Immersion in Games: Are You Into It?

[purf]

Immersion, huh?

Well, I can't say I was immersed in this article. Tight deadline?
There is a lot to be said about this topic as there ARE very objective factors that contribute to the presence or absence of immersion[footnote]How individual consumers react to it, subjectively, is a different story[/footnote]. And I'm quite annoyed at how the word is thrown around e.g. on places like here and loses all meaning. But therefore... boiling it down to a boom mic and concluding that "bad art is art in which you can see the workings" is lazy, careless and - applied to the entirety of Art: even wrong.

 

[tzimize]

"Suddenly it's not Lord Carstairs aggressively seducing Dolly the parlor maid and her faithful sheepdog, now it's just two actors in costume on a sound stage with a very perplexed border collie."

This made my day.

Hehehe, yeah that was a nice one

I also loved how after all that posh talk, it all came down to a lemon covered in wank.

 

[LoneWolf83]

I hate the word "immersion". Any time someone plays a game, particularly a horror game, doesn't like it and says they don't like it someone will inevitable say "you didn't play it right, you have to immerse yourself into the game". I got this when I criticized Lone Survivor, it's supposed to be a horror game but it's art style and some bad artistic choices killed any horror the game had. Because I went into the game (which is otherwise a good game) with the expectation of horror I was disappointed and because of that disappointment I do not like the game (even though I should like it). What makes it worse is their idea of "immersion" is setting up an environment that would make any game scary, if one played a My Little Pony game alone, in the dark, at night, with headphones on, with the expectation of horror (which is what they consider "immersing" oneself in a game), it would seem scary, not because the game is scary because of the environment the player set up and the expectations of the player.

The thing about immersion is it's not the player that immerses himself in the game, the game immerses the player, if the player did not find the game immersive, it's because the game failed to immerse them into it, not because the player didn't "immerse" himself in the game. This is a your mileage may vary thing, different people have different tolerances, just as some people are easily amused some people are easily immersed and some people have high standards.

Someone has probably already thought of this years ago but I'll go with it anyways. I'm going to call this the ?immersion fallacy?. It has two meanings: 1. The idea that a player did not like a game, or did not think the game was ?X?, ?Y?, or ?Z? because the player did not immerse them selves in the game rather than the player not enjoying the game or the game failing to evoke ?X?, ?Y?, or ?Z? in the player. 2. The idea that immersion is an important part of a game.
With 1, one person could like a game, a game can invoke an emotion in that person while others may dislike the game or the game fails to evoke that emotion in them. With 2. with many games, and for many people immersion is not important, it's how engrossing the game is that is important. Just as one could enjoy a movie without suspending their disbelief, and a movie can invoke emotions in people with out them suspending their disbelief so can a game. It's not always about suspension of disbelief or immersion, it's often about how compelling and interesting a game, movie, book, etc is. If you play a game that is enjoyable then it doesn't matter if you are immersed in it, the game is enjoyable, if you read a book that is compelling, suspension of disbelief doesn't matter because it's compelling.

I apologize for the long post.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I think fps games have a bit of an easier time since the "window into the world" through the protagonist's eyes is easier to sell than the player as creepy stalker following a character and watching his bum as he runs around the world.

The two most immersive experiences I had were Aliens vs Predator (2000, not that abortion that came out recently) and STALKER. In STALKER I was actually scared to go into X-19 because of how frightening the other underground areas were.

 

[K12]

I think that if we could come up with an objective measure of quality art it would be staying power. People still "The Count of Monte Cristo" over 150 years after publication. How many people believe that Twilight will be read by our 2150s ancestors?

Obviously this is a pretty crap way of judging the quality of something new and it is still basically popularity (although a slightly more nuanced measure of it) but I think it could work.

 

[Something Amyss]

The reason people mock "MY IMMERSION" is because "immersion" has become a vapid buzzword that's poorly defined and usually just used to say "things I don't like."

I mean, if we saw the same level of complaints in other media, we'd think it was whiny crap. "Oh man, this is only in 1080p? My immersion is ruined!"

Riffing off of what some commenters are saying, I think we need to redefine "opinion" as something you can have a subjective view of.

I think we already do:

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Opinions are inherently subjective, but for some reason the only time that comes up is when people disagree or say something unpopular. Suddenly, it's "That's just, like, your opinion, man!" or "it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it." You never see the former when someone agrees with you (except possibly in jest), and you never see the latter when it's something like "I think slavery is bad, but that's just my opinion." The latter being in a modern context, of course.

The problem isn't so much the definition, but the connotation that goes along with it.

I hear/see way too many news sources giving voices to people because "everyone has an opinion" while not realizing that things like homeopathy are not only provably wrong, but actively dangerous when promoted as somehow equal to the real world. You can't give legitimacy to things that are definitely bullshit.

No, the reason news sources give voices to people like homeopaths is that telling people what they want to hear is money. Homeopathy has become huge business with a lot of people who believe in it. You piss them off, they might not buy your paper/watch your broadcast/click your links anymore. And that's the problem with media in a corporate environment: when you're expected to follow the same profit rules as Haliburton and McDonalds, you have no incentive for truth and every incentive to come up with shocking headlines and bland, possibly indecisive conclusions.

This doesn't apply to all media, however: I mean, Fox has gotten where it is by accusing the rest of the media of being TEH BIAS (despite the reality that most news networks are bland, inoffensive paste spoon fed to us to avoid upsetting us), proclaiming themselves the answer, and then telling one specific and profitable group what they want to hear.

Where was I?

Oh yeah. It's really not about everyone having an opinion and more about us not wanting to offend the plebes or our corporate sponsorship (Which is why you were more likely to see anti-tobacco articles in publications not based on advertising than in magazines with Philip Morris as a sponsor).

It's all about the money, or often enough to count in music often defined by dissonant, "blue" notes and syncopated rhythms.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think that if we could come up with an objective measure of quality art it would be staying power. People still "The Count of Monte Cristo" over 150 years after publication. How many people believe that Twilight will be read by our 2150s ancestors?

Obviously this is a pretty crap way of judging the quality of something new and it is still basically popularity (although a slightly more nuanced measure of it) but I think it could work.

It's also a pretty crap way of judging in general. Who's to say Twilight WON'T be read in 2150, as our great American novel of the period? If that happens, is Twilight now validated?

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I would be wary of claiming that immersion is essential to good art.
After all, there is a world of difference between that accidental boom mic and a deliberate revelation of artifice. The Russian Formalists, for one, declared that a truly great work of art is one that advertises its own nature as an artificial construction, and they championed Tristram Shandy for that reason.

 

[themilo504]

The only opinions that I consider bad are things that are factually wrong, like claiming that a game that?s very buggy and crashes a lot works fine, your copy might work fine but if other people have issue there?s a 95% chance that they actually have issues.

 

[Covarr]

I think that if we could come up with an objective measure of quality art it would be staying power. People still "The Count of Monte Cristo" over 150 years after publication. How many people believe that Twilight will be read by our 2150s ancestors?

Obviously this is a pretty crap way of judging the quality of something new and it is still basically popularity (although a slightly more nuanced measure of it) but I think it could work.

It's also a pretty crap way of judging in general. Who's to say Twilight WON'T be read in 2150, as our great American novel of the period? If that happens, is Twilight now validated?

Y'know, if Wuthering Heights managed it, anything can.

P.S. Thanks

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Look, this "Objective vs Subjective" thing has run its course, and it's pretty easy to settle anyway.

If a review tells me whether the reviewer enjoyed the game, it's subjective.

If a review tells me whether *I* would enjoy the game, it's objective.

I know those aren't anything close to dictionary definitions of the words or anything, but dammit, can YOU come up with any more of a succinct definition of "objective" and "subjective" as relates to videogame reviews?

 

[Biran53]

I think that an important factor to be analyzed is, why do people make the choice to like what they do?

Using ASM2 as an example even further: Why did some of my friends walk out of the theater satisfied, while other friends and I walked out almost disgusted?
What accounts for the difference between our reactions?

As Yahtzee points out, there is sometimes a cultural difference, as other countries might see ASM2 as simply just a distraction to break up the night.

But for some people who take pop culture a bit more seriously? The script issues, blatant disregard for morality and subtext, and awful character arcs, make the film less of a distraction, and more of an insult. Because those who are able to watch and dissect video games, movies, TV, and books tend to obtain their own personal standards for what is good and bad. And distinguishing between the "good" and the "garbage" is how such standards for us "nerds" are established.

The issue is that the mass audience really doesn't seem to care. And they also have a right to not care. So there were many moments in ASM2 didn't make sense and the movie ended with a pointless cliffhanger.... so WHAT? It's not as if their lives will be impacted by the poor decisions made by Peter "Sn"arker (hehehehe). They come for the cheap romance and the high-production value SFX. And they get just that.

I have recently chosen to abide by a "right to idiocy" policy. And this isn't the same thing as "everyone has a right to his/her own opinion." You can make a thought provoking argument in favor of anything.
But if an average Joe film-goer decides, without much to back it up, that the latest piece of Adam Sandler's shriveled up corpse of a career is the funniest flick in theaters... then that's fine by me.

I'll deride it, bash it, and leave it for dead, but you have the right to enjoy it regardless. It would be wrong for me to try to change your opinion forcefully.

Yeah, this was a long one. And kinda rant-y. Apologies.

 

[gridsleep]

"Like the humble fedora (which as any man of class can tell you, should never be worn with short trousers)..."

That's why they invented the Tyrolean hat.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think one of the big issues with immersion being a buzz word in relation to games these days is there's an assumption that there is only one flavour of immersion. It is very true that in a first person game even having things like a single questionably voice acted character or your HUD being too obvious can break immersion. That's the obvious sort of immersion that often gets raised. It's just as true, however, that you can be immersed in something as "gamey" as a third person spectacle fighter. In these types of games it's more often what's "under the hood" that creates an immersing experience. Things like sticky controls, off feeling physics or inconsistent combat mechanics can all break immersion by ruining that sort of zoned in flow state which these sorts of games rely on. Feeling you're "in the world" of an exquisitely detailed first person story based RPG and feeling that locked in "I'm untouchable" flow state in a brilliant third person action game really are both the same thing.

 

[pearcinator]

The only game where I felt truly immersed in (however briefly) was Mass Effect 2.

Shepard was standing there looking at the city of Illium...for 5 minutes. Before I realised that I was not actually there and I was playing a game. It's those moments in games where you actually stop interacting with the game and 'soak-in' the atmosphere to get immersed.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Again, we have shared metrics of quality in games, even if they are not entirely concrete. We know what good and bad writing is, we know what good and bad pacing is, we know what good and bad graphics are, we know what good or bad voice acting is, we know a good or bad save system (See: Shadowrun Returns), and so on. We even know what makes a good or bad tutorial.

Some stuff is more subjective than others (What makes a good battle system in an RPG?) but many things are not.

See, I'm not sure all of that is true. Now, this example is for a book not a game, but just bear with me.

A few members of my family recommended that I read Cell by Stephen King. They told me it had a fantastic, break-neck pace and powerful use of language.

I found the pacing felt rushed, everything simply happened too fast and had no weight or meaning as a result. I found the writing to be borderline amateurish; it had no "flow", it felt very stop-starty to read. The very points that we disagreed on were the pacing and quality of writing. I didn't just not-like the book, I thought it was terrible.

I'm not saying that there isn't any way to say these things are good and bad at all; a five book series that uses the entire first book to get the main character to, say, leave his hometown and actually do anything is going to be poor pacing for basically anybody, but I do think that it's more subjective than not.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Again, we have shared metrics of quality in games, even if they are not entirely concrete. We know what good and bad writing is, we know what good and bad pacing is, we know what good and bad graphics are, we know what good or bad voice acting is, we know a good or bad save system (See: Shadowrun Returns), and so on. We even know what makes a good or bad tutorial.

Some stuff is more subjective than others (What makes a good battle system in an RPG?) but many things are not.

See, I'm not sure all of that is true. Now, this example is for a book not a game, but just bear with me.

A few members of my family recommended that I read Cell by Stephen King. They told me it had a fantastic, break-neck pace and powerful use of language.

I found the pacing felt rushed, everything simply happened too fast and had no weight or meaning as a result. I found the writing to be borderline amateurish; it had no "flow", it felt very stop-starty to read. The very points that we disagreed on were the pacing and quality of writing. I didn't just not-like the book, I thought it was terrible.

I'm not saying that there isn't any way to say these things are good and bad at all; a five book series that uses the entire first book to get the main character to, say, leave his hometown and actually do anything is going to be poor pacing for basically anybody, but I do think that it's more subjective than not.

It's a documented psychological phenomenon that the more something is praised to you beforehand, the less you'll think of it when you experience it yourself.