N
NewDArt
Guest
Actually, it was Doom 2 that it was up against
I can clearly remember pirating both the very same day. I ended up buying System Shock, however.
But there's really no doubt that Doom was a lot more accessible and impressive to a layman. Even at release, System Shock looked a bit weird - and it was very hard to control properly if you had limited experience with complicated keyboard setups.
I can easily imagine the mainstream gamer being turned off almost immediately when contrasted with the lovely shooty and ultra-smooth Doom.
Yeah, my limited free time is the primary reason I don't game that much anymore. It just doesn't appeal to me when I can't lose myself in a great experience.
Bioshock had plenty complexity for a straight-up shooter - which it was marketed as. It was a shooter first and foremost - and it was pretty polished and streamlined.
The problem with Prey, for instance, is that it doesn't really introduce itself as a shooter - but almost immediately becomes more complex than it needs to be, if you want to appeal wide.
I don't think people are really getting it. The skills and levels aren't the "immersive" part. They were just part of the first recognised immersive sim, Ultima Underworld.
They weren't a part of System Shock or Thief - for instance.
The people largely responsible for the genre, Looking Glass/Blue Sky, went on to evolve the genre in certain ways, either at Looking Glass or other companies they'd joined.
For instance, Warren Spector made Deus Ex based on the exact same principles at Ion Storm. LG and Irrational worked together for SS2 - and so on.
The immersive part is about…. immersion. At the time, it was about trying to create a realistic first-person environment and simulating a large variety of "realistic" responses and gameplay opportunities. This includes stuff like lighting and physics - as well as gameplay opportunities to take over security and hack into robots, etc. Also, a lot of work went into realistic directional sound - like in Thief which is the first game I know which used that to GREAT effect.
Those things might seem common today - and especially if you're an RPG fan where complexities like that are within the norm. But back in the early 90s - a realistic first-person environment like that was ANYTHING but the norm, believe me.
The ultimate goal was to let the player do what he wanted, without being opposed by artificial restrictions which were so prominent in other shooters or similar kinds of games. They were also among the first to talk about "emergent gameplay" as a result of a realistic world simulation. It really was a distinct approach and one which wasn't easily described using standard genre designations.
The games in question, Thief, Deus Ex, System Shock and Underworld - were all primarily focused on providing the player with a fully immersive experience with a strong world simulation.
Not a lot of games have done that - and most shooters don't bother with any kind of sophisticated simulation. Back in the day, normal shooters didn't have anything like realistic physics or movement.
Personally, I think it's a very appropriate term - and though I don't fret about genres, I definitely think it's helpful in communicating what kind of game we're talking about.
For instance, if I heard an upcoming space shooter was a "hybrid" - I would have no idea what that meant, really. Other than it was more than a shooter.
If I heard it was an immersive sim, I would immediately understand a lot more - and I would have a reason to be interested, as a big fan of the genre.
Surprising to me that people are bothered by such an appropriate term.
Also, once again - it's not like being an immersive sim means it can't also be a hybrid. It's just a way of communicating that the game is going to have many of those elements I talked about.
