I agree, is this TES or Sims!

If we're having food rotting then we may aswel have these ones too. They are just as ridiculous

You are on the right path - this is how the system would work.

This will force your to pack light, work on your cooking/hunting skills and always be prepared for starvation if you get too cavilier with dungeon crawling.

Good grief. With the realism stuff again. NO.

I wonder, do any of you folks who insist on realism use magic in your games? Because magic isn't real, and it would stand to reason that if you want your video games to be REAL then magic would be a definite no-no, too, Daffy.

If any of you have played Mount & Blade, you know some sorts of food in the game go rotten after a while. Therefore, I never buy the kind of food that go rotten. I think I would be just as annoyed if that was the case in Skyrim, so I say no to rotten food.

I think required food would be a nice feature to have, not so much for the realism but for the added challenge; you wouldn't be able to spend forever in a dungeon or in the wilderness without resupplying or being able to find food.

It would be irrelevant though if you can just stuff a ton of food in your pack and keep it forever. Spoilage would be one way to handle it, but it might be more palatable to most people if they just tweak the encumbrance. It seemed like the encumbrance of weapons was boosted a bit in Oblivion relative to other things, maybe to make you consider your choice or weapons more. They could possibly bring it down closer to everything else and then also make lower maximums. A longsword was like 4x the encumbrance of a pumpkin but I think it might be easier to pack more swords than pumpkins.

I don't think encumbrance should be used for weapons at all inside the "how much weight you can carry" system. I think you should have a number of slots for where you could fit swords, bows, daggers, etc ... and when you have as many as can fit on your body, then that's all.

I think encumbrance (weight) should be given to everything else you carry in your pouches and backpack. So if you're small, you can carry 3 or 4 swords and daggers where you can get to them. But if you're large, you can carry 6-8 such items. Then just make amount of weight you can carry for the rest of your items be lowered. So that swords are more about space ... how much space they can take up on your body. And leave the other things to be about weight. Then if you want to carry a pumpkin, and it weighs 40 pounds, and you can only carry 45 pounds, then pretty much you're carrying a pumpkin and that's it. But you still can wear (and carry) the daggers and swords you're capable of wearing extra. So that they're left seperate. What's the difference? You pretty much always have a place for multiple swords and daggers that you can sell in town when you don't need them, leaving you the space to put more of them later as you discover them.

That way, instead of going into your inventory and equipping different weapons by essentially taking your backpack down and taking the dagger out of it, putting it back, and then using it in combat (which all seems ridiculous) you could just quickly reach over and pick the weapon you want and which is already ready to draw off your body.

If they wanted to use the old system of "put the items anywhere in your inventory" then they should make it extremly slow to switch weapons in combat. Like a switch-weapons timer. You select it and have to wait 10-20 seconds before the weapon switches. But if you wore it on your belt, you could just automatically draw it out and use it. "Quickdraw" ... hahahaha.

Just to clarify one more point: while I said weight shouldn't apply toward inventory, I do think the weight of the weapon should apply toward it's use in combat. Thus, heavier weapons would take a longer time to swing. A light weapon could execute more strikes per minute than a heavy one, but with less impact damage overall than a heavier one, which could break bones, etc... So yes, weight should be there, just (in my opinion) not used for the inventory aspect.

I don't know if I made much sense ... I hope, anyway. Thanks.

This/

/Thread

What are you talking about? With that kind of reasoning, we could get rid of that pesky gravity thing too. Or weather. Or everything that makes the game what it is. There is food in the world. AI eat food. There are beds in the world. AI sleep. What makes us so god damned unique that we don't have to follow the worlds rules?



Never played it, but uhm, I think that is the main idea. Making players *think* and become more aware of the consequences of their actions. What's the point of role playing if you can run around like a mindless chicken? Like in FONV you had Sunset Sasparillo, a soft drink that gave you some health. In hardcoe mode it was still there, but now you also gained thirst from it, so it made you think twice about using it to get your health back. So for you it made you choose your food more carefully, although there are usually alternative methods to handling a problem.

I definitly approve anything bringing realism, it add to the game over the usually awesomely easy vanilla games.
But i m not sure it would be good for beth.
There are many good ideas that i think shouldn t be so hard to do once the game is realeased.
So, althought i defend it, i also advocate some DLC or left for modders.

I'd like hardcoe mode and wouldn't mind if food rot, not that I particularly care about that detail too much.
Also of course have the option to choose between the modes so that some whiners won't complain about TES becoming Sims or something.

Also I like the nice logics some people make "If food can rot there can't possibly exist magic in the game".

Khajiit and Argonians shouldn't need to worry though.

Of course! More Realistic = Better!

It reminds me the Arks Fattalis.... You had to cook (place the food in the fire) and if you take to much time to eat, the food get rotten.

I hate the word immersion at this point and I haven't even been following this game for six months.

No. Tedium doesn't equate to fun for me. I can think of dozens of things I'd rather they work on than rotting food. I wouldn't oppose some kind of check box for this in a sub-menu in the options, but honestly I'd rather they add proper harvested graphics for plants (like mods did in the past) than do something like this.

since both immersive and tedious are subjective words, how bout we let each other use these words when we feel appropriate? and of course, tedium wouldnt equate fun for anybody by definition.

Yeah you're right. I suppose it would be neat but to clarify I am thinking of more than just the graphics changing and such. Food would have to have more than one item per food item for example, perhaps even several for different stages of rot. Decorative food in houses would have to be actively placed and taken by NPCs. If they reset cells like in Oblivion... would a cell you visit often have all the food rot, while other cells you don't visit are fine? How bout food in containers in houses/castles etc? What kind of infrastructure would they need to program? Would each food item have an internal birth date that the cell checks when it's initialized when it's in range or you enter it?

The bulk of my aversion is from the time spent to do this for the rotting food, rather than work on other things. Perhaps I'm over-thinking it.

This is great idea actually.
It would be really cool to use bunch of rotten eggs and tomatoes in order to make a poison and then when you use it on your enemy, not only that he will die, but he will also stink like skunk's ass.





For my birthday (May 30th) I wish that mods allow me to tell these guys everything that is on my mind and in my way.

I really don't understand why these... these... ugh, not allowed to say... how do they expect Bethesda to make a believable fantasy game that one will actually believe that all that stuff could actually happen if we don't have a nice dose of realism?

If by amaze you mean disappoint then I couldn't agree more.

It was a bit silly that FO3's food, which was at least 200 yeasr old, wasn't rotten, but in this case I don't care about such a feature at all.

:facepalm:

Lol, we all love realism. But taking such things like rotting food into serious consideration is a sad and wastefull use of time.

Sorry.

Why would you want rotten food? You wouldn't be able to eat it. I'd be like 'Sheers' and 'Tan Cups' from Oblivion - totally superfluous and added nothing to the game.

Fair enough.
Still don't understand why it couldn't be a part of HC mode.

good morning kids? =.=

What I really want is for food to actually be useful and not just for alchemy. They should add some sort of hunger meter where your character has to eat at least once a day otherwise he suffers from starvation and his stats get effected.