Escapism for the sake of escapism

[clyde]

Is there a reason not to create a more convincing escapism in computer games? I want to step away from the idea of limited resources, because though that might be the reality of any endeavor, I want to examine if there are any inherent problems with simply increasing the ability of escapism for the sake of more escapism. Besides development resources, is anything lost when "player-immersion" or suspension of disbelief is increased in computer games.

[Sententia]

Escapism is a less accurate word than immersion because it isn't about avoiding your life, it's about being presented a more convincing illusion.  Also I feel like there's a pejorative undertone when people say escapism, for example I think Chris on the podcast takes issue with the concept of people striving for escapism but I don't think there's anything wrong with striving for immersion, and the two describe the same path for the hardware and developers, just different perspectives from the player.

 

Frankly I think immersion has more to do with NPC behaviour and better animation coverage.  In The Last Of Us Joel raises his hand to cover his head when walking under water streams, grasps whatever cover he's crouching near, he'll slam someone's head or body against whatever random wall or outcropping is nearby if you happen to finish them with a melee attack.  That last one is kind of weird but it's an impressive animation feat to either have all the terrain tagged or have it systemized in such a way that looks realistic.

[Henroid]

Escapism isn't something that can be engineered. It's a motivation.

[Ben X]

Well, if we're being picky, "escape" is the motivation.

[filk]

I think escapism can in some ways be engineered - at least, you can make a product that is better at inducing catharsis for certain people. For example, a lot of the choices in a game like Skyrim facilitate escapism for me.

 

I'm not sure where I fall on the debate of whether escapism is something that should be engineered for. On the one hand, you are not solving someone's problems if you just help them forget them. On the other hand, like with many other things that are "bad for you", video games for escapism can be a) used responsibly and may serve an important need in the lives of people who have no other means of escape due to physical, social, economic, etc pressures in their lives.

 

Personally, there are times when I just want to go to games for some escapism. This is pretty synonymous with going to games to "relax", "unwind", "stop thinking", etc. I also go to a lot of games for reflective experiences. On the other hand, my girlfriend really dislikes her job right now, and can't really quit until almost a year from now. For her, video games are very much a regular mood kick, and if you told her that games should not be made to facilitate this she would get pretty pissed off.

 

I think I may have veered pretty far from the original point. I think you definitely conflate the points of escapism and realism/immersion. A game like EVE online is highly immersive and "real" but has never helped me forget my problems. There are lots of reasons to not strive for the latter two, however.

 

Video games fill a wide spectrum from simulation to completely transparent rule-based systems. Simulation serves immersion, even if it is only to show the physics consequences of bumping your head on something. You can also have simulation in a fictional universe. A game like Deus Ex is often called simulation even though none of the things really exist. Mario (modern, 3D Mario) is in part so great because it does an excellent job of letting you explore the full range of consequences of the actions Mario can take.

 

But what about games that don't gain from simulation? A game like Dys4ia which explores gender identity uses a really simple set of rules and interactions, as well as incredibly low-end graphics, to communicate a basic sensation and experience. I think most games like this that focus on expressing themes through gameplay could reasonably argue that increasing immersion also introduces obfuscation. With a thousand rules going on at once, the important consequences of a single rule are no longer clear.

 

This is without even mentioning abstract games that don't require any kind of representation of a physical world, like chess.

 

Like with any design dimension, the question of immersion ends up impossible to summarize with a specific "this is the right choice for all games". There are so many reasons for and against it.