I have quite often seen these words around here “That would be too realistic”.
Generally, unless it's in term of graphics, realism is (at least here) often very frowned upon. Now sure, I know TES is a fantasy series but that doesn't mean it has to avid realism at all costs.

But I think the main problem is how much weight the word holds and that it sometimes gets understood wrong. When talking about realism most of the time it does not mean 100% ultimately realistic, there can and should still be deviations from full realism for the sake of playability.

This is where the other word in the title pops in, Believability.
Elements in a game don't have to be realistic in order to be believable. In that it has to be said this is very context dependent but it's when that willing suspension of disbelieve is stretched too far that things become flawed.
In Tomb Raider for example you can accept that Lara can jump 4 meters with just a 2 meter sprint and hold on to ledges indefinitely, but it wouldn't be believable if she'd survive getting chomped by that T-Rex. We can accept that Mario grows twice as tall when eating a mushroom, it would be hard to take if the same happened in Mafia.


And here is the problem with TES. Being a fantasy series and having magic in it makes some things a bit more lose but that has a limit.
My often stated example there was the “mountain lion vs. me with bow and arrows” aka “killer pincushion”. I was standing on a rock and just plastered a mountain lion with arrows, over 50 hits, most of them right in the head or chest and that beast was A barely damaged at all and B still attacking me like nothing ever happened. All because I had not used a bow until I was level 9.
Then again had I trained with a bow from the very beginning on and got the most powerful I can find I could easily instant kill someone by a single hit in the leg.
2 things I personally call “toothpick tossing” and “wooden nuke” in respect of their effectiveness despite there not being such a big difference between the actual weapons and projectiles

This could very well be fixed, not by simply making bow and arrow more powerful, but by having a locational damage and injure effects system.
And no, it wouldn't have to be “realistic”. A hit could cause the affected limb to be less functional, it wouldn't have to leave permanent damage however. A hit in the chest could cause you to lose breath from hitting the lungs, but different than in real life this could heal within a “short” amount of time (a few days in game) and don't leave any permanent damages. This is far from being realistic but in terms of gameplay and setting it would be believable.
Hell even a direct hit in the head with an arrow would not have to mean instead death, if it hit too far off center or didn't have enough speed on impact it won't be a killshot and again in terms of gameplay such a hit could still be survivable with no or only minor permanent/long term damages.


And there are more things that could be added to this.
-How come a fireball clearly sets something on fire but leaves no burns and burn wound effects at all?
-Why is magic which is so powerful and readily available only used to kill each other but never for anything practical save for some very minor exceptions?
-Where do all the ingredients for bread come from if there's maybe a total of 200 stalks of wheat in the entire game world or apples when there are no apple trees?

Though some thoughts are more a design problem that could still be avoided with either just putting it into the game (fields of wheat, apple trees) or a bit of “effort” (fire actually leaving burn marks). But they all contribute to the believability of the game.


So that is basically what I wanted to say on this, I think a lot could go smoother if we didn't so much focus on what's realistic and what not but what is believable within the game world and in terms of gameplay.



EDIT:
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1116406-realism-and-believability/page__view__findpost__p__16396234
To define it a little further, Realism does not mean "like real life." Many, many times I've seen people react to the word Realism with something like "this isn't the Sims". Not only is that jumping to an extraordinarily ridiculous conclusion (with exactly the same amount of logic I could argue against fireball spells saying "this isn't Mario Brothers", or your character's ability to wear clothes saying "this isn't real life"), but the Sims is not a game I would apply the word Realism to in the first place.

As was said, a lot of it is believability. It's making things behave like they're supposed to. Is shooting a fireball realistic? Of course not. Is it Realism? Yes, because this world has magic. Further realism would be to allow the fireball to burn things, instead of just causing damage and vanishing. This is realism that simultaneously improves gameplay, giving you more options and strategy with fire.

I've seen a lot of people argue against realism as a whole, clearly not knowing what the word means. If you want to banish realism, I'll have to take away your sword's ability to cut things, for one. Whether a certain element of it is good or bad is something that has to be discussed by itself, since the position of "all realism is bad and gets in the way of gameplay" can only be defended if you literally want the "game" to be a mess of indecipherable chaos you have no control over.

I think what you are trying to say is that game makers should focus on designing their games so that suspension of disbelief is not disturbed, correct?

That too, yea. But also on the point of how some suggestions here are treated with "prejudice" because they are "too realistic".

To define it a little further, Realism does not mean "like real life." Many, many times I've seen people react to the word Realism with something like "this isn't the Sims". Not only is that jumping to an extraordinarily ridiculous conclusion (with exactly the same amount of logic I could argue against fireball spells saying "this isn't Mario Brothers", or your character's ability to wear clothes saying "this isn't real life"), but the Sims is not a game I would apply the word Realism to in the first place.

As was said, a lot of it is believability. It's making things behave like they're supposed to. Is shooting a fireball realistic? Of course not. Is it Realism? Yes, because this world has magic. Further realism would be to allow the fireball to burn things, instead of just causing damage and vanishing. This is realism that simultaneously improves gameplay, giving you more options and strategy with fire.

I've seen a lot of people argue against realism as a whole, clearly not knowing what the word means. If you want to banish realism, I'll have to take away your sword's ability to cut things, for one. Whether a certain element of it is good or bad is something that has to be discussed by itself, since the position of "all realism is bad and gets in the way of gameplay" can only be defended if you literally want the "game" to be a mess of indecipherable chaos you have no control over.

Very well said man, a great addition to the original topic.

Gameplay is far more important than either realism or believability in my eyes, and I think most people would agree.

For instance, in Morrowind it was unbelievable that shopkeepers and NPCs of every kind stand in the same spot around the clock, but in Oblivion all the characters led such rich and scripted lives that took them all over, it was often frustrating to track them down, and even more frustrating to find them to realise they're not offering the service you want at a given time. Added believability hurts the game in many ways.

The game also must be defined by it's genre, and what people expect from the genre. I play RPGs, the elder scrolls series in particular, because I love the ability to improve my character, and improve my skills by using them. It would be disappointing if I could kill a high level enemy using a skill I haven't trained in at all with ease. It doesn't matter whether it makes any sense at all.

A problem with introducing things like damage changing depending on where you hit something is the added difficulty factor. For someone good at getting headshots, the game must be balanced to still pose a challenge, but if it were then the people who aren't able to get as many headshots are at a disadvantage - and although that would make sense for a shooter or action game, I don't think it does for an RPG. I feel RPGs should be dependant on your character's skill, not your (the player's) skill. I feel the Elder Scrolls is one of the few Purer RPGs we've got out (in the big leagues at least) and I don't want t see it stripped of the things that make it that. I consider an RPG to be one of the more accessible genre of games to people who don't usually play games because they don't rely on twitch reflexes or good aim, it's more about building up a strong character and the choices they make with that character.


So, overall, I feel trying to be more realistic or believable hurts the gameplay a lot of the time. When the gameplay isn't the developer's primary concern, there's a problem. I'll suspend my disbelief indefinately if it means I'll have a more enjoyable experience.

I'm all for cool little realistic touches that they can add to the game, but if it doesn't aid gameplay in some way, it's a bit of a waste of time, and I'd prefer the develoeprs spend that time on more important matters. I feel it's not too plausable to have a game with totally fine-tuned gameplay and many realistic features like what you described and still have a fair developement cycle.


Shipped from Elsweyr

While I agree with you, All the definitions of realism on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realism jump back to How things are in real life. Enemy arrow pincushions are annoying, along with many examples of how unbelievable things in elder scrolls are.

Do I want things to be like real life? Not really. Do I want it to be believable? In some aspects.

Sometimes Realism/Believability conflict with creativeness. I want a TES that Looks like a Fantasy that puts a surrealistic twist on real life things, like Morrowind. But I would like the gameplay to have more realistic touches. Like dynamic relationships, no more enemy arrow pincushions, a hardcoe mode(that is sepparate from the combat difficulty), and a few other things.

A few years ago I stopped using the word realism altogether. I use the word plausible nowadays.

I disagree completely.

Realism is really unimportant as long as immersion is deeply controlled, which TES severely lacks in.

I've got to disagree in regards to realism in relation to an RPG series like TES, which is an attempt to show a living, breathing world. The more realistic (in relation to the game's lore) the better.


However, I CAN agree with this. If it doesn't aid the gameplay it should probably not be included (unless its just really cool or makes a lot of sense). However, here's the deal: most additions of realistic factors CAN and DO help gameplay. Rhekarid's example of fire spells now lighting things on fire is one. That could add a plethora of gameplay elements. What if ice spells froze the surface of water? That's realistic and obviously has many different uses from tripping an opponent to being able to cross a lake without falling in the water. Water conducts electricity, so wouldn't it make sense to for enemies to be shocked by it even if you didn't hit them? Hell, Bioshock already does most of these things, and they add a lot more depth to the gameplay.

Realism doesn't have to mean "No Fun Zone." There's a lot of extra gameplay elements added by realistic effects. Even being required to eat adds a whole other element to the game, as one must now prepare for future trips, forage for food when they have none, and deal with the consequences (which should not mean death, though. That is a case of being too realistic. Stat decreases work much better) if they don't have any food. It can create some really tense, and exciting, survival treks. When you finally escape from starvation, you can really feel like you accomplished something. I know all of this works because of realism mods for Fallout 3.

Uhm, sorry I really don't understand what you mean there, care to elaborate?



My point is TES is not a linear game where such things work, it's a open world sandbox setting. The "carefully planned out" regulations don't work well on that, take how much level scaling in an attempt to fix the "godlike player" problem flopped.
More "leaned towards realism" solutions have a effect of self-balancing if done correctly and not suddenly pose a fully arbitrary limit somewhere, their limiting factor is "believable".


Quoted (albeit shortened) for truth.
When someone suggest more "realism" they generally don't suggest it "just because", they actually mean to IMPROVE gameplay. Locational damage would not just be "i aimz for da head" (which should by FAR not be that easy) but for actually being able to fight tactically.

I think what he means is that as long as disbelief can be suspended, how the game looks and works is irrelevant because you won't notice it. If a game can successfully suspend your disbelief, then you are not interrupted by any of the incongruous things, clunky controls, or just plain annoying things. If a game cannot suspend your disbelief then you will notice all of the "non-realistic" things.

I think realism and immersion go hand in hand. Every time my disbelief cannot be suspended, my immersion is broken.

I wanted to add that the big prejudice against realism stems from this notion that gameplay is #1, as Jonas expressed.

I said a while ago, but couldn't find the post, that different people have played different games all their lives. If you're used to polished, balanced console games, you'll have an idea of what a video should be in your head. If you're used to jumping right into the gameplay, you'll be turned off by the idea of having to learn to use your bow before you can go out and pull off head-shots right away.

But, these games have always been about the experience of getting immersed in the life of your character. When balancing the game for the sake of raw gameplay gets so extreme that a short blade/ stealth/ speech craft guy can get jumped by a wolf and then slaughter it, you're no longer a prison escapee, surviving the hostile wilderness of the Imperial province, you're a character in a video game, just like in every other title that came out for the quarter.

So I have to completely disagree with the notion that, "if it doesn't aid gameplay, it's useless, and a waste of time." On the contrary, if the game only includes features that directly affect gameplay, like combat and stealth, then the game is hindered from truly providing that illusion of realism.

But it all comes down to what you expect when you pop the game in. Some fans expect one thing, others expect the opposite, so this is one of those fundamentals that is hard to come to a compromise on. I don't now how this hardcoe mode thing will work out, but I wish they would keep making action-RPGs, like they've been doing, but also come out with a real deep, unforgiving, hardcoe RPG now and then.

Yeah, a major factor of it is the genre. The average platformer doesn't need much realism as long as gravity pulls you back down from a jump; many often go the opposite direction, with weird physics like zero momentum and ability to move around in midair, for the sake of precision platform-jumping. In a sandbox game, though, one of the most vital factors is the world itself and your ability to interact with it, i.e., your "sand". Realism features can very frequently have a very beneficial impact on gameplay, because they directly effect how you impact the world and how it impacts you, which in a sandbox rpg IS the gameplay.

I've always found realism to be more important than gameplay. Not much more. Perhaps 40-60. Gameplay is only important, for the most part, during combat. Realism is important during combat AND everything else. Everything else, in the case of TES, is often more important than combat.

As said above, realism can get quite in the way, but I don't feel it's a problem with being "too realistic", more of a problem with realism being poorly implemented. I mean, the Destruction trainer in Anvil's Mage's guild didn't need to stop offering services randomly. It was nice to have NPC's live lives, but it often got in the way. Not too difficult to fix, imo.

This is a good point.
As mentioned in the "hardcoe" thread a good example is food. In most games that have necessary food consumption a icon pops out and you usually instantly start to lose health or stamina or whatever till you eat a bite, which is neither realistic NOR useful, you don't instantly start to get weaker when you feel hungry. You can usually go for a few hours after feeling hungry without negative effects.

THAT is a example of attempted realism done poorly, and hell even in many of the necessity mods this still pops up, which really just shows how spread this "wrong" idea of realism is.

I'm all for realism. I'd rather have the capital city be an inaccessible area in the game than have it like The Imperial City where it felt like a barren and uninhabited space with pretty buildings. Make it the center of an expansion pack, if it means having a believable game world that makes you feel like its worth defending/playing in. Then there's the whole "Why am I being tasked saving the world if there are hundreds of guards that are 10 levels above me" thing :glare:

With agitation and aggression for "I'M HUNGRY! GIVE ME FOOD!" coming first then the "So...hungry...can't...move..." phases.

In the wise words of an unknown person, "It's a freaking game!"

And there are lots of games, that do lots of different things in a lot of different ways.

Why make TES like every other game? Why isn't it allowed to be different? Revolutionary?

It is. Where are the other open-ended, first-person RPGs that seem to each take 4 years to make? I believe the series doesn't need to become vastly more "realistic" than it is already. I also find talking about believability in a game involving magic, fictional flora/fauna, fictional races of people(bipedal, talking lizards?), and mythology being made up of literal accounts to be funny.

You completely missed the point.

Believability is CONTEXT dependent as I said in the very beginning, in the Tomb Raider universe ghosts suddenly appearing is believable because the series was built on supernatural themes, but it would not be believable that you can survive a 50 feet head dive into a solid slab of stone. The same time if ghosts suddenly appear in GTA aside just as a joke this would NOT work as the series is NOT supernatural based.

Even in a world where magic exists you could still very well expect someone to be burned after, well, being BURNED or to be dead when his head is chopped off, unless that was explained in any way, like he's truly a demon and able to survive great head and his head was just a fake, this is not believable.

If you read the OP, and the following posts you'll see why realism in a fantasy world is as important as in any other setting. I believe your main problem is the misunderstanding about what realism means, that was explained above.

P.S.
mythology = true stories in real life just like in Tamriel. There is a huge difference between myths and folk tales that many people don't seem to understand at all, but if you want to argue that point, please PM me.

Well said, OP.

I agree. Realism within the rules of the game world is, in my opinion, very good for the general feel of the game.

As for the Gameplay vs. Realism discussion, I see no problem having a realistic, yet fun combat system.

Look at games such as the early Rainbow Six series for example. The SWAT games. Operation Flashpoint 1 and ArmA 1&2. Or my favorite mod, Project Reality. Those games are fun, yet they try to be realistic, and succeed to varying degrees. Realism does not have to hurt gameplay, but sadly, only few games tried to mix a fantasy setting with realism.

Take a look at good old pen & paper role playing games. There's more and less realistic ones, but most of them attempt to be somewhat believable. They have hit points and dice rolls, because those are abstractions. Because you cannot actually fight while sitting at the table.

When turning those P&P games into computer games, one should try to get rid of these abstractions, because they are not needed in a computer game anymore. A modern computer game, while of course limited in many areas, allows for entertaining combat with believable visualization. Why not take that opportunity and make a realistic, yet fun game? Why stick to health bars and hit points, when you could have a more realistic damage and skill system?

I already compared TES to this game once before in the few posts I made on this forum, and it's not because I'm a fan boy (Edit: spelling it as two words; stupid word filter turning fan boy into "really devoted fan" >.>), but I'd like to mention Mount & Blade again. A game that gets boring rather fast because of the lack and simple design of quests, but also a game with a very believable, yet skill-based combat system.

Its combat system, being easily fine-tunable as far as difficulty goes, gives the player the full control over what he does in combat. If the player performs a left-to-right movement with the mouse, his weapon will follow the same path. When he releases the mouse button, the character attacks with his weapon. Similar to the system in Daggerfall and Morrowind. The enemy then has to chose the correct block direction (on hard difficulty) or just press the block button (on easy difficulty) in time to block the strike. The one who got blocked will be stunned for a moment, giving his enemy the opportunity to start an attack, which then has to be blocked again. An unblocked attack will cause significant damage, and, mainly depending on weapon and armor, not so much on skill values, the damage is calculated. A huge two handed axe will mostly instantly kill an unarmored opponent, even if that opponent was a high-level fighter. His high level did change his attacking speed, blocking speed etc. instead. Fighting a masterful swordsman is a challenge, but shooting him in the back with a crossbow is easy, possible even without any skill points invested in crossbows, and will still kill him, unless he was wearing heavy armor.
And it works. At the beginning, the player character is untrained and poor. He'll only have a pitchfork and a wooden club, and some rocks to throw, and fights slowly. No chance against high-level enemies. Due to their better fighting skills, they'll block most of the attacks and strike back fast and accurate, and they wear heavy armor, protecting them from the laughable damage of the pitchfork and club. Would they be catched by surprise and unarmored, they'd still be dead after a couple of hits with the club.

A system like that would work very well for a TES game. Making heavy armor better and a good choice even if the player isn't skilled in wearing it (wth is that anyway? Skill in wearing armor?) isn't going to break the gameplay. Firstly, the player needs to BUY said armor. Make a full plate armor very expensive, and money harder to get, and this is not a problem. Some might argue "I want to play a fast, sneaky character and heavy armor won't fit him" - Sure, increase your dodge-skill, and dodge attacks instead! Which, of course, would be alot harder in heavy armor. And go, sneak up to enemies. With a realistic system, no matter how well trained a man is, a cut throat is a cut throat, and even a high level enemy would be dead after a critical attack from behind.
You'd have fighters wearing heavy armor and wielding huge weapons - they're slow, but take alot of damage without dying and deal alot of damage. Or you play the guy with lighter armor and a lighter weapon. Fast, a better fencer, better in a 1-on-1-fight, but screwed against an archer, unless he runs. Or you play the assassin, unarmored with only a dagger, but just as deadly.

All these things work in a realistic setting. They worked in real life, they work in P&P RPGs and they'll work in a realistic computer game.

The inventory is another thing. Collecting items is a nice touch, but ALL RPGs I know are going over the top.

Again, look at pen & paper. In a tabletop RPG, you are normally limited in what you can carry to a realistic amount. One weapon, maybe two or three. One set of armor. Maybe a couple of books and potions, but certainly not 100s. It works. It'd work in a computer game, too. Give players houses to store their stuff, make it less important to upgrade equipment all the time, give players a pack animal to carry the stuff. But most importantly, get rid of the idea of getting better equipment all the time. In a P&P RPG, my characters usually stick to the equipment they started with until very late into the game, when they upgrade a couple of times, but not all the time. And that's it. And it's no less fun.

It's always a good idea to look at a scene in a game like you'd look at a movie. Seeing that same scene in a movie, would you like the movie?
The enemy that takes 50 shots in the chest without dying - no, you'd not like that. A magical fireball? Sure, why not.

A game can be fantastic and yet believable. If it is set that the game plays in a world with gods and magic, then I accept that, as long as it remains logical. But why would anyone set a story in a world in which arrows don't kill things? Or only after 50 shots? Unless the archer is very skilled? Why not just decrease accuracy instead, and limit the amount of ammunition to a realistic one to avoid "overpowered archers"?

I admit, I am a player who wants a VERY believable game. Most players do not care about that much realism. And that's their right, of course. Maybe a difficulty setting in the next Elder Scrolls game that allows the player to chose between "arcade" and "realistic" setting would be a good idea to please most people. But that's just my two cents.