Strategy Informer interviews Pete Hines

Instead of being a little pixel sliding around a satellite image of the wasteland, you actually get to walk around and explore it.

I thought that was obvious.
 
No in fact it isn't.

How does staring at a bunch of fake shit rendered in 3d, none of which is real enough looking to convince you that you are "in the game", suddenly immerse you more effectively in the Fallout universe than the original Fallout did?

lets try it in soundbites so we're speaking the same language here:

YOU DONT GET TO EXPLORE SHIT.

There is a player character.
Then there is a player.

YOU are the player.

the player character walks around the gameworld, but is not you.

If you are convinced that you are really walking around the gameworld in oblivion beause your console game is rendering a big bloom filled explosion of copied and pasted trees all over a TV screen, then you are a fool.

That is the type of immersion you are using as a basis of your argument.

It's the type of immersion that only the insane and the truly stupid can actually experience.

FPP is not naturally more immersive than any other style of perspective.

NO amount of repeating that fallacy will make it true.


for example, if I can walk around as a "pixel" on a satellite image and feel that my character is traveling a long distance through the gameworld's wasteland then I'm immersed in the game.

If I walk my character that same distance in FPP all the while staring at his ass or his hand with a sword in it, as he walks past a bunch of fake looking trees, identical rocks and ruins every couple of miles that were cut and pasted without architectural shadows and I feel like he's a real person (or me) in a real world, then I'm imagining things.
 
So.. using that logic it is more immersive to watch a pixel floating around the screen, praying you find some random location that you can actually sink your teeth into... and yet all you get is a random encounter with a merchant fighting some raiders on a screen with a few rocks and a hundred trees copy and pasted that look exactly the same as the ones in the random encounter you JUST saw, with a merchant fighting off some molerats.

Hehe, I really fail to see how your logic makes any sense whatsoever. You can argue that point any way you want, but it sounds to me that what you're really looking for is a good Fallout LARP, or text-based RPG. You're just not going to find that. Ever.
 
Ghostsauce said:
Hehe, I really fail to see how your logic makes any sense whatsoever. You can argue that point any way you want, but it sounds to me that what you're really looking for is a good Fallout LARP, or text-based RPG. You're just not going to find that. Ever.
Click to expand...

um, how did that nonsensical example use any logic, much less the logic that I used which you supposedly don't understand?

apparently you also don't understand the term LARP because that is exactly the opposite of what Fallout was, how it worked, and what fans of the series want from a sequel.


what I'm saying is that immersive does not mean:

convinces the player that they are in the game in an abstracted state of virtual reality

this is what FPP was meant to do and it has yet to live up to that goal.


immersive actually means this:

convinces the player that their character is interacting with a world that's just as alive and has as much depth as the player character.

perspective has nothing to do with that.


this directly refutes your argument that Fallout 3 will immerse one more deeply into the universe of Fallout than the original game will, solely because it is in FPP and Fallout wasn't.

discuss.
 
Heh, you're arguing tooth and nail that your point of view is better because you believe it, when truly it's a purely subjective topic and all are entitled to their opinion.

I don't think you're right. For me, a beautifully rendered landscape is more immersive than being forced to use my imagination because the graphics suck so hard. To you, yes this directly diffutes my argument, but only because you're basing your entire argument off of your own opinion. As am I.

In my opinion, which I'm entitled to, Fallout 3 is more immersive and I can enjoy it on a massively different level that I could ever enjoy another Fallout 1 or 2.

@above, I'm not criticising the original Fallouts. I bought and played and sincerely enjoyed them when they came out. A decade ago.
 
It's fallout in today's graphical and processor capabilities.(Heck no they didn't have today's graphics back then, don't bother arguing that).

Oblivion + guns = Fallout. We've no reason to believe that the humor and all the other elements that made us love the first two aren't present in this.
 
Ghostsauce said:
It's fallout in today's graphical and processor capabilities.(Heck no they didn't have today's graphics back then, don't bother arguing that).

Oblivion + guns = Fallout. We've no reason to believe that the humor and all the other elements that made us love the first two aren't present in this.
Click to expand...

The same year I played Fallout I also played Half Life and Unreal.

Don't sit there and try to suggest that the original Fallout would have been a first person shooter, but wasn't because the tech wasn't there. It was.

Fallout was designed as a pen and paper RPG emulator. Not a fucking action game. They actually *chose* to make the game the way it was.
 
I'm not arguing "opinion" here and I gave you plenty of steps to handhold you through the logic.

You effectively said F3 will be more immersive than FO just because it's in FPP.

That is untrue because FPP doesn't make any game automatically more immersive than the next.

this line of reasoning can be arrived at by stepping through the logical breakdown and descriptions of immersion in video gaming that I have provided you.

Perspective is, at most, only one element of immersive game design.

Without the rest of the elements all you have is a 3D mockup.

without correctly used lighting and shadows, interactivity of environments and npcs, such things as ambient noises and scripted sequences of actions performed by elements of the gameworld that act independently of the player character, you do not have an immersive gameworld.


Now to my "opinion":

I don't believe bethesda is capable of any of these other aspects of immersive game design, and they are barely making the grade with their "next-gen" engine from 4 years ago.

You can see this by playing oblivion which I'm sure you do.

Fallout 3 isn't up to the graphical and processor abilities of todays computer hardware.

It's only up to par with some crappy consoles that are shitty little PCs stuffed into boxes that are too tight and sold to imbeciles.

My PC will rape an xbox360 in terms of resolution, FPS, and picture quality, and it's so old it doesn't have a single pci-e slot on the mobo.
 
whirlingdervish said:
I'm not arguing "opinion" here and I gave you plenty of steps to handhold you through the logic.
Click to expand...

But it's your logic. Not necessarily anyone else's. This is a subjective argument and though you're entitled to your opinion, you can't tell anyone else how to think or you look a little insane.


whirlingdervish said:
You effectively said F3 will be more immersive than FO just because it's in FPP.

That is untrue because FPP doesn't make any game automatically more immersive than the next.
Click to expand...

Yep that's my PoV, and FPP IMHO does make a game more immersive because you are experiencing a world from a first person point of view. You are seeing exactly what you would be seeing if you were actually walking through that world, rather than a top down bird's eye view which doesn't happen in reality.

whirlingdervish said:
this line of reasoning can be arrived at by stepping through the logical breakdown and descriptions of immersion in video gaming that I have provided you.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I've read and understand your responses and I don't buy it. I believe your logic is strewn by your overwhelming nostalgia.


whirlingdervish said:
Perspective is, at most, only one element of immersive game design.

Without the rest of the elements all you have is a 3D mockup.

without correctly used lighting and shadows, interactivity of environments and npcs, such things as ambient noises and scripted sequences of actions performed by elements of the gameworld that act independently of the player character, you do not have an immersive gameworld.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I just haven't seen any evidence in all the reviews and all the footage from F3 that these elements do not exist in this next installment.



whirlingdervish said:
Now to my "opinion":

I don't believe bethesda is capable of any of these other aspects of immersive game design, and they are barely making the grade with their "next-gen" engine from 4 years ago.

You can see this by playing oblivion which I'm sure you do.

Fallout 3 isn't up to the graphical and processor abilities of todays computer hardware.

It's only up to par with some crappy consoles that are shitty little PCs stuffed into boxes that are too tight and sold to imbeciles.

My PC will rape an xbox360 in terms of resolution, FPS, and picture quality, and it's so old it doesn't have a single pci-e slot on the mobo.
Click to expand...

So basically you just don't like consoles. That's the root of your entire argument right there, fortified by nostalgia. Unfortunately we're not exactly debating the quality of a console, and I could care less what quality of PC you have. I have played Oblivion and I don't really like it, I found it to be stale because the storyline and setting are not to my liking. But replace those with Fallout's storyline(s) and setting and I believe we are in for a massively fun game.
 
you may have read what I wrote but you did not understand it.

:(

Your opinion on what makes a game more immersive does not trump the proven fact that immersive game design does not require first person perspective. (that thing that you say automatically makes a game more immersive, isn't actually very important at all to making an immersive gameworld)

furthermore, for the sake of repeating myself:

YOU ARENT THE ONE WHO IS SUPPOSED TO 'BE' IN THE GAME.

You have a player and a player character.

one is you.

the other is the character in the rpg game that you are leading around with commands.

if the player character can act completely out of context with it's gameworld and that world does not work around him independently of the player character's actions, then it is little more than an empty room to move around in and you aren't convinced that your player character is in a world as real as they are.

The goal of immersion in a video game isn't to get you to think you are IN THE GAME. Thats what virtual reality is for, and LARPing for that matter.

The goal is to develop a believable atmosphere and setting that exist around a believable character, and which independently acts like a real and vibrant world within the confines of that gameworld's rules.

You've apparently fallen prey to the popular definition of immersion as a buzzword used to say things are better when they are prettier and more complicated, when in fact it never meant that at all.
 
All right, this post is for all the intellectually dysfunctional assholes out there like Per and whirlingdervish who claim that first-person perspective is no more inherently immersive than third-person, and real-time is no more naturally immersive than turn-based, due to the power of the imagination. Because, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, anyone who believes this is a fucking idiot. It's not even a matter of difference in opinion, it's a matter of you being outright, completely fucking wrong.

Which doesn't make First Person Perspective the superior perspective for enjoyment by any means, but it most certainly makes it the superior perspective in terms of immersiveness. Because regardless of how immersive you can get a third-person perspective game to be, you'll always be able to get a first person perspective game to be more immersive. That doesn't mean that there aren't really shittily made FPS's out there, and I'd certainly call Fallout 1 more immersive than say, DOOM II, but these are cases of the lesser one rising above the superior, it doesn't change anything.

Now let's get into my actual example:

Flight simulators, which the fucking military uses to train their pilots. What goddamn perspective are those in? Last time I checked, it wasn't turn-based isometric. Why the fuck not? If it's just as goddamn immersive, if it's just a matter of the power of your imagination then why the fuck do they bother with something as expensive and time consuming as first-person perspective?

Could it be that it's just more realistic to do it in first person? Could it be that in terms of actual flight simulation, simulation being the pinnacle of immersion in something that isn't actually real, first person perspective is just the naturally superior choice?


Let's take a look at another example. Is there anyone here who really feels like the combat in the original Fallout is more immersive than the combat in say, Call of Duty 2? Or America's Army? Or Battlefield 2?

Because honestly, anyone who says "Yes" is lying out their ass or has completely missed the meaning of the word "immersion."
 
Tyshalle said:
All right, this post is for all the intellectually dysfunctional assholes out there like Per and whirlingdervish who claim that first-person perspective is no more inherently immersive than third-person, and real-time is no more naturally immersive than turn-based, due to the power of the imagination. Because, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, anyone who believes this is a fucking idiot. It's not even a matter of difference in opinion, it's a matter of you being outright, completely fucking wrong.

Which doesn't make First Person Perspective the superior perspective for enjoyment by any means, but it most certainly makes it the superior perspective in terms of immersiveness. Because regardless of how immersive you can get a third-person perspective game to be, you'll always be able to get a first person perspective game to be more immersive. That doesn't mean that there aren't really shittily made FPS's out there, and I'd certainly call Fallout 1 more immersive than say, DOOM II, but these are cases of the lesser one rising above the superior, it doesn't change anything.

Now let's get into my actual example:

Flight simulators, which the fucking military uses to train their pilots. What goddamn perspective are those in? Last time I checked, it wasn't turn-based isometric. Why the fuck not? If it's just as goddamn immersive, if it's just a matter of the power of your imagination then why the fuck do they bother with something as expensive and time consuming as first-person perspective?

Could it be that it's just more realistic to do it in first person? Could it be that in terms of actual flight simulation, simulation being the pinnacle of immersion in something that isn't actually real, first person perspective is just the naturally superior choice?


Let's take a look at another example. Is there anyone here who really feels like the combat in the original Fallout is more immersive than the combat in say, Call of Duty 2? Or America's Army? Or Battlefield 2?

Because honestly, anyone who says "Yes" is lying out their ass or has completely missed the meaning of the word "immersion."
Click to expand...
Immersion's more than just perspective, bro. It's the total package. Your comparison of a flight simulator to the complete experience of a RPG - story, atmosphere, music, character development, etc. - is apples and oranges. When people around here talk about immersion, they're talking about the ability to fully immerse one's self in a fantasy world - not whether or not it's more realistic to train in a flight simulator from a first-person perspective (which it obviously is, but that's beside the point).
 
All right, this post is for all the intellectually dysfunctional assholes out there like Per and whirlingdervish who claim that first-person perspective is no more inherently immersive than third-person, and real-time is no more naturally immersive than turn-based, due to the power of the imagination. Because, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, anyone who believes this is a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...

Actually being immersed in a game just because of visual cues is the very definition of being an idiot. Those that aren't idiots can be more immersed reading an excellent book without even requiring any single image.

So that makes you a true fucking idiot Tyshalle.
 
Tyshalle said:
Flight simulators, which the fucking military uses to train their pilots. What goddamn perspective are those in? Last time I checked, it wasn't turn-based isometric. Why the fuck not?
Click to expand...
becouse the point of filght simulators is, surprise, to simulate actual planes?

also, using 'fuck' a lot doesnt make you look cool, nor does it further your point, it just make you look silly and immature, like todd
 
Tyshalle said:
All right, this post is for all the intellectually dysfunctional assholes out there like Per and whirlingdervish who claim that first-person perspective is no more inherently immersive than third-person, and real-time is no more naturally immersive than turn-based, due to the power of the imagination. Because, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, anyone who believes this is a fucking idiot. It's not even a matter of difference in opinion, it's a matter of you being outright, completely fucking wrong.
Click to expand...

You're muddling the issue. Also, cut the flaming, eh?
 
Tyshalle said:
Now let's get into my actual example:

Flight simulators, which the fucking military uses to train their pilots. What goddamn perspective are those in? Last time I checked, it wasn't turn-based isometric. Why the fuck not? If it's just as goddamn immersive, if it's just a matter of the power of your imagination then why the fuck do they bother with something as expensive and time consuming as first-person perspective?
Click to expand...

Simulators of the type you are referring to are actually just virtual reality machines of varying complexity. The easiest way to make this distinction is to verify that the "game" does or does not contain a player character.


In a simulator, you are the player character and you are supposed to be fooled into thinking that YOU are in the gameworld, thus my mention of larping and VR in the same breath..


In an RPG or FPS or FPPRPG game, you are controlling a player character who isn't you.

It is that player character who interacts with the game world, not you. There is no style of perspective that is going to make you think in this case that you are the player character.

First person perspective will only allow you to see what your character can, it won't make you think you are that character.

perhaps a lot of this argument stems from the mistaken assumption that immersion in the case of a game with a player character is the same thing as being "immersed" in a simulator.

well, it isn't.

they are two related but seperate concepts.
 
Tyshalle said:
Is there anyone here who really feels like the combat in the original Fallout is more immersive than the combat in say, Call of Duty 2? Or America's Army? Or Battlefield 2?
Click to expand...
So, combat is the only aspect of the games you can come up with to try to prove this point?
 
Tyshalle said:
Is there anyone here who really feels like the combat in the original Fallout is more immersive than the combat in say, Call of Duty 2? Or America's Army? Or Battlefield 2?
Click to expand...
Since I have about 10 minutes of free time left, I may as well join the booing crowd with a reply of my own.

First of all, there is no such a thing as "immersive combat". The game as a whole (or at the very least its environment on a global scale) is either immersive or it is not.

Second of all, of the three games you named, two are multiplayer-only. You're comparing real life competition and cooperation to a ten year old combat gameplay/AI. Try playing Battlefield 2 with AI bots and then open your mouth and shout about its immersiveness.

Finally, you're referring to what is called tactical immersion and equate it to spatial, narrative and psychological immersion types. The apples (fruit) and oranges (also fruit) idiom has rarely been more appropriate.

People love to use the word "immersion" here and there but few really understand what it means or how it works. I'm a game developer and I'm having troubles outlining the elusive concept with a concise and all-including definition. Most people in the business do. As for you, sorry but from the looks of it you wouldn't see immersion if it hit you in the head...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top