In the past couple of weeks both Evizaer and Wolfshead have featured articles on the topic of immersion in video games, however neither writer's definition of the phenomenon rang particularly true to me. As a term, "immersion" is bandied around by gaming pundits when discussing games to describe a mash-up of factors that range anywhere from a "realistic game world" to an "extremely engrossing gaming experience". The two aforementioned articles illustrate these usages wonderfully:
Immersion is a state when the player or spectator (in the case of plays and motion pictures) temporarily suspends their disbelief and willingly transports themselves into the realized world of the creator. The difference between films and virtual worlds is that the players are not mere bystanders — they are active participants with a purpose.
True immersion is really a holistic mindset or philosophy of art, design and user interface that when combined should influence all aspects of a virtual world rather than just a few features in isolation.
And:
But gamers want to take the concept of immersion farther. Now immersive games have to be games where the world is more real. This doesn’t mean that the world has to be more superficially like ours (though that’s what many developers seem to want it to mean)—it means a world that has a similar level of detail to our world, at least as far as the player would naturally examine the world. Players think immersion requires that the game include small details of the real world that have no mechanical reason to be in-game.
While these definitions sound reasonable on the surface, both rely heavily on aesthetics without delving into any of the other aspects of video game design that go into forming an immersive experience.
To further explore this issue, consider three separate games that are immersive for entirely different reasons.
Case one: Mirror's Edge
Mirror's Edge is a realistic-looking first person action game that puts you in the shoes of a "runner" (a near future courier who traverses city rooftops while avoiding the law). Graphically the game is stunning and contains all sorts of incidental details that bring the game world to life; birds roost on ledges and startle when you come near, planes cut lazily across the skyline, pedestrians go about their business oblivious to the player on the streets below, and so on.
While these details may help players ease into the virtual world, they are not the primary reason that Mirror's Edge is so engrossing.
The game grabs you by the throat and hauls you in by virtue of the sense of immediacy, panic, and danger that is created from the very first moments of the opening mission. As you dash across the rooftops you are being chased by officers - often unseen - who are shooting to kill, and since you have no weapons at your disposal your only option is to run as fast as you can. The cityscape unfolds before your eyes as you leap huge gaps, slide through tight spaces, and hurdle obstacles. As a player, my heart was pounding during the most intense sequences, and I caught my breath in sheer terror on many occasions when I missed a jump. This is immersion in its purest form: when I am running I feel like I am there, and I physically respond to the on screen stimuli as if I were the one falling to my death.
Mirror's Edge also provides an excellent example of how to break immersion. Dying in the game sets you back to the last check point that you passed, and they are never very far apart. During particularly challenging sequences you will die - a lot - and thus constantly reload to repeat a mechanical challenge. This destroys the fluidity of the game, and strips away all sense of immersion revealing the core of the experience to be somehow more hollow then it felt mere moments before.
Case two: Dragon Age
Bioware's fantasy epic, Dragon Age: Origins, is a role-playing game that is played primarily using an overhead camera. The graphics, while pretty, are not nearly as realistic as many modern titles and the world is extremely artificial and gamey. As much as the artists went out of their way to make Ferelden look lived in, the developers hem the player in at every turn and tightly control movement.
Despite the aforementioned constraints, Dragon Age is an incredibly immersive game. Instead of realistic freedom of movement and game play, character development and plot-based interactions are used to make the player feel like they are a part of the world.
From the very beginning a Dragon Age player is encouraged to meld with their on screen avatar; the very first task in the game is to customize a character's appearance and background. Every little tweak that is made will be rendered on screen, and for sixty-plus hours the player will get to watch their creation live out a grand adventure.
More important to the immersive experience than character customization is the dialog system that forms the core story-telling mechanism in the game. Dragon Age is full of conversations: from banal merchant greetings, to diplomatic brinksmanship, to intimate relationship building. Each of these interactions takes place using a dialog tree in which you listen to an NPC speak and then select from a menu of possible responses. Crucially, your chosen response is not voiced; instead Bioware has left it up to the player to speak their character's words in their own mind. This simple choice has enormous implications for immersive roleplaying - not only does the player have full control over their character's looks, but also their voice.
The types of choices that players are asked to make, and the rewards (or lack thereof) for making them, also aid immersion. Dragon Age's morality system is one of the most well-realized and realistic that I have had the pleasure of experiencing to date. By removing most of the rewards from the system the player is allowed to respond to a situation in a more realistic manner. In Dragon Age it becomes possible to mentally justify a course of action beyond "I need X more evil points for my next level, so I'd better kill that kitten".
Unfortunately, like Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age: Origins is not a completely immersive experience. The moment a player enters a battle the illusion dissipates, and the core game mechanics are revealed for what they are.
Case three: Sid Meier's Civilization
Released in 1991, Civilization is by no means a realistic looking game, and yet it is easily one of the most immersive games of all time. The graphics are designed with a function-first mentality, and while they looked good enough in their day they were certainly not cutting edge.
Civilization is an empire building game than incorporates nearly all of the aspects of modern members of its genre: exploration, diplomacy, commerce, and warfare. A player becomes the leader of a fledgling nation, and struggles to game prominence on the world stage, and eventually achieve dominance.
Game play takes the form of managing the actions of all units and settlements on a turn by turn basis, which can be done with a keyboard or point and click with a mouse. The business of being a world leader is completely engrossing, and most players quickly slip into a trance-like state and they are drawn in the simply-drawn yet intricately complex world. Time literally melts away as a game of Civilization wears on, and hours can disappear at a time.
This total immersion is not unique to the original Civilization game, but is shared by all of the best members of the turn-based strategy genre. Key to keeping a player's focus are intuitive controls, a streamlined user interface, and constant feedback from the game world.
Putting it all together
All three titles discussed above contain extremely immersive sections of game play that have the ability to snare a player's attention, and make them feel a part of the game world. From the graphics and intensity in Mirror's Edge, to the strong personal connection to a character in Dragon Age, to the deep strategic mechanics of Civilization, each game demonstrates a different form of immersion.
It is this diversity of experiences that makes the term so difficult to pin down.
Video game immersion is not as simple as realistic graphics, it is the ability to draw players into the experience, and make them forget that they are playing a game. An immersive game does not feel like a game; it is just as natural as breathing.
If a player is forced to stop and think about what they should be doing, then the illusion will be shattered. When Mirror's Edge forces you to repeat a section a dozen times it is impossible to think that you're actually a runner leaping over rooftops. When Dragon Age turns from a brilliant exploration of morality and character into a tactical combat simulator then its magic spell is broken.
All of the graphical details and high fidelity renderings of people and places are moot if game mechanics obstruct the core package. Sometimes a game just needs to know how to get itself out of the player's way, and let them at the meat of the experience. Immersion is truly difficult to create, which is why it is so highly priced when it finally turns up in a surprise hit game.



10 comments:
"Video game immersion is not as simple as realistic graphics, it is the ability to draw players into the experience, and make them forget that they are playing a game. An immersive game does not feel like a game; it is just as natural as breathing."
This.
I'll go further. I propose that the only impact graphics have on immersion is that they make the suspension of disbelief required easier; which broadens the range of players who will allow themselves to be immersed.
Many younger players today (and non-gamers) won't give a game with poor grpahics a chance, so they never see past the visuals.
But, I've played many an enormously immersive game over the years, and you don't have to go far back to have only terrible graphics - or even none at all!
It's ALL about the game making you forget your playing a ge. It's not that you think they game is real, or even feel that you're there; it's about the game tricking you into not thinking about that at all.
---
God, I miss having a computer. iPhones are awesome and all, but they don't replace full PC's.
One of the frustrating things I run into on a regular basis is how often terminology becomes a stumbling block for discussing game design. There are some terms, like "immersion" and "realism" that are so overloaded with connotations and personal opinion that it becomes dangerous to use them for fear of obscuring the real point.
It might be because I'm a game developer, but I see these three things as slightly different takes on things, if not quite different phenomena. Mirror's Edge is about putting you in the place of the game character, right down to the first-person perspective. Dragon Age is about giving you a meaningful impact on the world, even if combat rips you out of that perspective and puts you in the role of tactician. Civilization isn't really immersion, it's compelling gameplay that keeps you wanting to try just one more thing on the next turn until the sun comes up. Immersion into the world of Civilization has little to do with it.
For me, the line between immersion and compelling gameplay is what role I find myself in. In Mount & Blade, for example, I feel like I'm in a medieval feeling land trying to make my way, even if the graphics aren't awesome like in Dragon Age, because the combat gameplay and other elements draw me in. I don't feel immersed in Bejewelled, because there really is no role besides as the player moving gems accoring to rules. I feel the same way about Civilization, even though it's more based upon the "real world", because the role of the player is as some omnipresent demigod.
Hopefully that didn't muddy the waters further. :) Interesting comparison of games, though.
@Psychochild:
This is definitely a semantic debate at its core, but given the prevalence of the term "immersion" in game design and game criticism, it is probably one worth having.
The distinction that you draw between immersion and "compelling gameplay" doesn't sit well with me. If I understand you correctly you are saying that immersion *IS* a form of "compelling gameplay", however not all compelling gameplay is immersive - the dividing line that you have arbitrarily chosen is whether or not you play a "role" within the game. (That role is further scoped to playing a single human avatar.)
Assuming I'm reading you correctly, I respectfully disagree. (Or at least I personally feel immersed by games that fit a far wider criteria.)
As stated in my article, I believe that the basis for immersion is when a game enables someone to play a game and actually forget that they are playing a game. Having compelling gameplay and intuitive controls certainly help a game reach this state, but that is not the whole story.
By drawing someone into the game world to the point where the mechanics of playing are all but forgotten - be it Bejewelled, Dragon Age, Civilization, or Mount and Blade - a game becomes immersive.
Now I'll fully admit that different players can and will be immersed by different types of games, however trying to pigeonhole immersion to just realistic visuals, or just avatar-based interfaces is not encompassing the full scope of the term.
i think you could break down immersion even further into "character" immersion, and "world" immersion...
lets take your first example, Mirror's Edge... while playing Mirror's Edge you really feel like you're "IN" the main character... you feel like you really are this Runner and you feel the same things that this character is feeling as she's running around on rooftops, dodging bullets, etc:..
the world itself isn't really that immersive, it's the character and how the game really places you in the character's shoes that makes the game immersive.. i'd call this Character Immersion.
Dragon Age is a little different, it doesn't immerse you "IN" the character, but instead immerses you "IN" the World.. you don't necessarily get lost in the character, you get lost in the world and the lore... your actions can shape the world, and therefor that world seems much more real and tangible to you, which allows you to get lost in it... i'd call this World Immersion.
now lets talk about how compelling gameplay compares to immersion.
lets take Starcraft as an example... i've lost countless hours of my life, and missed many many meals, and accidentally stayed up till dawn while playing this game... it's an extremely compelling game, but at no time did i feel like i was "IN" the game... i always knew i was playing a game, but the gameplay was just so damn compelling that i couldn't stop playing, the gameplay sucked me in and wouldn't let go... Starcraft is an extremely compelling game, but it's not really Immersive.
compelling gameplay can make the player forget about the real world and focus only on the game to the exclusion of everything else... but that's not immersion... immersion requires a player to not only leave the real world behind, but also to let themselves be transported INTO the game in some way, either through character immersion or world immersion.
starcraft made me forget about the real world... but Mirror's edge and Dragon Age can make you forget about the real world AND suck you into the game through either the character, or the world.
i don't know if the above actually makes any sense... i'm having trouble getting what's in my head into words.. hopefully you can kind of understand what i'm trying to say.
@Logan: not that I disagree with you, but I'd argue that the distiction is irrelevant. Compelling gameplay is what really matters; without that no other 'type' of immersion can be maintained.
Mirrors edge, for example, makes you feel like you're there not because of the visuals but because the gameplay mechanics work so intuitively that you don't really think about them at all.
Now, let's say they added a lot of extra things you can run and jump over, and put in extra prizes you could find to upgrade/get a higher score/get acheivements/etc. The act of getting those, though, would break the immersive feel and draw unnecessary attention to the mechanics of the game and disrupts it's flow.
RPG's are common transgressors in this. They create huge immersive worlds, then penalize players for following the story without breaking off to do other 'side quests.'. Not that side quests are bad, but they need to be better woven into the fabric of the game, not: There is a huge undead army forming and you, the hero, are the only one who can stop it! Time is of the essence! Pressure! Drama! ... Now, if you fail to run off and save grandma's kitten and kill ten rats for farmer Bill before you stop the invasion, you'll be weaker/not get the perfect ending/whatever.
So, then, the goal is to create compelling gameplay with unobtrusive, intuitive mechanics and controls and even flow throughout the game. Immersion the follows naturally, in whichever form is appropriate for the game.
I was speaking with Toskk on MSN last night and he actually listed of six (?) forms of video game immersion. I keep hoping he'll chime in to this thread with them (hint, hint!)
@Logan
I find it interesting that you say that DA:O immerses you "in the world" and not "in the character". I was actually more into my character than the world, if push came to shove... although perhaps it would be more apt to say that it was a combination of both for me. (Although the lore you mention was actually immersion breaking IMO - finding all those little notes reminds you that you're in a game.)
That leads me into a tangent: one of the biggest immersion breaking "Advances" in video games over the past five years has been the rise of achievement-based gaming. Nothing reminds you that you're playing a game like a stupid little overlay popping up informing you that you just killing your hundredth rat. Argh.
@ Derrick - i totally agree, compelling gameplay is what's most important, if you achieve compelling gameplay through immersion, then that's great... but it's not the only way.
@ Andrew - i agree that achievement spam can really break the immersion... but it doesn't have to... developers just have to think about ways to integrate the achievements into the game in a non-obtrusive way.
for example if i was making a game like Dragon Age, i'd simply have a journal in the background that kept track of major events and milestones (complete with the date and time they were completed, and the ability to add personal comments and even screenshots to accompany your recorded achievements)... and this journal would only show up if you hit the corresponding hotkey to show it... so no pop-ups telling you that you did some badass deed and got an achievement, you'd have to actually open up your journal to see what's been written.
i'm suprised there hasn't been a game with this kind of journal system in place, it makes a ton of sense for an RPG, and really lets the player tell their own story (you could share your journal with friends if you so desired) in an interesting and immersive way.
so it's not necessarily the achievement-based gaming that is destroying immersion... but it's how recent games have handled those achievements.
xbox live style achievements are fine for some games, but games that rely on immersion to create compelling gameplay should really come up with better ways to handle achievements.
It's the other way around, I think. You acheive immersion through compelling gameplay. The type of immersion varies, but in every case you must have compelling gameplay for immersion to happen.
There are other contributing factors, but without the gameplay described in my last comment immersion can't happen - or at least not be maintained.
Logan understood my point as I was trying to explain.
Derrick wrote:
I'd argue that the distiction is irrelevant.
As a game developer, I heartily disagree. I think the distinction is very important. Immersion is something that other media can do as well. You can get immersed into a movie or a book; sometimes it's even easier than getting immersed into a game due to the problems with interactivity. But, compelling gameplay is something unique to games. So, while we can look to other media to see how to make immersive experiences (first person perspectives, engaging characters, fleshed-out world, etc.), building compelling gameplay is something we have to figure out on our own.
My perspective, at least.
Brian: I didn't mean the distinction between compelling gameplay and immersion was irrelevant; I meant that distinctions between types of immersion. My point throughout this discussion has been that, in short:
You can have compelling gameplay without immersion, but you cannot have immersion without compelling gameplay.
The resulting type of immersion really doesn't matter: its pretty much just acedemic.
Post a Comment