Are First-Person Games Inherently More Immersive?

[alphamalet]

I got into a debate the other day with my buddies about what is inherently more immersive for a player, specifically in survival horror games. The debate was as follows:

My buddies were arguing that a game in a first-person perspective is inherently more immersive because the perspective mimics our actual human experience and how we receive information to process in our daily lives.

I argued that the first-person perspective is not more inherently immersive. What would immerse the player is an experience that they feel truly invested in and focused on, and this is achieved through designing a game in a way that enthralls the player instead of pulling them out of the experience. Essentially, creating an experience that invests someone emotionally will immerse a player, not trying to reflect reality in the design of your game.

What do you think? Is a first-person perspective inherently more immersive in games?

Now I realize that this discussion hinges upon each person's definition of the word "immersion," one of the most useless buzzwords in the industry (IMO). I'm not going to try to develop an umbrella statement for what defines immersion, however, because I feel as though it would bog down the discussion. I'm hoping this discussion might also provoke thought as to how people intrinsically use "immersion," and what merit the word actually has.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

1st-person is not inherently more immersive. Firstly, you can't even move forward and look backwards like you can in real life or with a 3rd-person camera. Secondly, you have like no peripheral vision in 1st-person like you do in real life. Thirdly, lots of mechanics don't work (or work poorly) in 1st-person like a cover system or jumping. 1st-person can help with immersion with a game designed for the perspective, but there are indeed limitations. Too many games are in 1st-person just because developers are lazy and coding a 1st-person camera is so much easier than a good 3rd-person camera.

 

[Shadow flame master]

I would be inclined to agree that first-person games are more immersive, but seeing as I am one of the few bastards out here that doesn't get immersed or connected to my characters or games, I can't honestly give a good answer for your question.

I will however agree that i "immersion" is one of the most annoying buzzwords in the gaming community.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've never been more immersed by a game than Tetris.

Too many games are in 1st-person just because developers are lazy and coding a 1st-person camera is so much easier than a good 3rd-person camera.

I sometimes suspect that "immersion" is an excuse for this effect.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I can buy the argument. In a first person game, your experiencing the game from a point of view that says you are really here this is you. In a third person game, there is a disconnect. Your not here. Your over there. It's not the most immsesive though. You can get more immerseive then even that. There are some games like C&C that address you as the player rather then the games avatar (first or third). I found FTL very immerseive because it felt like my computer was the a ship console.

 

[DirgeNovak]

No, they're not. Perspective doesn't determine the level of immersion, story does. I've felt much more immersed in games like Mass Effect, The Last Of Us and The Wolf Among Us than in Call of Duty, Killzone or even Skyrim, simply because I cared about the characters and the worlds they live in.
Liara, Garrus and co. are real people to me when I'm playing Mass Effect. I don't give a single shit about anyone in Skyrim. The only character death that saddened me in that game was Belethor, because it means I can't shop in Whiterun anymore.

And really, the whole "first-person is more immersive because it mimics the human experience" thing is bullshit. Human eyes have much more peripheral vision than any first-person game, and more importantly, are connected to a brain that filters information and can focus on a specific spot. The best thing a first-person game can simulate is a GoPro camera strapped to somebody's head.

 

[144_v1legacy]

No.
First of all, because there are many kinds of immersions, I'm going to assume we're talking about a particular kind that involves concern for safety, based on the OP.

No matter what, unless you're dumb, you know that you are safe from harm when playing a game. There's a screen between you and the danger. That's why you're much more eager to jump into bulletfire and off of cliffs, or even die, as a trial-and-error mechanism. But immersion (in the alluded-to sense) should keep one from doing so. This can be for a variety of reasons, the main ones being a)consequences or b)empathy towards the character. The consequences one is something like starting a level over, or some other inconvenience, and so is discounted in the immersion argument. It's the second that matters, and therefore we must ask ourselves, how much is our empathy towards our playable character going to prevent us from harming him/her?

If the character isn't you, it's easier to feel empathetic, because, as previously stated, if the character is you, you'll immediately feel distanced as you know that no harm can come to "you" the player no matter what happens when playing the game. If "you" the player, invincible, perceive yourself as "you" the character, it's easy to not care about the damage done to "you" the character. But if the character is another person, and if that person is well-characterized, you'll feel bad about setting him on fire to test if he's fireproof. I think that's a stronger level of immersion.

Think of the stories you've read that are about a fictional character, that have affected you on a profound level. It's obviously a well-tested mechanism to use a third-party as a relatable substitute for the person enjoying the story.

 

[TheGamerElite33]

FPS games are far more immersive imo.

 

[lacktheknack]

First-person is immersive enough... until anything happens to your character. Like, being knocked over or something like that. It always breaks the immersion because I can't help but think "No way my head and vision would stay like this/I'd fall this fast/I'd miss that goon off to the side/etc."

Third-person works better, because it's easier to animate something realistic happening to a character rather than a camera, and it's generally just as easy to get immersed in the plight of a character you can see as much as one you can't.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It technically is because it's the closest thing to our real life experience, but if you don't get the fidelity up high enough things can be far more immersion breaking because you get to see all the flaws.
And we are talking everything from models/textures/animations/effects/sounds and voice acting, in a top down game those can all go to a far lower standard but when directly observed you need to have it all tightened up.

Until we can get a certain level of fidelity across the board FPS will not always be a good call.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

1st-person is not inherently more immersive. Firstly, you can't even move forward and look backwards like you can in real life or with a 3rd-person camera.

What? Yeah you can. Just look behind you while pressing the backwards key. Easy.

 

[Michel Henzel]

Guess it depends on your own perspective and/or personal tastes on what is immersive. I don't find the first person perspective to be particularity immersive, as characters you play from such a perspective tend to be blank shell mutes and to me that is immersion killing.

And well there are books, and if you are an avid reader then you will know that books can be immersive as hell to the point where you see the things the characters are seeing in your mind.

 

[Doom972]

1st-person is not inherently more immersive. Firstly, you can't even move forward and look backwards like you can in real life or with a 3rd-person camera. Secondly, you have like no peripheral vision in 1st-person like you do in real life. Thirdly, lots of mechanics don't work (or work poorly) in 1st-person like a cover system or jumping. 1st-person can help with immersion with a game designed for the perspective, but there are indeed limitations. Too many games are in 1st-person just because developers are lazy and coding a 1st-person camera is so much easier than a good 3rd-person camera.

1st-person can help with immersion with a game designed for the perspective

You hit the spot right there. In order for a game to be immersive in first person, it has to be properly designed for that perspective, but that also goes for other perspectives as well (over-the-shoulder, side-scroller, isometric, etc). With that in mind, First Person does have the highest potential for immersion. As immersive as a third-person game can be, you'll always feel like you're watching someone else rather than being there yourself - and that reduces immersion. Have you ever played Amnesia: The Dark Descent? Can you imagine it done in a different perspective and still remain as immersive?

 

[Maximum Bert]

Intrinsically no it dosent. For me immersion reflects how much I am invested in the game whether due to mechanics, story, characters, competition etc or most likely a mixture if the above and other effects. Just slapping a first person camera on a game not designed for it will stand a good chance of making the game unplayable and thats a great way to break immersion.

I have been immersed in FP view type games but overall I have been more immersed in games where I can see my character and in those I tend to get more immersed in ones where the character is established rather than some mute blank slate or a create your own type thing.

Immersion comes from making the right decisions for the right games i.e designing a game around what is best for the experience you are trying to create. You will never get everyone immersed in your game as people have their own preferences and interests but its not as simple as slapping a first person camera on to simply increase immersion. The intrinsic factor to making an immersive game is just to make a well designed good game and that leaves a lot of room for interpretation as indeed it should.

 

[josemlopes]

I guess it can but it isnt that depending on it.

No Hud or minimal at least is much more important then the perspective, and then if you have a TPS you really have to properly animate the character while in FPS you really have to give a nice sense of weight to avoiding being just a floating camera (you can also add the legs and even arms when not using anything like in Thief)

 

[Vivi22]

I argued that the first-person perspective is not more inherently immersive. What would immerse the player is an experience that they feel truly invested in and focused on, and this is achieved through designing a game in a way that enthralls the player instead of pulling them out of the experience. Essentially, creating an experience that invests someone emotionally will immerse a player, not trying to reflect reality in the design of your game.

You're right, in no small part due to the fact that I think immersion is a stupid term to apply to games. The implication that you will somehow forget you're playing a game is inherently absurd. You are not going to forget you're playing a game. Ever. It is basically an impossibility (at least until we're plugging our brains into games Matrix style I guess). But you can absolutely become invested in, and engrossed by a game. And the day that requires a first person perspective to be possible is the day I stop playing games. Not because I have anything against first person games, but because variety is the spice of life as they say.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

No. And mostly because immersion isn't just one thing. Some people want to immerse themselves in the story, the setting etc. FP games are probably more immersive if your idea of immersion is pretending to be the protagonist. FP survival games are the most immersive in that respect, but not necessarily if you just want to experience the immersive setting or a story. I find Assassin's Creed to be very immersive, because I care about the story, the characters and the historic setting. Now if only Ubisoft would do away with modern setting parts, it would be even better.