5795815
story
Comments: 130 +- Games: Re-Examining the Immersion Factor For First-Person Shooters on Saturday September 05, @02:31AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgamesfps.gif); width:81px; height:49px;
fps
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgames.gif); width:68px; height:77px;
games
An opinion piece on Gamasutra looks into the common perception that a first-person view provides a much more immersive experience in shooters. The author argues that this concept needs to be reconsidered, as immersion nowadays is more dependent on what you see, rather than how you see it. The question is further complicated by ever-improving technology and new control schemes. "It's important to realize that making a first-person game almost necessarily means making a game for the dedicated gamer. Innovations on the interface side could help lower the casual block, perhaps through the Wii, Project Natal, or the PS3's new motion controller. Regardless, it will take a lot of work and concerted effort to penetrate the casual audience with a first-person camera. The question is whether we even need to, when there are so many camera systems that games have yet to fully explore."
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Reminds me of the old Star Trek arcade game (Score:3, Interesting)
The Star Trek arcade game [wikipedia.org] (you remember -- the kind you had to put quarters in) had both a first person view (ok, first ship view) and a top-down view. The first person view was nice eye-candy, but a useless distraction in actual combat. The top-down view had so much more usable information and no distracting eye-candy. It was all you needed to play the game effectively (as long as you wanted on one quarter once you mastered it).
That doesn't mean Crysis would be better without the first-person view. It's the realism that makes that kind of game.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That doesn't mean Crysis would be better without the first-person view. It's the realism that makes that kind of game.
No, it's the framerate. AvP2 is much more immersive than Bioshock on my integrated video card.
Re: (Score:2)
While technically correct it's out of the scope of what's being discussed.
No, it's not. The very act of making the game more "realistic" is what destroys any chance of me being able to play it without frustration.
In an FPS, where the gameplay requires a response time as fast as possible both from you and your computer, you don't really watch the shiny effects while being "immersed".
For the record, the laptop in question is newer than the game I tried to play.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What AC is trying to say is that frame rate is not an inherent characteristic of a game. Any game, if played on the wrong hardware, can have frame rate issues. So for the purpose of evaluating a game you cannot look at frame rate. That is like saying Zelda sucks because you don't have a nunchuk controller and it requires one. Get the correct hardware before playing top end games. Also, laptops are not 'gaming rigs' regardless of the marketing that the company used to sell it to you but that is a diffe
Re: (Score:2)
What AC is trying to say is that money is not an inherent characteristic of a job. Any job, if done while living in the wrong house, can have income issues. So for the purpose of evaluating jobs you cannot look at income.
Apologies for not buying $1000 hardware for a $20 game.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a terrible analogy since income is an inherent characteristic of a job. You work the job and you get a defined paycheck. Also, quit being so narcissistic, it seems you have had a very specific incident with a specific game and then you are extrapolating that out to "frame rates (which aren't constant for a game) are a measure of a GAMES immersiveness". Obviously if you tried to follow this through logically it wouldn't make any sense. Let me explain.
Frame rate alone can be a factor in immersion,
Re:Reminds me of the old Star Trek arcade game (Score:5, Informative)
Movies are shot at 24fps. This has been the standard for almost 90 years. It hasn't had to change, despite technical improvements, because the eye and brain haven't changed.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the eyes of aging directors and the average eyes of the audience are crap. Also, motion blur helps.
But it's still distracting. You just learn to ignore it if you don't have the budget to make your own films. "Good enough for most" is all you get, I'm afraid.
Re:Reminds me of the old Star Trek arcade game (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair, there are studies pointing that this is due to the frames in movies having ghost images embedded.
With photo-realistic games, each frame is rendered separately and thus more are needed to recreate the illusion of continuous motion.
What's fun is that Anime and old school sprite games are completely unaffected or even improved by having a much lower frame-rate.
It turns out that if you avoid trying to be realistic, immersion is easier.
Parent
Re:Reminds me of the old Star Trek arcade game (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There is relatively little "realism" in a first-person view.
Real field of vision is much wider than an FPS gives you, since most of us have peripheral vision. I always feel like I've suddenly developed tunnel-vision when I try First-Person pov.
A counterexample... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Portal is an exception. I hate FPSs and I paid good money to play that game. It's also pretty much the one single first-person game that isn't about a testosterone-laden game of "RAR I SHOT YOU".
Re: (Score:2)
Portal is an exception. I hate FPSs and I paid good money to play that game.
Duh. It's not a FPS, it's a FPPG.
Re:A counterexample... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Games don't need to get shorter... story arcs do.
Imagine if GTA 4, had 3 short character campaigns instead of one long one.
I enjoyed the story, but never got around to finishing the game.
A lot of games have been guilty of taking a story that's only worth a couple of hours and stretching it out to fit a 20 or 30 hour game.
It's not necessary.
But of course if a publisher sees that your game has more than one story, they're going to say "Let's package this up as individual games, and sell them at full price, ev
Re: (Score:2)
How do you want that playthrough? Stealthy? Kill em all? Want to explore every inch of the world, pick up every powerup or use the bonus items that you won on the last playthrough?
No problem. You will get a reward for each and every way you complete the game and unlimited saves.
A lot of games could benefit from the lessons of the MGS series.
I loved that game so much I paid £300 for it (I bought a PS3 to play it on).
Re:MOst FPS are 7-8 hours (Score:2)
I think you'll find most FPS these days are pretty lame at only 7-8 hours gameplay. There a few that topp 8 hours and I've not played a new one that lasted longer than 8 hours play in years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vision is not the only immersion factor. (Score:5, Insightful)
My thoughts are really disjointed tonight, so forgive me.
I do agree with the author, sometimes a first-person perspective may not be the only way to immerse a gamer. Video games, especially first person shooters, used to rely solely on vision. The original Wolfenstein 3D on the PC did not have a rumble feature or 5.1 surround sound, but was still considered groundbreaking because of the perspective it put the gamer in.
The best games, however, do more with existing technologies, such as using a vibration in the controller to indicate either a pulse or that danger is nearby. The use of dark ambient music, creaking noises in floorboards while walking around, or the sudden screeching noise when something pops out also helps. While we cannot do anything with our sense of taste of smell in video games yet, (thank GOODNESS...) we can at least emphasize certain sounds and touch a little more than just pretty graphics.
Going along with the article, the first person perspective brings the dilemma of the "silent hero", because that hero is supposed to be you. However, you rarely get to interact with anything beyond acknowledging an NPC's request to retrieve something for them. You don't get to forge a bond with any of the characters based on your personality traits. I think this is key -- I was way more into Final Fantasy VII because of the level of interaction with the characters. You get to know them and you get to like them. Rockstar Games tried to get characters more involved with NPCs in GTA IV by having the players go out and spend time with them, but you really never get to know them. You go out with them, but only hear side-conversation going on. You're not really allowed to say anything in that game beyond clicking on the NPC to get the next quest.
There are still limitations. There are only a finite number of dialog choices and while you can allow the gamer to make their own dialog (as with the original Police Quest series), NPCs won't understand most of it and will only give canned responses. MMORPG's will allow gamers to say whatever they want to other gamers, but are still bound to the NPC's world. Most games don't have that story-telling feature to allow the gamers to create their own quests.
So yes, it's not all about the first-person perspective. Sound and touch also play a role, but the biggest factor of all is the depth of interaction with other characters and the unique, likable personalities that let you identify with them.
Re:Vision is not the only immersion factor. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree strongly with the idea that Wolf3D relied only on visuals to promote a sense of immersion.
"Mein Leben!"
Or maybe it was, "Meine Liebe." I never could quite tell. But, the audio was a significant factor in making Wolf3D interesting. The visuals get more credit, and they were certainly very significant at the time. But, hearing the German soldiers call out in real human voices was something that made the visuals seem like they were showing you a real world. The music also set the mood and helped you get into it.
Playing Wolf3D without SoundBlaster and Adlib support was just disappointing.
Parent
Thoughts on Bioshock, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Halo (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed on immersion using all the available features: when I was playing through Bioshock I got so used to listening for creaking floorboards, doors and footsteps that every time I heard a noise in the house whilst working I would have the urge to spin around wielding a wrench.
Oblivion is interesting in that it's a first-person (you can play 3rd person but reviews say it's not so good) RPG, including some ongoing conversations with characters who give you quests and sometimes help you. To a certain extent
(not so) silent hero. (Score:2)
Going along with the article, the first person perspective brings the dilemma of the "silent hero", because that hero is supposed to be you. However, you rarely get to interact with anything beyond acknowledging an NPC's request to retrieve something for them. You don't get to forge a bond with any of the characters based on your personality traits.
Never played DN3D, did you ? I guarantee you're ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum after you leave the game, however well bred and polite you may be before.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to amplify that point by noting that vision in video games, even with the newer 3d display technology, is far from human quality. The dynamic range of the human eye is pretty impressive, and if you take an individual with good night vision and one with more average night vision, you'll have trouble finding a happy medium in rendering settings that won't leave the user feeling disoriented.
Leaving out peripheral vision, you still have the uncomfortable divorcing of visual and sound information from
immersion also isn't the only factor (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of things you might want out of a game, of which immersion is only one. You might also want engagement, fun, thought-provokingness (okay, maybe less from an FPS), and lots of other qualities. There even some research [stanford.edu] showing that perfect immersion might harm some of these other properties, and may not be the sweet spot--- playing games on some perfectly immersive, like the Star Trek Holodeck, might not actually be what a lot of people want. I know I personally enjoy some mediation between myself and the virtual world; I like to feel that I'm playing a game, not actually in the world. But then i like turn-based and 2d games, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are a lot of things you might want out of a game, of which immersion is only one.
This.
The author also seems to be assuming game developers are using the first person perspective for the sake of immersion. This is not necessarily true. The camera greatly influences gameplay. Aiming a gun is much more natural from a first person view than some sort of overhead view with a crosshair floating over your character's head or something. Maybe the developers are first deciding that a first person view is optimal for gameplay and then trying to make the game as immersive as possible given the cho
The most immersive game. (Score:5, Insightful)
The most immersive game I've ever played is Nethack.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's because you're standing in the {.
Re: (Score:2)
Can play one, can play them all (Score:3, Informative)
Sematics... of course... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's be clear about some issues with this question --
For one.. let's talk about "aim": The third person shooter can never be a natural "shooter" in the sense that aiming one's weapon will always be a product of interface, and not visceral line-of-sight.
This of course, is fine for some games -- but if we're going to call a game a "shooter", then we should incorporate the visceral sense of "aim" into that definition.
If "aim" is something that is virtualzed -- as it is in 3rd person shooters -- then the game is by definition not as visceral -- and *may* not be as immersive. (But of course this all depends on one's definition of "immersive". If one defines a visceral -- "real" experience as "immersive" then 1st person wins. If one defines other plot/strategic elements as immersive -- then maybe not....)
.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. And to add another point...
To this day, human and animal motion is unrealistic in games. Skin, lothing, and hair rendering has gotten better by leaps and bounds but still sucks because of lack of detail. Wounds are not realistic. And this is all so bad that within a few seconds of playing any game you just know it is a game. Perfect immersion is impossible for that reason alone (at least for me). First person view helps with this because at least your own character is moving in ways that you do not
Kind of thinking about this the other night, (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know but maybe games have support for triple-headed displays ? If that were possible then I might consider adding two more moni
Graphics are the least important (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few games that really got to me:
1) Alone in the dark. The first incarnation of this. The graphics were horrible but the immersion was immense. This game had me actually scared of what was coming next.
2) Half-life 1. Much more so then Half-life 2.
3) Alien vs. Predator. Where you play the squishy marine, and you just gone inside a long tunnel. You end up in a chamber where one of you fallen comrades is, only to find he's been encapsulated into a wall. Then your motion sensor goes berzerk, and you start running.. back through that long tunnel. When you look back now and then the walls and ceiling are crawling with predators trying to catch up with you. Every now and then you have to hit a switch to close a door. _This_ was some fucking immersion, nearly had a heart attack, but I'm still happy I made it out of that tunnel alive.
4) Some incarnation of Splinter Cell. I played the whole game with the self-imposed restriction that I wouldn't kill a single character. Turns out there were 2 situations in there where I was obligated to kill a key figure. However by stocking up on stun gas grenades I was able to defeat one 'boss' by stunning him (after _many many_ tries). Come the cutscene, he was dead ;)
5) System Shock 2. Oh god.. I'm alone on a huge space ship.. Somebody hold me!
There are a number of other games that I can't recall the name of, but immersion seems to be independent of graphics to me, as long as the graphics don't hinder your immersion. To reach immersion I think you need to heed the following points:
- Don't put anything in the game that will irritate the user. I'm talking interface here, so go for a minimal, but useful HUD. Use sane controls that can be reconfigured by the user to his/her liking. Make sure you take out the bugs.
- Make it a whole. Make sure there is a backstory and that the character and his/her actions fit into it. Let the user find out that there is a whole galaxy out there with strange and wondrous things. You don't have to show it all, but make some references to things that 'happened' without going into too much detail. Leave the gamer with questions. This is the reason why Star Wars was so popular as a genre.
- No jumping puzzles.
- Make the game challenging. Make it 'hard' without actually even having be hard. But give the gamer a sense of accomplishment. You don't do this by making him have to shoot 30.000 of identical aliens btw.
- Give the user choices. _REAL_ choices, not a 'good' and 'evil' choice that end up with the same result anyway. Give the user some actual influence in the game. World of Warcraft is an example of how not to do this. Everybody is 'special' but you are indistinguishable from all the other players.
- _NO JUMPING PUZZLES_, no really
- If you do introduce puzzles, make them logical. On the other end of the spectrum is Monkey Island, where you have to combine the extendable rubber hand with the pepper shaker so you can make the skeleton sneeze to blow out the candle so the room goes dark so that you can safely steel the treasure without the skeleton seeing it. It's just not logical. :)
- Make the player care for the main character and cohorts. You can do this by not making him invulnerable. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of horrible games that implement the 'one glance from an enemy and you are dead' principle, but that is not good either.
- Personal development. RPG's are fun because you get to 'build' your own character by improving those things you enjoy/think are important. So introduce some RPG bits to your FPS. Classic examples are Deus Ex and Bioshock. Don't let players have it all, make them choose.
I can think of a lot more things, but graphics is not one of the components that define immersion in my book.
PS.
(no jumping puzzles)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed out:
A forcefield is not glass, duh. It's also not made of matter. :D
Re: (Score:2)
"- Make the game challenging. Make it 'hard' without actually even having be hard. But give the gamer a sense of accomplishment. You don't do this by making him have to shoot 30.000 of identical aliens btw"
See: Serious sam : The First encounter
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/serioussamthefirstencounter/index.html [gamespot.com]
One of the best games since Doom / Doom 2. Sometimes there is a LOT to be said for simple over the top arcade game style.
Still one of my all time favorite games.
Re: (Score:2)
Playing a game with cheats is like watching a movie you can interact with.
Some of us like that, honest.
Re: (Score:2)
- Don't put anything in the game that will irritate the user. I'm talking interface here, so go for a minimal, but useful HUD. Use sane controls that can be reconfigured by the user to his/her liking. Make sure you take out the bugs.
SS2 would not have been the same without the bugs. *shudders*
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your Monkey Island statement. The good MI games all had mostly sensible puzzles (except for the chicken with the pulley in the middle, that was supposed to be obscure). I thought the fourth MI was pretty bad (it shipped with a walk-through) as many of the puzzles in that game didn't even make a lick of sense, but in the same breath I don't really consider MI4 a true MI game.
I'd recommend you have a look at the new Tales of MI games that Telltale is releasing. They're excellent so far and
FP is not inherently immersive (Score:2)
I agree with the author that games are not immersive by simply being FP. I've never played a game where I forgot I was playing a game. That, for me, would be the total immersion for which FP perspective strives. In fact, I kind of find "immersion" being touted as a major factor in why I should buy a game annoying (hello, Fallout 3). No matter what, I will never forget I'm sitting in my easy chair playing my console or at my desk looking at my 20" monitor. There's just way too much between me and the ac
Biggest obstacle (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what's the biggest obstacle to my immersion in games such as Call of Duty or GTA? The way it's all scripted. It's a bit too much like a movie, the game designers want too much control over what I see. As a result, I know the story is waiting for me, no matter if shit is hitting the fan all around me and that NPCs are yelling that I have to hurry up. I know that if I die it's a minor convenience, I just have to do again exactly what I did for the last 40 seconds or so (at most, except for GTA, where every time you fail you have to do the same fucking thing, seeing the same cutscenes, for minutes all over again) and try again until I succeed.
These game fail me at immersion because they're just the sophisticated equivalent to turning the pages of a book. The story will unfold as scripted no matter what you do, even if it might need repeats (funny thing about failing, failing is always mostly non-canon. That too ruins the immersion.). I was really excited the first time I played GTA III, because I was really into it, until I failed a mission. I wondered a bit scared what would happen next, and to my relief I could try it again. Then I felt less immersed, because I can kill my boss, I can kill myself, I can fuck up everything, but the story will have to unfold, even I suck really hard.
Such games may be geographically open, in that you can go anywhere, but everything that matters is on rails. Well actually that's something that Battlefield 1942 got right. You could get defeated, it was canon, you didn't *have* to win, the war unfolded as you were making it happen. Well the idea wasn't pushed very far in that your failures didn't affect the rest of what would happen.
TL;DR : The problem with games is that they're full of very carefully created content; places and storylines, to the point that the designers make sure that you get to see all of their content. They wouldn't design a whole map if odds were you'd fail to get there. I think that instead of designing maps, they should design worlds, and instead of designing carefully crafted stories they should make great AIs so that their interactions with you result in a story (i.e. in a war game, have strategic AIs, which decide of where to take the war next as to try to defeat the other strategic AI. In other words, AIs would play a RTS, while you'd play one of their units).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about it? (Never played it so I have no idea what you mean)
I've never understood the immersion argument (Score:2, Interesting)
If it wasn't a FPS, then I would be able to see enemies that my character would not be able to see. With a third person angle, I would know what was around the next corner without having to put my character in danger.
This would then lead to me attempting to figure out how far around the corner I had to be to be able to shoot the enemy.I don't want to go to far because then they will see me. In most FPS, if the wall isn't blockin
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe immersion is why Doom was written as a First Person Shooter.
One reason may have been that they didn't want to pay the cost of rendering your character too (an inherent advantage of FPSes)...
Finally, don't even think you can pull off any real 3D aiming in the Z axis. The best you can do with a third person view is really bad 2D aiming. No more head shots.
Actually RE4 & 5 pull this off quite well -- your weapon has a "laser sight", that projects a beam where it's aiming, and gets a little brighter where it hits the enemy. This really works great, and is quite intuitive and fast. [For sniper rifles, it switches to a first-person scope view though...]
TPS's (Score:2, Informative)
I know this is about FPS's, but I think this issue somewhat applies. Mod me offtopic if you must:
You know how to *ruin* a game's immersion factor? Make it *third person* behind the friggin' back.
Thankyou, Dead Space, I forever will appreciate the giant, virtual avatar taking up half my screen as I desperately attempt to maneuver the camera to see what unseen monster has popped up out of nowhere to slice me in half. Kudos to Resident Evil!
Relevant VGCats strip. (Score:2)
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=282 [vgcats.com]
Enough said.