surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I think you are confusing good graphics with immersion.
I would say a game is immersive when a game goes to great lengths to make you forget (to a point) that you are just playing a game. Some examples would be things like Half-Life never ripping you out of first person, or how FarCry2 has the most minimal HUD possible. You want to see the world map? You pull a map in front of your face. Want to aim at a bad guy? Pull up your sights.
When people talk about a game that is more immersive with all graphical settings on high that is usually in regards to games that rely on the graphical effects to immerse the player.
My $0.02
I would say a game is immersive when a game goes to great lengths to make you forget (to a point) that you are just playing a game. Some examples would be things like Half-Life never ripping you out of first person, or how FarCry2 has the most minimal HUD possible. You want to see the world map? You pull a map in front of your face. Want to aim at a bad guy? Pull up your sights.
When people talk about a game that is more immersive with all graphical settings on high that is usually in regards to games that rely on the graphical effects to immerse the player.
My $0.02
You know, I've been saying it for years, and I'm glad to hear you saying it too: people's brains can only handle so much visual information at one time. Of course every brain is different, but a simple visual design will always appeal to more people than a complex one.
Always.
The thing with videogames is, a lot of vocal fans of the medium are obsessed with everything looking "real". They all have different reasons; some are in love with "trophy tech", some think that "realism = legitimate art form like Hollywood movies", others just think realism looks cool. It doesn't matter, because as as developers cater to these fans, videogames will have a lot tougher time gaining mainstream acceptance. With this generation though, we've already seen a lot of developers pull away from realism with pretty successful results.
History has shown that the guys that want their fantasy art to look "real" always end up in the minority. Sure, their are people out there who will insist that Boris Vallejo or the guy who does Cry for Dawn are the greatest artists of the twentieth Century, but neither has created characters with the world wide appeal of Charlie Brown, Mickey Mouse or Homer Simpson.
I mean, is there any chance in hell that Maus would have won all all those awards if it looked like this?
Always.
The thing with videogames is, a lot of vocal fans of the medium are obsessed with everything looking "real". They all have different reasons; some are in love with "trophy tech", some think that "realism = legitimate art form like Hollywood movies", others just think realism looks cool. It doesn't matter, because as as developers cater to these fans, videogames will have a lot tougher time gaining mainstream acceptance. With this generation though, we've already seen a lot of developers pull away from realism with pretty successful results.
History has shown that the guys that want their fantasy art to look "real" always end up in the minority. Sure, their are people out there who will insist that Boris Vallejo or the guy who does Cry for Dawn are the greatest artists of the twentieth Century, but neither has created characters with the world wide appeal of Charlie Brown, Mickey Mouse or Homer Simpson.
I mean, is there any chance in hell that Maus would have won all all those awards if it looked like this?
@mourning orange
I think other people are confusing good graphics with immersion.
What keeps gamers coming back to a particular game has to be something beyond the surface. The act of being totally engrossed in game ultimately has little to do with how "rich" the environment is and more about what sleight-of-hand tricks developers use to make you think you are in a rich environment.
I think other people are confusing good graphics with immersion.
What keeps gamers coming back to a particular game has to be something beyond the surface. The act of being totally engrossed in game ultimately has little to do with how "rich" the environment is and more about what sleight-of-hand tricks developers use to make you think you are in a rich environment.
I don't think anyone would disagree with you, other than publishers who want to hype their game: but even then they understand.
Nice post! Graphics are definitely only one slice of the pie when it comes to creating and immersive experience. For me, the right gameplay is more immersive than the visuals. And the right writing and character development is even more immersive still.
When there are characters and relationships and events happening that I want to get swept up in then I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for a lot of things, graphics included.
When there are characters and relationships and events happening that I want to get swept up in then I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for a lot of things, graphics included.
The act of being totally engrossed in game ultimately has little to do with how "rich" the environment is and more about what sleight-of-hand tricks developers use to make you think you are in a rich environment.
Anyone who's been playing games awhile would have to agree with that - personally, for whatever reason, something about the way Soul Blazer on the SNES is presented always allowed me to get lost in my surroundings, even though the graphical quality wasn't even all that impressive back in the day. Rez is another example I'd cite, even though it's highly abstract. In any event, I would say that "immersion" is indeed important, but as you say, it's not what a lot of people think it is. Good article.
Anyone who's been playing games awhile would have to agree with that - personally, for whatever reason, something about the way Soul Blazer on the SNES is presented always allowed me to get lost in my surroundings, even though the graphical quality wasn't even all that impressive back in the day. Rez is another example I'd cite, even though it's highly abstract. In any event, I would say that "immersion" is indeed important, but as you say, it's not what a lot of people think it is. Good article.
To me, immersion doesn't happen while I'm playing a game. It occurs at any time I think about it during its downtime, when I imagine what happens that the game itself doesn't cover. It's a completely different kind of immersion than the one you cover here, but it's the only kind that works for me. No experience can be immersive if the window to it has borders.
I agree, but I can see the mindset of the other side, and I will now try to explain it. If a game is so damn good-looking then every time your character walks through tall grass and it shishes around their legs and some dirt clouds get kicked up, yes that is immersive. Those details do make the world more believeable to the ideal world in a gamers mind, they think that the dust clouds make it feel more realistic, thereby more immersive. A game with such grand presentation can seem to simply absorb all of the gamers mind, making him/her focus on just appreciating how well done the game looks.
Since I'm doing a terrible job at explaining this, look at Uncharted. During a gunfight, you don't feel so immersed, because you're mind is ignoring the super detailed textures since it's processing your next action and what enemy to kill next. But right after the gunfights final headshot, your mind goes right back to absorbing all the graphics and you get sucked right back into the world. If Uncharted looked as it does during non gameplay intensive parts, then switched to a simple wire-frame like super low polygon count appearance during gunfights and whatnot, shouldn't it be as immersive? On paper it should, since the mind will focus on the gameplay and it may not even mind the graphical drop. Also, in most multiplayer games people always say the grpahics aren't as good as in singleplayer. I'll bet that's true, but I never noticed it, because I'm too focused on not dying instead of trying to see if it looks as good as the singleplayer aspect. So I guess it's different for everyone. Maybe some people can play Heavenly Sword and they notice all the realistic physics for every little object and whatnot in addition to paying attention to the gameplay.
But going back to Uncharted, I do think that overtime gamers would become accumstomed to the graphical immersion and they will notice during gameplay eventually. For example, in Bioshock, I didn't notice that you don't cast a shadow until someone told me. Bioshock was one of the first FPS's I really got into, as in, I played it a ton, it was an easy game as well. But when I played FEAR 2, I noticed my shadow right away, even though I was playing on hard and every fight was me frantically trying to survive and just ignoring all the visual fidelity and just focuing on the enemies. See? overtime you will notice the 'immersion'.
Since I'm doing a terrible job at explaining this, look at Uncharted. During a gunfight, you don't feel so immersed, because you're mind is ignoring the super detailed textures since it's processing your next action and what enemy to kill next. But right after the gunfights final headshot, your mind goes right back to absorbing all the graphics and you get sucked right back into the world. If Uncharted looked as it does during non gameplay intensive parts, then switched to a simple wire-frame like super low polygon count appearance during gunfights and whatnot, shouldn't it be as immersive? On paper it should, since the mind will focus on the gameplay and it may not even mind the graphical drop. Also, in most multiplayer games people always say the grpahics aren't as good as in singleplayer. I'll bet that's true, but I never noticed it, because I'm too focused on not dying instead of trying to see if it looks as good as the singleplayer aspect. So I guess it's different for everyone. Maybe some people can play Heavenly Sword and they notice all the realistic physics for every little object and whatnot in addition to paying attention to the gameplay.
But going back to Uncharted, I do think that overtime gamers would become accumstomed to the graphical immersion and they will notice during gameplay eventually. For example, in Bioshock, I didn't notice that you don't cast a shadow until someone told me. Bioshock was one of the first FPS's I really got into, as in, I played it a ton, it was an easy game as well. But when I played FEAR 2, I noticed my shadow right away, even though I was playing on hard and every fight was me frantically trying to survive and just ignoring all the visual fidelity and just focuing on the enemies. See? overtime you will notice the 'immersion'.
Whoa everything I know is wrong... again. I've always thought that story had more to do with immersion than graphics, but as you pointed out the definition is vague enough to cover everything and nothing so any argument I might try would be groundless.
Great write up, even if you are clearly just a hack :p
Great write up, even if you are clearly just a hack :p
@grafkhun
What your saying is that when the reigns let up a bit and the action slows to a standstill, you are given enough breathing room to just enjoy the breathtaking vista. The game deliberately shifts into first gear so that it can say, "Check this out! Isn't it cool?" At that point you aren't playing the game, you are watching a set piece. You have a look around, admire the features, then get back into the game. I suppose if the game was all about stopping to smell the roses then I could understand why all the excess was important, but why is it necessary to relinquish control in order to experience the promised "immersive locales"?
Besides, after playing a game for a few hours, whatever shine the game had is going to wear off. After a while, you accept the world for what it is and you stop going, "Oooh! Look at that!"
It's like in the first God of War when you walk across that bridge as the camera pulls back. Impressive moment, admittedly. As the game progresses, it would have to deliver even more elaborate set pieces in order to strike you. It's diminishing returns, man. On a second playthrough, you aren't going to care all that much anymore.
In the sequel, the same scene plays out, only this time the bridge is a giant link chain (I hope I'm remembering this correctly). It doesn't have the same impact, if any.
What your saying is that when the reigns let up a bit and the action slows to a standstill, you are given enough breathing room to just enjoy the breathtaking vista. The game deliberately shifts into first gear so that it can say, "Check this out! Isn't it cool?" At that point you aren't playing the game, you are watching a set piece. You have a look around, admire the features, then get back into the game. I suppose if the game was all about stopping to smell the roses then I could understand why all the excess was important, but why is it necessary to relinquish control in order to experience the promised "immersive locales"?
Besides, after playing a game for a few hours, whatever shine the game had is going to wear off. After a while, you accept the world for what it is and you stop going, "Oooh! Look at that!"
It's like in the first God of War when you walk across that bridge as the camera pulls back. Impressive moment, admittedly. As the game progresses, it would have to deliver even more elaborate set pieces in order to strike you. It's diminishing returns, man. On a second playthrough, you aren't going to care all that much anymore.
In the sequel, the same scene plays out, only this time the bridge is a giant link chain (I hope I'm remembering this correctly). It doesn't have the same impact, if any.
As always, well written!
"It doesn't take much to fool the human mind. All it takes is a very convincing lie."
I like that.
I don't think so much that its the quality of any individual stimulus that "pulls you in" with a game. I think its a developer's ability to give you enough things to constantly fill up your cup.
Take a world as simple as Canabalt. That game is addictive! And I think the main thing is that its poking all the right buttons at a very regular clip:
-You're told you're escaping, so you want escape
-The game screen shakes violently, emphasizing the magnitude of what's going on
-The sound track thumps and smooths to its own rhythm
-You've got to watch for obstacles
-There's a dynamic background
-You don't know what's coming next
-Occasionally, there are those "oh look at that" moments, like the shattered glass effect and the disturbed birds
-You're given a score, and easily allowed to play again, and try to beat that score
You're down right assualted by stimulus, but at a good mix to make you want to play "just one more time". When a game keeps giving you new reasons to have at it, you're more or less blocked off from seeking other stimulus. I'm being massaged on so many different levels, why would I want to stop?
Graphics are a part of it, but I think the ability to keep dangling some sort of pleasure reward (story, powerups, gil, music, unlockables, etc) at a regular pace is what really makes up this thing we call "immersion".
"It doesn't take much to fool the human mind. All it takes is a very convincing lie."
I like that.
I don't think so much that its the quality of any individual stimulus that "pulls you in" with a game. I think its a developer's ability to give you enough things to constantly fill up your cup.
Take a world as simple as Canabalt. That game is addictive! And I think the main thing is that its poking all the right buttons at a very regular clip:
-You're told you're escaping, so you want escape
-The game screen shakes violently, emphasizing the magnitude of what's going on
-The sound track thumps and smooths to its own rhythm
-You've got to watch for obstacles
-There's a dynamic background
-You don't know what's coming next
-Occasionally, there are those "oh look at that" moments, like the shattered glass effect and the disturbed birds
-You're given a score, and easily allowed to play again, and try to beat that score
You're down right assualted by stimulus, but at a good mix to make you want to play "just one more time". When a game keeps giving you new reasons to have at it, you're more or less blocked off from seeking other stimulus. I'm being massaged on so many different levels, why would I want to stop?
Graphics are a part of it, but I think the ability to keep dangling some sort of pleasure reward (story, powerups, gil, music, unlockables, etc) at a regular pace is what really makes up this thing we call "immersion".
Tubatic & Jonathan Homes is always right.. As I have learned.. Hehe. And I haven't read on all the comments.. But, here goes..
Overall, a good read, but I think .. I disagree. I agree on the PR speak/buzzword part, but disagree that it is nonsensical, because Miyamoto has spoken on immersion before.. So, in essence, your stance seems to be sideways with Miyamoto's view that immersion exists.
Immersion isn't something Nintendo defines.. Although they'd like to say they did, probably.. It isn't something Sony or MS defines either. It is too scientific for a single company to "define".
I think only a scientist, professor, teacher or other instructor should use the word immersion or true immersion. It isn't a word that was originally used to apply to technology. It was, and is used to talk about books, readers (imaginations being able to fully experience setting, characters, events, etc.), works of fiction and/or how science experiments closely approximate, or is reflected in/of real life, or in a virtual world. Obviously it has some application in the telling of story in video games, 3d virtual world simulations, physics, math, etc. But it is an element of suspension of disbelief, and is something built-up (more over time).
Of course PR folks will grab at straws sometimes, even if it makes them look obviously misinformed, but, there is immersion & there is true immersion as well as immersion 'units'. Too complex without me writing 8 more paragraphs and/or my own c-blog I guess.
Bottom line: immersion exists, it is just a basic word & concept that is very important for things to make sense to a player or audience, (in the case of movies). If you don't believe me, don't just take my word for it, though, and do your own research. Publishers, developers, technologists, scientists, engineers & Miyamoto all know the value of immersion. Whether it is right use of the word, or even wanted by a retro-gamer, or modern gamer, it is coming more every day nevertheless.
As a side note, even if we were talking about something non-video-game-ish .. Something that is, or was as exciting as watching the movie The Matrix for the first time.. I would explain what I think people "really want" by "jacking in".. But, I think that is better for another time. I'll just say, that at the root of that, people need real life experiences. But they want dreams as well. Where the two collide, BOOM, complete and total immersion! But, therein, does the player have total control inside total immersion? That is, I think, why it is even talked about, or even used for PR purposes.. It is what everyone thinks we (or, more modern gamers) want from the future of video games.
Overall, a good read, but I think .. I disagree. I agree on the PR speak/buzzword part, but disagree that it is nonsensical, because Miyamoto has spoken on immersion before.. So, in essence, your stance seems to be sideways with Miyamoto's view that immersion exists.
Immersion isn't something Nintendo defines.. Although they'd like to say they did, probably.. It isn't something Sony or MS defines either. It is too scientific for a single company to "define".
I think only a scientist, professor, teacher or other instructor should use the word immersion or true immersion. It isn't a word that was originally used to apply to technology. It was, and is used to talk about books, readers (imaginations being able to fully experience setting, characters, events, etc.), works of fiction and/or how science experiments closely approximate, or is reflected in/of real life, or in a virtual world. Obviously it has some application in the telling of story in video games, 3d virtual world simulations, physics, math, etc. But it is an element of suspension of disbelief, and is something built-up (more over time).
Of course PR folks will grab at straws sometimes, even if it makes them look obviously misinformed, but, there is immersion & there is true immersion as well as immersion 'units'. Too complex without me writing 8 more paragraphs and/or my own c-blog I guess.
Bottom line: immersion exists, it is just a basic word & concept that is very important for things to make sense to a player or audience, (in the case of movies). If you don't believe me, don't just take my word for it, though, and do your own research. Publishers, developers, technologists, scientists, engineers & Miyamoto all know the value of immersion. Whether it is right use of the word, or even wanted by a retro-gamer, or modern gamer, it is coming more every day nevertheless.
As a side note, even if we were talking about something non-video-game-ish .. Something that is, or was as exciting as watching the movie The Matrix for the first time.. I would explain what I think people "really want" by "jacking in".. But, I think that is better for another time. I'll just say, that at the root of that, people need real life experiences. But they want dreams as well. Where the two collide, BOOM, complete and total immersion! But, therein, does the player have total control inside total immersion? That is, I think, why it is even talked about, or even used for PR purposes.. It is what everyone thinks we (or, more modern gamers) want from the future of video games.
Tubatic & Jonathan Homes *are always right.. ::shakes head::
And, I forgot to mention something before in paragraph 4 (due to my edits)..
But it is an element of suspension of disbelief, and is something built-up (more over time).
Immersion in scientific circles is a term/word used mainly for experiments and labs for education, learning and teaching purposes.. Not just to experiment in virtual reality.
And, I forgot to mention something before in paragraph 4 (due to my edits)..
But it is an element of suspension of disbelief, and is something built-up (more over time).
Immersion in scientific circles is a term/word used mainly for experiments and labs for education, learning and teaching purposes.. Not just to experiment in virtual reality.
Lovely rant that devolves into Wii fanboyism. "Immersion" is simply a word to describe how into you are in game. The word itself isn't a nonsense buzzword as your title suggests, nor has it been generalized as a poster child for HD consoles or flashy graphics, like you just did to support your argument.
Actually, this post ( while well written ) is just another graphics Vs gameplay rant. To me your choice of the word immersion and the chastising of it, seems out of place.
Actually, this post ( while well written ) is just another graphics Vs gameplay rant. To me your choice of the word immersion and the chastising of it, seems out of place.
Well, why else would people saw a game would be more immersive on high-end hardware if not for the fact that it would look prettier?
@Jimbo and Steel Squirrel
Are you guys sure? The word "immersion" has been bandied about quite often these past few years. You must have heard it in the context I've presented it in. Do a quick Google search: I'm not the only one who thinks it's a marketing buzzword.
Are you guys sure? The word "immersion" has been bandied about quite often these past few years. You must have heard it in the context I've presented it in. Do a quick Google search: I'm not the only one who thinks it's a marketing buzzword.
megaStryke:
To be perfectly honest, I haven't. People have bandied about plenty of words these past years but just because a few want to write a piece about what they think the word really means to them or their perception of it doesn't necessarily make it so.
Again your post, to me was entertaining and well written. I have always liked the way you write. But you were using the word "immersion" as a generalization here that doesn't fit the real reason of your blog which is graphics Vs gameplay.
BTW: The smoke and mirrors that game developers may use to achieve the act of immersion in a player is irrelevant if they succeed. Here the application of the word in your post, again to me, seems at odds with what you were trying to convey. Which reminds me...I wrote a blog about immersion, videogames and what it meant to me a long while ago. I may repost it again in lieu of your blog here. I'll see if I feel like touching it up and making it live.
Regardless good stuff megaStryke. This made it as one of my Topsauce picks for the recaps.
To be perfectly honest, I haven't. People have bandied about plenty of words these past years but just because a few want to write a piece about what they think the word really means to them or their perception of it doesn't necessarily make it so.
Again your post, to me was entertaining and well written. I have always liked the way you write. But you were using the word "immersion" as a generalization here that doesn't fit the real reason of your blog which is graphics Vs gameplay.
BTW: The smoke and mirrors that game developers may use to achieve the act of immersion in a player is irrelevant if they succeed. Here the application of the word in your post, again to me, seems at odds with what you were trying to convey. Which reminds me...I wrote a blog about immersion, videogames and what it meant to me a long while ago. I may repost it again in lieu of your blog here. I'll see if I feel like touching it up and making it live.
Regardless good stuff megaStryke. This made it as one of my Topsauce picks for the recaps.
Great read!... though I agree with grafkhun - in some games, the graphics do contribute to a sense of immersion - sort of like being actually in a movie as opposed to simply watching it. Ugly character models or a poorly animated environment can actually be distracting and take some people out of the game.
With Heavenly Sword, COD4 and FarCry 2 there was for me a sense of "wow". While the gameplay itself is essential to immersion, the graphics can also definitely contribute to immersion. In Oblivion I loved to climb to the top of the Anvil lighthouse and just watch the sun go down - it gave me a sense of peace... which is pretty immersive! It was also "part of the game" for me. If I noticed the sun going down and I was near Anvil, I would often head over to the lighthouse.
You are quite right that there are many things that can contribute to a feeling of immersion in a video game... gameplay, music, characters ... but the graphics and scenery can also be a definite factor for many people.
With Heavenly Sword, COD4 and FarCry 2 there was for me a sense of "wow". While the gameplay itself is essential to immersion, the graphics can also definitely contribute to immersion. In Oblivion I loved to climb to the top of the Anvil lighthouse and just watch the sun go down - it gave me a sense of peace... which is pretty immersive! It was also "part of the game" for me. If I noticed the sun going down and I was near Anvil, I would often head over to the lighthouse.
You are quite right that there are many things that can contribute to a feeling of immersion in a video game... gameplay, music, characters ... but the graphics and scenery can also be a definite factor for many people.
I'm going to make a console/bathtub combination. True IMMERSION bitches. I'll make millions.:)
Personally I only find myself immersed when I've been playing a game for several hours straight. This is as long as it doesn't have, what I feel are, intrusive loading times and/or frame rate issues. Sadly now days I rarely can put aside a whole afternoon to really sink into a game. I would imagine however that people more prone to flights of fantasy are easily immersed with any game, they've probably thought of some deep meaningful narrative to Tetris too.
Personally I only find myself immersed when I've been playing a game for several hours straight. This is as long as it doesn't have, what I feel are, intrusive loading times and/or frame rate issues. Sadly now days I rarely can put aside a whole afternoon to really sink into a game. I would imagine however that people more prone to flights of fantasy are easily immersed with any game, they've probably thought of some deep meaningful narrative to Tetris too.
But with new experiences there will eventually be better ones, raising the bar for entry. There will always be those games which remain amazing no matter what generation you're a part of, but I think new technology does allow for deeper experiences to some extent. However amazing graphics and quality sound doesn't define a great 'immersive' experience. Hell the most immersive and amazing experience for me recently was Super Metroid, which compared graphically to other SNES games I thought had a pretty low key feel.
However immersion can be defined in many different ways, but I think there is definitely something to be said about technical 'immersion'. However immersion is an adjective, which people use objectively to describe an experience they had with entertainment whether it be books, games or film so you you won't ever be able to define it for universal experiences. For me having rich graphics, realistic, good and rewarding gameplay and perfect sound really brings out the realism whore in me. But in no way do I only enjoy games centered on realism, but if they're done well I can certainly appreciate them. A poignant recent example would be Demon's Souls. That game would not be as awe-inspiring, vile or disturbing without the graphical edge today's consoles have, and I think having a quality 7.1 surround sound system would actually give me a legitimate advantage as well as sounding AMAZING ZOMG!!!
As for realism turning people away, I think that there aren't actually that many developers aiming towards realism for the casual market. I think they understand what they like more or less. Also hyper-realism is way more en vogue than realism.
However immersion can be defined in many different ways, but I think there is definitely something to be said about technical 'immersion'. However immersion is an adjective, which people use objectively to describe an experience they had with entertainment whether it be books, games or film so you you won't ever be able to define it for universal experiences. For me having rich graphics, realistic, good and rewarding gameplay and perfect sound really brings out the realism whore in me. But in no way do I only enjoy games centered on realism, but if they're done well I can certainly appreciate them. A poignant recent example would be Demon's Souls. That game would not be as awe-inspiring, vile or disturbing without the graphical edge today's consoles have, and I think having a quality 7.1 surround sound system would actually give me a legitimate advantage as well as sounding AMAZING ZOMG!!!
As for realism turning people away, I think that there aren't actually that many developers aiming towards realism for the casual market. I think they understand what they like more or less. Also hyper-realism is way more en vogue than realism.
Great article.
The argument here is the definition of atmosphere and immersion. Simply put, I would say it is the aesthetic behind the game.
The same glory can be felt in empowering Pacman to eat the blue-and-white ghosts upon consuming a power pill as it can in getting into a helicopter and flying over Algonquin at night for the first time in GTA IV. Both are aesthetic. Neither necessarily greater than the other. To do either a disservice is ridiculous.
The argument here is the definition of atmosphere and immersion. Simply put, I would say it is the aesthetic behind the game.
The same glory can be felt in empowering Pacman to eat the blue-and-white ghosts upon consuming a power pill as it can in getting into a helicopter and flying over Algonquin at night for the first time in GTA IV. Both are aesthetic. Neither necessarily greater than the other. To do either a disservice is ridiculous.
Play Half-Life 2 and prepare to eat your words.
Ok you do have a point, but my concept of immersion is when you are deeply affected by the game in some way. Half-Life 2 sucked me into its world, and I honestly felt a connection.
Ok you do have a point, but my concept of immersion is when you are deeply affected by the game in some way. Half-Life 2 sucked me into its world, and I honestly felt a connection.
the day bodies stay on the ground blood splatters and bullet holes don,t clean themselves up and shattered glass stays on the ground (in video games ) thats when imersion will feel complete.
Good one. Immersion is indeed a buzzword; I would prefer engaging when speaking of concepts. Immersion seems akin to the failed VR days back in the early 90s.
I can see how better hardware (aaand other stuff, like the internet connection) can cause better, more immersive games to appear.
My ideal game would be a realistic battlefield simulator that would allow for an online battle of two opposing battalions divided into according companies, platoons, squads and fireteams, with each soldier being an actual person playing online. And with one or more GMs who would be able to change the environment in real time (allowing artillery fire, sending vehicles for reinforcement, changing the weather conditions, redirecting civilian AIs, sending occasional status reports on enemy movement, changing global objectives, etc.). Think extremely polished Virtual Battlespace 2 with tons of features, realistic graphics and on a greater scale.
Or a realistic driving sim. And by realistic I mean a sim with perfect graphics mimicking reality (including realistic sun glares, dust, debris on windshield, visual rubbering of the track [and of course each piece of rubber that sticks to the track would be an actual piece of virtual rubber that will be missing from the tyre from that point on), brakes red from the heat with smoke coming out of them, realistic damage model with each dent being translated into recalculated aerodynamic efficenty, etc.), realistic physics (inluding all the forces affecting the car, tyre degradation, changing track conditions /rubbering, debris/, temperature affecting grip and cooling of car parts, humidity, realistic setups, accurate car interiors, water droplets and smears on the windshield and mirrors, etc.). And this all coupled with a 180 degree dome display and a motion simulator cockpit with an actual dashboard, and wheel transmitting each and every shock and bump in the road thanks to a pneumatic/hydraulic system...
That wasn't entirely on topic, but I just had to let it out. I will shit on my own head once such games appear and will be available for an average consumer.
My ideal game would be a realistic battlefield simulator that would allow for an online battle of two opposing battalions divided into according companies, platoons, squads and fireteams, with each soldier being an actual person playing online. And with one or more GMs who would be able to change the environment in real time (allowing artillery fire, sending vehicles for reinforcement, changing the weather conditions, redirecting civilian AIs, sending occasional status reports on enemy movement, changing global objectives, etc.). Think extremely polished Virtual Battlespace 2 with tons of features, realistic graphics and on a greater scale.
Or a realistic driving sim. And by realistic I mean a sim with perfect graphics mimicking reality (including realistic sun glares, dust, debris on windshield, visual rubbering of the track [and of course each piece of rubber that sticks to the track would be an actual piece of virtual rubber that will be missing from the tyre from that point on), brakes red from the heat with smoke coming out of them, realistic damage model with each dent being translated into recalculated aerodynamic efficenty, etc.), realistic physics (inluding all the forces affecting the car, tyre degradation, changing track conditions /rubbering, debris/, temperature affecting grip and cooling of car parts, humidity, realistic setups, accurate car interiors, water droplets and smears on the windshield and mirrors, etc.). And this all coupled with a 180 degree dome display and a motion simulator cockpit with an actual dashboard, and wheel transmitting each and every shock and bump in the road thanks to a pneumatic/hydraulic system...
That wasn't entirely on topic, but I just had to let it out. I will shit on my own head once such games appear and will be available for an average consumer.
I think powerful graphics are a dangerous weapon. If done right, and combined with a good gameplay and a decent story, they will help a lot into making a game more immersive. However, if the game doesn't "hook" the player, you will probably end up looking how pretty that grass is and forget what the game is all about.
Great article!
Great article!
Immersion is not a nonsense buzzword. You said so yourself in your rant. It's how pulled in you are in a movie/book/game. The more believable and engaging the story and world is, the more "immersed" you feel. For me it has very little to do with graphics, and more to do with art design, ambiance, and storytelling. And you said that, so... what exactly is your argument, here?
I feel like I'm missing something. You seem to be waffling between a bunch of ideas based on a misconception that "pretty grafx = immersion". And I think something like Super Metroid would prove that wrong. That's more "immersive" and ambiance rich than a lot of recent games I've played.
And the Wii is in bad shape, but not for a lack of graphical power or "immersion". It's just that "waggle" doesn't add anything in most cases and most Wii developers get lazy and don't take full advantage of the console's power (ie "shovelware"). It's like the PS2 was last generation, only sans the sheer quantity of worthwhile exclusives. And I was a Nintendo fanboy until the Gamecube, but yeah... I finally saw the Wii for what it was.
I feel like I'm missing something. You seem to be waffling between a bunch of ideas based on a misconception that "pretty grafx = immersion". And I think something like Super Metroid would prove that wrong. That's more "immersive" and ambiance rich than a lot of recent games I've played.
And the Wii is in bad shape, but not for a lack of graphical power or "immersion". It's just that "waggle" doesn't add anything in most cases and most Wii developers get lazy and don't take full advantage of the console's power (ie "shovelware"). It's like the PS2 was last generation, only sans the sheer quantity of worthwhile exclusives. And I was a Nintendo fanboy until the Gamecube, but yeah... I finally saw the Wii for what it was.
I agree completely. Two of the games I find most imersive in the world are city of heroes and World of Warcraft. Does either look realistic or insanely amazingly wtfawesome?
hell no.
But their art styles are very well desifned, and within their space, theyve carved out some amazing looking visuals and gameplay.
hell no.
But their art styles are very well desifned, and within their space, theyve carved out some amazing looking visuals and gameplay.
I said it earlier and I'll say it again: this is the most agreeable argument I've ever seen posted here!
I'm on the side of better hardware not being a necessity for immersion, but I'm not entirely convinced.
I wish this could be put to the test. Perhaps having two identical situations, but both with hardware at opposite sides of the spectrum. For example take the mission in CoD4 where you have to crawl through enemies and tanks and get rid of the textures and bring down the poly count. This would be a good test since it allows the user ample time to admire the stunning (or lack there of) visuals yet provides a good balance of tense gameplay where youre still making decisions.
I wish this could be put to the test. Perhaps having two identical situations, but both with hardware at opposite sides of the spectrum. For example take the mission in CoD4 where you have to crawl through enemies and tanks and get rid of the textures and bring down the poly count. This would be a good test since it allows the user ample time to admire the stunning (or lack there of) visuals yet provides a good balance of tense gameplay where youre still making decisions.
Content beats immersion any day of the week. Immersion isn't really a nonsense word per se. It's just that it's completely irrelevant to how good a game is.
I remember a Zero Punctuation where Yahtzee said that Wind Waker was better than Phantom Hourglass because WW had more "immersion." Um, yeah, WW is better than PH, but the idea that it is because of "immersion" is total horseshit. It is because there are so many more things to do and so much more good gameplay in WW that it is better.
I guess I should note that immersion doesn't have to do with realistic graphics (which many have already pointed out), but it doesn't have a thing to do with the quality of a game, either. So, yeah, who cares about immersion?
I remember a Zero Punctuation where Yahtzee said that Wind Waker was better than Phantom Hourglass because WW had more "immersion." Um, yeah, WW is better than PH, but the idea that it is because of "immersion" is total horseshit. It is because there are so many more things to do and so much more good gameplay in WW that it is better.
I guess I should note that immersion doesn't have to do with realistic graphics (which many have already pointed out), but it doesn't have a thing to do with the quality of a game, either. So, yeah, who cares about immersion?
Is Immersion a buzzword? Absolutely. Is it completely devoid of merit? Absolutely not. Despite what HD graphic whores and developers would like you to think, Immersion simply means the ability for the game to create a cohesive world through a combination of story, presentation, and interaction.
Will a game look better on more advanced hardware? Of course. Will it be more immersive? Possibly. And here's why. A better CPU will allow you to have more sophisticated AI. It will allow you to create a better physics engine, one that may be closer to real life. It's not just the graphics as anyone familiar with the Uncanny Valley will tell you that graphics are nowhere near photorealistic and the animations even further from their real-life counterparts.
Now let's be certain that creating a cohesive and immersive world does not necessarily mean that it be realistic. It is entirely possible to create a completely stylized world that is equally immersive. The most important thing is that once you create the rules of how the world is supposed to look and act, you cannot violate it. That would ruin the illusion of the cohesive world, and thus the immersion.
Is the Wii capable of creating a really good immersive experience? Absolutely. It has its own strengths, particularly in the area of control. And when a developer understands how to create a fully stylized, cohesive world, the game would be as immersive as any 360 or PS3 game. On the flipside, the other two systems do not have the luxury (yet) of the type of immersive control the Wii has to offer. But their strengths lie in their inherent power for things like the aforementioned CGI and physics engines.
Will a game look better on more advanced hardware? Of course. Will it be more immersive? Possibly. And here's why. A better CPU will allow you to have more sophisticated AI. It will allow you to create a better physics engine, one that may be closer to real life. It's not just the graphics as anyone familiar with the Uncanny Valley will tell you that graphics are nowhere near photorealistic and the animations even further from their real-life counterparts.
Now let's be certain that creating a cohesive and immersive world does not necessarily mean that it be realistic. It is entirely possible to create a completely stylized world that is equally immersive. The most important thing is that once you create the rules of how the world is supposed to look and act, you cannot violate it. That would ruin the illusion of the cohesive world, and thus the immersion.
Is the Wii capable of creating a really good immersive experience? Absolutely. It has its own strengths, particularly in the area of control. And when a developer understands how to create a fully stylized, cohesive world, the game would be as immersive as any 360 or PS3 game. On the flipside, the other two systems do not have the luxury (yet) of the type of immersive control the Wii has to offer. But their strengths lie in their inherent power for things like the aforementioned CGI and physics engines.
Well written, but I have to say thanks for the tetris effect link. 2 player tetris has become a staple at our place over the last 4 weeks as a not modified xbox has been discovered among junk on moving.
Tetris effect is alive and well here for sure.
Tetris effect is alive and well here for sure.
Hand held games aren't actually very immersive for me which is why I don't usually buy them. I can get into games like Dead Space, Half-Life 2, and Demon's Souls on a big screen with high sound quality much more deeply than any hand held game on a 3 inch screen with half inch crap speakers. Maybe it's just me.
And your high quality paper argument at the end doesn't make any sense. When you read a book you aren't looking at the paper to understand what's happening. You are reading the words and using your imagination. A better comparison would maybe be difficult to read vs easy to read printing (and it WOULD break your concentration when you have to spend several seconds making out each word).
And your high quality paper argument at the end doesn't make any sense. When you read a book you aren't looking at the paper to understand what's happening. You are reading the words and using your imagination. A better comparison would maybe be difficult to read vs easy to read printing (and it WOULD break your concentration when you have to spend several seconds making out each word).
Talk to me about how visual immersion is nothing more than an unimportant buzzword after you've played games like System Shock 2, Knytt, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and Shadow of the Collosus ;)
None of those games are exactly "super duper high graphics" in definition, but they have visual immersion unlike anything before.
I truely felt scared in System Shock 2, even though the graphics are from 1999 and I played it in 2007. How does that happen? It's immersion, and when it works it's amazing.
The problem is people look at games like Ninja Gaiden and assume it's purpose is to be immersive. It's not, and people really shouldn't use the term for games like that. It's purpose is to be a graphically pretty brawler more or less.
None of those games are exactly "super duper high graphics" in definition, but they have visual immersion unlike anything before.
I truely felt scared in System Shock 2, even though the graphics are from 1999 and I played it in 2007. How does that happen? It's immersion, and when it works it's amazing.
The problem is people look at games like Ninja Gaiden and assume it's purpose is to be immersive. It's not, and people really shouldn't use the term for games like that. It's purpose is to be a graphically pretty brawler more or less.
I think a lot of games want to be simulators, to put you in the shoes of someone else and try to have you feel like you are them. And because of that, they have to make the world look as real as they can compared to the real world. That's their thinking anyways. Sometimes. Other times, it's easier to relate to if it's real. "That sniper in camo gear shot at me from beyond the tree line, it'll be hard to see him." Sometimes the graphics and "immersion" matters, mostly, it doesn't though.
Without VR headsets or brain electrodes, immersion is limited to imagination and the game's ability to capture yours and distract you from everything else. There is not statute of limitations on that - I've played C64 games that made me really feel I was there (city fighter and Star Wars Empire Strikes Back). It's down to what works for you, and hard to impossible for a designer to really capture - there's always a point where technological limitations remind you it's not real.
When you look at titles like Silent Hill and Dead Space, it seems that immersive atmosphere is better served by keeping gamers in the dark and heavily limiting what they can see. Even then, it was the echoing, independent of gamer action, surround sound design of both that really did it.
And smart or minimal user interface, and straight-forward responsive controls. Graphics are pretty much irrelevent, which is not news. Good graphic design is very very different to maxing out hardware capabilities.
And smart or minimal user interface, and straight-forward responsive controls. Graphics are pretty much irrelevent, which is not news. Good graphic design is very very different to maxing out hardware capabilities.
While I agree during the heat of battle we can't distiguish the subtle shine on my avatars belt...
I disgree that we shouldn't place value in that graphic though.
There is downtime in games; In Tetris you really didn't have downtime where you would sit, catch your breath, and admire that pile of colour on your screen.
Conversely in God of War, and COD4 after you've just dropped something huge, or pulled off something amazing, you often just sit back and take in the scenery.
The graphics allow you to be Immersed even when you're not knee deep in the action. It keeps you reeled in, even when you're not being kept busy.
I agree that if we just settled on a standard and stayed there, it wouldn't hurt the games; but in all honesty, we're human and we compete... At the end of the day if I can make better graphics, and a better screen shot, I will cause I can.
I disgree that we shouldn't place value in that graphic though.
There is downtime in games; In Tetris you really didn't have downtime where you would sit, catch your breath, and admire that pile of colour on your screen.
Conversely in God of War, and COD4 after you've just dropped something huge, or pulled off something amazing, you often just sit back and take in the scenery.
The graphics allow you to be Immersed even when you're not knee deep in the action. It keeps you reeled in, even when you're not being kept busy.
I agree that if we just settled on a standard and stayed there, it wouldn't hurt the games; but in all honesty, we're human and we compete... At the end of the day if I can make better graphics, and a better screen shot, I will cause I can.
follow
