This is immersion breaking.

[AJW]

Within any fiction there are rules that the universe follows, and you 'immerse' yourself in them by wilfully suspending your disbelief. An example is Wile-e-Coyote. He runs off a cliff and gravity does not happen until he notices. Then he falls.

Realistic, nope. Immersion breaking, nope because that's the rules of his and road-runner's universe.

Harry Potter is a Wizard, realistic, nope, immersive, yes as his magic world has its own rules he and the cast have to follow.

You surrender to this with every book/film/game you watch. Sometimes very deeply, sometimes not.

Whenever the universe rules shift, you feel cheated and step out. For example, a character breaking the fourth wall and talking at you reminds you it's a film. A character wearing a different tie every time a conversation cuts back to him reminds you it's a film. Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear explosion in a fridge reminds you it's a flim. Film makers try to avoid it. The spooky Alien is not spooky if it's obviously a glove puppet, and you see the operator.

When the universe rules change it causes problems, quite significant ones in some cases, as suddenly vast tracts of it may make no sense. An example would be the eagles in Lord of the Rings, the film never adequately explained why they couldn't just fly in, dump the ring, get out. Now you can carry it off by hoping nobody notices, or you can't. If, instead of the Eagles Frodo suddenly said 'oh yeah, I forgot, we can both fly Sam, let's fly out of here' and Superman like they flew back to Minas Tirith you'd be thinking 'what just happened?' You've left the film and, dare I say it, your immersion is broken. You feel cheated. it's a cop-out. Almost as much as 'and she woke up and it was all just a dream'.

Some works do this. Sometimes for comedy effect, sometimes for a more avant-garde reason, and sometimes it just 'fits'. The Monty Python universe is silly, it follows no rules really, but you accept the lack of rules as that's the rules. Sometimes (The Big Short does this) a character breaks the fourth wall, in that case he's the narrator and it feels a bit more natural as he's telling you the story. But that's fine, it's the premise of the film.

I'm rambling, but the point is to make something engaging it needs its own ruleset applied consistently, or if there is to be change there needs to be a massive reason for it, and it needs to be well thought out to avoid being jarring.

This. 'Space magic' or the equivalent is a necessary part of many games. But it needs to be internally consistent. Such consistency is one of the things that distinguishes the best games from the merely average.

 

[thearmysredneck]

But that's not about immersion, which was the topic here.

Well, not quite. It was more that absolute realism and simulation, for sake of "immersion", may likely harm the game development rather than further it. This would be due to a smaller pool of players just like all the rest if the niche Sims that I mention in my original post. I can see your point, and understand it. I feel this is as I stated, a combination of first world problems and too much time on one's hands. (I'm guilty of that too...I have an embarrassing amount of time in game)

I'm well vested in seeing this game's success. What I really don't want to happen is, later down the road, to go stagnant like other great titles I love due to realism>game play leading to small player base.

 

[Yaffle]

This. 'Space magic' or the equivalent is a necessary part of many games. But it needs to be internally consistent. Such consistency is one of the things that distinguishes the best games from the merely average.

^^This

When you break continuity it looks silly, it degrades the gaming experience.

 

[Javert]

An example would be the eagles in Lord of the Rings, the film never adequately explained why they couldn't just fly in, dump the ring, get out. Now you can carry it off by hoping nobody notices, or you can't.

At the risk of going off topic on the off topic, this wasn't addressed in the books either. In fact, this is a relatively new challenge and there is no evidence that Tolkien directly addressed this supposed plot hole in his lifetime.

See here for some further info

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Eagles

 

[Lobstris]

At the risk of going off topic on the off topic, this wasn't addressed in the books either. In fact, this is a relatively new challenge and there is no evidence that Tolkien directly addressed this supposed plot hole in his lifetime.

See here for some further info

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Eagles

Interesting point isn't it? "In a larger, far more detailed and realistic book we expect fewer (if any) plot holes, when in reality there is a far greater chance."

Always keep your alibies and excuses simple!

 

[Ian Skippy]

People need to discuss immersion versus gameplay value. Good mechanics add both, but in complex game systems you often end up with mechanics that can not be either. The arguments for 'delayed' travel are all about immersion and how to minimize the annoyance. That there is no inherently good gameplay in the feature at all is problematic, to say the least. And this is where people draw their own line: IMHO a mechanic with zero gameplay value should be changed. So either actual gameplay has to be designed around delayed ship transfer, or it should be instant. The former would take a lot of time and energy which I doubt they have a reserve supply of, the latter does not.

 

[Captain Willard]

I have to keep a trash basket close by for when I hear immersion breaking.

 

[BurnyBurns]

I hear you, OP. Didn't see this thread before.

I'm sick of the selective 'ma immersion' excuses for defending or suggesting the most asinine, counter intuitive, convoluted and sometimes player hostile game design choices.

Unfortunately, Elite seems to draw that specific crowd of personalities. Latest low point: the "remove buyback" poll.

Whenever the universe rules shift, you feel cheated and step out.

Only if you're so attached to the fictional universe that you let shifts in it affect you. And some people grow incredibly attached to anything and especially the status quo.

 

[Jypson]

Within any fiction there are rules that the universe follows, and you 'immerse' yourself in them by wilfully suspending your disbelief. An example is Wile-e-Coyote. He runs off a cliff and gravity does not happen until he notices. Then he falls.

Realistic, nope. Immersion breaking, nope because that's the rules of his and road-runner's universe.

Harry Potter is a Wizard, realistic, nope, immersive, yes as his magic world has its own rules he and the cast have to follow.

You surrender to this with every book/film/game you watch. Sometimes very deeply, sometimes not.

Whenever the universe rules shift, you feel cheated and step out. For example, a character breaking the fourth wall and talking at you reminds you it's a film. A character wearing a different tie every time a conversation cuts back to him reminds you it's a film. Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear explosion in a fridge reminds you it's a flim. Film makers try to avoid it. The spooky Alien is not spooky if it's obviously a glove puppet, and you see the operator.

When the universe rules change it causes problems, quite significant ones in some cases, as suddenly vast tracts of it may make no sense. An example would be the eagles in Lord of the Rings, the film never adequately explained why they couldn't just fly in, dump the ring, get out. Now you can carry it off by hoping nobody notices, or you can't. If, instead of the Eagles Frodo suddenly said 'oh yeah, I forgot, we can both fly Sam, let's fly out of here' and Superman like they flew back to Minas Tirith you'd be thinking 'what just happened?' You've left the film and, dare I say it, your immersion is broken. You feel cheated. it's a cop-out. Almost as much as 'and she woke up and it was all just a dream'.

Some works do this. Sometimes for comedy effect, sometimes for a more avant-garde reason, and sometimes it just 'fits'. The Monty Python universe is silly, it follows no rules really, but you accept the lack of rules as that's the rules. Sometimes (The Big Short does this) a character breaks the fourth wall, in that case he's the narrator and it feels a bit more natural as he's telling you the story. But that's fine, it's the premise of the film.

I'm rambling, but the point is to make something engaging it needs its own ruleset applied consistently, or if there is to be change there needs to be a massive reason for it, and it needs to be well thought out to avoid being jarring.

That's a great write up about immersion and consistency, but... Editing!

Every great movie / story is great (in-part) because it was skillfully edited. The boring, the over-the-top, the nonsensical, the trail offs, etc. are all edited away to provide an engaging and entertaining experience.

Some times directors or some such don't agree with the production version and end up releasing a 4 hour behemoth "Directors Cut" that some people love, but would have been a critical flop.

There is a balance to be found, and in finding that balance, some peoples feelings will get hurt in the process.

 

[Yaffle]

That's a great write up about immersion and consistency, but... Editing!

Every great movie / story is great (in-part) because it was skillfully edited. The boring, the over-the-top, the nonsensical, the trail offs, etc. are all edited away to provide an engaging and entertaining experience.

Some times directors or some such don't agree with the production version and end up releasing a 4 hour behemoth "Directors Cut" that some people love, but would have been a critical flop.

There is a balance to be found, and in finding that balance, some peoples feelings will get hurt in the process.

Indeed. It's still fine, as I can guess the background to much mundane stuff. For example, I can easily fill in the gap how a character moved fro London to New York, I have no need to watch them on a plane. The Russian original Solaris had an extended series of travel sequences which were not needed, but feel 'right' for the pacing of the film. Had it been directed by, say, Michael Bay I doubt he would put those in. Unless he could add explosions and car chases.

On editing I'd point at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as problematic book. I had the feeling reading it the JK was now so crucial and powerful to her publisher no editor would dare to change anything. The book loses its way in its equivalent of the middle eight, when there's a lot of wandering around waiting for the plot to happen. My late mother-in-law was an editrix at Puffin, and interesting to talk to about how to approach authors to say 'this bit is just verbage, lose it'. My feelings - a good editor is as important as a good author.

ETA - on the Eagles and Lord of the Rings...

They are a Deus ex Machina, just as in the Hobbit. An interesting (for me) divergence between the two was the ents. The entmoot in the book is a slow, ponderous affair that eventually comes to the conclusion that going after Saruman is right thing to do. This is consistent with the logic and character of the ents, slow, pensive, hermits. In the film they had the entmoot, but suddenly and on a whim of seeing a few burnt trees raged at Saruman. It's a small thing, and makes for better cinema, but actually grated on me as made so little sense given the characters involved.

 

[Cervantes01]

Within any fiction there are rules that the universe follows, and you 'immerse' yourself in them by wilfully suspending your disbelief. An example is Wile-e-Coyote. He runs off a cliff and gravity does not happen until he notices. Then he falls.

Realistic, nope. Immersion breaking, nope because that's the rules of his and road-runner's universe.

Harry Potter is a Wizard, realistic, nope, immersive, yes as his magic world has its own rules he and the cast have to follow.

You surrender to this with every book/film/game you watch. Sometimes very deeply, sometimes not.

Whenever the universe rules shift, you feel cheated and step out. For example, a character breaking the fourth wall and talking at you reminds you it's a film. A character wearing a different tie every time a conversation cuts back to him reminds you it's a film. Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear explosion in a fridge reminds you it's a flim. Film makers try to avoid it. The spooky Alien is not spooky if it's obviously a glove puppet, and you see the operator.

When the universe rules change it causes problems, quite significant ones in some cases, as suddenly vast tracts of it may make no sense. An example would be the eagles in Lord of the Rings, the film never adequately explained why they couldn't just fly in, dump the ring, get out. Now you can carry it off by hoping nobody notices, or you can't. If, instead of the Eagles Frodo suddenly said 'oh yeah, I forgot, we can both fly Sam, let's fly out of here' and Superman like they flew back to Minas Tirith you'd be thinking 'what just happened?' You've left the film and, dare I say it, your immersion is broken. You feel cheated. it's a cop-out. Almost as much as 'and she woke up and it was all just a dream'.

Some works do this. Sometimes for comedy effect, sometimes for a more avant-garde reason, and sometimes it just 'fits'. The Monty Python universe is silly, it follows no rules really, but you accept the lack of rules as that's the rules. Sometimes (The Big Short does this) a character breaks the fourth wall, in that case he's the narrator and it feels a bit more natural as he's telling you the story. But that's fine, it's the premise of the film.

I'm rambling, but the point is to make something engaging it needs its own ruleset applied consistently, or if there is to be change there needs to be a massive reason for it, and it needs to be well thought out to avoid being jarring.

Spot on, couldn't have said it better myself.

The "it's just a game crowd" are slowly ruining elite with their desires for instant gratification next they'll be asking to start the game in an A rated Anacondor.