mcmanusaur

Well, I suppose this is where we will disagree then. I know what you mean about the uncanny valley, but for me that is not an objectively valid tendency, and thus we should try to overcome its influence on our judgments. I personally have no problem processing pseudo-realistic settings as abstractions and thus I prefer them to settings that don't even try with the realism, but I'm not sure who's in the minority on that. Though that does raise an interesting question about whether the developers are beholden to players who cannot regulate their brain's inability to entertain abstractions. And for me, I don't like settings too artificially centered around the PC personally, but that's another discussion entirely.

Cut off their arms? That's the worst metaphor I've ever heard. The fact that certain parts of the setting are unimportant is something I'd rather choose as the player to focus my efforts on other areas, rather than have the developers choose for me by restricting me to a linear path. Once again, zone-structuring is not the question here as we know virtually 100% that PE will do that. It's question of whether those zones represent 70% of the city, or only 10% with the vast majority of the city existing as unrepresented space between the zones. The mountain metaphor is also a rather poor metaphor, as that is physically impassable by definition, whereas in a town it constitutes creating artificial cages out of buildings where a mostly contiguous network of roads should exist. And forgive me, by "represent IG" I meant "represent in some form other than indirectly telling the player of its supposed existence". It seems many people are perfectly fine with that, but I find that "representation" rather inauthentic personally. And once again, it's all dependent on this conception of "nothing of note", which is as subjective as it gets. That's a terribly slippery slope, similar to the mentality behind features like free fast travel, which is truly what ruins the Elder Scrolls games IMHO. Why don't we just cut out the entire wilderness between cities and dungeons then? I guess it simply comes down to one's broader philosophy on what RPG's are; some people view the quests as "get from point A to point B" as quick as possible, but for me it's what's in between that's most interesting. And I would personally characterize the former mantra as being more at home in action-adventure games than in RPGs, but we can agree to disagree I suppose.

Who says they're supposed to be anything more than what they are? Feudalism is fractal in nature, large cities exist at the center of large areas, and the scale decreases as you progressively look at smaller and smaller areas. The problem is the assumption that these towns are supposed to be something more than they are, not the fact that you can explore them completely, which is by most people's standards a good thing, I believe (though most people evidently aren't into a game like PE). It's a fantasy game, and if you can't accommodate a decrease in scale in your suspension of disbelief then I'm surprised you can accommodate many other more glaring discrepancies, such as... oh right, the fact that you can't actually explore 90% of some cities because of artificial restrictions, for example. Feudalism is fractal in nature. I'm going to remember that one, that's a very expensive bull**** sentence. You have nothing against smaller settlements, to each his own. However, I paid into this game hoping to push "Big Big City 2" because I am a lover of the big cities. I get bored in the wilderness. Athkatla was one such because it had a large density of content. Big and empty is false scaling. I don't care much HOW it is done, although I suspect that having a city span several maps is the easiest way to provide content dense areas AND the feeling of a large city. (and has infinite potential for modders to "fill in" parts of the map which are as of yet unused) But, I suppose if the developers could create an actual city on a map, realistically and it'd would be entirely seamless, that would be just amazing. However I think that would require a tremendous amount of extra work to fill in completely. I thought The Strip in New Vegas was particularly empty, I hope there will be much more to do in BBC1 and BBC2. (and no, not the broadcasting corporation) That said, big seamless cities have been done, and successfully. Assassins Creed games, pretty much all the Grand Theft Auto games, I thought Guild Wars 2 had a pretty good approximation of a metropolis. Of course these are not isometric games. I don't know what the options would be for P:E. It felt like a huge sprawling city because it was dense in optional content. Not that your calling it bull**** without citing reasons threatens the statement's validity in any way, but It's somewhat true. With such a stratified patron-client relations-centered social structure, you get a similar setup at varying scales as you switch between levels of the system. A baron might own a manor and village in the countryside, and he owes fealty to a count residing in a small town, who in turn owes fealty to a duke at a large town, who owes fealty to a prince in a small city, to king, and even to emperor, etc. If the land is too small and the cities are too small, who's to say something like Skyrim isn't just the equivalent of a duchy? Historically kings were many and kingdoms were rather small before they were amalgamated during the High Middle Ages. The extreme is in Bronze Age Greece, where even a small place like Attica in Greece would have had dozens of different kings. Once again we have assumptions about how in-game empires should directly correspond with real historical empires in scale that kills immersion, not any "unrealism" of having a smaller scale society. You're not just a fan of big cities though. You're also a fan of little closed-off areas within supposedly large cities. I understand that we use our imaginations in RPGs, but I just think that it's both incredibly funny and sad that people are actually asking to be restricted to small parts of a city for immersion's sake. We all but know that PE will have zones just like the other IE games, so even seamless or not is not the question here. The question is whether a "big, big city" constitutes a couple of zones widely scattered across a minimap, or whether it constitutes a bunch of densely packed zones. For me, the former is hardly anything to advertise, as it's the same as a small city only with wider spread between its constituent zones. And furthermore, you are likely to have immersion problems if there's a huge sprawling city on the map that transitions directly into wilderness outside of its walls; medieval cities may not have had suburbs, but they weren't islands in wilderness. Thus a medium-sized city that's mostly explorable is preferable than a "large" city that's mostly not. Finally, content density is a completely separate issue from how a city is mapped. And the fact is that those of you who want to frame this as an argument about content density rather than city mapping are just operating under biased, close-minded, and unimaginative conceptions of what content entails. While maybe if we were talking about wilderness it'd be true that a large part of it would be empty and devoid of content, there's really no excuse to have any part of a city whether the central palace or an outlying slum be devoid of content. There's always people living there, and each district should have its own character (if it starts getting into the issue of "Slums Zone 1" and "Slums Zone 2" being redundant to each other, then the issue is obviously the creative design).

Someone else used Skyrim as a negative exemplum for a certain aspect (namely, immersive sense of scale) of RPGs, and I disagreed that Skyrim did that aspect poorly (rather I think having an immersive sense of scale is one of the few things Skyrim did well). There are many other things that Skyrim did poorly (some but not all of which PE will also do poorly in all likelihood), and no one is asking for or expects a game like Skyrim. In many ways the discussion regarding Skyrim is way off-topic to this forum because we already know a lot about what we're going to get in this respect, but nevertheless I reserve the right to defend another game if someone else decides to bring it up in comparison. I still feel that the premise of this thread (that most of a setting being left up to the imagination by means of artificial restrictions could possibly help immersion) is somewhat ridiculous and aiming to take RPGs in the wrong direction. But seeing as your post has nothing to do with actual specifics of what Skyrim has done wrong in this respect, I don't expect you to provide much evidence. "It's too small!", "Where do all the people come from?", "There's not enough houses!", etc. Having another blocked off part of the city that exists only on an in-game minimap and can't be explored is really a solution to the problem? What's the precedent set by this? Anytime the in-game representation of something can't be perfect it's best off only referenced indirectly? We really want less of the world represented in-game? Why don't we just stick to boss fights and cut out everything else entirely at that rate? A problem I see here is that most of the people here are stuck on conceptions of "old school" vs. "new school", without acknowledging that in many ways the old school games set the example for the new school games; furthermore, there are aspects that each groups excels in over the other. It's the same thing you see in every video game forum, and such a close-minded mentality is never going to bring a genre forward. I- like everyone else here0 want an IE-style game since there isn't a current one on the market, but I think that blindly clinging to everything that RPGs used to do because they used to do a few things better misses some of the point. And that point is to make a new and innovative game as much as it is to hearken back to old classics, last time I checked. The latter part of that is pretty well-established already, but if people are going to just cling to old IE games like they were perfect (not just good for their time) then there's not going to be any innovation. If we're concerned about the state of the RPG genre at large here, there's a need to bring the genre forward and out of the mediocre present, and just going back in time won't achieve that. Assuming a zero-sum situation, PE has somewhat more capacity than an old IE game (since technology progresses), and while the graphics look impressive so far, it certainly seems the case that this extra room won't be used for flashy gimmicks like many modern games. What should it be used for then, just more of what's already there? Or might PE simply broaden the scope a bit with things like tradeskills or a more open and interactive world?

What does that even mean? Are you saying that pretty much everything in every game can be described as "**** characters do behind the scenes?" If so then I can see why you're having issues here; you're retarded. It seemed like a perfectly valid point to make for me. The only thing that determines boundaries such as what "goes on behind the scenes" or is "a boring waste of time" or is "not worth making players worry about" is one's imagination and what one wants to get out of a game. If you have players with low attention spans and narrow imaginations, you'll end up with a lot of stuff (pretty much everything except combat) that's left for "behind the scenes". Other players (and if not the people here I wouldn't know where to find them) might relish such detail. That said, you make a decent point about the gameplay existing to facilitate the narrative; however, I personally would prefer that the players be given as much choice as possible as to what the narrative focuses on. For me, a hunger system is unnecessary in an old-school game like Project Eternity, and I'd be fine if food was just a substitute for healing since I hate potions. That said, games with a persistent world (such as MMO's, though this could apply to certain single-player games) could definitely use a food and rest simulation cycle for offline times. I've actually been brainstorming the potential for this, and this is about the only inspiration worth taking from dating sims I think. A certain fraction of offline time would automatically be given to food and rest, but the player could choose what to do with the remaining time, from a whole host of options, with a bit of a penalty compared to doing these things while online.

It felt like a huge sprawling city because of one image on a map, and the fact that you were artificially restricted to rather small areas didn't impact that feel at all? Well, alright. I've got nothing. This is of course the default for PE since it's based on IE games, but still... well, agree to disagree I suppose.

"Boring", "important", and "waste of time" are just subjective opinions, I will simply point out. Whether the NPCs are part of quests or not is another issue, but their actual IG existence doesn't suddenly make a game boring in any logical way. No one is arguing that PE or any game should have pointless and empty areas, so that is a straw man argument; rather people such as myself feel that there's a lot of potential content that gets left out when you explore 10% of a city. In a true role-playing mentality we'd only stand to gain from a more fleshed out city, but if we're talking about players with low attention spans who are obsessed with combat and want their character to be at the center of some supernatural spectacle, that's another thing entirely. The latter to me is more of an action/adventure mindset than a role-playing mindset in my humble opinion. But that's the route that most IE games and most modern "RPG's" take, and I expect PE to do the same. The sad fact is that RPG's aren't actually RPGs because the playerbase wants what I've mentioned above more than a world actually conducive to authentically role-playing. I simply ask you to consider whether what you're truly after is a role-playing game or action and adventure. It certainly seems to me that most of the people in this thread are more concerned with the latter than the former. Again, that's fine because we all know what we're going to get with PE to some extent, but let's not put it under the guise of a "more immersive" or otherwise better "RPG".

Yes... and that's true for the playable space of pretty much any world that's been designed in an RPG, including IE games. I still maintain there's nothing inherently less realistic about a smaller scale if one takes it at face value, and I fail to see how having a bunch of unplayable space can possibly add to one's immersion. You haven't really addressed these questions, but we can agree to disagree.

Seriously, tell me a game that does it better than seeing the Solitude arch or the Throat of the World towering in the distance and being able to walk right up to it without a loading screen. Optical illusions and societal sustainability aside, that's what immersive sense of scale is all about. Not to be that way - and I might be alone on this - but I'd barely call Skyrim an role-playing game. It has some of the things that define an rpg for me but is severely lacking when it comes to aspects that is important such as a immersive and deep world that changes based on the events that take place in the world, advanced and well thought out quests, dialogue that matters and interesting characters - which skyrim has none. For me it's more of an exploration-experience and this is something that skyrim does well, the elder scrolls world feels small in oblivion and skyrim because the maps in them are just too damn small. If I play a game that tries to mimic an entire continent I don't want that area to be as big as my hometown. The world in skyrim - for me - feels small. It has visually stunning places ofcourse but that is not what makes an rpg. Those places could be found in any game where you might explore. I suppose it all comes down to how you are experiencing role-playing games, what makes the world feel real for you. I'd say that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 does a hell of a lot better job at immersing me into the world than Skyrim. Those games restrained where you had to go and what part of the world you could explore and the world never felt any less huge because of that. First, Skyrim isn't a continent, it's a region. The whole continent is called something else, I forget what. So again we have the gamer's assumption destroying his own immersion, not the game itself. And everything you mention is merely aspects of narrative, which both action/adventure games and RPGs have, as well as most other games. So while good narrative makes a game good, it doesn't define its genre. The thing that defines an RPG is options, choice, and lack of linearity. And I fail to see how Skyrim has less of that than IE games. IE games are good, don't get me wrong, but they're not necessarily any more an RPG than modern "RPG's" are. Unless you want to give me examples of what IE games have in a role-playing sense that modern RPG's don't. I enjoy the retro feel of the IE games, which is why I'm here, but it's silly to pretend they do realism and immersion things better than other RPG's without justification. Game world that reacts to your actions? Bethesda's worlds are ridiculously static, with the player existing outside the world. Nothing you can do is recognised by the game. Kill the emperor? it doesn't affect the rebelion against him etc. But that is besides the point. It matters not if Skyrim is an RPG or not. What matters is that whatever it is is completely diferent than PS:T, IWD and BG. And we paid for an IE game. You can like Skyrim. I loath it. The point is that the only common P:E backers have is that they love IE games. So the devs will use IE games as their model. If they deside to put a seamless continous world, you (and others) may like it, but at leeast half the backers will hate it. For example, in my opinion the whole free-roaming sandbox hiking simulator trend is the worse thing that happend in gaming. Well, it's beside the point, but on the whole, Skyrim was on the fence for me. The world was extremely well done in my opinion, but otherwise it was disappointing. I did wish the world was more interactive, with the arbitrary restriction of having only one purchasable property in each town being among the worst aspects of the game in that respect. But the world does react to your completing the Imperials vs. Stormcloaks quests so far as I can tell, and I've not seen any IE game that has a more interactive world (if I remember correctly, more interactivity than old IE games was one of the things a lot of people were requesting during the kickstarter campaign). For me this is just another aspect of an RPG that neither IE games nor modern RPGs do better in an objective sense. I don't expect PE to have a "seamless" world, I'm simply voicing my opinion that theoretically it should be more immersive and conducive to role-playing than one full of artificial restrictions, which is counter to the OP's argument (though as we can see what breaks his immersion is his own assumptions more than the lack of restrictions).

Who says they're supposed to be anything more than what they are? Feudalism is fractal in nature, large cities exist at the center of large areas, and the scale decreases as you progressively look at smaller and smaller areas. The problem is the assumption that these towns are supposed to be something more than they are, not the fact that you can explore them completely, which is by most people's standards a good thing, I believe (though most people evidently aren't into a game like PE). It's a fantasy game, and if you can't accommodate a decrease in scale in your suspension of disbelief then I'm surprised you can accommodate many other more glaring discrepancies, such as... oh right, the fact that you can't actually explore 90% of some cities because of artificial restrictions, for example.

You're very right that people present their subjective perceptions and feelings as "gameplay, feel, realism, immersion" etc. For me, and I think many other people, a small town that can be explored without artificial restrictions is more immersive than a "large city" split up into zones that allow you to explore 10% of it. No RPG that I can think of has made a fully explorable large city (thus the OP is a giant straw man argument), but some games have opted to scale down the town rather than artificially restrict players. And there's nothing inherently less realistic about smaller towns as compared to bigger towns. So personally I don't understand how having a map of a town that shows you're only exploring a fraction of it could possibly add to someone's immersion, and it's not the case for me. IMO, arbitrary and artificial borders is what kills immersion, not small scale. But anyway, we know we'll have partitioned off zones in Project Eternity because that's how the IE games are. For me that's not at all a problem because I don't play IE games for immersion, but I'll just let the rest of you convince yourself that it's more immersive I suppose.

Good thing we didn't fund a sandbox TES type game but an IE game. And no, Skyrim is not an RPG. TES games stoped being RPGs since Morrowind, and GOOD RPGs since Daggerfall. Skyrim is an action adventure game through and through. Same as everything else from Bethesda the last years. Not that action adventure games are bad, but when we talk about RPGs Skyrim is the perfect example for how NOT to design one. If people here want something because other games did it, they're entitled to that. But to act like that thing is objectively more realistic or immersive entitles others to respond to those claims. I agree that Skyrim and other recent TES games are lacking in certain aspects of being an RPG. But in the same vein, so are IE games; it seems to just be seen as more okay with IE games because they're old. But seriously, tell me why IE games are better role-playing games than modern RPG's if you have reasons. Not why they are better games in general, but what makes them more a role-playing game? For me as I've said in the above posts the only thing that defines this is options and choice of roles, in additional to free-roaming and non-linear narrative, in my humble opinion. And it seems the point of this thread is to argue against having one or more of those in IE, in some way or another, whether the argument is presented as a realism concern or otherwise. And that's fine, because as I said people are entitled to that, but I just don't think it makes an objectively better RPG.

Seriously, tell me a game that does it better than seeing the Solitude arch or the Throat of the World towering in the distance and being able to walk right up to it without a loading screen. Optical illusions and societal sustainability aside, that's what immersive sense of scale is all about. Not to be that way - and I might be alone on this - but I'd barely call Skyrim an role-playing game. It has some of the things that define an rpg for me but is severely lacking when it comes to aspects that is important such as a immersive and deep world that changes based on the events that take place in the world, advanced and well thought out quests, dialogue that matters and interesting characters - which skyrim has none. For me it's more of an exploration-experience and this is something that skyrim does well, the elder scrolls world feels small in oblivion and skyrim because the maps in them are just too damn small. If I play a game that tries to mimic an entire continent I don't want that area to be as big as my hometown. The world in skyrim - for me - feels small. It has visually stunning places ofcourse but that is not what makes an rpg. Those places could be found in any game where you might explore. I suppose it all comes down to how you are experiencing role-playing games, what makes the world feel real for you. I'd say that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 does a hell of a lot better job at immersing me into the world than Skyrim. Those games restrained where you had to go and what part of the world you could explore and the world never felt any less huge because of that. First, Skyrim isn't a continent, it's a region. The whole continent is called something else, I forget what. So again we have the gamer's assumption destroying his own immersion, not the game itself. And everything you mention is merely aspects of narrative, which both action/adventure games and RPGs have, as well as most other games. So while good narrative makes a game good, it doesn't define its genre. In my humble opinion, the things that define an RPG are options, choice, and lack of linearity. After all, an action/adventure game is just an RPG where there's only one role you can choose from. And I fail to see how Skyrim has less of that than IE games. IE games are good, don't get me wrong, but they're not necessarily any more an RPG than modern "RPG's" are. Unless you want to give me examples of what IE games have in a role-playing sense that modern RPG's don't. I enjoy the retro feel of the IE games, which is why I'm here, but it's silly to pretend they do realism and immersion things better than other RPG's without justification.

Its ok to see things different. But stop your polemic ****. I clearly can see the advantage of a seamless world, like Skyrim. But i also look at these two "major cities" and just cant accept the right one to actually be a city. Whats so wrong with that? Skyrim is bad because it doesn't have large cities? (No, Skyrim is bad because it has "streamlined" mechanics.) What's the problem with that? Aren't you assuming the cities are supposed to be large, which is the reason it allegedly kills your immersion? What's wrong with a game that only has small towns? You'd really rather have a game that has a "large city" that is divided up into zones? The way I see it, the problem here is your assumptions and not the game. You're missing the point and that's why I'm speaking in "polemic ****".

Ah... Um... ...you know what, nevermind. Seriously, tell me a game that does it better than seeing the Solitude arch or the Throat of the World towering in the distance and being able to walk right up to it without a loading screen. Optical illusions and societal sustainability aside, that's what immersive sense of scale is all about.

Who are you people who would rather be confined to specific non-contiguous zones for the sake of "realistic scale" rather than be able to explore freely and get some idea that there is stuff in the background, even if the presentation can't be completely realistic? What is wrong with you? I'm serious... "Please, artificially restrict me!" "Yes, all this slightly imperfect background stuff breaks my immersion!" Really, you'd rather have to imagine a whole society in the background but never see anything of it, than get some glimpse of the inner workings of a society even if it can't be on a realistic scale? This is honestly the most disappointed I've ever been in RPG players... Skyrim was completely lacking in several ways, but its combination of free-roaming and immersive sense of scale was groundbreaking in my humble opinion. And yet you people would rather be confined to exploring certain predetermined points of interest on the world map, because that's more immersive? Are you serious? I don't even. You've just completely lost the plot. If that's you, just find a different genre of game to play. Like some linear action-adventure game. I pity the poor souls (i.e. developers) that have to cater to your senseless whims...

We will not be building out cities for the sake of building them out. Content density is important to us and, we believe, to most players. On a related note, while we do try to follow the exterior layout of buildings on their interior, we often TARDIS their interior space up to 40% (we did this all the time in IWD and IWD2). Following a 1:1 size relationship interior:exterior typically makes those buildings have an enormous exterior "footprint", which means content density goes down and fewer locations can actually be fit on a map. This sounds good, but imagination (or lack thereof) is certainly one thing that restrict the scope of what constitutes "content". If the mentality is such that only the extraordinary and supernatural events are worthy of attention, and everything else is left empty, then naturally that doesn't add content. And in fact nobody is asking for this; no one wants tons of empty buildings. There is potential for adventure in content in everything, and that includes what might be labeled "mundane" by those indoctrinated in the school of thought that everything should revolve around invariably exceptional PCs. The straw-man nature of this thread aside, what would ultimately move the RPG genre forward in my humble opinion is for the content of the game to provide a more proportional and representative portrayal of the society that's supposed to exist in-game. If the players are railroaded onto the archetypal roles of hero or anti-hero, this leaves the player little degree of choice over which role to play (beyond the superficial), and in extreme cases reduces so-called RPGs to the status of a glorified action/adventure game. Linear narrative and unimaginative content selection ("herp derp, I'd rather explore palaces than neighborhoods any day") both contribute to this.

And my point is that those are pretty much the same exact thing. The reason why settings are inconsistent and leave out realistic aspects are because the developers make a judgment call about what is relevant and what isn't, and they make the irrelevant stuff inaccessible. Which "seamless" worlds are you talking about? I've just assumed with all Infinity Engine games that the accessible areas are only a fraction of what constitutes the city, which is exactly what you apparently want them to be.

Inb4Iaccidentallyquotedthewrongpostsorrybro

I hate this approach to games. I never liked a single Bethseda game, not even Morrowind which even Bethesda's critics say it were good. Personally i hope we get something like Torment, entirelly focused on the narrarive. It seems we won't,as they aim for BG2 type of game, but sure as hell i don't want something in the vein of TES or Arcanum-Fallout. I loved the latter 2, but this is supposed to be an IE successor, where all the games were about story. For an Arcanum successor i wouldn't had pay the same amound. Well, maybe I'm the only one who aspires to be able to make a choice with regard to what "role" I'm playing in RPG's. After all, if you can't play different roles, what separates it from another game, such as action/adventure games as I've been mentioning. Then it comes down to how superficial the player's supposed freedom to play their role is. Does the freedom end after character creation is complete if the narrative is linear, or do players continue to make meaningful choices to define their character's role throughout the game? As much as people like to talk about how modern RPG's have straggled away from the past greatness of RPG's, in some ways you can see the same trends in the Infinity Engine games that this game follows. For me it ultimately comes down to the fact that games either use the flawed DnD system or they streamline their mechanics to hell like with Skyrim. In terms of narrative though, I think that less linearity can only be a good thing, as long as it's not just choosing between "generic good option" and "generic evil option". From a strictly narrative perspective with regard to drama, sorry but there's nothing superior about Infinity Engine games in comparison to modern RPG's in my humble opinion.

I fear i wasnt clear enough with my point in the first place (and posting in kinda hard to decipher retard english didnt help too). I didnt to say "dont make whole cities because it failed in the past". With current technology it is not possible to produce completely explorable, realistically designed settlements with a population of >1000 in computer games. Neither is it necessary. Such places, no matter if they lie in the real or a fantasy world, have hundreds of streets where nothing besides normal dudes doing their daily stuff is going on. All these streets consist of different, normal housing blocks with living quarters, marketplaces, industry and commerce, infrastructure, trash bins and old women doing housework. There is no reason to design such things, which exist hundreds and hundreds of times beside each other, in a realistic scope by hand, because they are of no interest to the player. Maybe with future technology, complex algorithms and superior computer power there will be easy ways to produce functional and realistic worlds with ten thousands of buildings and inhabitants which the player has complete access to, but this still wouldnt have much significance because no player ever will want to visit insignificant places with rather little variation. Just like in the real world, where people usually dont have interest in all and every street and sideway of a city they visit. Regarding role playing games which depict big cities i wanted to say that i *hate* the cheap illusion of something which obviously is impossibly, because there are better ways to do it. Producing a completely walkable city sufficient for 100 people, while still missing essential things which should be there in a real city, and pretending that the scope of the place is a hundred or a thousand times larger than actually depicted is a very bad way of making a virtual world. I just walk through the original city of Baldurs Gate and constantly ask myself: "Where are the graveyards for all the dead relatives of these people? Where are the waste dumps? Who made the bricks for all these houses? Where do the food products for the inhabitants come from? Who brings the weapons into the weapon shops?", as i walked through all and every street of this city and couldnt find these places or persons. Its just like telling the player that he is going to visit a 10 man family and then finding a 5 square metre hut with one bed and three people in it which say "The whole family greets you". Things like that break a game for me, its a total immersion killer for everyone who cant disable his logic thinking abilities. A much better - and *easier* - way is to do it the Athkatla way. That said, showing an abstracted overhead map of a really big city and giving the player a handful of interesting spots in that place he actually can walk onto. Producing one fully mapped and explorable living quarter in an area which is significant to the story while simply not showing the other 300 neighborhoods, as there is no reason to visit them. This is escpecially easy to do in a top down 2D game, as there never is a need for invisible walls or stuff like that. Streets just go into the end of a map and upon walking onto them the player is greeted with the city overmap, where he can choose another significant area he wants to go to. I hope PE will keep this in mind, it would make me very happy. Herp derp. Realism isn't all or nothing. Different players may have different interests than you. You criticize Baldur's Gate for having a big city and leaving out the "uninteresting" but realistic parts, claiming that it kills your immersion, and then you say to include only a single relevant district of a larger imaginary city? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how that's any different. I don't get how you're suggesting anything new. It seems that you're just arguing against realism not because it's not being realistic enough for you (and with current technology it can't be), but really because you don't want realism in the first place.

That's exactly his point. He does not want realism. The fact that he claims that things aren't realistic enough is a null point because that's not what he wants in the first place. Let the people who are actually concerned about realism decide whether it's realistic enough.

No dude, I think he was saying "don't try it because it can't be done accurately for a game like this (which is okay in the end because if it was done accurately it would be really lame)". It's a pretty minor thing for me, but ultimately I agree with the OP. Although I think he mixed up Project Eternity with Torment at one point in his post. Even "if it was done accurately it would be really lame". That's exactly my point. The issue here is not that there isn't enough realism in games for the OP's taste; it's that the OP doesn't want realism. Be honest about what you're arguing, guys. There's no point in pretending to be concerned about the level of realism in games if you don't want realism anyway.

For me, linearity (or the lack thereof) is a big part of what separates an RPG from an action/adventure game. So take your pick, I guess, but I'm here for a comparatively nonlinear RPG.

Wow, this is the most stupid argument ever. "Don't try X because others have failed at it." The fact that the realism of such games is lacking in certain key respects isn't a reason to give up the struggle for realism abruptly; it's a reason to try to make improvements in this regard. I suspect that in reality this viewpoint is in fact more along the lines of "blah blah boring ****, gimme more action!", which is a sentiment echoed elsewhere in this thread. Personally I think action and drama (or "gameplay" as some shortsighted people, who don't realize that other people like different things, call it) aren't what makes an RPG interesting, even if they do contribute to a game's story. To me, the RPG elements of a game are better with more detail and realism. And maybe the rest of you want RPGs to just be glorified action/adventure games, but I'd rather not. But for the love of the gods, let's not say "don't try realism because you don't get it right", because if we're honest here the reason you don't like that is not because they don't get it right (if that was the case, you'd be saying "try harder!"), but because you don't like the nuances that realism brings.