Gamasutra - First Person Immersion Myth

DArtagnan said:

It's truly interesting to me that people are so divided on this.

For some, FP perspective is absolutely essential for immersion - and for others, it apparently is completely unrelated.

It makes me wonder if we think of the same thing when we think about immersion.

I guess what makes us feel as if we're really present in the gameworld has a lot to do with how we approach games in general. I suppose my own way of approaching a game is less cerebral and more "visceral" - as in I like to start out with the notion of being within the gameworld and even playing something like an RTS or a 4X strategy game - I like to imagine I'm really some kind of general or leader.

In a game where I'm just one person in a world that's meant to be experienced as if I'm that person, I don't see any doubt whatsoever that the perspective is vital to that particular illusion.

In fact, if I hadn't heard from lots of people - lots of times - that they really don't find that perspective so important, I'd have assumed it was totally and completely universal. It's really strange that it isn't the case, and I'm trying hard to "get it" - I just can't.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on the relative power of eyes vs imagination.

I can paint an infinitely more vivid world in my head reading a good book or playing a game with decent writing than even the most powerful graphics engine could ever provide. What I observe may be the photons from the graphics on the screen, but what I experience is the creation of my brain which takes those photons and wraps it up with sound, imagination and emotion to create immersion or the lack of it.

So for me I can get more immersed in a Spiderweb game with negligible graphics and good writing than I ever did in Oblivion. I think with Spiderweb type games the lack of graphics possibly even work in their favour, it forces my brain to kick in and actively imagine at which point it can take over. And Oblivion is to me a prime example of something with good graphics but poor world creation. I never cared about tamriel or my character, so why would I pause to take in the view? Might have looked pretty but I didn't give a shit about it. Oh wow, a gateway to hell threatening to unleash unspeakable horrors upon this village! Let's finish off my fedex quest first and I'll come back to it later if I remember, it'll still be there.

I think it also depends what people want from the protagonist. I don't try to be the character. There's no game where I've really thought that this avatar is me (but with l33t sk1llz & a massive sword!). So first person, third person, isometric, who cares. Do I care about this character's struggles, do the quests on the list mean anything more than an opportunity for some loot, do I want to find out what happens to the protagonist and the world? Those things matter for immersion, but i don't ever think of the character as being me so don't need to see things through their eyes.

Benedict said:

I think it depends on the relative power of eyes vs imagination.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it could be.

I can paint an infinitely more vivid world in my head reading a good book or playing a game with decent writing than even the most powerful graphics engine could ever provide. What I observe may be the photons from the graphics on the screen, but what I experience is the creation of my brain which takes those photons and wraps it up with sound, imagination and emotion to create immersion or the lack of it.

Click to expand...

Well, I think we all could - in a way, but some of us probably prefer to use what we see instead of having to work at it. I know that's what I do, because I don't really like having to imagine everything - and that's likely why I stopped reading many books years ago. I've gotten lazy, you could say. There's more to it than that, naturally, but it's part of it.

I also think books generally have a ton of superfluous content because they have to be, well, book-sized. Some writers have a lot of great things to say, but it's my experience that the rule is that there's a lot of filler stuff which I just don't feel like wasting large amounts of time on.

So for me I can get more immersed in a Spiderweb game with negligible graphics and good writing than I ever did in Oblivion. I think with Spiderweb type games the lack of graphics possibly even work in their favour, it forces my brain to kick in and actively imagine at which point it can take over. And Oblivion is to me a prime example of something with good graphics but poor world creation. I never cared about tamriel or my character, so why would I pause to take in the view? Might have looked pretty but I didn't give a shit about it. Oh wow, a gateway to hell threatening to unleash unspeakable horrors upon this village! Let's finish off my fedex quest first and I'll come back to it later if I remember, it'll still be there.

Click to expand...

But would you still prefer Spiderweb games if Oblivion was different? Can you think of a FP perspective game that immersed you more than non FP games?

I think it also depends what people want from the protagonist. I don't try to be the character. There's no game where I've really thought that this avatar is me (but with l33t sk1llz & a massive sword!). So first person, third person, isometric, who cares. Do I care about this character's struggles, do the quests on the list mean anything more than an opportunity for some loot, do I want to find out what happens to the protagonist and the world? Those things matter for immersion, but i don't ever think of the character as being me so don't need to see things through their eyes.

Click to expand...

That's a KEY difference - I'm sure of it.

I always try to imagine that I'm the main character - and for games that don't let me create my own character, I immediately lose a degree of interest from the get-go.

DArtagnan said:

<snip>
That's a KEY difference - I'm sure of it.

I always try to imagine that I'm the main character - and for games that don't let me create my own character, I immediately lose a degree of interest from the get-go.

Click to expand...

Me too, when I'm playing cRPGs I *am* the character, so obviously it's much more immersive when I see other characters in the game world eye to eye, instead of looking at their hair from above.

DArtagnan said:

Yeah, it could be.

Well, I think we all could - in a way, but some of us probably prefer to use what we see instead of having to work at it. I know that's what I do, because I don't really like having to imagine everything - and that's likely why I stopped reading many books years ago. I've gotten lazy, you could say. There's more to it than that, naturally, but it's part of it.

I also think books generally have a ton of superfluous content because they have to be, well, book-sized. Some writers have a lot of great things to say, but it's my experience that the rule is that there's a lot of filler stuff which I just don't feel like wasting large amounts of time on.

Click to expand...

I've never really found it much work if the writing's good, although it sounds like you've been reading some rubbish books. Try something like The Scar by China Mieville and see if you still find that anything much feels like filler. Mind you, there's books that IMO are bloody great where a lot of it isn't really key to the narrative arc but which all aid the escapism for me, most things by Paul Auster for example.

But would you still prefer Spiderweb games if Oblivion was different? Can you think of a FP perspective game that immersed you more than non FP games?

Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . ultima underworld was first person wasn't it? Mostly into it for the plot though. Never really cared that much about the perspective I think, certainly can barely remember which games had which perspectives.

The only FP game I can think of that didn't have a plot that was the main source of immersion was Doom, which at the time was very engrossing. Superb use of sound for its era.

That's a KEY difference - I'm sure of it.

I always try to imagine that I'm the main character - and for games that don't let me create my own character, I immediately lose a degree of interest from the get-go.

Click to expand...

I like creating characters to get super nerdy with the stats, but in game find those where the character is pre-defined I care about him / her more.

Benedict said:

I can paint an infinitely more vivid world in my head reading a good book or playing a game with decent writing than even the most powerful graphics engine could ever provide.

Click to expand...

I think part of this is about how we each define immersion, as others have stated. I agree with you entirely when it comes to a good book. However, that's what I'll call immersion into the environment. That's powerful and wonderful and something I get just as easily in a third-person game as I do in a first-person game.

Immersion into the character is something I never get from a book, and that's why I still enjoy games which never have stories on par with good books. If I just want immersion into the environment, one might argue that I'm better off reading a good book, and I do so, a lot. One can get deeply attached to the characters and involved in what they are doing with that form of immersion. My definition of immersion into the character, however, is when you trick your brain into no longer thinking you are you but, instead, you are the character whose eyes you are looking through. The things that are happening in game are happening to you. You remember it that way. It's a powerful effect, and a little scary.

I should point out that even though I do not get this kind of profound experience from most games, that doesn't mean I don't like them. I've been gaming since '79 so the vast majority of my formative gaming years were spent in overhead and isometric views. Like many folks around here PS:T and the original Fallouts are all-time favorites for me, and they were isometric. I adored Psychonauts and a whole slew of RPG and adventure games that were all third-person. I love those games. I'm just speaking about those few games that took me to a "next level" if you will, such as Deus Ex, System Shock, Thief, some Elder Scrolls, and a handful of others.

Edit: Also, graphical quality isn't really a big factor with me. I still go back and replay the original System Shock and it's graphics are incredibly dated at this point. I still get totally immersed into it. Of course I still like replaying Apple ][ and early DOS games so I guess that makes it easier for me.

Edit 2: Clarified a couple bits w/ ninja edits

Maylander said:

we don't view the world through a square shaped tin can. Humans have excellent sight both above, below and to the sides of where we are currently looking, making it considerably easier to orient ourselves than what it is in FPS games.

Click to expand...

Actually, people really only *really* see a tiny circle spot that jumps around in their direct line of vision and filter out the rest. Check out the psychology of seeing.

BillSeurer said:

Actually, people really only *really* see a tiny circle spot that jumps around in their direct line of vision and filter out the rest. Check out the psychology of seeing.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree that though our eyes can perceive more than what is shown in a FP perspective in a game, we really do tend to focus on a relatively narrow field of view.

It's naturally impossible to convey a fully realistic sense of perception through a computer monitor - but I still find FP perspective to be the one closest to actually seeing through my own eyes and looking at the world.

To fully appreciate a first-person game, one probably need to invest in a large monitor and surroundspeakers. My monitor is 22" 4:3, but I have considered to buy one of the new 30". Those are very expensive though. Still, being able to play in 2048x1536 on a 22" is a lot better than 1280x1024 or lower on a 19" or 17". You want the monitor to cover as much of your field of vision as possible, and you want the pixels smaller than what you can see.

Surround sound is really great for immersion. I personally invested in 7.1 speakers from Creative a couple of years ago.

Of course, the game itself is still the most important thing. Some games are more convincing than others.

Of course, now I am talking about immersion as if "being there", not "identifying with the character". That really have more to do with how good the story can grasp my emotions. In that regard, there are games I played through and forgot, and there are games that made me cry and feel that it was really important what I was about to do. When I after 2 weeks stand in front of the end boss in a Final Fantasy game I can think "right friends, lets finish this"... and saying goodbye to my friends in Gothic 3... same emotions... so completely absorbed that I have started to feel for my virtual buddies. Most games aren't successful in getting there.

I've always found a pair of high quality headphones to be superior to surround speakers when it comes to immersion in gaming.

JDR13 said:

I've always found a pair of high quality headphones to be superior to surround sound when it comes to immersion in gaming.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you're weird and wrong

DArtagnan said:

Yes, but you're weird and wrong

Click to expand...

I suppose if I were you, my response would be...

"that's not possible."

JDR13 said:

I suppose if I were you, my response would be…

"that's not possible."

Click to expand...

Something with a bit more flavor - but not entirely incorrect

In my opinion, I find the 1st person view very immersive.

But - I must say that "first person view" and "over-the-shoulder-view" are two very different things for me !

I had the most drastic feeling of immersion meanwhile running through the thick and dense forests of Zanzarah. No 3D game has ever made me totally lose my way within woods this far. And this was first person view.

Gothic, on the other hand, comes quite close to this, but I'm constantly looking over the shoulder pf the protagonist. This is quite towards first-person-view, but not completely. So my personal impression of immersion is not that strong.

In Star wars Battlefront I, for example, the immersion is given through details like enemies spawning at control points behind my back. Which is like in natural life: People might come lose to me and I'm not able to see them.

Which means in result that this game gave me the in-game-lesson to always put some sort of wall or object behind my back. One can also hide behind trees.

In my opinion, the feeling of immersion is quite supported - or un-supported - by small details like this.
Details that developers might or might not notice.
Details that cost money, in the end.

I'm still waiting for a game that has so dense forests like Zanzarah. Normally, Forests are nice and clean - too clean for my personal taste, with too much light and the trees too far away from one another. This might look natural for *huge* forests, but no developer seems to have ever seen a really thick thicket from the inside ... And maybe Speedtree even doesn't allow that ... Plus collisions ...

Alrik Fassbauer said:

I'm still waiting for a game that has so dense forests like Zanzarah. Normally, Forests are nice and clean - too clean for my personal taste, with too much light and the trees too far away from one another. This might look natural for *huge* forests, but no developer seems to have ever seen a really thick thicket from the inside … And maybe Speedtree even doesn't allow that … Plus collisions …

Click to expand...

Is this the same Zanzarah game you keep referring to?

http://www.mobygames.com/game/zanzarah-the-hidden-portal

Guhndahb said:

My definition of immersion into the character, however, is when you trick your brain into no longer thinking you are you but, instead, you are the character whose eyes you are looking through.

Click to expand...

My brain's pretty hard to trick unfortunately, not that I've particularly tried. I'm happy just identifying with the character a bit.

JDR13 said:

Is this the same Zanzarah game you keep referring to?

http://www.mobygames.com/game/zanzarah-the-hidden-portal

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Weird, isn't it ? IT was made by the same people who did the Cultures games and were later involved in Settlers games, "Funatics" is the studio's name.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Yes, it is. Weird, isn't it ? IT was made by the same people who did the Cultures games and were later involved in Settlers games, "Funatics" is the studio's name.

Click to expand...

I remember trying the demo a few years back, I didn't realize it had an option for first-person. It seemed fairly interesting, but not enough to warrant a purchase. I might take another look at it if I have time..

I personally like the way that the Elder Scrolls games have handled it - you have the option of going first or third-person. I generally play the game at large in third person, traveling, exploring the world, etx. Then when I enter a structure or talk to someone, I go into first person. Yes, i find this makes me feel more "connected" to the world that I'm in, i feel more like I'm experiencing it firsthand as opposed to being an observer.

I agree wholeheartedly that giving the player the choice is best. There's very little reason, to me, that, for example, Gothic shouldn't be playable in first-person. A good number of games that are one or the other could be both without a substantial time investment by the devs. Even if it were only available as an unsupported feature, it'd still be welcome. The downside is that first-person is probably always going to play harder - except for straight shooters, so you'd be handicapping yourself and game balance would, in some cases, go right out the window.

Additionally, many other games would need significantly more work to accomplish this. I'd love to play, say, Splinter Cell, in first person. But that would require entirely new game-play mechanics to accomplish. You'd need to be able to look around in a realistic way when you are up in the rafters. You'd need a realistic look-around-the-corners mechanism now that you don't have the cheating version that third-person easily enables, etc. (I might add that both of these would be awesome with head-tracking solutions like TrackIR.) But that's, of course, not going to happen and it would be brutally hard since it'd be so much more realistic. Here, again, game balance would likely need to be modified heavily for FP play.

Some games, while being over-the-head or over-the-shoulder games, probably could never make the transition. Platformers like like Prince of Persia come to mind. Although Mirror's Edge did what it did marvelously so there's some middle ground when it comes to acrobatics. But I see a lot of nausea down this path.

But, in our own playground, RPGs, there's a lot of potential to allowing both. Witcher would have been difficult due to the combat, but perhaps not impossible. I used audio cues instead of visual for the combos anyways as I played on the hardest difficulty. But I can't be sure about the vertigo that might be induced from lots of spinning and the loss of magically seeing behind you might make stringing combos too hard. Drakansang would work in first-person, at least when traveling in real-time, although I think a lot of people would find it disconcerting to have FP with multiple characters. And, as I said before, I see absolutely no reason why Gothic can't be both.

One other minor problem for making a transition from third to first person is that textures tend to need to be higher detail/resolution since you see things up much closer. It's all the more of a problem with cross-platform games which tend to have lower quality textures anyways. Granted a lot of us here who retro-game wouldn't care that much, but we're a minority anyways.

The only reason I can see to not have the option is the lack of resources to actually implement it. In Morrowind and Oblivion, the 3rd person view is fairly bad, probably due to the focus on 1st person view. By bad, I mean the animations - it looks like you're sliding on ice no matter where you are or in what direction you're running.