Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Please let me be immersed

My dear, dear elf ... my question is "how" ... not "is it?".
You are answering me "its not" ... i thank you for your opinion, but its not what i asked.

Also, as for the practical part ...
Again ... how? The only reason its inpractical to draw your weapon from sheet on your back, is the sheet.
Theese weapons have no sheets ... in what lays that inpracticality? And please focus on practicality ... not your own estetic feeling about it.

---

And since im quite sure some smartypants would tell me, instead of answering the question ... i obviously know the answer: "Its a fucking game!"
And that is exactly the point ... is a fucking game full of fucking nonsences ... but for some unknown reason we are willing to ignore eeeeeeeeeeeeeverything else, or simply say "its a magic dude" ( as if that would explain anything ) ... and yet things we simply dont like "horribly ruins our immersion" ...

And my question gentleman and ladies ... is: H-O-W ?

Seriously if at least one of you had the balls (or w/e body part womans use to measure their bravery) to admit that there is no actual reason and this was for him/her specificly just covenient excuse to get the game more to his own liking ... i think i would finaly believe at least somebody.

I believe i would be able to find some examples that are unmagical ...

For example im not quite sure what is magical about Dragons to be honest ... yes, they dont exist in our world ... but if there is any connection to weave, i was not aware of it. O_o

I could question reproduction of Githyanki ... since their bodies seems hardly capable to contain one large meal, not even mention an egg. O_o

And if i would want to se joker, i would ask how is that possible that my Halfling character was just DIRECTLY HIT with an Axe, twice his own size ... and yet he lost only 1hp ... instead of being cut in half, again no magic involved.

And im too lazy to search futher.


Ehm ...
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Produce%20Flame#content

10 minues, no concentration, fire stick around, cantrip (therefore nothing even unusual), and while the fire is hold its not even hot (since the hand dont get burned).
This is the one im talking about.


Its fascinating how much are you focused on the fact that there is no magic involved ... as if that would be the only way.

I repeat, i didnt asked if there is any magic used ... i asked how is fact that this "just happened" anyhow less believable than anything else, that commonly happens in this world.
Just as that hitpoints ... just as that constant ressurections after the fight ... just as healing by having a meal and go to sleep ... just as everything else.

In our world, if you swing an axe against someone and you hit ... the person falls, usualy with heavy wound that incapacitates him, sometimes just dead, we all know that ... nobody ever questioned it.
In their world, if you swing an axe against someone and you hit ... the person count damage, subtract it from some imaginary number, and keep fighting as if nothing happened, no matter where he was hit, until that imaginary number falls to 0, then he falls to the ground gasping his has breath, and after three subsequent failed rolls he die ... nobody ever questioned it.

In our world, if you put an axe on your back ... it falls, we all know that ... nobody ever questioned it.
In their world, if you put and axe on your back ... it stays there ... why are we questioning it?

The answer is obvious and simple my dears, you "dont like it" ... why even pretend that there is something deeper behind it?


I just want to understand you people.
I know your opinions, even tho i disagree with them ... but i dont get them and that triggers my curiocity.


This would be my case aswell.


Or ... just providing an alternative from my own point of view ... they simply dont care.

You see "immersion", aswell as "fun" is incredibly subjective matter ...

While one person would love to drag a vaggon with horses with you through the whole adventure (i wonder how tho) ...
Another person would like to have option to stash whole city into her purse (but honestly ... that would be immersive, i allways get amazed by how so many items can be stashed in those things) ...

Fun fact tho ... if you take those two persons, and switch their games, they would be both discuised ... even tho each for different reason.

For this very reason Larian is simply forced to go middle ground ... sometimes immersion, sometimes fun, and most of the time little bit of both.
It dont seem so hard to me as a concept to grasp. :-/


Is it? O_o

I know you dislike this attitude but still:
If its a problem, and its so "immersive breaking", and immersion is "so important" ... why would you do that?


This apply to me aswell.

With regard to the whole weapons floating on backs thing, I think the reason people have issues with it is a kind of immersion uncanny valley effect. A lot of the stuff you mentioned Rag, are big, obvious diversions from our real world. Dragons as they appear in the forgotten realm don't exist in any capacity in our world, nor do Githyanki, or other stuff like that. They're so far removed from reality that they bear only the slimmest relation to reality, so it's easy to just shrug it off as simply functioning under rules that don't apply in our world. Specifically, magic. Meanwhile with the floating weapons, those are adjacent to our world. It's something that's not even trying to explain itself as a rule of the world, but it's a thing close enough to reality that it's easier for people to notice that it's a deviation. People register it as TRYING to immitate our world and failing to. At that point though, people need to accept that it's just an abstraction. It's not an in-universe thing that's occuring. In universe the characters are sheathing their weapons in real sheaths and scabbards, but technological limitations keep that from being portrayed on screen. Just like hitpoints are an abstraction that's not reflecting the reality of the world. So Rag, I disagree with you suggesting that it's an in-world thing that's actually happening and it shouldn't be treated as such, because I am certain that in the game people will say things about sheathing swords, etc, which shows that those things exist and are used. But I agree that it's ultimately not something that should be treated as an issue. As has been said before, this is down to a technical limitation, one that bigger studios than Larian have tried to address.


I will say that there is a reason why in this specific example your argument doesn't hold water. Because for a lot of people, even if you don't actually choose to do it, if you KNOW that it's possible, know that the reality of the game allows for it, then even if you don't do it, the knowledge that the game allows for that will break immersion. Because unlike some other things, it's not an out of world choice that we the player are making to engage in an abstraction, it's a thing we are conscious is possible within the rules of the world even though it breaks the otherwise established rules of the world. I can get why people would be bothered by that and they aren't wrong to be, even though I personally am not bothered by it.

Lucky you ... i dont.

What technical or technological limitations are u talking about ? Many games do it well even if it's an "abstraction" but BG3 isn't doing it well at all. The best exemple is probably shields and the second set (ranged weapons) that simply dissapear.

The Forgotten Realms have their own reality and Larian fails to translate basic things into a video game despite obvious "abstraction" requirement on some points.
We have great cinematics but about weapons, they're just doing the same as 20 years old games did.

I don’t think immersion works that way. It’s an all or nothing proposition.

The verb “to immerse” has two meanings. Literally, it’s synonymous with submerge or plunge. Metaphorically, it means absorb or engross. Either way, immersion is total or doesn’t exist.

If you’re not entirely underwater, you’re not submerged. If your attention is pulled away for a moment, you’re not engrossed. If you’re ever thinking about game elements as what they actually are rather than what they represent, you’re not immersed.

I’ll use mid-air burrowing as an example:

That’s a great question, Rag. Why would a player ever do anything to break their own immersion if it’s important to them?

Here’s a hypothetical. You’ve built your first druid and you’re going through the wildshapes to try them out. The raven flies. The wolf howls. The bear is a terrifying death machine. So far so good, everything works as expected.

The badger can burrow. It can even burrow under walls, which is exciting! So you start walking around as a badger, looking to see what secrets you can uncover by burrowing. While swinging your cursor around to see which spots are valid targets, you notice something strange.

The cursor says you can burrow to a seemingly impossible spot. Wouldn’t you try it out of sheer curiosity? And if you did, how would you react when the badger appears on the far side of a chasm or in a suspended cage?

That moment shines a light on the fact that you’re not controlling a badger. You’re controlling something that looks like a badger and teleports in a way that evokes burrowing but definitely isn’t burrowing. With that shift in perspective, the immersion is broken.

If you wanted to stay immersed, what could or should you have done differently? Is there any way for you to predict these inconsistencies before they happen?

I wrote three pages trying to explain this to people in Rag's position, realised that it's just not going to get anywhere or achieve anything of value to do so, and am deciding not to bother.

Let me say this:

Rag; I've met people in your position before - people who don't understand why something like weapon floating above your back when you put it away, for everyone, all the time, is problematic for immersion in this space, while dragons and magic are not. They have generally been people who legitimately struggle with the concept of imagination, but struggle so without realising that it's something they struggle with - like colour-blind people who don't realise that they are, or sociopaths who learn all of the rules for what emotions are and how to read them and display them, and how to respond to others, but underneath that don't actually understand what it is to feel them.

This fictional space is different from ours, and it operates on a different set of rules. Those rules allow for things like dragons to exist, and for wizards to conjure fireballs and for mortals to attain sparks of divinity and ascent to higher beings if they are capable enough. This world that we are imagining, however, operates with a measure of internal consistency with itself - things play by rules, even though they aren't the same rules that our world plays by.

In imagining this space, and immersing ourselves in it, we accept the rules by which that world is governed - things that operate within those rules do not require any suspension of disbelief, because there is nothing wrong with them; they're part of that world. Things that do not play by those rules, and which step outside of that, or draw attention to the fact that the medium we're using to envision this world is flawed or imperfect, create immersion dissonance; too much of it, or too consistent causes of it, make it difficult or even impossible to really settle into the world space and feel like you're in it.

Because the world plays by internally consistent rules, everything that happens in it can still be traced to a how and a why, if it is understood; there are hows and whys for dragons and for magic, and for gods - magic and gods are themselves the hows and whys for many other smaller things within the world (the flame conjured by produce flame doesn't burn us, because it's magical fire that we conjured. It's that simple) - but even those, magic and gods, play by certain consistent rules that help form the world and preserve our immersion in it.

Things like 'putting the weapon away and having it float six inches behind your back' does not fit in with the structure of the world - it doesn't have a how and a why that you can trace - so it is a source of immersion dissonance in a way that a literal dragon is not. Things like 'short resting in a second because I clicked the button and numbers came up' is also a source of dissonance for the same reason - that one would be easily smoothed over if the medium we're engaging with the world through (the game), offered something to indicate or imply that we are actually taking an hour to rest and recuperate, but right now it doesn't, and even creates situations where it's actively showing or implying that we don't, and that it is instant and without any kind of movement or rest... so that's why it's a problem in the present state.

Another great write up by Niara here. +1 as often. Also, Niara, I really really hope that you have a way to make use of your wonderful verbal and analytical skills that shine trough your posts here IRL. Always enjoy reading your posts so put that talent to good use !

Exactly my thoughts on the matter. +100.
People don't expect...or just don't care?? to be immersed in RPGs anymore? What happened?

My theory.... Nowdays Diablo/action shooters are RPGs, huge open world 3D games are RPGs, card games are RPGs, MMOs are RPGs, pay to win mobile apps are RPGs..... its so damm EVERYTHING; the audience that comes with all that does not expect to be immersed. Or...they just don't understand the point of immersion?
expectation #1 : LOOT
expectation #2 : easy and convenient gameplay
expectation #3 : pretty graphics
Not saying all of this is bad, its just the main expectations of a Modern RPG.

Oh, on a side note I also completely despise having floating weapons on your back...Why this? While Larian spends MILLIONS on facial cinematics...which....uh...sorta works?? they can't even add a little basic equipment immersion? At this point who needs a walking animations anyways then? Just make everyone float to their destinations. Its so incredibly ironic that they want to have REALISTIC faces but ignore BASIC immersive stuff.

In the end that begs the question I would love to ask Swen : "For yourself, what constitutes a video game RPG experience?"

There are plenty of reasons, you are just ignoring them, nitpicking the paragraphs that you want to attack without their full context.

I'm going to make it easy: everything has to do with the suspension of disbelief.

Even in a fantasy world, some things are meant to be magical and capable of defying the laws of our world, while others are meant to be mundane and governed by the same reality we are subjected to.
This is not "my liking", this is how the setting is built.

This is the reason why a magical sword flying doesn't bother anyone, while a non-magical sword locked 10cm away from a non-magical guy's back does.

We can sit here arguing for years about whether some things break immersion more than others, but if you refuse to accept this basic assumption then you are just arguing for the sake of it.




This.

I have two coments for this:

1) Nice one ... but miles away from what i was talking about.
Since my point was: While Person-A wants total immersion ... and Person-B wants total fun ... (and i want Total Recall ) ... Larian is in position when they have to (at least try) satisfy them both.

Sure there would be people complaining about that the game is "not immersive enough" ...
But the point is that the more it would be immersive the more would the other people complaining that the game is "not fun enough".

2) Its an ongoing process (dont get mad at me, it was your example) ...
I presume you dont dematerialize abowe the water, and then reamaterialize under its surface.

Yes, you are not submerged "entirely" ... but you are 5,10,25,30,50,75,90% submerged, depending on state of that proces ...
And that should be enough ...

---

Quite honestly it seems to me that "immersion" become easy argument for people who just dislike something, and "just wants it gone" no matter what.

You are trying to explain to me what does it mean to "not being immersed" ... im aware, it may come as surprise, but i also played the game.
The problem (or the difference, scratch what dont aply) is that none of those things people are complaining about around here breaks the immersion for me not even once in my 796,5h ... so i ask those people why, or how does it work ... instead they start to explaining me what is immersion, or what does it mean to break it. :-/
Either im unable to put my question understandably, or they are simply unable to answer me ... chances are 50/50.

I mean so far i discovered that i have quite unique mindset around here, since i dont really care about things that i either dont need, or choose not to use ... i dunno, maybe im simply exceptionaly good in ignoring things that would bother me otherwise ... rather than geting mad over their bare existence.

I would really love to hear at least one good reason ...
But all i get so far can easily by reduced to "i simply dont like it" ... and that would be fine too, we dont need to like same things.

Thats a trick question!

Sure i would!
And yet i would not.

I burrowed several times to the other side of a chasm to get that lootbox in "Dragon's Lair" (that cave where Thieving Tiefling kids are living) ...
And quite honestly it never felt unimersive ... no matter the distance, its still the ground and the ground end somewhere ... sure, its a little unconsistent, since sometimes you can borrow just few feets, and sometimes you can borrow few miles (imagining you borrowed all the way down and all the way up the chasm) ... but that dont bother me.
Also im quite used that most distances in this game are actualy measured in 2D (there is no high ... or depth ... Z axis i mean) ... you can easily see that in Goblin camp, when you are attacking from the timbers in the ceiling ... many attacks (especialy spells) should not even reach their targets.

As for the cage example, nope i would not ... first of all i cant even imagine single argument for doing it ...
For one, it would be a nonsence and i dislike nonsences, so why would i ... exactly as you said.
And for two ... what would be the point? I mean does "borrowint inside hanged cage" offers you litteraly anything except just ruining your experience? I dont think it do.


I never even get there ...

For me, there are two layers when i "immerge" myself to the virtual space:

There is first layer and that are engine limitations ... ranges, rules, resources, limitations, stuff like that ... things game "allows" me to do ...
And that would be burrowing through the time and space.

And then there is second layer and that is actual immersion ... what my characters know, that they would do, what they would think ... things that would "make sense in this world" ...
And that would be that my Badger will never burrow through time and space, since i ... and in that extend the badger ... know that i can burrow through the ground ... but not through the solid stone, not through empty air between cage and ground, not through i dunno ... lava for example.
Those are things my characters would never even imagine, since they are uterly nonsences.

Thats why i never do them, thats why i never even check if i can do them, since i would not care anyway ... and thats how i keep myself immerged, no matter what game "allows me to".
And the best part is that if there is anybody who would enjoy burrowing throung lava river, to the top of statue that is hanging in middle of air, and is made from solid adamantine ... they can and i still dont care, and my immersion is still unaffected.

And we are both happy. :P
Final confession i have for this would be the reason i want us both to be happy ... its simply bcs sometimes (its not often tho, but it happens) i am the second person. Sometimes i just dont desire serious story and full roleplay experience ... sometimes i just want to go in and wreak havoc, go wild, do shitty things, whack logic in the face and then fuck it ... why? Bcs i can! Bcs i want to! And bcs fuck it, thats why.
And in those moments, i dont care about immersion ... what i want is fun.
So yes, in those crazy times i go with things like full custom party of Wizards where each have their own elements, and one of them is actualy a Cleric. My badger party is burrowing to the roofs, just to use their pushing attack, and burrow some place else. Last time i tryed to expand my party to 8 and play with every single class that was aviable in the time ... (this one was not as fun as i expected, quite dissapointing really)

And Larian provides me option for both, so im glad they do ... there is nothing deeper in it.

I explained the technological limitation on the previous page. The game has multiple different body types, multiple different combinations of attire, from butt-nekid to robes to full-plate, and there are a lot of different weapons from daggers to torches to two-handed greataxes. It's not immersive when those things clip through everything else.

Just the combination of body type, and attire, and weapon is already an enormous number to take into account. Now you have to consider animations, climbing, walking, running, falling prone, jumping, falling, attacking, blocking, taking hits, casting spells, and then there's the cutscenes and dialogue on top of all that. The actors aren't going to be motion-captured for every combination of weapons and clothing and action. The actors aren't motion captured with armor at all. Even if it was possible, it's completely cost-prohibitive. Because of that, it's never going to fully look perfect.

Yup ...
My point exactly ... fictional space comes with different set of rules, and that is how things works there ...

The only difference is that for myself, it includes sheating weapons on back.
(If i want to ... note that i repeately asked for making it both optional, never had any problem with sheating on hips.)

But not weapons being sheated on back.

Any other "odd" thing is fine, since the world "operates on a different set of rules" ... but this one? NEVER!
And that is exactly what i find so funny.

Except you dont ... you pick every single one of them and decide if that one is good enough for you to accept or not.

This is the core of the problem ...
It dont really "not play by those rules" ... it "dont play by rules you want" ...

What rule does sheating weapons on back break? Gravity?
Yes, that would be understandable ...
Huge flying lizard breaks the same rule ... but you dont mind.
So that would probably not be the case. O_o

So ... can you track "how and why" for me for party limits, or hitpoints, or that dragon?
Or could you provide me "how and why" for why people can easily walk just few feets from river of lava, without any physical discomfort except sweating?

There is many rules in this would that "does not fit with the structure" ... you just pick those you like (or are used to), and those you dont. :-/

---

Okey, this is good argument actualy ...
Question tho ... who decides what is suppose to follow what?

Hint: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/102507/what-is-rule-zero

Yes ... we can.
Even tho im not quite sure why would we.

My question was quite simple i believed (foolishly as it seems) ...
All i wanted to know is how exactly things are breaking immersion for you.

Instead, to use your own words to describe i get "whether some things break immersion more than others", and multiple quite thorough descriptions of what is immersion, or where is it broken ... is that even related to the question?
I dont think it is. :-/

You of all people should know that i dont take away people opinions ...
Yes, i keep asking if i find something that feels contradictory ... and yes, i defend my own stand, once somebody starts to lecture me how i should see something ... but with one hand on heart and second on Bible (or any other holy symbol of your choosing) i can swear that my intention was never ever arguing about someone opinion!
And im quite sure that if you seen me doing that anywhere, you missread it.

You seem to be assuming that immersion and enjoyment are opposites, that inceasing immersion will somehow decrease possible enjoyment of the game. I think that is a false presumption. For example, how would the game be less enjoyable if weapons were carried realistically, or if there was a passage of time?

I think that in general, if done right, improving immersion will improve enjoyment. I think that everyone playing the game, perhaps some more than others, is in need of believing the illusions that the game offers: that there is a real world with real people trying to solve real problems.

I will give you that in some cases improvement of immersion versus enjoyment is debatable. For instance, personally I could do without the enormous amount of junk (and accompanying inventory management) that you can carry. (seriously: why are the people in the game so keen on having crates and chests everywhere when everyone can shove five cheese wheels, ten barrels and twenty sets of full armour in their back pocket without it even bulging a little bit?). But Larian should be clever and creative enough to not let immersion stand in the way of enjoyment. Whether they are willing remains to be seen...

OK, but in combat everyone is holding their weapons, right? And in combat they are climbing, walking, running, falling prone, jumping, falling, attacking, blocking, taking hits, casting spells. So the animations are already there. It would just be a matter of having people hold on to their weapons outside of combat.

I say wait 'till they butcher verticality when you won't be able to target a fireball above ground, when swimming speeds and flying speeds get involved, exploration becomes cluster**** of obselete right mouse or when most of the utility spells become a tedious mess or outright useless. If it takes 2/3 of the EA to still have butchered combat and technical difficulties prominent at this point, oh boy w8 for 3rd level spells......

Well said, as always.

The fact that the GM has the last word doesn't mean that word is right. The world is full of bad Game Masters.
In the end, we will all accept what Larian is going to choose (we have no power to change things if not through mods) but still, we are here to give feedback on what we think should be improved.


I'm sorry mate, maybe my mastery of English isn't good enough but I really don't know how to describe it better than I already did.

Question:
What breaks my immersion?

Answer:
Everything that doesn't look and/or work the way it is supposed to be in the setting.

Example:
Mundane weapons with no magical properties floating close to my character's back.

Question:
How these things break my immersion?

Answer:
Because, due to the quite understandable fact ("or at least I believed, foolishly as it seems..." semi cit.) that the human brain tends to notice and focus on things that don't make sense with the laws of nature.
The player/reader/spectator is able to suspend its disbelief and pretend that things that usually don't make any sense now are justified, since the setting explains them, but this suspension is broken when something that doesn't make any sense in the real world, doesn't make any sense also in the setting in which the story takes place.

Example:
Mundane weapons with no magical properties floating close to my character's back.

I really have no idea how to explain this concept better than this, I'm sorry.



EDIT: Of course, I understand that something must be sacrificed in order for a game to work/be enjoyable but this is not the case for a lot of things, this one included.
When something doesn't bring anything that improves the game and just subtracts from it (in this case, immersion) it's an unequivocally bad feature.

Fiction space doesn't mean that it doesn't need to feel authentic - it is still bound by the same general rules of story telling, including suspension of disbelief.

Just taking this one example, it is not that BG3 decided for weapons to be carried on the back (like it is for Geralt in Witchers) - it is just that they don't want to create seperate animations and sheaths for different weapons. But then why does the game has shiething in the first place. It doesn't have practical purpuse, it is purely a cosmetic feature which aim should be to make the world more believable. The fact shiething works in a distractingly illogical and physically impossible way - it is better to not do something at all, then half-ass it.

And coming back to the previous point of yours - no, the experience can't be occasionally immersive. When film/game is described as immersive that usually means that it doesn't draw unnecessary attention to its artificiality and makes it world feel authentic.

Not at all, not in general, i asure you ...

I see it more like a seesaw ... immersion on one side ... fun on the other ... enjoyment would be amount of happyness you have on that seesaw.
If you dislike the word feel free to either switch "immersion" to "immersive fun" and "fun" for "unimmersive fun", "nonsence just for the sake of fun", "crazy stuff", "havoc", or anything else that brings people fun WHILE it dont also brings immersion (that is important part, not the fun word).

The more seesaw is tilt to the "immersive" side ... the less "unimmersive fun" you have ... so *full* immersion would be one option ... you would need to manualy walk everywhere, you would need to eat, sleep, drink, pee, poo, rest after certain amount of traveling, reading would take real time, weapons and armors would need to take care of, otherwise they would broke ... i hope you get the picture, the closer to reality the better.
Such game would be quite a drag for people like me, or Icelyn (i dare to presume, pardon me if i presume incorectly) ... but that doesnt mean nobody can enjoy it, i know many people who enjoy incredibly thorough survival simulators, im simply not one of them.

Second option would be seesaw on the "unimmersive" side ... that would basicaly mean no immersion at all ... i cant quite imagine such game to be honest, but i believe things like Fortnite would be quite close ... and (even tho i dont quite understand it) they are also popular and some people enjoy them.

Of course from elementary geometry we know that there is infinite amounts of settings "in between" those extremes ... i hope we can agree on this.

But the third common would be 50/50 ... or more like "somewhere close" around that.
In general you could say that rules are not utterly nonsence but also arent exactly real world simulator ... or my personal favourite description: Game provides healthy amount of rules to make sence, while not being overwhelming by them.

Yes im aware that some people would have that "perfect experience" in 20/80 ... 80/20 (yes, there is difference) ... or litteraly anywhere else, once we include decimal numbers, we are heading to that infinite amount of options.

And there are ALLWAYS people who would enjoy the game, no matter in what position the seesaw is ...
So, coming back to that original statement ... in some point of wiev ... it may seem that way:
Yes, you could say that incerasing immersion beyond certain point starts to drain away the enjoyment for certain people ... on the other hand decerasing the immersion beyond that same point starts to drain away the enjoyment for other people ... and keeping it on the same point will piss off everyone who dont have set his own prefferences exactly on that spot.
Basicaly Larian provided their balls, and now we are only deciding who shall stomp on them.

Good question!
(i say it bcs i would probably give it too, if i would be on your side of this baricade oh wait ... i did, just other way around. )

I shall take it in backwards order, since time is easy one.
Even tho ... it depends on what are you meaning by "passage of time" ...

- It can be interpreted as timed events ... you take the quest and since *now* you have *XY* days to deal with the problem.
Some people (and i say some people just bcs i dont want to name Icelyn again) allready expressed they disliking for this, and i kinda understand her ... i mean them ... since you can easily get lost in sidequests and exploring and forget about that there is only *XY* days to save the Grove.
If that happen to you, it certainly can be source of frustration ... specificly the grove can be quite harsh pusnishment, since you loose a LOT of quests, at least one (but up to 3) vendor, and other stuffs (like loot, lore, etc.).
Frustration allways sucks ... i hope we can agree on that.

Even tho, just for the record ... personaly i would welcome timed events, since i belong on the other side of spectrum ... i dont mind loose single quest, bcs i get to fulfill another, since i would replay this game several times anyway ... so this way i would at least have even more distinguished experience for each play.

- It can also be interpreted as regular time flow ...
The way we know from Elder Scrolls, or Fallout series ... time flow, and the world reacts ... during the day all works as usualy ... in the night, people are sleeping, shops are closed, city feels empty until you enter some house and if you do, you are usualy attacked on sight. That kind of stuff ...
That sounds immersive as fuck and i believe that many people would welcome such thing.

Not myself tho.
While idea of night attack while people are sleeping and murdering everyone rather than battle them is tempting ...
I hated it in both Elder Scrolls, and Fallout games ... i come to town to trade, gain or finish my quests, there is not much other reasons for me to get there really ... and every single freaking time i fast traveled to the city ... i emerged there in the middle of the night, when of course none of it is possible. -_-
And the idea of need to spend valuable rest resources just to make this freaking city to work as a city ... seems horrible to me.

- It can also be interpreted as purely cosmetical time flow ...
Much less immersive than the one abowe ... on the other hand, much easier to enjoy im my personal opinion.

So thats my "how" for time passage ...

As for weapon carrying ...
This isnt really matter of any enjoyment since i believe it should be called estetical prefferences.
The more you like visual of something, the more you enjoy it ... i hope we can agree on that one.

My personal opinion is that we should get options.
Just as we do with helmets ... option to hide helmet is also "unimmersive" ... and yet it was well received, i dont recall even single person mentioning it ruined his game. O_o
I cant honestly say anythng much deeper about how would "realisticaly carried weapons make my game less enjoyable" than simply say that i would like the look to my characters less ... thats just it.

What i can say tho, is that it would make the game MUCH more enjoyable for me ... if my Paladin could wield his sword on his hip ... while my Ranger would have there quiver with arrows, or bolts (same reasons as you are using for meele weapons) ... while my Rogue would have no visible weapon on himself, since his daggers are actualy hidden inside his sleeves ... while my Wizard would be allways leaning on his staff.

Oh that would be a very nice sight for myself indeed, and i would enjoy looking at such party much, much, more ... than the same that just "realisticaly carry their weapons".

Thats bcs "if done right" is basicaly a condition that fulfills itself. :-/
You could aswell say "it would be better to do better" ...

And of course you think that ...
You want more immersion in the first place, its quite logical that you presume it would improve enjoyment ... why would anyone "want" something that would make his enjoyment worse?

Glad we can agree on this.

//Edit:
Im affraid not ...
I dont say im sure right now, but i believe that our characters sheat their weapons for some of those animations ... climbing and jumping im quite sure they do ... not so much about the others.

I believe i allready mentioned it here ...
You can keep your weapons unsheated all the time by pressing Tab (default ... i believe the hotkey is named "toggle combat")

You're just contradicting yourself here with opening like that, then proceeding to write 6 strawmen paragraphs equating very specific non tedious changes to having to shit, nurture, and take care of equipment, then flactuating between defending hypotheticals you yourself brings forth and nobody has presented as arguments. That's just dishonest...






Bruh srsly? Again making hypotheticals that nobody has requested nor has presented as arguments. You seem to be loving to argue with yourself, then projecting said arguments upon other people without having to address their original arguments, aka strawmaning the heck out of it.