Does instant transportation effect game immersion?

[Rutelor]

The mistake resides in associating the problems of this game (or any other) with a lack of immersion, and then, associating that lack of immersion with a lack of correspondence to reality.

Games don't have to be realistic in any form to be immersive.

The fact is that every game that ever was is based in well-crafted obstacle management. Without obstacles, there's just instantly achievable goals. And the moment you achieve your goal, the fun is over. (Also, the easier the path to achieve the goal, the less fun there is to be had.) The other fact is that every game that ever was edits, stylizes, and distorts reality, since its point is not to be reality, but a reminder thereof. The same happens in the theater, or in the movies. Nobody gets to witness anybody's every little move or to hear them think. Nobody in real life breaks into song and dance when they feel a strong emotion. And the Hong Kong martial-arts honcho, without bruises in his face and body after taking that beating, is as immersive and etertaining as we want him to be.

Chess is enormously immersive, and so are Go, Bridge, Poker and Mahjong. They actually are so stylized and abstracted that you really have to make an effort to remember that they all are basically representations of warfare and combat. You don't see bruises, blood, broken bones. The game is distilled to the abstracted basics of the encounters they try to replicate, and nobody minds that.

Nobody minds it because the obstacles to winning are considerable, and the management of those difficulties are what make those games fun. It's the same with every successful video game. Also--it goes without saying--the success of games depends on how elegant the abstraction is, not on how close to reality they remain.

Games are not about just tagging the tail to the donkey. They are about doing it blindfolded. Tie your left leg to your companion's right one, or jump into a sack and win that race. Don't let that egg off the spoon as you stride to the finish line. Remove the difficulties, lower the obstacles, avoid the hurdles, and the game is gone.

Rut

[DNO]

The mistake resides in associating the problems of this game (or any other) with a lack of immersion, and then, associating that lack of immersion with a lack of correspondence to reality.

Games don't have to be realistic in any form to be immersive.

The fact is that every game that ever was is based in well-crafted obstacle management. Without obstacles, there's just instantly achievable goals. And the moment you achieve your goal, the fun is over. (Also, the easier the path to achieve the goal, the less fun there is to be had.) The other fact is that every game that ever was edits, stylizes, and distorts reality, since its point is not to be reality, but a reminder thereof. The same happens in the theater, or in the movies. Nobody gets to witness anybody's every little move or to hear them think. Nobody in real life breaks into song and dance when they feel a strong emotion. And the Hong Kong martial-arts honcho, without bruises in his face and body after taking that beating, is as immersive and etertaining as we want him to be.

Chess is enormously immersive, and so are Go, Bridge, Poker and Mahjong. They actually are so stylized and abstracted that you really have to make an effort to remember that they all are basically representations of warfare and combat. You don't see bruises, blood, broken bones. The game is distilled to the abstracted basics of the encounters they try to replicate, and nobody minds that.

Nobody minds it because the obstacles to winning are considerable, and the management of those difficulties are what make those games fun. It's the same with every successful video game. Also--it goes without saying--the success of games depends on how elegant the abstraction is, not on how close to reality they remain.

Games are not about just tagging the tail to the donkey. They are about doing it blindfolded. Tie your left leg to your companion's right one, or jump into a sack and win that race. Don't let that egg off the spoon as you stride to the finish line. Remove the difficulties, lower the obstacles, avoid the hurdles, and the game is gone.

Rut

tell that to the insanly popular angry birds game. not hard no obstacles all you do is sling a bird over and hope you hit something yet it sold over 10 million.

Morale of the story hard does not equal fun for everyone. and truthfully hard does not equal sales as the wii killing everyone is proof off. and WoW killing everyone is also proving.

You do not need to add stupid timesinks for a game to be fun. Im glad with anima and insta airships SE has finally learned that.

Other then that i agree that games do not have to be realistic to be immersive.

[Onidemon]

tell that to the insanly popular angry birds game. not hard no obstacles all you do is sling a bird over and hope you hit something yet it sold over 10 million.

Morale of the story hard does not equal fun for everyone. and truthfully hard does not equal sales as the wii killing everyone is proof off. and WoW killing everyone is also proving.

You do not need to add stupid timesinks for a game to be fun. Im glad with anima and insta airships SE has finally learned that.

Other then that i agree that games do not have to be realistic to be immersive.

Agree 100%. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer who can spend 30+ hours a week playing a game and making something incredibly long and hard does not = more fun. Either way to me it looks like SE is taking wow's approach and trying to give something for everyone.

[Rutelor]

tell that to the insanly popular angry birds game. not hard no obstacles all you do is sling a bird over and hope you hit something yet it sold over 10 million.

Morale of the story hard does not equal fun for everyone. and truthfully hard does not equal sales as the wii killing everyone is proof off. and WoW killing everyone is also proving.

You do not need to add stupid timesinks for a game to be fun. Im glad with anima and insta airships SE has finally learned that.

Other then that i agree that games do not have to be realistic to be immersive.

Please, re-read my post. I did not use the word hard once. I never spoke about degrees of difficulty, nor did I advocate hard or easy in that post.

BTW, I think Birds has its obstacles and its difficulties all right. It's just that the motivation to surmount them is just not there for me. It's not that it is an easy game, it's that to me it appears simplistic and lacking in depth, and therefore boring.