Thoughts on Immersiveness

[galsiah]

Virtual reality is most certainly not the ideal of immersion...

Gambler was suggesting it's an ideal of his "presence effect", not of immersion. He's probably right - but that doesn't make a "presence effect" particularly interesting, or necessarily desirable.
Emulating a real-world "presence effect" seems no more compelling, and no less dull, than any of the other countless instances of emulation in games. It's one possible aim - but nothing more than an obvious starting-point.

Now, can someone here actually outline how sub-classifying types of immersion can be applied from the design stage (and not from the post-mortem stage)...

I don't think it's that useful as a primary design tool. Its use would lie in the analysis of prototypes, early versions and similar. Aiming for specific types of immersion would be a bit daft, but testing prototypes and analysing them in detail isn't.
That's not to say that it'd be impossible to aim for specific immersion types in early design - it'd just be a pretty daft way to go about things. No designer with any flair/zeal/vision should be designing with metrics; all designers need to test and adapt based on feedback (not through knee-jerk reaction, naturally).

...such that the result has a high probability of being a good game?

This seems an unreasonable request. A huge amount of factors will influence the quality of a game. An effective methodology of applying one technique should hardly be expected to result in a "high probability of being a good game".

The utility of such analysis would be in getting as clear as possible a picture of how players responded to a prototype / early version / sample level.... Once you have that clear(ish) picture, you can make decisions on changes with a better idea of their likely impact. For example: what you might remove/adapt with low/high risk; which corners you can afford to cut when you're creating more content under time pressure; which areas have immersion redundancy for most players, and which lose players the moment the primary pull evaporates....

Naturally, suggesting prescriptive, knee-jerk responses to such tests would be foolish. Reasonable design decisions will depend entirely on the context of the specific game. However, that doesn't make prototyping, testing and feedback - including analysis of immersion - a bad idea. More feedback can only be a good thing - so long as it is carefully considered.

 

[Solaris]

All that game developers need to concentrate on is making a good quality/well rounded game. Forget chasing the magical immersion factor, it doesn't exist ( in an objective sense).

Immersion is subjective and usually triggered on a subconscious level by the player's willingness to play a game. The emotional pull, which can encompass - fun factor/ deep & meaningful/subject matter that appeals, etc. Now, making a great game doesn't guarrantee eveyone will become immersed in it or even like it, but those that are attracted to that particular game are more likely to. So half the battle is won...

As I've ssaid before, the delivery format it comes in is irrelevent. From text adventure to Crysis style graphics, makes no difference. As for 'graphics whores' -people who only consider games with amazing graphics, that again is their own personal emotional pull to that kind of thing.

 

[wjw]

I disagree. The delivery format is important. Just like other objective factors.

I'll give a simple example.

Why do people enjoy going to the cinema, rather than watching a movie at home?
(wich is cheaper, easier and more comfortable)

Simply because a cinema is equipped with a larger screen, an audio surround system and the space around you is black, wich keeps you focused on the screen, because the screen itselve is giving light. This situation makes it easier to get immersed.

Being in a darkend room has nothing to do with the quality of a game/movie. But it adds to the 'magical immersion'.

Same goes for better graphics.

 

[Solaris]

I disagree. The delivery format is important. Just like other objective factors.

I'll give a simple example.

Why do people enjoy going to the cinema, rather than watching a movie at home?
(wich is cheaper, easier and more comfortable)

Simply because a cinema is equipped with a larger screen, an audio surround system and the space around you is black, wich keeps you focused on the screen, because the screen itselve is giving light. This situation makes it easier to get immersed.

Being in a darkend room has nothing to do with the quality of a game/movie. But it adds to the 'magical immersion'.

Same goes for better graphics.

How do you explain books then? Just text only, and people throughout the ages (even in todays uber graphics/effects age) are thoroughly immersed in them on a regular basis. They are willing to work on their imagination more because the subject matter compels them to....bingo!, you get immersion.

So I've already explained the graphics angle anyway, its just a personal preference. Besides, some people don't even like going to the cinema, they prefer watching films at home. You could say having a crowd of other people around you breaks the immersion too.

 

[wjw]

How do you explain books then? Just text only, and people throughout the ages (even in todays uber graphics/effects age) are thoroughly immersed in them on a regular basis. They are willing to work on their imagination more because the subject matter compels them to....bingo!, you get immersion.

I dont deny that books can immerse. I read books, i see/play theatre, i play games, watch movies, lissen to music. All of them can be immersive. However people in general tend to like games/movies more than books. Not because the quality is better, but because it's more real. It's more believable, and thus, easier to immerse in.

So I've already explained the graphics angle anyway, its just a personal preference. Besides, some people don't even like going to the cinema, they prefer watching films at home. .

There are always minorities. When most people prefer better graphics it's not personal preference, it's just a rule.

You could say having a crowd of other people around you breaks the immersion too

I think it can go both ways. If this group of people function as a part of the immersion: than it doesn't break. If they form no part of the immersion, they might distract you.

A simple example:

You are in a dancing: everyone is dancing. You want to dance. (situation 1)

You are in the dancing: no one is dancing. You want to dance. (situation 2)

I think one can objectively state that it's easier to get immersed in the first situation rather than in the second. Simply because dancing in the first situation is more natural.

 

[Solaris]

Yes, dancing can be considered objective, or at least mostly objective simply because its not a medium like books, films and games. Its physical interaction in the real world. Its not trying to take you to some make believe other realm, world or past event like they often are. However, if while dancing you start day-dreaming you are somewhere else then your subjective/subconscious has kicked in too

I think its definately true that those interested in graphically advanced games or films on a big screen are in the majority these days but this I believe is down to marketing mostly. People have been told whatever game or film is better because of the technolgy in it. That's fine if you want to embrace it but I think a lot of people miss out on just as intense immersive experiences because of their unwillingness to let their imagination make up the difference. Or they just plain believe the hype from the marketing guys....so, you may really believe watching a film at the cinema is a better thing but I have often seen them at home and got more immersed, even though the delivery is technically more 'humble'. Even books that a film has been based on have been more immersive to me sometimes.

I have been equally immersed in all sorts of delivery formats, and also underwhelmed in all the formats. It comes down to my main argument that immersion ultimately is a subjective thing made by the end user, no matter the format.

Bottom line -Devs, just make a good quality game with no major bugs and the rest will natually follow......if the end user wants it, that is.

 

[Castanova]

Unless you are schizophrenic (or an ardent nihilist) your life is completely immersive. Of course, whether you find it compelling is not the same question as whether you find it convincing. Do you break with reality when you're bored?

That's patently untrue. Of course people break with reality when they're bored. All the time. Thats what happens when you day dream and you don't notice someone calling your name. And what do you think happens when you become immersed in a video game? It's ironic that you believe it's impossible to break immersion from real life and yet you're fervently defending extensive analysis via sub-classifications of immersion in video games.

You keep putting words in my mouth, pretending that I'm saying immersion and game quality are the same thing. I said they occur at the same time.

Now, since you're unwilling to provide proof of how all this "analysis" of immersion can actually result in an improved game, please provide proof that a game can be both good and not immersive whatsoever.

(BTW, I do believe it's important to make a game immersive. But any game designer worth a damn knows about immersion down to an intuitive level. My argument is that analysis above and beyond the basic understanding of immersion is virtually, if not completely, pointless. Do you think people make shitty interfaces on purpose? No, they just don't have the time/money/QA to fix it before Christmas season.)

 

[Keldorn]

In the year 2085, there will be CRPG's. You will push the button and walk into the image room. Then the game starts, and you will be surrounded by holograms. You will be tangibly equipped with your fake light saber, and fake armour. The conversations with NPC's will be spontaneously combusted out of millions of possible dialogue combinations.


Question : Will futuristic gamers sometimes get bored of the CRPG holographic image rooms and want to exit them, and instead, *immerse* themselves in a good, traditiional, paper-bound book ?

 

[Joe Krow]

If you type "define: immersive" into Google here is what you get:

Immersive Gameplay: a story or visual presentation that enables the player to convincingly enter and participate in a virtual world.

Immersive Environments – An immersive environment is an artificial, interactive, computer-created scene or "world" within which a user can immerse themselves. Immersive environments could be thought of as synonymous with Virtual Reality, but without the implication that actual "reality" is being simulated. An Immersive environment could be a model of reality, but it could also be a complete fantasy user interface or abstraction, as long as the user of the environment is immersed within it.

There is also a definition involving songs sung at sporting events... I don't think it applies. If I wanted to talk about how cool rpgs are or how I loose track of time while playing them I would go join the Elder Scrolls Forum. I was hoping we could get a little beyond that. My mistake.

 

[Castanova]

That's cute. I thought maybe you'd actually defend your viewpoint instead of hiding behind cherry-picked Google searches. Maybe it's because your viewpoint has no concrete defense.

 

[Joe Krow]

Your talking gibberish. I didn't cherry pick those definitions. Google lists those two, plus one about learning languages and another about songs. The two I offered were the only ones that had any bearing on this discussion. If you can find another definition of immersive that remotely relates to what we're talking about we'll use that. Defining immersion as whatever makes you like a game is retarded. Until you figure out what the term means you are just wasting everyones time.

 

[Castanova]

Defining immersion as whatever makes you like a game is retarded.

Why oh why do you insist on harping on this when I never implied such a thing? Perhaps it's because there's nothing else you can think of to refute? You're the one making a positive argument. You have the burden of proof.

 

[Joe Krow]

Immersion = the state of being entirely focused on a single game/movie/book, etc.

Does the game keep your attention? Which is virtually the same as asking, is the game any fucking good?

Um, yeah. Did you find that alternative definition of immersive yet so that we can proceed or should we use the ones from Google? If you want to stick with the one you concocted above I'm afraid you'll have to go on without me. No can do the stupid. No more.

 

[MLMarkland]

(BTW, I do believe it's important to make a game immersive. But any game designer worth a damn knows about immersion down to an intuitive level. My argument is that analysis above and beyond the basic understanding of immersion is virtually, if not completely, pointless. Do you think people make shitty interfaces on purpose? No, they just don't have the time/money/QA to fix it before Christmas season.)

This is just silly. It's like saying: "music theory is meaningless, any good guitarist can improvise without considering music theory."

While there might be some people born with such a high degree of innate talent at a discipline that they can "just do it" that's not the normal situation (A person like that is called a prodigy for a reason).

QA can't save bad design anymore than you can "fix it in the mix" when it comes to poorly constructed music. You must design and plan and then design and plan some more, and then when you are prepared you can start improvising. This isn't limited to design, or to music, its pretty much a rule of life. Preparation leads to improvisation.

That people sometimes get lucky without preparation and planning is not proof that preparation and planning are not necessary, arguing that is a fallacy of logic (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

 

[wjw]

Now, since you're unwilling to provide proof of how all this "analysis" of immersion can actually result in an improved game, please provide proof that a game can be both good and not immersive whatsoever.

To me, i can't get immersed by the game X3 reunion. However, i do find it a very good game. The probable reason that i don't get immersed is cause my mind is constantly busy with multiple tasks. Building out my space empire, trade network and flying around killing pirates.

A probable way of getting me easier immersed is throwing me in some kind of nasty situation. (adding more narrative) So i will focus on only one objective.

 

[galsiah]

This is just silly. It's like saying: "music theory is meaningless, any good guitarist can improvise without considering music theory."

Yet there's an element of truth to that. Music theory isn't meaningless, but neither is conscious consideration of it always a benefit - particularly to creative freedom. I'm a mediocre pianist, and have recently become a bad guitarist - but I improvise much more fluently on a guitar than on a piano. On the piano I'm forever conscious of theoretical structure, and tend either to fall into a formulaic groove, or to be fighting that possibility. On the guitar I've purposefully avoided any theoretical knowledge/consideration - most of the time I know neither the chords, nor the notes I'm playing. On the guitar I can play with freedom (though still badly of course).

I don't think that direct, conscious consideration of immersion belongs in an initial design phase - any more than direct, conscious consideration of music theory belongs in initial composition. Of course it could be used in initial design, but a good designer ought to be capable of more - just as a good composer shouldn't be turning to music theory for inspiration. If a designer has no vision that transcends testing metrics, he's almost certainly screwed (in creative terms, if not financially).

QA can't save bad design anymore than you can "fix it in the mix" when it comes to poorly constructed music.

Certainly - but there's more to testing and feedback than a final stint of QA. Prototypes should be tested and adapted to as early as possible. QA can't save bad design, but good prototyping can prevent it (though naturally nothing can save a bad designer).

You must design and plan and then design and plan some more, and then when you are prepared you can start improvising. This isn't limited to design, or to music, its pretty much a rule of life. Preparation leads to improvisation.

Sure - but there's a difference between extensive preparation and effective preparation. Constrain creativity too early by imposing established principles and working to metrics, and your effectiveness is reduced; fail to get good feedback from thought-experiments and prototypes later, and you're similarly impaired.
If there's a place for theory and metrics in initial design, it's in the back of the designer's mind. The time to apply theory and metrics is at the point you have something to test (whether that's a thought-experiment, a prototype, or early version). Tests give you information to inform further design, but they'll usually only give you accurate information so long as your design has NOT been aimed at passing your own tests.

If you design using good sense until you pass Test-X, you'll tend to get all the desirable qualities associated with games-that-pass-Test-X. If you design with the explicit goal of passing Test-X, you'll likely pass it - but with little likelihood of achieving the associated desirable qualities. Correlation doesn't imply causation, and once you aim explicitly to pass the test, you've biased the chances of the usual correlation.


Since the individual aspects of immersion aren't usually properties the player will desire for their own sake, I think that aiming for them explicitly as ends-in-themselves by design would be an error. Immersion in general probably is ubiquitous as Zomg suggests - so doesn't really need to be aimed for by design.
I think the place for immersion analysis is in testing and design feedback. If the earliest place for that in a development process is in final QA, that process sucks horribly.

 

[Castanova]

@ wjw - I would say that you may not be immersed in an individual task but you are immersed in the game as a whole. This is a polar opposite of something like World of Warcraft where you spend most of the time idle and watching television until you finally get a group together, or whatever.

@ ML - music theory is great for analyzing why something worked in the past.

Here are two different musicians:

A) This musician is very interested in music theory. He decides to write a pop song. Music theory says that pop song structure is verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus so this musician goes with that. He writes a song and it's a fantastic hit, going platinum.

B) This musician knows about music theory but isn't focused on it. He decides to write a pop song. He knows that music theory states verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus is the standard structure. That's not good enough for him. HOWEVER, he also knows WHY this structure is so useful. It's simple psychology. If something repeats twice, people expect it to repeat a third time. So, to make the song interesting, after the second chorus you throw in a bridge to avoid repetition. Just like how comedians repeat things twice and then tweak it the third time for more laughs. He writes a song in that same structure as musician A but this song is a dud. It sucks balls.

Why was musician A's song better than B? The guy's a robot, not even understanding the theory he's using! It's because the guy has a talent for writing a catchy tune or whatever made the song a hit. Or maybe people just like the guy's voice/guitar tone/whatever.

Theory and understanding theory is no replacement for talent. If your game levels aren't immersive enough, perhaps you should be hiring a better level designer or texture artist. It's unlikely the designer told them to do a bad job. If the voice acting breaks immersion, why did you use the producer's wife to do the job?

If the graphics, level design, sound, voices, interface are spotlessly clean and yet the game sucks regardless THEN you might want to knock on the game designer's door. The guy doesn't have to talent to produce a hook, even if he knows all about immersion.

 

[galsiah]

If the graphics, level design, sound, voices, interface are spotlessly clean and yet the game sucks regardless THEN you might want to knock on the game designer's door.

Is this supposed to be practical advice?? You knock on the game designer's door once you've polished up the final version of the game and realised that it sucks? Would it not have been preferable to establish this before wasting millions?
Like most other qualities of games, immersion is a product of the combination of design and implementation. It's just as idiotic to think that it's entirely divorced from design, as to think that it's entirely dictated by it.

Your platitudes on talent are also entirely worthless as advice, as I'm sure you're aware. Magically becoming more talented isn't an option available to a designer; altering design and development strategies/processes is. Neither does the notion that talent is a separate matter from knowledge and understanding make a great deal of sense. If a designer can hope to become more talented, it'll be through increasing his knowledge and understanding - both of theory, and of practice.

Any game design analysis tool can be misused by the stupid. That doesn't mean that it has no place in a good design process.

Note that nowhere in any of this discussion (I think) has anyone suggested exactly how design decisions would be altered according to immersion information - nor should they, since those decisions will depend almost entirely on context.
It'd make sense to argue against detrimental decisions made on the basis of immersion information. I don't see how it makes any sense to argue against theoretical understanding, analysis and information-gathering itself. Note in particular that a good theoretical understanding of X can be a sound basis to decide to spend less time testing for X / focusing on X. Information, knowledge and understanding are always beneficial in design. The idiots who misapply what little they have are the problem.

 

[Castanova]

The statement wasn't to be taken literally. Obviously you don't complete the game before testing or tweaking it. I'm sure just about every development studio out there puts prototypes together before going ahead with a project.

I'm not saying that immersion should be divorced from design. I must not be explaining myself clearly. My fault.

The point I was making about "talent" is that immersion is such a nebulous concept that slicing and dicing it into classifications and claiming that this process is useful in the design process is akin to attempting to analyze "hookiness" in music. It's much too ambitious for such a non-quantifiable concept - especially considering no one singularly aims to make an immersive game, the goal is to make a good game.

Immersion in game design is, indeed, similar to music theory. It's useful at the most basic level for putting together a song but it's terrible for making the song catchy and/or unique. And just like music, people innately understand the basics of immersion without having to study a set of arbitrary classifications.

 

[galsiah]

Ok, that I mostly agree with - but I don't think that makes such analysis useless.
Taking a game from core concept to completion is a much longer, involved, expansive process than taking a music track from rough hook to a polished state. Once you have your hook in a track, you're not likely to lose it. The same is not true of a core gameplay mode/concept/style....

It's entirely possible to lose what was great about the first raw prototype of a game over a few years and thousands of iterative changes. The more you understand "hookiness", and the more you can reliably measure "hookiness", the more likely that you'll be able to generate clear signals if you're losing it - and some idea of how/why.
Clearly that's no substitute for a clear vision, and good design response. Smoke alarms are no substitute for fire safety and fire extinguishers either - it doesn't make them useless. It's the problems you can't predict and control that'll kick you in the teeth. Early detection and some level of diagnostic information can only help.

 

[Solaris]

I think it helps if game designers are passionate gamers themselves, and have an interest in the genre they are making. Obviously a proffesional programmer or artist can adapt to any project but knowing what could trigger immersion is certianly advantageous.

Doing you homework about what has worked in the past for similiar games, etc. Avoid being sidetracked by the marketing dept (unless your funding is so acute you have no chioce but to play it their way). Planting some basic seeds into the game is the absolute most they can hope for. Its still down to the end user at the end of the day though.

 

[adron]

Yet there's an element of truth to that. Music theory isn't meaningless, but neither is conscious consideration of it always a benefit - particularly to creative freedom. I'm a mediocre pianist, and have recently become a bad guitarist - but I improvise much more fluently on a guitar than on a piano. On the piano I'm forever conscious of theoretical structure, and tend either to fall into a formulaic groove, or to be fighting that possibility. On the guitar I've purposefully avoided any theoretical knowledge/consideration - most of the time I know neither the chords, nor the notes I'm playing. On the guitar I can play with freedom (though still badly of course).

i would argue that conscious consideration of theory is always a benefit to improvisation or performance - just depends on how it is internalised. if, for example, you are improvising on guitar over a particular chord progression, you can assimilate relevant chord/scale information via the inner ear and remove the focus on mathematical theory. then, when improvising, you are informed of the harmonic sound of the chord progression and relevant note choice will always be more musical, creative and original as you have the ability to consciously choose which notes to play over which chords and pre hear what kind of colour they will create. you end up with the freedom you are talking about but with the precision and creative power of a composer.
additionally, the way of playing you are talking about only works over chord progressions that belong to a single tonal centre. as soon as things become more chromatic, the play without knowledge/ear training method becomes almost useless. thus, in some musical situations, theory is essential.

i think with every creative endeavour theory can be a powerful tool if treated in the right way. with music there are obvious consequences for internalising theory in particular ways - e.g. playing mathematically (constructing improvisation through mathematical theory with little regard to the actual sound of what is played) as opposed to musically (improvising by hearing what is played before it is played and consciously choosing which sounds to use, resulting in a more musical composition) - although subjective to say one approach is universally more valid.
if immersion theory in game design is anything like music, i think focus should be put on how that theory is learned and implemented.

 

[galsiah]

Of course you need to internalize some form of knowledge/skill. I'd just contrast "training" by ear strongly with conscious consideration of musical theory (or even an unconscious, mathematical music-theory-on-automatic approach). Improvisation over a set chord progression wasn't really what I meant in any case - that's put you in a hugely formulaic box before you even start. A box which allows great creativity, I'm sure - but a box nonetheless.

additionally, the way of playing you are talking about only works over chord progressions that belong to a single tonal centre. as soon as things become more chromatic, the play without knowledge/ear training method becomes almost useless. thus, in some musical situations, theory is essential.

I never meant to imply playing without any form of "training" - just without conscious reference to theory. Unless you're guided by something, you're just making noise. It's pretty much impossible to play a lot of music without training your ear anyway - so long as you're listening.

I certainly wouldn't say that theory is ever essential, so long as you have a good ear - particularly in improvisation. There's no need to know the first thing about theory in order to hear sounds in your head and know how they'll blend/clash - this only seems like a theoretical technique because you're so used to making the connection with your theoretical knowledge.
One of the great things about solo improvisation is that it's impossible for a single note to be wrong. When it's played, only half the context of a note is fixed - a "wrong" note only really becomes wrong if you fail to adapt the rest of that context to it. A "wrong" note in solo improv is like a "wrong" turn in the wilderness - an opportunity for adventure for anyone willing to adapt to the challenges thrown up. Improvisation is no longer an adventure if you're always clear on where you're headed, and are never surprised.

Of course this can't apply to the same extent for group improvisation (barring extreme talent and dynamism), or improvisation over set chord progressions. There you'd need to tie yourself to something formulaic - whether habit, convention or theory.

e.g. playing mathematically... as opposed to musically... although subjective to say one approach is universally more valid.

I don't think there's anything subjective about it. Music is about sound. Any approach which forgets that in pursuit of a load of spurious mathematics just sucks - as music (it might be interesting mathematics). It's not even as though the mathematical approach is exact once you stray from a single key - it's a load of abstract constructions based around approximate ratios.
Abandoning the essence of music in favour of a fundamentally broken approximation is just idiotic - however many delightfully elegant constructions that approximation might throw up.


In any creative field, theory is a tool. I don't think that possession and understanding of that tool is ever a bad idea - it only causes trouble where it's misunderstood / misused / overused, or becomes viewed as an end in itself. Discussion and expanded understanding should make misuse and overuse less likely.