Immersion vs. Interaction: conflicting gamer tastes

[trestres]

Million said:
I don't see why you can't aim for both , in theory you got to have both to some extent to make a decent game ( Immersion without interaction would be a movie and interaction without immersion would be Pong).

I think Sony and MS are capable of achieving both to a greater extent than Nintendo , on the interaction front I think Nintendo is champion because they've obviously focoused more of their resources towards the interactivity apporach at the cost of less immersion , it paid off.

Sony more so than MS has also put [some] effort into interactivity eye toy to cite an example , MS is coming out with their own version of the Wii mote.

I think Sony and MS have got the immersion side of things sorted , they can only do it better . Once they implement their respective interactive technologies well then I think they'll have a good balance of the two.

However I don't think the Wii's hardware will allow it to offer an immersive experience , I don't think it's user base particularly cares , so there's no love lost their. This might present a problem to Nintendo however who probably want to dominate all segments of the console market.

 

Well, MP3, Zelda:TP, RE4 all offered me an incredible immersive experience. But oh wait, yeah they are games for PS3, damn my PS3 is white and has a blue light, slim model?

 

Yeah looks like 5 million people who bought Zelda, for example, really didn't care about the experience they got.