|
Immersion: What the Heck Is It?
By Neil "Enzo" Mouneimne |
||||
|
As in most any vocation, those of us in the combat simulation press have our series of words that get worn and abused. You know, terms that get used over and over again in about a hundred different ways until you can't stand it anymore? This month it looks like the magic word is "immersion". It seems like an awfully vague term, and the way most folks use the word it could stand for almost anything. The goal today is to make an (admittedly vain) attempt to define the meaning of immersion - at least beyond mere jingoism. Immersion by its very definition implies an "insertion" or "plunging". That certainly seems to be a good starting point - the implication that you literally plunge into this alternate game world so that it completely replaces the real world. Gaming being among the best expressions of the escapist pursuits, perhaps the best yardstick to measure the quality of a game is how thoroughly the game creates the illusion of being somewhere else. That still remains a very subjective description. How do you quantify how effectively a game puts you in another world? Can we even agree that immersion is a measure of escape in the first place? To this end we quizzed a few familiar faces from the simulation gaming press and asked the question, "What does immersion mean to you?"
"For me, a computer game is immersive if it dominates my thoughts and senses so thoroughly that I forget I'm just playing a game."
"Immersion means to me: a persistent and believable environment that heightens the sense of disbelief and contributes to the illusion that the war and the individuals in it, especially, the player's alter ego and team-mates, matter."
"Feeling like I'm there. Sucking me in to the experience." - Rod White, PCM&E
"Losing track of the outside world (especially losing track of the passage of time) to some degree; the better the game, the more you lose track."
"...if a sim makes you feel like you'll be letting "someone" down if you leave it before completing a mission/task /race/whatever--that's immersion."
Writers tend to be an independent lot, so it makes it all the more amazing that there's an apparent consensus. Each one basically takes different approaches towards a common concept, although there are two dominant themes. The first theme is "losing time," and the other is the virtual world becoming dominant or equal to the real world - either in replacing stimuli or creating a feeling of "importance" to the virtual world. But how do you recognize it when you see it in a game? At COMBATSIM.COM, we frequently like to describe a game as "extremely immersive", but what is it that makes one game more immersive than another? "To draw me into its world, a game must emphasize just the right combination of elements--a harmonious balance is far more important than excellence in any one area." (Robin) "...If the game is more believable, looks more like the real world, does a better job at helping me care about my alter ego and what happens to my platoon/squad etc, connects events in a more logical and obvious way, is less predictable (while remaining true to reasonable strategic and tactical considerations)... then it is more immersive" (Len) "...If it's a sim it's the feeling of being there, the feeling of being fooled into believing the experience is a real one, forgetting about everything else around you because of it. If it's a strategy game like C&C, or a 3D/shooter it's being drawn in to the game, becoming part of it because of the compelling gameplay, once again being a game so fun in atmosphere that you forget about everything else around you. Becoming one with the game." (Rod) "All parts of the game--interface, story (if it has one), information presentation, environments, etc.--fit together... they flow along without any one part interrupting the experience to a great degree." (Scott) "...It can't really be attributed solely to just a single thing like graphics, sound (which many people tend to underestimate their overall effect on if a sim), or any other feature. But generally overall implementation and the little details are more important for immersion than say photo-realistic terrain or other things that most casual players consider 'realism.'" (Ben) Once again, there is an remarkable degree of agreement. It isn't just one particular thing that makes one game more immersive than another. Rather, it is the whole *instead* of the parts - the synergy - which makes a game succeed in creating a compelling alternate world. |
A Voom With a View (Virtual Cockpits) Personally, I lean towards thinking of immersion in very physical, practical terms. Anything that helps me intuitively feel that the world is real is a big factor towards immersion. From this point of view, virtual cockpits are a really big thing: being able to fly "seat of the pants" in the Longbow 2 cockpit, looking off to one side in EF2000's ground breaking padlock system, or even bouncing in the commander's gun cupola for M1 Tank Platoon 2. These are all designed to really "drop you into the seat".
EF2000's cockpit really deserves special note. For the first time a player could really fly in one direction while "turning your head" in another direction - continuously and smoothly. In fact EF2000 (and F22ADF, for that matter) completely eschewed the traditional bitmap cockpit altogether (something that will likely happen more often in the future as graphics performance improves) in favor of the 3D cockpit. All the orientation cues in the padlock made it clear what direction you're looking relative to the cockpit, so the player knows exactly what direction the enemy was relative to him, and still be able to fly the jet intelligently. At that point dogfighting changed from interpreting a series of odd displays meant to help you chase your enemy around the sky to a relatively simple system that effectively mimics actually sitting in the cockpit. Thus, while one could argue that Falcon 3's multi-window padlock was just as effective as EF2000's, the "through the pilot's eyes" interface is easier to adapt to, more intuitive, and helps to suspend disbelief. Many works on product design have stressed that the ideal interface design is the one that is totally transparent, and "through the eyes" is definitely a step in the right direction.
Another padlock worth mention is the Jane's F-15 padlock. F-15's virtual cockpit tends to be a little short on visual cues when tracking a target, but it offers the greatest degree of realism. The padlock view can be set to represent the restrictions of the pilot's neck. It even models how a pilot has to turn his head from one side to another when trying to keep sight of a bandit at his six. Perhaps even more intriguing was the potential to lose a lock if you took your eyes off of the target for more than a moment. In fact the game only allowed players to padlock targets that they've first acquired visually. In the case of F-15, modeling the "human factors" not only adds to the importance of "lose sight, lose the fight" - but these limitations also help you feel that a real flesh and blood pilot is sitting at the controls, and not merely a keyboard-controlled automaton.
So with all this talk about virtual cockpits, one would think that so-called "Virtual Reality" gear would be just the ticket. The answer to that is that it indeed is, but at present the vision is far greater than the implementation. Just as man dreamed of flying (and made countless failed attempts) over the past centuries, so we can envision the possible benefits of virtual reality equipment, but the technology is simply not mature enough to be enjoyed. Yet imagine just a few of the possibilities for sim players - Apache helicopters (and a handful of modern fighters) aim their sensor gear and weaponry based on the direction the pilot or gunner is looking. In a similar fashion, advanced VR equipment would let players look through their virtual cockpits and aim their optics or guns in exactly the same fashion, - which is much better than merely paging through target lists. Fighter pilots could circle a point on the ground and keep a close eye on it without making any special effort - either for bomb damage assessment, monitoring flight deck conditions on an aircraft carrier, or simply inspecting a possible low-threat target. Even this doesn't touch on how much more realistic dogfighting can be. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view), the usuable display resolution and framerates of current and near-future games are thoroughly outpacing the ability of miniature display and head tracking technologies to keep up, so VR will remain merely an intriguing concept and technology exercise for the forseeable future. Go to Part II
|
|||
|
|
||||
