Immersion, Immersion, Immersion

[Iron Budokan]

SH3 rocked because of its immersive qualities and replayability.

[JScones]

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

SH3 rocked because of its immersive qualities and replayability.

And I'm guessing it's gonna continue to rock for some players for some time to come...

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JScones

And I'm guessing it's gonna continue to rock for some players for some time to come...

I sure hope so...I've no plans to take it off my system

[don1reed]

Simulation. Immersion. Game-Play.
All excellent responses--pro and con. As I approach my septuagenarian years and think back over years to some of the military schools I’ve attended, as many of you have; we’ve a pretty good idea of what “simulation” is and means.

The difference between a board-game and a simulation, from my pov, is imagination. With a board-game, after a successful roll of the die, a player must imagine a torpedo running and hitting a target. With a computer sim, a player can see the animation actually accomplish the mission due to the result of good tactics, seamanship, planning and execution, all simulated, of course.

The ultimate “Immersion”, I suppose, would be to feel a brief spike of joyous pride for having hit what you were aiming at, followed by a twinge of guilt having just killed defenseless merchant sailors by sinking their unarmed ship.

I'm not keen on Immersion....they cost a fortune to run. I use a gas boiler now on a timer....much mor efficient, and I don't have to get out of bed to switch it on before taking a shower.

Thanks UBI!

[johan_d]

As a casual player, Sh3 wGWX gives me a lot of immersion, but not enough.
Something is missing, and like a flightsim guy I am, I miss the finer controls, actions and communication(!) with the rest of 'us'.
Dangerous Waters is a lot of gameplay, but its to much for one guy, like a PMDG747 at VATSIM on your own, or better an INS equipped 742 at VATSIM.
Almost unable to do alone..
Now on SH3 I dont do manual targetting, I think this is for your crew to figure out. Immersion is in the decision making, what lacks a lot in SH3, since you are on a random encounter course.
Immersion = interraction, not in graphics, nor in the TDC.
Altough graphics helps a lot, for example somehow the modern game graphics, like Sh4 look cartoonish. For me it is.
Same with FS9 vs FSX, something is cartoonish, and it aint FS9.

Just look carefull at pictures of recent games, COD:MW2 for example. Looks good, like Asassins Greed 2, but there is something in the screen filtering that looks wrong. I cant pinpoint it, maybe compare some other games. Original Flashpoint was immersive, maybe due the bad graphics, and the need for imagination (immersion) versus Arma2. Same story, somewhere all those high FSAA games loose something, and then I didnt touch the attention span most games got!

Now for Sh5, I think immersion comes with at least more interraction with BdU, we need orders, goals and missions, more captain decisions, meaning more boat control actions, like ways to safe fuel, and human like enemy counter actions.. luck factors, tiredness, time of day etc.

end of rants..

[THE_MASK]

Immersion: for me i achieved a diffrent level of immersion when playing SH3 after i turned all cameras off . Whoa , how do i see ships now , oh yeah i have to go to periscope depth and use the periscope etc . It just felt diffrent and i was more nervous etc . The devs can give diffrent levels of immersion by using diffrent technics . I said i would like the screen to have water on it to simulate water in your eyes . What this does however is give the immersion of really raining and the benefit of realism by reducing vision when it rains . The devs can use in game things to create immersion .

[IanC]

Originally Posted by don1reed

Simulation. Immersion. Game-Play.
All excellent responses--pro and con. As I approach my septuagenarian years and think back over years to some of the military schools I’ve attended, as many of you have; we’ve a pretty good idea of what “simulation” is and means.

The difference between a board-game and a simulation, from my pov, is imagination. With a board-game, after a successful roll of the die, a player must imagine a torpedo running and hitting a target. With a computer sim, a player can see the animation actually accomplish the mission due to the result of good tactics, seamanship, planning and execution, all simulated, of course.

The ultimate “Immersion”, I suppose, would be to feel a brief spike of joyous pride for having hit what you were aiming at, followed by a twinge of guilt having just killed defenseless merchant sailors by sinking their unarmed ship.

Anybody interested in this subject, there's a great book called War Games by Thomas B. Allen. It's a little dated (around 1987) but a good read about simulations and war gaming.
For example he lists the spectrum of war gaming for realism starting with the most realistic; Military field exercises- Military field experiments- Map exercises- War games- Computer simulations- Analytical models.
The list is reversed for Convenience and Accessibility and Degree of Abstraction.

[don1reed]

Tnx IanC, I'll check it out.

edit: found a used copy for $0.01 @ Amazon.

cheers,

[IanC]

Originally Posted by don1reed

Tnx IanC, I'll check it out.

edit: found a used copy for $0.01 @ Amazon.

cheers,