A plea to stop using "immersion" as an argument
- Thread starter beelbeebub
- Start date
Given that travelling in hyperspace contradicts the rules of our universe would you say that it is therefore immersion breaking?
Last edited:
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
I'm going to write a book called "Breaking Immersion". It will be about a man who breaks the immersion heater in his hot water tank and has no hot water for a day. It won't be a very good book.
Immersion to me means playing the game and forgetting about everything else around you. You become so engrossed in the game that you burn your dinner. Maybe it's just me but the biggest immersion breaker is my kids and wife! I have yet to come across anything in ED that breaks my immersion, whatever that means? :S
Immersion to me means playing the game and forgetting about everything else around you. You become so engrossed in the game that you burn your dinner. Maybe it's just me but the biggest immersion breaker is my kids and wife! I have yet to come across anything in ED that breaks my immersion, whatever that means? :S
Allow me to help everyone have a strong meaning of what immersion is... and then I can cite an example of a pretty obvious immersion-breaker currently in Elite Dangerous...
Firstly, read this. All of it. It's not a long article, but it's absolutely clear, concise and very easy to read and understand - then we have some common ground.
Ok.
From that excellent article:
Right. So let's see how this relates to Elite : Dangerous...
A player loads up ED. After selecting their playing mode, they are presented with the ED Universe. They may have started in a station/outpost, or they may have started in space. Already, their immersion - or "presence" - within ED has begun. The player's mind begins to favour the concept of "being in" the ED universe, and notice of the player's real life reality begins to dwindle.
As in:
I'm going to argue right now, that at this point, it does NOT matter whatever was said in DDF's, Kickstarter FAQ's, online forums, or whatever was shouted from rooftops. <---- totally irrelevent. What matters right now is that player's experience of the game world, and their "presence" within that world. Their immersion.
So where are they now? Oh, they're in Space. In a Space Vehicle. Doing Spacey Things. Doing Space Trading. Piloting A Space Ship. Running away from Space Pirates. Delivering Space Goods. <---- this is the world they are immersed in.
Hope you're still with me here...
The article goes on....
I think we can ALL agree that Elite : Dangerous provides all of the above.
And here's where I make a point as to why the OP's post about not using immersion as an arguement, gets blown out of the skies (heh cwutididthar)....
This is where ED currently fails, and is the cause of much... discussion... on the forum.
Okay I'm going to skip over all but ONE of those points, to make my example.
To quote the article on one of those points:
Here's a perfectly valid example of an immersion breaker in ED: What FDEV has done to FA Off. Now, please stop groaning. I am only using this as an example of why the OP is wrong. I am ONLY focusing on this one thing, to make a point.
He is wrong NOT because of What Was Handed Down In The Design Decision Forum Stone Tablets. He is wrong NOT because of What A Developer Or Designer Has Decreed On The Forum. Those are perfectly valid things to point out to someone who is complaining about their favourite game bug-bear.
But!
He is wrong because a player, in a Space Game, is expecting a Space Vehicle to behave like it is In Space - remember, the player is immersed In Space, doing Spacey Things. Again, I am saying NOTHING about the overall flight model, only on one aspect of it, to prove my point about the OP's subject...
Like it or not, the fly-by-wire system in ED had a feature added to it - the ability to switch bits of it off so that the Space Vehicle can do More Spacey Things (e.g. being able to rotate freely around its axes whilst still travelling at its current speed and vector). This is something I think most if not all players would expect a Space Craft to be able to do. So they're immersed in the game, and toggle that bit of the fly-by-wire system to get this behaviour, and what do they find? "Why is my ship slowing down when I try to rotate it around its axes whilst it still travels in its current speed and vector!?!?!?!?!?" - and BOOM! goes the immersion - or "presence". The illusion is shattered, and the fun and games begin on forums.
In my opinion, this is why I think the OP is wrong to say "immersion" should not be used as an argument. Where games are concerned, the perceived success of the game depends on the level of immersion the game offers to the player. If that immersion is not forthcoming, or gets ruined because of some unexpected or behaviour inconsistent with the preceived environment the game is based on, then that game is in for some trouble.
Immersion is a perfectly valid argument.
I hope you all got this far.
I also ask that your replies are made after deep breaths and some thought.
Firstly, read this. All of it. It's not a long article, but it's absolutely clear, concise and very easy to read and understand - then we have some common ground.
Read this before proceeding any further!
-->>> http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2010/07/the-psychology-of-immersion-in-video-games/ <<<--
-->>> http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2010/07/the-psychology-of-immersion-in-video-games/ <<<--
Ok.
From that excellent article:
Right. So let's see how this relates to Elite : Dangerous...
A player loads up ED. After selecting their playing mode, they are presented with the ED Universe. They may have started in a station/outpost, or they may have started in space. Already, their immersion - or "presence" - within ED has begun. The player's mind begins to favour the concept of "being in" the ED universe, and notice of the player's real life reality begins to dwindle.
As in:
I'm going to argue right now, that at this point, it does NOT matter whatever was said in DDF's, Kickstarter FAQ's, online forums, or whatever was shouted from rooftops. <---- totally irrelevent. What matters right now is that player's experience of the game world, and their "presence" within that world. Their immersion.
So where are they now? Oh, they're in Space. In a Space Vehicle. Doing Spacey Things. Doing Space Trading. Piloting A Space Ship. Running away from Space Pirates. Delivering Space Goods. <---- this is the world they are immersed in.
Hope you're still with me here...
The article goes on....
I think we can ALL agree that Elite : Dangerous provides all of the above.
And here's where I make a point as to why the OP's post about not using immersion as an arguement, gets blown out of the skies (heh cwutididthar)....
This is where ED currently fails, and is the cause of much... discussion... on the forum.
Okay I'm going to skip over all but ONE of those points, to make my example.
To quote the article on one of those points:
Here's a perfectly valid example of an immersion breaker in ED: What FDEV has done to FA Off. Now, please stop groaning. I am only using this as an example of why the OP is wrong. I am ONLY focusing on this one thing, to make a point.
He is wrong NOT because of What Was Handed Down In The Design Decision Forum Stone Tablets. He is wrong NOT because of What A Developer Or Designer Has Decreed On The Forum. Those are perfectly valid things to point out to someone who is complaining about their favourite game bug-bear.
But!
He is wrong because a player, in a Space Game, is expecting a Space Vehicle to behave like it is In Space - remember, the player is immersed In Space, doing Spacey Things. Again, I am saying NOTHING about the overall flight model, only on one aspect of it, to prove my point about the OP's subject...
Like it or not, the fly-by-wire system in ED had a feature added to it - the ability to switch bits of it off so that the Space Vehicle can do More Spacey Things (e.g. being able to rotate freely around its axes whilst still travelling at its current speed and vector). This is something I think most if not all players would expect a Space Craft to be able to do. So they're immersed in the game, and toggle that bit of the fly-by-wire system to get this behaviour, and what do they find? "Why is my ship slowing down when I try to rotate it around its axes whilst it still travels in its current speed and vector!?!?!?!?!?" - and BOOM! goes the immersion - or "presence". The illusion is shattered, and the fun and games begin on forums.
In my opinion, this is why I think the OP is wrong to say "immersion" should not be used as an argument. Where games are concerned, the perceived success of the game depends on the level of immersion the game offers to the player. If that immersion is not forthcoming, or gets ruined because of some unexpected or behaviour inconsistent with the preceived environment the game is based on, then that game is in for some trouble.
Immersion is a perfectly valid argument.
I hope you all got this far.
I also ask that your replies are made after deep breaths and some thought.
I have to agree. "Immersion" is not equal to realism.
"Immersion" or more "immersive" additions are something many RPG or open-world-game players are looking for to create some sort of depth. The don't necessarily add realism to the game.
I liked many immersion mods for Skyrim or the X series as it made the games less "hollow" but not more realistic.
The devs/modder could add a ton of immersive elements to E
without even touching the flight physics many people would like to have more "Newtonian".
So I agree, don't ask for "immersion" if you want realism...
"Immersion" or more "immersive" additions are something many RPG or open-world-game players are looking for to create some sort of depth. The don't necessarily add realism to the game.
I liked many immersion mods for Skyrim or the X series as it made the games less "hollow" but not more realistic.
The devs/modder could add a ton of immersive elements to E
without even touching the flight physics many people would like to have more "Newtonian".So I agree, don't ask for "immersion" if you want realism...
It's still subjective, and will differ from person to person. What you view as immersion breaking, another person may not. That's why it's a bad argument to make.
I stopped playing Skyrim at chracter select because not being able to give my Breton pink hair in the land of Skyrim (which is next door to Cyrodil) when she had pink hair in Cyrodil was total [redacted]
Last edited by a moderator:
I won't write as much text as you, but here is my reply.
You seemed to have jumped from "behave like you’d expect them to" to "behave like you’d expect them to, based on your current understanding of the universe".
That leap is unfounded and is subject to tons of counter-examples (hyperspace, super-hero movies, wizards, goblins etc).
"behave like you'd expect them to" means "behave like you'd expect them to, based on your understanding of *that* universe"
Elite Dangerous may share our timeline but is clearly not the same universe as ours.
Immersion is a poor argument.
You skipped over many details, and only focused on one. Your counterpoint has failed to sway me, and I still believe immersion is a perfectly valid argument.
I have to agree. "Immersion" is not equal to realism.
"Immersion" or more "immersive" additions are something many RPG or open-world-game players are looking for to create some sort of depth. The don't necessarily add realism to the game.
I liked many immersion mods for Skyrim or the X series as it made the games less "hollow" but not more realistic.
The devs/modder could add a ton of immersive elements to E
So I agree, don't ask for "immersion" if you want realism...
I have to agree with the above post. Immersion is just having the courtesy to let the gamer lose themselves in a game without the game constantly reminding them that it's a game. Console games are the worst for this, with the whole 'achievements' thing being one of the biggest annoyances. But it can often take the form of the little details. Or in how something 'feels'. Like guns in first person shooters have to be balanced and feel right. If you're shooting a big meaty shotgun it has to have oomph and it has to have recoil, and it has to feel like your holding it. And if it makes you feel like you're shooting a water pistol the designer has failed. I don't see how discussing immersion isn't important for any video game. I don't see why it should become taboo.
An immersive game is (basically) a game that you can pretend is real:
- the X-wing/tie-fighter series were immersive, but had no concept of newtonian physics whatsoever.
- the Elder scrolls series can be immersive, but again those games have absolutely no basis in reality.
-> Do you feel like you're a space miner/cowboy/trucker/bounty hunter?
[immersion is mostly due to the world/environment rather than the gameplay]
If you are coming into the game expecting the flight model from the new series of BSG, then Elite is not going to provide that. (all space combat flight models are made-up nonsense)
This.
Again, it seems like some people are using 'immersion', when what they should have used is 'realism'. Even the latter is a bad argument to make, considering the technology in the game is far, far beyond anything we have in the present.
You forgot the bit where he has to start cooking meth to pay the repair bills....
Yes, I feel like a miner/cowboy/trucker/bounty hunter, right up until the space vehicle I am in does not behave like one. Immersion broken. You have not swayed me by your point.
Your whole argument hinged on that single point. The previous stuff was just (very interesting I'll admit) background.
Of course I won't convince you. You didn't come here to actually think about anything; just to write a very verbose opinion.
Now how about you actually reply to my criticism instead of dismissing it?
Ummmm..... No. That's just the "immersion is reality" position that was the OP's original point. Not really what gameplay is about.
Can I believe that I'm in a world why my achievements mean something to me? That's immersion.
That I want to come back for more? That's a consequence of immersion.
Does the game evoke a passion in me? That's immersion.
Does the game differ from reality as it might be captured by a simulation? Don't care. That's not immersion breaking. I spend enough time in queues on the M4 or the M25 to know that I don't need that level of reality in a game.
I am using "immersion" in exactly the way it's meant to be.
Lol, this thread is mostly people arguing their view on what the word itself means and so until that's fixed, how can Frontier implement?!
It does get annoying when people use singular terms as dismissive excuses for quite complex problems.
"I don't like this because of immersion."
At least elaborate a little. Explain why you find it jarring, or why it pulls you out of the experience. Some people might view games as purist simulators, which have to follow a 1:1 representation of the real world, while others only need the experience to feel superficially tangible to be sucked in.
Another throwaway word I tend to hate is gameplay.
"Gameplay is more important than realism/graphics/something"
The statement isn't necessarily wrong, it just doesn't really say a lot. Gameplay covers a lot of stuff, and graphics, realism, etc, can all be tied up in that. A hyper realistic game still has gameplay, it's just a different kind of gameplay.
I think there are better ways of communicating the point that you don't want a quest for realism or graphics to create clunky or obtuse controls/mechanics that constantly get in the way of your enjoyment.
"I don't like this because of immersion."
At least elaborate a little. Explain why you find it jarring, or why it pulls you out of the experience. Some people might view games as purist simulators, which have to follow a 1:1 representation of the real world, while others only need the experience to feel superficially tangible to be sucked in.
Another throwaway word I tend to hate is gameplay.
"Gameplay is more important than realism/graphics/something"
The statement isn't necessarily wrong, it just doesn't really say a lot. Gameplay covers a lot of stuff, and graphics, realism, etc, can all be tied up in that. A hyper realistic game still has gameplay, it's just a different kind of gameplay.
I think there are better ways of communicating the point that you don't want a quest for realism or graphics to create clunky or obtuse controls/mechanics that constantly get in the way of your enjoyment.