• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Previously Recorded - Why Mario Is More Immersive than Call of Duty

That's not how they mean "immersive."

They're talking about how, when playing a game like the original Mario Bros., it's just the gamer and the controller. No superfluous nonsense. No button prompts. The game is an extension of the gamer. With a lot of modern games, the immersion is broken by cutscenes, QTEs, and "Press Square to Pay Respects."

a cutscene can be immersive if you care about the story and characters. Marios simple fun formula is alright but I don't think it can immerse on the same level as a story driven game or RPG. Dialogue choices can really get someone immersed into the universe like mass effect.

QTEs and press f to pay respect type things are kinda silly though.
 
a cutscene can be immersive if you care about the story and characters. Marios simple fun formula is alright but I don't think it can immerse on the same level as a story driven game or RPG. Dialogue choices can really get someone immersed into the universe like mass effect.

QTEs and press f to pay respect type things are kinda silly though.

I agree. A lot of modern games can be plenty immersive, even with some button prompts (I was immersed as hell in TLoU, for example). But sometimes it just gets out of hand.
 
They made some excellent points, but I also think they floundered on many others, and simply didn't get the point on many things. I must say though, I am getting increasingly tired of this sort of elitist cynicism from certain gamers, press or outlets. Watching them play through Advanced Warfare was a prime example. They looked like they had their minds made up long before even attemting to play the game. Rather than even let the story tell it's tale, they ridiculed every aspect. Hardy har my friend died, let me laugh and joke about it etc. These are jaded gamers who live to pick apart these sorts of games, that don't fit their narrow criteria. Better to accept that people enjoy both types of game, for good reason, and because variety is the spice of life.

And really you get more immersion pressing that button and watching that terrible looking Mario jump, than firing a gun in Advanced Warfare? Despite Super Mario being a classic, I'm going to have to disagree on that one. The physics, visual effects, overall graphics and sound effects to me at least, make the latter feel far more immersive, even if it isn't necessarily the better game. Super Mario may be more demanding in terms of skill, and as such require greater attention and commitment from the gamer, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is more immersive. A lot more goes in to immersion than simply gameplay feedback or challenge. The basic premise is you press a button and something happens. In one game you do a weird physics defying jump, in the other you fire a weapon with a mostly realistic looking and feeling reaction.

To me the new Mario games are more immersive than the old ones, and it's partly because of the more advanced physics, graphics, effects, shaders, colours etc, that give me that impression. The world around you in Super Mario Galaxy for example, feels more believable, scalable, explorable and magnificent, and as such is more immersive.

Button prompts and QTE's.

Also, whilst I agree button prompts staying on screen all the time is too hand holdy and unnecessary, I think they miss the point of QTE and button prompt implementation in certain games (though they are right to ridicule it in others), and why they cannot be compared to gameplay in games like Mario.

Button prompts for example, exist largely because trial and error gaming can be a right pain in the ass. When visuals and technology has gotten to the stage that in expansive realistic world's and environments, that cannot be completely open and free due to development resources and budget (as well as increased monotony and boredom in gameplay scope), we can no longer tell what is or isn't do able, a prompt can help give us visual feedback informing us of this. In Super Mario you basically just jump around platforming. There's not much information to signify beyond yes you can jump here or you can't, which you can usually tell from just distance, so it's easy. In other games, especially games you are constantly changing move set and abilities it's much, much harder. For example, how do I know in Advanced Warfare I am able to pay my respects by the Coffin unless there is a button prompt? Do these guys realise that not having such a prompt, and instead offering such an unguided scope for input, opens the gateway to mass aimlessness, and gamers not having a clue what they can or cannot do, and having to worry that they may have missed button clicking a million things throughout the game? That would be damn annoying.

Then there's the thing about QTE's, which also follows on from what I said above. Mario's movement and visual feedback is basic, and never really changes much, which is why it never needs QTE's. God of War uses QTE's as a method of not only adding some timing or skill to a more cinematic and elaborate sequence, that in other games would otherwise be cut scenes, but also gives players feedback on when or where these moments are possible, as they are completely dynamic, fall completely outside of the regular move set, and completely change based on the enemy type, boss, or sutuation. Not having QTE's as visual feedback in these moments, again just broadens the scope of randomness in trial and error, and would ultimately make the combat less fun. God of War would be a less fun, less focused and less spectacular game without these QTE sequences, but for those that don't like this sort of design, it's nice we have games that explore a mixture of approaches, so there's more diversity for everyone.
 
They made some excellent points, but I also think they floundered on many others, and simply didn't get the point on many things. I must say though, I am getting increasingly tired of this sort of elitist cynicism from certain gamers, press or outlets. Watching them play through Advanced Warfare was a prime example. They looked like they had their minds made up long before even attemting to play the game. Rather than even let the story tell it's tale, they ridiculed every aspect. Hardy har my friend died, let me laugh and joke about it etc. These are jaded gamers who live to pick apart these sorts of games, that don't fit their narrow criteria. They can't just accept that people enjoy both times of game, for good reason, and because variety is the spice of life.

Hey.

When your friend dies in Advanced Warfare, an Achievement pops up called "Seoul Mates". If they're not going to make the joke, the game will do it for them.

Call of Duty follows up on contrived drama with a pun. They show a scene where your best friend gets killed in an explosion and your player character gets dragged away from his severed left arm, and then make a joke about it. That is what the game wants to be and it's certainly worthy of derision and mockery for that. It's also extremely disappointing, because that isn't what Call of Duty "used to be".

If you take the game more seriously than the developers do, and expect other people to, as well, then that's on you.
 
Hey.

When your friend dies in Advanced Warfare, an Achievement pops up called "Seoul Mates". If they're not going to make the joke, the game will do it for them.

Call of Duty follows contrived drama up with a pun. That is certainly worthy of derision and mockery.

But it at least makes the effort to tell this story in a somewhat reasonable manner. If you cackle, laugh, insult over all the moments of exposition or narrative development, obviously the story is going to have much less of an impact. It's like heckling over a film or during a more serious moment. Whether you like the story of not, at least experience it properly first, and then form the opinion after. Not saying the story in Advanced Warfare is particularly good, nor the game itself, but I at least gave it a fair and honest chance.
 
But it at least makes the effort to tell this story in a somewhat reasonable manner. If you cackle, laugh, insult over all the moments of exposition or narrative development, obviously the story is going to have much less of an impact. It's like heckling over a film or during a more serious moment. Whether you like the story of not, at least experience it properly first, and then form the opinion after. Not saying the story in Advanced Warfare is particularly good, nor the game itself, but I at least gave it a fair and honest chance.

They ripped the ending straight out of Die Hard. You have to accept Call of Duty for what it is. And what it is, is absolutely ridiculous, and most of the time, laughable. In an entertaining way, yes, but definitely not in a serious way.

I can say that while I enjoyed Advanced Warfare a lot (it made my Top 10 for last year), I remember a lot of the time spent with the campaign was enjoying myself mocking the awful writing and dialogue, or the ridiculous cutscenes.

If the scene where Kevin Spacey addresses the UN and declares war on the entire world doesn't make you laugh out loud, then I just don't even know.
 
They ripped the ending straight out of Die Hard. You have to accept Call of Duty for what it is. And what it is, is absolutely ridiculous, and most of the time, laughable. In an entertaining way, yes, but definitely not in a serious way.

Not that I disagree with the above, but way to miss the point.
 
Not that I disagree with the above, but way to miss the point.

I see the point, I just completely disagree that AW presents its story in a "somewhat reasonable manner". It's not somewhat reasonable, it's cranking everything up to 11 and seeing how many cool explosions they can get to happen.

It's the opposite of reasonable, it's pure, unabashed excess in every way. I thought that's what people liked about it?
 
I feel like I'm actually playing Mario myself whereas with CoD I feel like I'm on a conveyor belt being pelted by bullets.
 
When I am playing a 2D platformer and edging up to a pit, making pinpoint jumps over death traps and the like, I am clenched up because the danger feels real. It doesn't matter if it is a cartoon plumber on the screen; the game world has sufficiently integrated the player. You are no longer merely a viewer.

I've never felt tense or in danger playing a Call of Duty campaign. It's so scripted and limited, nothing matters. The first person scenes of danger unfolding are like watching a movie. Even if I die due to something interactive, I know I'll respawn ten steps away at the last ultra-granular checkpoint (designed to "respect the player's valuable time").
I came in thinking "Mario is immersive"?? But I read your post and understand to a degree
 
I wonder how they feel about something like Zelda's context sensitive command button. That's still a button prompt but it doesn't really perform stupendous actions (see their God of War complaint) and is on screen at all times (rather than popping up randomly which is one of their beefs) and usually limited to a set list of actions that you come across through the game rather than one off actions.
 
That was a fun discussion. I wonder if the button prompt will become more rare with the onset of VR gaming. Here's hoping motion controls make a comeback in a more advanced fashion than last gen. Sometimes, when I think about the fact that, when it boils down to it, we're just pressing buttons, it really makes many games seem like a waste. Anything that reduces that feeling is welcome in my book.
 
My biggest problem with QTEs is they're almost always so easy these days.

In RE4 they were pretty challenging and quite fun. You had to stay alert during the cutscenes and missing one could result in death.

But I can't remember the last time I failed a QTE. The time limits are so generous and even if you miss the prompt the consequence is usually so minor.
 
I think focusing so much on the problems with button prompts and the problems behind losing the player's "immersion" is kind of missing the forest for the trees, which is funny because in this very video they pinpointed the true problem, which is that game developers assume the player is stupid and can't perform simple tasks without being directly taught to do so. Never mind anything more involving and complex, those will either just be cutscenes or QTEs to give the illusion of control. That's the crux of the whole matter right there.
 
I think one of the reasons why on-screen button prompts have become fashionable in recent years is because manuals no longer exist. Therefore tutorials and button prompts have to be placed into the gameplay.

Also developers treat us like idiots with no patience.

Also many gamers are idiots with no patience.
This guy gets it.
 
When I am playing a 2D platformer and edging up to a pit, making pinpoint jumps over death traps and the like, I am playing the same 2D genre platformer that I have been playing since zx80.


.

Fixed that for you.

I say I am excited because I get clicks and mentioned call of duty to get more clicks

What an absolute tripe article just to say cut scenes are not immersive as jumping in a 2D platformer. LOL...

3D is more immersive than 2D, and First person is more immersive than Third due to closeness of camera in most 'decent articles' not made by fools..

There was a GAF thread about brutality in GTA 5 in first person mode...

Cant remember reading about immersion on a tiny figure 2D platformer...until now.
 
This guy gets it.

Or do manuals no longer exist, because of a concerted effort by developers to put more of that information into the game itself? Spurred on by the will of publishers looking to make games more accessible to the mass-market and save money on printing costs, no doubt, but that doesn't matter.

Chicken, egg, etc

It's not like game manuals suddenly went away, and then developers solved that problem by adding more in-game tutorials. It's more like the prominence of in-game tutorials caused the paper manual to become redundant, allowing it to slowly and silently be phased out, over the course of the last console generation.
 
3D is more immersive than 2D, and First person is more immersive than Third due to closeness of camera in most 'decent articles' not made by fools.
...
Cant remember reading about immersion on a tiny figure 2D platformer...until now.
You do realise immersion can be used to describe immersion in a game and immersion in a world. You can be immersed in a game of Tetris despite there being no world to be immersed in.

The problem the two gentlemen in the video have is when a game tries to present a "real" world and then the reality it is just a game rears its ugly head in the form of button prompts and breaks the fourth wall. One even mentioned No More Hero that has large almost garish prompts but has no problem with them because the game presents itself as over the top gamey.
 
Top Bottom