Gameplay and Immersion

[Sonic]

This isn't a technical thread. I would like this thread to contain personal observations, beliefs, or just plain thoughts and ideas.

Gameplay and immersion in a game go hand in hand, and both are crucial in creating an experience that won't be forgotten. What is the most important for you when it comes to being deeply involved in a game? It doesn't matter the type of game as all of our tastes vary in one way or another. Do you find the typical control pad design efficient for the types of games you play? If you have or played a Wii, does its controller bring you deeper into the experience? Does it matter about graphics more or about gameplay? Do better physics and animation bring you closer to the game? Does a good soundtrack, sound effects, voice dialog, offer more than games that don't have these (dependent upon game type here)?

Basically what I'm looking for is what personally brings you closer to the game experience. This includes the story and other little details in games.

Please do not bring in anything in terms of one console vs. another. It is ok to compare the controller of the Wii to that of the 360 and PS3, but other than that please no other comparisons unless it involves something specific on each console like Xbox Live or the Eyetoy. So no console vs. console on a technical or graphical level, no sales comparisons because this is not for the masses, it is for those that read this forum.

Thank you for your time and let the discussion begin!

 

[PiNkY]

The one game of 2007 I start for 30mins and suddenly find myself devoting three hours too is crackdown. It's actually one of the few games, that focusses on rewarding you for whatever you feel like doing at the moment, not only through its ingame mechanics but also through live achievements. There are what feels like hundreds, and the game just keeps dishing them out for whatever silly thing you're trying at the moment. At the same time, it seems utter care was taken to not frustrate the players when things go wrong. It's 2 minutes at the most to get back to where you failed, and take them on again. Looking like just another GTA clone on the surface, the moment you pick up the controller you realize that they hardly have anything in common. It's certainly not a universal recipe, but I reckon it deserves mention as my gutsy and most immersive (and imho vastly underrated) game design of the year.

 

[Gubbi]

It's certainly not a universal recipe, but I reckon it deserves mention as my gutsy and most immersive (and imho vastly underrated) game design of the year.

Seconded. Crackdown is the most pure and clean video game fun I've had in a long time. Greatly underrated.

Cheers

 

[RobertR1]

Controller immersion is right up there. A controller should act as an extension of me. Too often in the past, I've always "felt" the controller but this is where the 360 controller really shines for me. Fits perfectly in my hands and after I get accustomed to the buttons layout of a game, everything just flows naturally. The rumble keeps things tense as it alerts your touch senses.

Following that comes the presentation and the flow of the game. Take Gears for example. While the graphics are great, once into a game, they become somewhat irrelevant. It's the sounds, the atmosphere, intenisty, character interaction/dialouge that keep the game moving forward. Gears does a very good job of making you feel as if you're watching some great high budget action flick in which you control the fate (even though it is scripted).

Then completely different in presentation but with a high level of immersion is a game like Crackdown. The scope of the game is so large that you literally feel like a small fish in a big pond. I recall spending hours at that game just screwing around like I would, if I given the freedom! Your mentality has to change with a game like crackdown also. Most games I pick up, I have a very "get through it and beat it" mindset. Not with Crackdown. I only wanted to beat I could keep playing and screwing around in the city! now, that's good immersion.

To counter the above game, I'd go with Forza2. The layout of Forza2 did not immerse me one bit. It was very clear that I'm not some evolving race car driver. Just a random player playing a game. From one menu into another, coupled with very plain layouts from one race series to another, and then back to the garage and then the tuning, it just put me off. Don't get me wrong, once past all that, the actual gameplay is very addicting but having to bypass all the aforementioned aspects of the game turned me off to it.

 

[Arwin]

I can get addicted to all sorts of gameplay, but real immersion to me is making me feel like I am actually part of the game. While driving a car in GT for instance using the wheel, especially at a LAN party, gives me a great gameplay, I am immersed in the feeling of playing a racing GAME on a LAN party against real people. In other words, it's not really the game world that has drawn me in in this case - the game has become an extention of the real world.

An example of a game that did really bring me into its world was Warhead, from the 16bit era. Being comparable to the early Wing Commander series, the game puts you into a convincing space battle scenario. It had a great setup of missions, including excellent training, and R&D occasionally bringing in new weapons that you then were trained in using and so on, very interesting Aliens (tiny roach like creatures with telephatic abilities) and a very interesting surprise guest that temporarily becomes a shared enemy, and a very satisfying final mission. The game is all in the present, and it unfolds in 'real-time'. You had a real 3D planetary system which you could rotate and select hyperspace targets for, and it was all based on our solar system and known foreign systems (alpha-centauri and so on). The mission told you where to go, but you could in fact then decide to go somewhere else completely, even if that didn't help you all that much.

The physics were fairly convincing too, and 3D poly-based graphics were pretty uncommon back then. (Which reminds me of Elite, which was also fairly immersive because of its huge world convincing you that all the other ships out there had their own agenda. Captain Blood was also interesting, with it's Icon based talking with aliens, where you had to figure out the languages yourself - pretty hard! - but also with interestingly generated computer graphics of alien planets)

Another important factor in this sense is that where the gameworld overlaps with the reality that you know, it represents it coherently and convincingly. And the less convincing you can do it, the better it is to take that aspect of a story outside the known world and into a fantasy reality with its own set of rules. Just as long as when you do have overlap between the fictional world and the real world, they don't contradict each other (too obviously).

I think games that do it wrong are games like Resistance. By having a narrator that brings the story in the past tense, the whole idea that you actually influence the story by shooting the aliens, even if it is basically as linear as Warhead was.

I also think if you are to be truly immersed in a game world, then it greatly helps if you never see yourself - though it may help that in the future more and more games are going to make your avatar look like you as much as possible.

A lot of these aspects are going to differ from person to person, obviously. But some of these general principles definitely do work for all.

Also I'm not going to say that all these aspects are the only way to immerse you into a game world. But for me, they have proven to be the most effective. I agree with RobertR1 about racing games - I admire the attempt made by Race Driver in this respect.

 

[inefficient]

I like it when the protagonist character you are playing actually talks!

I know some people actually don't like that. But to me it adds a lot to the immersion and helps makes it more convincing that your character is alive.

Some people want to play as "themselves" when the play a game. But I find that unexciting. I want the all the emotions communicated to me through the character that is actually in the game.


Some examples I can think of off the top of my head:

Prince of Persia (all): I loved it when you could hear what was going on inside the prince's head. He would start complaining about things or get upset about things and it helped develop an understanding of what the character was going through. He could voice all his inner conflicts and his girl problems etc. This had a second win in that it really helped balance out the slower parts of the game where you were just going from A to B.

GTA3 (VC and SA): Again the main character talked to himself even outside of cut scenes. It gave him more life. Attitude. And not just a puppet or a robot.

Duke Nukem 3D: I guess the king of this category and arguably one of the first characters to do this. All those one liners become part of gamers pop culture and helped establish the character. To me, those one liners were really what made Duke King.

Prey: Again a talking character who had quite a bit to say. I really loved especially toward the end all the anger and emotion that you could really feel was building up inside him. He actually swore and cursed and monsters during combat. You could really feel the anger. People give this game shit, but in my book, it has one of the best last 2 hours in a game ever.

 

[Nesh]

I need great art direction.

Visuals and sound should blend seamlessly. Animation also play a huge . I want my input to produce the appropriate result in animation.

I also want my character to react through the environment and not just my input. For example take Shadow of Colossus. My character was affected by the environments and the Colossus himself. I and the Colossus were struggling on each other.

It wasnt just me the player pressing passively buttons. It was me hanging on a huge beast battling my way on him, while the giant felt aware of my presence and was trying to get rid of me.

Similarly sound should react as well to both my input and to other things in the gaming environment. If I put my character in a certain situation I want the appropriate music to describe that.

When something in the environment changes or a virtual character does something the music should also change accordingly.

The freedom adds a lot as well. ZOE and DMC were immersing for me because I could use combinations of moves the way I wanted to. There werent limits on how I would use my moves. Just like in real life. Many games fail in that because they are constantly reminding you "you ve got these rules and these sets. You cant do anything else. You are constrained".

Story and emotion have a huge impact on me. Character development and and the character design themselves. they must have a personality. This is one of the reasons I was so absorbed by Final Fantasy games. Oh and MGS

Another example of immersion is Silent Hill. Great use of sound and visual style. It shows that some genres to feel immersive dont need the same freedom as in other examples like DMC or ZOE. Since this is a survival horror your character must feel weak, helpless. This example needs claustrophobic controls in undesirable situations. This is the reason why Resi4 didnt feel as immersing as previous resis for many fans. The character gained too many ways too destroy the enemies while in examples such as Resi1 the character felt like a normal human. Just like me.

I can name tons of examples but it depends on the genre so its hard for me to talk about certain aspects that can be applied to anything

Perhaps art direction, sound, physics, AI and control inputs and in & out interactivity?

 

[archangelmorph]

cinematic elements that don't take control away from the player (as well as some which do only out of necessity)..

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think visuals, sound, physics, story are all greatly beneficial to a game when done well, but gameplay trumps everything. If I start to play a game, and it looks and sounds fantastic, and has an interesting storyline, but the controls and user response are awkward or confusing, I'm most likely going to put it down for good. It's pretty rare when I'll play through a game that feels mechanically broken. There are a lot of games with some small control flaws, but I can deal with that. If the control is just downright poor, nothing else matters. Some games offer working, but derivative gameplay, and that will usually provide me with some short lived fun. An example of that would be FEAR. That game was great for a few hours, shooting up the baddies and the environment. It really didn't last, and I never finished it because there wasn't anything about it that seemed new to me. Half Life 2 was the first fps in a while that really grabbed me. The physics were part of the gameplay experience, rather than just being part of the visual experience. That was new, and fun. It was also top notch in every regard, even though the controls are basically the same thing we've been playing for a decade, but they felt solid.

Story, for me, is at the bottom of the heap. I've never played a game with a great story. When I want a good story, I read a book, or maybe watch a movie. I find games with lengthy cinematics irritating, because usually the stories and script are poorly done and I just want to get them over with. Even if they are well done, which I haven't seen yet, I still wouldn't be interested too much. I play games to play, not watch.

I'm interested in any attempts to create new forms of user input for games. We've played with basically a variation on the same NES controller for decades, and it's a little tiresome. That doesn't mean it can't still be down well, but new input devices are immediately interesting to me.

One of the more interesting uses of older input methods were the fight controls in EA Sports Fight Night series . I found them to be really compelling. It was very simple, but allowed for a lot of freedom. Each person I've played against has a very unique style, whereas the more traditional fighting games seem to lock you in to a certain style. Another game that I felt had a really new and fun control method was "Rag Doll Kung-Fu" on the PC. It was inventive and fun. It was a new and unique experience for someone that's been playing games for 20+ years.

In terms of game structure, I have no preference between linear and sandbox games. Both are very fun when executed well. I do like it when more linear games offer some branching so that the user can make some decisions in the direction of the game and play a "character" of sorts.

 

[tha_con]

The biggest sense of "immersion" would be real time story delivery. When the game is going on, story is moving your way, via audio / visual cues.

 

[Rolf N]

The gameplay system must be accessible and balanced. Red herrings suck, so every element should have a use at some point in the game, and preferably stay relevant for a long time.

Rewards should be tangible. Give the player a sense of accomplishment, make them feel better prepared for the next best thing. High-score hunts may still motivate some people but they are archaic and really should be replaced by stuff that feeds back into the gameplay equation (better equipment, stronger stats, new abilities, or the more abstract equivalents such as experience points or money). Rewards must be adequate for the accomplished task. Story progress can be a reward, but only if the story is actually interesting (at that point in the game), and it should always be buttered up with something objectively useful.

Or to condense it down: at no point in the game should the player say "this isn't going anywhere".
If a game can manage to avoid that, presentation is almost irrelevant. It's always good to have an appealing game, just to draw in more people, but I have little respect for (or derive enjoyment from) a game that relies on presentation.

 

[T Ghost]

Seconded. Crackdown is the most pure and clean video game fun I've had in a long time. Greatly underrated.

Cheers

Also had a very similar experience with Crackdown. But besides having a blast with crackdown, the game didn't created an emotional conection with me.

When the subject is creating an experience that I'll never forget, the pre-requisite is that the game is able to generate an emotional connection with me. And for that to happen the key is what I call "narrative power".

I call narrative power the mix of story (the quality of writing per se) , the way it's told (storytelling), the soundtrack (not sound effects).

If the balance between these 3 elements is perfect it will create a emotional link with me, given that the game has no absolutely anoying faults on controls, graphics and gameplay.

 

[T Ghost]

Controller immersion is right up there. A controller should act as an extension of me. Too often in the past, I've always "felt" the controller but this is where the 360 controller really shines for me. Fits perfectly in my hands and after I get accustomed to the buttons layout of a game, everything just flows naturally. The rumble keeps things tense as it alerts your touch senses.

Following that comes the presentation and the flow of the game. Take Gears for example. While the graphics are great, once into a game, they become somewhat irrelevant. It's the sounds, the atmosphere, intenisty, character interaction/dialouge that keep the game moving forward. Gears does a very good job of making you feel as if you're watching some great high budget action flick in which you control the fate (even though it is scripted).

Then completely different in presentation but with a high level of immersion is a game like Crackdown. The scope of the game is so large that you literally feel like a small fish in a big pond. I recall spending hours at that game just screwing around like I would, if I given the freedom! Your mentality has to change with a game like crackdown also. Most games I pick up, I have a very "get through it and beat it" mindset. Not with Crackdown. I only wanted to beat I could keep playing and screwing around in the city! now, that's good immersion.

To counter the above game, I'd go with Forza2. The layout of Forza2 did not immerse me one bit. It was very clear that I'm not some evolving race car driver. Just a random player playing a game. From one menu into another, coupled with very plain layouts from one race series to another, and then back to the garage and then the tuning, it just put me off. Don't get me wrong, once past all that, the actual gameplay is very addicting but having to bypass all the aforementioned aspects of the game turned me off to it.

Robert, do you believe or expected that Forza Motorsports 2 would feature an actual STORY mode?

Is there any racing simulator game that does it?

I believe that what you were looking for is something like Toca Racer Driver 2 did. Is it?

I never had any illusion that a Simulator would bring a story mode, it would be cool indeed but I never expected this feature so the lack of it on Forza never bothered me at all.

I share the same opinion with you in all the other points.

 

[Gubbi]

Also had a very similar experience with Crackdown. But besides having a blast with crackdown, the game didn't created an emotional conection with me.

As you point out immersion hinges on several things coming together. IMO Crackdown succeeds because the black outline graphics supports the comic book theme (story), the full frame rate supports the fast paced action and the sound is freaking awesome in this game (crank up the volume and have a 4-star destruction agent drop a cluster grenade under a stack of cars and listen to your neighbours bitch and moan)

It's supposed to portrait you as an over-the-top action cartoon/comic book superhero. For me, it completely succeeded convincing me that I was just that.

First time you get thrown 100 feet by an enemy grenade and burst into flame, with the commentator going "mm-mm, agent flambé" and you just get up and dish out more destruction is a fantastic gaming moment.

Cheers

 

[Gubbi]

Story, for me, is at the bottom of the heap. I've never played a game with a great story. When I want a good story, I read a book, or maybe watch a movie. I find games with lengthy cinematics irritating, because usually the stories and script are poorly done and I just want to get them over with. Even if they are well done, which I haven't seen yet, I still wouldn't be interested too much. I play games to play, not watch.

It's really two problems here: Story and story-telling.

You're right that the quality of stories in games are generally pretty poor, when they are good they are around B-movie quality.

A story still helps to immerse you in a gameworld, the biggest problem IMO is the story-telling, - the mechanics used to convey the story to you. Far too many fails on this point and resorts to cutscenes to glue various segments of the game together. The story should unravel around you through the gameplay, NOT through cutscenes.

Examples of games that did a decent job are Halflife 2 (overhearing conversations, radio chatter etc) and Doom 3 (video sequences on in-game monitors, messages on PDAs etc).

Examples of games that have a potential good story, but fail miserable at story telling are Lost Planet (complete disconnect from the game) and just about any Final Fantasy game out there, which in essence is just doing chores between (gorgeous) cutscenes (IMO, I know a lot of people disagrees violently).

And then you have games like Gears of War which has essentially zero story and doesn't bother to pretend to have one.

Cheers

 

[archangelmorph]

And then you have games like Crackdown which has essentially zero story and doesn't bother to pretend to have one.

Cheers

Fixed

 

[pipo]

Seconded. Crackdown is the most pure and clean video game fun I've had in a long time. Greatly underrated.

Thirded.

Slightly OT - but still: http://www.xbox360wire.co.uk/2007/07/26/xbox-360s-crackdown-wins-award-for-innovation/

Celebrations all round at the home of fellow Dundonian coders Real Time Worlds today. Their first exclusive title for Xbox 360 yesterday won the top award for innovation at the Develop Conference currently being held in Brighton, UK.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's really two problems here: Story and story-telling.

You're right that the quality of stories in games are generally pretty poor, when they are good they are around B-movie quality.

A story still helps to immerse you in a gameworld, the biggest problem IMO is the story-telling, - the mechanics used to convey the story to you. Far to many fails on this point and resorts to cutscenes to glue various segments of the game together. The story should unravel around you through the gameplay, NOT through cutscenes.

Examples of games that did a decent job are Halflife 2 (overhearing conversations, radio chatter etc) and Doom 3 (video sequences on in-game monitors, messages on PDAs etc).

Examples of games that have a potential good story, but fail miserable at story telling are Lost Planet (complete disconnect from the game) and just about any Final Fantasy game out there, which in essence is just doing chores between (gorgeous) cutscenes (IMO, I know a lot of people disagrees violently).

And then you have games like Gears of War which has essentially zero story and doesn't bother to pretend to have one.

Cheers

I agree 100% with everything you wrote. I've never been able to get into the big "story" games like Final Fantasy, because I'm irritated just sitting and watching, and the stories are pretty laughable. If there weren't so many cutscenes I'd be more likely to give it a longer go.

 

[archangelmorph]

I must be the complete opposite then..

I absolutely love a game with a really rich, involving plot.. To me it adds a sense of purpose to play which is something I really enjoy..

I really get bored quickly of these games that provide you with a true sandbox where your free to do whatever you like.. Sure it's fun for a while but without a sense of purpose its easy to reach a point where there's nothing else/new to the experience that can satisfy you..

(kind of like life really..)

However even a game and non-linear as crackdown was great because the sense of purpose was present (in the progression system which gave you an incentive to seek out more orbs to provide you with more abilities, better looking/performing vehicles and the ability to reach places you couldn't before to explore more of the city..).. I also love the GTA series for the plot over anything else (mostly because I love the sense of humour and because it provides great set pieces in the world which really bring it to life much more than sand-box-play could..)

To me the perfect win is a great mixture of sandbox play and interesting narrative.. That's why GTA, Final Fantasy and a number of other games work so well..

 

[Scott_Arm]

I must be the complete opposite then..

I absolutely love a game with a really rich, involving plot.. To me it adds a sense of purpose to play which is something I really enjoy..

I really get bored quickly of these games that provide you with a true sandbox where your free to do whatever you like.. Sure it's fun for a while but without a sense of purpose its easy to reach a point where there's nothing else/new to the experience that can satisfy you..

(kind of like life really..)

However even a game and non-linear as crackdown was great because the sense of purpose was present (in the progression system which gave you an incentive to seek out more orbs to provide you with more abilities, better looking/performing vehicles and the ability to reach places you couldn't before to explore more of the city..).. I also love the GTA series for the plot over anything else (mostly because I love the sense of humour and because it provides great set pieces in the world which really bring it to life much more than sand-box-play could..)

To me the perfect win is a great mixture of sandbox play and interesting narrative.. That's why GTA, Final Fantasy and a number of other games work so well..

I'm not saying a game should have zero story. I do get more immersed in games that have a storyline. The thing is, I spend quite a bit of time reading and a good amount of time watching movies, and video games just don't compare. There are a lot of crappy books and movies, but there isn't a video game storyline that remotely approaches the quality of storytelling in a really great book. That's part of the medium. If you're 100% focussed on story, you're not going to make a video game. You're going to write a book. So, when I'm playing a game, I'm hoping I'm not just going to be sitting and watching cutscenes or reading through hours and hours of dialogue, because the quality just isn't up to par.

I agree about GTA having a great style and a lot of humour, which means they have some decent writers on hand. Final Fantasy, on the other hand, is a groan inducing boredom fest for me.