Immersion, The Facts & Fiction

[Commat]

Best written post I've read in awhile, kudos! Thats /thread right there.

No that wasn't /thread. It was a good analogy with a flawed conclusion.

"Teleporing for many people isn't believable, thus it doesn't let them immerse fully."

Is a faulty statement. The very FACT that teleporting is part of XIV's world is proof in its self that it is real and therefor believable. Just like in real life, when you come across new things you never say "that isn't real" you ask "how does that work."

The same logic should apply to fantasy realms. As in, SE should make a Teleportaion quest, granting us access to porting and explaining how it works.

[zaviermhigo]

While I agree that too many people argue about immersion incorrectly, i do not agree with the OP when saying they say that certain aspects of the game are immersion. When you think about a game world its not the UI that immerses you its the actual game play, sure UI can be part of gameplay, but once you get over how to use the UI its pretty much behind you in immersion. Immersion is subjective, how can one say "that's part of the game, it IS immersion" when to another its just a bit of coding (programming).

[Konachibi]

While I agree that too many people argue about immersion incorrectly, i do not agree with the OP when saying they say that certain aspects of the game are immersion. When you think about a game world its not the UI that immerses you its the actual game play, sure UI can be part of gameplay, but once you get over how to use the UI its pretty much behind you in immersion. Immersion is subjective, how can one say "that's part of the game, it IS immersion" when to another its just a bit of coding (programming).

The first reply with a legitimate counter to it.

I do agree that some parts of the game do get players more involved than other parts, that's a given, some people like leves, some people like crafting, some people like the main story arc. It's fair enough.

But I won't accept people arguing and demanding the removal of something in the game that apparently 'ruins their immersion' just because they don't like it being there. The thing they don't like that's in the game is there for a reason, that's why it was put there, therefore, for all extent and purposes, it is part of the games immersion whether they like it or not.

For example, someone complains about the ability to skip the airship ride and says it ruins the immersion. For someone else that doesn't like wasting 2 minutes of their time travelling on an airship they can skip it and get to the bits of the game they do like quicker which then allows that player to be more immersed BECAUSE they were allowed to skip something that someone else states is immersion. It is subjective but it all plays a part in the entire gameplay as a whole. Therefore, the entire game is immersive in it's own existance, what parts immerse players the most depends on what they prefer out of it, not what they don't like about it, and the things they don't like they shouldn't complain about because other people do like it.

Unless there can be a gamewide poll so that everyone can vote on what they believe is 'not immersive' and everyone votes for one particular thing, nothing in the game at all can be considered 'not immersive'.

[IStolzI]

This post is to give people a defined definition of the word 'immersion'. It is designed to STOP people raging on about immersion

You're a liar. This thread was obviously made to have hundreds of posts. It has nothing to do with stopping anything. This very much so is grounds to start an arguement.

[Rhomagus]

You're a liar. This thread was obviously made to have hundreds of posts. It has nothing to do with stopping anything. This very much so is grounds to start an arguement.

I disagree with this statement as Konachibi fails to show motivation to the contrary. Immersion is being incorrectly used. There is an objective way to define immersion. Immersion in and of itself is subjective, and that is what the OP is trying to do. Shed off any preconceived notions of what immersion entails.

Konachibi has been successful in presenting that point, she hasn't been successful in convincing detractors if this point, but how successful do you have to be when you're trying to teach a fish mathematics? Is that something that can be held against someone?

If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

How often do you have to show a man a fish and objectively verify with neutral sources that it's a fish in order for him to believe it's a fish?

Who is at fault here when they go hungry because there was 'no fish to eat'?

[weeble]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfOUhwhdUV0

that is all.

[Rhomagus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfOUhwhdUV0

that is all.

I absolutely was amazed by this post. This combined with the objective definition of the word immersion provided by the OP ends the argument specifically on the definition of the word "immersion".

If people want to post their recommendations for the game in an attempt to further "their immersion" they are more than welcome to do so, but they need to present how that would increase "their immersion" not "immersion" in an objective sense because the degree to which someone is "immersed" in a medium is entirely subjective.

I honestly feel that people who have been arguing for game mechanics to be implemented for "immersion's sake" are really arguing for "realism". If they framed their arguments in that context they would be correct, otherwise they are not from the get go. Granted they would still get the same counterarguments to "realism" by people who didn't agree with them, but at least from the outset they'd be arguing with common definitions and some kind of objective basis to set them on. It would just be changed to realism vs. gameplay, which I think is at the basis of that particular argument in the thread that will not be named.

The OP's post is literally not sophistry. It's an attempt to put a logically grounded basis to the premise of "immersion" instead of just throwing the word out there for the sake of uncovering truth. Konachibi provides an undeniable outside source to support her argument, which is significantly more than what others have done. I find it odd how people can get so flustered, to the point of accusation, over an objective definition.

It's not like Kona's proposing that the post ends the realism vs. gameplay argument. The OP is only making it known the actual objective definition of "immersion". There is even an avenue provided, if so one chooses, to use the different words. If you want realism argue for realism, not immersion. Immersion is too subjective for any one person to apply their idea of immersion and expect it to apply equally for everyone else.

It's just wrong, right out of the gate.

By definition.

The OP clearly presents that.

+1 to the OP.

[BruceyBruceyBangBang]

Thanks for the thread. Needs more likes, I think. This is something that is futile though. People are still going to be going on and on about what kills their "immersion".

I've basically been screaming this into Azurannoying's ear, but under more simpler terms as to make it perfectly clear. Immersion simply is specific to the person. This is what makes it unfortunate for people that feel the same way as this player because what they want is something they probably are never going to get. Mostly FFXI nostalgia driven systems that in the past really got their juices flowing. This was confused with not being immersed when the whole entire time it was just their love for a former game that kept their eyes glued to the screen.

When players combat the game's ability to keep them immersed it later dawns on them that it pretty much varies from person to person. So, really... it can't be argued in the way that it has being that it's so subjective.

[Ottovonawesome]

Replace word immersion with term suspension of disbelief. Problem solved.

[Konachibi]

I thank those who have posted positive input as to my original post and show an understanding of what I was trying to explain to people, even if they disagree with it. Your posts give faith to the community that there are open-minded people that are prepared to consider the possibility of other ways of looking at things.

By positive I do not mean agreeing with me, I mean expressing their own thoughts and opinions on the matter, I appreciate people that disagree with me also, as long as it is done in a calm and dignified manner, not the "shut up you don't know nothing idiot" posts.

My original post was an attempt to explain what the definition of 'immersion' was so that it could be utilised in a relevant and understandable means during a debate. I did not do this just to annoy people as some think, I made it in hope that future posts regarding immersion could be explained in a better way so as to stop them sounding like "I don't like this so I want it removed no matter if other people do like it." and more like "It would be nice if *this* was an option for people who want more or less of it."

To explain, something that ruins the overall immersion would be:

People only being viewable from 20 feet away when in largely crowded areas.

This is because it is something that affects everybody as a whole. FFXIV is a multiplayer game and so when standing in a city, the slow loading times of other players makes the game feel empty, decreasing it's sense of being a multiplayer game. Although this does not 'bother' some people, it does affect them.

Something that would affect a single persons immersion would be:

The boat ride between Thanalan and La Noscea.

This would be because some people enjoy the boat ride (Personally I do enjoy it sometimes) because it gives the game a sense of openess and a more 'realistic' (I use the term loosely) feeling of travel. Other people however would prefer to skip this part out so they could more quickly reach other aspects of the game they do enjoy.

Maybe this thread can be redeemed, MAYBE, instead of it being 'the immersion people vs. Konachibi'

Debate these things, don't argue them.