Diogo Ribeiro

Depends on interpretation. True. Though, did I suggest or say otherwise? Just curious. I agree, although I don't find it's exclusive to those elements alone even if I find them to be more important. Giving clear and direct information can be made in a way that it feels natural to the gameworld or it can be made in a way that it feels distant to the gameworld. Considering interfaces are elements which filter what happens in the gameworld so we can better interact with them, and are recognizably so, I'd say they feel distant and can lead to immersion breaking. This isn't always the case, but it is most of the time. Also, in no part of what I wrote above did I suggest pulling the player out of the action in order to access his health bar or ammo count. The structure of the game isn't necessarily the same as the interface. Bad as it may have been, the situation in your example wasn't quite the same as explaining why there are colored bars or numbers flying off NPC's head in combat. Better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try.

Or think about how my suggestion was for Metal Gear Solid, which is not a firstperson shooter and does not have the need for such a level of constant feedback as one. Or think about just how many times during intense gunfights players actually look at health gauges. Check out Llyranor's suggestions, they're pretty good. Progressive texture remapping of the model to display wounds, slowdown of movements, and loss of skill depending on character damage. To start with. I'll let them speak for themselves. Doubtful, since I'm suggesting nearly any interface to be visible at all. It can't be cumbersome if it's not there. Your point was that it was (supposedly) hard to do. I only presented another example of something which is also considered hard to do, but it's very manegeable. And both reloading a weapon and checking up on health during a firefight are very similar, to the extent the player has to perform two actions simultaneously. But considering my suggesting involves the ability to keep seeing all the action and interacting while still checking health levels, I don't see how that's really a concern to begin with. It can be used once or toggled, much like a stealth mode, changing between running/walking modes, or doing a simple crouch. I'm not trying to "destroy realism". Also, they are independant of each other. ...Is it me or I can't understand anything about this last part?

"Hide behind a button"? This makes it seem suggesting the game giving information based on key pressing is not only evil, it was never done before. Lollerskates. If it sounds terribly frightening to press a button, you could always attach a counter to most weapons and therefore consult them just by looking at the weapon. If you haven't been following the thread, I'm not sure you'll get it by now. In any case I'll try to make it brief. For starters, an item is not "magically" doing the same thing, there's a context and explanation in the very game for it to work; it isn't working "just because". Also, the difference is that one (hovering health bar/ammo counter/etc) is a clearly intrusive interface device which risks breaking immersion; the other (is an acceptable way of simultaneously giving players the ability to gauge important information without having to be forced to deal with a cumbersome interface. Having to press a button to manually reload an empty weapon instead of having it reload automatically is also hard, but it doesn't mean it's not manageable. Once again, reality != immersion. And how could you make a wrong guess if the way to represent health is the same as ever, only presented in a different way? No one is taking away your ability to see character health, just as no one is suggesting the information should become less accurate (which you'd have noticed if you had read what I wrote previously).

Yes, I known; they're pretty much secondary visual aides when it comes to determining character health. These type of animations usually have quite a number of supporters when it comes to pushing for more intuitive, fluid game experiences, and feedback.

Except Dungeon Keeper.

I'm not giving suggestions for everyone, either. Which doesn't mean it's not breaking the illusion that we're experiencing a game rather than an interactive world. Which is what is being discussed.

Beats me. Then again I didn't suggest removing them from the game. What is more of an immersion breaker, numbers popping out of a character's head to indicate his health loss or something which takes one button and one second to use and doesn't remind you as much you're playing a game?

All you're doing is replacing the health bar with another health display system which is just as accurate. It's not really that different from how Resident Evil did it, except you don't have to access a separate page to do so. Reality != immersion. As in, the suggestion has no intention of making the game simulate reality at all, only to overcome the need for immersion breaking devices such as interfaces which get in the way. It is true that MGS's interface doesn't really get much in the way but you can apply the same suggestions to games which do have issues with such interface use.

Graphics and Control of will always be 'immersion breaking' for as long as we arn't plugging computer games into our brains, this is a non-issue because the point is never to think 'we arn't playing a game' but to get so involved in the game that it's not relevent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you notice, interface, general gameplay conventions and the ocasional oddball designer decision are largely the main reasons why there is such immersion breaking in games, even in games most people claim to be immersive. Interface is for the most part always intrusive, and it gets worse the more feedback you're trying to give players but it's my belief that it can be made to be very effective while being streamlined. Compare something like Baldur's Gate 2's interface with titles like Soul Reaver or Metal Gear Solid. It can be argued that these games wildly differ in gameplay and in a need to display information to the player, but they nonetheless provide nearly all the information in very subtle ways. MGS stands out as a game where you don't even need to access a separate screen for the inventory - a quick tap of the shoulder buttons and you're cycling between them. The interface barely messes with immersion, although it does pause the action so you can access it better. In the oddball department... Take Baldur's Gate and how some weapons were named after their magical attributes. Bastard Sword +1, +3 vs. Shapeshifters is something the player should know about, but should be masked from the gameworld. Is it credible that characters would go about naming their weapons as we do in reality, when they aren't aware of our reality to begin with? It's like playing the initial area of Knights of the Old Republic and having characters refer to the controls, or playing Zelda DX: Link's Awakening and having the kids in the island talk about gameplay hints or mechanics which they shouldn't know about. I believe its entirely possible to make a compromise between giving feedback and streamlining information without a game becoming utterly simplistic or devoid of information, although admitedly there's not a whole lot of examples when it comes to the RPG genre. But really, information can be presented in many different ways and sometimes this hasn't got much to do with the technology available, but rather how it's used. I'm not a game designer - unfortunately; at best I'm a gaming enthusiast with too much time on his hands - and I'm sure I could pick up on MGS and tell you a couple of ways to obscure most of the interface so the experience would become more seamless. Want to remove the health bar? Devise a gadget that reads the health condition of the user (much like in Resident Evil games) and provide an adequate in-game explanation for it. Have Snake wear it on his wrist and code it so players switching to a firstperson perspective could consult the gadgets' readings. Bye bye health bar. Want to remove an ammo counter? Take the same previous example but make it so players can look at their weapons' in-built ammo counter, or into a sort of utility belt which graphically displays the remaining amount of ammo for a given weapon, or grenades. Farewell gun statistics flying over your head or somesuch.

Well, as I've said before, it boils down to just how much a given event is supported by the gameworld or gameplay itself. Take Morrowind for instance, where Dagoth Ur is invulnerable until you destroy that which makes him invulnerable. In this case, there is an explanation in the gameworld for his immortality - and it would be perfectly valid wheter his immortality would be permanent or not. With Deus Ex (and other games, of course; I'm not trying to make Deus Ex some sort of scapegoat, it just seeped into the conversation) there's a lack of justification for these things in the gameworld. No disagreement there, although this isn't much of a common thing nowadays. Preferably there should be a reasonable number of alternate means to advance in the game instead of relying on one single element. Yes, you've already established that. The thing is, does it always have to be Game Over? I don't think so.

Rarely a person there will deny these problems with Troika's games. They actually have more complaints than those.

Aging is a condition which can be dispelled like any other status ailment. It isn't permanent. If only...

Let me guess: as the world's only The Action Game of 2004 fan and a potential buyer of the collector's edition your feelings were hurt? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ion Storm forumites will likely sour pretty much anyone, much like No Mutants Allowed posters or Codex regulars. I should know, I think I've made a couple of people regret ever discussing some subjects with me in the past. As for a would-be definition of immersion, would you agree that it is established by game mechanisms which facilitate the player's interaction with the gameworld as well as presenting that interaction as credible and consistent with itself? By comparison I find both pretty bad as far as immersion goes. If the game has a plausible reason to do something, justifiable by the gameworld's rules, then I can accept it. This included things like no-kill zones, for example and why I accepted the inclusion of it in Invisible War as a credible gameworld situation (even if, as discussed, it put a damper on some interaction possibilities). But when the game doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever to my inability to do something or an explanation as to why an NPC is doing something that just brings it down. The confrontation with Gunther at Battery Park is one such example. They did however include the possibility to wait it out until Paul's AI returns to normal. That's an understandable compromise between credibility and game mechanics. But that's just it, I am perfectly acceptant of the fact that one mistake can lead to a Game Over. I should be penalized if I make a mistake, and a serious mistake would likely mean that. I am not as acceptant that I can just keep making the mistake without any consequence (other than the immortal NPC shoothing me to death, of course). They already do this; not just for all critical NPCs. As with the Jock and Manderley examples, if the player is dealing with critical NPCs that alone hold the progress of the game and the story, and the designers are really concerned about this then there should be methods to prevent players from breaking the game. That's just the problem. Failure in videogames doesn't have to mean Game Over. That is a narrow gaming convention that plagues too many games across too many genres. And in the real world, the world doesn't end immediately because I failed to do something. Failure doesn't always mean death. Failure isn't the end of everything. Honestly I'd prefer to be screwed because I made a wrong choice instead of not being allowed to screw up. Would you rather a game never allowed you to comit failure, or that it allowed you to commit failure and present consequences to it without forcing you to lose the game?

Yes, I am aware of that. And I don't disagree with anything you wrote on the following paragraph, either. As I pointed out before, the differences between trying to tell a story vs. trying to present choice and consequence to a player obviously collide. Choices, and more importantly consequences, are often compromised. However, this in a way is not all, or exclusively, what I'm arguing because I'm aware of this and the subject has been talked about. I'm mainly taking issues with how exactly the consequences of some player choices have no consequence, or in this particular case, don't allow for consequences. I am not, however, taking issue with the choices which actually have consequences in the gameworld such as short term player decisions regarding problem solving required for level advancement. Jock is just an example, and it's not even about the inability to do something as simple as kill the character; as I said before, this is just the surface of the issue being discussed. The real issue are the situations where the developers give the player freedom of choice but don't provide consequences. Jock is just one example and much more important than a player not being able to kill him is trying to understand why he was deemed so critical to the story when the character wasn't that necessary at all. Showing Joe Green my skill with blades. Or was it trying to widen the smile of one of the hookers? Whatever it was, it wasn't aimed at the pilot. Even if his reaction had entirely been a direct, rather than indirect consequence of me shooting him, the 'in-game' reason is the same as whatever reason players have to shoot any other NPC, to avoid them, to talk to them, etc.. Saying there is no 'in-game' reason to do something is dubious considering there is no 'in-game' reason to perform most of the interactions in the game. There's no reason to hurt civilians, although I can. There's no reason to bomb a locker but I can. There's no reason to kick a trash can or stomp a cleaning bot, but I can. There's no reason to go into the ladies' restroom at UNATCO although I can. And so on. Why is it a problem? That it means different things for different people does not mean the subject itself has no definite meaning.

No, you assumed as much.

You always do when the Codex is involved. We already know they raped you and destroyed everything good and holy in the world, thanks. Just let it go. Kthnxbye.

No, you're doing precisely what I said. You're terrible at lying. If you are adding support to what I said, you are actually supporting what I said about you. This means that you can't throw tantrums because I spoke negatively about you because you actually agree with it. Oops.

I'm not arguing against artificial devices, nor am I trying to argue for them. I'm talking about which of these artificial devices is more immersive (as per the thread's purpose) in the sense they don't glaringly tell players that they're playing a game. I think this is a problem that no doubt comes from developers who simultaneously want to tell a story but also want players to make decisions in them, which more than often leads to situations like these. They should either tell a story, or give me a game where my decisions are accounted for; if they combine both they can't expect it to work out perfectly fine. Personally, I'd do away with such linearity and critical NPCs and prefer to have games with a more organic, branching design behind them. It's intrusive insofar as players' freedom is concerned, no doubt; but once again we're talking about immersion. A weapon lockdown system used in bars for fear of terrorist actions is much more credible, and therefore immersive, than someone never dying no matter how many shots of how many weapons you fire at him. I don't think I ever criticized Deus Ex because it wasn't something that it never tried to be. At best I have criticized Deus Ex because it's something that it tries to be but never quite manages to.

Even if a UNATCO agent's first objective is to safeguard human life, no civilian with a clearance below Angel/0A should be trusted and may be a potential spy. Anyone can be a spy and should be dealt with accordingly. Nevermind that Jock wasn't willing to cooperate that much, but when a gunfire emerged in the Underworld bar, I was attacked by him. UNATCO agents are meant to preserve human life, but this does not involve standing there getting shot at. Obviously, I returned fire which I'm sure you know is pointless. Now, I very much doubt this is 'in-game' reason enough for you; however wheter you like it or not the game, wheter spontaneously or as a reaction, gave me reasons to shoot at him. Oh, but I have answered. On the other hand, your inability to never reach out beyond the surface of what's being discussed here also answers mine.

Because you say so.

Shadowrun. As a CRPG.

Where are the flames? All I did was to sum up all the posts you make about the Codex. If it makes you feel better, you don't have to admit something we've seen you do dozens of times. Always coming up with the same kneejerk, angsty posts against the same targets is the reason why you're (in)famous. Anyone pointing out you're just being an attention seeking troll is a witty retort, even if obviously you wouldn't agree. Aren't you tired of asking the same question on and on? In case the last years answering that straw man of yours weren't enough, here's a recap: just because I visit the site and post on the forum doesn't mean I have some sense of loyalty to them, nor does it mean I feel like I should defend them against people whose clear intention is to troll. If I did felt compelled to do so, it wouldn't be to try and change the mind of someone who's made it up a long time ago. Whatever it is I do to make me feel better about myself sure as hell doesn't involve you.

You can hack a computer terminal and listen in the background to NPCs noticing you are doing it - by reading their lines - but they'll only shoot you when you log out.