In some sense are true, but the logic isn't necessarily sound, we've found both with the Wii and the Kinect that an action which is more physically similar to the action, can increase immersion but it can also decrease immersion despite being a more realistic action, because the extra gap between the fiction and the players mind doesn't allow the player to slip into the game. The action has to be very natural and good to make up for this gap.gardian06 said:lets put this in perspective of what they are doing in Colonial Marines the motion tracker is on the game pad, and never appears on the TV screen, so you know how artificial it felt that: the character is holding a pistol with one hand, and the motion tracker with the other, and I still have to put the motion tracker away to shoot the gun, or this gun is supposed to have the motion tracker on it, but I have to press a button to look at it. when in all the movies whenever a person wanted to look at the motion tracker they had to stop looking at the things right in front of them (sometimes it was for suspense), and look at it which with respect to the world is actually more immersive then what has been done with it: have it on screen, but still able to "look over it" when that never happens in the movies, or have it in the corner of the screen like its on that funny eye piece the character wheres even though that has never been in any movie.BrotherRool said:snip...
Also how does the attention work, with the UI on the screen, do you find it natural glancing at the two or do you have to lose focus on the TV screen to look at the UI?
Last question (this is the problem with Nintendo being innovative, there's so much stuff to understand ) how is it to hold? Pictures make it look like the thumbsticks are as awkward as PS Vitas and it's larger than that. I'm glad they've got proper games in the works for it though
then in other perspectives like here "I need to look into my backpack", so if I push a button the character is looking through their backpack, and I have to "look" at the backpack by looking at the gamepad.
then in like Fallout the pipboy is on the characters are but when you go to look at it the character brings it up to their face like they have glaucoma, or are near sited, but with this you can actually be looking at the gamepad like it was your pipboy (just in your hand instead of on your wrist) even though how heavy the thing looks.
then in a game to look at a map its in the corner of the screen I find that this is unimmersive because "hey my character has a photographic memory of the terrain"
In this case, the situation you describe, if you stop to look at a tracker in the situation, you're looking at it surrounded by the dark with these weird noises looking at you. In our case we have the player remove his eyes from the screen, which represents the hostile environment he's in, leave that hostile environment and consciously consult something that resides in not only a different, non-hostile environment, but one he probably very much connects with safety and security.
I'm not saying it's definitely immersion breaking, I was asking a genuine question to someone who had experience with the game and the system, but unless you yourself have had experience of the game and can say it's not so, then we can't make a conclusion either way. You have made a sound argument, but it's also sound that a book can be just as/more immerrsive than a film, despite recreating much less of whats going on, because the gap between the mind and it's material is lessened.
Also, if you haven't, check out the Extra Credits episode I was referencing when saying that more realistic mechanics don't naturally improve immersion
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/kinect-disconnect