Choices and Immersion

Personally, I never really find myself heavily immersed in the moral choices a game may present to me. But at the same time, it doesn't break me from the experience either - and I do enjoy the fraction of control given at those times.

But what are your thoughts? Do the added 'moral choices' offered in games like Bioshock influence it's immersive qualities in any way. And if so, how?

Dragon age probably had the most resounding moral choices offered to the player. It did affect your game drastically since many important characters would leave or admire you based on how you treated them. I liked that feeling. But at the same time it was kinda lame how you just throw a bunch of gifts at anyone and they'll love you forever. hehe

Fallout really gives a huge immersion to the game. I guess it's the only game that makes me feel like a guy in a post-apocalyptic world.

a lot of video games seem to be stuck on the extremes and i dont think either is very immersive.

there are a lot of basic choices (not even moral ones) that have to be there to keep up the sense of immersion. like some games stick the player character on a tiny path with these huge vistas all around them. what if the player wants to go off to the side? if theres an invisible wall instead of a choice, it breaks immersion. often times it just comes down to the game aving established a system and then taking it away for visual, hardware, or narrative reasons. it could happen in nearly any game and its not a big deal when the option is there, but it is if its not.

the other end of the spectrum happens much more often in rpg's where the player has a comically large range of decisions, generally moral ones. its in things like "will you save the princess or kill all the innocents?" i want to play a good character and neither of those options are particularly compelling without a lot of support. its also become so cliche that it reminds of the hundred other games ive played with the same paradigms and thats certainly not immersive. i want something specific to that world.

its a bit of a tightrope walk where the developer has to account for a lot of "what if..." curiosities without going so far overboard that theres no nuance to immerse the player.

a lot of video games seem to be stuck on the extremes and i dont think either is very immersive.

there are a lot of basic choices (not even moral ones) that have to be there to keep up the sense of immersion. like some games stick the player character on a tiny path with these huge vistas all around them. what if the player wants to go off to the side? if theres an invisible wall instead of a choice, it breaks immersion. often times it just comes down to the game aving established a system and then taking it away for visual, hardware, or narrative reasons. it could happen in nearly any game and its not a big deal when the option is there, but it is if its not.

the other end of the spectrum happens much more often in rpg's where the player has a comically large range of decisions, generally moral ones. its in things like "will you save the princess or kill all the innocents?" i want to play a good character and neither of those options are particularly compelling without a lot of support. its also become so cliche that it reminds of the hundred other games ive played with the same paradigms and thats certainly not immersive. i want something specific to that world.

its a bit of a tightrope walk where the developer has to account for a lot of "what if..." curiosities without going so far overboard that theres no nuance to immerse the player.

LoG-Sacrament

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

a lot of video games seem to be stuck on the extremes and i dont think either is very immersive.

there are a lot of basic choices (not even moral ones) that have to be there to keep up the sense of immersion. like some games stick the player character on a tiny path with these huge vistas all around them. what if the player wants to go off to the side? if theres an invisible wall instead of a choice, it breaks immersion. often times it just comes down to the game aving established a system and then taking it away for visual, hardware, or narrative reasons. it could happen in nearly any game and its not a big deal when the option is there, but it is if its not.

the other end of the spectrum happens much more often in rpg's where the player has a comically large range of decisions, generally moral ones. its in things like "will you save the princess or kill all the innocents?" i want to play a good character and neither of those options are particularly compelling without a lot of support. its also become so cliche that it reminds of the hundred other games ive played with the same paradigms and thats certainly not immersive. i want something specific to that world.

its a bit of a tightrope walk where the developer has to account for a lot of "what if..." curiosities without going so far overboard that theres no nuance to immerse the player.

Mawy_Golomb

One problem that I find with Fallout 3 is that it kind of paints nihilism in a very stereotypical way, as if all nihilists (including myself) want nothing but destruction. It assumes that, from anarchy, nothing but chaos will spring. That people don't have enough logic and intelligence, even after how far we've gone with science, philosophy, technology, etc., to maintain well being.

Now, back to the choices discussion. Regarding morality systems, I think we should be able to see a game where there is no actual automatic reward for your "good work" or "evil doings.' Just think back to reality.

Every day, we interact with all kinds of people, whether it'd be friends, family, coworkers, customers, etc. And just because we made one "good" or "bad" choice, it doesn't mean that others will only remember that one thing. They will expect more out of you. Sometimes you'll impress them. Other times you may appear to be a failure.

So, instead of having one town or NPC fixated only on the one choice that you made, it will still appear rather neutral for the most part. Unless you perform something very controversial, very questionable, nobody will hate you for it. And if you're not that widely known, enemies in the nearby area(s) really should have no reason to go after you, nor should most people have any reason to respect you a lot.

Or maybe the real problem with such forms of game design is that they hold you to the degree of either the "hero" or "bad guy." The same goes for everyone else in the game. If everything appeared meaningless (that is, everyone went along with life and just did whatever they wanted) in a game, with no big plot (or no real plot for that matter), you could probably call that a game about nothing, which is similar to the idea of a show about nothing (Seinfeld comes to mind). There, you'd see a bunch of random situations occur, surrounding people's lives, still fixated heavily on the character, but, in the end, only concluding that life is meaningless, and that it is just about filling up one's time as long as the hourglass is not empty (death).

I find it aids immersion a lot. In some games the choices may have very real consequences, while in others they will at least cause the dialogue scene to play out in a different manner. At they very least they allow me to be polite or rude to various characters depending on how I feel about them and the situation. All of those things make me feel like an active participant in the story.

I wonder what Dishonored will be like, with its open world and nonlinear approach to choices, especially coming from two great lead game designers (Harvey Smith, who worked on Deus Ex, and Raf Colantonio. who worked on Arx Fatalis). Next to Prey 2, this game certainly appears a lot more unique (especially with its art design and story) than most games dealing with choices.

http://www.gamespot.com/dishonored/platform/xbox360?tag=result;title;1