It's not like First Person Shooter or Top Down Shooter where the perspective is there in the descriptor. And it's not a genre based around copying one single game like a Rogue-like or Diablo-like, given that what could be called the establishing games of the genre (if it can really be called a genre), Ultima Underworld, Deus Ex, Thief, System Shock, are all extremely different. It just so happens that the one most immediately recognizable thing these games have in common is the first person perspective, and people are stupid and shallow so they mistake that most obvious similarity as the most important similarity.
Saying an "immersive sim" has to be first person is like the equivalent of someone saying a Computer Wargame has to use hexes because the first game of that type used hexes, or that Racing Games would all have to be first person if the first game of that genre was first person. I hate the term "immersive sim" but even I can recognize that it refers to certain design philosophes and principles, most of which relates to stuff going on behind the scenes, so to speak, that in no way necessitate a first person perspective. The term "immersive" is vague and subjective as it is; I've played third person games that are far more "immersive" than many first person games (games like Resident Evil or Darkwood, which incidentally are both closer to being "immersive sim" style games than most first person games). The simulation/simulationist part likewise in no way inherently requires a first person view, when some of the games with the most systemic depth and systemic interactions are games like Jagged Alliance 2 or X-Com.
The funniest part of this is that people started using the retarded "immersive sim" term because writing something like Deus Ex style game or System Shock-like game required too many words or something for their mentally diseased brains, and they had to start using a term that made them seem like they are IN THE KNOW. And yet now we've gone full circle back to the term basically meaning "a carbon copy of thief/deus ex/system shock."
It makes perfect sense though, given that all these recent popular attempts at retro games tend to copy the most superficial elements while being so shallow in every part of their design that really matters (anything the homos at Nightdive do or retro-bait garbage like Gloomwood), because they think that the defining feature of games like Deus Ex or Thief was that they were first person and had low resolution textures, and not, you know, every single other fucking thing those games were doing.
Just as a thought experiment. If someone made a game that was exactly the same as Thief, but the perspective happened to be third person, would the game cease to be considered an immersive sim? As it at this point I honestly think that if you made a game with area progression like Thief, where each level is self-contained, with no hub, and there is very little character progression systems (in terms of stuff like gear or character levels etc), you would have people saying it's not an "immersive sim." (considering one of the most prevalent complaints I've seen about Weird West is that you lose some of your character progression when you switch to a new protagonist in the story).
Saying an "immersive sim" has to be first person is like the equivalent of someone saying a Computer Wargame has to use hexes because the first game of that type used hexes, or that Racing Games would all have to be first person if the first game of that genre was first person. I hate the term "immersive sim" but even I can recognize that it refers to certain design philosophes and principles, most of which relates to stuff going on behind the scenes, so to speak, that in no way necessitate a first person perspective. The term "immersive" is vague and subjective as it is; I've played third person games that are far more "immersive" than many first person games (games like Resident Evil or Darkwood, which incidentally are both closer to being "immersive sim" style games than most first person games). The simulation/simulationist part likewise in no way inherently requires a first person view, when some of the games with the most systemic depth and systemic interactions are games like Jagged Alliance 2 or X-Com.
The funniest part of this is that people started using the retarded "immersive sim" term because writing something like Deus Ex style game or System Shock-like game required too many words or something for their mentally diseased brains, and they had to start using a term that made them seem like they are IN THE KNOW. And yet now we've gone full circle back to the term basically meaning "a carbon copy of thief/deus ex/system shock."
It makes perfect sense though, given that all these recent popular attempts at retro games tend to copy the most superficial elements while being so shallow in every part of their design that really matters (anything the homos at Nightdive do or retro-bait garbage like Gloomwood), because they think that the defining feature of games like Deus Ex or Thief was that they were first person and had low resolution textures, and not, you know, every single other fucking thing those games were doing.
Just as a thought experiment. If someone made a game that was exactly the same as Thief, but the perspective happened to be third person, would the game cease to be considered an immersive sim? As it at this point I honestly think that if you made a game with area progression like Thief, where each level is self-contained, with no hub, and there is very little character progression systems (in terms of stuff like gear or character levels etc), you would have people saying it's not an "immersive sim." (considering one of the most prevalent complaints I've seen about Weird West is that you lose some of your character progression when you switch to a new protagonist in the story).
