Does instant transportation effect game immersion?

[Eekiki]

it ruins my sense too :x nothing beats a good old fashioned giant map in your windshield ^^

and the mini map thing is more like theres no reason to really go off the path most of the time so instead of watching the pretty world they made and spent hours on when you run from place to place you watching a line denoting a path on the minimap

this would -easily- be fixed by implementing agro mobs so people would actually have to watch the game and not the map.

And now another episode of "At Home With Azury".

"La la la, I'm playing XIV while wearing my fuzzy Hello Kitty slippers and sipping on a bottle of ramune."

*sudden, tense music begins playing*

"Oh no! The game! It's...taken control of where I point my eyes! Can't...stop...looking...at...minimap.........immersion...fading...N...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

[Konachibi]

And now another episode of "At Home With Azury".

"La la la, I'm playing XIV while wearing my fuzzy Hello Kitty slippers and sipping on a bottle of ramune."

*sudden, tense music begins playing*

"Oh no! The game! It's...taken control of where I point my eyes! Can't...stop...looking...at...minimap.........immersion...fading...N...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

I couldn't help but lol.

I can actually picture that scene happening.

[Rhomagus]

Bled:

I'll be making more thorough formatting corrections but I suggest you move the discussion back to the topic. My responses are in green.

kk here it is im not as brushed up with this code as you but what the heck:
1st me - black
then you - red
then me again -blue

and the quote within a quote is:
you - brown
me - green You actually never used green, so I'm using it.

Cherry Picking

ooooo are you sure you want to use such a absolute word such as never before i post evidence to the contrary? I'm fine with this. I'm fine with being wrong. As I've stated before, I'll gladly rescind any statement in an attempt to make it right. I'll easily bow to a more thoroughly supported argument than my own. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. This rhetoric sounds familiar though. I think I used it when someone tried to make a factual statement about how I felt. I want to be humbled. I want there to be some real point I'm missing to the other side's argument I really do. I'm actually kind of disappointed that I didn't take that side as it's the much more difficult argument to defend. I picked the easy side.

The following highlights how you overstep your bounds in your claim that I cherry pick posts.

[COLOR="blue"] the following is a quote that i answered you stating marketing stratagem and why pleasing all crowds is a bad marketing plan, which you ignored I didn't ignore them. I already showed how "having losses is okay. I even open up with it. You're just doing circles. If anything you're not responding appropriately to my point, completely negating that I agreed with not pleasing everyone, but pleasing most is better than pleasing some. you should recognize the quotes for you said them: You are in brown i am in green You can't, you'll have losses. I'm okay with these losses as an open game will be conducive to more people's interests as they'll be able to access it more. Yes and when you open your self up for more interests you can shut everyone out at the same time. It is just not smart marketing to try and target every demographic and expect to even please half of each demographic thus resulting in profit, that is just not realistic. "We got a rushed product, not a half assed one." It was half assed because it was rushed, but even still how do you define rushed seeing as Hiromichi Tanaka had 5 years to develop the game.. and a previous game under his belt. When you target to many demographics you are more apt to create a sloppy product. Simple marketing strategy you play to your strengths and you develop a product that has a target demographic not all demographics...

This part of the argument is attempting to show how I "cherry pick". You had effectively removed yourself from debate in after my response to "cite your sources". I never responded to this post. I never cherry picked because I never was involved in the act of picking. Your post > My post (which I did not go into thoroughly because you quote mined me and I stated my stipulations in order for a response.) > Your Post (Where you effectively removed yourself from the argument> My post where I acknowledge your bowing out and offer to provide examples of quote mining..

You removed your self from the argument. Even 10 or so pages later when you rejoin, you respond to Crica and not myself. Here is Your post

This post (pages later after removing yourself from the conversation and reentering responding to someone else) is where you try to call me out on skipping over posts.

So you're being disingenuous when you say I skip over posts. If you wanted me to go more indepth on your post (which I'm still more than willing to do) you should have asked me to do so instead of bowing out. You can still ask this, and I'll still do it, but don't say that I cherry pick posts when you quote mine, I call you out, then you bow out and later enter the conversation and claim that I'm not thorough.

Cite your sources. Then we'll talk. You'll have to show that your Immersion v. Spatial Presence is not an idea of your own and support it with outside sources in order to persuasively make me think that immersion can be objective. I also already read it when you posted it the first time. I just didn't buy it.

I also said that mechanics can be immersion, not necessarily that they always are. Pong can be immersive, the mechanic of a dot being bounced back and forth is the catalyst for the consumer's imagination. The level of immersion in Pong is defined by the player. They could choose to focus solely on the manipulation of their "paddle" to make sure the ball stays in play. They could choose to play defensively or offensively (taking immersion a step further). They could utilize a mixture of both in order to confuse their opponent (even further). They could even pretend the match was table tennis (even further). They could roleplay as their favorite pro tennis athlete (even further). The last is common in youth sports. In childhood pickup games before going in for a lay up or a jump shot from beyond the three point line the player may shout the name of their most admired professional athlete in an attempt to emulate them.

"Jordan!"

I've shown, and many other posters have already shown, how a person's level of immersion is primarily chosen not given. I suggest you read Konachibi's posts. They accurately show how immersion is subjective. Game mechanics act as the catalyst for immersion. Immersion for immersion's sake is considerably less immersive than if it were to involve player input as well. as you can see in your post up till not you cherry picked your answers and then next post attempted to be little immersion once more.I did not write this blue text. You did not change it's color to differentiate your own words from mine.

and what does your analogy have to do with your view of subjective material which you state can be objectively scrutinized?Now I've already admitted to my fault when asking you to cite your sources but you're gonna have to quote me on this one. Try using the whole post and highlighting the particular area. Changing the color or bolding it in this case is okay, just use it to highlight my point not yours. I can read yours just fine. Put it behind a spoiler text so it doesn't take up so much space. I've made a lot of analogies and it may not have applied to subjectivity or objectivity. This is why I ask for clarification. To pre-empt I think I know what you're talking about. This text will be put in blue. When I was referring to how my method allows people to "objectively scrutinize" my arguments, I was referring to how they have the available information that can be directly referenced. For example, they can objectively scrutinize my use of the Infinite Jest metaphor and use it as evidence when making a response. When it comes to matters of subjectivity, or my opinion, it's rather difficult to objectively scrutinize that for it belongs to myself. They can't say that I'm wrong for having a feeling. They can provide an well thought out argument to the contrary, but at the end they can't say that I'm wrong. I've don this a few times myself when I've said some thing along the lines as "That's as far from "wrong" as someone can be in an argument about opinion." Remind me to find the exact quote. Yet, they still can point at the information itself from an objective standpoint. They can claim it's a logical fallacy form an objective standpoint. They could claim it's disingenuous by providing examples that show that's the statement is disingenuous, but we don't disagree that matters of opinion and other "subjective" matters cannot be argued "objectively". This is what makes arguing on such topics so difficult, but logic is there to help find the "line of best fit" if you're familiar with mathematics. Rhetoric is used to persuade and doesn't always utilize logic in it's proceedings. please define rhetoric i was not a math major and i means differently in my field.It's the same definition. I was referring to "the line of best fit" when referring to mathematics. Rhetoric is purely persuasive. Logic is employed to uncover the truth. if something is subjective and you state it can objectively be argued We already gone through what is and isn't subjective about immersion. I specifically remember that because I had to look up the word "nadir" as I was unfamiliar with it. I don't think I stated that subjective things can be objectively argued. explained below.Explained above

Claims of objectivity and Subjectivity

"This is actually why I respond the way that I do. It leaves no room for subjugation and it is there for everyone to objectively scrutinize. Your statement is false. This is not a personal conversation whispered in hushed tones behind a lock door, this is a debate on a forum."

again a quote from you which you stated, you have all ready stated that you think parts of immersion are subjective so with that logic any argument someone makes against said parts would thus make any argument to the contrary subjective to you yet you say we can objectively argue them thus contradicting yourself.I stated which parts of immersion are objective and subjective. Besides, two people, from outside the argument, that wanted to have an argument about my argument, could in effect, look at my posts and use them as objective evidence for arguing logical fallacies and debate strategy. This is how a conversation between two people on a forum is not subjective. That is what my quote is responding to. Jobeto attempted to say in effect, that no one could chime in, I showed how that was wrong. Don't take me out of context. then are you not stating that the term itself could be objective? Yes. There are aspects of immersion that can be objectively argued. Whether or not it exists or is present is one of them. Some aspects of immerison cannot be objectively argued i.e., the level to which someone is immersed, or this is more immersive than that. These aspects of immersion are subjective and are not worth sacrificing game mechanics (legitimate content) to implement. That's the premise I'm coming from. The premise the opposition is coming from is that travel in and of itself is worthwhile content, and I wholeheartedly disagree. It can be, and I've shown how it can be in my "Future Airship Content Ideas" thread, but that idea was the brain child of negotiation and consideration of the opposition.

here is a quote of myself as to why the principles of progression are important (aka travel). "The Principle of progression is important because you want people to progress academically, socially and developmentally. Think of progression as growth, whether it be social, academic, physical, what have you. It also indicates adaptation to new situations, material, responsibilities and tasks, which are all important in developing a massive gaming community. Without progression we have idle minds that become stagnant which indicates lack of growth or regression. Of course im speaking of regression as a reversion to an earlier or less mature pattern of feeling, behavior, logic, and even overall psyche." Thus making your hostile posts (elegantly put posts might i add) Thank you but they only got hostile when the rhetoric got hostile or when someone was making the same logical fallacy despite being asked to cease. to the contrary just silly. Again, just matching rhetoric. again no display and no exaggeration in my post if that's what you mean by rhetoric.I'll always match the posters rhetoric. My overall rhetorical tone has changed throughout the thread based on who I'm responding to. Also, you use the word silly. I show how I just match rhetorical tone Maybe again I'm just not understanding your posts because of the tone the downside to matching rhetorical tone.This confirms how matching rhetorical tone can cloud an argument, not that you used a rhetorical device. Jobeto claimed I had an "assimilation" air about my posts. That suggests a cold and straight forward tone (while also implying that I don't have a mind of my own which is incorrect).again no rhetoric, rhetoric as i see it, but you really need to define rhetoric seeing as it carries many different meanings in the literary world.Rhetoric is not used in mathematics. It's only used in the literary/marketing/business realm. There's no room for rhetoric in the objective studies such as mathematics and science. Rhetoric is employed to help sell certain theories but objective logic cuts through it like a knife.and your ambiguous word choices create. Understood. I've actually noticed this and was the reasoning for my admission to a particular misunderstanding. It could've been interpreted multiple ways and needed clarification. This is why I love Crica's posts so much. thank you, and stop bringing other people into your postsI'll bring in whoever I damn well please. This isn't a conversation between two people behind a locked door. This is a forum. Get over it. they don't need u and u don't need them,I don't need them but I'll utilize them to my advantage. How do you expect me to support my arguments if I don't point to other good ideas. Do you think I should just claim their ideas for my own. That's ridiculous. Pointing out someone's style also does nothing. I wish I could post like that. It's clean, organized, easy, to the point. Otherwise you get this clusterf**k of a conversation. i have argued on the basis of individuals not you and 5 other people.That's your problem. I've argued on the basis of the arguments. Other people provide supporting evidence for my arguments. Deal with it.

and trust me my posts are sincere Don't doubt this good because they are very sincere.and I'm not pretending to know less then i do (disingenuous)... I question this and my motivations stem particularly from the "cherry picking" condemnation in the post prior. The posting method I employ is to show precisely that I'm not cherry picking. It's not easy but I feel it's necessary as people often use this argument to sidestep points or to feint ignorance in order to press their agenda even further by pointing out things that don't actually pertain to the argument at hand (which most of this post does unfortunately but this is a response to a derail. I'll go wherever I'm called out. Nitpick away.) well my friend that's just semantics and subjective material. what you consider off topic depends on the reader.
That's also not arguing semantics. That's calling you out on your condemnation. Anything that doesn't respond to the thread topic is off topic. This entire post is a giant derail. You see how we're not even talking about the game anymore. You see how we're not even talking about immersion anymore. We're arguing about arguing. We're arguing about method. Sometimes we're arguing about semantics. I'll stick by my position when I say that this has been derailed. I can provide supporting evidence of other posters who also support this position.
P.S. you do i believe sincerely try to explain and discuss every point but attempting to claim you are something you are not (just short of a perfect debater with your word choice of "i never") I never made this claim. That I'm sure of. I know I'm not a perfect debater, but I think I put forth significantly more effort here to understand the opposition than anyone but that's a subjective opinion. my good friend you use neverI can use never. If it's never happened then I can use it. Just because I'm a fallible human and use an absolute term does not make the phrase I used untrue. I'm not afraid of using absolute terms when the subject is appropriately constrained. You need to be able to use contextual reasoning and limit the frame of words to the argument at hand., and always (absolute terms) like its no big deal. i will quote a few: "You're just solidifying my point and this has been discussed thoroughly already. I never cherry pickI stand by this statement. You have failed to provide ample evidence to the contrary.. That's the entire reason I post the way I do. When I don't agree, I always back that up with supporting evidence directly juxtaposed to the sentence I'm referring to.

Your post is disingenuous at best. No snarkiness detected though.

I have to go grocery shopping.

I like to take the bus.

I like to bring a book with me when I take the bus so I have something to do.

The bus drivers and passengers are okay with this.

I also do not hear hushed whispers on the bus of those unsavory folk who choose to drive in cars. Nor does it ruin my enjoyment of the bus ride, the company I'm with, or the book I'm reading.

On the contrary, I do hear that of people who ride the bus from people who drive cars." as you can see there and then in my explanation at the beginning you do in fact cherry pick I don't, in fact, cherry pick. You use the word fact here, and you're wrong. C'mon man, you gotta be careful. I'm careful when I use absolutes. Their good to counteract the condemnation of being vague (which has been rallied against me before). That puts me at an impasse. I totally could pussyfoot and use terms like, "sometimes", "maybe", "my opinion", and I'll do that when it's called for. When I want to persuade and I'm confident in my statement, I'll use absolutes. I'll be humbled when I use absolutes in appropriately but you haven't showed this. making the word never very untrue.Look at your use of the word "fact". Don't be so hypocritical. I still stand by the statement that I never cherry pick.

Here is another quote: This is actually why I respond the way that I do. It leaves no room for subjugation and it is there for everyone to objectively scrutinize. Your statement is false. This is not a personal conversation whispered in hushed tones behind a lock door, this is a debate on a forum." again using absolute words like its nothing like you never make mistakes. You sir never said your perfect but you are certainly implying it.And implying isn't making a statement. How you interpret an implication is up to you. Implying is an effective rhetorical device. Some people might not see any implication there. is just what gets on my nerves. You shouldn't let it as I've never claimed I'm a perfect debater. No but your implying it all the same.Those are your own machinations. and this has happened more then once in our conversation, You'll have to point these out so I can correct the mistake. Pointed out for youUnfortunately your claim is false. Thanks for trying though. I do appreciate the leg work involved on my behalf. to be truly humble you don't need other people to humble you but rather you humble yourself. I'm humble enough as is, but I'll welcome it when it arrives. as you can see in that very sentience focusing on this "I'm humble enough as is" that is the opposite of a humble comment that is what we call display.I'm humbled enough in real life. I've admitted my wrongdoings in this thread and corrected them. I've shown how I can be humble. I'm not just going to bow down for the sake of bowing down. I'm not going to be "light" with my criticisms in hopes that someone won't be too offended and call me out on my thoughts. If you'd like to humble me you need to provide a convincing argument or prove me wrong, which you've done neither.

There i posted in your way which is a gross miss use of my resources. I just needed you to highlight the comment. You went further than was needed. This is attempt number one in this format so if you want to debate detracting from my miss use of your formatI don't. I actually would rather get back on topic. This argument is just as much a waste of my time as it is yours and everyone else's. then please stop right there, this is to humor you.Don't be so damn condescending, especially when you're wrong. That's absolutely inappropriate and uncalled for.

[Rhomagus]

And now another episode of "At Home With Azury".

"La la la, I'm playing XIV while wearing my fuzzy Hello Kitty slippers and sipping on a bottle of ramune."

*sudden, tense music begins playing*

"Oh no! The game! It's...taken control of where I point my eyes! Can't...stop...looking...at...minimap.........immersion...fading...N...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

I laughed, but I think they should give us the option to turn it off if we want. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[Jobeto-Rin]

not sure how elitism aroused from the teleport threat...

Elitism was brought up referring to me attempting to force my strong belief upon the people whos opinion differs.

There is a reason why I feel so strong about my opinion, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, this is for everyone in favor of having this skip travel option.

Gennosuke elaborated earlier, I'm continuing.

A MMORPG is a virtual game world that emulates aspects of a real world; An important pillar of a worlds characteristics, that define it, is it's vastness.

Time, Speed and Distance are all relative in measuring how vast a world is.

The Time it takes to travel a Distance depends upon Speed.

Faster Speed = less Time over a distance, slower Speed = more Time over the same Distance. Distance, the only variable that remained constant, helps describe vast.

Airships are a method of transportation the devs are invoking for a faster-than-walking means of traversing Eorzea distances. They help provide the feeling of a vast world.

If the lore stated airships were an instant means of transportation, then I can't speak no more, but in keeping with the basic logic of an airship, it's supposed to take time. It justifies that space is actually being traversed. Wanting the basics of an airship is not shallow nor does it cancel out the possibility of adding further content to it.

This option is saying...you don't have to spend time to travel between point a and point b, since it doesn't really exist, but you can travel this "mirage of a distance" if you want to. Taking away that distance is simultaneously removing the sense of vast in Eorzea. Kudos to the people who can comprehend how that can make some feel dumb if we actually don't skip it.

Yes, we know it's a game & nothing is real, but for me trying to be immersed in a game world, this simply breaks it and the virtual game world illusion. For those wanting to just play a game, not so much at all. That is how having this option ruins it.

It may not bother some peoples immersion, but you definitely can't say it shouldn't bother mine.

I'm only keeping inline with what a MMORPG is supposed to be, a virtual game world with in-game time, the existence of traversable distance (be it Anima, chocobo, airship, walking) to substantiate its massiveness (thank you Rhomagus for the correction), weather changes, exotic creatures to fight and people to experience and have fun with.

If I'm an elitist for trying to apply this....

So be it.

[Konachibi]

I laughed, but I think they should give us the option to turn it off if we want. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Press 'M' for map anyways.

Only thing I use the mini-map for is to determine if the cliff infront of me is scalable or not. If there's a black line on the MM, it's not, if there's no black line, I can run up it even if it's practically vertical.

There's a funny area to do this just west of Camp Skull Valley, nestled inside and small thicket surrounded by cliffs. Inside the thicket is a collection of near vertical very thin rock faces that you can run across, looks hilarious seeing your character bounce up and down like a yo-yo as you go along.

This unusual way to navigate however, does not affect my immersion. I perceive merely as a small snippet of comedy value that has no real importance to the world as a whole.

[Rhomagus]

Press 'M' for map anyways.

Precisely why we should be able to turn the mini map on/off. It's superfluous; convenient, but unnecessary.

[Konachibi]

Precisely why we should be able to turn the mini map on/off. It's superfluous; convenient, but unnecessary.

Saying that Blizzard didn't impliment the option to turn their mini-map off until Wotlk, only way to do it prior to that was add-ons.
And FFXIV doesn't allow add-ons.

[DNO]

Elitism was brought up referring to me attempting to force my strong belief upon the people whos opinion differs.

There is a reason why I feel so strong about my opinion, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, this is for everyone in favor of having this skip travel option.

Gennosuku elaborated earlier, I'm continuing.

An MMORPG is a virtual game world that emulates aspects of a real world; An important pillar of a worlds characteristics, that define it, is it's vastness.

Time, Speed and Distance are all relative in measuring how vast a world is.

The Time it takes to travel a Distance depends upon Speed.

Faster Speed = less Time over a distance, slower Speed = more Time over the same Distance. Distance, the only variable that remained constant, helps describe vast.

Airships are a method of transportation the devs are invoking for a faster-than-walking means of traversing Eorzea distances. They help provide the feeling of a vast world.

If the lore stated airships were an instant means of transportation, then I can't speak no more, but in keeping with the basic logic of an airship, it's supposed to take time. It justifies that space is actually being traversed. Wanting the basics of an airship is not shallow nor does it cancel out the possibility of adding further content to it.

This option is saying...you don't have to spend time to travel between point a and point b, since it doesn't really exist, but you can travel this "mirage of a distance" if you want to. Taking away that distance is simultaneously removing the sense of vast in Eorzea. Kudos to the people who can comprehend how that can make some feel dumb if we actually don't skip it.

Yes, we know it's a game & nothing is real, but for me trying to be immersed in a game world, this simply breaks it and the virtual game world illusion. For those wanting to just play a game, not so much at all. That is how having this option ruins it.

It may not bother some peoples immersion, but you definitely can't say it shouldn't bother mine.

I'm only keeping inline with what an MMORPG is supposed to be, a virtual game world with in-game time, the existence of traversable distance (be it Anima, chocobo, airship, walking) to substantiate its massiveness (thank you Rhomagus for the correction), weather changes, exotic creatures to fight and people to experience and have fun with.

If I'm an elitist for trying to apply this....

So be it.

You are an elitist just because your to selfish to understand that i and many others do not want to play that way. Thats why SE is giving options. Now we have your way and my way to travel. Thats the best option.

[DNO]

Precisely why we should be able to turn the mini map on/off. It's superfluous; convenient, but unnecessary.

The mini map does more then your giving it credit for. IN DH it shows when the evil eye is close which the full map does not show. It was shows real time where your party is where as the full map updates (very slow). How about on leves where the red dots are showed to show us where mobs are and the full map just gives us a circle... How about when a mob is on a lower level then us and the mini map shows an almost greyed red spot to show its not on our floor or level?

Mini map does a lot of things the full map does not. But since people are really crazy about immserion (which they are not even using it right) then an option to turn it off wont bother me either but i will have it on at all times.