/vr/ - Retro Games

Not as fun as games with menus, and health bars, and levels, and boss rooms and other game-y stuff.

doug was way too good for this shitty industry.

>>10536193
>invents immersive sim
>puts himself in an immersive sim so he can be immersed in the sim
>there exist contrarians who think this isn't an immersive sim

>>10536598
How is it an imsim? I've never played it.

>>10536598
It's just an action adventure game. Being able to break lights and hide doesn't instantly make a game an immersive sim

>>10536832
If it doesn't have any emergent gameplay with open level design and multiple ways to complete objectives, its not an immersive sim.

>>10536850
Ah, but it does.

>>10536852
Then I suppose you could make the case. Glad to see fellow imsim appreciators.

>>10536193
>>I will call this game design the immersive sim
Nah they were calling it "immersive reality" when they were at Looking Glass (pic related was written by Stellmach and LeBlanc, not Church tho, circa 1997ish)

>>10537648
I mean if you wanna go all the way back to Ultima Underworld they were calling it a "dungeon simulation," as in a dungeon crawler (which at the time meant grid-based stuff like Dungeon Master or Eye of the Beholder) combined with the 3D tech of a flight/space simulator.

>>10537648
Warren Spector labels it "immersive simulation" in 2000 https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/postmortem-ion-storm-s-i-deus-ex-i-
>As we brought on new people, we found ourselves to be a team of hardcore Ultima geeks, hardcore shooter fans, hardcore immersive sim fans, strategy game nuts and console gamers. Some of our new team members proved to be "maximalists" -- wanting to do everything, special-case lots of stuff, and stick as close to reality as possible. Other team members proved to be minimalists -- wanting to include fewer game elements but implementing them exceptionally well, in ways that could be universally applied rather than special-cased.

>>10537687
Lol yeah this is exactly why modern games are so piss poor now. You need a good foundation to make resonant art. These guys were real game junkies who actually knew and understood the craft. And didn't come from a shitty constricted "good design" school, with actual pursuits outside the game logic that would embellish the art.

>>10537687
Yeah we know. We all know. My only point is that it predates Deus Ex by almost a whole decade. It just went by very slightly different names beforehand. Hence why the term "immersive sim" is so shit, they really didn't give a shit about the name they were too busy actually making dope games.

>>10537694
>These guys were real game junkies who actually knew and understood the craft. And didn't come from a shitty constricted "good design" school,
Actually most of Looking Glass were hired straight out of MIT. Don't get me wrong they all loved games but the reason why so many of their games were so ahead of the curve is cause they were mostly all MIT geniuses.

>>10537704
Yeah that's what I was getting into at the end. Having a background elsewhere embellished the art, but they really did understand games on a fundamental level and applied outside knowledge to enrich it in ways no "accepted" design could teach. Now we have game design school which is a walking contradiction to how games at Looking Glass, Origin, or even Sega were made.

>>10537758
>Now we have game design school which is a walking contradiction
Oh yeah, totally agree. From what I understand the one success game design schools ever gave us was the original Portal from digipen and that was only because GabeN happened to be taking a tour at the time. I mean, Portal's fucking great but that was, what like 2007 I think? There's been no success story like that from any game design school since.

>>10537694
>>10537704
>>10537758
>>10537767
maximized retardation
there have been tons of success stories, people just don't bandy their diplomas and pedigrees around
and if you think there's no good games since 2007 you have an entirely different kind of retardation

>>10537774
>and if you think there's no good games since 2007 you have an entirely different kind of retardation
Somehow you missed the bit where I said there's no good games from "game design schools" apart from Portal in 2007. The fact that you somehow came to the conclusion that I said, "there have been no good games since 2007," is an entirely different kind of retardation.

>>10537776
they are equivalent, because all games are from game design schools

>>10537784
No, they aren't. You're just making shit up now. Genuine, maximized retardation

If the prevailing argument is that the Looking Glass method of design has gone extinct and been replaced with contradiction, you have only supplied the evidence.

>>10536193
>no character stats or numbers in menu screens
What do you call these then?

>>10537921
Thats called a dungeon crawler. Great game, but its with System Shock and Thief: TDP that the design philosophy really began to crystalize.

>>10537784
>because all games are from game design schools
What? Do you attend a game design school by a chance?

>>10537704
The term "immersive simulation" does not explain the design philosophy well to the uninitiated, but I actually think the term is very apt once you have a grasp on the imsim design tenets. I also wouldn't argue with you that there are better possible terms to use. At the end of the day the term is an imperfect signpost to a list of concrete tenets. Regardless if you think the term is good or shit, immersive sim is a signpost many already know and point to.

>>10536598
I read that this is pretty good. I gotta pick this up. I happen to have a working og xbox in my collection

>>10536193
I hope all of you imsim faggots die of cancer painfully and that's coming from a massive Thief fan
Imsims are not the second coming of Christ

>>10538290
I think Thief:TDP and Thief:TMA are the only "pure ImSims" ever created. Everything else that calls itself an imsim is either muddled with RPG maths or its systemic emergence is too rudimentary.

Like 99.9% of games are shit compared to Thief. And most will not dare to cull their grit to enrich the emergent aspects. You don't want a net too wide. You want opportunistic design that can suit a variety of needs without being stifling in approach. I don't think we'll see something like Thief again. People's obsession over cascading technology has ruined what you can create, ironically.

>>10538379
>cascading technology
what

>>10536850
>>10536852
The levels are more open than your standard FPS and the adventure elements outside of combat were cool, but I don't remember there being multiple ways to complete objectives? It was still a linear game with pretty limited exploration, certainly no branching story choices or anything like that

>>10536193
>no character stats or numbers in menu screens for the player to make gameplay judgements and decisions
So Deus Ex is not an immersive sim?

>>10538535
its amazing how little people understand langauge here. actually astonishing.

>>10538541
Deus Ex is absolutely an immersive sim and immersive sims can certainly have RPG elements to them. However, the gamified stuff in RPGs like data tables, experience points, numeric values assigned to skills/attributes, as well as skill checks, all detract from directly experiencing the simulated reality of the game world.
RPGs tend to break the game world down into numeric measurements such as enemy health bars or XP needed for the next level-up.
In games like System Shock 1 or Thief all the information you need is reflected and simulated in the game world more organically.
Ex: In Thief there is no dexterity attribute, no sneak skill, no spell damage table and no XP you earn to upgrade your bow/blackjack. Instead, Thief breaks the game world down into simulated sounds, light and textures; a guard's footsteps, avoiding loud marble floors, staying out of the light and keeping hidden using your light gem, looking for wood to shoot a rope arrow or a place to mantle, dousing torches with water arrows to darken a room, the little jingle when you pick up an expensive item, etc.
Immersive sim is not a binary category of "yes" or "no" but a continuum where some imsims are more purist in their adherence to immersing the player in dynamic interactions with the game world itself.

>>10538547
more like, the abuse of language that you do with your discordbros is not "witty" as you think it is and it's not my duty to keep up with whatever shit lingo you come up with

>>10538541
Btw I had System Shock 1 and Thief: TDP in mind when I wrote the OP - hence the picture of Doug Church - because it was during that era after Shock 1 and during the development of Thief circa '97 where he and others at LGS really began to distill the design philosophy. Shock 1 was pretty much the first game to be developed with the ImSim design in mind, and Thief I & II are arguably the purist implementation of the design to date.

>>10538196
Nah. I mean yes, UW is a dungeon crawler but nah, the whole "immersive simulation" thing really did begin with Ultima Underworld. It's even got more systems and possibilities for emergent behavior than System Shock 1 does. Shock 1's a great game and way ahead of its time but as far as emergent gameplay and systems interacting with each other to create novel behavior not necessarily planned by the devs goes, it doesn't really have that much going on. Like yeah you can use the riot gun to interact with physics objects (like mines) in interesting ways and you can use the jetpack and rollerskates to get to areas in unintended ways but that's not THAT crazy by modern standards.

Meanwhile Ultima Underworld has tons of features you wouldn't see until later immersive sims. I'll give you a video example. It's not the best since the guy's abusing quicksaves (and also has set it up a bit wrong - the resolution's shittier than usual) but he's trying to get into a locked storeroom without the grey goblin seeing him do it. So he bashes down the door with his weapons but the guard sees him doing this and becomes hostile (which in turn can set the entire enclave of grey goblins against you if one of them sees you fighting back.) So he tries pushing the goblin away into another room (doesn't work, he just wanders back to his original position,) dousing his torch so the goblin won't see him (doesn't work - the goblin's too close) and so on until he just gives up. Again, not the greatest clip but there's relatively few clips of Underworld on youtube:
https://youtu.be/ee4PUcpGSn8?t=4425

And that's just breaking down doors. There's all sortsa shit you can do with magic, especially once you've got all the runes and can fly. It's all fairly primitive when compared to something like Thief but it's still all there, right from the start, albeit in rather clunky, primitive form. If immersive sims are about emergent gameplay then Ultima Underworld wipes the floor with System Shock

>>10539198
Oh and plus, as other anons mentioned: Deus Ex has RPG stats too. So does System Shock 2 which no one's mentioned yet. Having stats doesn't stop something from doing immersive sim shit. I mean the whole idea evolved from RPGs in the first place. It's more that you do immersive sim shit without stats and dice rolls and numbers-going-up since it's a different kind of idea than classic CRPG design

>>10539198
> the whole "immersive simulation" thing really did begin with Ultima Underworld
...Ok. But the design philosophy reached full maturity in later projects. With System Shock they deliberately set out to emphasize a greater sense of verisimilitude by forgoing NPCs, dialogue trees and other RPG abstractions that "broke the fiction" because they were foremost concerned with players experiencing Citadel Station as realistically as possible. That is why they elected to use audio logs for their narrative design. Then Thief is when they went full simulation and immersion autism.
>you can use the jetpack and rollerskates to get to areas in unintended ways but that's not THAT crazy by modern standards.
Upon reaching the flight deck instead of solving the wiring puzzle to activate the bridge, you can get a running start with the rocket skates (if you find them) and jump the chasm to the door on the other side. Modern standards would have an invisible wall there and if you made it past the invisible wall you'd break the game script.
>If immersive sims are about emergent gameplay then Ultima Underworld wipes the floor with System Shock
Theres other ingredients besides emergent gameplay. Shock wipes the floor with Underworld in immersion. But both games are obviously important within in the imsim lineage.

>>10539224
see >>10538547

>>10539198
> the whole "immersive simulation" thing really did begin with Ultima Underworld
...Ok. But the design philosophy reached full maturity in later projects. With System Shock they deliberately set out to emphasize a greater sense of verisimilitude by forgoing NPCs, dialogue trees and other RPG abstractions that "broke the fiction" because they were foremost concerned with players experiencing Citadel Station as realistically as possible. That is why they elected to use audio logs for their narrative design. Then Thief is when they went full simulation and immersion autism.
>you can use the jetpack and rollerskates to get to areas in unintended ways but that's not THAT crazy by modern standards.
Upon reaching the flight deck instead of solving the wiring puzzle to activate the bridge, you can get a running start with the rocket skates (if you find them) and jump the chasm to the door on the other side. Modern standards would have an invisible wall there and if you made it past the invisible wall you'd break the game script.
>If immersive sims are about emergent gameplay then Ultima Underworld wipes the floor with System Shock
Theres other ingredients besides emergent gameplay. Shock wipes the floor with Underworld in immersion. But both games are obviously important within in the imsim lineage.

>>10539224
refer to>>10538875

>>10539529
Yeah all I was saying was that Ultima Underworld's actually got a ton more immersive sim elements than you were giving it credit for. Really the whole 'immersive sim' idea starts with Underworld and honestly everything actually crystalizes in those 2 games. Don't underestimate it. It's a really interesting bit of game design even now. The things you can break with the flight spell for instance blow your System Shock example away.

Again refer to the page from the Ultima Underworld 2 manual here for proof: >>10537650

>>10539543
>Ultima Underworld's actually got a ton more immersive sim elements than you were giving it credit for.
Oh I get it now, you were upset because I seemingly brushed Underworld off as a "dungeon crawler." I said that because you posted a picture of a menu screen with character stats, and obviously dungeon crawlers being RPGs they are going to have character stats and numbers and all that. Character stats and imsims are not mutually exclusive, but those without character stats and other RPG elements are definitely more "pure" imsim. So no, it didnt crystalize with Underworld but Underworld did lay the foundation.

>>10539543
Id say midwinter 1/2 and mercenary: Damocles were more the beginnings of immersive sims than Ultima underworld. Though, uu deserves some acknowledge I suppose.

>>10539613
Acknowledgment*

>>10538248
Yes. Anon is currently taking a course on game design in HTML5/CSS3 at his special needs elementary school.

>>10539613
Really? I was more under the impression that a lot of the ideas for Underworld came from things like the then-recent mainline Ultima games (which would've been Ultima V and VI at the time) and especially features from Dungeon Master. Plus the 3D tech from then-current space and flight sims. I mean if you want to look at the actual originator of immersive sims you should probably look at Space Rogue which was Paul Neurath's first game and a kind of dry run of a lot of ideas Looking Glass would explore albeit in ultra-primitive, 8-bit, Apple II form.

I'm not saying Midwinter or Mercenary: Damocles aren't proto-immersive sims. I don't actually know much about them. How come you think they're the beginings of immersive sim design if you don't mind me asking. I get arguing that maybe even something like the original Elite or some of the earlier Ultima games were the "beginnings of immersive sims" but they're also the root of a ton of other shit too technically. I don't know about the two games you mentioned

>>10539818
Elite is definitely the base in ersive sim, I was just going in the vein of first person 3d immersion. Mercenary would be a big one in that and midwinter. They both employ multiple ways to interact and win the game. Mercenary: Damocles has some fucking crazy shit in it. Including the option to blow up a planet in order to change the orbital pattern of another planet, finding the "authors" computer to change things in game, making magic wishes, visiting planets with literal thousands of giant pyramid structure, etc..Though there are earlier immersive sims, just not as immersive as midwinter or Damocles. You can use cars, planes and spaceships in Damocles. Travelling to different planets. Humongous plants you can traverse on foot if you like, though you won't get far.

>>10539818
Ohh yeah also I love space rogue, it's a good early one. Then there's mines of titan too, that's a good one though cheap at the end.

>>10539832
I'm looking at footage of Damocles: Mercenary II now. Honestly looks fucking dope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWiNegYjR6o

Fuck me there's a lot of interesting, weird, forgotten shit for the Amiga and Atari ST. It's a real shame a lot of those systems games have just been largely erased from history/common knowledge.

>>10539849
Yeah, I'm no Amiga fan but it's got some bangers. I often recc it came from the desert,bits just way better than the dis version. Definitely a fun game and a little immersive simm itself. It's got a realtime mechanic, so doing things even a little different nets different interactions. I love its atmosphere.

>>10539852
Its* DOS*

>>10537921
Why did they move off of character stat menus and xp leveling in system shock and thief? Why did they shift their game design in that direction, when they could have just as easily put in character stats and xp progression for Garrett? Its because they understood the game world wouldn't be as believable as it could be with number values attached to things and UI menus that extract you from the game world.

>>10539923
Why did they bring it back in Deus Ex and Arx Fatalis? I get what you mean, but you can totally do the whole immersive sim thing with or without stats. And Ultima Underworld, a game with stats, is most definitely doing the whole immersive sim thing.

>>10536193
Explain how Mario 64 is not an immersive sim RIGHT NOW.

>>10540226
No stealth mechanics.

>>10540228
You have to walk slowly past sleeping piranha plants.

Also I'll preemptively answer the first person thing here. Up-C. Yes the whole game isn't that way, and when you die in deus ex the camera third person's. It's splitting hairs at this point. Immersion was always a fake sensation people liked memeing on because it's quantifiable. Meaning idiots can talk about it.

>>10540226
Explain how it is first? All you do it that game is explore a 3D environment collecting stars. It isn't trying to simulate a reality at all. It's fun as shit and the movement is near perfect but it's really not doing the whole simulation thing.

>>10540237
Although all that said nearly everyone at Looking Glass still played the shit outta it

>>10540237
>we're making a game where the game world has multiple systems, and each system has their own consistent ruleset
>the player can predict the outcome of a system's consistent ruleset, so a system's ruleset can be applied to the outcome of another system's ruleset for emergent gameplay
>level design with multiple routes & multiple ways to complete objectives
>obstacles to objectives can be deliberately bypassed with creative system interactions without breaking the game script
>all relevant data are cues and feedback from inside the game world itself for the player to make gameplay judgements and decisions.
>And we are calling it... Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Nintendo have always thought this way. Just they don't bother with immersion memes because they aren't boring and retarded.

>>10540241
see

>>10540241
>Looking Glass was a bunch of Nintendo fanboys
Playstation bros...

>>10540226
No RPG mechanics
No dialogue options
No intentional gameplay differences for each area

>>10540251
>no character stats or numbers in menu screens for the player to make gameplay judgements and decisions
>all relevant data are cues and feedback from inside the game world itself for the player to make gameplay judgements and decisions.

>No RPG mechanics

You sound confused!

>>10540243
Yeah that's because OP's definition's kinda fucking bad and doesn't actually get to the root of what it's actually about. Also you asked for why Super Mario 64 isn't an immersive sim, not Breath of the Wild - a game from over 20 years later.
Please see image here: >>10537648
And just to highlight:
>These systems include things like the physics simulation and player movement, combat, magic, and skills, and our "Act/React" concept of object interaction. By setting up consistent rules for each such system, and designing interactions between them in a common-sense but controlled way, we end up with what is in essence one big system.

The Act/React system they're banging on about and "designing interactions between them in a common-sense but controlled way" (which is the Act/React - again - Metaproperties and Links systems) is unironically the Chemistry Engine from Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. And I don't mean it's kinda like the Chemistry Engine, Act/React literally is the chemistry engine. It's actually the first game ever (to my knowledge - if anyone has other info please let me know) to program its object system in that way.

For the record this was written 20 years before Breath of the Wild came out. Better late than never I suppose. And the systems are actually named correctly (i.e. Act/React refers to Source and Receptron properties which are actions and reactions respectively) rather being called some marketing jargon like "the Chemistry Engine" (which literally has nothing to do with chemistry - it's just marketing hooey) I slightly kid, I actually like most of Nintendos actual games but they have arrived rather late to the party in this case

In all honesty it can get confusing as to what is or isn't an immersive sim now since it's been over 20 years since Looking Glass went bankrupt and over 30 since Ultima Underworld. Some recent games have caught up (and even exceeded in some ways) from where LGS left off.

>>10540259
(ran out of space)
...It's only stupid when someone tries to argue that something like Mario 64, which came out when Looking Glass were still a thing, is an immersive sim because... it's immersive or it's simulating jumping or some other such ill-informed nonsense

Thank you for coming to my TED talk

>>10540247
>He has used Final Fantasy 7 to force Tim to concede that there are good PlayStation games

>>10540259
Mario 64 and Breath of the Wild share a conceptual root, but BotW is a far more illustrative example. By branching out I aim to demonstrate how wide the similarities run. Nintendo Games are so fun and satisfying because so many of them have always aspired towards this kind of natural logic, as far as they could realise. Only they go further and aim to minimise abstracted inputs. How many of your "options" in Deus Ex are a different thing you can press 'E' in front of?

Nintendo have a strong history of leveraging the work of white code-monkeys into far more interesting artistic wholes. Did you ever notice that the lead programmer on Pikmin was an English guy?

Nintendo aren't late to the party. People are just blind to what they've been doing all along because we need things tagged and named before we let ourselves notice them. The development of The Legend of Zelda has always been a journey towards greater realisation of a naturalistic adventure experience. Always interested in interactions with primal forces and sensations. Fire, wind, large open spaces, water, elemental reactions and so on. Yes, they were very script-reliant and rigid back in the day, but the intention was always there. And the results were always compelling and effective in practice, even if behind the curtain the effects were a bit jury-rigged.

Maybe white men were programming the greatest, most organic cockroach AI the world had ever seen in 1998. Now look where we are.

>>10540260
I personally find the term "immersive sim" extremely stupid. The compelling experience contained within is better described in unloaded terms. Take "the joy of leveraging your faculties and the forces and tools around yourself against problems and getting results" for an example. Looking Glass did understand that, and built a few good works aiming at this ideal. Nintendo also understand it, and built many good works aiming at this ideal.

You can keep the historic label. White games need something.

>>10540274
Tim Stellmach seems to be a huge Nintendo fanboy. Hating playstation games save for Final Fantasy, and actually being hyped for Zelda 64.
Doug Church is playing Wave Race.
Even Marc LeBlanc, who likes the Playtation, beat SM64.

There's a lot more Nintendo in that list then there is Playstation.

>>10540282
>How many of your "options" in Deus Ex are a different thing you can press 'E' in front of?
A few, but most of your options actually AREN'T a press 'E' to use (or frob.) Also, and sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but it isn't 'E' to frob in Deus Ex, it's mouse2. Sorry, have you played Deus Ex. Because it really sounds like you haven't.

>Nintendo aren't late to the party. People are just blind to what they've been doing all along because we need things tagged and named before we let ourselves notice them.
...No. That's... completely wrong. Zelda games (and as far as I know all other Nintendo games too) prior to Breath of the Wild literally do not use an Act/React style system for object interaction. Thief: The Dark Project (which came out a few weeks after Ocarina of Time,) Thief 2 and System Shock 2 do use that system. Breath of the Wild does - that's the Chemistry engine and it's rather well implemented. However BotW did literally come out 19 years after Thief so... yes, I think they were late to the party
>Yes, they were very script-reliant and rigid back in the day, but the intention was always there.
Okay so they're old games didn't feature an Act/React style system but they apparently always intended to program their object system in a way that was already proven to work in 1998 but instead they waited 19 years for some reason. Right, got it.
>Maybe white men were programming the greatest, most organic cockroach AI the world had ever seen in 1998. Now look where we are.
Funni racism aside, I'm talking about the object system, not the AI system. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Pic related is about half of it (from Thief 1.) The AI system's a completely different thing. Also Breath of the Wild's AI never really impressed me too much, there's some neat stuff the critters do but it's no FEAR. And I mostly like Breath of the Wild for the record. I just think your posts are absurdly stupid.

>>10540324
>Also, and sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but it isn't 'E' to frob in Deus Ex, it's mouse2.
I had a feeling it wasn't but couldn't be bothered checking. I've never actually finished Deus Ex. Don't be a faggot and say sorry. This is a legitimate question you have.

>prior to Breath of the Wild literally do not use an Act/React style system for object interaction.
They are late to the party as narrowly and technically defined, but as I went to some length saying, they were spiritually doing the same thing in cruder ways beforehand. For functionally the same outcome just about.

But you may have gotten confused by my "tagged and named" comment. There I was referring to the western tendency to not appreciate anything until it is quantified. A tendency which the term "immersive sim" is a perfect example of. People can't just appreciate naturalistic interactions in a virtual space. They have to be told that this constitutes "immersive sim" and that immersive sim is good. Then if white man notices another natural interaction in a virtual space he won't just enjoy it, he will timidly suggest that it may in fact also be an immersive sim, and so worthy of praise.

BotW is not functionally late to the party. By Wind Waker most of the DNA is there. Not this particular Act/React system, but the attempts at representing interplay between forces, objects, and elements. Which again, is what is actually appreciable as a player.

>but instead they waited 19 years for some reason
They were making perfectly solid zelda games without it. I think they waited until it would have actually been worth it over just creating harder one-off solutions within situations they wanted to create as they came up.

What are you even trying to say by this line? Do you have some animosity towards the japanese?

> I'm talking about the object system, not the AI system
MORE funny racism time. I am speaking conceptually, not technically. You are white so you don't understand. c limit...

Another fine thread that turns into "Nintendo invented it".

>>10540331
>I've never actually finished Deus Ex.
No comment needed. Have you at least played Thief 1 or 2 yet? If not, please play them before posting here ever again
> I am speaking conceptually, not technically
Yeah and you have no idea what concepts you're even trying to articulate. For instance this:
>But you may have gotten confused by my "tagged and named" comment. There I was referring to the western tendency to not appreciate anything until it is quantified. A tendency which the term "immersive sim" is a perfect example of. People can't just appreciate naturalistic interactions in a virtual space. They have to be told that this constitutes "immersive sim" and that immersive sim is good. Then if white man notices another natural interaction in a virtual space he won't just enjoy it, he will timidly suggest that it may in fact also be an immersive sim, and so worthy of praise.
Is pure word salad. And as far as I can tell... wrong! If I understand what you're trying to say correctly then that's completely untrue. You just made that up! Cheeky! Are you a woman? No, seriously. As a favor to me don't post anything this gay directed towards me ever again. You are literally gaying up this entire thread

>>10540336
There is no reason to be upset. You may engage with me in the marketplace of ideas at any time.

Now where was I?

>>10540324
Yes, the point about cockroach AI was that the west has fallen into both an anti-art position of taking pride in technical achievements over the realisation of vision. And that we are in clearly in the mindset of decline. We must look backwards because every good thing we had going is now a severed tradition. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I am interested in talking about more than the technical history of what made an "immersive sim" work and what an "immersive sim" actually is. In fact I'm not really interested in either of those things at all. I am trying to lead you from those to what I actually find interesting. What I find interesting and where I believe one actually finds the real animating element in ALL of these works (not just the hard-defined immersivesimvaniabornelikes).

I don't think you're stupid. You're just insanely white. Are you Swedish? German? You are locked into some very myopic conceptual frames which are making it very hard for you to understand me (for the record I am white, I just deprogrammed myself and learned how art works).

Maybe it'll help to iterate on one of my points again. You mention FEAR as an example of good "AI" (m'good video essay consuming sir). FEAR obviously does not have machine sentience animating its characters. They have hard planned reactions to certain things which can happen in their presence. But this ultimately doesn't matter because on the player-end you get an intelligent looking result. Would you understand me if I were to say that this is comparable to how Nintendo handled object reactions before Act/React? And then of course... Act/React is really just a finer example of the same phenomena isn't it..?

And while I'm infuriating you, UFO: Enemy Unknown is an Immersive Sim.

>>10540352
>I know exactly what I'm talking about
No you don't. Stop posting cats. They don't deserve to be associated with your retardation.

>>10540351
I've played Deus Ex and Thief. But didn't finish either. I feel like I got the idea of how they work and what they were going for. Both got at least a few hours from me.

>>10540358
I accept your concession and will come back to the thread if anybody else wants to engage with my posts before they're gone.

>>10540352
>I am interested in talking about more than the technical history of what made an "immersive sim" work and what an "immersive sim" actually is.
Next sentence:
>In fact I'm not really interested in either of those things at all.
Which one is it then?
>I just deprogrammed myself and learned how art works
Clearly you haven't learnt how code works. Would recommend learning the bare basics of C++ at least. That's usually what games are written in. Understanding "how art works" will only get you as far as writing the intro to some actual artists coffee table book.

Fuck it, here's a bit of source code for Thief 2. Can you read any of that? That's actually part of the Act/React system (REACTION.CPP to be precise.) Breath of the Wild's chemistry engine would look something like that too. If you can't read any of that then you have no business lecturing others about game design. That's like being an illiterate book critic, or a blind movie critic.

>>10538547
Indeed. This place is overrun with ignorant pseuds throwing around buzzwords they've just heard in a vain attempt to impress other children.

>>10540373
Ooh here's some of that 'cockroach' AI stuff you were rambling on about.
>>10540371
>I've played Deus Ex and Thief. But didn't finish either. I feel like I got the idea of how they work and what they were going for. Both got at least a few hours from me.
Nah, clearly not. Thief, again, literally has the Chemistry engine in it (or rather the Chemistry Engine's actually good ol' Act/React, MetaProperties and Links from Thief.) There's actually a ton of freedom in that game if you start experimenting or just fucking around really. And certain AIs can occasionally cause havoc too under the right circumstances (hello fire elementals)

>>10540352
>And then of course... Act/React is really just a finer example of the same phenomena isn't it..?
Nope. I'll give you an example from Thief: Fire Elementals. Big, floating balls of fire that shoot smaller fire balls at you. Now here's the thing if you drop them into certain FMs they can cause absolute havoc (they don't tend to do this in the base game simply because of which levels they're in although some of this can happen during the level Escape under certain circumstances.) They can burn down locked, wooden doors, damage enemies (which can result in a massive battle under the right circumstances) and relight doused torches. And all of this is emergent behavior, unplanned and unscripted by the devs.

How come? Well nearly every single object interaction (other than 'frob' - that's press 'E' to interact - and lockpicking) has been boiled down to a list of about 20 generic stimuli. I posted the list above here: >>10540324
So the devs tagged the fire elemental with a Source: FireStim property (since it's on fire, duh.) But now the fire elemental damages wooden objects like wooden doors (objects tagged with MetaProperty: MatWood,) damages creatures made out of flesh (objects tagged with MetaProp: fleshy) and relights torches (Object: torches) since they're all tagged with a Receptron: FireStim property with the appropriate reaction. By the time the devs added fire elementals to the game the system was mature enough that all these object interactions happened organically. Or to put it another way, everything in Thief that should react to fire already reacts to fire, all you have to do is tag an object with a fire stimuli and the game's rules take care of the rest.

So in other words everything you said about "hard-planned reactions to certain things" (and for the record, it's "hard-coded" you muppet) is completely wrong and no, Act/React literally isn't "just a finer example of the same phenomenon"

>>10540373
>>10540390
Why don't you think back to how this exchange started and try to list all of the points of disagreement you have with me in your head? You might find this surprisingly difficult. I'll keep engaging with you from here, but I would very strongly recommend you follow my suggestion before replying back.

So you write
>Which one is it then?
The answer is "more". As I wrote and you quoted. There is no contradiction in what I wrote. I consider the bare technical points which fascinate you uninteresting, but think that they can lead into a more interesting discussion. Do we disagree or do we just have different eyes?

>If you can't read any of that then you have no business lecturing others about game design. That's like being an illiterate book critic, or a blind movie critic.
Ctrl+f my posts for "game design" if you want. I assure you I make a point of never saying that.

An ability to code would allow me to better appreciate the CRAFT behind video games. Which is valid appreciation, like all appreciation. But not what I am interested in. Again, this is the white angle. Seeing games as code. Mechanical things. If you ask me, video games are made out of ideas. The code is material used to realise the vision. Parts, engine, mechanical things under the hood. Raw footage. Paint. Brush. etc.

Understanding cameras might give me a far greater appreciation for my favourite films. I wouldn't disagree with that either. But not understanding cameras very well would not necessarily prevent me from understanding what the man behind the camera ultimately wanted me to.

And to that point, I feel like I have understood the fundamental intentions of Looking Glass Studios without appreciating their code. Understood better than you.

[continued next post]

>>10540436
Please see image here: >>10537648

>you don't have to imagine the fantasy world you're supposed to be in because you can see it, hear it, and in some ways almost feel it. This feeling of being there is essential to the role playing game, and it's what the Looking Glass philosophy is all about.

Of this entire page of text, look what jumps out at you. And look what jumps out at me. This is where our *disagreement* comes from. We look at the same thing and different parts strike us as essential. In my case the vision and intention. In your case the particulars of its mechanical realisation.

This is what I see as the fundamental difference between western and oriental approaches to creating video games. One culture tends to sees them primarily as mechanical projects, while the other sees them as something in continuity with prior artforms, more of a new form of art and multimedia than a new kind of technical domain.

>>10540436
Please read my last post as it completely blows your thesis out of the fucking water
That's this one for the record: >>10540434

>>10540434
Also it's literally not "hard-planned" (actually hard-coded but whatever) to the point where I can do this

>>10540443
And look now Fire Elementals get knocked out when confronted by your stupidity!

>>10540453
T'DAAAA! Congratulations retardanon you made it into the game

>>10540442
You have misread me, or I have miscommunicated. Let me check.

Unfortunately (for you, who I am big for), you have misread me. Ctrl+f 'hard' in this thread. I refer to two games as 'hard' in their construction. Neither are Looking Glass titles. I deliberately use the term to define less organic systems IN CONTRAST to the organic and emergent nature of how different systems and forces work in Looking Glass works.

By calling Act/React another example of the same phenomena (as FEAR's "AI") I meant that ultimately EVERYTHING IN A VIDEO GAME IS ARTIFICE AND SIMULATION. Looking Glass made very brilliant and robust simulations, but THEY ARE STILL SIMULATIONS. Which is my way of trying to say to you that the received experience on the player end is what ultimately matters. While it's cool if something is handled elegantly and intelligently (and BRILLIANT for modders, I love UFO for this reason (In fact I have written textwalls praising UFO for much the same reason you like LG Games)) what ultimately is experienced when the work is received in its final presented form is a work of artifice which we appreciate for the experiences which emerge from our engagement with it.

When I play FEAR I am playing with what looks like intelligent soldiers who are reacting to me. That is the experience I have. The fact they were not actually sentient does not matter. The fact that if dumped in unfamiliar circumstances they would have acted far less intelligently does not matter. What I saw worked.

When I play THIEF I am playing with what looks like natural forces interacting with each other as they do in nature. That is the experience I have.The fact it is not real fire, not real water, we can create situations in game in which these forces act unfirelike or waterlike if we try hard enough does not really matter. What I saw worked. I got to experience what felt like a living world. I got the feeling of "being there".

>>10540479
1. I only bought up FEAR once in comparison to Breath of the Wild as an example of a game with good AI. You're the one who keeps bringing it up (also FEAR isn't an immersive sim for the record)
2. Yeah you're still speaking in non-standard terminology. You're saying 'hard' and took me a while before I realized you were talking about "hard-coded object interactions." I get what you're saying now, but again your actual delivery is very word-salady and it's really easy to completely misread your points when you constantly use incorrect/muddled terminology
3.
>meant that ultimately EVERYTHING IN A VIDEO GAME IS ARTIFICE AND SIMULATION. Looking Glass made very brilliant and robust simulations, but THEY ARE STILL SIMULATIONS.
Yes? That's why they're called immersive simulations? I must've convinced you then. Glad we're on the same page now.

Anyway the original point was whether or not Super Mario 64's an immersive sim and it still isn't. I know you seem to think Mario 64 and Breath of the Wild (which is debatable thanks to the Chemistry Engine as are more than a few other modern games that have cropped up that have nothing to do with LGS) share the same roots (?) or whatever the fuck but that's still garbled nonsense. Also Nintendo literally were late to the party. By the time Breath of the Wild came out even Unity had an Entity Component System (which is kinda the same thing as Act/React but also not)

>>10540524
I might leave you alone for now after this post. You're clearly having a hard time.

>FEAR isn't an immersive sim for the record
You can run this by the referee if you want but I'm pretty sure I'm still allowed to talk about it if I think it can be relevant.

>you're still speaking in non-standard terminology
Yes. Because gamer terminology is catastrophically poor. It actively makes you stupid and incapable of understanding art if you take it seriously and think along the lines it sets out. Even on simple points for which accepted "standard" language exists I try to find novel framings and approaches every time to open up both my own understanding and that of any observers.

This can make me harder to understand, I'm aware. But I believe it's the only way to get anywhere that means anything.

> I get what you're saying now, but again your actual delivery is very word-salady
It's not word-salady. When people say that they mean arbitrarily assembled and meaningless language. I am very specific and purposeful when I write. I am just also very idiosyncratic. I don't KNOW the technical language, and I consider the THEORY language to be conceptual POISON.

>Glad we're on the same page now.
>now
Please see >>10540436
We have been on roughly the same page all along. I have never seen myself as in disagreement with you. I'm just trying to explain my own interpretation of the subject matter.

Mario 64 is not an immersive sim you say, but
>you don't have to imagine the fantasy world you're supposed to be in because you can see it, hear it, and in some ways almost feel it. This feeling of being there is essential to the role playing game, and it's what the Looking Glass philosophy is all about.
Do you not feel this same aspiration in certain Nintendo games? I think you're getting hung up on this shared tool used in BotW. Pretend I said Wind Waker in every botw instance if that helps. Same point applies. WW has fire. Thief has fire. Brother-games.

>>10540545
You keep saying please see: >>10537648
When you don't realize I'm the person who posted that you genius. I've even got it open up in the next tab:
https://web.archive.org/web/19970618130832/http://www.lglass.com/p_info/dark/howdo.html

And no, you're literally reading it wrong. You've just read the introduction. You've somehow skipped the next 422 words where they explain EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN by that intro. So yes, the bit which I've been looking at is the entire post, I haven't just looked at 2 sentences from the first paragraph and made shit up from there

>Do you not feel this same aspiration in certain Nintendo games?
No, again referring to what Stellmach and LeBlanc actually wrote in full rather than just two sentences, no. Oh other than Breath of the Wild I guess, that Chemistry Engine's pretty much doing what they're describing there (quest design's way off tho.)
>Pretend I said Wind Waker in every botw instance if that helps. Same point applies. WW has fire. Thief has fire. Brother-games.
NOPE. That's not how fire works in Thief as I explained above. You literally don't get it.

>>10540554
I am QUITE aware that you are the one who posted it. I read the whole thing and I believe I made the point twice that we consider different parts of the same whole to be essential.

I don't believe that there is a "wrong" reading of this. This is just our different values and interests being expressed. You say that the rest is what they mean by the start, I say that the start is what they mean by their games, and the rest is how they get there.

The title of the page is not 'THE POINT OF OUR GAMES'. It is, 'HOW DO WE DO IT'. This is not them writing about "why". This is them talking about "how". More importantly, they do not consider this the "what" of their game. After the part you have decided was merely an "introduction" they go onto the rest, which they call "the hard technical problem". The hard technical problem of WHAT? The hard technical problem of creating the fantasy of being there. The work of imagination done by the machine.

I ask if you feel the same "aspiration" in certain Nintendo games, and you without missing a beat start talking about the presence or absence of shared technical parts. You apparently cannot understand what I mean by "aspiration". You cannot understand that there are human forces beneath technical ones. On some level you must know, but to you that's an inconsequential "introduction" detail that doesn't matter. The meaning is in the "how".

You, again I have to say it, have the extreme western neurosis on video games. You take mechanical parts and functions to be the 'What" in every case. As a matter of course. This makes it impossible for you to understand how most games actually came into being.

>That's not how fire works in Thief as I explained above. You literally don't get it.
I see you are very eager to reclaim some pride here and claim it's possible for me to miss the point of something said. But that hasn't happened. It won't. You are again confused because a certain point has again bounced off your head.

>>10540582
Yeah again you're confused and have read it wrong. Wind Waker's fire is closer to what LGS described as:
>The common approach to this problem involves scripting a variety of object behaviors, so as to construct puzzles for the player to solve. This is fun up to a point, but it generally disallows the element of improvisation which is such an important part of an RPG's creative challenge.
Again, if you actually read the post called "How Do We Do It" you might actually learn how they did it. To be fair though Breath of the Wild's fire is actually programmed in that way. They literally stated how they did it. Why are you not getting this?

It's not Western neurosis or whatever the fuck you're on about, you're just making shit up despite literally reading how the devs said to make an immersive sim. It's quite impressive really

>>10540582
>>10540554
The point that bounced off being "aspiration", again. The intention to create the seamless fantasy of being there. As you've already said, you don't understand why I keep bringing up FEAR. Let me try to get it across again.

You say that Thief has "immersive sim" fire because it is represented in such a way that it has properties and interacts with other entities and forces which have their own properties, which allows for very sensible and engrossing fire-like behaviour from this fire. You can think of different things to do with it and there's a good chance that it'll respond in a reasonably fire-like fashion.

Now, going further back even than Wind Waker, Ocarina of Time has fire in it. This "fire" is a far more contrived and less flexible force than it is in Thief. It has very few if any general properties. Every event in the game involving "fire" is more like a very simple 1-1 interaction between very specific forces and entities to produce a fire-like response when a certain thing is done. A lit torch does not ignite potentially anything in the game based on a property of flammability. There are instead just certain objects in the game programmed to "catch fire" when touched by a lit torch.

Character limit. Also I forgot my cat last post. This lets me have two for one.

>>10540605
>Now, going further back even than Wind Waker, Ocarina of Time has fire in it. This "fire" is a far more contrived and less flexible force than it is in Thief. It has very few if any general properties. Every event in the game involving "fire" is more like a very simple 1-1 interaction between very specific forces and entities to produce a fire-like response when a certain thing is done. A lit torch does not ignite potentially anything in the game based on a property of flammability. There are instead just certain objects in the game programmed to "catch fire" when touched by a lit torch.
Yes. That's called, "scripting a variety of object behaviors, so as to construct puzzles for the player to solve." You're arguing against yourself at this point

>>10536193
This thread's gay. Post rare Dougs

>>10540605
But my point is that the function of the fire in Thief is that you have it, you're in a world full of things, and if you try to apply this fire to different things you'll get a response. And it's nice when you get a sensible answer. Someone playing Ocarina of Time can have the exact same experience. They have fire, they try things, and they can get sensible answers. I am concerned with final received experiences. Is the experience of Fire in Thief really that different to the experience of Fire in OoT?

I believe that in practice both games achieve basically the same thing, just LG did so in a way that had far more POTENTIAL. When you consider that both teams only wanted you encountering a limited number of things, all of which work, is there essentially a difference? Are they not two approaches to the same conclusion? Were these teams not TRYING TO MAKE THE SAME KIND OF EXPERIENCE FOR YOU?

>>10540597
You are confusing What with How further. To the point I can just show you how in your own post.

>you're just making shit up despite literally reading how the devs said to make an immersive sim
"How"

Do you not see that there is a desired experience here which is the point, with the rest being means? YOU are saying that an "immersive sim" is defined by its construction, by the means used to realise the end. I am saying that Thief and OoT should be considered the same class of game experience despite differences in construction because they aspire to, and largely deliver, the same class of experience.

Looking Glass do not say that their game is fundamentally different to others. They say that they hope to create the means to allow a player to improvise. On one hand, many of the strict, singular solutions in OoT resemble the natural logic of improvisation, and on the other, within the systems that are there improvisation is possible. There are 100 ways to win a sword fight with an enemy just with your sword, for example. Jump this way, that way, shield.

>>10540612
This isn't an argument against my point. You don't understand my point because you are so rigidly bound to western STEM-centric notions of what a video game is that you can't comprehend alternative perspectives, to the point you deny that they even exist or are possible. Leading to this back and forth in which you repeatedly attempt to drag what you're *seeing* back to what you *know*.

I will try to put it as simply as possible.

I don't believe that there is a coherent point at which we can draw a line between what Looking Glass were doing, and the existing games which they were attempting to surpass.

We could say that on certain points these games exist on a continuum of containing more or less robustly simulated forces, having a capacity to create more or fewer novel situations with their parts, their parts, engine, or code having a greater or lesser potential to be used to create more complex situations and states, but fundamentally Looking Glass were doing what other games were doing. But with several nice and elaborately worked out moving parts inside where their contemporaries tended to get by on simpler simulations. But it is ALL simulation.

I almost want to say it seems like you are convinced that at a certain point your "simulation" has a certain *reality* to it that others merely fake. Or we could say... "simulate".

>>10540653
Here's Marc "MAHK" Leblanc (one of the authors of that thing you keep citing incorrectly) explaining it a bit better, comparing Thief to Metal Gear Solid. You can easily substitute most arguments for MGS with Ocarina (which btw is still a great game, I just think your argument is beyond retarded.) Hopefully this answers your questions

>>10540653
You may have noticed I like words a lot. And I like precision. I don't have a dog in this fight beyond wanting people to stop annoying me with language I consider silly and unhelpful. "Immersive Sim" strikes me as an absurdity because "immersion" is an arbitrary thing and clearly not what you have in mind when you define these. What you are instead calling essential is the robustness and depth of simulated forces. Again, however, this runs into the problem of being arbitrary. When does a level of simulation become "immersive"?

What people are clearly *trying* to talk about when they say "immersive sim" is games which model interactions between their different parts and potential forces in a fashion that's sufficiently robust to sustain a FANTASY that the forces of our own natural world (or a fictional one I suppose) are actually at work. And then because people started saying this in the context of Looking Glass a bunch of arbitrary characteristics of those games are picked up and tacked on to make the thing feel complete.

Go back to this self-own that keeps giving which you were kind enough to share >>10537648, "Immersive Reality" is referred to as a "PHILOSOPHY" rather than a class of game or experience.

This is all language confusion. You are conflating an idea, aspiration, or intention with both a finished class of work, and a technique. If the term is to make sense, it should be just one. And if we want to talk about something meaningful, I believe that we should be discussing the former. Because as I may have already said, I believe that the WHAT is in the ideas, aspirations, and intentions.

You can only really understand an artist if you're able to work back to this point. What did they want to share with you? LG didn't sell the public their code. They sold THIEF. They wanted to share an unbreaking fantasy. And I believe that Nintendo did too with OoT. So they are brother works and artists united by shared intentions.

>>10540674
>What did they want to share with you? LG didn't sell the public their code. They sold THIEF
Thief came with DromEd, their internal level editor genius. It was literally sold with it included. It was literally shared with the game. You keep owning yourself

>>10540673
Again, I see my own points here. Because we see differently.

There is no pure simulation. All games are simulation and emulation (and the division between these two is also extremely tenuous if you ask me).

I said that I don't believe that there is a coherent point where we draw a line between looking glass and their contemporaries. I used the word continuum. Leblanc implies exactly this by denying pure simulation.

Already in 1998 we see the word "immersion" doing heavy lifting as a totem and crutch to cement over the holes in this thinking. Is it impossible to feel "immersed" in metal gear solid? What does he mean? Do immersionnerds literally believe that they are Gareth the Thiever while playing the game? My personal preference for describing the "video gamey" is "formal", in contrast to what we might call an attempt at a more "naturalistic" experience in Thief. Both can be engrossing, but the former relies more on and plays further into medium received ideas and expectations on its form while the latter attempts to play on the ideas of reality.

You say we can sub in OoT for MGS here but it seems obvious to me that we cannot. MGS does not beg questions because of the extremity of its form. One accepts contrivance because it wears these on its sleeve. But does OoT beg questions? Is OoT built on the expectations of video game convention or nature? Or as Leblanc says, is it both? There are things I hit in OoT that I expect to break that don't. AS IS THE CASE IN THIEF. Whether or not this feels right is a judgment we can only make case by attempting to read the intentions of the developer. Which is to say we ultimately class works by what we believe they are trying to do. Because they are both fundamentally doing the same thing, which is imperfectly simulating reality to deliver an experience.

>>10540682
I am aware and thought you'd probably jump on that. Works as a desperation-pedantry test though I didn't intend it as one (I sometimes do). This fact you point out is not incompatible with what I wrote. Even just the quote in isolation. Think about it.

It's hard not to be aware of thief modding. Those people are extremely proud of their level packs and their history.

I have been contemplating for a minute if I should start another explanation but I think this will do for now. I'd like to see if anybody else wants to weigh in on this exchange, or if, more likely, a janny bans and deletes me for talking about video games.

>>10539198
>a locked storeroom without the grey goblin
i thought the right way was to get captured, get locked innit, and escape by pressing a button with a long pole.

>>10537650
>will contain areas that willbe too difficult for you the first time you arrive.
Spoony ragequitted this game just because of headless monsters in the sewer, who hang around a totally optional room, you don't need to visit.
https://invidious.slipfox.xyz/watch?v=4quvLSIX4Yc

other shit he rants about include the sekrit room holding your first bag of magic runestones... that room is shown right on the map in the manual. i guess drunks don't read manuals?

>>10540758
Yes but that's because you're so far up your own arse that you've built a holiday home in there and everytime you read something that proves your views wrong you just interpret it completely wrong in order to maintain the illusion that you are right.

Also you admitted you only played Thief for a few hours. How the fuck would you know what you can do in that game when you really test its limits. How far did you get in Thief? I want the level you got to.

>>10540842
To be fair to Spoony he was trying to relive his experience playing it as a kid and apparently that's what happened when he first tried to play it as a toddler. The problem is that he didn't really emphasize at all that that's what the video was.

I have no idea what is happening in here.

>>10542537
That's a good thing. In a nutshell, schizos. That's all you need to know.

>>10542537
an Aussie thread
He does fake dev quotes all the time.

>>10542537
Too much bing bing, not enough wahooo.

>>10542537
As far as I can tell it's a schizo Nintendo fanboy vs an immersive sim autist. The nintendo fanboy has the stupidest opinions ever and literally won't change their mind even when confronted with evidence, meanwhile the immersive sim autist literally doesn't know when to quit because this is clearly a lost cause and no one gives a shit

>ITT soulless faggots argue about semantics while completely missing any connection to an actual meaningful gameplay experience

How come /vr/ is so full of dead husks shambling about pretending to be human? How come there so many people who obsess over trivial nonsense, word definitions, and historical irrelevancies?

>>10545123
If you believed that words had nothing to offer and that the only value in games was playing them, then you wouldn't be here would you?

>>10545123
>How come /vr/ is so full of dead husks shambling about pretending to be human?
Because that's the literal definition of a zoombie?

>>10540615
Here's him with some director