Mass Effect 2

[Reginald]

I read both books. They've led me to believe Cerberus will have a bigger role in ME2. Hopefully. They're pretty badass.

It's been confirmed as such.

 

[Tagaziel]

I am annoyed by the word immersion and the current trend of everyone and their mom masturbating to the idea that only FPP games can deliver immersion. Bullshit.

Immersion is delivered through coherency and coherency is achieved through consistent game design, world design, area design, quality writing and voice acting. Perspective is the least of the problems.

 

[Cornerstone]

I am annoyed by the word immersion and the current trend of everyone and their mom masturbating to the idea that only FPP games can deliver immersion. Bullshit.

Immersion is delivered through coherency and coherency is achieved through consistent game design, world design, area design, quality writing and voice acting. Perspective is the least of the problems.

There is no point in taking what Kadayi says as any truth. I still remember the argument we got into when he was telling me that Baldur's Gate was turn based and refused any RTwP/pseudo turn based idea. It's just a matter of how far he can get up his own ass.

 

[Kadayi]

I am annoyed by the word immersion and the current trend of everyone and their mom masturbating to the idea that only FPP games can deliver immersion. Bullshit.

Immersion is delivered through coherency and coherency is achieved through consistent game design, world design, area design, quality writing and voice acting. Perspective is the least of the problems.

There is no point in taking what Kadayi says as any truth. I still remember the argument we got into when he was telling me that Baldur's Gate was turn based and refused any RTwP/pseudo turn based idea. It's just a matter of how far he can get up his own ass.

Earth to retards. This is not me saying this, this an academic paper on immersion in computer games (if you'd bothered reading what was written from the start instead of just the last couple of posts you'd of known this) All I'm doing is referencing it because it offers up are fairly compelling argument for differing levels of immersion. Much like I said to the other guys, simply saying 'Bullshit' isn't a suitable refutation. If you have a better viable model for discussing immersion in gaming I'm all ears, but frankly I'd say the academics have it at the moment. 'I disagree' no matter how vehemently isn't good enough I'm afraid.

Also Cornerstone Baldurs gate game mechanics are based wholly around D&D, and if you knew you P&P systems you'd realise that the entire game plays out through sequencing. Regardless of how much you might spam your fighter to hit that Orc, he's not going to hit them any faster. Its not turn based in respect of I move, you move ala Fallout (as everything runs co-currently). But it does operate according to actions taking allotted amounts of time, Vs say a pure twitch based experience.

 

[Tagaziel]

Earth to retards. This is not me saying this, this an academic paper on immersion in computer games (if you'd bothered reading what was written from the start instead of just the last couple of posts you'd of known this) All I'm doing is referencing it because it offers up are fairly compelling argument for differing levels of immersion. Much like I said to the other guys, simply saying 'Bullshit' isn't a suitable refutation. If you have a better viable model for discussing immersion in gaming I'm all ears, but frankly I'd say the academics have it at the moment. 'I disagree' no matter how vehemently isn't good enough I'm afraid.

The main problem people have with you is that you're worse than Samon in treating your opinion as the Holy Word Of Gaming God.

Take your opinion that FPP games are the apex of gameplay experience. This is patently false and baseless, as the paper you continuously drool over is a piece of scientific crap.

Why? Because the definition they've been developing only applies to FPS games, since the participants only played Half-Life, thus making the study irrelevant to games in general.

Now, if it included several games with several viewpoints, gaming styles and interface types, it would be useful, as it'd encompass a much larger portion of gaming than just first person shooters. As it stands, it's toilet paper.

Oh yeah, numbers are great in games, I still have no idea why you're so adamantly against making it easier for the player to understand his character's stats or weapon damage etc.

Also Cornerstone Baldurs gate game mechanics are based wholly around D&D, and if you knew you P&P systems you'd realise that the entire game plays out through sequencing. Regardless of how much you might spam your fighter to hit that Orc, he's not going to hit them any faster. Its not turn based in respect of I move, you move ala Fallout (as everything runs co-currently). But it does operate according to actions taking allotted amounts of time, Vs say a pure twitch based experience.

Baldur's Gate is real-time with pause. Of course it's sequencing, every game in existence is sequencing, since CPUs can't do more than one process at a time. Key difference is, in real time you and your opponent move simultaneously, whereas in turn based you take turns, during which the opposing side can't do squat (apart from interrupts).

Plus, in turn based, you can't run around in circles while the rest of your team pelts the enemy with arrows.

 

[Kadayi]

The main problem people have with you is that you're worse than Samon in treating your opinion as the Holy Word Of Gaming God.

Take your opinion that FPP games are the apex of gameplay experience. This is patently false and baseless, as the paper you continuously drool over is a piece of scientific crap.

Why? Because the definition they've been developing only applies to FPS games, since the participants only played Half-Life, thus making the study irrelevant to games in general.

Now, if it included several games with several viewpoints, gaming styles and interface types, it would be useful, as it'd encompass a much larger portion of gaming than just first person shooters. As it stands, it's toilet paper.

Oh yeah, numbers are great in games, I still have no idea why you're so adamantly against making it easier for the player to understand his character's stats or weapon damage etc.

Mikael if you possessed the ability to actually comprehend data with a degree of receptivity, rather than constantly throwing the rattle from the pram whenever you disagree with something, you'd have realised that the authors of that paper cite other earlier papers that support their position regarding levels of immersion. That the particular investigation they carry out utilises the Halflife engine to measure the impact of total immersion, is a decision based on sound logic, not hollow assumption as you purport.

As I said before, simply disagreeing is not enough, you have to construct a better mousetrap. I realise that thinking constructively is a bit of a challenge (because its much easier to moronically and obstinately disagree loudly than actually engage your brain), and certainly outside your typical modus operandi, but unfortunately Mikael, if you want to be taken seriously when it comes to discussing games it's an approach you are going to have to do adopt. Feel free to continue ploughing your lonely furrow though, but realise that you'll continue to be mocked accordingly.

Baldur's Gate is real-time with pause. Of course it's sequencing, every game in existence is sequencing, since CPUs can't do more than one process at a time. Key difference is, in real time you and your opponent move simultaneously, whereas in turn based you take turns, during which the opposing side can't do squat (apart from interrupts).

LOL. The sequencing in Baldurs gate has everything to do with the game adhering to its underlying P&P mechanics and very little to do with hardware.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

He is right on one point though, Kadayi; nothing in that paper proves that the FPP immersion style acheives a superior gameplay experience in comparison to alternative styles of immersion. I think it's completely inaccurate for you to suggest otherwise.

Measuring such a thing as gameplay quality is obviously highly subjective, though. Thus how I prefer to think of the two as apples and oranges; different styles of game-making, each with their own merits. Getting immersed in a game such as Mass Effect and getting immersed in a game such as Bioshock are obviously going to be two different immersive experiences, but each has the capability to be as emotionally powerful and exciting as the other.

 

[Kadayi]

He is right on one point though, Kadayi; nothing in that paper proves that the FPP immersion style acheives a superior gameplay experience in comparison to alternative styles of immersion. I think it's completely inaccurate for you to suggest otherwise.

I haven't, 'game play' (how the game plays as an experience on a mechanistic level) is not the same as 'gameplay' (the quality of the experience).

I don't compare 3rd person shooters to 1st person shooters because as game play experiences they are entirely separate entities, albeit that they may revolve around similar themes. To compare the game play of Dead space Vs system shock 2 would be a tragic mistake (as I cited earlier on), because the immersive depth of each is wholly different. However where you have games that share the same game space frame, such as Bioshock & system shock 2 its perfectly acceptable to make comparisons between the gameplay experiences of each, and assess/discuss which is the better experience and why, and how to build a better mousetrap accordingly.

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from, and what I mean by each.

 

[Tagaziel]

Mikael if you possessed the ability to actually comprehend data with a degree of receptivity, rather than constantly throwing the rattle from the pram whenever you disagree with something, you'd have realised that the authors of that paper cite other earlier papers that support their position regarding levels of immersion. That the particular investigation they carry out utilises the Halflife engine to measure the impact of total immersion, is a decision based on sound logic, not hollow assumption as you purport.

It is a hollow assumption, as it analyzes only first person shooters, not games as a whole. The particular paper they cite and you use as an argument comes from 1994, making it pretty much theoretical speculation.

As I said before, simply disagreeing is not enough, you have to construct a better mousetrap. I realise that thinking constructively is a bit of a challenge (because its much easier to moronically and obstinately disagree loudly than actually engage your brain), and certainly outside your typical modus operandi, but unfortunately Mikael, if you want to be taken seriously when it comes to discussing games it's an approach you are going to have to do adopt. Feel free to continue ploughing your lonely furrow though, but realise that you'll continue to be mocked accordingly.

So disagreeing with you is moronic, unconstructive and brainless?

Please inform me when you want to discuss something, rather than make speeches.

LOL. The sequencing in Baldurs gate has everything to do with the game adhering to its underlying P&P mechanics and very little to do with hardware.

You've still not proven why Baldur's Gate is turn based when it has no turns.

 

[Shift]

I fail to see the point of this argument. At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual gamer to decide what is the more immersive experience, because other factors also come into play, the most important being what the gamer tends to enjoy more, there aren't any facts involved with this, it is purely opinionated.

In my opinion a game like ME can be just as immersive as a game like Half-Life 2. The gamers perspective is only a small part of the parcel, most of comes down to how engaging the story is, how much control you have over the world, how believable the world and its characters around you are which are rated highly in both games.

 

[Tagaziel]

I fail to see the point of this argument. At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual gamer to decide what is the more immersive experience, because other factors also come into play, the most important being what the gamer tends to enjoy more, there aren't any facts involved with this, it is purely opinionated.

In my opinion a game like ME can be just as immersive as a game like Half-Life 2. The gamers perspective is only a small part of the parcel, most of comes down to how engaging the story is, how much control you have over the world, how believable the world and its characters around you are which are rated highly in both games.

I rest my case, these are the words of wisdom.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

I haven't, 'game play' (how the game plays as an experience on a mechanistic level) is not the same as 'gameplay' (the quality of the experience).

I don't compare 3rd person shooters to 1st person shooters because as game play experiences they are entirely separate entities, albeit that they may revolve around similar themes. To compare the game play of Dead space Vs system shock 2 would be a tragic mistake (as I cited earlier on), because the immersive depth of each is wholly different. However where you have games that share the same game space frame, such as Bioshock & system shock 2 its perfectly acceptable to make comparisons between the gameplay experiences of each, and assess/discuss which is the better experience and why, and how to build a better mousetrap accordingly.

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from, and what I mean by each.

It does, although I'm quite confused as to the meaning of this argument now, as it started due to me referring to Mass Effect as "immersive", and you taking objection to such on the grounds that only first person perspective games can be immersive in the true sense of the word. Yet now you're saying that you can't compare third person perspective games to first person perspective games in terms of immersive because they're wholly different game play experiences.

If we both agree that the two different mechanisms of immersion are tantamount to comparing apples and oranges ... then how did this argument get started in the first place? Maybe it's best to just leave it at that, since we both seem to have made our points.

 

[Kadayi]

It is a hollow assumption, as it analyzes only first person shooters, not games as a whole. The particular paper they cite and you use as an argument comes from 1994, making it pretty much theoretical speculation.

Now you're just making things up Mikael. The article doesn't analyse first person shooters at all. It uses one simply to measure the impact of immersion as part of an exercise. The reason it uses a first person shooter is because based on previous work done by other groups the conclusion had been reached that the framework of the FPS offers a greater degree of immersion than other frameworks such as 3rd person etc.

So disagreeing with you is moronic, unconstructive and brainless?

If you're position is unconstructive, brainless and moronic I'd have to say yes.

You've still not proven why Baldur's Gate is turn based when it has no turns.

Please feel free to show me where it deviates from the P&P mechanics of second edition AD&D when it comes to how the game operates.

I fail to see the point of this argument. At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual gamer to decide what is the more immersive experience, because other factors also come into play, the most important being what the gamer tends to enjoy more, there aren't any facts involved with this, it is purely opinionated.

In my opinion a game like ME can be just as immersive as a game like Half-Life 2. The gamers perspective is only a small part of the parcel, most of comes down to how engaging the story is, how much control you have over the world, how believable the world and its characters around you are which are rated highly in both games.

An argument would require Mikael to have a valid point to his objection. So far he hasn't raised a valid point. The issue is not about every man for himself to define immersion but to agree a common marker that everyone can subscribe to. If your idea of what immersion is, is completely different from my idea of immersion, how then can we accurately discuss it as a subject given neither of us has a common understanding? The point of highlighting the article was to cite a fairly good model to work from, as the conversation was getting confused.

Yet now you're saying that you can't compare third person perspective games to first person perspective games in terms of immersive because they're wholly different game play experiences.

We've already established that in terms of the 3 levels of immersion (engaged, engrossed, totally immersed). Of the 3 stages, it is only FPS that can induce a state of total immersion in a player.

By that measure alone its clear that we can't assess say Halflife as a game play experience Vs Mass Effect, because the range of player immersion in each, is significantly different. In one you are Gordon Freeman, in the other you direct John or Jane Shepard to do your bidding. The most we can truly agree on, is that as immersive experiences go, one offers a greater degree of immersion than the other.

When I talk about game play I'm not referring to the degree of immersion offered by the game, I'm referring to the mechanics of the players interaction with the game. If I were to say 'The shooting in Mass Effect is better than the shooting in Halflife 2' that would be a non starter, because they are radically different styles of game, whose game play doesn't reflect each others. But if I were to say that 'I wish Mass Effect has bullet time like Max Payne 2' there in would lie the possibility for a potential game play discussion, because although they are different games in many ways there exists a degree of cross over within their game play mechanics.

Now don't get me wrong I don't think FPS games are superior to other games styles, far from it despite what Mikael claims. Your as likely to find me playing Sims 3, as Mass Effect as anything else, and that's a game that will never work in the FPS frame. However the FPS framework does offer up the opportunity for the most immersive gaming experiences though, and personally as someone who enjoys immersion I'd like to see more games that offer deeper FPS game play enter the frame. As I said earlier on despite being underwhelming in many ways, Far Cry 2 offers up a potential model for future FPS games. Whether anyone will emerge to build upon that model is going to be interesting to see, although RAGE looks to hold some promise.

 

[Tagaziel]

Now you're just making things up Mikael. The article doesn't analyse first person shooters at all. It uses one simply to measure the impact of immersion as part of an exercise. The reason it uses a first person shooter is because based on previous work done by other groups the conclusion had been reached that the framework of the FPS offers a greater degree of immersion than other frameworks such as 3rd person etc.

No, it doesn't analyze first person shooters, it just uses one type of game to create a general definition of immersion. If you can't see the inherent problem with this approach, you're unreasonably stubborn.

If you're position is unconstructive, brainless and moronic I'd have to say yes.

While yours is obviously the next revolutionary step in the science of electronic entertainment.

Please feel free to show me where it deviates from the P&P mechanics of second edition AD&D when it comes to how the game operates.

Let's see: the fact that instead of using separate turns you and your enemy act at the same time?

We've already established that in terms of the 3 levels of immersion (engaged, engrossed, totally immersed). Of the 3 stages, it is only FPS that can induce a state of total immersion in a player.

Nobody, except for you, agrees with that entirely.

Please explain to me why I can achieve total immersion in Mass Effect, Fallout 1, Beyond Good & Evil and can't in Fallout 3.

By that measure alone its clear that we can't assess say Halflife as a game play experience Vs Mass Effect, because the range of player immersion in each, is significantly different. In one you are Gordon Freeman, in the other you direct John or Jane Shepard to do your bidding. The most we can truly agree on, is that as immersive experiences go, one offers a greater degree of immersion than the other.

It does? I recall you wanted to discuss a subject, rather than expect everyone to agree with you.

Now don't get me wrong I don't think FPS games are superior to other games styles, far from it despite what Mikael claims. Your as likely to find me playing Sims 3, as Mass Effect as anything else, and that's a game that will never work in the FPS frame. However the FPS framework does offer up the opportunity for the most immersive gaming experiences though, and personally as someone who enjoys immersion I'd like to see more games that offer deeper FPS game play enter the frame. As I said earlier on despite being underwhelming in many ways, Far Cry 2 offers up a potential model for future FPS games. Whether anyone will emerge to build upon that model is going to be interesting to see, although RAGE looks to hold some promise.

I disagree with your claim that FPS games are the apex of immersion generating potential, which is patently false. As I stated (and what you conveniently ignored), perspective alone is not enough to generate immersion.

It's the end result of a myriad of factors, primarily coherent game design, engaging characters, plot, storyline, gameplay etc. Your claim that FPP games, by the virtue of being first person, are the highest form of generating immersion, completely ignoring that potential in other games, is what I find loathsome.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

Now don't get me wrong I don't think FPS games are superior to other games styles

Right. This is where the problem lay, as you claimed earlier that first-person perspective which strived for total immersion represented the pinnacle of an immersive gameplaying experience. I think we can agree that's not the case.

 

[Kadayi]

No, it doesn't analyze first person shooters, it just uses one type of game to create a general definition of immersion. If you can't see the inherent problem with this approach, you're unreasonably stubborn.

Increasingly I'm getting the impression that you haven't actually read the article.

Please explain to me why I can achieve total immersion in Mass Effect, Fallout 1, Beyond Good & Evil and can't in Fallout 3.

Personally you can say what you want, but whether you can be objectively assessed to be in such a state is an entirely different matter. In the same way you can state that 'Nobody, except for you, agrees with that entirely' but not be able to support your assertions, after all given I didn't write the paper, and that someone else did, I'd say its probably fairly clear that they believe it, which completely invalidates your assertion.

It does? I recall you wanted to discuss a subject, rather than expect everyone to agree with you.

Well maybe when TOFM responds he'll propose a better model (he seems like someone who wants a discussion, and can handle one) . All I can do is propose the one that I subscribe to. Perhaps he has something to add to it, perhaps he has something take away, or perhaps he'll have something completely left field to add to the discussion that will generate new ideas and take the thread in a different direction. Either way I expect it will be a progression in subject. Personally I like dialogues that offer up fresh ideas, the sad truth is though Mikael, they are increasingly few and far between.

I disagree with your claim that FPS games are the apex of immersion generating potential, which is patently false. As I stated (and what you conveniently ignored), perspective alone is not enough to generate immersion.

It's the end result of a myriad of factors, primarily coherent game design, engaging characters, plot, storyline, gameplay etc. Your claim that FPP games, by the virtue of being first person, are the highest form of generating immersion, completely ignoring that potential in other games, is what I find loathsome

Well as you refuse to remotely acknowledge the model of the stages of immersion even as a point of discussion, and despite continued requests to provide a viable replacement model refuse to, there really isn't much point in continuing to attempt a dialogue with you. Now I'm not going to put you on ignore (that would be cruel), but unless you can demonstrate that you can at least appreciate an idea, even if you disagree with it, I'm really not seeing the point in answering any of your posts further to this one. My time is fairly precious these days and I'd rather put it into having a conversation with someone like TOFM, who might have something interesting to say that could spark some original ideas and I can get excited about, rather than someone who isn't prepared to do more than reinforce their prejudices.

Let's see: the fact that instead of using separate turns you and your enemy act at the same time?

You don't really get underlying mechanics do you.

 

[Kadayi]

Right. This is where the problem lay, as you claimed earlier that first-person perspective which strived for total immersion represented the pinnacle of an immersive gameplaying experience. I think we can agree that's not the case.

In terms of as deep as you can go at present. However I did also acknowledge that the model doesn't cover all the bases yet. Sure in 50 years when you're playing C&C 70 you might well be in a virtual field bunker directing the action, or in Sins of a solar Empire 40 pacing up and down the deck of your main battlecruiser as your fleets engage the enemy. However for the foreseeable an overview and an interface and bunch of hot keys are as good as it gets.

In the view of the article writers what makes total immersion (on their scale) is the aspect of presence, of personally being there, and that is why in Sins, or Sims or Mass Effect the most you could accurately qualify as saying is that a player is engrossed in the what they are doing because they are directing the action, rather than being in the action.

That isn't to say that all FPS are totally immersive, far from it. The good ones certainly are (HL2, Stalker), but that's down to other aspects of the game making it so, in the exactly the same way that Mass Effect is an engrossing RPG experience vs Jade Empire.


Anyway, given the earlier confusion about 'Game play' Vs 'Gameplay' how would you distinguish between them in terms of expression?

Also. I finished ME again yesterday (2nd time with a different character), and thought I'd give the Male Shepard a play on my third play through (this time I'm going Paragon, Sentinel). I have to say that the voice work by jennifer Hale as the female Shepard was much better. Male Shepard sounds like he's reading off a cue card most of the time....:|

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

In the view of the article writers what makes total immersion (on their scale) is the aspect of presence, of personally being there, and that is why in Sins, or Sims or Mass Effect the most you could accurately qualify as saying is that a player is engrossed in the what they are doing because they are directing the action, rather than being in the action.

And engrossment is still a form of immersion. At best, we're merely getting mixed in the world of synonyms.

Anyway, given the earlier confusion about 'Game play' Vs 'Gameplay' how would you distinguish between them in terms of expression?

"Game mechanics" seems to be a much more accurate expression for the former, and the one I always hear used in regard to what you're describing.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZHihhoTd8Q

 

[Tagaziel]

Personally you can say what you want, but whether you can be objectively assessed to be in such a state is an entirely different matter. In the same way you can state that 'Nobody, except for you, agrees with that entirely' but not be able to support your assertions, after all given I didn't write the paper, and that someone else did, I'd say its probably fairly clear that they believe it, which completely invalidates your assertion.

Here's the core of the problem: just like you can't objectively assess whether apples are inherently better taste-wise than oranges, you can't objectively define immersion and create abstract levels of it.

Well maybe when TOFM responds he'll propose a better model (he seems like someone who wants a discussion, and can handle one) . All I can do is propose the one that I subscribe to. Perhaps he has something to add to it, perhaps he has something take away, or perhaps he'll have something completely left field to add to the discussion that will generate new ideas and take the thread in a different direction. Either way I expect it will be a progression in subject. Personally I like dialogues that offer up fresh ideas, the sad truth is though Mikael, they are increasingly few and far between.

See, my problem is that you're not really phrasing your posts in a manner that welcomes any kind of discussion. Just look at the respective quote in my post, you're saying that you "are Gordon" but also that you're "directing Shepard", drawing a conclusion before the discussion even starts.

Now, if it was a question of merits and immersion capabilities of two different perspectives, that'd be different.

Well as you refuse to remotely acknowledge the model of the stages of immersion even as a point of discussion, and despite continued requests to provide a viable replacement model refuse to, there really isn't much point in continuing to attempt a dialogue with you. Now I'm not going to put you on ignore (that would be cruel), but unless you can demonstrate that you can at least appreciate an idea, even if you disagree with it, I'm really not seeing the point in answering any of your posts further to this one. My time is fairly precious these days and I'd rather put it into having a conversation with someone like TOFM, who might have something interesting to say that could spark some original ideas and I can get excited about, rather than someone who isn't prepared to do more than reinforce their prejudices.

The very fact I'm posting about the subject is showing appreciation. I'm a complaining type of person, if I don't agree with the idea but appreciate it (or find the subject interesting) I will punch holes in it's weak points to challenge the original author.

Alternative model? Focus on suspension of disbelief. Measure how easy it is for the gamer to enter the world and become a part of it, how the illusion created by the game works. If it's relatively easy for the gamer to play the game, understand the world and he doesn't experience moments of violent reminding that he's just playing a game, then the game's immersive. If it's not...

Of course, this is going to be very subjective and hard to abstract, but then again, so is the subject. There are as many models of immersion stages (or lack thereof, some are binary gamers) as there are gamers and to create one single model is impossible.

You don't really get underlying mechanics do you.

I understand, but also understand that underlying mechanics can have diddly squat to do with the actual gameplay. Such is the case with BG.

 

[Warbie]

I'm going to side with Kadayi on this one. First person games provide a greater sense of immersion because you're filling the shoes of the protagonist. I am Gordon when playing Half Life. I'm not Mario when playing Mario 64. Immersion isn't the be all and end all, though, and certainly not the main requirement for an enjoyable and engrossing game. Suggestng 3rd person games aren't as immersive as first person isn't a criticism, it's just the way it is.

I find 3rd person games allow you to become more involved with the character you're controlling in a way that first person games cannot because, being a voyeur in the sky, you get to share an experience rather than having it alone. It's for this reason I feel little attachemt to Gordon or Master Chief. It's always been me behind the gun, not them. I've been on many, many adventures with Link and Mario, though, and love them to bits. I also feel perspective affects how we view npcs and how coherent a game world can feel as a result. In first person i'm far more critical of wooden nps with limited dialogue and dodgy facial animations. I am there, in the game, and every time an npc is any less than human it pulls me right out of the experience. Uncanny valley-tastic. 3rd person is quite different - the npcs look and move like the guy you're controlling. The game world is consistent - which, for me anyway, is the be all and end all - and all is good. 3rd person games allow developers to deliver a story with characters you can invest in in a way first person games can't.

 

[Kadayi]

And engrossment is still a form of immersion. At best, we're merely getting mixed in the world of synonyms.

Accepted, which was why I went for the article so we could find some common ground.

"Game mechanics" seems to be a much more accurate expression for the former, and the one I always hear used in regard to what you're describing.

I never quite felt that it entirely sums up the subject, but it is less confusing.

I'm going to side with Kadayi on this one. First person games provide a greater sense of immersion because you're filling the shoes of the protagonist. I am Gordon when playing Half Life. I'm not Mario when playing Mario 64. Immersion isn't the be all and end all, though, and certainly not the main requirement for an enjoyable and engrossing game. Suggestng 3rd person games aren't as immersive as first person isn't a criticism, it's just the way it is.

I find 3rd person games allow you to become more involved with the character you're controlling in a way that first person games cannot because, being a voyeur in the sky, you get to share an experience rather than having it alone. It's for this reason I feel little attachemt to Gordon or Master Chief. It's always been me behind the gun, not them. I've been on many, many adventures with Link and Mario, though, and love them to bits. I also feel perspective affects how we view npcs and how coherent a game world can feel as a result. In first person i'm far more critical of wooden nps with limited dialogue and dodgy facial animations. I am there, in the game, and every time an npc is any less than human it pulls me right out of the experience. Uncanny valley-tastic. 3rd person is quite different - the npcs look and move like the guy you're controlling. The game world is consistent - which, for me anyway, is the be all and end all - and all is good. 3rd person games allow developers to deliver a story with characters you can invest in in a way first person games can't.

I agree about 3rd person games being more involving on the whole. I think that one of the disappointments for me personally is the lack of development going on in the FPS space at times. Playing the male Shepard yesterday and marvelling at how bad the voice work is Vs the female Shepard, as well as this discussion, I started thinking about what Mass Effect would be like if it was played from a FP perspective, in a similar manner to VTM:B with respect to the handling of dialogue. Clearly the change in perspective would make the experience more intense in a lot of ways, and more personalised, but it would almost certainly be at the cost of the games more cinematic scenes. Would it be possible to re imagine those kinds of things in the FP frame? I mean HL2 succeeded in generating a sense of scope and scale, but could something as epic as ME make that transition? I think its an interesting conundrum to ponder..

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

I agree about 3rd person games being more involving on the whole. I think that one of the disappointments for me personally is the lack of development going on in the FPS space at times. Playing the male Shepard yesterday and marvelling at how bad the voice work is Vs the female Shepard, as well as this discussion, I started thinking about what Mass Effect would be like if it was played from a FP perspective, in a similar manner to VTM:B with respect to the handling of dialogue. Clearly the change in perspective would make the experience more intense in a lot of ways, and more personalised, but it would almost certainly be at the cost of the games more cinematic scenes. Would it be possible to re imagine those kinds of things in the FP frame? I mean HL2 succeeded in generating a sense of scope and scale, but could something as epic as ME make that transition? I think its an interesting conundrum to ponder..

This comes back to the point I was making about the limitations of narrative perspective. In FPP, you're usually locked into viewing the world entirely from the perspective of what the character you're controlling is seeing. How do you depict an epic space battle like in Mass Effect if you're stuck in the first-person, with no opportunity for those sweeping views of the battle from space? And Mass Effect also managed to contain elements of dramatic irony which are simply impossible when you're projecting your presence into the game.

Spoiler

Such as the little cut-scene on Eden Prime where you see Saren shoot Nihlas. You've seen it happen, but the characters around you and even the character you're playing doesn't know it yet.

My personal opinion is that the "Bigger Picture" opportunities provided by these game mechanics offer a level of immersion within the narrative on a par with any first-person experience. If you're projecting your presence into a human character and are dedicated to maintaining the immersion of that projection, the game player also becomes confined by the limits of being human. We're locked into seeing events through human eyes, whereas in a third-person game the possibilities for narrative story-telling are infinite. Being the passive is not always the undesirable option; combining the active and the passive as games like Mass Effect do can produce an emotional reaction just as powerful as if you were engaging in "total immersion".

 

[Tagaziel]

Why is everyone hating the voiceover for Male Shepard? I was made to expect that it's utterly horrible, but when playing it's acceptable. Certainly not groundbreaking, but acceptable.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

I don't mind the voiceover for Shepard either. There are far better voice actors in the game than him, but his voice fits the character well.

I'm more pissed off about him not having two Ps in his surname.

 

[jet_porkins]

Kadayi and Warbie have convinced me.

Also, OneFreeman, I lol'd at that video.

 

[Kadayi]

This comes back to the point I was making about the limitations of narrative perspective. In FPP, you're usually locked into viewing the world entirely from the perspective of what the character you're controlling is seeing. How do you depict an epic space battle like in Mass Effect if you're stuck in the first-person, with no opportunity for those sweeping views of the battle from space? And Mass Effect also managed to contain elements of dramatic irony which are simply impossible when you're projecting your presence into the game.

Spoiler

Such as the little cut-scene on Eden Prime where you see Saren shoot Nihlas. You've seen it happen, but the characters around you and even the character you're playing doesn't know it yet.

My personal opinion is that the "Bigger Picture" opportunities provided by these game mechanics offer a level of immersion within the narrative on a par with any first-person experience. If you're projecting your presence into a human character and are dedicated to maintaining the immersion of that projection, the game player also becomes confined by the limits of being human. We're locked into seeing events through human eyes, whereas in a third-person game the possibilities for narrative story-telling are infinite. Being the passive is not always the undesirable option; combining the active and the passive as games like Mass Effect do can produce an emotional reaction just as powerful as if you were engaging in "total immersion".

Well I suppose you could consider that what you might lack in grandeur you can make up for in intimacy of situation, though I acknowledge your points. However you can always demonstrate grandeur through indirect means such at through ingame broadasts in the same way that the attack on Eden prime is relayed to the Normandy conference room via the video feed.

One thing I'd of really liked to experience as FP in ME was the fight up the outside of the Citadel Tower in the finale. Although they were going for grandness of scale, the 3rd person view really detracted from it, though admittedly the Citadel had a lot of problems in terms of conveying scope regardless it has to be said. I'm kind of hoping that there won't be a need to revisit it in the sequel tbh.

I don't mind the voiceover for Shepard either. There are far better voice actors in the game than him, but his voice fits the character well.

Maybe I'll get used to it. Jennifer Hale was cracking as bad ass renegade Shepard though. Her love of shoving guns in peoples faces for even looking funny at her was quality

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

To be honest, the worst voice actor in the game is Marina Sirtis (Matriach Benezia). She was a wooden actress in Star Trek, and she was a wooden actress in this.

There are rumours going around that Patrick Stewart is voicing a significant character in ME2.

 

[Kadayi]

To be honest, the worst voice actor in the game is Marina Sirtis (Matriach Benezia). She was a wooden actress in Star Trek, and she was a wooden actress in this.

Definitely agree on that.

 

[the cow says moo]

I'm going to side with Kadayi on this one. First person games provide a greater sense of immersion because you're filling the shoes of the protagonist. I am Gordon when playing Half Life. I'm not Mario when playing Mario 64. Immersion isn't the be all and end all, though, and certainly not the main requirement for an enjoyable and engrossing game. Suggestng 3rd person games aren't as immersive as first person isn't a criticism, it's just the way it is.

I find 3rd person games allow you to become more involved with the character you're controlling in a way that first person games cannot because, being a voyeur in the sky, you get to share an experience rather than having it alone. It's for this reason I feel little attachemt to Gordon or Master Chief. It's always been me behind the gun, not them. I've been on many, many adventures with Link and Mario, though, and love them to bits. I also feel perspective affects how we view npcs and how coherent a game world can feel as a result. In first person i'm far more critical of wooden nps with limited dialogue and dodgy facial animations. I am there, in the game, and every time an npc is any less than human it pulls me right out of the experience. Uncanny valley-tastic. 3rd person is quite different - the npcs look and move like the guy you're controlling. The game world is consistent - which, for me anyway, is the be all and end all - and all is good. 3rd person games allow developers to deliver a story with characters you can invest in in a way first person games can't.

This is exactly how I feel about the perspectives.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

You know, that's made me think of something. If Gordon died, and we took control of another character, but still had interaction with all of the same NPCs that we've got used to (Alyx, Dr. Kleiner, Barney, etc) ... would we really care?

 

[unozero]

To be honest, the worst voice actor in the game is Marina Sirtis (Matriach Benezia). She was a wooden actress in Star Trek, and she was a wooden actress in this.

 

[Saturos]

As far as the debate between immersion goes, I'd like to suggest a new term. Absorption.

I reckon what Kadayi is trying to say is that's it's possible to be totally "absorbed" in a 3rd person perspective game, but not "immersed". Meaning that you can still be completely absorbed in it's story, gameplay mechanics, and atmosphere, but unless you actually fill the shoes of the character, (1st person) and not just living the experience .ala interactive movie, (3rd person) you can't be truly immersed.

Could it be that there's confusion between definitions going on here?

But still, it really depends on the player's imagination. Some people can pretend to actually still be in the shoes of that 3rd person character regardless of it's perspective. So it's all a matter of opinion. The definition of "immersion" is sort of baseless when you look at it this way.

 

[Gargantou]

Personally, it all depends on how the FPS handles movement etc, I'd say Mirror's Edge is the most immersive FPS for me(from a purely physical perspective), it made me feel like I was controlling an actual person, not a pair of floating arms(Ala most Source games, the possible exception being Dark Messiah)

 

[Laivasse]

Too much messing around with synonyms in this thread. Engrossment, involvement, immersion - you are referring to the same thing. I'm with Grizzly and the others on this. Certainly, putting a player in the protagonist's shoes is a good route to deep immersion, but by no means is it the only or deepest way of creating a sense of 'presence' in the game world. One doesn't need to feel as if they share the protagonist's perspective in order to feel 'present', just as you can feel present in a good written story despite the fact that your perspective may be omniscient, disembodied and telepathic.

What's far more important to immersion, at our current level of technology at least, is game world consistency. I might be staring out through my character's eyes at the most gorgeous photorealistic landscape imaginable, but the second my sword clips through a tree stump then I'm taken straight back out. On the flipside, I could be peering at grainy 2D blobs from a top-down perspective, but if they say the things I expect them to say and behave in a psychologically realistic manner, then I can be made to forget the limitations of the medium and instead start to believe in the game world.

At our current level of technology, the extra development effort involved in maintaining suspension of disbelief for a 3D FPP game world means that they are not inherently any better at generating immersion, for the present anyhow. Get some haptics and scent generators on the market and then maybe FPP will be ready to bring games up to the next level of immersion, but as of now they're much of a muchness.

 

[Apocalypse89]

Does anyone know if the PC version for ME2 is going to be done in-house at Bioware or contracted out to another company like with ME1? Because I know ME1's PC port had some issues of different severity, although fortunately the only one I had were a few low-res textures(most noticeably on Garrus' face and some characters' clothing). And in-house ports are usually better than third-party ones.

 

[TheOneFreeMan]

I would assume they'd go down the same route as with ME1. Which isn't a bad thing, as long as they iron out the crashes. ME1 on the PC crashed on me a whole lot, but I'm told that in comparison to the Xbox version it's much better in terms of gameplay ... less fiddling about with selected powers and weapons in the pause screen.

It's not a port, by the way. It's a conversion.

 

[MultiVaC]

Does anyone know if the PC version for ME2 is going to be done in-house at Bioware or contracted out to another company like with ME1? Because I know ME1's PC port had some issues of different severity, although fortunately the only one I had were a few low-res textures(most noticeably on Garrus' face and some characters' clothing). And in-house ports are usually better than third-party ones.

I was pretty pleased with the port of Mass Effect, to be honest. It performed well, looked good, ran in proper aspect ratios, had good graphic settings and controls, and didn't use GFWL. Maybe it's just because I bought it at the same time as FEAR 2 (which was a piece of shit console port through and through), but it was a lot better than I had expected. Only problem I had was the "Garrus face" issue. It was a hell of a lot more stable than, say, Oblivion or Fallout 3.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I believe Bioware may be doing in house this time as they mentioned in an interview that the PC version is being built alongside the 360 version so it won't be a port. I really hope that's the case because some of these low resolution faces and clothing stick out and kills the immersion and is made worse when it happens to key NPC's. I still can't believe that although we had to wait over a year for the patch Bioware still couldn't fix the Garrus bug.

 

[Kadayi]

Minor quibbles really, but I'm hoping that they add in a lot more facial options. When it was first released the customisation it offered seemed pretty good Vs the potato face maker that was Elder scrolls Oblivion, however having recently replayed it I was kind of shocked to realise how limited the character creation feature set actually is. I think out of all of the female eye sets, there was only actually one that sat well on the face. Also the lack of decent hairstyles was annoying, and that almost every human in the game was generated using the same asset set was kind of a bummer. Even if Shepard herself can't have long hair, there is no reason every human woman in the galaxy can't have it, or needs to wear the same clothes, or be the same height or have the same body weight. These are issues purely of Aesthetics, but diversity of appearance would breathe a bit more atmosphere into the game for me.