I think you're using an inappropriate definition of immersion. Janet Murray defines immersion in Hamlet on the Holodeck as psychological immersion: "the feeling of alertness that comes from ... this new place and the delight that comes from learning to move within it". This is the definition of immersion I see used much more than Webster's VR nonsense.

This immersion does not just come from being lost in a simulation. A chess player will become engaged in the intricacies of a chess match. Tetris can feel like a struggle for your life. System Shock is more immersive than Crysis, even though the latter was a "better simulation."

Immersion comes from gameplay, not technology. Realism is not the primary barrier to suspension of disbelief. When gameplay and interactivity are engaging, and when there's an effective feedback loop between player action and game events, immersion will emerge.

@ Gregory W.
That is exactly what he is saying. I think you are quibbling over the definition of "immersion"--your entire comment is a reiteration of Dr. Pulsipher's piece. Developers should focus on gameplay and not on "realistic" design.

@Steve

only, Gregory said it more succinctly? :-)

YES! Finally some theory I can get behind!!

@Steve

It's not really quibbling. Immersion and realism are completely different things. The game industry is focusing too much on realism and not enough on immersion. Using the terms interchangeably makes it very confusing.

While I'm all in favour of dropping realism from games, there is one genre which has greatly benefitted from immersive aspects of modern machines. I don't think next-gen does much to improve it, though. That's vehicle simulation games.

When you compare modern racing sims with older ones you almost always find the newer ones play better because essentially of the open-world aspect.

Of course, this doesn't extend all of the way - I'd play TrackMania, which has a loose grasp of what "physics" should be over GTR2, which tries to model clutch wear - and once again this reflects my desire for fun over realism. What I'm trying to say, though, is that it sometimes /is/ better to have some "realism", or at least deep and consistent physics.

As a lifelong gamer who was about to skip this generation until the Wii was announced, it's very refreshing to see a piece that represents my views so well. Great article. Let's hope developers get the message and finally return to creating games!

I agree with the article's sentiment but I also agree with Gregory. Immersion should not equal to the pursue for realism. Immersion emerges from the opportunity and encouragement to learn from the past actions. Many modern "next generation" games that pursue only realism have forgotten this simple rule of thumb in game design (see for example the misuse of repetition in assassin's creed's beautifully constucted world). Surely some pearls do exist that are able to combine both aspects, namely the depiction of (near or fantasy) realism through carefully selected world details and opportunities to learn/adapt/renew throughout the experience. These games have been deemed highly both by the critics and the uncompromizing global gaming community (Half life, Halo, Portal, Ultima etc.). Ultimately, scripted and detailed storytelling is a good servant but bad master in the game design process.

Eventually, any level of abstaction will do for a game to be immersive as long as the natural human desire to understand, learn and adopt will be properly served in the experience. The next gen hype has tried to derail the game consumer herd from this elementary principle in gaming and has ultimately left its followers with mostly unsatisfying experiences. After all, movies have and will provide that form of escapism more effectively than interactive storytelling that has lost its roots in gaming ever will.

While I somewhat agree with the article, the "gameplay, not 'art,' is what counts" comment bothers me on some level. I've seen these sentiments echoed across the internet, and it's disconcerting. While I see the point of the article -that developers should focus on gameplay over "art"- , I would argue that the gameplay and "art" do not have to be two different things. While perhaps not implied in the article, this common perception that "art" and "gameplay" vary inversely strikes me as rather narrow-minded.

Perhaps a better way to put it is (like what has been said in previous comment) that developers are getting the wrong idea about how to "immerse" the gamer on a fundamental level. A game doesn't necessarily need be a VR-like experience to reach its audience. The set of rules themselves can perhaps be a part of what makes a game "art," but that idea strays off to a different subject.

Some people have applied their own definition of "immersion" to my article and then objected to the results. I'm talking about the desire, nay assumption, that if a game is more "realistic", it is necessarily better. For every person who requires immersion in his or her games, there are several gamers who not only don't require it, they're not really interested in it. Gamasutra (and gamedevs in general) seem to be dominated by the former. Yet the latter are where we need to go to reach a broader audience.

Notice that I'm not advising gamers about what they should play, I'm advising designers, especially wannabe designers, about what they should keep in mind when designing games, that there's a lot more to game design than 'immersion'.

I didn't say that no one should pursue immersion, I said that most designers should pursue other more important things.

There are at least five different things we can talk about that someone might call "immersion", and conflicting definitions from different people:

Immersion as used by gamedevs/authors of game design books: "the feeling that you're really there" or "realism"
Immersive: "generating a three-dimensional image which appears to surround the user” Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English (second definition)

Willing suspension of disbelief (necessary for every novel but especially fantasy/science fiction)
Suspension of disbelief: "a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment"
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7)

Catharsis ("the zone", the feeling you get when you suddenly double your highest Tetris score in one sitting)
Catharsis: "the purging of the emotions or relieving of emotional tensions, esp. through certain kinds of art, as tragedy or music."
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
OR
"A release of emotional tension, as after an overwhelming experience, that restores or refreshes the spirit." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"The Flow" Optimal experience, something that is not too easy but not too challenging
Csikszentmikalyi is interested in "the positive aspects of human experience -- joy, creativity, the process of total involvement with life I call flow" (Flow: the Psychology of Optimal Experience (1990), p. xi).

Verisimilitude
"1. The quality of appearing to be true or real . . .
2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

"All that gives verisimilitude to a narrative." --Sir. W. Scott.

I think I'll need to write something fairly lengthy to try to discuss all of these separate but related ideas.

(Ian Schreiber passed on the following quote he heard from Ernest Adams years ago. "A statue of a bear in a city park is not better if it's
so lifelike that it starts eating people.")

Lewis, I think the two first definitions of immersion have inclusive relationship: sensing "(physical) realism" wakes "the feeling that you're really there"

So to me, these are alternative explanations to immersive experience and "(physical) realism" is narrower than "the feeling of being there".

For example, in another dimension the laws of our reality would not apply but still the experience of visiting such place would be "immersive" if experienced holistically through our biological sensors (and assuming that we were able to understand and adapt to our sensory stimuli).

"Suspension of disbelief" would happen due to this holistic (or sufficiently holistic) sensory experience and immersion would take over in our perceptual model, as long as we are able to construct one. So the (physical) reality is not necessity for "being there" (i.e. immersive) type of experience.

The latter explanation, "realism", refers to the pursue of replicating our own reality through simulation. Realism, when experienced properly, leads to the other (main) definition of immersion.

In my mind, game makers should realize that the immersion is a worthy goal to have but there are other means to obtain it than just by following the path of incremental accumulation of realistic physical details.

I understand that your meaning of immersion emphasizes the role of physical reality, but I think it is a bit misleading to use it this way. Immersion can be understood in many other contexts than only as an outcome of replicating the physical reality in a highest possible resolution.

I believe that a high level of sensory/narrative immersion is always necessary to obtain the best possible escapist experiences.

...and by "sensory/narrative immersion" I mean any stream of stimuli (abstract or physical) given to the player so that they can start constructing their perceptual model of the given environment (i.e. to start learning and adapting to the versatile situations that will arise from the actions in the scene)

I think something that is missing in many mmorpg's is emotional immersion. To really care for those around you and the things you're doing. For me, I think ther's a real deficit. A sense of detachment. For example, in guilds that I've been in, people come and go and rarely stick together for very long in the mad rush for raid gear and whatnot. I've found that sticking with people you've known for long periods does introduce an emotional dimension, but I often feel like I'm having to swim upstream to preserve it.

A lot of things has improved in mmoprgs, but a lot hasn't. Graphically, they're looking better and better. The UI's and gameplay are smooth as silk, but only so far as they've been progressed forwards. Below the surface, there're many shortcomings. NPCs still act like scripts, they don't do anything in most examples, they often have a vacant look on their face. And to be honest, the worlds themselves aren't very believable. They often just don't seem right. I've read fantasy that makes more sense than most of the games I've played. They might look real, but they don't act real. When I read a book or watch a movie, I can't suspend my sense of disbelief unless the movie can in some way seem sensible or logical. Even the land of oz will have some kind of physics. Only then can I identify with it in some way, and make those emotional connections. I feel this is a fault of many developers. It's a creative block of some sort. Or a lack of attention or need for it.

Then again, maybe emotional immersion would not always be fun. How can we always be happy??? Would feeling sad in a game world be discouraged?? Without a full range of emotions, how can we really say this is art??? Art is a full array of good and bad, ups and downs. To be fair, some aspect of sorrow or loss should be given a chance.

And most of these worlds are almost entirely focused on combat. It's immersive if that is what you care for, but so much is left out. Constant fighting, over and over, in the same places, in a world with absolutely no physics or common sense. It was all thrown out the window. Sure, the npcs tell you that they must do such and such, but it never changes and as I said before, there's an absolute lack of any conservation of energy. It's as though the world has no memory, no common bond, no history, no future. The worlds aren't alive. In fantasy books, I often make hte world alive wiht my imagination, but it's just not the same with mmorpgs. Same for movies.

If the only goal of mmoprgs is to have a simulation of combat and teamplay, then they've likely done very well, but that should not be the only judge.