About immersion, it really depends. In MMOs I prefer third person, because I feel better bond with my character and I feel more immersed in him, due to me being able to actually see all the cool moves he executes and the armor I am wearing. However when in single player, I would prefer first person view for reasons I can't quite explain. I guess for the sake of immersion, again.. quite contradictory, eh?

I think immersion is not about "forgetting you are playing a game" but more like "feeling you are in a consistent realistic world". For example if you are playing a medieval game, you are a knight and suddenly a fantasy goblin pops up, it breaks the immersion (note that if this was a fantasy RPG it would not break the immersion at all, it would add to it). It can be even an abstract game. When you are playing Tetris you are in a world of boxes. Everything in that world is square and falls from the top, if you suddenly encounter an alien shooting at you the immersion breaks and you realize you are playing a game.

I love cutscenes and reading, so that never breaks the immersion for me. I don't really care about being in control of the story, I just like reading lots of it, so that is what immerses me, really. Shooters don't immerse me because I don't like the concept of shooting things, so I'm always aware that this it's a game, and one I don't really like.


So yeah, it varies with players, I guess, but you're probably spot on about most players when you talk about yourself.

Like Acharis said, immersion breaks when something goes against what was previously established. In Dragon Ball Z, for example, immersion broke when powers levels started to grow but could never feel consistent(lame example, I know). I can't really think of any examples with video games...

Must the game be in First Person perspective?

No, not really. Even a god-overhead-view game can be immersive. Perspective has little to do with immersion.

Can you feel immersed during cutscenes?

Yes, but only if they stay in tune with the world/characters. In one instance of the game The Last Remnant (by Square Enix), in the very beginning, the game struck a false note with me that sticks even now. For some reason, the main character started using a power and just.... fainted. I understand that there are all sorts of super powers, but fainting in the face of danger just knocked me out.
A good cut-scene will keep you immersed as long as it does things you might expect, or can tolerate within the setting. A rainbow unicorn descent from the heavens in Gears of War is a good example of immersion breaking.


What if you are playing First Person and you see your character in a mirror?

I expect my character not to move and behave like an ape, unless he/she is an ape. F.e. don't give me a mirror in Duke Nukem Forever. The character's jump animation is so lazy and disgusting that... Ugh. Same goes for shadows btw. Dead Island is a great example of how hilarious that can be -- when you look at your shadow while running, the character's arms fold up like scorpion stingers, it just looks retarded.

Loading screens?

Too frequent == bored and irritated. Think Deus Ex Machina. I was afraid to die, change the zone or load the game simply due to the loading times driving me insane. Then again, if the loading screen is interactive and rewarding (Okami had that, you could gain a rare item for button mashing in the loading screen), I sometimes wish for it to linger around a bit longer.

Do you prefer health bars or the instant regeneration seen in most shooter games now adays?

Depends on the setting. I can see what Duke Nukem Forever did there, and I can accept that. Gears of War diverts my attention well enough for me not to notice the regen feature. I know a lot of fluff in WH40k to justify replenishing health in Space Marine (although why in campaign mode it worked differently is beyond me). On the other hand, Bulletstorm had no justification of regenerating health, so it didn't feel right.
I guess that as long as the game can make good (and ballanced) use of the system it implements, I'm okay with it.

Should the character you are controlling in First Person be silent or talkative?

It really depends. If the character is a moron and I disagree with his way of thinking, I'd rather have him shut up. And why only first person?
In Dead Space 2, the voice of the protagonist felt so unnatural that I kept looking around for the person talking. I realised it was Isaac around half the game. In Half-Life (which is what I think you are referring to) the silent protagonist worked as the NPCs did all the dialog and heavy lifting. Gordon wasn't expected to talk.
In most other games, such as Wolfenstein or Doom, the protagonist has barelly anyone to talk to, so it's okay to stay silent.


To sum up, as long as the game world, characters and events is coherent, you will gain immersion.

Well, books are immersive. Think about that. [/quote]I concur and would add Audio-books to that statement. In fact, some of the most immersive games I've played were text-based games like the ones found at IronRealms.com. You read the text, and your mind's-eye constructs a world of wonder incorporating previous experience from your senses. I suspect that why most game developers start with a Story. The challenge is translating that story into an interactive environment and stimulating the senses with synthesized narration of visuals, audio, force-feedback and input, that is usually all performed within your mind's eye.

I think its worth distinguishing between immersion, which as you said is the sense of suspension of disbelief, identification with the characters and goals etc. and absorption which I would describe as the state where your mind is totally taken up with the logical form of the game. I know I am often absorbed completely in some puzzle games. It would be worth investigating these two related states.

I also think that the player brings a lot to the table. When I was a kid I would often make up stories around games that had none. I even acted out continuations of the game with toys. I'm sure a lot of people did the same thing, if you could ever get them to admit it:)
Is immersion something that depends on the desire of the player to be immersed?

I found Mass Effect 2 extremely immersive, even though when you break it down it is just a series of sub games taking place in quite restrictive environments. I think the main thing was that the characters were so attractive and well realized that the whole point of the game became to get to know them. The shooting and stuff faded into the background, but I *needed* to know more about Samara!

Depth is immersive; the feeling that the world you are in is not just a series of blank surfaces and useless props, but something you can interact with. Imagine walking through the streets in LA Noire. Now pretend that all the people you see have their own stories, that the buildings all have something real going on in them. This "background potential", this sense of unrealised possibility is what gives things their depth and mystery. It is a space where players can project their imagination.

It doesn't just exist in environments; characters have immense "background potential" thanks to the complexity of language and what they can express about themselves, what they allude to as you get to know them (Mass Effect again..).

Of course, this is difficult to do, but even little things help; The ability to hunt in Red Dead Redemption went a long way in making the landscape feel like a living place worth exploring, a place with "immersive presence" if you get my meaning.
I think weaving little interrelated networks of minor game mechanics into the fabric of the game world is something more developers should look into.

Sound is often overlooked. Good tunes and sound effects always draw me into a game.