3 ms·

Without some kind of qualifications here--what constitutes an "old" game, how do you define "immersive"--I'd have to say you're probably an old fogey. I've play

Without some kind of qualifications here--what constitutes an "old" game, how do you define "immersive"--I'd have to say you're probably an old fogey. I've played video games since the Atari 5200, and while I've enjoyed games like Ms. Pac-Man, Joust, Frogger, and Dig Dug, never once did I feel immersed. Compare them to Metal Gear Solid 3, Shadow of the Colossus, or Skyrim. They all feel like worlds I've inhabited. The surface area of those games is alone enough to make contact with all sorts of places in my mind.

Clubber 10y ago
I agree with you, but perhaps the novelty of those old games help to make them immersive when we were kids. Once the novelty wears off, they lost that feeling.
- FroshKiller 10y ago
  I started at two years old with the 5200. I got an NES for Christmas when I was five in 1986. I haved owned or played every major handheld and console released in the US to date since then with very, very few exceptions. Believe me when I say that I didn't feel immersed in a video game until Wolfenstein 3D, and that immersion didn't deepen until Quake. Novelty doesn't really create immersion. A big part of immersion is a sensory experience that supersedes "real" stimuli. First-person games like Wolfenstein 3D were immediately more immersive than, say, Donkey Kong or Mega Man because it was easier in a real-time, first-person perspective to displace your sensory experience onto the video game avatar. What really makes a game immersive isn't just the sensory experience, though. Your brain has to engage with the game's systems to large enough degree that the world outside the game takes a back seat to it. When I am truly immersed in a game, what I'm supposed to do tomorrow becomes what I'm supposed to do for the next quest. The part of my brain that keeps track of what I need at the grocery store keeps track of what I need from the weapons vendor. The urge to clean up the kitchen is supplanted by the urge to clean out my inventory. Older games were constrained by simpler hardware platforms and paradigms. They just weren't complex enough to be nearly as immersive or even immersive at all, let alone more immersive than more recent games.
Declanomous 10y ago
I don't think anyone is comparing Ms. Pac-Man immersiveness to that of Skyrim. However, I do feel that Morrowind, despite it's gameplay flaws, was much more immersive than Skyrim. Most modern games seem to have a very "gamey" feel to them. For instance, in Skyrim, the world levels with you, and they prevent a lot of "exploits" that make characters overpowered.(Which makes no sense. Who cares if crafting intelligence potions for two hours breaks the game? It's a singleplayer game!) In Morrowind, the world did not scale with you. This means that you feel hopelessly weak in the beginning, and you progress to the point where you are a demigod. At some point you reach the point where nobody in the in-game universe can stand up to you. In Skyrim, on the other hand, bandits start the game weak, when you end the game they are wearing some of the strongest armor available. It really breaks immersion. Plus Skyrim level design is yawn-inducing. Almost every level is a circle, that ends right back at the start of the level. Caves in Morrowind actually felt like caves. My personal theory is that game designers once grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons, and other tabletop RPGs where anything was possible. They wanted to give players that ability in their games. Current game designers grew up playing games, and so they are working with a much less complex source material. That's just my take. Obviously there is the fact that a less complex game has a broader appeal, but games like Europa Universalis 4 and Dwarf Fortress prove that complex games have a market. Speaking of DF, it's probably the most immersive game I've ever played. The controls are shit, the graphics are shit, but you can do anything you want in it.

Clubber 10y ago

I agree with you, but perhaps the novelty of those old games help to make them immersive when we were kids. Once the novelty wears off, they lost that feeling.

FroshKiller 10y ago
I started at two years old with the 5200. I got an NES for Christmas when I was five in 1986. I haved owned or played every major handheld and console released in the US to date since then with very, very few exceptions. Believe me when I say that I didn't feel immersed in a video game until Wolfenstein 3D, and that immersion didn't deepen until Quake. Novelty doesn't really create immersion. A big part of immersion is a sensory experience that supersedes "real" stimuli. First-person games like Wolfenstein 3D were immediately more immersive than, say, Donkey Kong or Mega Man because it was easier in a real-time, first-person perspective to displace your sensory experience onto the video game avatar. What really makes a game immersive isn't just the sensory experience, though. Your brain has to engage with the game's systems to large enough degree that the world outside the game takes a back seat to it. When I am truly immersed in a game, what I'm supposed to do tomorrow becomes what I'm supposed to do for the next quest. The part of my brain that keeps track of what I need at the grocery store keeps track of what I need from the weapons vendor. The urge to clean up the kitchen is supplanted by the urge to clean out my inventory. Older games were constrained by simpler hardware platforms and paradigms. They just weren't complex enough to be nearly as immersive or even immersive at all, let alone more immersive than more recent games.

Declanomous 10y ago

I don't think anyone is comparing Ms. Pac-Man immersiveness to that of Skyrim. However, I do feel that Morrowind, despite it's gameplay flaws, was much more immersive than Skyrim. Most modern games seem to have a very "gamey" feel to them. For instance, in Skyrim, the world levels with you, and they prevent a lot of "exploits" that make characters overpowered.(Which makes no sense. Who cares if crafting intelligence potions for two hours breaks the game? It's a singleplayer game!) In Morrowind, the world did not scale with you. This means that you feel hopelessly weak in the beginning, and you progress to the point where you are a demigod. At some point you reach the point where nobody in the in-game universe can stand up to you. In Skyrim, on the other hand, bandits start the game weak, when you end the game they are wearing some of the strongest armor available. It really breaks immersion. Plus Skyrim level design is yawn-inducing. Almost every level is a circle, that ends right back at the start of the level. Caves in Morrowind actually felt like caves. My personal theory is that game designers once grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons, and other tabletop RPGs where anything was possible. They wanted to give players that ability in their games. Current game designers grew up playing games, and so they are working with a much less complex source material. That's just my take. Obviously there is the fact that a less complex game has a broader appeal, but games like Europa Universalis 4 and Dwarf Fortress prove that complex games have a market. Speaking of DF, it's probably the most immersive game I've ever played. The controls are shit, the graphics are shit, but you can do anything you want in it.