Immersion and so forth

[Walsingham]

 

And don't make it isometric or turn-based, I cannot see how an isometric game can be immersive at all.  That's a thing of the past, time to move forward.  Third/first person open world is the way to go.  /putsonflamesuit

Define immersive and don't forget to explain why that should be a goal of every role-playing game, then maybe I'll be able to see the logic.

 

 

[above quote taken from "Obsidian why you stop?]

 

This exchange struck a chord with me because I'd been pondering similar in my local tabletop group.

 

It seems to me that what they are actually debated is computer-assisted immersion versus human-generated immersion. The former is unlikely to ever completely replace the latter. Game design, dialogue, plot, tropes, all of these are equally important.

 

So that's one question: is artificial reality a chimaera?

 

My second question is the old social one: is the drive for augmentation producing 'flabby' minds? That is, children derive a healthy benefit from using their imaginations, and heavy computer-augmentation of fantasy is weakening development?

[Raithe]

Hm, I would say computer augmentation can help inspire the imagination. It's a lot like if you pick up some of those Artists books, ala Syd Mead or Sparth - Sure, they've given you images, but those very images can send your imagination hurtling off in another dozen directions and creating your own wonders or picturing just what else could be involved with what you see on the page.

 

Although on the "drive for augmentation" I would say that if you regularly use a calculator you start getting fuzzy on mental mathematics..  So there's also that side to the argument.

[anubite]

Immersion isn't something computers do. Immersion is all in the head of the gamer. Maybe you can make the case for the Oculus Rift changing that, but that isn't here yet.

 

I can be immersed in the world a book, song, or movie provides. Because video games are interactive, immersion is maybe easier, but that's probably it.

 

Immersion for video games I think is really built around having a good initial premise to set you in the world, a strong soundscape that meshes with the visuals, and as few jarring breaks in gameplay as possible (loading screens, bugs, et cetera). VTMB is immersive for me because of its soundscape (sit in any of the urban areas and close your eyes for a few minutes), because of its visuals, and because it has fairly large continuous tracts of land to explore.

 

I'd say any 'good well designed game is immersive' but maybe that's not entirely true. Still, I don't think immersion is something you can design explicitly for, you just need to make sure you have a good few dudes on sound, story and art direction.

Edited September 16, 2013 by anubite

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Honestly, Immersion, in respect to gaming, is just someone saying they like/dislike something without being able to articulate it very well.

 

I can't answer either of your questions well(lack of data) and I think a suitable answer may be impossible to find.

 

Oh and Rham is a troll, I wouldn't pay much attention to him.

[Gorth]

Immersion is all in the head of the gamer.

Spot on

 

Different people experience a game in different ways. Sounds, visuals etc. all contribute.

 

For me, key parts are a story that is at least interesting enough in the beginning to get me hooked and an internally consistent world. An example of the latter could be one of the games I rant/rave about, the original Tomb Raider. Nice sound scape. Functional visual representation of the world (anyone who gets a kick out of looking a triangular polygon boobs needs a serious head examination) and most importantly, once you understand the world mechanics, you can "exist" in there. If there is a surface, you can walk, run and jump on it. If there is water, you can swim and/or dive in it. If you leave the safety of the surface, you'll fall etc. Really very simple things, but after playing a bit and getting familiar with it, you feel like you are "there" when you begin to think about how you get from point A to B inside the game, thinking in game mechanics.

 

Same thing goes for old 8 bit shooters. Galaxians, Invaders etc. to complex games like recent CRPG's. If it makes you think in "in-game" mechanics rather than a magic sequence of button pushes, the game (designer) "wins".

 

Edit: Not sure if the above makes any sense, but it's halfway through the day and I've had 12 cups of coffee already.

[AGX-17]

The level of immersion you feel in a game is ultimately determined by your own imagination. I've never heard of a person who genuinely mistook a video game for reality, and in the case of every person who plays a game, video or otherwise, their ability to have fun with it hinges on their ability to imagine stories, strategies, possibilities, etc. Developers can go to great lengths to improve immersion for people who are not very imaginative, but there are also people who can feel completely immersed in a game with primitive or no graphics just as there are people who can't feel immersed in a game aiming to be as realistic as possible in terms of immersion. It all boils down to the individual and their own inherent preferences.

 

I see "imagination" too narrowly defined these days, particularly in the context of "somebody please think about the children!" It's almost always used as part of an argument (not peer-reviewed studies,) that's generally against technology and its advancement. People imagine things all the time. Nearly all the thinking you do is imagining scenarios, it doesn't matter if it's about the real world or not.

 

When you broaden the subject to technology in general, it's something of a false dilemma, because most of the things technology helps us do are things the human brain did not evolve to deal with. Classic example: people who complain about calculators. The common assumption is that using calculators makes people less intelligent, but the sorts of math dealt with in this day and age by professionals (mathematicians, physicists,) are simply impossible for a human to perform, at least in a remotely efficient fashion. The mathematical calculations performed by supercomputers these days would be impossible for an army of human brains to perform in a remotely useful timescale. The human brain was never a calculator. There's a good examination of the concept here in the "Innate Numbers" story: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91697-numbers/

 

People didn't evolve in an environment of strictly scheduled work regimens with meetings and co-workers in a concrete city where they have to fill out spreadsheets all day, people evolved to live the life of a hunter-gatherer in smallish groups roaming around sub-Saharan Africa. That's why people are so bad at all these things that they're supposedly bad at because of video games and TV and smartphones and Excel.

 

We were never good at them in the first place, it's just that we've developed technology that's so much better at it than we are that peoples' perspectives have shifted.

Edited September 19, 2013 by AGX-17

[TrashMan]

Immersions, suspension of disbelief, realism...they are all connected.

 

I'll just post what I wrote on another forums and be done with it:

 

 

 

To say that the line is completely arbitrary is not entirely correct.

While poeple have differing amounts of tolerance for various things, and different levels of suspension of disbelief, that doesn't change the fact that some things are more or less realistic/believable.
For example: I and Bob maye have different tolerance to sour food - but because he can tolare a lemon doesnt' mean it's not moe sour than an apple.
Or, human lifting a ton and liftin 100 tons are both unrealistic - but the second one is more unrealistic.

Now, something doesn't have to be "realistic" to be "believable". Realistic is usually used to indicate stict adherence and simulation of realty, but it can also be used as a term to mean the same thing as believability. Believability (or versimilitude) is more about coherence - some things can be believable, even if they are unrealistic.

Having said that, it should be clear that realism is BY DEFAULT believable.

Gameplay and story segragation is NOT NECESSARY in a game, and indeed, it may end up hurting the game (atmosphere, immersion) especially if there is a big disconnect between lore, cutscenes and gameplay.

To that end, overblown attacks/powers that look like they belong in a Superman or DBZ comic aren't helping.

I consider it proudent to aim for great beleviabiltiy. The smaller the suspension of disbelief necessary to immerse onself, the better.

Now if one askes "why should the game be tailored more to those with lesser suspension of disbelief", then the answer is simple.
People who have a high tolerance for spicy/sour can still easily enjoy normal food. The reverse is not true. Same here.

[Amentep]

Something being more or less realistic/unrealistic isn't really logically valid, IMO.  Unrealistic is defined as that which is not realistic which means its a binary concept.  What you're actually saying is that unlikely things can still scale - the human lifting a ton is slightly less unlikely than a human lifting 100 tons (which, with respect to a human lifting a single ton is more unlikely and both are greatly unlikely compared to a human lifting a pound)

 

I don't agree that realism by default is believable and I'd disagree that pursuit of realism is an inherently laudable goal.  A woman can win the lottery, her husband, an NBA basketball star, could be struck by a meteor and killed while sinking a three point shot from mid-court and her daughter can be a savant of the highest order and her son could be President of the USA. - all things that are possible for individuals (and thus real) but all highly unlikely and cumulatively less likely.  Now the obvious point to make here is that these scenarios - despite being theoretically possible - are all highly unlikely alone, much less applied to one family.  Which is the reason why the general rule is that suspension of disbelief tends to allow an audience to accept one unlikely (or impossible) plot element in any given story and anything that logically follows from that element that's unbelievable. 

 

Now I'll also say that the minute you bring a narrative structure into a "realistic" scenario you've developed an artificiality that is opposed to reality, so the idea that a fictional narrative should strive to emulate reality is to desire random events with no plot or character arcs.  And while it might make a novel experience, I'm not sure that I'd want everything to follow that template.

 

The question of verisimilitude, IMO, really only applies to internal logic, in other words is the work true to the rules that it sets out?  That's the question to be asked.  One man's Superman power is another man's mage casting a spell to summon a demon.  The idea that one fantastically impossible idea is "better" than another is ridiculous; the idea that should be asked is "does this fantastical idea logically follow from the suspension of disbelief plot element" and then judge whether or not the work is internally consistent with itself.

 

Now onto "immersion", IMO immersion is the ability of the person to "lose themselves" in a creative work, to find oneself divorced of thinking about the mechanics of the real world.  Reading a book where you stop noticing that you're reading words on the page as those words conjure images in your mind; to forget that you're sitting in an audience listening to 40 individual instruments being played but to only hear and see music; to forget that you're rolling dice to see if you open a door, but to see your character opening that door in your minds eye; to lose sight of the fact you're clicking a mouse to attack a thug but only thinking of attacking the thug.

 

And in that sense, there is no formula, no way to please everyone.  Its not a technological limitation in computer games that can be overcome, because the ability to immerse oneself lies not with an object or even how the object is used, but in the ability of the individual to project themselves past the object into the realm of their imagination, to lose themselves there and forget that physical shell in that physical world which defines their day-to-day existence.

 

From a creative standpoint, you can only make the best creation you (and your team if collaborative) can make.  People will either be immersed in it or not; you can't control that because you can't control your audience and for every game that is lauded for its "immersion" there will be those who just can't get into it as the ability to immerse lies with the individual, not the creator and not, entirely the creation (as mentioned above, the creation aspect can control the internal logic; inconsistency may be a hobgoblin, but its also a guarantee to make people think about the object and not get lost in their internalization of what the object provides).

 

Or, you know, something like that.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Amentep

[TrashMan]

 

I don't agree that realism by default is believable and I'd disagree that pursuit of realism is an inherently laudable goal. 

 

 

Of course it is. Because it is real. That's not to say people aren't capable of deliberately not beliving what is real, or having a skewed perception of reality.

To a big extent, media and it's conventions are to blame. A lie reptead enough times becomes more "real" than the truth - especially within the context of the media.

 

Which is why many movie goers feel a real silencer sounds unreal (because their idea of what a silencer sounds like it from a movie), or many people feel that a jump or punch doens't feel right unless there is pavement/wall cracking under it.

 

 

 

 

Now the obvious point to make here is that these scenarios - despite being theoretically possible - are all highly unlikely alone, much less applied to one family.  Which is the reason why the general rule is that suspension of disbelief tends to allow an audience to accept one unlikely (or impossible) plot element in any given story and anything that logically follows from that element that's unbelievable. 

 

Now I'll also say that the minute you bring a narrative structure into a "realistic" scenario you've developed an artificiality that is opposed to reality, so the idea that a fictional narrative should strive to emulate reality is to desire random events with no plot or character arcs.  And while it might make a novel experience, I'm not sure that I'd want everything to follow that template.

 

You lost me there, and I don't think that is what I was arguing ...and it's also false.

 

 

 

The question of verisimilitude, IMO, really only applies to internal logic, in other words is the work true to the rules that it sets out?  That's the question to be asked.  One man's Superman power is another man's mage casting a spell to summon a demon.  The idea that one fantastically impossible idea is "better" than another is ridiculous; the idea that should be asked is "does this fantastical idea logically follow from the suspension of disbelief plot element" and then judge whether or not the work is internally consistent with itself.

 

It's not. A mage is infinitely "better".

Magic itself, as something that defines known relity/physics makes that suspension easier - especialyl considerign a fantasy setting.

 

Superman on the other hand has his powers explained as "biology", yet they make no sense even within his own universe and are contradictory on several levels.

 

 

 

 

And in that sense, there is no formula, no way to please everyone.  Its not a technological limitation in computer games that can be overcome, because the ability to immerse oneself lies not with an object or even how the object is used, but in the ability of the individual to project themselves past the object into the realm of their imagination, to lose themselves there and forget that physical shell in that physical world which defines their day-to-day existence.

 

 

To claim that immersion lies SOLEY within the audience, and not in the work is wrong.

Edited September 20, 2013 by TrashMan

[Amentep]

 

I don't agree that realism by default is believable and I'd disagree that pursuit of realism is an inherently laudable goal.

 

 

Of course it is. Because it is real.

 

No, it isn't. Its fiction, which by its nature is not reality. It can never be real, it can approach reality, it can simulate reality but it can't ever be real because it is artifice.

 

The only benefit to simulating reality is if it enhances what you're doing, but reality shouldn't, by necessity dictate what you do.

 

 

 

 

Now the obvious point to make here is that these scenarios - despite being theoretically possible - are all highly unlikely alone, much less applied to one family.  Which is the reason why the general rule is that suspension of disbelief tends to allow an audience to accept one unlikely (or impossible) plot element in any given story and anything that logically follows from that element that's unbelievable. 

 

Now I'll also say that the minute you bring a narrative structure into a "realistic" scenario you've developed an artificiality that is opposed to reality, so the idea that a fictional narrative should strive to emulate reality is to desire random events with no plot or character arcs.  And while it might make a novel experience, I'm not sure that I'd want everything to follow that template.

 

You lost me there, and I don't think that is what I was arguing ...and it's also false.

 

Actually I wasn't specifically responding to you (hence why I didn't quote you), but its not false. Reality doesn't have a plot, it doesn't have foreshadowing. There's not rising movement and a denouement and a fade to black.

 

So to be, ultimately real, is to be ... well potentially very boring. What most people call "realism" isn't really realism, its mirroring aspects of reality within a fictional context so that as one reads/watches/interacts with the fictional world they can suspend disbelief such that they can see the fictional world as something that fits into the real world. But its not reality.

 

 

 

The question of verisimilitude, IMO, really only applies to internal logic, in other words is the work true to the rules that it sets out?  That's the question to be asked.  One man's Superman power is another man's mage casting a spell to summon a demon.  The idea that one fantastically impossible idea is "better" than another is ridiculous; the idea that should be asked is "does this fantastical idea logically follow from the suspension of disbelief plot element" and then judge whether or not the work is internally consistent with itself.

 

It's not. A mage is infinitely "better".

Magic itself, as something that defines known relity/physics makes that suspension easier - especialyl considerign a fantasy setting.

 

Superman on the other hand has his powers explained as "biology", yet they make no sense even within his own universe and are contradictory on several levels.

 

This we'll just have to disagree with. A person who has demon blood that boils with magic and who is able to pull magical effects out of the aether by sheer will is no more right/wrong than Superman being able to do the same because he has Kryptonian genetics.

 

Both are fantasy settings, anyhow.

 

Anyhow, IMO, as long as they're internally consistent with their own established fantasy 'reality', I have no problem with either. 

 

 

 

And in that sense, there is no formula, no way to please everyone.  Its not a technological limitation in computer games that can be overcome, because the ability to immerse oneself lies not with an object or even how the object is used, but in the ability of the individual to project themselves past the object into the realm of their imagination, to lose themselves there and forget that physical shell in that physical world which defines their day-to-day existence.

 

To claim that immersion lies SOLEY within the audience, and not in the work is wrong.

 

I'm not sure I did; what I was trying to say is that - at the end of the day - the developer can only control how simulationist of reality and how internally consistent their game is and if the game is "good" there will be those who can be immersed in it and those who don't.

 

IE, if I make the best isometric game in the world, so great that Fallout fans, BG fans, PST fans weep openly when playing it, there will still be those who feel the isometric games aren't "immersive" to them regardless of the quality of the game.

 

There are certain things that can be controlled by a developer - how internally consistant it is, how the game play works, how the interface works, but they can't control for who plays their games.

[TrashMan]

 

No, it isn't. Its fiction, which by its nature is not reality. It can never be real, it can approach reality, it can simulate reality but it can't ever be real because it is artifice.

 

The only benefit to simulating reality is if it enhances what you're doing, but reality shouldn't, by necessity dictate what you do.

 

 

 

And fiction is based in reality. Fictions that postulates familiarity and draws paralel with reality and draws expectations.

If world X has humans, then you expect them to look like humans, think like humansand act like humans.

If it has gravity, then you expect it to work like gravity.

And so on and on.

 

Realism requires no suspension of disbelief. Thus believable.

 

 

 

 

Reality doesn't have a plot, it doesn't have foreshadowing. There's not rising movement and a denouement and a fade to black.

 

So to be, ultimately real, is to be ... well potentially very boring. What most people call "realism" isn't really realism, its mirroring aspects of reality within a fictional context so that as one reads/watches/interacts with the fictional world they can suspend disbelief such that they can see the fictional world as something that fits into the real world. But its not reality.

 

 

Reductio Ad Absurdum (or Extremis)

Implementation of persual of any idea to it's ultimate extreeme will never sound good. It's not black or white. It's degrees.

 

Reality doesn't have a plot - but things happen. Stories about what someone did have a begning, middle and end.

You claim that reality should be applies 100% to everythingis redicolous. It's not possible to make a game like that (because it would cease to be a game to begin with). It's impossible to make a movie like that. It would have to run forever and chorincle every second of a persons life.

 

What you say is utterly redicolous

 

 

 

 

This we'll just have to disagree with. A person who has demon blood that boils with magic and who is able to pull magical effects out of the aether by sheer will is no more right/wrong than Superman being able to do the same because he has Kryptonian genetics.

 

Both are fantasy settings, anyhow.

 

Anyhow, IMO, as long as they're internally consistent with their own established fantasy 'reality', I have no problem with either.

 

Then we do disagree.

One is internally consistent magic, the other is utterly incosistent un-science. Trying to equate magicand science is a fallacy.

[Walsingham]

Haven't had concentration to read some obviously good posts.

 

Does anyone else struggle with this bloody board colour? On long posts?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Haven't had concentration to read some obviously good posts.

 

Does anyone else struggle with this bloody board colour? On long posts?

Sometimes. Although Trashy's posts do tend to make one's eyes bleed.

[Walsingham]

i suppose I could always copy paste them into Word or something

[Amentep]

And fiction is based in reality. Fictions that postulates familiarity and draws paralel with reality and draws expectations.

If world X has humans, then you expect them to look like humans, think like humansand act like humans.

If it has gravity, then you expect it to work like gravity.

And so on and on.

 

Realism requires no suspension of disbelief. Thus believable.

Right "believable" but not real. Its all fantasy with degrees of believability; as X approaches infinity, fiction gets closer to reality but it never becomes real (or it all becomes real if you're a believer in the thoughts = existence frame of reference).

 

 

 

Reductio Ad Absurdum (or Extremis)

Implementation of persual of any idea to it's ultimate extreeme will never sound good. It's not black or white. It's degrees.

 

Reality doesn't have a plot - but things happen. Stories about what someone did have a begning, middle and end.

You claim that reality should be applies 100% to everythingis redicolous. It's not possible to make a game like that (because it would cease to be a game to begin with). It's impossible to make a movie like that. It would have to run forever and chorincle every second of a persons life.

 

What you say is utterly redicolous

Sure things happen, but fictional structures aren't real. There's degrees of believability and the best writers writing something set in the "right now" need to do research so that their fictional constructs hold up under the weight of expectations in how the world is "right now".

 

But its still not "real" its a simulation of reality within a fictional construct.

 

Then we do disagree.

One is internally consistent magic, the other is utterly incosistent un-science. Trying to equate magicand science is a fallacy.

Unless you see both as magic. Which they are, because they're both fictional and thus fantasy.

 

Even the best science fiction is ultimately a "what might be" fantasy that is grounded in our current understandings of science and technology.

[TrashMan]

 

 

 

Reductio Ad Absurdum (or Extremis)

Implementation of persual of any idea to it's ultimate extreeme will never sound good. It's not black or white. It's degrees.

 

Reality doesn't have a plot - but things happen. Stories about what someone did have a begning, middle and end.

You claim that reality should be applies 100% to everythingis redicolous. It's not possible to make a game like that (because it would cease to be a game to begin with). It's impossible to make a movie like that. It would have to run forever and chorincle every second of a persons life.

 

What you say is utterly redicolous

Sure things happen, but fictional structures aren't real. There's degrees of believability and the best writers writing something set in the "right now" need to do research so that their fictional constructs hold up under the weight of expectations in how the world is "right now".

 

But its still not "real" its a simulation of reality within a fictional construct.

 

I have no idea what you're arguing here.

Fictional structrues aren't "unreal" either. Stories tend to skip over uninteresting parts, not because they didn't happen, but because there's no reason to show them.

A Heroes Journey is not "unrealistic"... just unlikely

 

 

 

 

 

Unless you see both as magic. Which they are, because they're both fictional and thus fantasy.

 

Even the best science fiction is ultimately a "what might be" fantasy that is grounded in our current understandings of science and technology.

 

They aren't both magic.

That is a gross oversimplification, since science CANNOT be magic by definition. The words are not the same and they do NOT describe the same thing.

 

Sure, you can "look" at them the same. But that is pointless.

Just saying "all of it fiction anyway" and painting it with the exact same brush is, IMHO, a denial of common sense.

 

Forest Gump is fiction.

Dead Poest Society is Fiction

Pokemon is fiction.

Telletubbies is fiction.

The Game of Throens is fiction.

 

Yup, all the same.

[Amentep]

I have no idea what you're arguing here.

Fictional structrues aren't "unreal" either. Stories tend to skip over uninteresting parts, not because they didn't happen, but because there's no reason to show them.

A Heroes Journey is not "unrealistic"... just unlikely

Fictional structures don't exist in real life, therefore they're not part of reality. They're constructed concepts that apply to a creative work. Again life has no plot, there's no foreshadowing, you can't flashforward to events that haven't happened, etc. 

 

 

 

Unless you see both as magic. Which they are, because they're both fictional and thus fantasy.

 

Even the best science fiction is ultimately a "what might be" fantasy that is grounded in our current understandings of science and technology.

 

They aren't both magic.

That is a gross oversimplification, since science CANNOT be magic by definition. The words are not the same and they do NOT describe the same thing.

 

Science /= science fiction (and anyhow Clarke's Law 3 for fiction)

 

Sure, you can "look" at them the same. But that is pointless.

Just saying "all of it fiction anyway" and painting it with the exact same brush is, IMHO, a denial of common sense.

 

Forest Gump is fiction.

Dead Poest Society is Fiction

Pokemon is fiction.

Telletubbies is fiction.

The Game of Throens is fiction.

 

Yup, all the same.

Yes they are the same in that they're fiction. They're not the same in intent, structure, simulation of reality, themes, plot, audience, etc. That they're fictional makes them a fantasy, of some sort or another.

 

Genre really only exists as a marketing tool.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Amentep

[alanschu]

Fictions that postulates familiarity and draws paralel with reality and draws expectations.

 

You actually contradict yourself here:

 

 

 

A lie reptead [sic] enough times becomes more "real" than the truth - especially within the context of the media.

 

 

Realism is not always better.  Play an FPS and have almost any wound be incapacitating, and the number of people willing to engage in that game will decline.  It's part of the reason why a game like ArmA II is not nearly as successful as many other games, despite its goals of being hyper realistic.  In fact, ArmA became popular with the creation of a zombie apocalypse mode, which inherently shifts the game away from realism.

 

 

Realism IS a goal for some.  But I also feel that some people that call out for realism aren't actually fully realizing what it is they are asking for.

 

 

 

 

Realism requires no suspension of disbelief. Thus believable.

 

There are plenty of people that do not believe in things that occur in reality, though.

Edited September 25, 2013 by alanschu

[Molly Thunderbreeze]

This thread got a bit heady, and I must agree the font is rough on the eyes.  Immersion is a personal issue, and for developers of either video or tabletop games is a primary goal.  It is often the why and how a player defines a game, movie or book as being fun.  Immersion keeps them pulling that umbilical cord to reach the end.  Something as simple as 8 shots from a 6-shooter will destroy that desired effect.

[Walsingham]

We've actually all moved to the other thread with JFSOCC.