Ooookay. I've noticed that the term 'realism' has come up in a lot recently in posts referring to cleavage, 'dumbing down', JRPGs, etc. etc. etc.

So: I thought I'd start a thread about this whole realism thing, where everyone can hopefully work out what they mean by it and stop talking at cross-purposes on other threads.

My opinions:

Firstly, I think the term 'realism' is confusing- what kind of realism? Literary realism (not necessarily 'realistic'), or verisimilitude? Realism compared to what? Are dragons more realistic than chainmail bikinis? A better term might be 'logic'. Fantasy and science-fiction writers sometimes refer to the notion of the 'secondary world' and its logic- where things that are totally impossible in our world are accepted as normal in a work of fiction- from which point one can extrapolate. I think the distinction of whether something is logical _within_ the game-world, as opposed to realistic, is a helpful one. For instance: I accept that dragons exist in TES. They just do. I do _not_ accept that female bandits living in Pale should show cleavage while robbing people on the road- not because I object to cleavage (I most assuredly do not), but because it makes no sense that bandits would voluntarily expose themselves to wounding and frostbite for the sake of said cleavage- unless they are beserkers, whose existence is (1) supported by lore (i.e. one of the 'givens' of the game-world) and (2) explicable by anology with an RL myth or culture (i.e. logical, at least according to TES's mythical sideways logic). Of course, anything which is illogical can be chalked up as one of the 'givens' of the secondary world- but in this case, we have the right to ask why it is being done this way, and to give our opinions. I think that dragons are cool, and that making women expose themselves when it runs counter to logic is offensive, gratuitous objectification. You do not have to agree with me, but I would like you to accept that it is illogical and therefore a statement for which the devs should be held accountable (note that I am not accusing the devs of anything! I'll wait to see the finished product).

Secondly, there is the issue of immersion. I think the logic of a 'secondary world' has a tendency to bleed into game mechanics, or vice versa. Modeling fighting with swords and fighting with axes as distinct skills, chosen at the beginning of the game, and modeling them as part of a single skill, developed during play, are both unrealistic, simplistic abstractions- but this kind of abstraction is necessary for the sake of practical and enjoyable gameplay mechanics. I think a lot of people forget this when they accuse Bethesda of 'dumbing down' their games (feel free to correct me if I am straw-targeting you)- we accept that X is normal and logical because it is a common trope of the genre. Perhaps better criteria for judgement would be whether X is (1) logical according to lore, and (2) enjoyable, immersive, and allows the kind of 'open-world' feeling we want.

Just my two cents.

When I use "realism" I'm referring to relative to the world set out by lore. The money you gain for trivial items is unrealistic because conversations have "5 or 6" septims a week as an average wage.

Oddly, in a world where magic is commonplace, chainmail bikinis aren't particularly unrealistic as they could easily be enchanted to provide significant protection - though of course, if it's every female NPC then that's getting sort of ridiculous.
Having to eat, drink, and sleep is realistic, because lore says nothing about the chosen one being able to sustain himself by eating microbes from the air. Damage becoming more permanent and a bad hit causing long term stat drops isn't realistic, because healing magic is cheap, easy, powerful, and containable within potions. Realism: but not as we know it.

I think nearly nothing related to combat mechanics could be considered unrealistic, as each person has it's own opinion and sometimes what most of people thinks is totally wrong.

You only need to read any dual wield versus weapon and shield discussion in internet, to see that people didn't agree about what is more realistic in combat mechanics.

A main prove is how combat systems so different as Tae Kwon Do and Muay Thay, with contradictory concepts could exist at the same time.

Of course "Realism" is a relative term when talking about a fantasy RPG with beast races and dragons and skeletons and litches.

When I talk about "Realism" I'm talking about making me the player feel like I'm inside the game world and that I'm the character. That actually goes for "Immersion" as well. To me, "Realism" and "Immersion" go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

Take for example the GSP Quest Compass in Oblivion. It ruined the realism and the immersion because it didn't fit in the game world or the time frame it was being used in.

In any case, "Realism" and Immersion" go hand in hand.

Absolutely. I think it is more important that the game is internally consistent and intuitive rather than 'realistic'.

When I think about it, it's mostly about logic and the interference of game mechanics. Like skipping travel systems because of fast travel. Or simplifying human behaviour in a set of parameters, which of course is necessary and hard to do. It all comes down to how they implement it, and TES seems to have been the pioneer in this area, or at least one of them. Improvements include skipping the morality black and white "evil - good" parameter, and simply have allegiances instead based on criminality (which isn't necessarily evil, but rich people might lose their disposition towards you), religious malevolence (you just obeyed your religion - in your eyes it's not evil) and so on. In fact, nobody's evil. I think all people thought they were doing good, it's just that they might lack common sense, or have been brainwashed. It's all about relativity. So I'd say skip the good vs evil morality, Bethesda! That simplicity belongs to Fable!

Just because it's a fantasy world doesn't mean that the world doesn't operate by its own internal. Realistic and thematic consistency are still important.

Or conversely, valuable items like swords and armour are far too common. Actually, the biggest immersion-breaker for me in Oblivion was the almost total lack of farming, trade or other economic activity. I couldn't understand how all the people in those cities ate.

Of course, it's possible to be too pedantic about this sort of thing, but one of the things I was trying to do by bringing up realism was to illustrate that geekish pedantry and artistic value are not totally unrelated. If the Imperial City had been full of bureaucrats managing (or mismanaging) the empire, or the various counts of Cyrodill had lived off of the work of serfs, we would have had a very different view of them.

I suppose I should counter this by acknowledging the importance of theme, though. But that is more to do with the 'meta' issues of what the lore is about.

This is one of the reasons I like TES so much. Especially the 'destroy the gods by destroying the devil' bit in Morrowind.

in my opinion, it cant be internally consistent when the gameworld is so small

Sounds good to me.

Hmm. So, do you mean that limitations in _depth_ caused by the mechanics make this impossible, or that the limited geography causes problems? This is an interesting comment- please elaborate!

Realism in a high fantasy video game is a contradiction.

Realism should be understood in the context of self-consistency. A fantasy world does not need to be consistent with the real world, but rather with itself, and its own rules. This is what I understand your posts boils down to, and I agree. Therefore realism in a fantasy game is not a contradiction. It is a rather unfortunate use of words, and sometimes an intentional misconception from people who fail to understand the setting and philosophy of said fantasy world.

The problem starts when 9 out of 10 threads on the forum are just requests that 1.do not fit the world of TES and 2. are just asking Bethesda to copy other companies. I, for one, have higher expectations.

According to Bethesda this isn't high fantasy and they are going for gritty realism.

Remember, this is Nirn, not Earth. As long as the consistencies with Morrowind and Oblivion are in Skyrim, then what's the problem? The world will continue to flow in the ways our world flows.

Exactly! At first, it all seems so simple. But even those seemingly all-good Gods have their grudges and misconceptions.

What iomind said. I guess what I hoped to achieve with this thread was to find some kind of agreement parameters for evaluating aspects of the game- but as you say, there is a lot of nonsense out there anyway- though I find these forums are a cut above most others, and I'm always surprised by how intelligent some of the comments are.

Excellent point.