Ever notice how very little actual life there is in the Elder Scrolls games? In fact there isn't enough to support the carnivores! Sure the herbivores have grass and berries, but there is precious little protein for the rest. And very few herbivores. Even the bears are small due to malnutrition.
There are virtually no fish in the seas and rivers. There are no birds in the sky. No squirrels, chipmunks and mice. Rats though. No earthworms. No ladybugs.
What happened? What horrible apocalypse befell this world?
But the more important question is will the world survive?
There just isn't enough life to maintain the numbers, however small, that exist today. The lack of fish alone really tells just how desolate and devastated the world is.
As goes the sea so goes the land.

It's a game mate.

not just the fact it is a game but think about it, There are Deers in the game as well as Boars what are generally vegatrian, also there are alot of crops around. Things also eat Crabs and Rats. So there is alot of meat around if you know how to find it =O.

Remember the lions in this game do indeed eat rats as we well know from the fighters guild quest. So go eat that rat meat =P. Goblins also are onivores that live on rats and we see many vegatables around thier layers sometimes.

Dude it's all a game.
But a game is actually sum total of the environment it portrays. This is what helps create suspension of disbelief.
You know the thing that actually allows you to enjoy playing a game or reading a comic book or watching a fantasy film.
So the more internally consistent the world the greater the experience.
The mind does pick up on those small facts and will piece them together. Even if it is at an unconscious level.
That nagging doubt in the back of your head may be the difference between complete enjoyment and tiring of it all quickly.


R3sistance
My original point is there is not enough life to support what already exists.
Try this
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/virtualbird/how_many_bears.html
(These figures are based on actual research data from a study in Arizona, indicating a mature black bear could eat about eight pounds of food per day in a ten day period.)
Or better yet do the whole calorie to support weight thing that dieters do.



This message was edited by Rex Mundi on May 18 2006.

Yeah, but there is a lot of food around. In taverns and houses, there is always more food than a person could possibly eat. I've seen imperial foresters chase deer down and kill them, so it isn't as if the game ignores the fact that towns need to support themselves.

I agree. Phototropically speaking, oblivion does not make sense. Let's examine the breakdown of the tropic levels of energy consumption.

100% of the sun's energy is used on plants, correct?

Of that energy, only 10% is consumed by herbivores. The rest is used by plants in their photosynthetic processes.

And of that 10% of energy consumed by herbivores, only 1% of that is used by the carnivores. The rest is used by the herbivores to keep themselves going.

And what about that 1%? Well, that's used by the carnivores in their processes, whether it be humans or animals. If it's an animal and it is killed, then .1% of the energy from that animal would be transferred to the person who killed it.

This is all in a perfect world, where everything is used. Hardly is that ever the truth, however. So, in Oblivion, there's a shitload of plants, but what about all the herbivores? Sure, I don't want to see and overpopulated Bloodmoon game (and yes, it was overpopulated. Not only that, but populated by the wrong species. I saw carnivores, but no herbivores? The hell's with that?), but I'd like to see a bit more animals.

But then again, with the scaling system, it may interfere with the natural balance.

We could also look at it from a technical level though. The more wildlife you depict in this game, much of which the player would rarely notice anyway, THe more taxing it is going to be on your processor and your video card. Because they have to draw all of these things on the screen and keep tabs on where it all is.

Sure I would like more wildlife. But not at the cost of framerates. Particle effects are crippling for my system. Imagine having to draw a heard of deer. Ugh.

So truthfully I think wildlife was sacrificed more for a technological issue than for a global realism issue. I justify it this way though. In the real world how much wildlife do you really see? Today I saw 1 squirle and 3 birds. Thats all I noticed, and that was because my 3 year old pointed them out. I have been out and about for about 3 hours so far. Thousands of people though. Its there, we just don't see it.

Everyday I see multitudes of birds and numerous chipmunks and squirrells. I also see ducks and groundhogs frequently.
It's not so much the lack of animal and fish life as lack of explanation in the story line. Maybe something about the world recovering after centuries of magically related disasters.
Something that ties the whole in.
Actually what would be cool in future is an endangered species list. So much fine for killing trolls or ogres or Minataurs.
Making it harder to kill some things and forcing you to think more about how to act.
Anyway that whole ecosystem thing needs to be looked and incorporated into the game in some way.

There doesn't need to be an explanation in the storyline. People are just expecting to much really. And you must really have a lot of free time on your hands to take that much notice of the wildlife around you.

But look in Morrowind, what where the animals that exist in reality...rats, wolfs, mudcrabs and thats it...in oblivion: dears, lions, rats, wolfs, dogs, mudcrabs and still some more........ so actully for a game the wildlife is great

there are actuall freaking deer in this game...both sexes too!!!! They went the extra mile with Oblivion. If they did have animals every where....


just picture taking on 3 necromancers next to a farm house full of cattle and birds flying through the air...and ladybugs hopping around...

that would take a monster computer to render it with smooth, enjoyable frames that make you feel like you got what you paid for. Most people do not have a power system. Why would they make a game that most people couldnt even buy? They make games with a nice balance of power needed vs. the masses that will be buying it and what level comps the most of them will be using.

"Guys, lets make this really good, but lets make it playable for the early P4's and late P3's as well."

oh my god how sad are all you people thinking about the wildlife in a *bleep*ING GAME, get a real life!

I guess being up to speed on environmental problems in the real world has made me sensitive to noticing obvious issues in a game world. Or maybe it is being older and more mature than gum cracking teeny bopper slack jaw gamers.
The other question, and it is similar to what master Po asks young Caine in the Kung Fu tv series, is how come you DON'T notice these things? Any swim in the water will bring up the glaringly obvious fact there are virtually no life in the seas or rivers. There is not enough life per square mile to support the large carnivores.
Maybe they haven't gotten to this stuff in grade school yet. In a couple more years when many of you are in high school you will start asking some questions. Or you could just slide by with d+ barely passing grades.
Who knows.
Still the problem with suspension of disbelief exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
Video games often require suspension of disbelief. Often, realism is compromised even in games set out to be realistic either intentionally to not overcomplicate game mechanics or due to technical limitations. For example, gunshot wounds are rarely disabling. Some games based on Spider-Man have the comic hero swinging around a city with his webs sticking to nothing but the sky. Another frequent occurrence in games is instant death upon falling into water (instead of giving the player a chance to swim out before drowning). Also, in many video games, a character will often say the same phrase over and over indefinitely when repeatedly talked to. Another example in video games is the so-called Head-Up Display, which displays information such as the amount of ammunition carried by the protagonist. Some games try to minimise the use of a HUD or try to disguise or eliminate the HUD in order to enhance the suspension of disbelief. In recent times, most video games begin with a tutorial in which the player is explained how to play. These are often woven into the story, so a character in the game might say to the hero, "Press the triangle button to jump! Walk up to a crystal to save your game!" and so forth. In the fictional context of the game world, such sequences make no sense-the hero is being told to push a button which (from his perspective) does not exist, in order to perform normal activities such as jumping and running. It's up to the player to reconcile this problem by suspending his or her disbelief.

Role playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons ask the players to use suspension of disbelief when deciding what actions their characters should take. For example, if the players know their Game Master has a history of putting booby traps on the more obvious solutions to obstacles they encounter, a player may have his character press the button labeled "Press me" even though he knows something bad will probably happen, because "it's what the character would do."

There are varying degrees to how much suspension of disbelief someone will accept. Fans of the science fiction series Star Trek accept the premises that starships can travel at warp speed and that aliens such as Vulcans exist, but when a given premise is inconsistent with previously written canon or violates known real-world science (such as the plot device where injection with a creature's DNA turns someone into a similar creature), fans are usually not pleased. The question seems to be whether the implausibility is felt to be intentional or an oversight. Gary Larson discussed the question with regard to a cartoon panel in his The Far Side; he noted that readers wrote to him to complain that a male mosquito referred to his "job" sucking blood when it is in fact the females that bite, but they accepted that the mosquitoes live in houses, wear clothes, and speak English.

If educated people pick up on female mosquito's in a comic strip why should we fail to question a game environment? In light of all the real world environmental problems I'm surprised the question didn't arise much earlier.

quote

Maybe they haven't gotten to this stuff in grade school yet. In a couple more years when many of you are in high school you will start asking some questions. Or you could just slide by with d+ barely passing grades.

The bears can eat plenty like the wolves fish abndits ...ppl who study plants looking for lady bugs

Lack of ladybugs is prob why annimals are so aggressive