I see... Thanks !!! :thumbsup:

But anyway almost everything I read so far in this thread i read before in this "older" threads so i was trying to help OP... and Realism & Immersion in Skyrim is by far the most debated issue in this forum.

The OP has read the other threads and participated in some but thought a fresh look at the topic would be a good idea that would promote some new ideas and opinions. And so far, it has.

Realism...
The Great Divide.

The only absolute rulte is that there are no absolute rules. Can anyone point to a concession to Realism in past ES games that looked inappropriate?

Yup,
I didn't think so.

I'm pretty confident Bethesda will do a proficient job regarding this domain.

Bull's eye, say I.

Again your wrong:
TES IS a fantasy world, but from day one, magica apart, and in ANY other fantasy game but awfully bad JRPG (all of them, can t for the damn of it play them), you are in LSD and cocaine filled mind full of i win buttons.

Since there s a HUMAN race, and there s HEARTHLY fisics, the rest should apply as long as it viable.

Your just trying to justify your unwillingness to have a plausible world.
Fantasy not mean impossible, unlausible world.
Fantasy is the definition of a portian of reality that isn t like our real world.
It has nothing to do with anything unexplained stuff it or leave it.
Bethesda trought all its TES implementation has meant a plausible world (not including failure to implement it right) and that is its strenght.

What you calling for is a simplistic gameplay while most people want a plausible gameplay containing advanced features.

In the end of the day this discussion is Beth fault. As many games allow the player to tailor part of the games as they see fit on SP and MP
This could include eating sleeping etc...
And bethesda is lagging behind, even thought if its their strategy to let most of it to the modders.

The right approach would be checkers like:
Activate limited stamina on:
Walking
Running
Sprinting
Battling

Activate sleep deprivation :
Activate eat drink deprivation:
Show compass:
Show quest place indicator:
Show health bar on hud
...
...

All those are very simple to do and implement on their basic lvl which is what all players want. (to be able to choose) and leaving more complex iterations for modders for example.

Applause, applause

How very odd.

Realism is needed to make a game's world believeable.
The good use of realism is when you make things feel like real in order to immerse the player,so you can feel like you are in the position the playable character.
Realism is needed so when you are playing a game and you battle against an enemy you think "this ***hole is trying to kill me,I have to beat him to survive" and no "oh,the developers placed another one in this part of the game".

But this is another thing from making a game where you can do only things you can do in real life.
Perhaps making things you can do in real life aren't that fun for some,but even then,even if you can theoritically lets say become a member of a secret assassins company and kill people,the case is if you are a normal person you won't do such a thing in real life. :spotted owl:
But you can test yourself doing it on a game,and have fun by watching all the reactions that would take place while being safe sitting on your chair or sofa.

Your post remembered me of a classic game,Duke Nukem 3d.
Despite that this game is mostly known for naked women and Duke's one-liners the game itself was a phenomenon,the most realistic shooter in a kind of way when it came out,and this is because of the level of interactivity.
For the first time in a shooter you would shoot a wall and see bullet marks.
You could explode trash bins with bombs,watch yourself at a in-game mirror,use the toilet to pee,switch on and off the lights of a room.
It was very fun and people liked it because all this realism interactivity provided was making it feeling more like you actually ARE Duke.
And all these interactive objects acted as mini-games themselves.
People would load the game just to do some bullet-graffity.

So is Walking and Talking. Does that mean that it should not be in-games as I do this in real life. Try and build a better argument for you being against it. Yours is just like me saying I dont like walking and its drudgery to me so just set the PC to run only.

I think that there is a lot of posts on here purely for someone to fill an hour or so typing away, with some great arguments at first glance for and against, but really lets be honest.

Against - You dont want the hassle of entering your inventory to feed your character every 10 mins - which is fair enough

For - You want to have an added challenge for you character, planning for thoses trips out to dungeons to ensure you have enough food for the duration - which again is fair enough

Both of these can be sorted with a hardcoe mode similar to FO:NV or by roleplaying the requirements for eating food. Whichever bethesda goes with will have no bearing on my enjoyment of the game one little bit.

I disagree. Of course it's not *fun*, but it's a result of mismanagement. You didn't pack enough food, then you take the penalty. How much food do you want to pack? Weight management. I want consequences for my actions. In FONV you get a stat penalty for various deprivations. So what? Doesn't make you a wimp So the early onset is fully manageable.

I'm quite "into" realism, and the simulation aspect of games. Food, drink, and sleep is a really simple game mechanics to add. I'm walking around in a world filled with AI that does these things, but somehow I don't have to? Food and beds exists, but there is no need to use them? Doesn't sound too well thought out if you ask me.

So in the end, what I want is added game mechanics, not necessarily full realism.

I don't think anyone is advocating that. No topic i've read has. I certainly do not advocate that. People who seem to be claiming for more realism want *MORE* built into the game, not less.

Yeah.
And I defend that by trying to explain why realism is good and why we want it.

I suspect that half the problem that most opponents of "realism" have is based on how badly implemented it was in other games. In most games, hunger/thirst/sleep are based on a timer. You eat, and it resets your hunger timer to 0, When it reaches a particular value, the "hunger alarm" goes off, and you're suddenly living on borrowed time before your character drops over dead or at least suffers severe consequences. In a "realistic" setting, you'd probably know hours in advance that you're hungry, long before it has the slightest effect on your stamina and strength. At most, you'd be slightly distracted by thoughts of food for a while. None of this is "relevent" over the coures of a typical dungeon dive, and any attempt to model hunger or other needs realistically should have steadily increasing warnings LONG before any noticable effects occur, and the first of those might only be a marginal decrease in the rates of recovery of fatigue, health, etc. "Regular meals" were not an option for a lot of the world's population (and still aren't, in a few places), and there's no reason your character should require it.

I support an optional "realism" mode, and would probably use it for MOST of my characters. At the very least, I'll end up with a mod for it. Having it either mandatory or non-existent would each upset a portion of the diverse fanbase.

Very very well put.

That's why a good compromise would be to make eating a plot element (in taverns and around camp fires), and perhaps something that gives a temporary bonus (say, a day in length), rather than a requirement.

Just like in Oblivion, you can CHOOSE to fast travel, or you can CHOOSE to ride your horse. The difference here is that there is a bonus to eating, which translates (for those who decide to go the realism route) to a COST for not eating. Non-realism people can play the game without ever eating and with no ill affect, yet realism people can eat and gain the bonus, and then lose that bonus by not eating = penalty. This is almost exactly like they did some shrines that you could pray to. You don't HAVE to, but doing so give a bonus. Perhaps food can give an endurance bonus or something.


Or, of course, they can make a slider or on/off switch for whether or not you want food to matter.


But I like your idea.

As far as the sims meets TES mode is concerned I feel it adds nothing to my game.I also understand there is a vocal group that really enjoys it.As long as it is optional/modded in that seems fair inso far as I do not care how you play your game.

IMO there seems to be two schools of thought on implementation of realism.The carrots and the sticks.

One group wants you to be rewarded for doing something the other wants you to be punished for not doing something.

If you side with the sticks I hope NPCs are also subject to the same rules IE spell failure(I do not remember any enemies in MW spells fizzling) Having to eat sleep etc.(Possible with radiant ai) and whatever the PC has to deal with so to the NPCs

If you side with the carrots have varying degrees of benefits IE. eating a mushroom should not have the same benefit as Horse Wellington, and try to avoid the use of the "I Win" button mentioned earlier.

I tend to side with the carrots so I may be considered an ADHD console kiddie,but unless you are 90 I am no kid and I have lazer like focu....ooo look a kitty

I guess I am the far left or far right. (depending how you slice it)

I would prefer ultra realism. The hair should stand up on the back of my neck if I am walking along a dark cliff with half mana/ half hp knowing that I need to stay silent if I want to make it to the next town without some fast travel.

My health or stamina should only regenerate with appropriate rest, sleep or food, even if I have to eat suspect berries on the side of the road that may make me dizzy.

I need that risk / reward factor. Or else I might as well jump 200 feet to safety while typing IDGOD with unlimited invincibility.

Oh look at that, I finished the game in 2 hours...

(Give me the magic, dragons, giant spiders and all the virtual reality except the bathrooms:)

Same here.
I want hyperrealism, the more the better, there's no such thing as too much of it.
However,i'm sure there's an exception to this rule somewhere that i haven't thought out. I can also relate to those who sit on the opposite side of the fence. In, say, Elder Scrolls X , we'll have hyperealism all over the palce and done in such a mature way that this whole discussion has been deemed pointless and long sent to
Oblivion.
(pun intended)

You do realize that this frequently stated view that, if a game isn't "realistic"/complex/loaded with tedious micromanagement & annoyance, it is 1) easy, and 2) designed for toddlers & ADHD sufferers; is both simplistic and somewhat insulting, right?

If you are refering to me I am in complete agreement with you.Your initial post summed up my feelings on this matter better than I could.I was just trying to add a little levity to what so far is been an outstanding thread on both sides.Well reasoned and thought out points from all involved.If the attempt has faile....ooo look another kitty

If you are insulted by my opinion then please tell me where to send the money for your shrink. If you are saying the the level of detail I propose is simplistic or I myself am a simpleton then I will ponder heavily on the merit of your opinion.

Uh, mate, read my posts. I advocated 'realism', I just disagreed with a given definition of the word. Let's put that aside, I'm fine with calling it realism if that helps to carry the discussion onward.

I never said I want an implausible world, and I most certainly would never demand simplistic gameplay.

I'm one of the guys who'd pay taxes and go to toilet if the game'd let me.

not at all.. there is a big diference betwen realism and gameplay, the kind of realism that makes gameplay hard and dificult, definitly its not good. realism should not be implemented in skyrim per example, cuz it is a rpg, where your heath and attack are defined by multiplier factors and levels, there is nothing realistic on this and it should stay that way, FOR-THE-SAKE-OF-SKYRIMMMMMMMHUIIIIIMMM, TUTUN,.... TUTUN......TUTUN....

Mind if I ask a question? Why should I have to suffer through game play elements that I don't want in the first place just because you want some aesthetic realism? If those elements are optional than I don't mind them being included in the game.

Otherwise there are food items in the game. If you want your frigging aesthetic realism so badly, than role play a character that needs to eat/drink. Go on, the option is there. Go ahead and not have fun as much as you want. Don't make others suffer for your desire though.

Realistic Graphics, that is all.