Well, if that was it I wouldn't mind. I mean if it's just something "I don't get", but "immersive" is both synonymous with first-person high-quality graphics and a hyped term used as a purely positive word; all games have to be immersive, immersive games are good by definition.
"All games have to be immersive" is a bit of a stretch. I don't recall anyone complaining that Civ IV, The Sims, World of Warcraft, or Medieval II: Total War aren't "immersive." They aren't, in the physical/kinetic sense of the word, but that's OK since they're not designed to be that way -- despite being big, expensive, mainstream titles.
I don't get it? Fine. It being used as some odd tool for yet another move to monodesign in gaming? Less fine. The word doesn't become meaningless just because I don't get it, it becomes meaningless when you ignore its subjectivity and hold it up as some kind of grand example of what all games should try to reach, which is what the mainstream gaming media does.
I agree, if, indeed, that is what the mainstream gaming media does.
And I think we're basically agreed on that point. Though I also feel that if you define immersive as a visceral experience then it should be more about great design, i.e. great map lay-outs, great music, excellent setting, good building of atmosphere and tension, and less about bloom. I mean...did you think Oblivion was immersive?
In this physical/kinetic sense, it was about averagely immersive -- not as immersive as DOOM 3 or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. but more so than Morrowind or GTA: Vice City. It failed to seize my imagination, though, just like DOOM 3, and unlike Morrowind. But that's beside the point.
We're talking about two different things -- the physical/kinetic sensation of being in the game, and the emotional feeling of being deeply involved with the game. The two don't necessarily go together; for example, Fallout, PS:T, or Rome: Total Realism have none of the former but a great deal of latter (for me anyway), whereas DOOM 3 has a great deal of the former but precious little of the latter (again, for me anyway).
The latter kind of involvement is a hallmark of a good game -- without it, why even bother playing? -- whereas the former is merely a gameplay characteristic. It's certainly incorrect and even pernicious to equate the two.