Jason Moyer on 21/5/2017 at 03:51
The name is great if you aren't pedantic about it. They're games that are immersive (first person camera, realistic believable architecture, interactive environment, focus on player agency) and sims (gameplay that's driven by multiple overlapping simulated systems).
Pyrian on 21/5/2017 at 05:44
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
The name is great if you aren't pedantic about it.
My observation is that being pedantic about it seems to actually be its purpose. Like, if you don't want to be pedantic about it, you don't use it. It seems to exist primarily so people can pontificate on why Bioshock, DX:Mankind Divided, or whatever doesn't qualify, often while simultaneously pooh-pooh'ing the older games' deviations from its platonic ideal.
Starker on 21/5/2017 at 08:28
Yeah, it's up to each person to draw a line. I personally draw it before games like GoldenEye, Alpha Protocol, and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory which have immersive sim elements, but not enough to call them immersive sims as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, I'm willing to consider a lot of games as immersive sims that other people don't, like Amnesia, Eldritch, and Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.
Weasel on 21/5/2017 at 14:22
Quote Posted by Abysmal
Yeah I'd be more inclined to buy into it as a broader genre if people would name off anything beyond LGS games and their derivatives.
I'm not saying that it couldn't be a "wider" genre, but couldn't it be a narrow genre? Is narrow not allowed?
A lot of people have named Alien Isolation, which I would include and is not an LGS derivative. Same with Far Cry 2.
heywood on 22/5/2017 at 18:18
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Part of the problem is people keep getting hung up on the words "immersive" and "sim". Yes games can be immersive, and they can be sims, and they can even be both, that doesn't make them immersive sims. That's not what "immersive sim" as defined by the people who created the genre and continue to work in it means. Calling something an immersive sim because you find it immersive and a sim is like saying "Rite Of Spring" is rock and roll because it's about fucking.
That's not helpful. If a game is immersive and a simulation, but you won't accept that it's an immersive sim because it doesn't meet some nebulous criteria that we never seem to agree on, then what's the point of this discussion? If the term is going to useful for defining a genre, we better agree on what qualifies as immersive and what qualifies as a simulation. Otherwise, people will continue to use it as a synonym for "games I like".
heywood on 22/5/2017 at 19:00
So far, despite multiple threads where we've discussed immersive sims, we haven't been able to agree on what the terms mean in this context.
Let's start with immersive: Does immersive imply first person only? First and third person? What about isometric 3D - is that too much of a god perspective to be immersive? Can we agree that movement and action has to be real-time, with no turn-based play, no VATS, minimal cut scenes? Can we agree that the game must have a human main protagonist, whose avatar the player controls throughout the game? Those are the basics. After that, I think it becomes murkier. Is interaction with NPCs a requirement? What about dialogue? Should the protagonist be a blank slate of sorts, to allow the player to project their own feelings and motivations onto? Is it required that your actions have consequences beyond just making NPCs alarmed or hostile? How much character building is OK before it becomes too gamey to be called immersive? What about magic? If magic is OK, can your character have obvious magical powers, or do they need to be disguised in some sort of sci-fi explanation? Finally, does the setting have to be believable, or can it be fantasy?
It's also hard to pin down what we mean by simulation. Any game that we're going to consider immersive is going to have multiple simulation elements in it. Does it have to be a walking sim, i.e. are we going to limit this genre to games where movement primarily involves walking & running around (with some use of vehicles being OK)? Or can we include games where you're predominantly using vehicles? Does shooting have to be a primary element of the gameplay? What about AI behavior, does it have to appear that the AI is doing something besides waiting around for you? How much scripting of the AI is too much, given that scripting can often increase immersion at the expense of simulation? I assume a game gets bonus points for environmental simulation e.g. visibility, audibility, diurnal cycles, weather, hunger, sleep? But are any of those necessary elements?
Regarding level design, can you have linear levels as long as they are immersive and allow you to defeat or manipulate simulated systems to get through them? Or is open level design a requirement? And if it is, does the level design have to be exploitable to permit improvised routes, or is it acceptable to design levels around a couple of prescribed routes that the player can choose from. Is it a requirement that levels have multiple objectives, some optional and some not, that you can accomplish in any order? How much side questing is too much?
Phasma on 23/5/2017 at 00:56
Played The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild and must say, it was one of the most immersive experiences I had, really well made, Nintendo learned a lot from seeing other games using the concept. It's not the most experimental game ever, Nintendo has the philosophy of putting gameplay and simplicity ahead of experimentation, but within those limitations they did just an excellent job. One could say it isn't an Immersive Sim for its lack of First Person oriented gameplay, but I'm not one to mix gameplay direction with mechanics. Third Person is more than aesthetic, it has gameplay value, but more than that, it's a characteristic of Zelda games, so it wouldn't make sense to have it First Person anyway.
Now, why I feel the latest Zelda can be considered an Immersive Sim: the label itself exemplifies it, the game is immersive and tries to simulate every natural element there is, which are all new features to the Zelda franchise even. Of course it already had some of it in early installments, but this one makes a rule of it, to feel the most immersive and free experience it can be. The exploration is astounding, to say the least, and the climbing mechanic is one of the innovations all games should use nowadays, it's believable and natural/organic. Also, one important aspect of Immersive Simulators is present in this new Zelda game: emergent gameplay. Mostly in combat and exploration, the game encourages creative approaches to situations, giving tools so that the player may even create scenarios of advantage against a problem. Physics are present in great style and you can actually resolve some of the temples with a different solution to that expected from the developers, using the powers given to Link in intelligent ways to achieve the same results you would have with some other more complex method. You're literally free to use your brain to find a better solution to a common problem, just like in real life.
With all of that said, I make my statement that Breath of the Wild is one of the new Immersive Sims in the market that does a pretty good job with what it could learn from past games.
Weasel on 23/5/2017 at 04:12
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Part of the problem is people keep getting hung up on the words "immersive" and "sim". Yes games can be immersive, and they can be sims, and they can even be both, that doesn't make them immersive sims. That's not what "immersive sim" as defined by the people who created the genre and continue to work in it means. Calling something an immersive sim because you find it immersive and a sim is like saying "Rite Of Spring" is rock and roll because it's about fucking.
I already responded in agreement to this, but I want to add to it further. There is precedent for this. In general, words can be combined together into phrases that are then used to mean more specific things (or even very different things) than just a combination of the definitions of the two words. I've trying to think of a really good analogy in existing genre labels (outside of game genres) and I just found one:
Science Fiction.
Breaking Bad is a fictional TV show about science, but that doesn't automatically make it Science Fiction (neither IMDB nor wikipedia lists that as a genre for it).
There will always be debate about exactly what fits a certain label or genre and what doesn't (for pretty much any label or genre). The individual words that make up the name of a genre or label are not necessarily the most relevant factors. Otherwise, you could argue that pipe organ music is heavy metal and a forklift is a pick-up truck.
Edit: Also, Silicon Valley is a Western, along with a million other shows and movies.
Sulphur on 23/5/2017 at 06:18
Quote Posted by heywood
So far, despite multiple threads where we've discussed immersive sims, we haven't been able to agree on what the terms mean in this context.
Let's start with immersive: Does immersive imply first person only? First and third person? What about isometric 3D - is that too much of a god perspective to be immersive? Can we agree that movement and action has to be real-time, with no turn-based play, no VATS, minimal cut scenes? Can we agree that the game must have a human main protagonist, whose avatar the player controls throughout the game? Those are the basics. After that, I think it becomes murkier. Is interaction with NPCs a requirement? What about dialogue? Should the protagonist be a blank slate of sorts, to allow the player to project their own feelings and motivations onto? Is it required that your actions have consequences beyond just making NPCs alarmed or hostile? How much character building is OK before it becomes too gamey to be called immersive? What about magic? If magic is OK, can your character have obvious magical powers, or do they need to be disguised in some sort of sci-fi explanation? Finally, does the setting have to be believable, or can it be fantasy?
It's also hard to pin down what we mean by simulation. Any game that we're going to consider immersive is going to have multiple simulation elements in it. Does it have to be a walking sim, i.e. are we going to limit this genre to games where movement primarily involves walking & running around (with some use of vehicles being OK)? Or can we include games where you're predominantly using vehicles? Does shooting have to be a primary element of the gameplay? What about AI behavior, does it have to appear that the AI is doing something besides waiting around for you? How much scripting of the AI is too much, given that scripting can often increase immersion at the expense of simulation? I assume a game gets bonus points for environmental simulation e.g. visibility, audibility, diurnal cycles, weather, hunger, sleep? But are any of those necessary elements?
Regarding level design, can you have linear levels as long as they are immersive and allow you to defeat or manipulate simulated systems to get through them? Or is open level design a requirement? And if it is, does the level design have to be exploitable to permit improvised routes, or is it acceptable to design levels around a couple of prescribed routes that the player can choose from. Is it a requirement that levels have multiple objectives, some optional and some not, that you can accomplish in any order? How much side questing is too much?
First things first, 'immersive' is too subjective a term to be included in an objective classification, so I think we should leave that one be.
Next, instead of getting hung up on the minutiae, the broader point is these games all feature inter-linking systems simulations that run on their own and can cause situations outside of player control, can be interfered with by player agency, and allow for a range of actions to attain whatever mission goal X is. I propose two possible names: 'MacGyver Twiddling Sim', and 'Systematic Improv Degoonificator Sim'.
In my defence, I haven't had enough coffee yet to come up with respectable nomenclature.
