Games and Realism: Part 3 - Immersion
I hate immersion.
Do you remember the early 90's? Well, okay, for those of you alive and at a conscious age at the time, do you remember the early 90's? Do you remember virtual reality? It was supposed to be the next wave of everything. And, back at the transition between the 80's and the 90's, it was often envisioned as pictures of people strapped into moving chairs wearing these oversized, immensely fashionable goggles. It became such a popular concept that it began to invade our popular culture, and it gave us such wonders as "Lawnmower Man." And every one guessed -- nay, knew -- that's where video gaming was going to go soon. Video games were going to be the Eden of virtual reality, the Promised Land. Yup, virtual reality was certainly where it was at.
Of course, these days, we laugh at our older perceptions of virtual reality. With newer, more sophisticated interpretations being presented, such as in The Matrix, virtual reality is no longer as silly as it was back then. And no one ever suspects gaming will go in that direction anymore. We look at the next generation of games and there is no talk of moving chairs and unsightly goggles. So it seems like we are over that.
Or are we?
Well, okay... we are definitely over the moving chairs and unsightly goggles. But it seems as if we, the gaming world (the industry and the players), are still entranced by what even the older visions of virtual reality strived for: getting people immersed into the games, removing that line between our own real world and the world presented to us through our TV screen. And thus, the buzz word is no longer virtual reality... it's now immersion.
I hate immersion. It's not that I hate the concept behind immersion. In fact, I'm all for having games involve us so strongly that we no longer are aware of our surroundings during play. That's what immersion means to me. It's getting into such a zone that you are one with your controller, that you don't even have to use your mind and the character on the screen is at your every beck and call. It's like you're jumping platforms, dodging enemies, throwing touchdown passes, drift turning around tight corners, shooting down enemy soldiers, and dancing on four arrows without even thinking. That's immersion.
But I still hate immersion. But, once again, I don't actually hate immersion itself. To put it more accurately, I hate what immersion has become and what it has grown to represent. It has begun to poison people's minds into believing that, to achieve immersion, you must make things real. Take away things that are "game-like" and make people think they are no longer playing a game. Try to make things as you would expect to see it in real life. Create a virtual reality.
This is not immersion. It's actually a backwards step. Let me give a very recent example: the removal of HUDs. You know what a HUD is, right? It's the Heads-Up Display. It's all that stuff on your screen telling you how much life you have left, how many bullets you have left, what part of the map you are on, how much time you have left before you fail your mission, etc. It's game stuff. Obviously, while walking around in the real world, you don't see how much time left you have before your meeting at the top left corner of your vision at all times. You don't see a meter on the very right telling you that you need to get to lunch soon or you will die ("James needs food... badly!"). The bottom left doesn't have a 3-D representation of a section of your office at work with a green arrow in it rotating to tell you which way you are facing. No, these things are game things.
So in order to increase immersion, let's remove these things. From the game. Let's remove the game things from the game. To make it less like a game. Even though we are playing a game.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
Let's take a look at Fight Night 3, recently released on the 360 as part of the wave of true next-generation games. They wanted to make it as realistic as possible, so they amped up the graphics, gave a much more detailed control scheme, and removed the HUD. They removed the HUD so you can't see how much life you have left. That way, you have to determine how much life you have left by contextual clues: your character punches slower, his face becomes more bruised, etc.
I fail to see how this is immersion. If I were a boxer (ha!), I'd know at any given time just about how badly I felt. I wouldn't think to myself, "Hmm... just how badly hurt am I? Well, I can't really see out of my left eye anymore. And boy, do I feel tired. And that throbbing in my head... yeah, it's pretty throbbing. You know? I must be almost out of energy!" No, I know exactly how badly I'm hurt in a fraction of a second. That's a boxer's version of immersion. He knows exactly what his state is at any given time.
So how is removing the HUD increasing immersion? It actually slows down how well we can interpret what is going on in the game. Is this what we really want? I've have heard the argument, "When you watch boxing on TV, do you see meters above their heads? No!" Ummm... we are playing a game. I don't care how it looks on ESPN. In fact, ESPN should care how it looks in the game. How many things in sports on TV these days have been trying to emulate the video games? The yellow 10-yard line, the QB Cam, the more dynamic camera views that move around the court in basketball (please eliminate those views. I hate that camera. I call it the Vomit Cam because it makes me ill), names of the drivers floating above the cars on the track of a race, etc. You see, at one point, video games were the innovators that TV was trying to copy. Why are we trying to copy TV all of a sudden?
I've even heard the argument that boxers don't know exactly, to the pixel, how much energy they have left. That's easily fixed in games. Make a life meter more similar to Resident Evil (pre-RE4 days), where it is actually quite vague just exactly how much life you have. But you know enough to know that when that meter is in red, you'd better find one of those all-mighty First Aid Sprays pronto. Implementing a vague meter like that is a much better solution than removing the HUD altogether. After all, why should I not know how much pounding King Kong (King Kong being yet another game that chose to take the HUD-less route) is taking at any given time? It's a ludicrous decision (though to EA's credit, I should be fair and mention that you can at least turn the HUD back on in Fight Night 3). I mean, if you are going to remove your life bar from the screen, do something creative instead. For example, the Silent Hill series has always had the awesome system of making your controller vibrate faster as you are closer to death, simulating your heart beat. That's immersion.
My main point is that we shouldn't be removing things that make video games games. In fact, we should be adding more things that make a game a game. We must execute restraint, obviously, but at the same time we can't forget our roots. In order to properly immerse gamers into the game, you have to be able to disseminate information in the most efficient and effective way possible. Who here will deny that having the map on the upper screen at all times in Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow feels sooooo much more convenient than having to press "Select" to get it? You definitely maintain your zone a lot better by being able to move and plot your path at the same time. That's immersion.
Fortunately, this hasn't become a widespread problem yet, this immersion thing. It's a word that, for now, just keeps getting tossed around in the gaming world. I keep saying I hate immersion, but it's really that I'm scared of it and what it could potentially do to games as long as people continue to misinterpret it. I would hate to see games forgetting what they are and trying too hard to be real, and right now I feel like that that trend is being fueled mostly by the false version of immersion. But games are what they are -- they are addicting, they are exciting, they are inviting, they are appealing -- because of the fact that they are games. And that's the true reality. Immersion, on the other hand, is just virtual reality.
- James
Do you remember the early 90's? Well, okay, for those of you alive and at a conscious age at the time, do you remember the early 90's? Do you remember virtual reality? It was supposed to be the next wave of everything. And, back at the transition between the 80's and the 90's, it was often envisioned as pictures of people strapped into moving chairs wearing these oversized, immensely fashionable goggles. It became such a popular concept that it began to invade our popular culture, and it gave us such wonders as "Lawnmower Man." And every one guessed -- nay, knew -- that's where video gaming was going to go soon. Video games were going to be the Eden of virtual reality, the Promised Land. Yup, virtual reality was certainly where it was at.
Or are we?
Well, okay... we are definitely over the moving chairs and unsightly goggles. But it seems as if we, the gaming world (the industry and the players), are still entranced by what even the older visions of virtual reality strived for: getting people immersed into the games, removing that line between our own real world and the world presented to us through our TV screen. And thus, the buzz word is no longer virtual reality... it's now immersion.
I hate immersion. It's not that I hate the concept behind immersion. In fact, I'm all for having games involve us so strongly that we no longer are aware of our surroundings during play. That's what immersion means to me. It's getting into such a zone that you are one with your controller, that you don't even have to use your mind and the character on the screen is at your every beck and call. It's like you're jumping platforms, dodging enemies, throwing touchdown passes, drift turning around tight corners, shooting down enemy soldiers, and dancing on four arrows without even thinking. That's immersion.
But I still hate immersion. But, once again, I don't actually hate immersion itself. To put it more accurately, I hate what immersion has become and what it has grown to represent. It has begun to poison people's minds into believing that, to achieve immersion, you must make things real. Take away things that are "game-like" and make people think they are no longer playing a game. Try to make things as you would expect to see it in real life. Create a virtual reality.
So in order to increase immersion, let's remove these things. From the game. Let's remove the game things from the game. To make it less like a game. Even though we are playing a game.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
I fail to see how this is immersion. If I were a boxer (ha!), I'd know at any given time just about how badly I felt. I wouldn't think to myself, "Hmm... just how badly hurt am I? Well, I can't really see out of my left eye anymore. And boy, do I feel tired. And that throbbing in my head... yeah, it's pretty throbbing. You know? I must be almost out of energy!" No, I know exactly how badly I'm hurt in a fraction of a second. That's a boxer's version of immersion. He knows exactly what his state is at any given time.
So how is removing the HUD increasing immersion? It actually slows down how well we can interpret what is going on in the game. Is this what we really want? I've have heard the argument, "When you watch boxing on TV, do you see meters above their heads? No!" Ummm... we are playing a game. I don't care how it looks on ESPN. In fact, ESPN should care how it looks in the game. How many things in sports on TV these days have been trying to emulate the video games? The yellow 10-yard line, the QB Cam, the more dynamic camera views that move around the court in basketball (please eliminate those views. I hate that camera. I call it the Vomit Cam because it makes me ill), names of the drivers floating above the cars on the track of a race, etc. You see, at one point, video games were the innovators that TV was trying to copy. Why are we trying to copy TV all of a sudden?
Fortunately, this hasn't become a widespread problem yet, this immersion thing. It's a word that, for now, just keeps getting tossed around in the gaming world. I keep saying I hate immersion, but it's really that I'm scared of it and what it could potentially do to games as long as people continue to misinterpret it. I would hate to see games forgetting what they are and trying too hard to be real, and right now I feel like that that trend is being fueled mostly by the false version of immersion. But games are what they are -- they are addicting, they are exciting, they are inviting, they are appealing -- because of the fact that they are games. And that's the true reality. Immersion, on the other hand, is just virtual reality.
- James
11 Comments:
"My main point is that we shouldn't be removing things that make video games games."
I'm glad you expressed yourself so definitively, because I just want to point something out to you. You're assuming that all people (or at least, all people that play games) place an equal value on "things that make video games games," which in your definition appears to be things that explicitly and acutely relay pertinent game information. Players who value explicit information and its ability to aid them in accomplishing whatever pressing need exists (when players look past the setting and are primarily concerned with underlying systems and information, it is called Metagaming) are but just one type of video game player; there are many other types of players, far outnumbering Metagamers, who do not place nearly as much value in this notion. I'm not making a judgement call here - metagamers are the traditional video game audience. But as video games expand and reach audiences much larger than they ever have before, you're going to have developers experimenting with things that may feel alien to you, and to many of the traditional audience. To apply a blanket label and say "this is all wrong," though, I think is a little myopic.
Great topics though; I expect this one to ignite as many flames as the last!
By
omar kendall, at 9:46 AM
While not a big fan of removing the speedometer just because we bought a new car I think there is merit in exploring new ways to convey information. Concepts such as the health bar, displaying how much ammo we have left, etc were first established when videogames were in their infancy. To say that they got it right without exploring another option (and no, turning it from a meter to a graphic does not count) I feel would be wrong.
There were 2 games that recently came out removing the HUD - King Kong and Call of Duty 2. One got it right and one got it terribly wrong. The one that got it right I felt kept you within the game world even though being 'gamey' - that being COD2. When you got shot the controller would vibrate, screen would pulse and turn red - all very videogamey things. Then you just kicked it behind a crate out of enemy fire for a minute and you returned back to normal. Normally I hate this concept (such as The Getaway) but in this game everything came together to work out great.
For me I don't hate immersion as much as I hate when videogames simply try to emulate hollywood without realizing it's not the same medium. Its the same reason why flip books will never replace movies. I think it was my mortal enemy (cliffyb) who had an elegant quote (he prolly stole it from someone though) about how movies are a sit back experience and games a sit up experience. This difference alone means I think we should explore more of whats exciting about sitting up instead of sitting back like a rock and letting someone else do all the work of entertainment.
By
Derek Daniels, at 11:10 AM
to me, immersion is when you, the player, feels what/how the in-game character feels.
like when you get caught up in the game and are so focused that your real world house could be on fire and you wouldn't notice because your so focused on the game.
And you're so motivated, because you want to achieve your next goal just like the in-game character wants to. and you want to achieve these goals for the same reasons the game character does.
and with the health/ammo meter thing, i think they're a good thing. They are (for the most part) just ways of letting the player know things that they would know if they were in that situation in real life.
Like a life bar for example. In real life, you can feel how healthy you are, but in games, you can't feel what condition your character is in. Health meters take what we would feel/know in real life and give a visual representation.
And i really like the vibration function for most games. And i don't really feel like typing a whole bunch about that. I just want to say that i'm really don't like how the PS3 controllers won't have that feature because "the feedback vibration would interfere with games that use the motion sensor." I'd rather have vibration than that motion sensor... Unless they do something really neat with it. ;-)
...and i don't think it'd be all that hard for games that use the motion sensor to not use the vibration and vise versa.
__
AJ
By
Anonymous, at 1:35 PM
HUD-less gaming is a trend and a policy in newer games. COD2 is a game meant to be played on HD TVs, so what's worse than having a health bar burnt on your new plasma TV? The developers sensed that newer audience liked not having HUDs up every time, so they experimented few ideas with random test subjects. Having health regeneration was a big topic in the office, but it was implemented well for people to adapt.
The general rule for removing the HUD would be remove the HUD as long as the player could get the needed information without hassel. If the player asks, "How much health/ammo do I have left?", twice while playing the game for 2 minutes, then it's a bad implementation. Reimplement it and test it out again with another test subject.
To me, immerson == owning. Me versus the opponent.
I would like to hear more about Derek vs. cliffyb. Haha...
- Hyun
By
Anonymous, at 2:48 PM
I'm not a big fan of your specific examples either but I think the general point being made is this: people get immersed in Chess, in baseball, in books, in card games...anything can be immersive, because immersion is a state of mind.
Star Wars is not realistic. Chess is not realistic. (In real life Knights on horseback don't hop 2 yards forward and one to the left) Whether or not something is immersive has nothing to do with how realistic it is. NOTHING.
Except (ha ha) what people call the "uncanny valley." James are you familiar with this? It's the idea that things modelled realistically can actually turn people off because they look just real enough to be obviously fake.
For example the CGI dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park looked pretty good, in part because we don't know exactly how dinos look and move. CGI people tend to look much faker, because we are very familiar with people and hence can spot minor differences between the CGI and the real thing.
Abstract representations don't bother us like that because we don't have the same expectation. Obviously Mario doesn't look like a real plumber but that's ok, he obviously isn't supposed to. But an EverQuest2 character IS supposed to look real, which is why EQ2 characters look awful.
---
One thing I will say about your examples is that in a lot of games like RPGs and MMORPGs you spend a lot of time looking at things that are NOT really part of the game. Most of the time in the typical MMORPG is spent looking at text box, not the screen. It's like all the graphics are an afterthought. It's a noble intention to get the player to look at the actual main viewpoint more and the various text, meters and other things less.
You can see that complaint in Street Fighter where the main strategy is stand far away and whiff strongs to build meter. In that case the player is focusing on what should be a minor aspect of gameplay instead of what should be the meat of the game.
In a game like a MMORPG where the players constantly stare at a chat box trying to add more visual cues to the main graphics and lessen the the importance of the little box at the bottom is a fine idea.
How much of that you can really accomplish is probably best looked at on a game by game basis. For example in RE when you are injured you move slower, limp, etc. I honestly wouldn't mind if they removed the heartbeat entirely, it's basically duplicative and it's also annoying in that you have to check a different screen to see it.
James M
By
Anonymous, at 9:17 PM
A few more comments:
"My main point is that we shouldn't be removing things that make video games games. In fact, we should be adding more things that make a game a game. We must execute restraint, obviously, but at the same time we can't forget our roots."
I agree with Omar that this doesn't ring true. I don't know what makes a game a game and what doesn't. A game is a game is game.
Second, we should feel free to forget roots that don't make sense any more. Honoring the past is nice but sometimes the past is not worth honoring.
It seems that most people agree that immersion is really when you are "in the zone", but your examples seem a bit suspect.
As I mentioned above, the text box in a MMORPG or the CC/VC meter + low strongs in SF actually remove immersion because they take the player out of the game and instead fixate them on what should be minor details.
James M
By
Anonymous, at 9:23 PM
I was immersed in FF6 when I played it in full back in 1995-96. Although it was good for its time, the graphics are hardly anything that could be called immersive.
To conjure up some thoughts, does anyone ever get immersed in a good book? Those are just words on a page, no graphics, high polygon models or next generation physics engine stuff. Its just a bunch of text on a page. However, I don't think anyone can deny that they can be immersed into a good book as much, if not more so, than a movie or video game.
My point (probably what James was getting at anyway) is that its more than just graphics to get you immersed into a game. Eternal Darkness was a game from more recent times that really got me immersed. I'm guessing that the sanity effects were part of it though. Playing around with your mind like you were the in-game character really sets you up for some good scares here and there.
However, in saying that I do agree that removing the HUD in games won't necessarily make it more immersive (especially when you have to do things like see how much blood is gushing out of your head, or see just how slow your punches are to know how low on life you are). But on the otherside of the coin, I can see Omar's and Derek's point of that the current methods (life/ammo meters etc) may not be the best way to convey this information anyway.
I'm thinking an indepth look at the new non-games coming out at how they immerse you in the game is a good start to see what is really needed. Look at Nintendogs for instance. Although things like thirst, and hungar are displayed traditionally, others like how much your dog loves you (obediency, happy face etc) and its fleas tell's you otherwise.
And lets not forget its feedback and input systems for telling you when you've done something right. When the dog obeys you, it does the correct trick. Most of the game is played via the mic and touch screen. This really gives the feeling of immersion as it really does feel like you're telling your pet what to do, and also that you're actually patting it.
By
Anonymous, at 9:26 PM
Actually, in Fight Night Round 3, you can turn back on the heads-up display (lifebar, etc) in the options. The default is to leave it off, for the people who want "realism" while people who want to actually play the game can turn it back on.
Best of both worlds, if you ask me!
By
Anonymous, at 8:24 PM
Managing your (all quasi-recent Street Fighter games as an example) meters does not hurt immersion. You can call it a meta-game if you want, but managing your resources is an important factor in any number of games...keeping track of ammunition, character/resource management in RPGs/RTS games, etc.
Someone whiffing crouching medium punches to build meter is an expression of the game being played.
By
Anonymous, at 8:54 PM
I think that you make an excellent point that in totally eliminating the HUD, in many instances, is counter-productive to the idea of gaming. The poing of playing any game, a video game in particular, is that you're acting in and interacting with anfictional or otherwise virtual enviroment. That means, in addition to performing actions that effect that enviroment, you recieve feedback on the results and consequences of that action.
While the former idea of Virtual Reality seems silly there was one thing that they had right: accurate, pertinate, and easily absorbable feedback. As in the example of Fight Night 3: in real life a fighter, especially if they're experienced and know their body, can tell you exactly how much more that they figure they can take and of what punishment before they can no longer fight because of the feedback their body gives them (I know from my own experiences). Fight Night 3, however, does not in any way closely replicate this therefore the idea and system is flawed.
The best way, in my opinion, to create immersion is to create an enviroment that makes the player desire to intently focus on the things relevent to gameplay and their place in the story line. Things like strategy, creativity, completion of objectives and their rewards, etc.
By
Anonymous, at 3:30 AM
Using Metroid Prime as an example photo was a very poor choice.
Samus herself sees that HUD in her suit. Thus, seeing it on screen is about as immersive as you can get in her world.
By
Anonymous, at 7:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home