Strategy Informer interviews Pete Hines

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

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.

Unless you tend to wear roller skates all the time, have a preference for bondage trousers (those ones with the restraining strap between the legs), are unlucky enough to have tunnel vision, and suffer from some congenital disorder that requires you to wear a body brace like Mel Gibson's character in The Million Dollar Hotel. Which also stunted the growth of your arms, then what you see in 99.9% of fpp games just doesn't happen in reality either.

 

[Brother None]

*lots of swearing*

Boy, uh...two things:

1. Flight simulators are about realistic simulation, not "immersion".

2. Immersion is not a term that solely means simulating real-world view and events as accurately as possible. It is a (fairly inaccurate) meaning attributed to it (primarily by marketing), sure, but it's not actually what it means. I feel you - like Bethesda - are a bit confused an attribute only this meaning to it.

If you do, then yes, first-person is immersive, but that's the same as saying first-person is first-person, it's a platitude. And then immersive becomes useless as a concept. If you actually want to think of it as gripping the player, you start thinking more about how immersive the story and setting are, and slowly realise the perspective and combat-mode are oh so secondary to this value.

Nothing can be as immersive as a good book, if you ask me.

 

[Vasara]

I don't see what immersiveness has to do with imagining you're the person you're controlling in the game. That's called simulation. Immersion is when you aren't aware of your physical self, you become more than just an observer, you're invested in the experience. When you "snap out of it" you're left wondering where the hell all those hours went. Perspective has nothing to do with that.

The most immersive medium in my experience is literature, and that's just symbols printed on paper

 

[Tyshalle]

Immersion's more than just perspective, bro. It's the total package.

Yes, and that doesn't change the fact that first-person perspective is still more immersive than third-person. Story, atmosphere, music, character development? What the fuck does any of that shit have to do with the inherent immersiveness dealing with perspective? Don't be a friggin' tard. Unless you think that Fallout 3 is going to lack music, or something.

When people around here talk about immersion, they're talking about the ability to fully immerse one's self in a fantasy world

Right, and that's the problem. Because you're talking about your own imagination, which is completely separate from the game. Yes, with enough imagination I can look at the real world and pretend that I'm a fucking Hobbit fighting off a hoard of Orcs, and a stick is my sword and some stones are my arrows. And I can get completely lost within my own imagination, and if it's powerful enough, it can be just as immersive as any video game out there.

But that's really not the issue. The issue, or more specifically, the point, is that your imagination doesn't have to work nearly as hard visualizing and pretending in FPP when compared to third person. The fact that your imagination has to work less hard makes the game naturally more immersive. Pussyfooting around that fact and trying to confuse the issue between the work the game is doing and the work your imagination is doing doesn't change the facts, bub.

Actually being immersed in a game just because of visual cues is the very definition of being an idiot.

Huh, and here I thought it was speaking before thinking. Because I don't think that if I look up the word "idiot" on dictionary.com I'm going to find that particular definition.

But more to the point, you're a moron. Learn to differentiate between "more immersive," and "immersive." As a hint, the first one deals with degrees, which is what I'm talking about, and the second deals with a black and white reality children, idiots and the religious live in. Nobody said that I'd be immersed in a game just because of visual cues.

becouse the point of filght simulators is, surprise, to simulate actual planes?

And what's the best way to immerse the trainees in their environment? Surprise, first-person perspective.

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

Holy shit, thanks for pointing that out. Because, y'know, what I really need is writing lessons from a guy who can't be troubled to capitalize or spell "because" correctly. So I'll tell you what, I'll continue to feel cool and look silly and immature by using the word "fuck," and you can continue to look like a stupid ass high school dropout. Sound about even to you, bucko?

You're muddling the issue. Also, cut the flaming, eh?

Sorry, for all the shit-flinging going on toward Bethesda's way I keep forgetting what a bunch of sensitive, proper gentlemen you all are. But sure, I'll pull it back a bit.

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..

What exactly is the inherent difference between role playing in a LARP and role playing in a computer game? I mean, I understand that one takes place in real life and the other is all scripted and virtual and stuff. But to my knowledge people in LARP's make up character names for themselves, and they pretend that they are somebody other than themselves.

Furthermore, inherently, the more you blur the lines between fiction and reality, you and your character, the more immersive your experience is going to be. That's just a natural fact. This distinction you're making between Player and Character is one you're forcing in there, and it goes against the whole point of first-person gaming in the first place, which is to blur the line between what is real and what is fake.

Sure, in the end, you will never truly be your character, but the difference between LARPing and playing a FPP RPG is one of degrees, not of apples and oranges, as some would have you believe.

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

It's called suspension of disbelief. It goes on even in tabletop games. And certainly, truly believing that you are your character is delusional regardless of the medium, but I think that it's most people's views that the more you can get into your character, and the more that you can blur the line, the more enhanced the experience is.

For instance: You'd probably be pretty pissed if you weren't able to choose your character's dialogue options, right? You're choosing for your character, which blurs the distinction between you and him. If every time you talked to somebody there was just a cutscene and your character said whatever he wanted to say, you'd feel railroaded, and you'd feel taken out of the experience.

It's a similar concept which may not be directly related to one another, but they're definitely both related to the concept of immersion and blurring the distinction between Player and Character.

So, combat is the only aspect of the games you can come up with to try to prove this point?

I'm pretty sure I made an argument for the perspective in of itself, along with realtime vs. turn-based. And if you read a couple paragraphs back you'll see a good example of it in dialogue and decision-making.

How many more examples would you like? But I mean, for fuckssake, we're talking about perspective. That's purely visual. How many examples can I really give? Exploration is clearly more immersive in first person than in isometric. For instance, in first person you can look ahead and see a hill sloping down, but you won't be able to see what's below it. You'll have to go over there to see it. In isometric, you'll automatically be able to see it.

Even the difference between first person and third person (not isometric, but like, just pulled back) perspective is enormous. In third person, you'll be able to see an enemy coming from around a corner without your character needing to look at him. In first person, you'll actually have to poke your head out there and take a look.

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.

Aside from, "because I said so," do you have anything to back up that idiotic statement? I mean, I see what you're saying, but it's just not true. You could replace all the ragdolls in America's Army with square, single color blocks, and replace the atmosphere and environment with similar single color paths that would be utterly the epitome of unimmersive, but the combat would still be far more immersive as a bunch of blocks than Fallout 1's combat. Doesn't mean it'd be better or even more enjoyable, but real-time adds a level of reality to a situation that turn-based just can't touch.

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.

Really? Is this the "big guns" of your argument? We're talking about immersion of perspective and you're going to bring up AI? Really? For fucks sake.

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.

Actually, I'm not. Because I'm keeping my argument to the perspective one. Third vs. First. First wins in terms of immersion. Because narrative, psychologically, every other example you can come up with can be done just as well (or better) in first person as it can be done in third person. None of that shit has anything to do with the perspective, so it just doesn't fucking apply.

As for you, sorry but from the looks of it you wouldn't see immersion if it hit you in the head...

But what if I imagined it hitting me in the head? Y'know? Just sayin....

1. Flight simulators are about realistic simulation, not "immersion".

And they attain that realistic simulation how...? That's right, through immersion. They make you feel like you're there, which is inherently immersive. It's what immersion's all about. Sure, there's the more touchy-feeling "immersion's all about getting lost in a world, blah blah blah" but then we're talking about your imagination, which is separate from the game. First Person perspective makes you have to work less hard to attain the same effect.

If you actually want to think of it as gripping the player, you start thinking more about how immersive the story and setting are, and slowly realise the perspective and combat-mode are oh so secondary to this value.

Uh, right. I agree. But my argument isn't that First Person Perspective automatically attains 100% immersion all by itself. My argument isn't even anything close to this nonsense. Story and setting however, are completely separate from perspective and can be done just as well in one as it can be done in the other.

Nothing can be as immersive as a good book, if you ask me.

Which is faux-intellectual elitist bullshit, and utterly has nothing to do with what we're talking about. But fuck, you know what I find more immersive than a good book? Life.

I don't see what immersiveness has to do with imagining you're the person you're controlling in the game.

Then you're missing a lot.

The most immersive medium in my experience is literature, and that's just symbols printed on paper

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

....ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha....










Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Yeah....

 

[Ranne]

Remind me, for what did I get my first strike, again?

 

[Brother None]

Remind me, for what did I get my first strike, again?

This. Why do you ask?

Tyshalle: you obviously are losing your cool for some odd reason. I have given you one strike for continued abuse of your fellow forumites, if you continue on this line of abuse you will receive more.

And they attain that realistic simulation how...?

By copying the real situation as accurately as possible. That is their function, not massaging in a feeling of being there, tho'.

Besides, why do you think simulations have any impacts on games? The functions of the two are completely different.

Sure, there's the more touchy-feeling "immersion's all about getting lost in a world, blah blah blah" but then we're talking about your imagination, which is separate from the game.

Ah. And how exactly does first-person and real-time combat not work with my imagination?

You're side-stepping my main point, tho'. Your definition of immersion means that immersion is synonymous to first-person. If that's your definition of immersion, then why not just use the term first-person instead? The concept of immersion becomes useless if it is synonymous to another term, be it first-person or be it "being the PC".

Let me be clearer: the concept of immersion is a broad one and is simply, purely about absorbing the player. What game designers forgot somewhere along the way is that every mechanical element of the game, be they interface, loading screens, perspective or combat systems, are simply options available to you to detract or add to the experience. For each of these it is a basic truism that when done badly they detract from the experience, but otherwise they are a case of choosing what fits best in your game (and, for the consumer, a case of personal preference).

For instance, Oblivion is about being the PC, so the most obvious perspective choice is first-person. Fallout immerses you in its game not be being the PC, but by telling the PC's story via the game, the same kind of immersion pen and paper games provide. First-person is not really a well-suited perspective for that.

Story and setting however, are completely separate from perspective and can be done just as well in one as it can be done in the other.

Fantastic.

Which is faux-intellectual elitist bullshit, and utterly has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

How does it not? I'm trying to explain the concept of immersion to you.

 

[Ranne]

Remind me, for what did I get my first strike, again?

This.

My point exactly.

Also, I really don't see how the concept of game immersion can be narrowed down to such a relatively unimportant thing as camera positioning. This goes the same path as the other thread where people spent pages arguing whether or not an atomic blast would damage two similarly-looking houses in an identical way.

 

[ookami]

Nothing can be as immersive as a good book, if you ask me.

But it must always be written in first-person narrative.

 

[Brother None]

My point exactly.

About what?!

Dude, you completely lost me.

 

[fedaykin]

Tyshalle, I think you are trying to artificially constrain the meaning of the term 'immersion' in order to further your argument, whereas, in truth, immersion is a broad notion that cannot be used to describe any single aspect of a game exclusively.

 

[Ranne]

Dude, you completely lost me.

Forget it. I'm about to start beating a dead horse and it was not my initial intent.

 

[rcorporon]

Somebody here needs to have a little less unmonitored time on the internet.

Let's keep in mind what Malcolm X said (I'm paraphrasing): People who swear only do so because they don't have the words to say what they mean.

As for immersion, I'd argue that a good book is just as immersing, if not more so, than any video game that I've ever played, regardless of perspective.

Immersion has more to do with characters and world-building than graphics, sound or POV.

 

[Ghostsauce]

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?

So, combat is the only aspect of the games you can come up with to try to prove this point?

Holy dodge a bullet, Batman. Way to try to deflect a valid point.

 

[ookami]

Holy dodge a bullet, Batman. Way to try to deflect a valid point

Even in terms of perspective, it just seems silly to restrict the argument to combat as if it will prove the whole argument concerning 'immersion'.

I guess RTS players who clearly get immersed by combat in Starcraft more than they would in Call of Duty 4 are just lying, though.

 

[UniversalWolf]

The purpose of graphics in a game is to enable the player to imagine the events of the story are taking place (which would be an immersive experience), not to convince the player he is actually experiencing those events. The latter is not even possible without a visor or a giant dome to allow expanded field of view.

PC-based flight simulators are never limited to first-person view, and military flight simulators have giant domes (in fact, practice in the simulator - at least in the U.S. - is commonly referred to as going "under the dome"). In any case, flight simulators are specifically designed to reproduce reality as closely as possible, because the people who use them expect to gain experience that is applicable in the real world - and yet the most expensive, sophisticated examples have succeeded only to a point. No one would suggest time in a simulator is superior to or even equivalent to time spent doing the real thing. It's simply cheaper and less dangerous.

So yes, an isometric game can be and often is more "immersive" than a first-person game, because first-person games fail spectacularly at their objective: convincing you the events portrayed on your display are reality. They start out at a disadvantage because they're aiming for an impossible goal considering they're limited to a flat rectangle in which to make the game world appear.

I've spent more than a few nights immersed in abstract games like Civilization (nerdily imagining my empire was real!), but even better examples are Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Their unique immersiveness is one of the main reasons they're still so popular today. The player of Fallout (real Fallout, mind you), has no trouble imagining the main character wandering the wastes - and that's true immersiveness: succeeding in feeling real as opposed to failing at faking reality.

 

[Tyshalle]

Tyshalle: you obviously are losing your cool for some odd reason.

I'm really not. If swearing alone is giving you that impression then there's really not much I can do for you. If telling people who are calling me an idiot that they are in fact the ones who are idiots is your idea of hostility then I suggest you make it some kind of rule that the only people who aren't allowed to call others names are the people whose opinions you don't agree with.

But regardless, I really don't give a shit about forum politics and etiquette and whatever. So I'll just take my "strike" and move on, sound good?

Ah. And how exactly does first-person and real-time combat not work with my imagination?

It does, but your imagination has to work less hard.

If I told you about a flower, and was very descriptive and eloquent you'd be able to use your imagination to really envision this flower, and think about how it might smell and feel and whatever. If I, instead, showed you a picture of said flower, you'd still use your imagination for how it might smell and feel, but the visuals would be done for you. Your imagination would have to work less hard. If instead of a picture I somehow created a perfect 3D representation of it, your imagination would have to work even less hard, and so on and so forth.

That's the point.

You're side-stepping my main point, tho'. Your definition of immersion means that immersion is synonymous to first-person. If that's your definition of immersion, then why not just use the term first-person instead? The concept of immersion becomes useless if it is synonymous to another term, be it first-person or be it "being the PC".

I'm not sidestepping your point, I'm addressing the bit that matters and ignoring the stuff where you put words in my mouth.

My definition of immersion is not the same thing as first-person. As I've explained quite heavily, it's all about degrees. When talking about role playing, First Person perspective is simply naturally more immersive than Third Person. That's just a fact. Sure, if you start to take in all other elements separate from perspective and make a much better package in a third person game then the whole package very well might overcome the first person game in terms of immersion. I've never claimed otherwise. But in terms of degrees, and in terms of which perspective is more naturally immersive, immersive in this case meaning blurring the lines between fiction and reality, First Person is simply better at doing it than Third Person is.

Also, I really don't see how the concept of game immersion can be narrowed down to such a relatively unimportant thing as camera positioning. This goes the same path as the other thread where people spent pages arguing whether or not an atomic blast would damage two similarly-looking houses in an identical way.

If you really read my whole post and have come to the conclusion that I've narrowed down all of immersion down to simple perspective then you haven't been paying attention.

Tyshalle, I think you are trying to artificially constrain the meaning of the term 'immersion' in order to further your argument, whereas, in truth, immersion is a broad notion that cannot be used to describe any single aspect of a game exclusively.

Same goes for you, bub. I'm not arguing about every facet of immersion. I'm arguing about one very specific facet, which deals with perspective. First person is simply more immersive than third person.

However, I will say this much, which may or may not please some of you: If you feel that the point of Fallout is purely to recreate a tabletop role playing game in a virtual environment, then sure, in that very specific case Third Person would be the ideal perspective, and most immersive. But I think that if we're going there then people ought to stop telling me that I'm the one narrowing shit down to further my arguments.

So yeah, if you play Fallout to not experience the world or experience your character as closely as possible but instead to purely recreate a tabletop RPG except virtual and without other people, then sure, Fallout 1 would be more immersive to that experience than Fallout 3.

Let's keep in mind what Malcolm X said (I'm paraphrasing): People who swear only do so because they don't have the words to say what they mean.

Malcolm X didn't say that. Let's keep in mind what I say though, because it's actually wisdom: People who focus on bullshit like swear words are fucking idiots who don't deserve to be included in adult conversation because they don't have the brains to actually add to the argument, which is why they keep whining about swearing and how people talk to each other.

As for immersion, I'd argue that a good book is just as immersing, if not more so, than any video game that I've ever played, regardless of perspective.

And I'd argue that that's probably true for the same reason that I say that a third person game can be more immersive than a first person game if the other elements that have nothing to do with perspective are far more immersive. Books aren't inherently more immersive than videogames, they just wind up being that way because books (some books anyway) tend to be handled with more care than most video games.

Immersion has more to do with characters and world-building than graphics, sound or POV.

I never argued against that. I just said that when it comes to PoV, First is more immersive than Third. Deal with it.




And UniversalWolf, no offense but I'm not even going to bother responding to you. You basically are just repeating everything I've already said but don't seem to realize it.

 

[Brother None]

But regardless, I really don't give a shit about forum politics and etiquette and whatever. So I'll just take my "strike" and move on, sound good?

You're not obliged to anything more. Still, I'd like to point out you started posting in this thread calling everyone idiots. If we didn't already know you as a decent user, that post would probably be grounds for shitcanning. And can you really blame us? Opening a post with "everyone who holds [reasonable opinion] is a moron" is usually not the best way to go around it.

And don't think we're just moderating your behaviour, it's not true.

That's the point.

Not really. On the one hand, you're comparing two clearly delineated means of transferring information (description and picture) to two ways of showing a picture, on the other hand, you're equating gradations of using your imagination with immersion. Obviously, using your imagination is not inversely related to being immersed.

When talking about role playing, First Person perspective is simply naturally more immersive than Third Person.

If you mean role playing to be defined as "pretending to be a person" then yes, that is true. If you hold RPGs to purely mean "pretending to be the character", then yes, that's true. And there are RPGs which have expressed this concept quite well, be it Oblivion or Gothic or even the ones that do it really well like Pathologic.

But you're not seriously saying all RPGs are by their nature obliged to be about pretending to be the character as accurately as possible, are you? Serious question, not mouth-stuffing.

immersive in this case meaning blurring the lines between fiction and reality.

That is a rather narrow way of defining immersion, isn't it? I mean, that is what immersive means if my goal in the game is for the player to pretend to be the character. But that is not an automatic goal in quite a few genres, be they strategy games or traditional RPGs. Why should these games, to which this definition of immersive comes unnaturally, adapt to this view?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I never argued against that. I just said that when it comes to PoV, First is more immersive than Third. Deal with it.

Except that it isn't. Firstly immersion is purely subjective. What one person finds immersive another will find an immersion breaker. Secondly while FPP is the best point of view for certain actions, and the only way to try and simulate certain views, that has nothing to do with immersion.

But in terms of degrees, and in terms of which perspective is more naturally immersive, immersive in this case meaning blurring the lines between fiction and reality, First Person is simply better at doing it than Third Person is.

First person view isn't better at blurring the lines of reality. The first person point of view as we know it is not an accurate simulation of looking through someone else's eyes. Some games are attempting to get closer, games like Fear, The Darkness, Crysis and the upcoming Mirror's Edge offer a wider tunnel to see through but it's still tunnel vision. The discrepancies between what you see in real life and what you see in a first person game are just as much of a reminder that you are playing a game as seeing the game world from over your shoulder or from a birds eye view.

 

[ookami]

If you hold RPGs to purely mean "pretending to be the character", then yes, that's true.

Even that's not necessarily 100% true either in terms of 'immersion'. I've felt 'in the shoes' of plenty of characters in non-first-person games as much I have any first-person game. It could just be that mental difference between 'pretending you are that character' and 'pretending that character is you'.

 

[Brother None]

Even that's not necessarily 100% true either in terms of 'immersion'. I've felt 'in the shoes' of plenty of characters in non-first-person games as much I have any first-person game. It could just be that mental difference between 'pretending you are that character' and 'pretending that character is you'.

Aye, but neither Tyshalle nor I said that this was impossible, just that first-person perspective is more naturally suited for that kind of immersion.

'course, that kind of immersion was never the goal for a game like Fallout. Until Bethesda touched it.