Roleplaying and the Fallacy of Immersion

[Fel]

You know, I've read many statements about some various aspect of KSP is "immersion breaking" and hence should be fixed now... namely Lifesupport / Resources / Other Minor Details. But the question is, what do these REALLY add into immersion?

Lifesupport is a few variables that add on some mass, resources add in a end-game challenge... even nitpicks about rocket engine performance / aerodynamics / physically impossible solar systems doesn't change that the reality of the game. The advent of television created a "physical impossibility" for the populous, yet they came to accept the technology even though it violated principles that they thought they knew.

The core of all our technology, our science, relies on assumptions (models, if you will) that happen to fit the observable data. If these assumptions were proven wrong, we'd have another technology / science boom as we establish different assumptions / models to fit the newly observed data. The discovery of the new model does not "break immersion", people don't claim "Hey, I must be dreaming."

So are we actually talking about Roleplaying here?

If so, what are we really looking for... the game to be a more stringent Dungeon Master, or for us to stop exploiting the "game's kindness"? There is a disease called "perfectionitus" that causes people to press F5 and F9 like crazy. There is another disease called "Cheateritus" that causes people to press F5 to "luck" their way through difficult segments of a game (essentially using "god mode" without actually turning it on). As such, should we remove quicksave to "increase immersion?"

So what is the REALITY of what people want when people specify "Immersion," just more actions for the Dungeon Master to allow? More "literal" penalties so they don't feel tempted to cheat (i.e. self-governance with a ruleset)? Or is it something else, I suppose?

[Scrogdog]

The problem with this discussion is that it's going to be a differing standard for everyone. There is no standard that we all follow and agree on.

Personally, I'd like to see resources, for example, because it is easier to have the game model it than to have me try and decide what is and isn't possible on my own, and then to emulate what I think the correct action is. Also, when the game models that sort of thing, a lot of eyes and points of view are on it. A correction might be made that I didn't have the knowledge to come up with on my own.

Having these items out in the open for discussion and review is far preferable to my estimation on how things should go.

That said, if people want this as a toggle I'd have a hard time understanding why that can't happen. It's your game, play it the way you like.

[Aphox]

That said, if people want this as a toggle I'd have a hard time understanding why that can't happen. It's your game, play it the way you like.

My sentiments exactly. Nobody's going to stop another-- nor should they attempt to-- from playing the game how they choose.

An option to play the game in a different manner, however, is perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't mind seeing a "simulation mode" that enables such features.

[rodion_herrera]

So you're saying that "standard" role playing games out there (single player mode, you know like Ultima, NeverwinterNights or whatever the kiddies are playing nowadays), shouldn't have save games, to be called "immersive"? 0_o

[erkha343]

No one is forcing you to use the quicksave feature, I don't understand why people are against features which they can choose to not use.

[rodion_herrera]

Not all people are perhaps, like you who have seemingly infinite times in their hands to actually get THAT immersive. I have RL work, so quicksaves and quickloads are very convenient for me. So why do you want to stop the way I enjoy KSP?

[sal_vager]

KSP is KSP, not a roleplay game, this argument is moot.

Talk about it in Off-Topic if you want, it is a deep subject that can touch on many games, but it's not specific to KSP.

[Stealth2668]

No one is forcing you to use the quicksave feature, I don't understand why people are against features which they can choose to not use.

This confuses me as well. If you don't like it, then don't use it. It's that simple.

[Fel]

So you're saying that "standard" role playing games out there (single player mode, you know like Ultima, NeverwinterNights or whatever the kiddies are playing nowadays), shouldn't have save games, to be called "immersive"? 0_o

The point was that if we're going to claim that "immersion" is "difficulty" there is nothing more difficult than removing the quicksave / quickload shenanigans that many gamers tend to exploit. NOT that you remove "savegame / loadgame."

It is akin to Diablo II, you cannot "quicksave" but can "save"... but you cannot exploit "save / load" to "beat battles"... don't get into the technicalities though; it'll become annoying.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Fel

[AmpsterMan]

I would guess it is a matter of how much one is willing to bend their suspension of belief. For some a lack of lagrange points makes the game too unrealistic, for others playing in windowed mode ruins their experience (like me)

I would also say that consumables aren't just extra parts and numbers one must balance. Right now their are two ways to fail a flight; death by crashing or running out of fuel. Adding consumables (food, water, air) would add a third failure option as well as a third layer of difficulty design ( one that goes directly against fuel efficiency)

In the end a game doesn't need to mirror reality, it only needs to provide a fiction that is plausible. At some point a line will be drawn; some individuals will be on this side of the line, others on that side. I for one think KSP has been stradling that line perfectly for my tastes

[rodion_herrera]

Those games derive from Pen-Paper... and people weren't doing "omg, I died, you all have to restart that battle." -__-

The point was that if we're going to claim that "immersion" is "difficulty" there is nothing more difficult than removing the quicksave / quickload shenanigans that many gamers tend to exploit. NOT that you remove "savegame / loadgame."

It is akin to Diablo II, you cannot "quicksave" but can "save"... but you cannot exploit "save / load" to "beat battles"... don't get into the technicalities though; it'll become annoying.

So basically, you want KSP to become more like Diablo II... chuckles... play Diablo II We'll play KSP.

[Fel]

I would guess it is a matter of how much one is willing to bend their suspension of belief. For some a lack of lagrange points makes the game too unrealistic, for others playing in windowed mode ruins their experience (like me)

I would also say that consumables aren't just extra parts and numbers one must balance. Right now their are two ways to fail a flight; death by crashing or running out of fuel. Adding consumables (food, water, air) would add a third failure option as well as a third layer of difficulty design ( one that goes directly against fuel efficiency)

In the end a game doesn't need to mirror reality, it only needs to provide a fiction that is plausible. At some point a line will be drawn; some individuals will be on this side of the line, others on that side. I for one think KSP has been stradling that line perfectly for my tastes

The question I keep asking is... why does what the "game" says change how you play it?

There have been several discussions of using "self-governance" rules that give money for certain objectives, that specify you cannot exceed so in so time on a flight.

Or what we keep saying about how some part isn't exactly right twinges because it seems like you could just as easily say that atoms on kerbol are made of Kluons and Kuraks. Completely different matter, completely different physics.

So if the game adding more "failures" is what people are after, why should we stop at "life support"? What about engine failures, or food contamination?

It's just a curiosity about what people are actually trying to say when they say "immersion".

[comham]

It's a matter of the details that engage you in the game world.