Queue on 10/6/2010 at 00:52
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
no u
HUUUUURRR
I mean, wtf? You JUST SAID IT YOU ASS
See, Thirith. HA!
Gryzemuis on 10/6/2010 at 01:26
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
"Chess sucks... it plays like a game!"
Weird. I enjoy immersion games. And I enjoy chess.
I wonder what role the "controls" play.
I like playing a game where it's all about decisions that I make. And not about how to transform those thoughts into action.
In some platform games, you see ahead the path you want to take. But success or failure depends largely on whether you are able to press the jump button at the exact right moment. I don't like that. I don't like it when the challenge is how good the link is between my brains and the control buttons and my actions in game. You can notice if a game is based on this when you play with WASD on your PC, where you used to play the game with a joystick in an arcade. Suddenly you have to use new controls, and suddenly you suck at a game.
So I enjoy games where the controls are easier. Like how all FPS games use the same WASD. And use the same first-person-view. It's easy to switch. I play Fallout now, and the controls are easy, because movement and aim is very much the same as in many other games I've played before. So the brain->control->action link is not the challenge.
Chess is all about my decsions. Implementing them via my fingers to actual moves is trivial. The game is not about how fast I can move pieces around. (Not even when playing Blitz).
Now let me play StreetFighter. It will take days or weeks before the link between my brain, via the control buttons, goes into my actions of attacking, blocking and using combos. Or whatever it's called. The button mashing. The quick reflexes. Not fun.
I've played some Age of Conan in the past. The melee combat system consists of pushing 4 arrow buttons in different combinations to do special moves. Timing is important. Man, I hated that. When I was mashing my buttons, I was constantly aware that I was playing "just a game". While when I play my rogue in WoW, I just push a few buttons in a relaxed flow. And the combat comes naturally, without making it feel like a game so much.
Phatose on 10/6/2010 at 01:41
Twitch versus Relaxed gameplay is an age old distinction, and I've never seen twitch referred to as being any more "gamey" then the other.
As for one being more generally immersive then the other? Nah, no way. Interface frustration can certainly remind you that you're playing a game, but then so can lacking it - It's very hard to take a kung fu battle seriously, for example, if it becomes press A to win. One prevents you from doing what you want your avatar to do, the other drains those choices of relevance by draining the immediacy out of the situation.
PigLick on 10/6/2010 at 01:58
Instead of 3 pages of snark (and a little games discussion) I think we are missing the most obvious point out of this topic, and thats the way computers have allowed games to evolve. The 'immersive games' that Poetic thief are talking about have evolved from the game in a traditional sense, and entered into the interactive experience zone. The only way to get that kind of experience before computer gaming was to play role-playing games.
Phatose on 10/6/2010 at 02:18
From my personal experiences, I found that PnP RPGs really didn't do immersive well. Powerful drugs, on the other hand...
catbarf on 10/6/2010 at 03:46
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Of course most of us around here love a good escapist/simulationist game.
It has little to do with whether or not you enjoy escapism. It's whether or not you enjoy the competition, the stuff
other than escapism. If you absolutely don't, and play games just for the story, escapism, and adventure, then it's no surprise that Pac-Man is boring and Tetris is just repetitive falling blocks. If you can't get immersion, you can't get escapism, and the fun goes right down the drain.
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
"Chess sucks... it plays like a game!"
And I know people who love reading fiction but have no desire to play chess. They're very different interests.
Queue on 10/6/2010 at 04:11
Soooooo.... *trying to score off of Phatose*
Now that's what I call a high score.
*very, very faint rim shot*
Sulphur on 10/6/2010 at 05:52
That's a terrible one, Queue. :laff:
Sulphur on 10/6/2010 at 06:10
Also, I think it's an interesting point that's been brought up. All this snark aside, I think there are some wires crossed here.
If you like games ultimately for their 'transportive' qualities but not for their goal oriented design (win/lose/reach the endgame), then what you really want in essence is an interactive simulation and not a game per se.
It's a little like the feeling where you watch a movie and you're transported to the world within it (the most recent example of this being taken to the extremes is that ridiculous 'Pandora withdrawal' syndrome that some people have after watching Avatar). The interactivity of games lets you explore and peruse made-up worlds at will, but if you remove all 'gamey' aspects from them, what you have left is an explorable virtual reality.
There's nothing wrong with liking that, of course, but world building isn't what games are completely about. It's just one aspect of them.
Thirith on 10/6/2010 at 07:37
Immersion is one of those wobbly terms that is all over the place; what one person means by it can be pretty different from what another person means.
Most of the games I've enjoyed most in the past focused on world building, storytelling and characters: the Ultima series, System Shock, Thief, the GTA titles. A couple of my favourite games didn't, yet I would say that I was immersed: DIRT, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Mirror's Edge (I definitely felt more 'in the game' doing the time trials than following the storyline, even though the former is arguably more 'gamey'.)
Both game styles do different things for me: sometimes after work I want to start up a game and enter the zone, focusing entirely on gameplay. Sometimes I want to immerse myself into a world that feels alive. I wouldn't want to miss the one or the other.
