Saying you disagree does nothing to add to the argument. If you disagree you should state why so that we have two sides of a coin, one with his and one with yours, instead of just his side and then you saying i disagree. If you want to convice other people that what they are saying is wrong then you have to include explantation.


I've said that many many times

As for realistic bow shots and headshots and what not, I think they should change how the bow works. I think they should make all the damage it does do the same ammount of damage. Locational damage, so a headshot would be an instant kill, however they need to change the difference inbetween novice and master. I own a bow but im still a novice with it so to speak. I can aim directly at the target, or so i think, and miss, sometimes by a wide margin, sometimes by a narrower margin, but i rarely if ever hit what im aiming for. That is what i think the bow's progresssion should be like. At the beginning you would be a terrible aimer, but as you practice and get better you can more often hit what your aiming at. That might make bow's more realistic while not overpowering them too much. As a master marksman i expect to be able to kill an enemy with one or two well placed shots. Different creatures may take more, like the clanfear, he has that bony protusion so it might take a few to get through that. So anyway, for me realistic yet good marksmanship would be affecting the aim not the damage as you get better.

as usual an entertaining and insightful post.

and I could not agree more, people in ES shot ice out of their hands, but why this ice never "freezes" stuff is just unbelievable.
:shrug:

hell yes and make magic DEADLY (but not OP) maybe a new magic tree with the more powerful spells only usable in high levels of skill.

I'm gonna jump in on this too, about location damage and player skill over character skill, and again it comes down to mechanics. A few times suggestions have popped up that at low level to high level the swings are not always accurate. Not as in MW chance to miss accurate necessarily but as in not every swing/shot/(possibly) cast shoots dead center of your screen.

[] well that point has been throughly covered.

Pretty much what I had in mind on that subject. As a beginner with a bow you simply have lousy aim and you won't be able to fire a bow as fast and as often as a more trained archer who has more experience in how the bow and arrow behave, their ballistic behaviors, who can grab and load the next arrow faster and knows how to use his strength better thus not getting worn out as fast.
A big difference I'd make with bows is their poundage, instead of one bow being stronger by numbers they have a maximum poundage. This would be heavily dependent on your strength, a regular hunting bow would have, lets say, up to 40 pounds of strength, a longbow maybe 50 - 60 and a war bow up to 120 pound. A 60 pound bow is already very hard to bend so if you're weak you couldn't draw it back all the way which makes your shot more imprecise. Now imagine having a Daedric bow which we could assume could even have more than 120, lets go as far and say 250 pounds. You'd cut your fingers off on that string before you even get to bend it a little.

As an archer, and a bowhunter, using archery and in-game archery as a yardstick for Realism and Believability discussions might not be the best model, especially via today's standards. Hunting bows are large weight, with recurves pulling 150 to 175 lbs unaided by let-offs, like compound bows which can "let off" up to 50% to 60% of that weight on the draw. What you pull back is what is released with a recurve(Morrowind/Oblivion style bows). I can pull back my hunting bow of 175 easily for a 6'1" 265 lb male. Others, maybe not, but in a Morrowind or Oblivion sense where you can permanently augment your strength, abilities, skills, and so forth, I am willing to believe even the lithe can do it, like Bosmeri males and females known for their archery.

As for skills and kills, after seeing the man who even has bows named after him, Byron Ferguson shoot aspirin thrown into the air on an unclouded day (which makes it dang near impossible to see), I am willing to believe a little TES shots for awesomeness. With regards to kills, yes the "pin cushing" thing may be annoying, but again, based on some real world experiences, taking things down with a bow is almost a science as much as it is a skill. There have been deer harvested with a heart shot, which were dressed in the field(dressed meaning 'cut up') only to find it was living with a broadheaded arrow perfectly aligned with its spine along the back vertebrae, which had been there for at least three years given the rust and decomposition. There have been some hunters who put no less than four arrows in a wild boar and it still came and treed the hunter. That said, the impressive William Shatner in the very long ago on the American Sportsman took down a Kodiak bear over 1/2 ton, with a single arrow shot from a hunting recurve, in a perfectly placed 'between the shoulder' shot at nearly 100 yards downwind of it. So while it can be annoying that they keep coming, if you are proficient, the term used by bowhunting, you can bring down the beast with one.
Like anything, it takes time and skill. Since in Morrowind it is rare to see the arrows stay in the adversaries, it is easy to just assume a "miss". Oblivion on the other hand, they stay a while, so maybe you have to mentally make up your own reasons why they're not down when you shoot them. Still, killing an enchanted skeleton with a single arrow to a pile of bones is far from feasible, but in the realm of fantasy and fun, Dang! that's a great feeling.

With regard to realism, I was immediately happy and blown away with TES realism when I first noted the almost imperceptible motion of the NPC's breathing, when at rest. That was and still is a great immersive detail that aids absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of gaming perse, other than a nice, realistic aesthetic appeal. Now, years later when the modding community gave us both running, eating, loving, playing, and sleeping NPC's, it still amazes me to see let's say one of Emma's or Westly/Stomper's characters yawn, stretch, and lie down and simply breathe in and out. That kind of realism really for some of us, makes you truly forget about the bits, bytes, and code.

Like the issue of victuals in Oblivion. I used to use apples as visual markers in Morrowind to let me know when I had already hit a tomb, shrine, or cave. But in Oblivion, I set down an apple, and a guy shadowing me picked it up, bit it, and walked away. Does that help gaming in the least? Any of the skills, play, adventure, or whatnot? Not at all, but for that feeling of "real", that is mighty impressive.

Sorry for the double post but wanted to reply this too

Yes that is exactly what I had in mind. As a noobie you have no precise aim, especially when attempting a attack with lots of power put into it or that's very fast. you should not always hit exactly dead center but actually have a aiming circle so to say, your hit, short range and long range, can go anywhere within that circle. As you get more skilled you narrow that circle down more meaning you can hit much more precise.
This means as a noobie you may have a lucky shot sometimes, you swing your sword and hit someone square across the throat despite not even aiming there.

This would prevent the "I just aim for the head" thing, at least until you're more trained, additionally the head IS a small target and people move, especially WHEN they are in combat. Plus a hit in the head should also realistically not ALWAYS be lethal... yes a hit in the head is not automatic instant death. The "kill zone" for a direct hit with a arrow is actually VERY tiny, ball your fist and hold it to your forehead, that's the area size your brain has. Anything that's not dead center in there is not a kill shot.
Now it wouldn't have to actually be a physical zone, it can be a simulated one in the upper head. But it would still require enough force to penetrate far enough, it can easily happen that a hit does not have enough force to penetrate the skull or, let alone if they wear head protection. So no, not every injure to the head is lethal, otherwise getting your ears pierced would be a serious health risk, aside from a serious fashion risk.

You have clearly never played a good game of Diplomacy.

Realism isn't "necessary" for a good game. Tetris and Chess are fine examples of that; nearly totally abstracted, not even remotely mistakable for reality. On the other hand, realism can be a great "tool" in making a game enjoyable, as long as it doesn't interfere with the game, and it certainly can enhance the game.

In the TES series, "realism" is one of those things that's handled in a rather haphazard fashion. One aspect or another is either very realistic or not at all, and not the same in each game of the series, with no apparent rhyme of reason to it. I don't think that the developers actively set a "realism" standard, more like came up with seperate ideas and blended them together in whatever manner worked, which is what we got.

As for "realism" in the next game, I already use a variety of "realism" mods for MW, such as Necessities of Morrorwind, either GCD or MADD Leveler, Morrowind Crafting, and several others which make the world more "plausible" in my opinion. I used several similar types of mods in OB, but they somehow never really fixed the underlying problems that made the game world hard to stay immersed in, merely added a bit of insulation from them.

1. It's realistic to miss with a bow if you svck at archery. It's unrealistic to hit a coin from 30 meters with no practise, AND it's unrealistic for animals not to die after >50 of those lucky shots. Solution is in Mount&Blade: arrows do damage depending on the bow and arrowhead, but those who can't use bows don't hit. Same is in TES2 and 3, a calculated 'chance to hit'. M&B does it better, with no arrows that fly through the enemies when they miss.

2. I've never seen a game that was too realistic for me. I've died on starvation or dehydration in some games, and I'm not going around yelling how those games svck and gameplay suffers form the realism. I LOVE having challenge, and that comes in many forms. Finding food, for example. The most challenge in TES series so far is surviving all that fighting. Even the surviving is boring compared to some games. Sleeping off injuries, and in TES4, waiting for an hour. I'd rather use more complicated Restoration spells (stop bleeding, regenerate tissue, heal infections, mend bones, cure plague/stomach rot/witches pox) or plain old bandages, splints, and herbs if I was not a spellcaster or a healer.

3. TES series has gone in the wrong diresction. I like the feeling of another world, which TES2 gives, TES3 in lesser extent, and TES4 hardly at all anymore. If it's realistic, it's plausible, it's believable, it's immersive, it's good gameplay.

I just looted the royal treasury of Castle Daggerfall in TES2.

There was a puzzle to unlock the treasure, and I did it wrong, so I ended up sealing myself underground for all eternity.

There's realism and challenge. Because it's the only security system I've ever encountered in an Elder Scrolls game that actually caught me and now I know better than to just pull on chains all willy nilly.

Yea, the shooting itself doesn't have to be on a random "you hit or don't" roll, as mentioned before you should have a aiming ring instead of a crosshair and your arrow could go anywhere within that ring. As a newbie it would be quite large, especially when trying to shoot while moving, and you could lose your grip on the arrow as well. In fact they did that in the latest Turok game, while there you are a skilled archer you can't hold the bow indefinitely, you start to shake and eventually lose grip on the arrow. So as a newbie you couldn't hold it very long.


The injure system would not have to be 100% realistic but just enough to give you more options again. Like a injure heals faster than in real life but is still inhibiting until it fully healed. There could be injures that cause permanent damage or at least damage that requires a long restoration process, like getting your arm almost completely chopped off or a bone crushed leaving you with skill and attribute damages in the affected area.
Personally I'd like to see magical healing not as "poof, wound is gone" but magic more holding the wounds together like a "glue". Pretty much when healing a wound magically it's still there but it's magically patched making the affected area usable again. But it doesn't really accelerate the actual healing process, this has to be done by actual wound treatment like stitching up wounds, bandaging them, applying splints to bones and herbs to disinfect.

Disease too shouldn't just be "poof - there, poof- healed" but actually slowly creep up, get worse and then actually stick around a while. With poisons my thought was their effect can come faster and get worse over time, when they are healed the damage already done doesn't just go away, it needs a recovery time. So treating a poisoning fast is better because it means a shorter recovery time afterwards. A longer poisoning however can build up immunities so it's a double sided coin, heal it or survive it.


Good call, it's not about a world being 100% realistic in every aspect but at least realistic within it's own context.




Yea, it really depends on context. Nobody would expect a Super Mario game to be anywhere realistic, you can jump 3 meters high, grow twice your size by eating a mushroom and stomp turtles out of their shells. But for games that actually aim for a certain realism it is something that can greatly enhance it.


TES has felt by far more realistic than many other fantasy games, mainly because they really gave you control over your character rather than just making it a remote controlled robot. But there is really way more space to go, while yes RPGs are about building up your character I feel TES is more about actually giving you control over him. More "realism" would add to that as you could actually feel like playing in something that's a actual world and not just a set up board game with arbitrary restrictions.

I'm just looking for verismiliatude, or however you spell it. It's something the ES series severly lacks, except in in-game books.

I think that when talking about fantasy worlds, it's often a good idea to use the term "believability" rather than "realism", as this avoids the misunderstanding that leads people to say things like "This is a world with magic and cat people, it's not supposed to be realistic." and such. I think the problem here is that when you just say you want more "realism" without going into more detail, people might think that you want it to be like real life. In other words, it gives the impression that you want the fantastical elements removed from the world, which is probably not an accurate assumption, as when people criticize a work for a lack of realism and actually mean it in that sense, it's probably usually because an unrealistic element was added into the work that people felt was out of place, say... supernatural elements suddenly showing up in a series that had previously adhered to reality. After all, people who aren't interested in fantasy to begin with wouldn't be watching/reading/playing it in the first place. Still, to avoid misunderstandings, it's probably best to avoid using such a term that people can be sensitive to in a fantasy or science-fiction based community. So now that we have that aside, suspension of disbelief is often an important thing in fiction, because enjoying a work of fiction often requires accepting unrealistic things, this isn't just true for science-fiction and fantasy, but I'd say it's most important in those genres as by their very nature, they are somewhat distanced from reality, how far, of course, depends upon the nature of the setting. And in such settings, I think what they need most is not necessarily realism, but logic and consistency. Neither of which necessarily mean realism, after all, in the Elder Scrolls, people can use magic to do things like heal themselves or others, unlock doors, or kill people. That's not realistic, people can't do that in real life, but it still makes sense, as magic is an established aspect of the setting, and it makes sense that if people can use magic, they can use it to do certain things, this ultimately goes back to suspension of disbelief, as if you tell me that your setting has magic, I can accept that, and that it can do certain things. Consistency comes in when a story obeys its own rules and doesn't go changing things without reason. In Star Trek for example, I can buy that since the Enterprise has warp engines, it can travel to other star systems in a reasonable amount of time, I can also buy that the crew can quickly beam down onto planets or back up to the ship using transporters. This is because it's an established aspect of the setting that this kind of technology exists in it, now I'd start to find things less plausible if I saw an episode where established limitations on the technology in the setting were ignored. Fiction doesn't always need to follow the rules of real life, but it should at least follow the rules it establishes for itself. Indeed, sometimes, bringing realism into a setting can come at the expense of consistency, if the writers decided to remove or change some unrealistic aspect with the intention of making the setting more "realistic", which ironically often makes it less believable. I also expect my fiction to follow logical story progression and for characters to have reasons for doing the things they do. Now these reasons don't always need to be stated outright, if a character goes to eat, I'll generally assume it's because the character is hungry, even if I'm not told that. But if it's not obvious why characters are doing something, I usually expect an explanation, unless it's the entire point that their motives are mysterious, at leaat for the time being. Being able to suspend your disbelief in fiction is always important, it's just that adhering to the rules and laws of real life is not always the way to accomplish this. And just how realistic a story should be depends on its nature, genre, and the nature of its setting.

Now when talking about realism or believability in games, one must consider the question from areas not present when discussing the subject in non-interactive mediums, as games also include gameplay, and tycally gameplay needs to be entertaining for the game to be worth playing, and thus they sometimes must make departures from real life not just for the sake of creating the desired setting and story, but also for the sake of fun gameplay. And whereas bringing certain aspects of realism into a story might help to improve it not just by making it more believable, but by also giving the characters concerns that audiences can easily relate to or by adding a greater sense of drama, but if they were made into gameplay mechanics, they just be boring or become annoying. Let's take needing to eat, for example. This often comes up even in fantasy and science-fiction novels, which is believable, as one usually assumes that people, even if they're living in space, on another planet, or in a world of magic and unicorns, and indeed, even if they are not actually human, will still need food to survive. It also has its narrative uses, as the need to eat can lead to a number of situations, for example, it could be a source of drama if the characters need food and there is none readily available, therefore they need to find some, or one could use the fact that the characters don't even have enough to eat to emphasize how desperate their situation is. Or one could use it as a way to introduce other plot events, such as having the characters go into town to find food and encounter some situation of interest while doing so. The time characters spend eating could also be used for character interactions. In the end, while a work of fiction may contain many unrealistic elements, that does not mean it cannot also have a bit of realism in it too. Now in video games, on the other hand, one must take into account gameplay as well, and what makes for a good story does not always make for good gameplay, I'll go to the eating example again. Now, obviously there are some who seem to like the idea of needing to eat in games, but myself, I don't want it. I don't find needing to find food in games fun, it's just an extra annoyance that doesn't actually add much to gameplay to me. Besides, if the game is like the Elder Scrolls where food items exist and can be eaten, if I want that sort of thing, I can still choose to eat, which I've actually been doing as part of my role--playing with my latest Morrowind character, this way, I still get the extra role-playing depth added by eating, but since it's something I chose to do myself and wasn't forced on me by the game, it doesn't feel like a chore. I also don't have to worry about my stats suffering if I miss a meal. It could also be argued that a realistic setting doesn't always mean realistic gameplay, and the reverse of this is also true. I've seen games take place in a reletively realistic setting, at least to the point where it has no supernatural or science-fiction elements, but still be quite unrealistic in terms of gameplay mechanics, I could also argue that some science-fiction or fantasy based games still have fairly realistic gameplay. While they might involve magic or futuristic technology, in the real life aspects they contain, things are still handled pretty realistically.

In the end, I only object to realism in any medium, video game or otherwise, if I feel it is detrimental to the enjoyability of the work in question. And if I object to an attempt to bring realism into the game, it's not because it's realistic, in and of itself, but because I feel that it would make the game less enjoyable to play, that's all.



I'd say that the idea of having a security system that requires solving a puzzle is unrealistic to begin with, especially if failing to solve it triggers a trap that's either lethal or seals you in an unbreachable prison. After all, what happens if the owner gets it wrong? Keys exist for a reason, you know.

And I'd say that putting the player in an unwinnable situation isn't so much challenge as the game being a jerk, if it's going to do that, it should just go ahead and kill you outright, or pull a non-standard game over, not try to pretend that there's still hope of getting out, potentially leading to players saving in an inescapable situation.



It is allowed to be both different and revolutionary, it's just that a game that isn't fun is still not fun, even if it is different or "revolutionary", so sacrificing entertainment value for the sake of gameplay is still a bad idea.

Besides, there are other games that try to be realistic, and some of these, I'd argue, by their nature, are more suited to that than the Elder Scrolls is.

Very minor things: Gold having weight and the player sinking in water. Both were cut from TES3, which was a terrible choice imo. Some might argue that those two things only annoy and have nothing to do with good gameplay OR enjoyment. I love those features, and can't stand TES3 and 4 NOT having them. Handling cash, letter of credits and bank accounts makes the game feel more real, and I get certain satisfaction when returning from a looting trip and getting rid of all that heavy gold, only to see my account creeping towards another 100K.
Water and flooded dungeon parts are kinda scary in TES2, unlike in later games. You swim slowly, the dungeon is NOT designed in a manner that leaves you breathing spaces every now and then, and everything you carry weights you down. I'm not a spellcaster, so I've trained my Swimming skill way up in the Fighters Guild, and still I usually have to turn back before I've reached the end/other side of the flooded parts. Potions of water breathing are rare, as all potions are in that near perfect game. Trap doors that drop you into watery pits are dangerous if you're fully armored and carrying tons of junk. Your only choice is to remove stuff, and then dive it back up in smaller dozes. Now that's realism, and that's good gameplay IMO. I've only done it once, since after that I've been looking where the hell I am stepping. So it's not even a huge PITA, it's a one-time learning experience. Another hint the game gives you of it's awesomeness.

I think a turnoff point for many is that, well, to be honest rules in most fantasy games are there to be avoided. You're not strong enough to use a weapon, get strong enough and that restriction is gone. Can't get through a burning hallway, find a potion that makes you fireproof. Get killed in one hit, level up your health and be able to take more.

The thing is more realism oriented systems would mean there are now rules you CAN'T simply avoid or disable. You just won't be strong enough to wield a 500 pound hammer, fire does burn you unless you can find appropriate protections and no matter how leveled you are a hit that is aimed right can kill you.

Simply said it replaces the arbitrary boundaries with more realistic ones but you can't just find a loophole to get around them as you could with the previous ones. But you also have to remember, it would not just apply to you, others in the world would still have to obey to those rules as well, you won't find a human who can just wield a 500 pound hammer because that's just impossible unless aided in some way.
What can be done however, while the rules could not fully be avoided you can narrow yourself towards them, you can get stronger, you can take a bit more abuse and you can try to protect yourself against certain things.

However the whole point would be that the challenge is never really gone, it will still be there. That pit full of snakes won't suddenly be a walk in the park just because you gained 50 levels and can kill them in one hit, some will bite you and unless you on purpose built up immunities the poison will just be as dangerous as it was before. That guard dog you had to run away from at level 5 can still rip your throat out at level 100, the difference is by now you have the skills and attributes to get the dog before it can kill you can you can avoid getting killed.

And it also takes away one serious leveling problem that level scaling had. Enemies kept getting more and more powerful to match your level which A didn't work well because they often leveled too much and B many "companions" didn't level enough and while they could protect themselves somewhat before they're now canon fodder.
With more realism based systems like localized damage and taking away the strict level scaling they will remain just as capable to survive something since the enemies remain the same but still pose a challenge, the only difference is not that you're suddenly more "powerful" but more trained.

All I can say is that I disagree entirely, I've always found the idea of gold weight, and really, any sort of limitation to how much gold you can carry with you an annoyance in games, especially in games like the Elder Scrolls where the amount you can carry of any item is limited by a generic inventory weight. Really, in Morrowind and Oblivion, I have enough trouble carrying both my equipment and loot as it is without needing to take into account gold weight too. If gold had weight, a mod to reduce its weight to zero would probably be one of the first mods I would look for. As for sinking in water, meh, zsince the focus of gameplay will likely not be on water anyway, it would seem like making water more of a hindrance would just be more trouble than its worth, and if such a thing were added, the swimming skill would probably also need to return, and since the trend the series has taken so far seems to have having less skills with each game, I can't see that happening, if Bethesda DOES decide to increase the available skills from what we had in Oblivion, I'd imagine they'd start by returning the skills that were removed from Morrowind and giving blunt weapons and axes and short blades and long blades separate skills again rather than bringing back skills from Daggerfall. Though I will say this about the idea, it would probably make water breathing spells or the Argonian water breathing ability more useful, since you'd be more likely to find yourself in situations where you're under water and can't reach a breathing space before your breath meter runs out.



And you've just summed up why I consider RPGs a bad genre choice if you want to make a game that focuses on realism, because doing things the way you described would ultimately reduce the importance of character stats. After all, what's the point in increasing your health if you can still be killed in one hit? And if this applies to enemies to, it just makes it worse as all you would need is a lucky hit to easily bring down high level enemies at level one. In an RPG, I don't WANT my level one character to be able to kill the final boss if I hit him in the head, and I don't WANT my level 30 character to die from getting bitten in the neck by a rat. I want to overcome challenges that are too difficult for me by improving my skills, thus allowing me to do things I could not do before, and once I've done so, you can bet that I won't want the character I spend so many hours raising to a high level to be killed in one hit by a level one bandit. Now you don't get these problems in other genres as character skills are taken out of the equation, while you may be able to get new things as you progress through the game like better weapons and such, you don't usually need to worry about developing a powerful character. Thus, you don't need to worry about trying to force players to practice their skills or rewarding them for doing so, you don't need to take into account character skill, what matters is instead the players' skills at the game.

I think it's more that folks are disinclined to accept realism as a compelling reason to include features that don't appeal to them. Speaking personally, I don't want to be jarred by the lack of believable motivations. On the other hand I don't want to devote a "realistic" amount of my in-game time to uninteresting chores, and I prefer a symbolic amount of blood to full-on battlefield gore. Telling me that it would be more realistic to do things in ways that I would enjoy less is futile because it doesn't address the basis of our disagreement--that you want a feature which I would find tedious or unpleasant. I don't think it's that folks are opposed to realism. It's just that in games there are things we value much more. If you want to sell me on your idea, you need to present arguments relevant to my objections. That is, you need to stop arguing that your approach would be more realistic and persuade me that doing it your way wouldn't be as boring or distasteful as I think it would.

Thank you. I've been trying in vain to find some way to word my thoughts on the topic, and you've done it for me. :foodndrink:

I will add, however, that I think "realistic" features should be included in, in Lady Evenstar's words, a symbolic form. I don't want to die because I don't eat, but I'd be fine with having decreased maximum fatigue or fatigue regeneration, or decreased maximum health (to a pretty low extent, however). I don't want to have to sleep or risk collapsing in the middle of battle, but I'd be fine if my stats decreased to some extent until I do. Its effect on the game should be noticeable, but not dramatic. My opinion of realistic features is that if it's included, it adds an additional layer of depth and complexity for those who want it, but it should be possible to play the game without being forced to take part in them.

However, as a big fan of Bioshock I love the idea of AoE damage when you shoot a lightning spell at water, or freezing opponents. It's kind of disappointing in the Elder Scrolls games how different destruction spell types are basically identical in terms of effect, with the only differences being graphical and minute differences in damage.

For me, at least, it's not about selling ideas to the fans, but selling to Bethesda the notion that there are some fundamental splits in what their fans are looking for, and branching out to produce more than one genre might be a good thing.

As I said earlier, there are the people who group every piece of software you can play on the PC or console under the universal umbrella of "video games." And expect one specific type of experience.



Then, on the other end of the spectrum, there are those fans who pop in an Elder Scrolls RPG and expect literally the opposite of what is traditionally expected from "video games."

I think Bethesda's staff is big enough, now, that they can develop some real gritty and intimate stuff alongside their action-RPGs after action-RPGs.

P.S. I'm not even talking so much specifics like food necessities, here. I'm saying, generally, there are those who judge a game by the raw gameplay and there are those who judge each genre by separate criteria, and when I'm looking at sandbox RPGs, I'm most interested in immersion. And, as I said above, I believe that realism begets immersion. The more realistic, the better.

And this is the point at which we disagree. I'd argue that not realism, but illusion, begets immersion. Reality is having a couple hours in the evening to adventure. A full laundry basket. Needing to get to bed in time to get up for work the next morning. I would not like to see more of these things in-game.

The thing is I can spend those 2 hours after work just preparing for the adventure and then actually embarking on that adventure the next day. I understand that some people want to pop in a game after work and get right to the action. There are countless games out right now that do exactly that.

But other people want to get svcked into slower-paced, engaging experience that can eat up a weekend or two.

And that little point was part of a larger point that there's a fundamental split in the fan-base that begs for the development of more than one genre of game. You can passive aggressively imply that people who like deeper games have no life. But, I don't understand why you would be so offended if Bethesda came out with one or two games not directly aimed at your demographic.

Especially since they're going to keep making action RPGs regardless.

EDIT: I think my wording was misleading. It's not that a faster-paced game is less engaging. It's that different people find different things engaging.

For example:
A lot of people love Morrowind for the dungeon crawling.

I make a character with pretty much all non-combat skills and consciously avoid trouble. I can spend many hours micromanaging, collecting ingredients, making spells, making potions, decorating my home, collecting candles for my home, inching through manors and the extremities of dungeons with my finger on sneak, admiring all the guards to death so I can be persuasive.

A lot of people find that stuff to be tedious and monotonous. I, however, find it fun, and find hacking away at monster after monster in dungeon after dungeon boring and monotonous. This is because different people enjoy different things.

A week-end or two? My demographic? I think you're making a lot of assumptions. My "demographic" is female gamers over 60 who've been playing CRPGs for close to 20 years (including old-school titles where there was real risk of dying from starvation in the depths of a larger or tougher than anticipated dungeon). In my opinion, a title I could be done with in a week-end or two is hardly worth playing. In no way am I a spokesperson for action gaming. Nor am I passively-aggressively accusing anyone of being a no lifer.

What I am is a person who disagrees with your views on realism in games.

First of all, that's my point. We want fundamentally different things from our games. If that's your demographic, then I certainly want something different from an RPG than what female gamers over 60 who've been playing CRPGs for close to 20 years want from an RPG. Is there anything wrong with that?

Unfortunately, since you claim that you only have a limited amount of time to play your games, but also want games that take a long time to complete, I'm having trouble understanding what you do expect from a game.

If you meant literally that you don't want your character to have laundry to wash and to have to get to bed early for work, I apologize for taking it personally.

But, if you're an adventurer, then your job is adventuring. So, no worries there.

But, if I join a temple or something, I think it would be cool if there were schedules and responsibilities that restricted me from embarking on any extended journeys out of town without getting permission from my superiors. I also think it would be cool if, when I'm guild-master in a particular city, the state of the guildhall and the work ethic of my guild members deteriorate in my absence.

I know this type of thing can create a lot of down time, if you're constrained to one city. But, that's why Daggerfall had a loiter button. So I can pretend my character sat on his ass in front of the fireplace for 6 hours. Maybe this is what you were talking about with "illusion?"

Also, it would be cool if your clothes get dirty and need to be washed. Not sure if I'd like it to affect anything other than aethstetics, though. But, I could be sold on it.

To the original poster I say, I agree with everything.
Games imo are the ultimate art form so much work goes into creating a specific style and look for your world. It can be realistic without being over the top, or believable without being to realistic. Hyper realism would be Call of Duty, were as Believable Realism would be Medal of Honor for a comparison.