A healthy dose of immersion can make a good game seem fantastic, while a lack of it can ruin even the biggest, top rated, top budgeted titles.
I recently just got into Mass Effect 2. I never played the first one, but was definitely interested in it, even though back then I didn't have the money or the time to get into it.
And let me make this clear - I AM NOT SAYING THAT MASS EFFECT 2 IS BAD. THIS IS ALSO NOT A REVIEW OF THIS OR ANY OTHER GAME.
I just thought it would be interesting to compare two deceptively different methods of going about narrative and immersion in games. Most notably Mass Effect 2, and Fallout 3/Oblivion.
In Fallout 3 (and to a lesser extent - Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion), you (for the most part) do not see or hear from your character at all. You carry out his actions, and have complete control over his interactions with other people, what he says, what he does, and how he lives, without ever really looking at or hearing him. Its funny because even though for almost the entire game you are "physically" or visually completely disconnected from your character, you really do feel as if you are some rogue wasteland wandering bad@$$ shaping the world with your choices, charm and plasma rifle. Its as though it leaves most of it up to your imagination to fill in the void of your actual character on screen. This could easily turn into a recipe for disaster if done improperly, but if you can get into it, then it REALLY sucks you in.
Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, goes the more direct, even sometimes forced and controlled route. You create your character, he's given a voice, and you decide what he does. You have a clear view of everything your "avatar" does and says. And more than likely he is not going to be anything that the player himself can really relate to. They try, of course, to make Commander Shepard as relatable as possible, by making him as straightforward and generic as possible. Though, of course, there is FAR more to the game than just your character of course, but it just kind of drew me out of the experience by constantly seeing my own created character act the way the game wanted him to, rather than letting me fill in the blanks. It also bothered me that your character is THE LEAST INTERESTING personality out of the entire game. Even the enemies are more interesting. But again, I understand that they made it that way in order to appeal to the majority.
My question to you is, which method of immersion do you prefer? The more "direct" approach, to where the game is doing most of the characterization for you, or the "indirect" approach, where it leaves it mostly up to your imagination?
I recently just got into Mass Effect 2. I never played the first one, but was definitely interested in it, even though back then I didn't have the money or the time to get into it.
And let me make this clear - I AM NOT SAYING THAT MASS EFFECT 2 IS BAD. THIS IS ALSO NOT A REVIEW OF THIS OR ANY OTHER GAME.
I just thought it would be interesting to compare two deceptively different methods of going about narrative and immersion in games. Most notably Mass Effect 2, and Fallout 3/Oblivion.
In Fallout 3 (and to a lesser extent - Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion), you (for the most part) do not see or hear from your character at all. You carry out his actions, and have complete control over his interactions with other people, what he says, what he does, and how he lives, without ever really looking at or hearing him. Its funny because even though for almost the entire game you are "physically" or visually completely disconnected from your character, you really do feel as if you are some rogue wasteland wandering bad@$$ shaping the world with your choices, charm and plasma rifle. Its as though it leaves most of it up to your imagination to fill in the void of your actual character on screen. This could easily turn into a recipe for disaster if done improperly, but if you can get into it, then it REALLY sucks you in.
Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, goes the more direct, even sometimes forced and controlled route. You create your character, he's given a voice, and you decide what he does. You have a clear view of everything your "avatar" does and says. And more than likely he is not going to be anything that the player himself can really relate to. They try, of course, to make Commander Shepard as relatable as possible, by making him as straightforward and generic as possible. Though, of course, there is FAR more to the game than just your character of course, but it just kind of drew me out of the experience by constantly seeing my own created character act the way the game wanted him to, rather than letting me fill in the blanks. It also bothered me that your character is THE LEAST INTERESTING personality out of the entire game. Even the enemies are more interesting. But again, I understand that they made it that way in order to appeal to the majority.
My question to you is, which method of immersion do you prefer? The more "direct" approach, to where the game is doing most of the characterization for you, or the "indirect" approach, where it leaves it mostly up to your imagination?
