Is total immersion feasible (poll)?

Hey everyone,

So I remember when I was a young scrap playing Bushido Blade and being blown away with the concept of one hit, one kill, with limbs that could become maimed. The game had no life bar, timer, or GUI of any kind and yet it worked despite removing all of these conventions. It lead me down a path of thinking about how games could be done differently, and that some of the conventions we rely on may not be as necessary as we once thought.

Here's what I'm wondering now, is total immersion feasible?

Let me elaborate.
Could a game be made that has no GUI, no life bar, realistic damage,all in first person, and still work?

And by "realistic damage" I mean that rather than a quantitative value for health, the game would actually track every bone, individual wounds, fatigue, blood pressure, and so on.

And then rather than menus and logs you had to actually maneuver through your items and write down information on your own.

And equipment didn't give stats, you had to just figure it out.

And skills weren't apparent, you had to find them on your own.

Would this type of game ever work do you think?

How could you accommodate for these conventions without any visual cues? Possibly audible ones?

 

Yeah of course it will, I think Skyrim was one of the more minimalist games out there. Which you can see one of their key focus was immersion, it only rendered UI when you needed it to etc. which worked fine.

You're just taking it one step further.

 

No. The combination that kills this idea is realistic damage + first person + no HUD. If any one of those constraints were removed it might work, but as it is, you'd have no idea when you're close to dead.

Think about it: in real life, damage is measured by pain - a sense that video games cannot (and, even if they could, should not) convey.

If I wanted realism, I'd go outside instead of playing video games.

Also, a pet peeve of mine: "Immersive" and "realistic" are not the same thing! "Immersive" doesn't mean the player forgets they're playing a game, it means that fact ceases to matter while playing. Furthermore, sticking too close to real life is actually distracting from this goal - players are used to games being gamey, and games that break from that convention actually make you stop and think "oh, wow, that's really realistic" or "let's see, this is a realistic game, so X strategy won't work", which kicks your brain out of the fully in-game experience for a moment until you get used to it.

 

For some things player should need some sort of feedback. But it's possible to give that feedback in intuitive ways, rather than numeric, or with health bars.

Breathing, blurry vision, and stuff like that could give away how the character is feeling.

Skills could be strictly on the user side. A sword could be handled with the mouse and physics, and the player could learn how to hit just right over time.

Equipment effect could be intuitive, you know a iron shield is going to resist more than wood... why tell the user exactly the numeric value of protection? You can let player judge by him or herself, allow some "mystery" to exist behind each item.

Overall I like your idea, and if done right, I bet there's a market for something like that.

 

.......what.

I literally cannot even respond to this, because anything I would say would be considered flaming.

I will put it in the nicest possible way I can: OP, please ignore this guy's post.

When it comes to game design, this is probably one of the worst post I have ever read on this forum. Not that I have read many posts, mind you, but still.

That is literally all I can say, because that is the nicest thing I can say, and I'd rather not garner moderator attention for speaking what is actually on my mind.

Let us just say that I can guarantee this guy's perspective on games is nothing like the vast majority of gamers, and thus it should be ignored in its entirety if you want to be successful to more than just a niche audience of one.

The answer to the question is an absolute "Yes". Not only it is possible, but it has been done before thousands of times, for hundreds of thousands of people. Immersion doesn't even require a GUI to be removed entirely, although that certainly can help the process.

 

You should make this game and then we'll all know for sure.

 

If you are actually interested in immersion, you need to do your research. I don't mean research by googling articles about immersion or reading about immersive gaming on gamasutra (although both of those are suggested as well). I mean you actively participating in real, gritty research. Start off by finding out how you are immersed. WRITE THIS STUFF DOWN. Categorize the methods, write notes about them, and prioritize them so you know the strength level of each. Next, get into the mindset of wanting to become immersed when playing games, trying actively to BE immersed. Any player who does not actively try to be immersed, will never be immersed and will only see it as a game. However, there are things you can do as a developer one way or another. Your game's 'immersive expression' (my term) will result in pulling the player in, or jolting them out, of immersion.

Once you have done your google research, gamasutra research, and personal research- do the real research. Go out and find gamers in popular forums, in varying genres. Don't forget to poll multiple genres. If you stick only to the 'FPS' genre, you will miss out on key elements of immersion. Trust me, broaden your mind and open it to think outside the box. Ask them all what makes them feel immersed in a game. Find out the common and uncommon 'expressions' that games use to help people become immersed. You will find that some gamers (a minority) will become immersed very easily, some not even requiring any 'immersive expression' from the game. Some types are no assistance required, and immune to jolting effects due to their ability to suspend their imagination. Others will be the opposite, in a greater number, as they refuse to be immersed. Some people don't EVER want to be immersed. Some ego's can't even handle the experience. Some people will always see games as just that: games. Some gather fun from exploiting game mechanics, almost like hacking or enjoyment in mathematics.

So pay attention to these types, and try to take mental note of what they say (not physical note, don't waste your time unless you want to) because it will not be very important. Those who need no assistance and can get immersed in a fantasy world while in Microsoft Excel, have no valuable opinion. Neither do people who will never be immersed or who despise immersion. These are in the minority of people, as most gamers are both willing to be immersed and desiring to be immersed (even if they are incapable of telling you they desire to be immersed; even if they claim the opposite, most people who are WILLING or CAPABLE of being immersed, will desire (like) methods that help them to be immersed, as long as those methods are congruent with the design and feel of the game).

What you want from your research, are those who WANT to be immersed, but have PROBLEMS getting immersed for specific REASONS. Find out what those reasons are, and stop them. Find out the methods used to encourage immersion from those leaning toward the "don't often get immersed" to change their mind. THOSE are the people you REALLY want information from. The types who rarely get immersed, but are still capable of getting immersed.

By finding out how to immerse those types in your game, you will have a greater chance of success. Mind you, it may be impossible for a low budget to immerse these types- but at least you have a better chance of immersion than a low budget game that didn't do their research (even if you can't compete with AAA level graphics budget, you still might be able to beat them in immersion).

Why? Because if you can more often immerse those resistant to immersion (but still willing and unknowingly wanting to be immersed) then the rest of the spectrum from "hard to immerse" to "easy to immerse" will fall into place even better.


Also, take a look at games that are praised for their immersion. For example, Paper Please. It's a low budget, pixel art game. Yet it's one of the most immersive games around. People who play the game FEEL like they are the character. They FEEL for the people they let through. They BECOME jaded realistics because of the harsh reality they have to suffer, changing them from their original kinder selves. It makes them think. Makes them feel.

Also, remember Usability. If the usability is poor, immersion will be poor. A solid interface design is key to immersion, because when the interfacing fails to match what the player tries to do, it is frustrating. Frustrating with the interface is the opposite of immersion.

Special Note: Also, don't fall into the trap of the idiot dev, where permadeath = awesomeness no matter what (and those who complain just suck). There are times when a feature is good, methods and designs when it is applicable, and times when the feature is a horrible idea. Do NOT put immersion over fun. It is a common fad to make a game permadeath, but often the same experience could be had without the need to frustrate most players. Sometimes the feature doesn't even add to the game, and is there because of the fad. Permadeath is an interesting idea, but copying Rogue's (the game) permadeath to the letter is just stupid. Yet that is what most people do. Even games like Dwarf Fortress do not copy Rogue's permadeath to the letter. Instead, any fortress you lose remains in the game forever. You can return and everything will still be there, ready to get a head start. All you lose are the dwarves, which are not very important. You don't lose your work. Permadeath in Dwarf Fortress is for the dwarves, NOT the game, NOT the player, NOT the player's work.

So take special care when thinking about adding a feature from another game. You will most likely be able to enhance that feature. Copying it straight up, especially if the game is old, is usually a bad idea. It's like sticking a component from a 1980's machine inside a computerized machine from 2014. People will raise their eyebrows asking you why you would resort to arcane machinery when it's inferior due to its age. Adjust with the times, and take notice of IMPROVEMENTS to old features, rather than lazy developers who copy features with no innovation.


Sometimes a game being realistic in too many ways will make it less fun. What you want is an immersive, realistic FEEL. Do you want a GAME or do you want a SIMULATOR? There is a difference. You don't have to create a clone of reality to get that feel. You don't have to take away gamey elements to get that feel. Like I said before, a game doesn't even need to remove its GUI to immerse players. For example, when immersed, the GUI becomes second nature and as if in a blind spot. What you have to do is encourage the player to become immersed, and prevent them from being jolted out of immersion the best you can. For example, just because you don't HAVE to take away the GUI, doesn't mean it wouldn't encourage the player to be immersed even more by doing so. MMORPG's often allow the player to minimize their GUI through a simple press of F11. Do you want it obvious? Translucent? Minimalist? Customized to your liking? Edited with mods? Faded out when not in use?

 

I voted "It could be done and it would be a hit!"

But in reality, even if it were done by a AAA studio, it doesn't mean it is a hit.

If people knew what made games a success, they'd have cracked the goose's golden egg.


Horrible games can be successful, bringing in millions.
Great games can be flops, resulting in bankruptcy.
Everything is possible with games.

Also, total immersion would have to be fun to a lot of people to be considered a hit. Depending on what you mean by "total immersion", it may or may not be a hit. Of course, that also doesn't always matter because like I said: the game could be bad and still be a hit. Oh, it also depends on what you consider a "hit".


Anyways, I would have preferred a vote "It can be done, and I think people would be interested in the idea." At the very least, a good attempt at a game. I'd be curious to see it done, but honestly most people don't spend enough time or don't have the resources to make such a game. It requires more than just a good design or interface. You have to figure out how people are immersed, and put it into application. That is not an easy task, even when you have tons of resources devoted to private testers.




You also will have a higher chance of failure (not being a "hit") if you make frustrating features. Sometimes realistic features are not implemented correctly. It sounds like you are wanting more of a virtual reality simulation, rather than a video game made for fun. A game doesn't have to forgoe a GUI menu just to feel realistic. However, when FPS games added the gun GUI inside the game, in the form of being a digital menu on your actual gun, that was pretty awesome. So props to them for that, and you for having the same perspective trying to improve the interface & immersion.

 

Nothing stated in the OP necessarily adds or detracts from "immersion." Immersion does not mean "as realistic as possible" but "presenting the illusion of reality in an unbroken form."

 

I think the OP is really talking about GUI-less game interfaces, which can be part of the equation for a feeling of immersion. Well, in theory at least.

The classic examples of GUI-less interfaces would be Dead Space and Far Cry 2. Dead Space kind of cheated and had the equivalent of the inventory UI (and that sort of thing) just floating in space and stuff like health was a meter on the back of the character instead of on an overlay. Not really much different than a traditional UI when you think about it. Far Cry 2 went pretty far with having the UI represented in-game. Did it help with immersion or was it just kind of annoying? I don't know, but it's telling that Far Cry 3 mostly abandoned that idea and nobody seemed to miss it.

Something like a health bar seems way too abstract to represent in-game very effectively. You can do stuff like flash the screen red, but I'm not sure that's a huge improvement. It'll be interesting to see how that's handled in VR-oriented games.

The most immersive experience I've had was playing iRacing with an Oculus Rift. Playing with a steering wheel controller and seeing the in-game wheel in sync with it, complete with hands that move with it was a trip. Combine that with a gas pedal and brakes, and your interface to the game is completely tactile; everything is 1-to-1 with the game world. So for very literal vehicle sim type experiences, it can be interesting. For traditional games involving characters and fantasy violence, etc, things are much trickier.

I do agree with some of the other responses though. I think you can have a feeling of immersion without necessarily going with a GUI-less game interface. We're getting to the point where some UI info floating in the corner of your vision is part of the real world anyway (Google Glasses or whatnot).

 

I feel compelled to respond to this. I'm curious which parts you felt so strongly about (besides starting with "no, this won't work", which in retrospect is probably not a very constructive attitude and I should have been more tactful).

I'm also pretty sure you've misunderstood my position, because in your subsequent posts in this topic, I didn't disagree with a single thing you said.

Let me put my opinions on immersion in a list and let's see where we actually disagree:

1. The OP conveys a strong "realism == immersion" attitude, which I strongly disagree with. Realism can often help immersion, but it is not absolutely necessary for "total immersion".
2. Less HUD is good! But not because it detracts from realism - it's because it takes your eyes off of the moving, living world behind the HUD.
3. One-hit kill games are great when designed properly! They're very intuitive, they take your eyes off the health bar and keep your eyes on the game, and encourage more "realistic" playstyles of avoiding damage at all costs vs going Leeroy Jenkins for every encounter.
4. "Realistic damage" as the OP described is a feature that would be good for a game that prides itself on being as complex as possible (i.e. a very niche game, one I personally would not play), whereas good no-HUD games tend to be very simple and intuitive. A third-person perspective could possibly make it work in the OP's game, so you could see exactly which parts of your character's body are bruised and bloodied.
5. The OP then gets into a "no stats, no tutorials, just figure it all out yourself" idea. I think, once again, this is a valid goal for a game (although not a game I would enjoy), but counter to the goal of "total immersion" in its normal form, because games like that tend to spawn massive wikis which are pretty much required reads. (Example: how far could you get in Minecraft for PC without a guide?) A player who has to go to a wiki to figure something out is pretty much the opposite of an immersed player. I agree that in a truly immersive game, you should not be verbally told how to do something. But in order for the player to still feel immersed, they must be able to figure it out - but I'll tell you the dirty secret of good game design: whenever you "figure something out" in a well-designed game, you were actually taught it by the designers. They just disguised their tutorial really well so you felt like you learned the skill yourself.

 

Ah, then it was just a matter of miscommunication between us.

Good show ol' chap!

+1 agree


Your post here sounds very different than the first one, because you added all the great details.
I will have to take back what I said now. Curses!!

I think the lack of your constructive attitude might have been what skewed my perspective to misunderstand your post. But it's okay because I didn't have a constructive attitude, because at the time I had to pull in every reserve of willpower to not become a troll. It's just part of who I am, and usually I try to have extra willpower when people don't deserve it (you clearly did nothing wrong, which is why I tried so hard to be as nice as I could at the time). It's a lose-lose battle for me against my inner troll, so I have to redirect that part of me towards people who deserve it (like asshats who pick on people weaker than him) and this community is a great, kind, and helpful lot so you don't see any of that around here, so I wouldn't be surprised if I started looking for people who "deserve" it, or try to poke and prod people until they do deserve it, lmao...

I did not get any of that (above quote) from your first post. However, I did rethink it a brief moment later when I re-read the OP and realized a few things you said could be true because I might have misinterpreted it. I believe I missed a line in the OP that made it more clear now.

Online communication is an interesting beast. It is so difficult for people to communicate everything AND difficult for people to understand what is being communicated. Hell, even when you try to be thorough and respectful by listening to others seriously, it is SO EASY to miss a key word or single phrase in this world of information we call "the internet". So much to take in. It is so incredibly easy for things to sound so different then how people might put it, to the point of both people seeing 'correctly'. Communication is really interesting, and partial miscommunication is probably the source of most conflict online. Even when conflict would still exist, I think miscommunication makes it appear more conflict-y than it is even when it gets heated.

So my apologies, and I'm glad to see I was wrong when interpreting what you said earlier. Glad to see you go into more detail too so I was granted the opportunity to realize we agree almost entirely.

 

This is probably what I missed in the OP.

If this was what he was getting at, then oh dear god no. The person we should be ignoring isn't you, it's the OP.

That isn't fine at all. When a dev has to rely on extensive player-created wiki's to explain their game, they have failed some of the basic skills of game design. *shudders* Plus, that's just being a lazy a-hole dev. "I don't want people to understand my game. Usability? What is that? I'll just let the players teach each other. OH there's a wiki now? I DEFINITELY don't have to do anything now! ZzzZzZz."

It's just shameful when a developer expects people to "figure their game out". They fail to grasp how other users cannot read the dev's mind. They do not think like them, nor are they privy to all the inner workings of the game. How many times have I facepalmed to developers who think players should automatically know how something works, simply because the dev (who CREATED it) knows "so easily". I have spoken with developers before who fail to grasp why their game isn't attracting new users. It's so obvious to an outsider, because those new users quit because they say "This doesn't make sense." or "How do I do THAT? Or that? And that? WTF? I quit, this sucks."

I don't remember the term for that human condition. It's called something "vision". Tunnel vision? Blind vision? Durp vision? Where the person believes "it should be easy" to other people, yet those other people don't know what the person knows. I don't think it's "tunnel vision" but it's a concept close to it?

Oi vei, those types! Blargh!

 

I should mention that the game in question is hypothetical and I don't have any interest in making it in the near future.

True. That's kind of what I meant. There's a great Extra Credits video on the stage design of Super Mario's Level 1-1 that dissects this very well:

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is where the line is between pain in the ass and new mechanics, not really "realism".

Like with the health, I picture simulated wounds would make the player more emotionally invested in their preservation. Like an arrow hits you in Skyrim and it's no biggie, just wait around for a while, pop a potion, or use a healing spell.

But now imagine if that arrow stuck inside you, that it encumbers your movement, slows you down, and can potentially break your bones or shatter if left in. But if you take is out it opens you to the risk of bleeding out and infection if you don't have proper facilities near by.

That's the kind of level of engagement I'm wondering is possible. The kind that make the player really think about their circumstances, and not just X# HP, go to X on map, talk to X person from quest log with beacon on their head.

Which also means having the play write their own journals and maps IRL.

Hell, I'd even like to see voice recognition come to the point where you have to initiate conversations and work out the quests on your own.

This may sound a little off the deep end, but remember that it wasn't too long ago that reloading was new to video games. Maybe we're ready to have players take it to the next level is all.

 

@CarterG81: That was perhaps the most civil Internet miscommunication I've ever seen!

I believe the line is exactly here: When new mechanics are introduced in a controlled manner, just one or two at a time, not moving on until the player has all but mastered the new mechanic and most of its implications, they will build into a deep, intuitive, and perhaps even immersive game. (Intuition and immersion, I feel, are very closely related - intuition is closer to the subconcious, while players who have to actively figure out game mechanics with rational thought are more distracted from the gameplay. Not to say rational thought is bad in game, but it should be reserved for strategy and tactics, not "what happens when I press X")

When new mechanics are introduced all at once, or in an unbounded and uncontrolled environment, you have yourself a very complex and niche game.

That's a very interesting idea. I've considered things like this in the past, and always ran into this issue which I've called "exponential failure" (I'm sure there's a better name that real game designers use). Basically, if players are punished for failure (i.e. getting hit with an arrow) by the game getting harder (i.e. you move slower), they will most likely continue to fail (i.e. they will continue to get hit with arrows because now their character is too slow to dodge them).

However, the situation you've described seems very interesting - say I took out all my enemies pretty easily, but I took an arrow in the knee. Now that this fight is over, I'm forced into a different metagame playstyle (perhaps becoming a city guard for a few days while the wound heals?) Now you've just added a whole new dimension to the game. The disadvantage is that now you have a very slow iteration cycle (time between taking the arrow and receiving the punishment - and then subsequently getting another opportunity to dodge an arrow), which makes intuitively learning the skill (i.e. dodging arrows) harder.

The NES era was like this. I'm going to take the fact that the industry has moved away from this style as a sign that it's not well received by the general public. I've recently seen a trend, though, where many games will let you mark points of interest on an in-game map so that you can come back later. And, of course, there's the DS Zelda games, which let you draw notes, arrows, and symbols directly on the map, and often required you to do so.

Voice recognition is easy. Convincing and relevant responses to all possible player input is not. Until you have an AI of near-human level intelligence and speech capability (at which point we have bigger philosophical issues than game design), players will typically just get frustrated by the fact that they have to ask for a quest very specifically (I could say "why are all the chairs gone?" and get the quest, but not "who stole my seat?")

 

Two words,
Mirror's Edge.





No HUD, it is the most immersive game I have played so far.


Also, "The Forest" is another one which looks pretty immersive and it is without HUD too.











http://survivetheforest.com

 

Conceptually a realistic damage modeling system for FPS and RPG games could work very well... but at the same time you want to avoid making the game 'Nintendo hard' for accessibility. As others have posted, reducing the user interface as much as possible is also a good choice, and is certainly important along with things like sound design, visuals, and artificial intelligence.

I've been working on and off on some concepts for a game with similar design goals (right now I'm stuck trying to figure a good way to develop a truly massive world without resorting to hand mapping thousands of square km of area, but that's a different issue).

Accurate damage modeling is something much more often tackled by flight simulators these days. This doesn't mean that it can't be usable for a FPS or RPG game... as the massively modded copy of STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl I have on my computer can attest (I changed hit modeling so that only hitting certain spots could result in instantaneous death, while other locations can cause a character to bleed out... so shooting a man in the leg won't kill him instantly, but he could bleed out depending on the severity of the wound).

Sound ques and the ability to physically check yourself for wounds would be extremely important parts of the game's design. As a result, you'd need visual feedback of damage to parts of your body, and so forth... this would result in much more complex character modeling (graphically and hit boxing) then in most games as each visible body part would need at least one damage state (and for RPGs it may need treated states for bandages and so forth). For the most realistic depictions, you'd need more then one damage state, and probably something like a 'destroyed' state.

The greatest difficulty would be animations for humanoid and other organic characters in the game, as the inability to walk properly due to broken bones and so forth. I honestly don't see this being easily solved without using some sort of procedural animations.

Now, I would tell you to shy away from tracking every single bone break and individual injury as the amount of drain that'd cause in terms of calculations and memory would rapidly spiral out of control. You don't need to keep track of every bone in the wrist, every rib in the rib cage, or individual teeth. I'd also tell you to do a lot of research in the fields of trauma and weaponry if you intend to do this, as you may find it surprising how much punishment the human body can actually take.

The classic FPS hit boxes (Head, Neck, Arms, Chest, Stomach, Hip, Legs, Feet, Hands) are a decent framework for a starting point, to which I'd add the Brain, Spine, and Heart... as areas that would result in instantaneous or nearly instantaneous death most of the time. You could also add the lungs as having one of them collapse could gravely shorten a character's life expectancy. Cut veins and arteries could be chance based depending on the hit box, and modeling the effects of the rib cage and other bones would either require an additional set of hit boxes or percentage chance for the existing hit boxes.

Now... other immersive elements to discuss.

In the case of the RPG, inventory management is something all of us are familiar with... but think about this. Instead of the usual inventory screen, imagine you hit 'i' on your keyboard. Your character pulls off their backpack and opens it, and as you scroll the mouse wheel, the character pulls out the items that have been put in the backpack. It'd be a simple and effective way to make inventories immersive, and probably stop people from frantically hitting the healing potions in a fight.

Little things help build immersion... be it the stupid comments about walking around nude in Skyrim to freedom of movement. Being able to stand at the top of a mountain and look out into the distance, or watching a storm slowly roll in, all of these things help build immersion.

One thing I think helps the most is making the world seem active and alive. Another idea is to make npcs react in a more natural way... I almost wonder if a system similar to the sims relationships, desires, and needs would be of use in this.

After all, a predator only hunts when hungry...

Still, I don't think any of us want something like a 'bladder need' for playing an RPG. Thirst and food, sure... but not to take a dump.

 

Thank you.

As a result of this miscommunication and me viewing a lot of people mindlessly defending something I argued against (while ignoring a lot of my points in exchange for subtle ad hominem) I realized that...well, perhaps a more proper format for disagreement would be appropriate. Simply talking to people is not effective enough, especially if someone wants to punch through their cognitive bias or mindless fanaticism. Maybe seeking rational thought for all sides will help communication and thus education.

When you organized your statements into talking points, we found out we both agreed with one another. It was a great format.

Perhaps if we did this more often we can help better not only the community but the internet in general. Perhaps (if successful) other forums will come to adopt formal formatting in arguments, and the internet will become a more friendly place.

At the very least, we can see what works anyway.

 

Sorry to take so long to reply (I've been on vacation), but World Machine would be perfect for this.

 

I agree. I prefer the older, more accurate, more accurate term "suspension of disbelief". Immersion is just when you stop being sceptical to a game environment and accept it within the confines of a particular context, be it book or film or computer game.

 

Realism and immersion are not the same or even nessesarly correlated.
Also what causes immersion and by how much depends mostly on the person playing it, some people find different things immersive differently than others. So id say it's impossible to make a "definitive" fully immersive game.

 

Relevant: video from The Onion

 

My genetically modified dunmer vampire is going to be so OP.


Back to the topic... The unasked question I have is how would the player play off the mechanics. If you have limbs being damaged, would the player be able to do anything about that?

It's totally possible to convey that the PC's leg is damaged. The issue is then whether the player can treat it without bringing up a menu or whether the player is just hobbled(ing) until the end.

The biggest problem I see is how can complex mechanics work without menus. I've seen examples of GUI-less games but the issue is that they are always simple and throw away complexity to actually present all of it's systems' information.

Receiver might be the best example of a HUDless game, and that's only after you stop needing the giant list of keyboard commands to manipulate the gun.