Designing for Immersion

After our discussion of NPCs sashayed over to a discussion of immersion, I decided this topic warranted a new thread.

Immersion in games is a hot topic right now. Games use it in their descriptions and feature list and they brag about how one can immerse themselves in their story, environment, etc.

I am willing to bet if you ask 10 video game players to define what makes creates immersion for them in a game, you would get 10 different answers. We all play games differently and therefore, we all have different expectations for our games.

This discussion is not limited to any type of game although it might be more applicable to MMO's and RPGs. I think other types of games apply as well since we can also use music and other areas of design to create an immersive experience for players.

P.S. My first Unity thread! Yay! Whew.

 

What a great topic. I'll start with something Oblivion did very well: the opening sequence. There's dramatic music, camera panning over a really interesting-looking city, and Patrick Stewart (as the emperor) narrating a brief backstory. I was immediately sucked in and wanted to spend some time in that world.

In fact, since I've been wearing my designer hat so much lately, the effect was so powerful that it made me wonder how one could sustain that feeling. Because, alas, after you've gotten a couple weeks into the game, it starts to feel like just running a lot of errands, not nearly as dramatic as the opening sequence felt.

 

The biggest issue with immersion is most gamers don't know what it means and how the term is applied. Most people assume it's about simulation, which it kind of is, but they assume it's a simulation of reality. The term itself is an extension off of the secondary world concept though. The simulation is around a world that doesn't have to be real, just consistent in its own rules, and then puts the player in control to tinker as he sees fit.

 

Immersion is pretty much how drawn into the world you are. The original Sonic the Hedgehog had great immersion; without many of the elements that we'd now consider requirements for immersion.

The game itself can be extremely poor graphics wise, or mechanics wise, and still have great immersion. Defining this quality is going to be a tough one, but the recipe for immersion is worth more than gold.

 

Well OK, you're right, let's back up and try to define what we mean by "immersion," at least for the sake of this thread.

I propose this: immersion is when the player forgets where they are, loses track of (real) time, and is mentally "in" the game world.

You can see this in Chess players absorbed in a difficult game, or FPS players trying hard to frag without being fragged, or RPG players lost in the world they're in. Really, you can get immersed in pretty much any activity. You can also do almost any activity without immersion, once it becomes automatic. (Compare driving when you're 16 and just learning, to driving when you're 30 and been doing it for years.)

So, in very general terms, maybe immersion is about holding the player's attention. This requires:

• a game deep enough to require attention in the first place
• no significant periods where the player has nothing to do

...And the following maybe aren't required, but certainly help:

• audio and visual effects that enhance the experience
• engaging the player's imagination
• goals and objectives the player cares about

That's all off the top of my head, though... what do y'all think?

 

I don't know anyone who confuses simulation with immersion. I have played on countless role play servers and developed a game with 100's of thousands of role players posting on forums and I don't remember even one of them mentioning simulation.

Simulation is the attempt to imitate something, usually a process, whether it be building a city or running a family, like in The Sims. The goals are to grow your city, make your family get rich, whatever. Simulation is attempting to imitate life. The more detail, the better the simulation.

Immersion is making a player feel as if they are in the environment or story. The player isn't required to pee or bathe, like they might in The Sims. Instead, they feel as though they are in a misty, smelly swamp because of the sounds, music, and various other techniques the game developer/designer uses to make the experience feel real. It doesn't simulate the swamp, it just approximates the feel of the swamp through sensory input.

I find it interesting that you use terms like "most people". I argue that most people do not confuse the two, at least gamers don't. Simulation and RPGs are totally separate game genres for the most part, although some games do like to mix the two. I love both types and a little simulation in my RPG makes me happy, but I must admit I don't like a little RPG in my simulations. lol Do you have any insight into your statement that "most people" confuse the two? I would love to see where you draw that conclusion if you don't mind. I am curious and interested.

As a geologist, we used to simulate real world conditions in the lab. I remember creating flowing rivers in huge flumes and watching/recording data. How does this translate to real life? It may help us understand how some things work, but there are just too many variables in real life to totally simulate real life.

Immersion though, only requires one sparks the imagination, makes people feel, see, hear something that draws them into the world. Dramatic music makes one feel the drama of the experience. Visual experiences, such as fog or darkness can create a setting. A good story, coupled with music and visual experiences can make one feel. You do not need reality to feel immersed.

 

I think you said it perfectly. The only thing I would add is the feeling. One is immersed in a movie when they are caught up in the story and their feelings are triggered. If you feel nothing about a movie, it usually isn't very good.

 

I would argue this one up to a point. A player locked in a room with nothing to do for a couple of minutes, could well still be fully immersed with the help of some ambient audio. Possibly longer than a few minutes and you'll being to lose the attention of the player.

 

If you can get emotional connection to the world/characters that's pretty much exactly where you want to be.

 

I sort of agree. Having nothing to do will eventually cause a player to seek out some new experience. I remember my character walking along a beach, nothing else to do. I felt very immersed within the environment due to the sounds and the visual stimulation. It actually created a long lasting memory for me.

 

Agreed — but you had something to do: enjoy the beach environment.

I was thinking of the modern trend of farming games (not just farms, but a lot of tower-building games, etc.), where the basic mechanic is "tap here, then wait 5-20 minutes... or spend money to get it done faster." That's very much not immersive. Pretty much the only way to play one of these games, as far as I can see, is to poke it now and then while mostly doing something else.

 

Yeah, that is true. Those are very much simulations though and not really meant to be immersive, imho at least. I do think they are fun and they keep you going because of the very well defined goals. I can get addicted to those but mostly because I want to win, not because of immersion.

That is something else people confuse, immersion with addiction. I think addiction comes from many places when it comes to gaming and sometimes, immersion can do that to people. But quitting the game does destroy the immersion so maybe not so bad as goal oriented addictions.

I know I play solitaire on my tablet in the evenings and I have this goal for myself to win three hands before I go to bed. Sometimes that means playing for a hour because I keep losing but I just keep on going, often missing my bedtime. I don't think the environment of that little card game is immersing me. I think it is my own self-setting goal that is doing it.

Can a goal cause a game to be immersive? I don't think so but maybe some else can make a good point about why it might be?

 

Personally, I do not see the draw of these "tap here, then wait..." farming games. They seemed to be aimed at people who want to procrastinate or waste time. My preference is for games that draw you in, make you gasp in wonder at beautifully created environments, or make your heart race with terrifying dungeons.

 

I think if the goal is important to you, then it can command your attention — which I think is really the core of what immersion means.

But that's not enough on its own. You're probably good enough at Solitaire by now that you can play mostly on automatic, while your mind wanders to other things. So you're not immersed (though you're still enjoying it — as you point out, fun and immersive aren't always the same thing).

Conversely, something might be very difficult, so that to do it well I'd have to give it my full attention — but if I just don't care, then I'm probably not going to do that. I may play because of some sunken-cost fallacy or some other reason, but if I'm really thinking "Dangit, why'd they make this so hard, this is so annoying, just let me get on to the next level fer cryin' out loud," then I'm not immersed. I'm too busy cursing the game designers to be lost in the world they designed.

 

I think the draw of these is based on a completely different concept: providing the user with a sense of accomplishment. It takes a long time, and eventually you build up some tower or farm or whatever, and that's rewarding.

But yeah, you're not drawn in while you do it. So it's useful to this thread as a counter-example!

 

I am with you, Master! Although those dungeons scare me too much. LOL Only with big strong bodyguards would I venture inside.

The bane of an overactive imagination.

 

All good stuff, so what are we saying are the ingredients for immersion?
Soundscape?
Near constant draw from game events?
Something to do with graphics, but not necessarily the most realistic. Is it then in the motion of world objects or the palette?

 

I felt deep sensory immersion in Fallout 3. Heck, sometimes when the wind blows just right I feel a wave of nostalgia for that game world. The sounds and first person perspective really drew me into the world.

On the other hand, I felt an emotional immersion in Mass Effect. The third person perspective focused my attention on the characters and the decisions I made that affected them. Unlike Fallout 3, I felt invested in the lives of Mass Effect's characters.

In both cases, I agree with @JoeStrout that I felt agency -- knowledge that I could take meaningful action -- and this helped draw me in.

 

I agree with Tony. Immersion can be emotional or sensory but it doesn't have to be both. Agency is an interesting concept as well and story driven games that draw you in can create powerful immersion.

Emotional immersion can be created through a good story or a connection to the main characters. I was completely drawn into the story of the Longest Journey. In spite of the awkward controls and uninteresting graphics, I was very attached to the main character and was sad when the game ended. I still have strong feelings about that game. In online games, I have become very immersed in player-generated story lines which involved very intense moments. I remember crying a few times and feeling silly. Emotional attachment to other players and to your own character also can help with immersion in online games. It is what keeps people coming back for years, paying that monthly fee even if they can't play as often as they once did. They don't want to lose that character or those friends.

Sensory is probably easier to do if you can create a beautiful world, even if the graphics are not perfect. Sound, music, animations, light, scenery, atmosphere (busy town vs empty town) all combine to draw you into the world.

I also have to say that the player has something to do with this. Not all players are the same and immersion is a somewhat personal thing. While one person might be immersed in a great battle, another might find it stressful and not at all enjoyable. Some people don't enjoy interacting with other players and many feel that things like music and NPCs a waste of good resources.

Meaningful action is important in single player games. I can't image a story driven game without it. While MMO's can concentrate on an overall changing 'story' that focuses more on your own little chunk of the world, a single player RPG usually has a large overarching story line, even if there are smaller bits dispersed in the game.

If you feel you can impact the story, you will be more compelled to continue playing, and you will feel immersed in the mission. This, in my opinion, makes the single player RPG very compelling and powerful.

Again though, different games will have different players so in order to make a game that will draw in your players, you need to know your audience.

 

Ever go back in time? This thread reminded me something I wrote three years ago (google "immersion vs engagement"). And reading it anew, first made me gag at how poorly I used to write. Then it made me smile, realizing how far I'd come!

The article was "Immersion vs Engagement" and it reflected on a scholarly paper that explored the difference between the two. Apparently, Immersion is passive, like, "I get immersed watching Game of Thrones with my wife". Whereas engagement is active, like "I'm 100% engaged when I play League of Legends with my son!"

Gigi

 

Oh, very nice, Gigi!

So engagement is what Tony called agency, the ability to take action in a game. By making that action meaningful, you engage the person in the game.

Scenery, sound, story, etc, are all immersing (I know, immersive is not a word but I like it), causing you to become passively involved with the game.

What about NPC dialogue and systems that cause NPCs to react differently to players? If players just feel more immersed when walking around a city that isn't empty, I imagine that would be passive, therefore immersion. The actual interaction with the npcs then would be engaging?

Does that make sense?

 

I think another point to add to this is that it is important to remember who your audience is when designing for immersion and/or engagement. For example, in the game I am currently creating (purely hobbyist and for my sons!!!), the audience is young children. Their sense of immersion will be much different than that of a teenager, adult or pensioner. And unfortunately we are not always aware (or have forgotten) what pulled us into different kinds of games at certain ages. So perhaps an important part is doing the research on your demographic. Male, female, age, target culture (very significant in my country) and of course any device restrictions. Not seen very successful immersion implementations on a mobile game!

There is also a fine line between having too little or too much (forced) immersion. The variance is what helps with engagement by keeping the mind alert to a constantly changing (even if subtle) level of expected participation and desire to see what lies beyond the next door. I think finding the right balance is what is so difficult, especially in longer games. A big plus is certainly the ability to interact not only with NPCs, but also objects and even structures.

Love reading these topics!!! Being a newbie to game design it is fascinating to read

 

Yes I seen many people say how they lost immersion because of no aim down sight, but they "get lost" in their game, as in, they get immersed because its fun.

What immersion in video games is basically, it is when you get invested into game itself, story and/orgameplay.

I am not sure if point of this topic was to ask what immersion in games is, or how to achieve it, or just to start a discussion and present opinions of people on it?

How much immersive your game is depends on how well you make it.

All tho you can have game immersive in different ways.
You focus can be on very focused gameplay - super meat boy for example.
Donkey Kong - visuals and gameplay.
Story, Music (music is very very important), ...

So no need to try to make everything immersive.

Look at Insurgency game for example. It has very very immersive combat.

Did not play it, but seen Far Cry 4. And it looks like it has very immersive world. Full package I'd say. GTA5 might be another one (didnt play as well).

 

Lovely post Gigi. I feel we're still having difficulties laying down those elements that help to create both immersion and engagement. Might it be helpful to list some of those things that immediately break immersion?

I'll start with:-
Towns and cities that are empty or have just a few wandering NPCs - just not realistic (but poly count adds up quickly).

and, things that break engagement:-
Large empty lands, with only a few critters. No matter how beautiful, if there's no fauna, or things to interact with, it quickly becomes a grind to move through them.

 

If you try to talk to a player and shhs you, or that player forgets to eat and slowly plant their face to the screen, then i guess they are immersed

 

Maybe, or they are addicted, which is another topic totally.

 

I think the best way to have immersion is to be fun and not break from the formula.
Look at Half-Life 2. All cut-scenes were in game, making it pretty darn immersive for me.
Also, I like Metal Gear Solid because I got into the story even though cutting from gameplay to cut-scene can break immersion. However, they handled it well by using the slow transition, giving the player enough time to prepare for the switch.

 

Yeah but other games also have the cinematics in-game. The thing with HL2 is that it never goes to a 3rd person view to show something, plus you have some sort of interactivity while the cinematic happens.

 

Are you saying that 3rd person view is bad for immersion, and cinematic scenes are good? That would appear to fly in the face of most mmorpgs out there.

 

I was referring to the way HL2 did it specifically. Like having a cinematic going on while you had some sort of control, NPCs acknowledged that you were over there and didn't just talk in place.
Lots of my fav games are 3rd person.

What i was saying was that, HL2 is immersive because it doesn't brake character. You are not going around with one style and then after a while get jolted out with something like "STOP! here's a cut scene. Here's a shinny thing and now ok the camera is back."
I really like GW2. And i'm playing and going around and stuff and i'm not mentioning that i have a ranger in the game. I'm saying that "i'm a ranger in there".
But something happened in the latest story arc that sort of took me out for a sec. Something funny.
I attacked an enemy but then said "ah nvm". And i just went ahead and talked to the npc without killing the enemy.
So i started the scene but the pet started attacking and then the enemy started attacking the pet, and it was sort of a three stooges scene.
NPC was like "drama drama , take this, help" and pet with enemy were running around behind the NPC and in camera view and were like "duuuh dum dum darirari duuummm"

Another example would be "Remember me". i loooved that game. Including the combat where i could build the combos i liked. But lots of the time you'd be in battle dodging and hitting and an enemy would die and give XP and unlock something. And instead of just having something to show that i got something, the screen would freeze, desaturate and give me a prompt that i got *this thing* and to press this button to go in the combo system menu.

And i would try to exit this by B to keep on fighting (since what i got wasn't needed in the battle) but the game was "NO!. you got it. shove it in the system now, stop fighting."

(and i just noticed that i used "and" a lot)

 

To me immersion is not tied to a game genre or a specific aspect. I've always liked the sandbox genre even before I knew it existed. I remember when I was 12 was the first time I treated a game like a sandbox, it was Turok: Dinosaur Hunter on the N64. This game was a series of very linear levels where you had to fight dinosaurs on some tropical island.

The second level had an abandoned village next to a lake in it. After clearing the enemies in the area I remember spending hours and hours just walking around the village, role playing, pretending to go fish in the lake, patroling, sleeping. I had a wild imagination.

As JoeStrout said:

There are two possible ways for this to happen to me, either by actually losing myself in the world like in Skyrim where I'm no longer myself playing a game, I am an initiate in the guild of thieves and I will empty this shop from its valuables. Here immersion comes from the freedom that's given to me, the music (this is so important) and more importantly, the setting in which it takes place.

OR

Mastering a certain mechanic to the point where I can play the game with my mind completely shut off. Not actually pursuing a goal but to keep a state of mind that's close to meditation. For example GTA V which can fall in the first category easly but my favourite thing to do in this game is just drive.

I love the car physics, the blur when you get to high speeds, and just the way the car handles I love just driving, avoiding other cars. Whenever I play the game no matter what my intial goal is I'll end up just driving fast all over the place. Games like this, mirror's edge, just cause, assassin's creed or even the old Tony Hawk's games. Where I can simply let my hands play with a certain mechanic over and over with my mind almost shut off.

 

That's a really interesting point. It's been a long time since I've reached that sort of "zen" meditative state with a game. But it's happened — if anybody remembers the old Star Wars arcade game (the sit-down version, of course), I could get into a zone (with a little help from Obi-Wan's ghost) where the whole world faded out, conscious thought shut down, and I shot down tie fighters as fast as they appeared. It's a pretty awesome feeling.

But I'd argue it's just a special case of losing track of the real world — just that in this case, you're losing track of your "self" too, and operating in some altered state of consciousness.

(Hmm, has this discussion just turned metaphysical?)

 

@ Joe, well as long as you don't start astral projecting

 

To each his own, I'm sure there are games that you find immersive that I wouldn't and vice-versa.
I just listed the games I liked, which is a tiny list to ALL the games I like. lol.

 

Of course! I'm sorry if i came out as absolute, that would be a mistake. I just said why i thought that HL2 is immersive. I too get lost in that game. I just compared it with a cinematic situation that happened in GW2. (which is another thing i get lost in for hours.)

 

I gotcha.
I'd also like to add why I liked the way HL2 did it because it was economical from a technical standpoint.
Instead of having elaborate cutscenes(that cost money to make) that break you from control, everything was done in game, in engine to great effect. Brilliant.

 

Immersion, like I've been there.
Curious about how the world works.
Imagining it in real life.
I only have two games so far that make me feel like that.
Assassins Creed and Mass Effect.

 

I didn't read all of the above, but thought I might chip in a thought or two.

I'm not sure how important of a goal immersion in a game world is for a game. Or at least maybe the notion of game immersion is maybe not the same as immersion in fiction. In fiction there's talk of "suspension of disbelief" ... and when this occurs you get absorbed in the story. But when you're thinking about reading the book as opposed to moving through the story with your mind via the text on the page, then you're not really into it.

Games are a little different, maybe. In a game there is the scenario and the meta scenario. Like in AD&D, you're playing a role and imagining your character's place in a world (the scenario), yet you are also conscious of the game mechanics and are working with them to achieve game goals (the meta scenario). You're aiming to keep your HP, gain XP and GP, improve your AC, and get some of those +items!

So a person can be enjoying their game, doing whatever it is they do in the game, and yet be fully cognizant of the mechanics and playing a meta game ... and that's not a bad thing.

As for dev practices that help a player with immersion ... it's probably having an accessible, consistent, predictable world environment, where there can be new things to discover, but it all fits ... nothing jarringly incongruous happens. Basically, the game sets out implicit rules and then follows them.

 

When I think of immersion, games like DayZ immediately come to mind - like GiGi said, immersion and engagement are two entirely different things, and I think true immersion does require elements of simulation to work.

To use DayZ as an example, the player sees no UI most of the time. The environment they use adds to the immersion - you can hear faint environmental sounds based on your surroundings, and most gameplay comes from player interaction, which is by its very nature much more immersive than scripted cutscenes with AI. Even small actions add to the immersion, like taking a weapon out - because your character is full-body, and not just a floating pair of hands. Unfortunately, the current state of zombies in DayZ completely breaks immersion, as they lag-out everywhere and hit the player through geometry.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there's games like EVE Online - a 3rd person spaceship flying MMO with UI elements all over the screen, but a game which can be as immersive as any in some situations. Words don't do it justice, but just take a look at the most recent trailer that they released, using player-submited voice comms:

 

It depends on the game or the way the player plays the game. In my case, I am a role player so I must have immersion to enjoy a game. Without it, I am just pushing buttons and I usually get bored before the game is over.

I think one can be immersed in a story rather than just move through it. I know I can. I suppose it depends a great deal on the person, their level of imagination, and whether they actually are able to focus enough and ignore what else is going on.

Trust me, one can be immersed in a game.

 

We all have been there more than once. As gamers being immersed into some fictional worlds and as game creators immersing players into their own fictional worlds.

There's no one way to guaranteed immersion. Heck, I reckon it's more than just exploring a unknown outer space with extra terrestrial creatures in Mass Effect or going through historical locations in Assassin's Creed.

Let's take a memory lane, back to the age when Space Invaders was the hot new game that is very iconic to this day. Let me ask you this: how did Space Invaders succeed? It's just a game with you, as the player, shooting down UFOs and yet people went crazy of dodging alien lasers and blasting every last alien there is on the screen.
Same goes to Super Mario 64 and Jak & Daxter. Why did they go on as the ironic platformers of their time?

In the case of ElderScrolls, Skyrim did really well introducing players into its world in the beginning and from there, the 'Open World' part is available to the player and they go do whatever they want to do. In all that freedom, the game balancing they did in the game is amazing most of the time.

From my time spent learning in Games Design: Immersion isn't just one thing, it's a lot of things.

 

Another aspect I haven't seen mentioned is consistency. Gamers are willing to accept a fantasy world with crazy rules and creatures, as long as the world itself is consistent. I am immediately thrown out of an immersive world whenever I have to backup and say "Wait a second, but before you said.... That doesn't make any sense".

Consistent art goes along with this, and can be troublesome for indie gamers with a lower budget.

 

I agree. And I did say it, though I can see how you might miss it.

As for dev practices that help a player with immersion ... it's probably having an accessible, consistent, predictable world environment, where there can be new things to discover, but it all fits ... nothing jarringly incongruous happens. Basically, the game sets out implicit rules and then follows them.​

 

To be honest, I was skimming as I got nearer to the end of the thread

 

This reminds me of The Gamers: Hands of Fate Extended, which I just watched this weekend. The main character is a role player, who scoffs at card games (and card gamers) because he thinks they have no narrative, no opportunity for immersion. But he finds a game (and gamers) who do construct a rich narrative around their card game, and in the end finds himself becoming immersed in it too.

It's clear that this requires quite a bit of imagination, though — particularly given the repetitive nature of battle-oriented card games.

None of this is computer games, of course, but game design principles may be universal. And it does support the thesis that mechanics don't necessarily dictate immersion, though I do think they're important.

 

I believe mechanics can aid immersion but they can also break it. I also believe that immersion is not the same for all players. Some are easily immersed in a game as long as they enjoy the game play. Others need more. So, as I always say, pick your audience and develop for them.

 

I'm not sure I'm completely in sync with the idea of immersion as expressed here, but if you're speaking of "losing interest and just pushing buttons," that can happen to me very, very easily in a game. Generally speaking, I need to feel I'm using my imagination and creating something in order to get past that.

 

Hopeful, I realize it doesn't work for you, but I must admit, I have a tough time understanding why you don't think it can happen for others. However, I do know people who never get immersed in games the way I do. Yeah, they enjoy them, and get addicted to the achievement, but can equally feel the same way about any game that has those elements. I don't expect everyone to get it, but those of us that do understand.

Since we are a game development forum, you have the choice to develop games that work for you or to make games that work for people different from you. I think it is tough if you don't get it. The fact that there are so many gamers with different definitions of what excites them about a game means that you don't have to make a game for people like me. You have that choice.

 

Possibly you think I'm saying something I'm not. I'm not against you, or against role playing, or immersion in a game as a role player. Maybe my phrasing was clumsy at some point and open to misinterpretation, but I mainly tried to ask what "immersion" means (is it this or is it that?), and then to say that I think as game makers we can help foster immersion - or make a game more compelling - by providing things to do and discover and striving for consistency in game behavior. I also think it is helpful for me, as a player, to have the ability to apply my imagination and create something, whether it is creating a character concept in a RPG or whatever. The various mechanisms games use such as leveling, giving awards, and acquiring items generally only appeal to me if they aid me in creating whatever it is I'm trying to make. But it's a sliding scale. If I'm bored or with friends, I can settle for a game with simple achievements and repetitive action.

And I agree that there should be all kinds of games, and game makers, because there are all kinds of people who play, and as players we may want different things at different times.

 

one thing i feel like mentioning is.. the simple inventory where each item is 1 square, and all items are the same size of 1 square is really unimmersive to me..

i like the diablo.. or path of exile inventory design.. or STALKER inventory
or moreso, the divine divinity inventory design...

.. ive gotten incredibly bored of the 1 square, and everything is same size square items... i just dont feel "this is my item, this is my property" kind of feeling with that... it just feels outdated and lame.. and all the items are auto sorted into a "arranged pile" .. but its like.. just throw another 1x1 square item in the pile..

like, on path of exile, some items are RIDICULOUSLY rare.. and since the inventory works the way it does, it feels more rewarding .. and more of a sense of "yes!!! this is my item" .. you feel that the item has value..

i think having to move items around yourself to free backpack space.. some people think its annoying i guess... but i like it.. it makes the items feel like they are really there, instead of just.. bunch of squares in a pile..

and in stalker, i feel a sense of fear to enter some locations, but i want to go there, to see what items i might find.. and when i find a good gun, or suit i feel satisfied, i can see the whole item, vs other items and feel that the item has a real value, and i can look at the item in the future an remember the "story" behind how i attained the item...

but with 1 square items its like .. "meh all the items are the same thing, whatever.."

i like the IDEA of skyrims items, where you can rotate around the item in 3d in your inventory.. but they executed it wrong...
you look through a list of words, the names of items... and it makes it feel cheap and not satisfying ...