Slashdot Mirror
The Role of Video Game Immersion
GameSetWatch has a story questioning whether modern game developers are putting more effort into immersion than they should, sacrificing other aspects of the game that are more important for an entertaining experience. Quoting:
"Look at popular Wii games, and at casual games. These are generally rules-emergent games, with no pretense of 'immersion.' Arguably, Nintendo chose not to compete in the technology-driven 'realism' field with the Wii, and most casual games are 2D, not 3D. The high numbers of buyers and players of these games suggests that a significant proportion of the audience — if not the majority — wants to play games, not immersive 'simulations.' Put another way, is the immersive simulation (Star Trek Holodeck, Matrix) only the desire of some of the hardcore fans? ... It seems there's a significant number of adults who want to play a video game for a while to relax, to have their attention diverted from ordinary life. They don't want to be immersed in some simulation, some dream-fulfillment — if nothing else, they don't have the time for it!"
I think there's room for both. Speaking for myself, there are times that I can enjoy a good "casual" game that makes no pretense towards immersion and other times that I like losing myself in another world. Both have their draws; the casual game is a great release when you just want to have some fun and the immersive game is the perfect escapism from your boring, humdrum life. For example, on the Xbox 360 lately I'll start out with a couple of quick games of Uno before diving head-on into Fallout 3.
While it's great to examine roles of various games I think this is a non-issue. There will always be both types of games, there will always be developers for both and there will always be people who want either type of experience at different times.
I guess what it really comes down to is if the gameplay is good?
We've had highly immersive games (e.g. Half Life 2) that have been great. But we've also had many with as good or better technology that have been terrible.
2D games aren't good just because they're 2D; they're good because the development team has to get really good gameplay in order to draw people in.
A lot of the recent bad games are the result of EA and other big companies stamp pressing out generic titles improving the technology ever so slightly each time.
They spend no time improving the gameplay. In fact new and original gameplay is against their business model (too "high risk").
The real problem with the gaming industry is too few risk takers. As small companies are by their nature risk takers that translates directly into the conclusion that there is too few small developers and too many large ones.
The real problem of "simulations" is that they are not simulations at all. Apart from graphics, the "world" in most games is completely artificial, to a point where it is ridiculous. Their gameplay adopt the point of view of a child, who is used to be the center of the world, and NPC interaction just doesn't make sense for an adult.
Another problem is the fact that stories in most games are at the level of a child's book. There is rarely social or political comments and NPC are completely shallow. Seriously, how can this interest an (older) adult?
Basically, games are still made for 13-25 years old males, who are now a minority in gaming. It's not that a majority of people want only something to relax, after all a lot of "casual" games are more challenging than the average First Person RPG or FPS, it's just that most "simulations" are laughable from an adult point of view.
Wouldn't the usage of the Wii's motion controls be an example of physical immersion? Also people who buy Wiis play more often with people in the same room, not across a connection.
I've played with the Wii, and noticed it's got a few different pluggable components (such as for Wii boxing, Guitar Hero, etc.). I remember in the mid-1990s, full immersion, as in, helmet/visor, gloves, etc. existed for albeit rudimentary games. Graphics and 'realism' seem to get better and better, so I wonder if that will make a comeback in the 2010s, because the way I see it, that's the next logical step in video game immersion.
i found it very insightful. look to the past... to see the future.
Funny how the Wii became the "casual gamer" system. When they revealed it, I thought it would be the most immersive machine - using that controller as a gun or sword, for example. I wonder, maybe The Conduit will at last deliver the "hardcore" to the Wii.
Circumcision is child abuse.
The article is inherently flawed. The writer is very confused as to the differences between immersion and realism... and I think confused about what immersion really is.
Realism - done correctly - will implement immersion well. Quick example, Armed Assault. Fairly realistic military sim, and the environment allows the player to be immersed in this 'reality'. Now, the reality is only interesting because it's a reality the player will [most likely] never experience.
Realism can be pretty terrible too. Imagine a game based on a regular 9-5 job? You stay in an cubicle the entire time, except for bathroom breaks? Sure, might have great immersion, but who wants that.
Sorry, getting off topic.
On to immersion. Immersion does NOT require realism or graphics of ANY kind. Best example - roleplayers. Going back to the D&D roleplayers, on to MUDs and IRC, and finally to graphical MMOs like Everquest and Star Wars: Galaxies. None of those things are realism. There's fantasy, cyberpunk, etc. etc. This is one level of immersion that's dependent upon the player's level of imagination and interest.
Then there's immersion generated by visual, ambiance, acting, and story. Roleplayers generate these on their own, but for non-roleplayers, these aspects are very impressive. Feeling like you're fighting demons in the depths of hell... it's immersion. It's NOT reality.
From the original post:
"In historical board gaming, a related discussion has gone on for decades, posed as âoerealistic simulationâ of warfare vs. âoegood playable gameâ. In general, the most realistic âoesimulationsâ (realistic in historical terms, not, of course, in personal immersion) have been poor games."
To create a true realism, immersion is required. However, the inverse is not necessary... To create a true immersion, realism is not required.
This is where you're getting confused, I think. Immersion is a positive aspect for many gamers, especially if you are interested in getting involved in an interactive story.
If you don't want to do that, if you want to do it 'light', then yes, those 2D Wii games are wonderful. Yes, they're popular. But there will always be (well, in the foreseeable future) a sizable market for games that include immersion. (And a niche market for 'realism')
Alright, my rant is done. Sorry. =)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhGeta8Nqcs
6:45
I love me some Wii Boxing, but that doesn't mean I won't wrestle in with Final Fantasy or Doom.
And what the hell? Wii doesn't immerse you? Metroid Prime, anyone? Legend of Zelda? They're just as immersive as the normal games, plus you have to interact to make them do things, most notably in the Zelda game, where you have to move the remote to slash. Arguing that pushing three buttons for 10 hours immerses one more than moving your entire body just because the cutscenes are higher detail is borderline retarded.
If the game is good, players will immerse themselves. They've been doing it since at least the days of the NES, and probably sooner. Developers can't really help this through any specific efforts, because it doesn't arise from any specific area of the game; all that truly matters is that the game is entertaining enough. Gamers can and will do the rest all by themselves.
Marketers would like you to think that gimmicks like photorealism and hyper-realistic physics aid in immersion, because that misconception gives developers some relatively easy-to-add hooks that they can use as marketing ploys. But these things don't actually help immersion at all, except in those truly sad souls who have let their imaginations atrophy, and those people need healing, not crutches.
I agree, there's a lot of peripheral debate when it comes to games about everything except quality. The suggestion that "game developers are putting more effort into immersion than they should" is ridiculous. It's a side issue. Game developers should be putting more effort into games, there's no secret formula to it. Most of the games on the wii can barely be called games, their model seems to be "So many people own a wii that if only %1 of them buy it without knowing how crappy it is, and we spend less than a thousand dollars developing it, we will make millions!" They NEED to be making serious efforts.
The authors of the interactive drama Facade collaborated with some augmented-reality people to build an AR version of the game, and found that although it did make people feel more "present" in an immersive virtual world, they actually engaged less with the game as a result, which went against the assumption in the AR field that more-immersive = more-good.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
How can you make such a comparison when true immersion doesn't exist? If there were Holodecks or a Matrix, who's to say how many people would want them? There's o such thing as a drug addict that has never tried drugs.
I think immersion is the quality of a game that makes you forget you're playing a game. This is implemented in graphics and sound design, sure, but also in the degree to which you are aware of using controls to interact with the game world. Take Tetris, for example. After a short time, you don't really think about the fact that you're pressing keys on a keyboard to move the piece left or right. You want to move the piece left, so you just do it. A poor control scheme that makes you constantly think about what you're doing to control a game can do as much to break immersion as texture tearing or crappy voice acting.
And Tetris by no means represents anything real, is 2D like casual games are, but is very immersive as it can eat up a great chunk of your time before you realize it. When you look at the clock and wonder whether you've actually been sitting at a game for whatever 30 minutes, 1 hour, 5 hours, that's an immersive game.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
What are some of the most popular games known to man? Checkers, chess, poker, soccer, baseball, etc. None of these make any attempt to represent any sort of immersive reality. Yet look at the 'emergent gameplay' that a game like chess offers: there are volumes of books on chess strategies, opening moves, endgames, etc. You could probably spend years reading books, practicing, and learning, and still find new things...
I think we've reached a sufficient level of detail to be immersed through graphics with the PS2, GameCube and XBOX, however, for this generation no company has made any advancements in control other than Nintendo. The XBOX360 and PS3 have only made graphical improvement. I think that Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition and Metroid Prime 3 are some of the most immersive games out because of their control schemes.