Re-Examining the Immersion Factor For First-Person Shooters

An opinion piece on Gamasutra looks into the common perception that a first-person view provides a much more immersive experience in shooters. The author argues that this concept needs to be reconsidered, as immersion nowadays is more dependent on what you see, rather than how you see it. The question is further complicated by ever-improving technology and new control schemes. "It's important to realize that making a first-person game almost necessarily means making a game for the dedicated gamer. Innovations on the interface side could help lower the casual block, perhaps through the Wii, Project Natal, or the PS3's new motion controller. Regardless, it will take a lot of work and concerted effort to penetrate the casual audience with a first-person camera. The question is whether we even need to, when there are so many camera systems that games have yet to fully explore."

Comments

immersion also isn't the only factor

[Trepidity]

There are a lot of things you might want out of a game, of which immersion is only one. You might also want engagement, fun, thought-provokingness (okay, maybe less from an FPS), and lots of other qualities. There even some research showing that perfect immersion might harm some of these other properties, and may not be the sweet spot--- playing games on some perfectly immersive, like the Star Trek Holodeck, might not actually be what a lot of people want. I know I personally enjoy some mediation between myself and the virtual world; I like to feel that I'm playing a game, not actually in the world. But then i like turn-based and 2d games, too.

Re:immersion also isn't the only factor

[Undead Waffle]

There are a lot of things you might want out of a game, of which immersion is only one.

This.

The author also seems to be assuming game developers are using the first person perspective for the sake of immersion. This is not necessarily true. The camera greatly influences gameplay. Aiming a gun is much more natural from a first person view than some sort of overhead view with a crosshair floating over your character's head or something. Maybe the developers are first deciding that a first person view is optimal for gameplay and then trying to make the game as immersive as possible given the chosen camera.

Can play one, can play them all

[DinkyDogg]

Nothing kills immersion more than having to look up which button does what. But if you've played one FPS, you can sit down with any other and have an immediate, intuitive understanding of how it works. In real life, you don't have to think about how to walk, run, drive a car, swim... So if you want immersion, you have to make all that as intuitive as possible -- easily accomplished if every game of the same genre has the same control scheme.

Re:Graphics are the least important

[megalomaniacs4u]

You missed out:

• No Quick Time Events
• Don't steal my damn weapons
• No out of place stealth levels (sudden changes of gameplay style suck)
• Zero/Low Gravity levels only if they make sense
• Gravity gun puzzles - it works through a forcefield but not through a window?
• Respawning "push" phases

Re:Reminds me of the old Star Trek arcade game

[tomhudson]

Watching a movie at anything less than 30 fps will also break the illusion.

Movies are shot at 24fps. This has been the standard for almost 90 years. It hasn't had to change, despite technical improvements, because the eye and brain haven't changed.

TPS's

[sonicmerlin]

I know this is about FPS's, but I think this issue somewhat applies. Mod me offtopic if you must:

You know how to *ruin* a game's immersion factor? Make it *third person* behind the friggin' back.

Thankyou, Dead Space, I forever will appreciate the giant, virtual avatar taking up half my screen as I desperately attempt to maneuver the camera to see what unseen monster has popped up out of nowhere to slice me in half. Kudos to Resident Evil!