Does instant transportation effect game immersion?

[Rhomagus]

Okay to start from the top:

To Bled:

I would just like to point out Rhomagus you are the one stating immersion is subjective To be fair, even my opposition has already condoned this. I'm not the only one stating it's subjective. thus any discussion concerning it in your point of view would be subjective I've also shown, to some degree, how it can be "objective", to the point of whether it's there or not. Anything beyond that is "subjective" meaning it's prone to bias and is wholly the opinion of the person viewing it. to the matter, so how can anyone on the opposing side objectively scrutinize you in your mind They shouldn't be scrutinizing me they should be scrutinizing my argument. If they are scrutinizing me that's an ad hominem. How can they scrutinize my argument. I'll have to get back to you on that one but there are points of view that one could take that would bolster my oppositions defense significantly but at a great cost. I've already touched on this and as long as they are willing to admit it then they would be right in their supposition, the problem is the manner in which I post may make it seem as if it's a detestable thing, which in my opinion, it is, but if they want to argue that particular point of view then that changes the argument into something else rather than whether or not instant teleportation hurts immersion.... everything you don't like you refer to in your quotes as "no i don't agree" or completely skipThis is the part I completely disagree with you on and I find disingenuous. I got to great lengths to make sure that I respond to every point made in the thread. If I don't agree, I'll state my reasoning to either negate the point, or completely subdue it. In fact, the only time I actually don't put more is when I do agree. If you'd like I can expand on that but I don't think that's necessary., and you chary pick This really aggravates me. I'm not going to lie. Specifically from the poster who quote mined me. It is incredibly frustrating and I honestly don't know why I'm giving you the time of day right now. You do seem sincere in your wants, but I'm still sticking to my statement that you are being disingenuous in your method. Particularly in this quote. what you want to thoroughly explain,It's my argument. I don't cherry pick other points. I do go more in depth when I have a metaphor (i.e. Infinite Jest, Ice Cream kids) or when I'm working to correct one (Basketball). I can go even deeper but I'm already doing more than anyone else here and I've already considered the risk of the TL;DR crowd. The poster I actually admonish the most here is Crica. Her posts are zenlike in their application. I don't always agree with her statements but I only think that's because people use logical fallacies to spin her into the wrong area, but when you look at her logic, it's flawless. Just like all of us (myself included as you so aptly pointed out earlier). I'm going to thoroughly explain my arguments. This is understandable. You should thoroughly explain your arguments. People should thoroughly explain their arguements. I don't have qualms with that. What I do have qualms with is when people completely ignore very succinct direct responses and don't even so much as try to wash over them with a glance, but instead just outright "out of sight out of mind". I thoroughly analyze all of the arguments that I've responded to, at least those one's in which I put red text in the quote. More often then not, the responses without red text either didn't provide enough information for the need to dissect each sentence or just weren't offering anything new, and that's a rarity. Even the one's that don't offer anything new I'll refer them to a point I made before back on any page above when I entered the thread. Those are even easier in that regard. No disrespect and no snarky attitude I'm just making an observation. I respect that. No snarky attitude detected, but your observation was just a weather balloon, not an alien aircraft.

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.

and what does your analogy have to do with your view of subjective material which you state can be objectively scrutinized? [COLOR="#8b0000"]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.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. 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. 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.Maybe again I'm just not understanding your posts because of the tone the downside to matching rhetorical tone. 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.

and trust me my posts are sincere Don't doubt this.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.)

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. is just what gets on my nerves. You shouldn't let it as I've never claimed I'm a perfect debater. and this has happened more then once in our conversation, You'll have to point these out so I can correct the mistake. 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.

To Jynx:

The airship being instant does nothing for immersion either, I agree, but my suggestion adds convenience while retaining the game mechanics of anima and varied content while your proposal just asks for "immersion" content, which is shallow in my opinion. it litteraly is just as immersion breaking as a 0 anima warp.I agree, but a 0 anima warp not only removes a game mechanic (anima resource management) but also flies in the face of the following lore statement:

However, being broken down to the aetheric level can take its toll on one’s body, and rest is often required after several consecutive jumps, especially as the distance becomes greater. As a precaution, most city-states strongly discourage over-teleporting, as it can lead to irreversible damage...

They can't explain away how two people board the same airship and arrive at a latter date. Unless they split the harbor to be able to dock two ships, one with jets and one thats moved by the sheer power of slowness. This actually is my suggestion on the "Future Airship Content Ideas" thread. I know you've read it as I've included your suggestion about Triple Triad into it. You essentially have three different ships. Whatever caters to your gameplay needs at the time and offers a plethora of opportunities for content. Konachibi's suggestion on Personal Airship takes that idea even further. Airships as travel only is shortsighted and lacks, as I've said before, legitimate content.

Unfortunatly neither make sense... The airships are currently a redundancy that's not needed until they add content. This I disagree with as there are several people complaining about their lack of anima, and the very lack of a Final Fantasy staple. They need to introduce it asap as long as it's stable but even just it's skeleton will help satiate the needs of many Final Fantasy fans. I'm all for putting a gil sink to combat inflation as well, and I think the instant airship is a perfect substitution for the time being. They do need to expand on it though. I don't think making airships only a travel method is good enough and at the very least they need to include an option to enjoy the ride.

To Jobeto-Rin

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I had a good debate.

I don't know why but I get this feeling of....assimilation from you...I think it's just me. That was intentional. It's synonymous with the Borg. Data also speaks coldly. That's the nature of logic. My position is more flawed when it's backed by appeals to emotion. It leaves room for ad hominem attacks and unnecessarily clouds the debate or, the pursuit of the truth.

I want to be able to experience the airship ride with no option. I don't understand why. I still do not understand why the experience just isn't enough for you.

That is the want I'm fighting for. I understand, but it's snuffing other people's real life time constraints and enjoyment in the name of a shallow, insatiable, and ultimately subjective purpose where, in the end, you are responsible for how immersed you become. I'm not sure of your age but the new generation may not realize that the old generation can be just as immersed in their video games as the new generation is in theirs. To some people from the older generation, the new games bring it into the realm of the "uncanny valley" and ultimately it hurts immersion. That's where content is too real and it breaks immersion by breaking down your suspension of disbelief inadvertently as the content is juxtaposed more closely to that of real life, making comparisons even easier to catch between the two. Being lost in your imagination will always be a better substitute than realistic graphics in terms of immersion. That is the goal when creating immersion in games. Realistic graphics just help support it.

I'm curious...what makes that funny?Arguing over video games, in some circles, is inherently childish. The way the statement is juxtaposed could be seen as a hilarious contradiction.