You can find 10,000 brown M&Ms next to people playing hop scotch too. The point was that there are people on the internet interrupting immersion. Random people with different ideas about what is fun or interesting. Humans behind a screen, not living in the Elomian Forest of Raindrops.
So do you want to enforce Role-play in your game or not? Because if not, then it should be obvious why people find MMORPGs less immersive than single player games.
I don't currently have a game. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with encouraging people to Role-Play. I think it would be possible for a game to provide incentives and bonuses that would promote role-playing. I'm not saying it's totally necessary. But I don't know if it's ever really been tried.
(Btw, I somehow missed your post yesterday.)
There have been role-play enforced servers in various games. And of course it's possible to encourage role-playing. But without enforcement, people are constantly out of character. What specific incentives would you give to make this not happen?
There is a more important reason why this solution for immersion is absurd though. In an MMORPG, everyone has to always be role-playing in order to avoid the silliness we were talking about earlier. In a single player game, you don't even need a single person role-playing to get to a feeling of immersion.
It's fine if you think MMORPGs are more immersive btw. I think EVE was one of the most immersive games I've ever played. But there are good reasons why, in general, single player games tend to be far more immersive than MMORPGs.
I understand what you're saying. It's also true that 90%+ of MMORPGs are designed as games first and virtual worlds second or not at all. The idea of Role-Playing a character (in terms of speaking, behaving like the character) is not fostered by games which are mainly about the personal accumulation of wealth and power, in which character level, stats, and gear matter are more important than any other considerations. The technical form and mechanics of the games have triumphed over substance.
It doesn't matter where the character is from, who he/she is. The only real motivations any of these characters (and thus the players) are given is to acquire more power. (Sure, players are generally fighting evil Mobs and maybe supposedly saving the world in the game, but it's not like the Mobs offer any real threat to them unless they go looking for trouble.) And players quickly adopt the attitude that power is almost all that matters. Or at least it matters more than anything else.
Those who are lower level or who have less powerful gear are often looked down upon. Players can get along well with each other, but if one player doesn't have the time to keep up with another, they will often part ways. The games offer us little to no reason to play or group with someone unless they are of about equal or greater power. Yes, there are some people will help others without expecting anything in return, but they are not common. One of the few reasons most players might help others who are less powerful is if they are in the same guild. However, this will often be based on the desire to keep people in the guild so that they will help build the guild/make it more powerful. But players have no real reason to stay in a less powerful guild if they are able to get invited into a more powerful one. One that will help them advance faster and easier.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
Still not understanding... I'm getting up there, so you will have to be more direct if your intent is to convey something to me here.
Otherwise, I'll just nod knowingly and leave it at that.
Are we even speaking the same language? Sorry I can't speak Orc or Troll, but allow me to try again anyway. More slowly this time.
I'm...pretending to be...'cool'...with the fact...that I caused you...no trouble,...but,in fact,...this actually...makes me sad.
No, we weren't. I used English throughout, while you using varied imagery. Thanks for the translation to something with clarity.
It would be best in future if you stuck with the precision the written word provides. There is a reason it is one of the primary standards for remote communication.
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
Yeah, that's annoying. That's why leaving channels like that is one of the early adjustments I make when starting a game.
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
How many MMORPGs can you name that give players incentives or bonuses for Role-Playing (talking/behaving as their character would in-game). That give them any real encouragement to do so whatsoever? How many MMORPGs give players absolutely no reason to even consider Role-Playing their characters?
Are you adding Role-play required to your dream game now?
I've played on RP servers in various games. There is still the fundamental problem that you are surrounded by people sitting behind a computer with 7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left.
You can play P&P AD&D or any number of pencil & paper, tabletop RPGs with a person who has "...7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left..".
Though I would certainly be questioning that person's taste in beverages. Diet soda is disgusting.
You can find 10,000 brown M&Ms next to people playing hop scotch too. The point was that there are people on the internet interrupting immersion. Random people with different ideas about what is fun or interesting. Humans behind a screen, not living in the Elomian Forest of Raindrops.
So do you want to enforce Role-play in your game or not? Because if not, then it should be obvious why people find MMORPGs less immersive than single player games.
I don't currently have a game. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with encouraging people to Role-Play. I think it would be possible for a game to provide incentives and bonuses that would promote role-playing. I'm not saying it's totally necessary. But I don't know if it's ever really been tried.
(Btw, I somehow missed your post yesterday.)
How would it work? What would qualify as role-play, and who would judge whether any particular incident met those qualifications?
I don't think such could be easily automated, and I don't believe MMORPG providers would be willing to hire enough people to make it otherwise feasible.
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
Yeah, that's annoying. That's why leaving channels like that is one of the early adjustments I make when starting a game.
Still not understanding... I'm getting up there, so you will have to be more direct if your intent is to convey something to me here.
Otherwise, I'll just nod knowingly and leave it at that.
Are we even speaking the same language? Sorry I can't speak Orc or Troll, but allow me to try again anyway. More slowly this time.
I'm...pretending to be...'cool'...with the fact...that I caused you...no trouble,...but,in fact,...this actually...makes me sad.
No, we weren't. I used English throughout, while you using varied imagery. Thanks for the translation to something with clarity.
It would be best in future if you stuck with the precision the written word provides. There is a reason it is one of the primary standards for remote communication.
It actually communicates.
Okay.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
Yeah, that's annoying. That's why leaving channels like that is one of the early adjustments I make when starting a game.
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
How many MMORPGs can you name that give players incentives or bonuses for Role-Playing (talking/behaving as their character would in-game). That give them any real encouragement to do so whatsoever? How many MMORPGs give players absolutely no reason to even consider Role-Playing their characters?
Are you adding Role-play required to your dream game now?
I've played on RP servers in various games. There is still the fundamental problem that you are surrounded by people sitting behind a computer with 7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left.
You can play P&P AD&D or any number of pencil & paper, tabletop RPGs with a person who has "...7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left..".
Though I would certainly be questioning that person's taste in beverages. Diet soda is disgusting.
You can find 10,000 brown M&Ms next to people playing hop scotch too. The point was that there are people on the internet interrupting immersion. Random people with different ideas about what is fun or interesting. Humans behind a screen, not living in the Elomian Forest of Raindrops.
So do you want to enforce Role-play in your game or not? Because if not, then it should be obvious why people find MMORPGs less immersive than single player games.
I don't currently have a game. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with encouraging people to Role-Play. I think it would be possible for a game to provide incentives and bonuses that would promote role-playing. I'm not saying it's totally necessary. But I don't know if it's ever really been tried.
(Btw, I somehow missed your post yesterday.)
How would it work? What would qualify as role-play, and who would judge whether any particular incident met those qualifications?
I don't think such could be easily automated, and I don't believe MMORPG providers would be willing to hire enough people to make it otherwise feasible.
It's not about somebody judging RP. And it's not about automating it in some fashion.
It's about a game feeling like a RP game, and giving players a reason to think of it in that way. Thus, hopefully, inspiring players to "act their character."
RP isn't just saying "thee" and "thou." At it's most basic, when a player says "I can cast fireball now" they are role playing their character. If that can be enhanced, and the player thinks in terms of being their character more often, in more ways, then that's an enhancement to RP.
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
How many MMORPGs can you name that give players incentives or bonuses for Role-Playing (talking/behaving as their character would in-game). That give them any real encouragement to do so whatsoever? How many MMORPGs give players absolutely no reason to even consider Role-Playing their characters?
Are you adding Role-play required to your dream game now?
I've played on RP servers in various games. There is still the fundamental problem that you are surrounded by people sitting behind a computer with 7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left.
You can play P&P AD&D or any number of pencil & paper, tabletop RPGs with a person who has "...7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left..".
Though I would certainly be questioning that person's taste in beverages. Diet soda is disgusting.
You can find 10,000 brown M&Ms next to people playing hop scotch too. The point was that there are people on the internet interrupting immersion. Random people with different ideas about what is fun or interesting. Humans behind a screen, not living in the Elomian Forest of Raindrops.
So do you want to enforce Role-play in your game or not? Because if not, then it should be obvious why people find MMORPGs less immersive than single player games.
I don't currently have a game. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with encouraging people to Role-Play. I think it would be possible for a game to provide incentives and bonuses that would promote role-playing. I'm not saying it's totally necessary. But I don't know if it's ever really been tried.
(Btw, I somehow missed your post yesterday.)
How would it work? What would qualify as role-play, and who would judge whether any particular incident met those qualifications?
I don't think such could be easily automated, and I don't believe MMORPG providers would be willing to hire enough people to make it otherwise feasible.
It's not about somebody judging RP. And it's not about automating it in some fashion.
It's about a game feeling like a RP game, and giving players a reason to think of it in that way. Thus, hopefully, inspiring players to "act their character."
RP isn't just saying "thee" and "thou." At it's most basic, when a player says "I can cast fireball now" they are role playing their character. If that can be enhanced, and the player thinks in terms of being their character more often, in more ways, then that's an enhancement to RP.
Well said/written.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
For me immersion doesn't need to be realistic. I don't need there to be a requirement to eat in order to be immersed in the game since it is already eating when I eat or sleeping while I sleep. I don't need realism, I just need it to make sense.
Sometimes immersion is created by simply how something happens. In Everquest when you had to turn in the Tome of Order and Discord to the Priest of Discord in order to enable PVP. There's nothing realistic about that, but it's quite immersive to me. This is a magical world so why not magically "protect" the citizens with this tome and only when they've done the appropriate quest do they denounced their protection and are free to attack to and from others that have done the same.
While this "magical" argument could be presented in other areas like carry capacity, that is far less immersive for me without something extra. I would rather see other tools that the player chooses based on their activity at that time. Using a mule and a big backpack or a buggy to carry large loads. If a magical bag is involved then there would need to be some negative side effects like not being able to use the items in that bag until they've been unenchanted.
Buying or crafting arrows before you can shoot a bow is something that I've always considered to be a requirement for immersion, though there could be other means like a rare endless quiver that requires an epic quests to acquire, but it only provides standard arrows.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that for me it isn't so much realism that creates the immersion, it's the implementation. Most games don't seem to care about the implementation and just go straight for convenience without explanation. They're boring.
I think some games take it too far and it becomes a mundane boring tastk like Star citizen. The only way real like Esk animations/simulation wouldn't get stale would be if the game was fully VR/Matrix style.
I don't like Star Citizen more than you (whatever that could mean), but you don't really seem to know what you are talking about, or perhaps you would have explained what you meant by singling out Star Citizen as having "a mundane boring tasks".
Btw, I like to think I am one of the perhaps most negative people re. Star Citizen game development and presentation. The game devs seem to say in a video, that they don't like creating game design documents, implying that they can't present such ideas because they see themselves too busy to work with some detailed document, and just glossing over that having detailed plans is what people would want to see, not some random game development based off some crude/bad ideas, or lofty vague premises (like when using the word "fun gameplay" as something important, signifying very little if anything at all). One of the latest annoyances are what seems to be levitating trains, apparently making the familar spaceship tech based on thust power some watered down concept by introducing whacky futuristic stuff that seem to go against the basics of the game.
What usually happens when watching SC related videos is that I get a little upset and a little angry, just thinking about the terrible things. I just don't know what it will all end up looking like.
What did you have in mind, re. Star Citizen and the subject of mundane boring tasks?
Bonus for stating that it is your opinion though, I like that. People tend to just make a statement and pretend for it to be an argument or something meant to be persuasive.
I think there are some potential pit falls with Star Citizen, but the way I see it it all depends on the end result. In DayZ, I happily ran 13 km across the map to join somebody's attack on somebody's camp. So kind of tedious running that far, but, also ok when it is worth it, or making good sense otherwise.
Just like a person in real life there are MANY layers,so nobody can just explain the idea behind immersion in one simple sweep,it has to be apparent all the time inside of the game.
Once a developer starts adding convenience ideas ,they need to THINK about what they are doing to make sure they still make sense in an immersive way.
So i'll pick on Blizzard since are one of the worst for ruining immersion.Automated dungeon group finder is just computer code designed to automate and simplify without considering the game world or the character,so it is a very dumb idea.Ok how about a HOME,like who would believe that a character living in a world full of crafting wouldn't even have a place to live...duh.
ARPG's,they call themselves rpg's ...role playing games but they are so far out of touch it is insane.All you do is try to create a character build that kills npc's as fast as possible,so what are you even role playing as?SO you have this gear that uses gem slots,who made that gear,did you craft it and from what?You haven't got a gem yet so how did you know how to make gear that could use a gem,where did you get the idea from?The simple faster answer is these devs just wanted to make a cheap low cost game that utilizes the "carrot"to keep players interested but has NOTHING to do with role playing.
BDO ...fishing,automated,your not even playing your character,so obviously you are then not role playing your character either.Any idea that automates YOUR characters gameplay removes immersion,no different than if someone went to work and left their character running under a bot program.
I think too many try and make this more difficult to understand than need be,imo 99% should EASILY know what immersion is and when it is NOT.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I would have to argue that, just like with a movie script, if you don't actually have a movie script fully written and finished, you don't really have A movie idea (but more like having potenially many different ideas for who knows how many different movies, but you don't really know until you finish writing your movie script).
Somehow the words by philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein seems relevant: "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." Presumably meaning, if you don't relate to things at all in some specific way, you don't really know anything.
I think it is fair to say that the general meaning of the word 'immersion', is basically metaphorical, figurative speech as opposed to any literal meaning, because one obviously isn't literally 'immersed' into something when playing a computer game. This imo leads to the first faux pas when using the word 'immersion'. Simply playing a game can imo never be thought of as being immersed, otherwise any such activity is 'immersion' and that doesn't really make any sense if basically anything you do is immersion. Maybe using a real life flight simulator, would be more like immersive in terms of simply being there using it, because you are looking and reacting with real button in front of you, inside what presumably looks like a real passenger jet cabin.
I always try to use the phrase 'immersion into the game world', to try chisel out some concrete meaning to it.
And I would think that if one were to juxtapose the notion of 'I feel immersed' with 'I am immersed', then that obviously would just be ones subjective opinion, as opposed to relating to something that isn't idiotic (idiosyncratic).
Then there is imo the highly abused word 'realism' which people think is to really mean something indicative of reality, but more importantly by simply seeing it. It seems to obvious to me that when one looks out one's window, one doesn't simply see 'freedom', or 'liberty'. Those are foremost mental 'concepts', not natural phenomena or the like. Oddly enough, it doesn't make good sense to allude to 'realism' being a phenomena, as if skipping over the interpretative part, or, the representation of things. That would be too dumb.
I think a general mistake with notions about 'immersion' would be thinking of that word, as being something of 'an absolute', as an absolute idea in the sense of it having total clarity to it, when really it probably makes a lot more sense to think of 'immersion' in the metaphorical way in which one relates to it, which would require an argument to be meaningful, or some qualitative statement, but not 'immersion' as some kind of moniker of 'some' 'thing' or 'something' that is out in the world to be seen.
I thought I would here plug an imo most important problem in philosophy: 'The problem of representation'. Related subject: The non existing "the thing in itself" or 'das ding an sich'. I.e a coffee cup, isn't simply a cooffe cup because it always had to be a coffee cup as some innate quality. It is called a coffee cup, and thought of such, because of our language, not because of there would be this thing in itself, a primordial coffee cup'ness to the item known as 'coffee cup'.
I would have to argue that, just like with a movie script, if you don't actually have a movie script fully written and finished, you don't really have A movie idea (but more like having potenially many different ideas for who knows how many different movies, but you don't really know until you finish writing your movie script).
Somehow the words by philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein seems relevant: "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." Presumably meaning, if you don't relate to things at all in some specific way, you don't really know anything.
I think it is fair to say that the general meaning of the word 'immersion', is basically metaphorical, figurative speech as opposed to any literal meaning, because one obviously isn't literally 'immersed' into something when playing a computer game. This imo leads to the first faux pas when using the word 'immersion'. Simply playing a game can imo never be thought of as being immersed, otherwise any such activity is 'immersion' and that doesn't really make any sense if basically anything you do is immersion. Maybe using a real life flight simulator, would be more like immersive in terms of simply being there using it, because you are looking and reacting with real button in front of you, inside what presumably looks like a real passenger jet cabin.
I always try to use the phrase 'immersion into the game world', to try chisel out some concrete meaning to it.
And I would think that if one were to juxtapose the notion of 'I feel immersed' with 'I am immersed', then that obviously would just be ones subjective opinion, as opposed to relating to something that isn't idiotic (idiosyncratic).
Then there is imo the highly abused word 'realism' which people think is to really mean something indicative of reality, but more importantly by simply seeing it. It seems to obvious to me that when one looks out one's window, one doesn't simply see 'freedom', or 'liberty'. Those are foremost mental 'concepts', not natural phenomena or the like. Oddly enough, it doesn't make good sense to allude to 'realism' being a phenomena, as if skipping over the interpretative part, or, the representation of things. That would be too dumb.
I think a general mistake with notions about 'immersion' would be thinking of that word, as being something of 'an absolute', as an absolute idea in the sense of it having total clarity to it, when really it probably makes a lot more sense to think of 'immersion' in the metaphorical way in which one relates to it, which would require an argument to be meaningful, or some qualitative statement, but not 'immersion' as some kind of moniker of 'some' 'thing' or 'something' that is out in the world to be seen.
I thought I would here plug an imo most important problem in philosophy: 'The problem of representation'. Related subject: The non existing "the thing in itself" or 'das ding an sich'. I.e a coffee cup, isn't simply a cooffe cup because it always had to be a coffee cup as some innate quality. It is called a coffee cup, and thought of such, because of our language, not because of there would be this thing in itself, a primordial coffee cup'ness to the item known as 'coffee cup'.
"Definition of immersive :
providing, involving, or characterized by deep absorption or immersion
in something (such as an activity or a real or artificial environment)"
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
How about making some arguments? Also, are you trying to correct me or something? What do you think you are doing there? What wisdom do you want to share with me?
And, how about answering this question of mine:
Q: Would it be any difference between playing a computer game, and being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game? What do you think?
How about making some arguments? Also, are you trying to correct me or something? What do you think you are doing there? What wisdom do you want to share with me?
And, how about answering this question of mine:
Q: Is there any difference between playing a computer game, and being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game? What do you think?
If I'm fully/deeply absorbed/engrossed in some activity, then I believe I can safely say that I'm immersed. Now a game doesn't have to be realistic for me to become immersed, but I think it helps. The more realistic things I can do with my character, the more I will identify with my character, and the more real the virtual world will seem. Internal Consistency and Depth are also of great benefit in this regard. Games, just as novels and movies, require me to suspend my disbelief. If a game world feels fake, shallow, and inconsistent, then suspension of disbelief will be a lot more difficult to achieve or maintain. It's probably not the best thing when an MMORPG becomes an unintentional comedy.
In answer to your question, yes, there is a difference between playing a computer game and being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game.
Post edited by Ancient_Exile on
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
How many MMORPGs can you name that give players incentives or bonuses for Role-Playing (talking/behaving as their character would in-game). That give them any real encouragement to do so whatsoever? How many MMORPGs give players absolutely no reason to even consider Role-Playing their characters?
Are you adding Role-play required to your dream game now?
I've played on RP servers in various games. There is still the fundamental problem that you are surrounded by people sitting behind a computer with 7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left.
You can play P&P AD&D or any number of pencil & paper, tabletop RPGs with a person who has "...7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left..".
Though I would certainly be questioning that person's taste in beverages. Diet soda is disgusting.
You can find 10,000 brown M&Ms next to people playing hop scotch too. The point was that there are people on the internet interrupting immersion. Random people with different ideas about what is fun or interesting. Humans behind a screen, not living in the Elomian Forest of Raindrops.
So do you want to enforce Role-play in your game or not? Because if not, then it should be obvious why people find MMORPGs less immersive than single player games.
I don't currently have a game. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with encouraging people to Role-Play. I think it would be possible for a game to provide incentives and bonuses that would promote role-playing. I'm not saying it's totally necessary. But I don't know if it's ever really been tried.
(Btw, I somehow missed your post yesterday.)
How would it work? What would qualify as role-play, and who would judge whether any particular incident met those qualifications?
I don't think such could be easily automated, and I don't believe MMORPG providers would be willing to hire enough people to make it otherwise feasible.
It's not about somebody judging RP. And it's not about automating it in some fashion.
It's about a game feeling like a RP game, and giving players a reason to think of it in that way. Thus, hopefully, inspiring players to "act their character."
RP isn't just saying "thee" and "thou." At it's most basic, when a player says "I can cast fireball now" they are role playing their character. If that can be enhanced, and the player thinks in terms of being their character more often, in more ways, then that's an enhancement to RP.
I know what role-playing is.
You were speaking of incentives and bonuses to promote it. How are such to be determined and distributed other than by automation or manual effort?
In my experience Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs but in Single Player games it needs to be immersive for it to be worthwhile. At least for me.
I'm waiting for Cyberpunk2077. It checks all the boxes so far.
What do you mean by saying/writing, "...Immersion doesn't work too well in MMOs..."
Can you please elaborate?
Assmunch9000: yo buddy u gonna take that or what? Ferlandimir: nah bro all yours Assmunch9000 looted [Death Sage's Choppa of Doom]. Assmunch9000 challenges you to a duel. Assmunch9000: come on let me test it on u Ferlandimir: fuck off dude Assmunch9000: go get laid or something Fotys4eva: Haha Spacemelon: u guys must be 12
How many MMORPGs can you name that give players incentives or bonuses for Role-Playing (talking/behaving as their character would in-game). That give them any real encouragement to do so whatsoever? How many MMORPGs give players absolutely no reason to even consider Role-Playing their characters?
Are you adding Role-play required to your dream game now?
I've played on RP servers in various games. There is still the fundamental problem that you are surrounded by people sitting behind a computer with 7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left.
You can play P&P AD&D or any number of pencil & paper, tabletop RPGs with a person who has "...7 empty Diet Mountain Dews to their left..".
Though I would certainly be questioning that person's taste in beverages. Diet soda is disgusting.
You can find 10,000 brown M&Ms next to people playing hop scotch too. The point was that there are people on the internet interrupting immersion. Random people with different ideas about what is fun or interesting. Humans behind a screen, not living in the Elomian Forest of Raindrops.
So do you want to enforce Role-play in your game or not? Because if not, then it should be obvious why people find MMORPGs less immersive than single player games.
I don't currently have a game. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with encouraging people to Role-Play. I think it would be possible for a game to provide incentives and bonuses that would promote role-playing. I'm not saying it's totally necessary. But I don't know if it's ever really been tried.
(Btw, I somehow missed your post yesterday.)
How would it work? What would qualify as role-play, and who would judge whether any particular incident met those qualifications?
I don't think such could be easily automated, and I don't believe MMORPG providers would be willing to hire enough people to make it otherwise feasible.
It's not about somebody judging RP. And it's not about automating it in some fashion.
It's about a game feeling like a RP game, and giving players a reason to think of it in that way. Thus, hopefully, inspiring players to "act their character."
RP isn't just saying "thee" and "thou." At it's most basic, when a player says "I can cast fireball now" they are role playing their character. If that can be enhanced, and the player thinks in terms of being their character more often, in more ways, then that's an enhancement to RP.
I know what role-playing is.
You were speaking of incentives and bonuses to promote it. How are such to be determined and distributed other than by automation or manual effort?
Difficult to automate, I agree.
One way it could be done is for Game Masters (posing as players) to randomly interact with players once in awhile. If a player chooses to role-play his or her character during the interaction/conversation, then the Game Master might give them a quest that will lead him/her to unlocking a hidden progression path. Special items and other types of rewards not available during normal play could be obtained. After this happens enough times, word would probably get around. And this might encourage players to role-play more often. Because they never know if they are talking to a Game Master or not.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
I would have to argue that, just like with a movie script, if you don't actually have a movie script fully written and finished, you don't really have A movie idea (but more like having potenially many different ideas for who knows how many different movies, but you don't really know until you finish writing your movie script).
Somehow the words by philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein seems relevant: "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." Presumably meaning, if you don't relate to things at all in some specific way, you don't really know anything.
I think it is fair to say that the general meaning of the word 'immersion', is basically metaphorical, figurative speech as opposed to any literal meaning, because one obviously isn't literally 'immersed' into something when playing a computer game. This imo leads to the first faux pas when using the word 'immersion'. Simply playing a game can imo never be thought of as being immersed, otherwise any such activity is 'immersion' and that doesn't really make any sense if basically anything you do is immersion. Maybe using a real life flight simulator, would be more like immersive in terms of simply being there using it, because you are looking and reacting with real button in front of you, inside what presumably looks like a real passenger jet cabin.
I always try to use the phrase 'immersion into the game world', to try chisel out some concrete meaning to it.
And I would think that if one were to juxtapose the notion of 'I feel immersed' with 'I am immersed', then that obviously would just be ones subjective opinion, as opposed to relating to something that isn't idiotic (idiosyncratic).
Then there is imo the highly abused word 'realism' which people think is to really mean something indicative of reality, but more importantly by simply seeing it. It seems to obvious to me that when one looks out one's window, one doesn't simply see 'freedom', or 'liberty'. Those are foremost mental 'concepts', not natural phenomena or the like. Oddly enough, it doesn't make good sense to allude to 'realism' being a phenomena, as if skipping over the interpretative part, or, the representation of things. That would be too dumb.
I think a general mistake with notions about 'immersion' would be thinking of that word, as being something of 'an absolute', as an absolute idea in the sense of it having total clarity to it, when really it probably makes a lot more sense to think of 'immersion' in the metaphorical way in which one relates to it, which would require an argument to be meaningful, or some qualitative statement, but not 'immersion' as some kind of moniker of 'some' 'thing' or 'something' that is out in the world to be seen.
I thought I would here plug an imo most important problem in philosophy: 'The problem of representation'. Related subject: The non existing "the thing in itself" or 'das ding an sich'. I.e a coffee cup, isn't simply a cooffe cup because it always had to be a coffee cup as some innate quality. It is called a coffee cup, and thought of such, because of our language, not because of there would be this thing in itself, a primordial coffee cup'ness to the item known as 'coffee cup'.
Scripts come from ideas. Without, the process of writing one couldn't begin. I would interpret Wittgenstein's words as if you don't know what you are talking about, shut up.
When one is speaking of games and immersion concurrently, the context of immersion within the game is clear such that it need not be specified. Seeing that it is a game with no physical existence that it is a feeling rather than actuality is also contextually clear.
Freedom and liberty are concepts. They have no inherent reality. However, games aren't confined to modelling reality. They can mimic the general understanding of these concepts too. Realism in gaming is an attempt to model what can be directly observed as closely as possible.
Coffee cups are called such because they are cups intended to hold coffee, as opposed to teacups which are intended to hold tea. The descriptor refers to the intent of the cup, not the inherent nature of it.
You wrote as a reply to me: "If I'm fully/deeply absorbed/engrossed in some activity, then I believe I can safely say that I'm immersed."
Well, you say "safely say" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but how would you know when qualifying your argument with the mere reference to this idea of 'immersion' but not also bothering stating why? You seem to parrot some dictionary definition, but what would be the point of that? Are you trying to correct me or something?
Please consider the practical, or, the philosopical aspect of meaning things by typing text onto a internet forum for a moment, and then put that activity into context in which one discusses how 'immersion' as an idea (or notion) relates to playing computer games (presumably the general topic of this entire thread) . Do you think people would know what you mean, if you simply say "I am immersed" when witnessing you doing whatever? I think they would need to know more, or, they can't possibly know or share your idea of being 'immersed' if they have to just take your word for it.
Can you acknowledge how such generalized dictionary definitions aren't useful for conveying a particular meaning of objection or correction to my understanding of 'immersion' in computer games, IF such a selective use of meaning from the dictionary (infering being deeply absorbed or some such) behind the word 'immersion', and as it relates to a general discussion about immersion when playing computer games, and given that you in your reply to me readily acknowledged that you think there IS a difference between 'playing a computer game' and 'being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game'? BECAUSE, if you were to 1) claim that I am just wrong when discussing what I think is a sensible understanding of 'immersion' re. playing computer computer games, or, depending on what your intent could have been previously, 2) if you actually claim that your dictionary definition is offering a literal meaning to what 'immersion' is when playing computer games mean, do you not see (now) how you cannot really claim to know either of these two things if your conceptual understanding of 'immersion' was to be just this claim of understanding what the dictionary definition of 'immersion' said? It would be like a tautological statement (saying the same thing), that would be true, but only when fulfilling this general idea of 'immersion'. And I have tried to make the case for why it makes good sense to focus on the objective understanding of this experience of playing computer games, and more importantly specifically relying on this idea of how it is the game world that is the basis of the immersion, not simply the activity of playing a computer game. The idea of playing a computer game might be considered some kind of 'existential' (being something utterly real), but just because it is necessary like what the demotivational poster says, it doesn't mean it is important. I guess a gray area of sort would be the very graphic user interface, or some physical tool like mouse or joystick, which is partly necessary for the entire duration of gameplay, but because of that, is so similar to the idea of "just playing", that it shuldn't be the most important aspect when thinking of 'immersion' in games. And I will argue that, thus, whatever goes for being a "fun" experience (what CIG likes to point out), is a detraction from what makes games interesting, because a discussion that makes the poing of a game having to be "fun" is both dumb and wildly unhelpful, also subject to somebodys definition, or random actualization of what IS "fun" in any case.
If/when speaking (writing) metaphorically, you and others can pretty much say a lot of things without me objecting to it, for all I care, but when pointing to a dicitonary definition without an argument or anything, it seems obvious to me that the very idea (our shared ideas) of 'immersion' when playing computer games can't sensibly be this 'emotional' or 'perceptual' one (something idiosyncratic), as if being something purely subjective, as if the concept of 'immersion' was limited to some select understanding from what you read in a dicitonary that you dictate. That wouldn't be wise, nor sensible, when 'immersion' as it pertains to playing computer games, is obviously relating to the gameplay experience as a specific context and a frame of understanding, and that experience, as it pertains to discussions of it between people, is objective, not subjective. That dictionary definition doesn't meaningfully explain what is going on, when it comes to 'immersion and playing computer games, that seems obvious to me. So, opinions in an argument or discussion can ofc be deemed 'subjective', but their conclusions can't be, that is what does not make sense when simply referring to a dicitonary definition, so as to perhasp defend some personal opinion in which that subjective experience was important. It seems obvious to me that when discussing computer games and how there can be immersion, the subjective part is simply not a part of that problem, because making a point of referencing one's own experience as some explanation to what 'immersion' is, obviusly doesn't make any sense in this context.
I have a lot of things on my mind, but I can't work with this you write. Simply re-stating the same type of meaning in the presumably copy/pasted dicitonary definition, isn't very interesting by itself. Without arguments, you aren't trying to be persuasive to me (such seems obvious).
You wrote as a reply to me: "If I'm fully/deeply absorbed/engrossed in some activity, then I believe I can safely say that I'm immersed."
Well, you say "safely say" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but how would you know when qualifying your argument with the mere reference to this idea of 'immersion' but not also bothering stating why? You seem to parrot some dictionary definition, but what would be the point of that? Are you trying to correct me or something?
Please consider the practical, or, the philosopical aspect of meaning things by typing text onto a internet forum for a moment, and then put that activity into context in which one discusses how 'immersion' as an idea (or notion) relates to playing computer games (presumably the general topic of this entire thread) . Do you think people would know what you mean, if you simply say "I am immersed" when witnessing you doing whatever? I think they would need to know more, or, they can't possibly know or share your idea of being 'immersed' if they have to just take your word for it.
Can you acknowledge how such generalized dictionary definitions aren't useful for conveying a particular meaning of objection or correction to my understanding of 'immersion' in computer games, IF such a selective use of meaning from the dictionary (infering being deeply absorbed or some such) behind the word 'immersion', and as it relates to a general discussion about immersion when playing computer games, and given that you in your reply to me readily acknowledged that you think there IS a difference between 'playing a computer game' and 'being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game'? BECAUSE, if you were to 1) claim that I am just wrong when discussing what I think is a sensible understanding of 'immersion' re. playing computer computer games, or, depending on what your intent could have been previously, 2) if you actually claim that your dictionary definition is offering a literal meaning to what 'immersion' is when playing computer games mean, do you not see (now) how you cannot really claim to know either of these two things if your conceptual understanding of 'immersion' was to be just this claim of understanding what the dictionary definition of 'immersion' said? It would be like a tautological statement (saying the same thing), that would be true, but only when fulfilling this general idea of 'immersion'. And I have tried to make the case for why it makes good sense to focus on the objective understanding of this experience of playing computer games, and more importantly specifically relying on this idea of how it is the game world that is the basis of the immersion, not simply the activity of playing a computer game. The idea of playing a computer game might be considered some kind of 'existential' (being something utterly real), but just because it is necessary like what the demotivational poster says, it doesn't mean it is important. I guess a gray area of sort would be the very graphic user interface, or some physical tool like mouse or joystick, which is partly necessary for the entire duration of gameplay, but because of that, is so similar to the idea of "just playing", that it shuldn't be the most important aspect when thinking of 'immersion' in games. And I will argue that, thus, whatever goes for being a "fun" experience (what CIG likes to point out), is a detraction from what makes games interesting, because a discussion that makes the poing of a game having to be "fun" is both dumb and wildly unhelpful, also subject to somebodys definition, or random actualization of what IS "fun" in any case.
If/when speaking (writing) metaphorically, you and others can pretty much say a lot of things without me objecting to it, for all I care, but when pointing to a dicitonary definition without an argument or anything, it seems obvious to me that the very idea (our shared ideas) of 'immersion' when playing computer games can't sensibly be this 'emotional' or 'perceptual' one (something idiosyncratic), as if being something purely subjective, as if the concept of 'immersion' was limited to some select understanding from what you read in a dicitonary that you dictate. That wouldn't be wise, nor sensible, when 'immersion' as it pertains to playing computer games, is obviously relating to the gameplay experience as a specific context and a frame of understanding, and that experience, as it pertains to discussions of it between people, is objective, not subjective. That dictionary definition doesn't meaningfully explain what is going on, when it comes to 'immersion and playing computer games, that seems obvious to me. So, opinions in an argument or discussion can ofc be deemed 'subjective', but their conclusions can't be, that is what does not make sense when simply referring to a dicitonary definition, so as to perhasp defend some personal opinion in which that subjective experience was important. It seems obvious to me that when discussing computer games and how there can be immersion, the subjective part is simply not a part of that problem, because making a point of referencing one's own experience as some explanation to what 'immersion' is, obviusly doesn't make any sense in this context.
I have a lot of things on my mind, but I can't work with this you write. Simply re-stating the same type of meaning in the presumably copy/pasted dicitonary definition, isn't very interesting by itself. Without arguments, you aren't trying to be persuasive to me (such seems obvious).
You wrote as a reply to me: "If I'm fully/deeply absorbed/engrossed in some activity, then I believe I can safely say that I'm immersed."
Well, you say "safely say" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but how would you know when qualifying your argument with the mere reference to this idea of 'immersion' but not also bothering stating why? You seem to parrot some dictionary definition, but what would be the point of that? Are you trying to correct me or something?
Please consider the practical, or, the philosopical aspect of meaning things by typing text onto a internet forum for a moment, and then put that activity into context in which one discusses how 'immersion' as an idea (or notion) relates to playing computer games (presumably the general topic of this entire thread) . Do you think people would know what you mean, if you simply say "I am immersed" when witnessing you doing whatever? I think they would need to know more, or, they can't possibly know or share your idea of being 'immersed' if they have to just take your word for it.
Can you acknowledge how such generalized dictionary definitions aren't useful for conveying a particular meaning of objection or correction to my understanding of 'immersion' in computer games, IF such a selective use of meaning from the dictionary (infering being deeply absorbed or some such) behind the word 'immersion', and as it relates to a general discussion about immersion when playing computer games, and given that you in your reply to me readily acknowledged that you think there IS a difference between 'playing a computer game' and 'being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game'? BECAUSE, if you were to 1) claim that I am just wrong when discussing what I think is a sensible understanding of 'immersion' re. playing computer computer games, or, depending on what your intent could have been previously, 2) if you actually claim that your dictionary definition is offering a literal meaning to what 'immersion' is when playing computer games mean, do you not see (now) how you cannot really claim to know either of these two things if your conceptual understanding of 'immersion' was to be just this claim of understanding what the dictionary definition of 'immersion' said? It would be like a tautological statement (saying the same thing), that would be true, but only when fulfilling this general idea of 'immersion'. And I have tried to make the case for why it makes good sense to focus on the objective understanding of this experience of playing computer games, and more importantly specifically relying on this idea of how it is the game world that is the basis of the immersion, not simply the activity of playing a computer game. The idea of playing a computer game might be considered some kind of 'existential' (being something utterly real), but just because it is necessary like what the demotivational poster says, it doesn't mean it is important. I guess a gray area of sort would be the very graphic user interface, or some physical tool like mouse or joystick, which is partly necessary for the entire duration of gameplay, but because of that, is so similar to the idea of "just playing", that it shuldn't be the most important aspect when thinking of 'immersion' in games. And I will argue that, thus, whatever goes for being a "fun" experience (what CIG likes to point out), is a detraction from what makes games interesting, because a discussion that makes the poing of a game having to be "fun" is both dumb and wildly unhelpful, also subject to somebodys definition, or random actualization of what IS "fun" in any case.
If/when speaking (writing) metaphorically, you and others can pretty much say a lot of things without me objecting to it, for all I care, but when pointing to a dicitonary definition without an argument or anything, it seems obvious to me that the very idea (our shared ideas) of 'immersion' when playing computer games can't sensibly be this 'emotional' or 'perceptual' one (something idiosyncratic), as if being something purely subjective, as if the concept of 'immersion' was limited to some select understanding from what you read in a dicitonary that you dictate. That wouldn't be wise, nor sensible, when 'immersion' as it pertains to playing computer games, is obviously relating to the gameplay experience as a specific context and a frame of understanding, and that experience, as it pertains to discussions of it between people, is objective, not subjective. That dictionary definition doesn't meaningfully explain what is going on, when it comes to 'immersion and playing computer games, that seems obvious to me. So, opinions in an argument or discussion can ofc be deemed 'subjective', but their conclusions can't be, that is what does not make sense when simply referring to a dicitonary definition, so as to perhasp defend some personal opinion in which that subjective experience was important. It seems obvious to me that when discussing computer games and how there can be immersion, the subjective part is simply not a part of that problem, because making a point of referencing one's own experience as some explanation to what 'immersion' is, obviusly doesn't make any sense in this context.
I have a lot of things on my mind, but I can't work with this you write. Simply re-stating the same type of meaning in the presumably copy/pasted dicitonary definition, isn't very interesting by itself. Without arguments, you aren't trying to be persuasive to me (such seems obvious).
<-- Goes to bed
You sure wrote a lot of stuff.
"If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."
"Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."
(Note: If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)
You wrote: "I would interpret Wittgenstein's words as if you don't know what you are talking about, shut up."
I believe the spirit of things demand that you interpret Wittgenstein in a literal way, and in that case, you would have contradicted yourself in saying that when somebody actually says something, they don't know what they said. Obviously, that is not something Wittgenstein would have meant. It seems to mean, if you can't think it, you can't really say it.
Who are you to tell me to shut up? How abusive and self indulgent.
Comments
Yeah, that's annoying. That's why leaving channels like that is one of the early adjustments I make when starting a game.
/block guild invite
/block invite
/block trade
/leave world chat
/leave trade chat
/hide NPC nametags
/hide player nametags
And I am ready to play ‘insert any MMORPG here.’
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Okay.
Pretty much my practice as well, except I usually leave on nametags unless they are so obtrusive as to cause difficulty in play.
And it's not about automating it in some fashion.
It's about a game feeling like a RP game, and giving players a reason to think of it in that way.
Thus, hopefully, inspiring players to "act their character."
RP isn't just saying "thee" and "thou."
At it's most basic, when a player says "I can cast fireball now" they are role playing their character.
If that can be enhanced, and the player thinks in terms of being their character more often, in more ways, then that's an enhancement to RP.
Once upon a time....
Well said/written.
Sometimes immersion is created by simply how something happens. In Everquest when you had to turn in the Tome of Order and Discord to the Priest of Discord in order to enable PVP. There's nothing realistic about that, but it's quite immersive to me. This is a magical world so why not magically "protect" the citizens with this tome and only when they've done the appropriate quest do they denounced their protection and are free to attack to and from others that have done the same.
While this "magical" argument could be presented in other areas like carry capacity, that is far less immersive for me without something extra. I would rather see other tools that the player chooses based on their activity at that time. Using a mule and a big backpack or a buggy to carry large loads. If a magical bag is involved then there would need to be some negative side effects like not being able to use the items in that bag until they've been unenchanted.
Buying or crafting arrows before you can shoot a bow is something that I've always considered to be a requirement for immersion, though there could be other means like a rare endless quiver that requires an epic quests to acquire, but it only provides standard arrows.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that for me it isn't so much realism that creates the immersion, it's the implementation. Most games don't seem to care about the implementation and just go straight for convenience without explanation. They're boring.
MurderHerd
I don't like Star Citizen more than you (whatever that could mean), but you don't really seem to know what you are talking about, or perhaps you would have explained what you meant by singling out Star Citizen as having "a mundane boring tasks".
Btw, I like to think I am one of the perhaps most negative people re. Star Citizen game development and presentation. The game devs seem to say in a video, that they don't like creating game design documents, implying that they can't present such ideas because they see themselves too busy to work with some detailed document, and just glossing over that having detailed plans is what people would want to see, not some random game development based off some crude/bad ideas, or lofty vague premises (like when using the word "fun gameplay" as something important, signifying very little if anything at all). One of the latest annoyances are what seems to be levitating trains, apparently making the familar spaceship tech based on thust power some watered down concept by introducing whacky futuristic stuff that seem to go against the basics of the game.
What usually happens when watching SC related videos is that I get a little upset and a little angry, just thinking about the terrible things. I just don't know what it will all end up looking like.
What did you have in mind, re. Star Citizen and the subject of mundane boring tasks?
Bonus for stating that it is your opinion though, I like that. People tend to just make a statement and pretend for it to be an argument or something meant to be persuasive.
I think there are some potential pit falls with Star Citizen, but the way I see it it all depends on the end result. In DayZ, I happily ran 13 km across the map to join somebody's attack on somebody's camp. So kind of tedious running that far, but, also ok when it is worth it, or making good sense otherwise.
Once a developer starts adding convenience ideas ,they need to THINK about what they are doing to make sure they still make sense in an immersive way.
So i'll pick on Blizzard since are one of the worst for ruining immersion.Automated dungeon group finder is just computer code designed to automate and simplify without considering the game world or the character,so it is a very dumb idea.Ok how about a HOME,like who would believe that a character living in a world full of crafting wouldn't even have a place to live...duh.
ARPG's,they call themselves rpg's ...role playing games but they are so far out of touch it is insane.All you do is try to create a character build that kills npc's as fast as possible,so what are you even role playing as?SO you have this gear that uses gem slots,who made that gear,did you craft it and from what?You haven't got a gem yet so how did you know how to make gear that could use a gem,where did you get the idea from?The simple faster answer is these devs just wanted to make a cheap low cost game that utilizes the "carrot"to keep players interested but has NOTHING to do with role playing.
BDO ...fishing,automated,your not even playing your character,so obviously you are then not role playing your character either.Any idea that automates YOUR characters gameplay removes immersion,no different than if someone went to work and left their character running under a bot program.
I think too many try and make this more difficult to understand than need be,imo 99% should EASILY know what immersion is and when it is NOT.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Somehow the words by philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein seems relevant: "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." Presumably meaning, if you don't relate to things at all in some specific way, you don't really know anything.
I think it is fair to say that the general meaning of the word 'immersion', is basically metaphorical, figurative speech as opposed to any literal meaning, because one obviously isn't literally 'immersed' into something when playing a computer game. This imo leads to the first faux pas when using the word 'immersion'. Simply playing a game can imo never be thought of as being immersed, otherwise any such activity is 'immersion' and that doesn't really make any sense if basically anything you do is immersion. Maybe using a real life flight simulator, would be more like immersive in terms of simply being there using it, because you are looking and reacting with real button in front of you, inside what presumably looks like a real passenger jet cabin.
I always try to use the phrase 'immersion into the game world', to try chisel out some concrete meaning to it.
And I would think that if one were to juxtapose the notion of 'I feel immersed' with 'I am immersed', then that obviously would just be ones subjective opinion, as opposed to relating to something that isn't idiotic (idiosyncratic).
Then there is imo the highly abused word 'realism' which people think is to really mean something indicative of reality, but more importantly by simply seeing it. It seems to obvious to me that when one looks out one's window, one doesn't simply see 'freedom', or 'liberty'. Those are foremost mental 'concepts', not natural phenomena or the like. Oddly enough, it doesn't make good sense to allude to 'realism' being a phenomena, as if skipping over the interpretative part, or, the representation of things. That would be too dumb.
I think a general mistake with notions about 'immersion' would be thinking of that word, as being something of 'an absolute', as an absolute idea in the sense of it having total clarity to it, when really it probably makes a lot more sense to think of 'immersion' in the metaphorical way in which one relates to it, which would require an argument to be meaningful, or some qualitative statement, but not 'immersion' as some kind of moniker of 'some' 'thing' or 'something' that is out in the world to be seen.
I thought I would here plug an imo most important problem in philosophy: 'The problem of representation'. Related subject: The non existing "the thing in itself" or 'das ding an sich'. I.e a coffee cup, isn't simply a cooffe cup because it always had to be a coffee cup as some innate quality. It is called a coffee cup, and thought of such, because of our language, not because of there would be this thing in itself, a primordial coffee cup'ness to the item known as 'coffee cup'.
noun
a : absorbing involvement"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersion
"immerse
transitive verb
1 : to plunge into something that surrounds or covers especially : to plunge or dip into a fluid"
2 : engross, absorb"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immerse
"Definition of immersive
: providing, involving, or characterized by deep absorption or immersion in something (such as an activity or a real or artificial environment)"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersive
How about making some arguments? Also, are you trying to correct me or something? What do you think you are doing there? What wisdom do you want to share with me?
And, how about answering this question of mine:
Q: Would it be any difference between playing a computer game, and being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game? What do you think?
You wrote as a reply to me:
"If I'm fully/deeply absorbed/engrossed in some activity, then I believe I can safely say that I'm immersed."
Well, you say "safely say" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but how would you know when qualifying your argument with the mere reference to this idea of 'immersion' but not also bothering stating why? You seem to parrot some dictionary definition, but what would be the point of that? Are you trying to correct me or something?
Please consider the practical, or, the philosopical aspect of meaning things by typing text onto a internet forum for a moment, and then put that activity into context in which one discusses how 'immersion' as an idea (or notion) relates to playing computer games (presumably the general topic of this entire thread) . Do you think people would know what you mean, if you simply say "I am immersed" when witnessing you doing whatever? I think they would need to know more, or, they can't possibly know or share your idea of being 'immersed' if they have to just take your word for it.
Can you acknowledge how such generalized dictionary definitions aren't useful for conveying a particular meaning of objection or correction to my understanding of 'immersion' in computer games, IF such a selective use of meaning from the dictionary (infering being deeply absorbed or some such) behind the word 'immersion', and as it relates to a general discussion about immersion when playing computer games, and given that you in your reply to me readily acknowledged that you think there IS a difference between 'playing a computer game' and 'being immersed in the activity of playing a computer game'? BECAUSE, if you were to 1) claim that I am just wrong when discussing what I think is a sensible understanding of 'immersion' re. playing computer computer games, or, depending on what your intent could have been previously, 2) if you actually claim that your dictionary definition is offering a literal meaning to what 'immersion' is when playing computer games mean, do you not see (now) how you cannot really claim to know either of these two things if your conceptual understanding of 'immersion' was to be just this claim of understanding what the dictionary definition of 'immersion' said? It would be like a tautological statement (saying the same thing), that would be true, but only when fulfilling this general idea of 'immersion'. And I have tried to make the case for why it makes good sense to focus on the objective understanding of this experience of playing computer games, and more importantly specifically relying on this idea of how it is the game world that is the basis of the immersion, not simply the activity of playing a computer game. The idea of playing a computer game might be considered some kind of 'existential' (being something utterly real), but just because it is necessary like what the demotivational poster says, it doesn't mean it is important. I guess a gray area of sort would be the very graphic user interface, or some physical tool like mouse or joystick, which is partly necessary for the entire duration of gameplay, but because of that, is so similar to the idea of "just playing", that it shuldn't be the most important aspect when thinking of 'immersion' in games. And I will argue that, thus, whatever goes for being a "fun" experience (what CIG likes to point out), is a detraction from what makes games interesting, because a discussion that makes the poing of a game having to be "fun" is both dumb and wildly unhelpful, also subject to somebodys definition, or random actualization of what IS "fun" in any case.
If/when speaking (writing) metaphorically, you and others can pretty much say a lot of things without me objecting to it, for all I care, but when pointing to a dicitonary definition without an argument or anything, it seems obvious to me that the very idea (our shared ideas) of 'immersion' when playing computer games can't sensibly be this 'emotional' or 'perceptual' one (something idiosyncratic), as if being something purely subjective, as if the concept of 'immersion' was limited to some select understanding from what you read in a dicitonary that you dictate. That wouldn't be wise, nor sensible, when 'immersion' as it pertains to playing computer games, is obviously relating to the gameplay experience as a specific context and a frame of understanding, and that experience, as it pertains to discussions of it between people, is objective, not subjective. That dictionary definition doesn't meaningfully explain what is going on, when it comes to 'immersion and playing computer games, that seems obvious to me. So, opinions in an argument or discussion can ofc be deemed 'subjective', but their conclusions can't be, that is what does not make sense when simply referring to a dicitonary definition, so as to perhasp defend some personal opinion in which that subjective experience was important. It seems obvious to me that when discussing computer games and how there can be immersion, the subjective part is simply not a part of that problem, because making a point of referencing one's own experience as some explanation to what 'immersion' is, obviusly doesn't make any sense in this context.
I have a lot of things on my mind, but I can't work with this you write. Simply re-stating the same type of meaning in the presumably copy/pasted dicitonary definition, isn't very interesting by itself. Without arguments, you aren't trying to be persuasive to me (such seems obvious).
<-- Goes to bed
You wrote:
"I would interpret Wittgenstein's words as if you don't know what you are talking about, shut up."
I believe the spirit of things demand that you interpret Wittgenstein in a literal way, and in that case, you would have contradicted yourself in saying that when somebody actually says something, they don't know what they said. Obviously, that is not something Wittgenstein would have meant. It seems to mean, if you can't think it, you can't really say it.
Who are you to tell me to shut up? How abusive and self indulgent.