Theory

[Recap]

http://culture.vg/forum/topic?f=1&t=3767

Do you remember that dude with his "why a handheld sucks" manifesto nobody liked? He would use the same arguments -- much like a small screen size goes against the perception and therefore against the experience itself, your fucking ugly fingers in the middle of the screen goes against the immersion because they don't fucking belong to the game scene and therefore goes against the experience itself.

"Pretty obvious", he'd say, though thanks to the touch controls being unable to control shit like a proper controller does, they haven't become the norm as handhelds have. Not sure for how long, though.

There's indeed a direct relation to Diablo -- the cursor does never belong to the scene, either. Then we can talk about direct character control and whatnot. But really -- nobody listens, the arcade game is dead.

[icycalm]

You did nail it, but I would have phrased my explanation a bit differently. It's not so much that your fingers "do not belong to the scene" (though seeing them certainly doesn't help immersion-wise...) -- it's more that, by continually touching the protagonist, you are constantly reminded that you are not him. Whereas with the controller, there is a stronger sense of you being him (the "direct control" that you mentioned).

And it's the same with Diablo. You kind of ruined my planned-for effect there, but I am still hoping to make some bulbs light up above some heads when I go into that issue in depth in the review.

[Recap]

Yeah, that answers better your question, but I actually wasn't discarding games with "virtual control pads", so it's a more general approach.

And indeed I brought the subject to my own personal concern -- "immersion" as in "making you believe you're the protagonist yourself" is not really an aspect I usually care about much when gaming. If I did, I guess racing simulators with a first-person perspective would be my first choice.

[Recap]

Trine 2 would be a lovely piece to illustrate your point, by the way.

Check this: http://trine2.com/6.jpg

And then, this: http://www.abload.de/img/trine2_32bit2011-10-268ufx.png

http://postback.geedorah.com/foros/view ... hp?id=1448

[Vogel]

After reading Icy's Kick Off article, the part about how sports and games are a degraded form of warfare, and that this is because war has become impractical, it made me think about the four years I practised Kung Fu (I had to retire due to a one year long illness) and how the state of the club had degenerated since it was first formed in the 90's (this was before my time, I heard it from senior members), from being actually really violent and strengthening (my Sifu used to be a special operations kind of soldier in Saddam's army, he had killed with his bare hands) into basically a day care center for 12 year old Narutards.

When I had recovered from my illness I wanted to get back to training, but the club was pretty much dead, apart from one new recruit about my age there were only kids there, and all the senior members had quitted out of boredom. At that point I didn't see much reason to stick around, so I left too.

Now, wouldn't video games ultimately make martial arts 'relevant' again? If we want maximum immersion, wouldn't that eventually lead to full VR simulation (of the awesome sci-fi kind) as well as replacing the hand controller with 'full body suit' controllers (we already have primitive gun controllers), sword controllers, staff controllers or even nunchaku or chain controllers?

[icycalm]

And indeed I brought the subject to my own personal concern -- "immersion" as in "making you believe you're the protagonist yourself" is not really an aspect I usually care about much when gaming.

That's why you are not a very good art critic ;) After all, the same sort of argument can be used to defend handhelds, small screens in general, dumb interfaces (e.g. Diablo, etc.), bad controllers, and basically anything else someone might care to defend (i.e. "I don't care much about aspect X...")

The theory, on the other hand, points towards immersion and nothing but immersion as the deciding factor in the evolution of art. The only way therefore to deny the absolute superiority of the first-person perspective (among other things you don't like, such as 3D graphics, for example) is by denying the theory.

Basically, your phrasing was perfect:

"immersion" ... is not really an aspect I usually care about much when gaming.

So you do care about it, enough to make you prefer videogames to movies, for example. But you don't care about it enough to prefer 3D games to 2D ones, which is why a statement such as "GTAIII is better than any 2D game ever made or that could ever be made" would be nothing short of blasphemy for you.

Which again is cool, at least from my perspective, because this is the sort of mentality necessary for you to limit yourself to 2D games and become an expert in them to the degree you have become. Which accounts for statements like this:

If I did, I guess racing simulators with a first-person perspective would be my first choice.

... which shows absolutely terrible taste in games outside your field of expertise. For who in their right mind would prefer a mere racing game when you can have racing/driving inside something much bigger, like a GTA or a Far Cry? Once you've played such games, where you are not merely making laps around a circuit like an idiot, but driving FOR YOUR LIFE, the pure racing sims become almost as boring as a soccer or a basketball game.

[icycalm]

Now, wouldn't video games ultimately make martial arts 'relevant' again?

So some Swedish fagot tries to train in some dead gym and can't because it's dead, and therefore martial arts are irrelevant?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this once, but if you shit in my theory forum again you are banned.