Suspension of Disbelief. I know there are people out there who are on the hardcore end of the spectrum. I have a friend who complains about the SoD with tiny little things like a health bar, levels, and even the most intelligent AI. On the other end, there are people that just don't care. As long as it's fun these people don't care if there are in-game ads for McDonalds in a fantasy-themed game, they might not care about any sort artificial restrictions. The first end tends to be the RPG players, and I think the second group will play anything. I tend to fall in the middle. For some reason, I don't get bothered by most things, but there are a few that get to me. I don't really mind if my beautiful awesome world is overlaid with a UI, or if I have infinite bag space. But the thing that kills all immersion for me is instancing. I love my immersion, and I suppose that as long as I remain INSIDE the world and not at a loading screen, I'm fine with about anything else. So... Where do you fall on the spectrum?

I'm distracted by off-the-wall things in games that would otherwise be consistently reasonable. The floating/spinning power-up icons in the GTA III+ series, for example. Engaging in a high speed chase across the city is great fun. But losing the police by picking up a floating ambient star doesn't make any sense to me.

It doesn't really hurt my gaming experience to have them as much as it would have helped my gaming experience to not have them, if there's such a difference. They don't really bother me, but I question the reason for their existence.

I suppose from playing MMO's I've come to accept instancing as a natural limitation. I'll play just about anything and also have things that annoy me. So I imagine I fall in the middle as well. Adds for mcdonalds in a fantasy setting annoy me but well placed and well done ads, such as dell XPS computers in tabula rasa, I either don't notice or enjoy. I like realism and at the same time I want a way to understand the game. If its realistic to the point I'm getting 1 hit killed without rhyme or reason I'm not going to be ammused.

The loading screen is something that gets to me. I don't mind instancing a game. I do mind long loading screens like I found in AoC.

One pet peeve I have in a bunch of modern FPS games is the lack of health. Somehow by magically standing still and not being shot at I regain my health... Lame. I dislike the shields in halo 2 & 3 for that reason (Halo 1 shield + health = good imo though). It simply lets the strong survive and the weak die more consistently.

I do accept health packs and life points as a suitable alternative to realism. After all if I get shot in the arm I don't want to be stuck not being able to use that arm and hence shoot back.

A game is about having fun. Its not about being in a virtual world. Once we have a star trek style holodeck then we can start going for full realistic type games. Until that point there is going to always be some measure of fun tied into a game because we play it with a keyboard and mouse.

So to sum up my view I'm all for realism as long as it maintains the fun.

Games are always games to me. I am not some elven lord; not some elite commando. Characters in games are just pretty virtual plastic soldiers for me to play with. The worlds are just some construct of the game.

Though I always found/find it disturbing when people don't see characters as such. Those who do think/fantasize about being an elven lord or elite commando while playing games just seems inherently unhealthy to me.

I can immerse myself into almost any world that has good enough plot or gameplay to keep me interested, although it may take me an hour or so to get fully immersed while I learn the controls of the game. Metroid Prime was really a gem of a game, and immersed me into a very ambient, albeit confined, world. It'd take me about half an hour each time I played to get used to the controls, though.

I can talk to someone watching me play the game, or in the same room as me, without breaking the psuedo-universe the game is trying to project.(Because I recognize them as not part of the game) What breaks the immersion to me, is anything actually inside the game that I deem 'stupid', such as some incredibly annoying character, or being forced to do something in the game that blatantly leads to a trap/double-cross.

It also breaks the immersion when I stop living in the world the game projects, and instead start over-analyzing it, from a programmer perspective. This happens when I get bored with the game, or when I see something that's done poorly, like misaligned textures, edges of the skybox, or the end of the depth buffer. (Or all three, which you can see in one of my fav games, if you look at the right spot [grin])

It should be noted that a game can still be enjoyed without being immersive. A simple example is most casual games, they aren't immersive but they are still offer entertainment. Games that are trying to be immersive, but fail, can still be fun as well, you just play/view it from outside the world instead of inside it.

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Games are always games to me. I am not some elven lord; not some elite commando. Characters in games are just pretty virtual plastic soldiers for me to play with. The worlds are just some construct of the game. Though I always found/find it disturbing when people don't see characters as such. Those who do think/fantasize about being an elven lord or elite commando while playing games just seems inherently unhealthy to me.

I must admit I've had dreams where I was master chief running around fragging my buddies after a long 6-10 hour lan party.

To me SoD isn't so much about becoming the characters I'm playing as it is the immersion in the game. I'm just having too much fun to notice things like time.

If it's obtrusive, it's a problem. The most rediculous things can be accepted so long as they don't stand out.

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Games are always games to me. I am not some elven lord; not some elite commando. Characters in games are just pretty virtual plastic soldiers for me to play with. The worlds are just some construct of the game. Though I always found/find it disturbing when people don't see characters as such. Those who do think/fantasize about being an elven lord or elite commando while playing games just seems inherently unhealthy to me.

Perceiving games as just games doesn't prevent you from feeling like an elven lord within the confines of the game. You sound as though you're trying to pull your character into your world, rather than place yourself into theirs. If you've never intimately experienced the persona of a fighter pilot or space marine while you're gaming, you're seriously missing out.

Quote:

If you've never intimately experienced the persona of a fighter pilot or space marine while you're gaming, you're seriously missing out.

Enh. I've known far too many who use such escapism as a poor crutch for depression and similar life problems rather than dealing with them.

And personally I've never had the desire to 'experience' some sort of fantasy. At least nothing even the best simulation could ever come close to providing.

Personally I liked the shields in Halo 2 more than I liked life in Half-Life 2. The numbers meant nothing to me, and I always felt like I had to have 100 shield and life at all times, because the only thing that usually killed me were explosions which did that much. In Halo 2, I know that the sniper rifle would reduce my shield all the way and make me start flashing red.

I also liked the fact that I could hide and regenerate my life if I wasn't hit for a while. Otherwise players would be more suicidal, because if they managed to weaken the opponent team's members then their deaths would be easier. Whereas in Halo 2, if I suicide trying to hurt five people on the opponent's team, I have to finish some of them off or else it all returns to normal.