blade is illogical.

The realistic quality of graphics and animation plays a big part for me as well. Water should look/flow like water and not like butter milk.

The games setting also plays a big part. A game set in a alternate 'real world' setting needs to have a lot more reality in it IMO than a game that's a pure fantasy world.

For example FO, XCOM, Wasteland, Vampire Bloodlines, etc. need more realism.

While The Witcher, TES, PoE, DOS, Fable, etc. can go crazy with world mechanics.

The only realism I demand would just be on the combat mechanics, character physics and world interaction, 3 elements bethesda has yet to actually accomplish.

Fun. Is fun an option? I just want it to be fun. I have low standards I guess.

I think the nod to surrealism is a better approach to realism. Things don't need to be exactly true to life in our reality, they need to be logical within the way of the game world and the overlapping logic provides the immersion.

...the only other thing is I'd like to be able to go HUD-less, hopefully I can find a way to mod it out like did Skyrim if it isn't already an option in game.

Nice considered position. Very, erm... moderate.

I was just going to wail about features I must haz, or mah immersunz is broke.

Fallout 4 is most likely going to be an Open-World Action RPG game, so it definably needs the immersion more so than realism, however it still needs to be "realistic" to the Fallout universe.

Agreed.

It can't be that; and they don't want it to be.