Immersion vs. Interaction: conflicting gamer tastes

[Sqrl]

shio said:

Million said:

trestres said:

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.

 

 

Of course the Wii can offer a level of immersion , even the n64 can but it's likely than if being immersed into a game was your top priority then you'd need high quality sound, high definition graphics and amazing visuals (the Wii can't offer that) . I don't understand why Nintendo supporters want the Wii to be good at everything when it cleary isn't.

On the immersivness front the Wii just can't offer the same as the PS3 and 360. the number of people who bought those titles is irelevant as you have no statistical information as to why they did.

Now compare the immserivness of your line up to Uncharted , COD4 , GoW2 , MGS4 and then you understand my point. these game's offer a movie like experience.

i never thought the day would come when I would compare Wii visuals to that of a HD console , but oh well...

 

 

VS

 

Hey let's compare Uncharted and Zelda with Crysis!!!!

Nex Gen Consoles Not Immersive confirmed!!!

Seriously, better graphics and audio quality do help, but they're not the main attribute to determine immersion... it's the design that does it. Several very old games have better atmosphere and are more immersive than pretty much most of this gen's game, if not all.

Yeah Crysis looks fantastic...and apparently playing Crysis has effected the way I view my Wii games according to some folks...you think I would of noticed it tho? For that matter its a wonder people can continue with their real lives after playing Crysis! 

In all seriousness, this idea that a difference in detail is a difference in quality is a farce to begin with. But it becomes even more meaningless when you compare a game that is trying to be gritty and real with a game like Zelda that isn't.

The disconnect is the idea that realism = better in all cases. In the case of most shooters it works but that is just one genre. With an adventure game like Zelda and Uncharted there are many different styles to choose from and those examples are going completely different routes.