Immersion, Immersion, Immersion

[Tarnsman]

I want sharks with freakin laserbeams on their heads!
Oh wrong movie.

Crew interaction is the key to immersion for me. 688i was immersive as heck and it didnt have any animated crew. But the voices sounded so real and responded so smartly, I felt I was there. SH3 fell down on that one because they didnt model enough voices -- why cant have a voice for every text message, I dont know. Sh4 is even more mute.

When I give an order I want to hear a response echoed down the boat. Subsimming is mostly about sound and I think the visual stuff has been allowed to overtake the audio. As much as I like the 3d crew I hope -- but I doubt-- that they will have much more to say.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Tarnsman

I want sharks with freakin laserbeams on their heads!

Ubi will probably give us mutated Sea Bass. But they they promise that they will be ill tempered

[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!

[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.