Making you feel like you're there

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, not a problem, rather that there isn't any "right" answer. I think my view of discussing immersion has been soured by the old Ion Storm boards.

 

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?

 

I find placing story-critical characters in no-kill zones much more of an immersion breaker than unkillable characters, or characters that simply doesn't respond to your attacking them (like in FEAR, or Rainbow Six).

 

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.

 

On a number of occasions I have had Paul attack me, both in the beginning on Liberty Island and in the Ton, because I have accidentally hurt him. Either a stray bullet hit him or he was caught in the radius of an explosion I caused. In all cases it was an accident, and I don't think the developers should factor in every mistake I might make and alter the game accordingly.

 

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.

 

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should be able to do it and still continue on. Sometimes it's just game over.

 

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).

 

but is it really worth it for the developer to put the resources into creating these alternatives based on the fact that the player might accidentally kill someone?

 

They already do this; not just for all critical NPCs.

 

What if the player accidentally kills someone like Tracer Tong?

 

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.

 

Say out here in the real world, an agent of some kind is on a mission to retrieve information, but he ends up accidentally destroying it, how does he complete his mission? He doesn't, he fails, game over. Or an agent is behind enemy lines, and he kills the one person willing tp help him escape because he mistook him for an enemy, how does he get out? He doesn't, game over.

 

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.

 

This is exactly how it is in games like DX, just because you can perform an action doesn't mean you can perform it without screwing yourself over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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?

[Llyranor]

Yeah, failure not meaning game over would be pretty neat, and certainly something that's not really being used prominently enough in today's games.

 

It may have to do with how those games are designed as well (warning: generalization to follow). If you fail a quest, the quest ends. Nothing happens. You don't learn anything from it, you just don't get any rewards from it. Basically, the only consequence is that you failed the quest and get no reward. Or, you die and the game ends anyway. So, what happens when you fail? "Wait, I wanted that reward, instead now nothing happens" or "Darn, I failed, now I'm dead" --> reload = game over.

 

It'd be nice to play a game where failure would be a *viable* option, where it would actually be purposeful.

 

Let's produce a quick example. Assassination quest. Your mission is to murder the great troll Magical Volo, who lives in some heavily guarded building. Having actual charisma, Magical Volo is a well-respected individual in that city. Let's explore our options.

 

1) You succeed. You go back to your employer. Quest complete! Reward! Longsword +2!!!

 

2) You fail and get spotted --> segmentation of gameplay, activate battle mode. You eventually lose, and you get killed. Game over, reload. Try again until you get results from 1).

 

3) You fail and get spotted. You somehow manage to escape, but you're now a fugitive. Magical Volo uses his influence to try to make sure you get caught. You have to be very careful from now on. This greatly affects the gameplay experience for (possibly) the rest of the game while you're in that city. Is this game over? Maybe for the powergamer. Reload. What about the roleplayer? Is this somehow a lesser experience than in 1)? No. If anything, it's a different one - and possibly even more exciting, depending on your perspective. Roleplaying a fugitive can certainly be cool.

 

4) You fail, but managed to escape because your identity is revealed. You're not being actively hunted down, but the city guards are very vigilent from now on, looking for anything suspicious. The end result would be somewhat similar to 1), only that Magical Volo isn't dead.

 

5) You succeed, but get spotted. Fugitive mode.

 

Then, of course, you get further chances to expose the troll for what he is, to help 'clear up' your name, perhaps. Or whatever.

 

In any case, there should be more than a right way and a wrong way when it comes to roleplaying.

[Hell Kitty]

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?

 

I really don't know how to define immersion any more, as it seems to mean different things to different people, and now saying that a game is or isn't immersive is as worthless as saying it is or isn't good.

 

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.

 

Forced failure is how the DX devs stop the player from breaking the game. Whether vital characters are immortal, and don't respond to my attacking them (FEAR), immortal and automatically kill me focring me to reload, or placed in areas that forbid me from attacking them - it's all the same to me, even if one of these things is more acceptable to you than the others.

 

As far as breaking the game is concerned, I think the worst thing the developer can do is allow the player to carry on after they have broken it. Like if you permanantly discard a vital item, or if you kill a vital character and are allowed to go on even though there is no longer a way to progress.

 

Honestly I'd prefer to be screwed because I made a wrong choice instead of not being allowed to screw up.

 

You are allowed to screw up - you can start a fight in the bar, with the consequence of your actions being your death. I too would prefer to be allowed to screw up, the difference is I can accept a game over scenario as a consequence to my screwing 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?

 

I have no problem with the consequences of my failure meaning game over.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Hell Kitty

[Diamond]

I think that immersion is primarily a human factor. If you have enough imagination, the game will be immersive. Of course, quality of implementation will be indirect factor.

 

My $0.02

[Nick_i_am]

Yeah, i very much agree with Llyranor above, some games (particually RTSs and action games) use 'optional objectives', to take an example from Mech Warrior 4, there is a mission where you have to attack a base, but their is a radar network in the way and your objective becomes to blow it up before it can alert the base. So blow it up in time or advoid it somehow, or get detected. If detected however, it's not an instant game over, you just get your commander dude calling you a moron and when you get to the base you find powered up and ready mechs rather than powered down ones which could be salvaged 'in tact' once you take over the base (assuming you dont give the pilots time to get them fired up).

 

A simple example, but one that very much helps immersion. Another point along the same lines would be that games actually tell you what a 'game over' means. Okay, so sometimes they HAVE to force you to reload, but it would be nice if they could tell you the effects that your failure had on yourself and the world (not so relevent for if you die, but if you get a game over on being spotted or captured for example).

[Slowtrain]

I think the reason we are gravitating to unkillable characters as an example of choices and consequences is because they are a unique and obvious part of a linear story-based game.

 

As Hell KItty says there is a difference between walkign into the wrong bathroom vs killing a game-critical character.

 

Probably in the end there is no "best" or even "right" way to do implement that level of choice/restriction/consequence. A computer gameworld is such an aritifical and restricted place anyway that really to apply consequence and choice the same way we apply in RL is absurd when you think about it. We all go into a computer game putting on our story-telling blinders and accept the limitations, restricitions, and impossibilities of the virtual world we are in.

 

ANd again, you can't have story and freedom both. The most free and open ended games are tactical combat games like XCOM and Jagged Alliance 2 and flight sims with dynamic campaigns. And those are so free because there isn't really any story, just a situation that needs to rectified, an overall goal that needs to be achieved.

 

Fallout was also something like this, having no real story, but rather just an overall goal (find the waterchip; destroy ther mutants) and a world that was filled with little vignettes that had no real effect on the overall goal, other than offering different ways to achieve short-term objectives.

 

I personally prefer games such as Fallout and Jagged Alliance 2, but otoh, I'm not going to penalize a story-based game from restricting my choices. That's part of the deal I enter into when I begin the game.

[Nick_i_am]

We all go into a computer game putting on our story-telling blinders and accept the limitations, restricitions, and impossibilities of the virtual world we are in.

 

erm, no actually, that's one of the things that can seperate a good game from a great game, excepting the obvious 'well it's still a game and not a neural link to your brain' (in terms of limitations). In terms of storyline alone, the point about immersion is that you get sucked into the world in such a way that it is BELIVABLE, even if the gameplay element of the game is surreal as far as 'real world' goes (for example, Homeworld as an RTS). In terms of gameplay, the problem only comes when gameplay and story are very intimate with each other and the player has the freedom to poke them both at the same time. Of course, the nature of these games mean that, done right, they can be very immersive since they can give the player a simulation of the level of freedom he is used to in the real world.

 

My point is that story and storytelling does NOT have to be the immersion breaking element of a game, the reason why deus ex is being handled like a village bycicle in this thread is because they were, or rather 'could be'.

 

Another game that really immersed me, incidently, was Operation Flashpoint. The high level of realism combined with a story and an actually intelligent AI really helped pull me in, but it was pulling me into the game, and not the world, which is another reason why 'immersion' alone is a dangerous word.

 

So far in this thread we have seen examples for and against immersion via Atmosphere, immersion via Freedom, immersion via story and immersion via gameplay, and yet off all the games I can think of off the top of my head, none of them fill more than two of those.

[Slowtrain]

SO do you think its possible for a game, given our current state of technology, to be so completely immersive that nothign ever happens in it to remind us that we are playing a game?

 

I don't, at least I've never experienced it. Whether its a door that doesn't open or a wall that won't blow up or a npc that will not die, I constantly encounter immersion breakers in every game I play.

 

But maybe I'm taking this talk of "you are there" too literally?

[mkreku]

I think that immersion is primarily a human factor. If you have enough imagination, the game will be immersive.

Yup. All Diamond needs are two dice, his own imagination and a box of paper towels and he can play with himself all day long.

 

The rest of us prefer a well told story through one of the most powerful media there is: computer games.

[Nick_i_am]

SO do you think its possible for a game, given our current state of technology, to be so completely immersive that nothign ever happens in it to remind us that we are playing a game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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. If that's what you meant though then it DOES happen to me, that the game becomes the world until somthing in the real world (and not the game) breaks me away from it. Of course, this is a facet of my personality, just as some people are more susceptible to addiction or whatever.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Forced failure is how the DX devs stop the player from breaking the game. Whether vital characters are immortal, and don't respond to my attacking them (FEAR), immortal and automatically kill me focring me to reload, or placed in areas that forbid me from attacking them - it's all the same to me, even if one of these things is more acceptable to you than the others.

 

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.

 

As far as breaking the game is concerned, I think the worst thing the developer can do is allow the player to carry on after they have broken it. Like if you permanantly discard a vital item, or if you kill a vital character and are allowed to go on even though there is no longer a way to progress.

 

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.

 

You are allowed to screw up - you can start a fight in the bar, with the consequence of your actions being your death. I too would prefer to be allowed to screw up, the difference is I can accept a game over scenario as a consequence to my screwing up.

 

(...)I have no problem with the consequences of my failure meaning game over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, you've already established that. The thing is, does it always have to be Game Over? I don't think so.

[Nick_i_am]

Having said that, stopping the player from finishing the last boss because they accidently threw away a vital item in an area way back that they can no longer even access isn't really immersion, it's just frustration, to my opinion.

 

Again, fallout comes to mind, you could do almost whatever you wanted and you would still be able to 'complete' the game. As far as I know (though I may well be completely wrong about this) there is no NPC or item which is NEEDED to finish the game.

[Diamond]

Yup. All Diamond needs are two dice, his own imagination and a box of paper towels and he can play with himself all day long.

 

The rest of us prefer a well told story through one of the most powerful media there is: computer games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before you make any more random and really [not smart] comments, tell me why you like Wasteland so much? Does it have deep story? Immersive graphics? Or maybe living vibrant NPCs and believable voice acting?

 

It is your imagination.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

SO do you think its possible for a game, given our current state of technology, to be so completely immersive that nothign ever happens in it to remind us that we are playing a game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Slowtrain]

Looking at a healthbar doesn't bother me. No immersion break there. Its quick, painless, and easy. Its a gameplay convention sure, but I've become so standardized to it, that I am no longer aware of its artifice.

 

Actually removing the healthbar and forcing me to do something new would be more immersion breaking.

 

DOn't go overboard on making a game simulate "reality" too much. That's a long dark and dangerous road.

[Musopticon?]

Loosing the healthbar can be even more simpler. Make the character loose focus, waver and bleed. That way the player can see when he needs to kick back and gather his strength and when to push on just by looking at his character.

 

A fine example of this is Getaway.

[Haitoku]

Immersion isn't the same for everyone. If you can believe what you are being told, what your seeing and reading. It won't matter how many health bars, power bars, ammo bars, radars, etc, are on the screen.

 

It is your imagination.

 

I think this says it best.

 

Were some people find it, such as Fallout because of the wide variety of paths and choices. Others might not because of the lack of any real storyline.

[BattleCookiee]

 

Why go about deleting the ammo/health counters. Specifically in a FPS that would be a no/no.

 

What is more annoying, knowing your health right away or having to press 3 buttons to actually see it.

 

I think with the first method I would get alot more immersed, and not feel like throwing the disk out of the window like in the second way...

 

EDIT; Let's get back to DX as example. DX had a "complex interface" according to console-fanbois. Thus they made the interface for DX:IW alot easier to use. Do I feel more "immersive" in DX:IW than in DX?

Nope, mainly due to the "futuristic look", crappy interface (IMO) and poorer story, among other things (like being recruited for group X for 15 min and then run away because of betrayal... while in DX it took several hours)

Edited January 9, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Actually removing the healthbar and forcing me to do something new would be more immersion breaking.

 

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.

 

DOn't go overboard on making a game simulate "reality" too much.  That's a long dark and dangerous road.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[mkreku]

Before you make any more random and really [not smart] comments, tell me why you like Wasteland so much? Does it have deep story? Immersive graphics? Or maybe living vibrant NPCs and believable voice acting?

 

It is your imagination.

Wrong. As much as I liked Wasteland back in the days when all computer games looked like Wasteland, the only reason I still like it is nostalgia (rose coloured glasses and all that). I am fully aware that today's gamer expects a whole lot more than Wasteland has to offer, even though it has a great story and setting, and I like it more as a memory than as a game. The current generation of gamers do not have less imagination than us old school gamers, they just have better technology and more advanced games (technology wise, not gameplay wise).

 

It is still possible to play crappy games using your own imagination, but why bother?

[Haitoku]

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.

 

That does not apply to everyone. Some people don't care if you can see health and ammo bars. Hell, why not make Snake die in one hit from a high caliber gun or make it so that when he eats (MGS3), he has to take 10-15mins to cook his meals.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Why go about deleting the ammo/health counters.

 

Beats me. Then again I didn't suggest removing them from the game.

 

What is more annoying, knowing your health right away or having to press 3 buttons to actually see it.

 

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?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

That does not apply to everyone.

 

I'm not giving suggestions for everyone, either.

 

Some people don't care if you can see health and ammo bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Role-Player

[Nartwak]

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.

The player characters in the Resident Evil series begin to hold themselves and walk when they are wounded. There are visual cues to the characters' health during gameplay.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Nartwak

[Diamond]

Wrong. As much as I liked Wasteland back in the days when all computer games looked like Wasteland, the only reason I still like it is nostalgia (rose coloured glasses and all that).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bingo. Back in those days. As you grow older your "immersion meter" decreases with your imagination, since you get more experience with the world. The younger you are, the better is your imagination due to the amount of life experience. Recall that kids have enormous imagination and can play any crap all day long, because it is really new and immersive for them. But now as you have grown up, games will not be as immersive as they used to be, until technology can keep up with expectations.

 

The point I was making is that immersion is mainly how you perceive the game, the technology helps you with it.

 

As much as I liked Wasteland...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

P.S.

IIRC you still keep recommending people this game.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Diamond