Wow such a divide and both sides have some valid points.
Personally, I would like to see a system where the player is rewarded for his/her skill with the controller as well as their character development. Perhaps the two could be combined in a game mechanic were the aiming of the bow and melee weapon is more random or difficult when the character’s skill with said weapon is low and is more stable and precise when that character skill is increased. Such as a larger aiming reticule and/or reticule wobbles when skill is low, allowing the arrow flight or melee blow to land randomly somewhere in that area, but still allowing for the lucky hit to a vital spot head or Heart. As char skill increase the reticule and/or wobble gets smaller and more precise, allowing greater chance of that hit to vital area.

I'm not asking for realism, I'm asking for a semblence thereof.

I know a guard who once took an arrow to the knee, it nearly killed him and hes not an adventure any more.
true skyrim story

But what you posted isn't really a semblance of realism, IMO... It looks more like a semblance of the Morrowind dice rolling mechanic where you could be right in your opponent's face, stab him with a dagger, and miss... Correct me if I'm wrong, I hated Morrowind so I never played it much, but I thought most people hated that combat system. :/

Again, this is all my own opinion. I svck at combat. My character does not. That's why I play RPGs. In an rpg, it's more about my character's abilities than mine. I've yet to play a game with locational damage that didn't feel like it was punishing me, the player, for my lack of ability. If Skyrim implemented this mechanic in any way that wasn't optional (tied to some sort of hardcoe mode or something), they would most likely lose me as a customer.

The reason for that is your skill determined the chance to land a hit, not just how much damage would be done. So, your character looked like it was hitting the enemy, but the dice roll said no. I did not mind this myself as I understood the skill system and how it was applied.

The Fight Nights, UFC games and throw backs like Bushido Blade are much closer to true fight sims than arcade fighters and they do have locational damage.

I'd rather have the dice roll based on my character's skill level than have a dice roll based on what part of the body I'm aiming for and what armor they're wearing. *shrug* the first gives a sense of character progression as they advance. The second is static and never goes away, no matter how good your character gets.

While I feel this is a whatever topic, given the depth of everything else in the game, headshots should enter the series.

@Kamirose
I got the joke- it's a good one (if it was yr intention).
The game should be far more detailed in hit area detection, amongst other areas they may not excel in. Software is just that. Innovation here, is hindsight- though I am a bit surprised that since Morrowind they haven't found more refinement here.

It seems to me that they could have made it selectable in Gameplay of the Options menu.

[] Localized Damage Off
[] Aim Difficulty affected by Character Skill

(if localized damage off then damage zone multipliers are set to 1 else defaults )

I'd also like to point out the even though TES Skyrim is loosely a RPG (True RPG's require character sheets a DM, Dice, and freinds willing to spend time with you) the combat model is truly FPS with swords, bows and battle axes. You as the player are still required to have some skill with a controller or mouse just to hit the target. Not to mention that Bethesda is marketing the game across multiple platforms of which the Xbox and PS3 audience are use this as a standard in newer games. But as an option they could appease a larger number of customers.

Skyrim isn't fallout, there's a big difference between the two. I would've been ok with Locational damage if it was in but it's not a big deal. There's more important things to complain about like no Spell Creation or good attributes then no locational damage.

I’m not comparing Skyrim to any game. I’ve never even played Fallout. For me this is something worthy of lament. If you don’t care one way or the other then why complain about my comments, especially when I would like to see both sides get what they want. Making it an option in the gameplay menu, I think would have been very doable. Many other games have it in their combat mechanics already, so incorporating it would not have been ground breaking. Nullifying it would be as easy as to load 1’s in for the multipliers, if the player selects to do so in the option menu. Why is that so objectionable?

hit boxes would bring this game more to "real time" combat because it is just unrealistic to watch your self shot some one in the face 3 times and him not die at all. its an immersion breaker in some cases. not in every case does this have to be a one shot kill just has to be increased damage at the vary least make it believable, when an enemy takes an arrow to the face like its nothing at all i can't help but feel annoyed that the guy isn't dead. it wouldn't exactly break the game if they do it correctly for example they could add a perk in the middle of the archery tree called sure shot maybe or what ever the name is as long as it adds a locational damage bonus. sneak already provides a bonus this would in turn make an assassin build more deadly and more rewarding however where they buff one thing they need to nerf another to provide balance. they could easily Nerf sneak just a tiny bit to support this change make the damage bonus it provides slightly less to compliment this buff with balance. there are other ways this should work out and they have already said they were going to try to make it seem like "real time" combat so hit boxes are a must imo

Nah i don't want to play Skyrim like some medevial ARMA 2 ! (But like that game too) So imho the combat simulation and location based damage not pass for this game.

I am an FPS player so I'd like to see locational damage, but I can live without it. I just play as if sneak damage were actual headshots and try to aim for a head while I am sneaking.

I don't know why is it such a controversial thing. It does not change anything for people who like 'abstracted out' combat, they still have autoaim.

My opinion's somewhere along the lines of this, having the locational damage things would probably skew it too much towards "action".
Besides, i don't think many games other than FPS have locational hitboxes do they?

I hate shooting or slashing a dude in the face and doing as much damage as if hitting him in the foot.

Other than Fallout, I have not seen an RPG that I want to play that does have locational damage. Locational Damage is a Shooter Aspect, not an RPG. I could ignore locational damage in Fallout as it really did not matter that much.

So, other than rewarding the player who can task their character's target in a battle, what does locational damage offer to an RPG? Other than some different wounding and death animations.

Why not? The mechanics of a role playing game serve to model reality (or a reality). Locational damage is obviously a part of this. We are talking about tactics here, no different than retreating from the fray to gain a better vantage point or luring an enemy into a trap with a well placed arrow shot. Tactics, the mental ability of your character, cannot be controlled by stats. That is ultimately in the player's hands. Removing tactical options in an effort to maintain some degree of character skill is ridiculous. The two are not connected.

How do you incorporate a locational hit into your character's skills? Hitting a certain part of the NPC is dependent on the Player's skills, not the Character's skills. That is why it is not an RPG aspect. Unless we go Turn Based or using some derivation of a paused targeting system.

Otherwise, a Level 1 character with no real blade skills could pull off head shots if the player was skilled enough. Then we have the Lockpicking minigame problem, but in a bigger way.

And where is problem with that? You want to dumb down one fun aspect of a game because some immature kids will abuse it?

Hitting the NPC is dependent on the player's skills, not the character's skills. That is why it is not an RPG aspect. Unless we go turn based or use some derivation of a paused targeting system.

Look at how Deus Ex handled accuracy when it came to characters with low skill levels. These are not difficult hurdles, they've been overcome before. There is no reason a similar system could not be employed with melee weapons, making you less accurate with a sword and more likely to miss the intended limb. And as has already been stated before, there is no need for one shot kills. The only difference would be a modifier to damage. Since low level characters aren't dealing much damage to begin with, a multiplier isn't going to significantly change the outcome of a battle.

Beyond that, we're already dealing with a game which employs a heavy degree of enemy level scaling. A head shot, even one that results in instant death, isn't going to make much difference when you're already capable of killing multiple enemies at once straight out of the gate. The only time I've bumped into an enemy I couldn't defeat, I was fighting monsters (trolls and giants). Damage modifiers would be different for creatures than for humans. Extra thick skulls could even result in damage penalties to head shots, forcing you to target the torso or limbs. This adds further variety to the combat as you're forced to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies you face. This works with humanoids as well when dealing with different armor types. If an enemy is wearing a steal helmet, aiming for their head isn't necessarily your ideal target.

I'd even be fine without any damage modifier at all. Just impose penalties on your opponent based on where they've been hit (similar to crippling a limb). Arm shots would lower weapon skills/damage, leg shots would slow or knock over an enemy, torso shots would stagger, head shots would stagger or reduce weapon damage or paralyze an enemy (stunning them). The chance of any successful effect is then based on skill level. Those who are less skilled will be less likely to induce these effects, those who are more skilled will induce these effects often.

The fact remains, these are all tactical decisions and will always be based on player skill even if we did move to a 100 percent turn based system. Excluding these options only results in a more monotonous combat experience. Instead of being able to overcome your physical limitations through mental ingenuity, you're forced to simply grind skills until you plow through anything in your way.

I would love to see the actions played out on the screen match the underlying mechanics. For instance, I have a bow and I aim at the target's chest. My skill with the bow is pretty poor. Instead of having the arrow go where I aimed it I would like to see it hit in a place that matches the underlying mechanics. Maybe it just grazes the target, or hits the armor and bounces off, or strikes the shoulder instead of center mass. If my dagger thrust us deemed to be ineffective then the animation shows my arm just grazing the target or striking off the mark.

In the end the cross hairs become a desired strike point but the actual strike point is determined by all of the factors that go into hit determination, and the resulting animation matches what the game really decided on and not what you wanted to make happen.

A bit rambling but hopefully it makes sense.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say - there's probably some turn-based games out there (similar to the first two Fallouts) that has locational, character-skill based combat. (I seem to recall "called shot" type options in one of the editions of tabletop D&D. It was harder to do than just doing a general attack, but had some advantages if you did manage to hit.)

But those are completely non-action games, fully based on character skill, not super-twitch-FPS player skill.

It would be cool is there was locational damage, but honestly I would be too much.
Don't forget, if they added this then they'd have to change the entire combat system.
Even If they did it wouldn't fit, as someone posted above its a Shooter aspect.

Seriously, if you want "realism" in a fight, go outside and pick a real fight.
You want a "realistic", working economy? Great, get a job and pay bills.
You require more "realism" in the marriage system? Get married for real.

Really, get over it.