Why do RPGs, even indie ones, not make use of more immersive sim elements?

[REhorror]

All these new-fanged definitions to me.
I just want to shoot/slash bad guys, and control squad or great armies.

Thank you!

 

[Dave the Druid]

All these new-fanged definitions to me.
I just want to shoot/slash bad guys, and control squad or great armies.

Thank you!

I've posted this here before but it's actually not a new-fangled definition or term at all. It's old as fuck, it dates back to about 1992 if not earlier. It comes from Looking Glass Studios, here's them actually giving a short, coherent-ish definition back in 1997:
https://web.archive.org/web/19970618130832/http://www.lglass.com/p_info/dark/howdo.html

I know it says 'immersive reality' not 'immersive simulation' but same fucking difference.

 

[Spukrian]

Steve Gaynor

This is the guy who added a 451 code to his game Gone Home and then said "Gone Home is in the same world as System Shock". Hmm...

EDIT: Sadly I can't find the source for this statement, will look more for it tomorrow...

 

[Dave the Druid]

Steve Gaynor

This is the guy who added a 451 code to his game Gone Home and then said "Gone Home is in the same world as System Shock". Hmm...

EDIT: Sadly I can't find the source for this statement, will look more for it tomorrow...

I've got it, it's right here:

Gone Home: A Non-Violent Immersive Sim?​

It's a whole piece he wrote for Gamasutra in 2012 arguing Gone Home's merits as part of the immersive sim canon. And you're wrong! It's not an immersive sim because the first code in the game's '0451.' It's an immersive sim because... (drum-roll please) ...YOU CAN PICK UP AND PUT DOWN OBJECTS AS YOU PLEASE:

That's the TL;DR version and if you read the full thing honestly I don't think he's ENTIRELY wrong with his methodology. But... no. Reading anything that Looking Glass or Ion Storm said about the subject, the actual key to immersive simulation is creating systems that produce consistent, realistic(ish) emergent behavior between objects and entities. Having a physics system and being able to pick up, examine and put down objects is neat and all, and maybe halfway there to getting immersive simulation working, but where's the emergent behavior? Seriously. Okay, you can leave piles of books in random places around the house if you wish but that's not really emergent behavior. Yeah, it tells its story in a way that's mostly unique to the video game medium, via its environment and interactable objects (something which Looking Glass WERE pioneers of) but that's still not emergent behavior.

I know, I'm taking him seriously instead of shitposting but I genuinely disagree with this argument.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

immersive sim sounds so gay. let me play an rpg without needless padding. if i want to play an *immersive sim* ill play a game designed completely around that, incompatible with RPGs

 

[Dave the Druid]

immersive sim sounds so gay. let me play an rpg without needless padding. if i want to play an *immersive sim* ill play a game designed completely around that, incompatible with RPGs
incompatible with RPGs
incompatible with RPGs

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

immersive sim sounds so gay. let me play an rpg without needless padding. if i want to play an *immersive sim* ill play a game designed completely around that, incompatible with RPGs
incompatible with RPGs
incompatible with RPGs

an afterthought

 

[Dave the Druid]

More like a beforethought since that's the first immersive sim

 

[Baron Dupek]

This is something you can do mostly on engines build from scratch and with certain features in mind.
Because adding anything serious&complicated later is asking for troubles (bugs and glitches).
Or have people who knows engine good enough to create something new like they did in Deus Ex on Unreal Engine - but that one engine wasn't advanced (ie. "bloated") enough to be an obstacle for their vision.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Your typical indie RPG is a skeleton crew stretched thin doing what they are trying to do as it is.
Your typical mid/AAA RPG these days is trying to play it safe whenever possible and anything uncertain is a red flag.

The best isometric "immersive sims" (autists mind the quotation marks before you shit yourselves over definitions) were done by skeleton crews.

Nah, the best example of a great RPG with great immersive sim elements, would probably be Arcanum

Exactly. Also Fallout, Underrail. Between them these feature NPC sleep/work schedules, light-mapping and facing of characters being utilized to calculate stealth rating, shrapnel from grenades, "swiss cheese design" of quests, with at least two of pesuasion, combat and stealth solutions, also pickpocketing and planting of items, also somewhat destructible environments (doors, walls), and simulating effects of fire, cold, and chemical agents. Of course the simulation is nothing deep, but the damage, the light, and the stealth are systems-driven.

you probably think like most people that's exactly what RPGs try to be, simply the most realistic games focusing on character scale (not grand strategy) which is absolutely not what I think, I think cRPGs, unlike other genres of video games, are the games which try to replicate the RPGs you were playing on your table, which if unlike other genre is the relevant part is then actually an opposite philosophy. In many ways the limitations you would get on your table are the core thing which should distinguish the games from other kinds of video games. I prefer when I feel like a GM is organising things.

I think the games I listed above give a good compromise between what you describe as good experience - a PnP RPG approximation - and the benefits of playing on a computer. Benefits that in various ways amount to the ability to save ourselves the mental math and let the computer use "systems that produce consistent emergent behavior between objects and entities" for determining the outcomes of certain complex actions the players can attempt. After all the computer is just a tool, and we are looking to use it optimally to improve the "feels" that PnP gives us.

The "I prefer when I feel like a GM is organising things" is something I fully subscribe to, because a human mind will always be superior to what has been coded in advance, trying blindly to predict the player's actions. But without "systems that produce consistent emergent behavior between objects and entities", which open up freedom for the player to solve quests in multiple ways, the designer is left with just scripting at his disposal, and that's an "evolutionary dead end" for RPG design. With hundreds of hours put into scripting, let alone testing and debugging the scripts, we would still be no match for a human DM coming up with an idea on the fly. Nor with a solution the player comes up with by utilizing the systems.

Immersive sims are very hard to implement. You need several systems which must work at the same time and that's much more difficult to implement than linear rpgs

Immersive sims needs specific implemented games engines. At present, the overwhelming majority of modern indie developers is not able to go beyond a generic game implementation made with Unity or Unreal.

This is something you can do mostly on engines build from scratch and with certain features in mind

I'll point you to Tim Cain's principle that worldbuilding should inform the story, and the world and story should inform the systems your RPG would need. I.e. a world featuring ninja-like assassins who are also part of the story, should have sneaking skills implemented in its RPG ruleset, and the means to calculate a character's stealth rating should be built into the engine.
So, yeah, I agree with you too.

Question for the audience - is RDR2 an immersive sim? If no, then why not?

 

[Baron Dupek]

Question for the audience - is RDR2 an immersive sim? If no, then why not?

You can't play quests the way you want.
Any slight deviation from the devs vision = mission failed

 

[Dave the Druid]

This is something you can do mostly on engines build from scratch and with certain features in mind.
Because adding anything serious&complicated later is asking for troubles (bugs and glitches).
Or have people who knows engine good enough to create something new like they did in Deus Ex on Unreal Engine - but that one engine wasn't advanced (ie. "bloated") enough to be an obstacle for their vision.

1. Here's Warren Spector talking about how Unreal Engine was a goddamn nightmare to make an immersive sim on, as it was not designed for that in the first place, and that Deus Ex's actual simulation is far, far shallower than advertised (despite being the game everyone associates with the term 'immersive sim')
   
   (Timestamp should be 36:22 in case it cocks up)
2. Unironically something like Unity's Entity Component System is perfect for building an immersive sim with, as it's very close to something like Act/React from the Looking Glass games and really easy to conform to that (also is Unity still completely fucked - I haven't been following the story since they committed business seppuku a few months ago, have they backtracked everything now or are they still completely boned?)

 

[Spukrian]

This is something you can do mostly on engines build from scratch and with certain features in mind.
Because adding anything serious&complicated later is asking for troubles (bugs and glitches).
Or have people who knows engine good enough to create something new like they did in Deus Ex on Unreal Engine - but that one engine wasn't advanced (ie. "bloated") enough to be an obstacle for their vision.

There's a madman recreating Ultima Underworld in GZDoom:

Looks like it will be quite diferent from the original though.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Question for the audience - is RDR2 an immersive sim? If no, then why not?

You can't play quests the way you want.
Any slight deviation from the devs vision = mission failed

RDR2 doesn't have quests. It has missions. Many of its side missions have multiple solutions.

 

[Dave the Druid]

Your typical indie RPG is a skeleton crew stretched thin doing what they are trying to do as it is.
Your typical mid/AAA RPG these days is trying to play it safe whenever possible and anything uncertain is a red flag.

The best isometric "immersive sims" (autists mind the quotation marks before you shit yourselves over definitions) were done by skeleton crews.

Nah, the best example of a great RPG with great immersive sim elements, would probably be Arcanum

Exactly. Also Fallout, Underrail. Between them these feature NPC sleep/work schedules, light-mapping and facing of characters being utilized to calculate stealth rating, shrapnel from grenades, "swiss cheese design" of quests, with at least two of pesuasion, combat and stealth solutions, also pickpocketing and planting of items, also somewhat destructible environments (doors, walls), and simulating effects of fire, cold, and chemical agents. Of course the simulation is nothing deep, but the damage, the light, and the stealth are systems-driven.

you probably think like most people that's exactly what RPGs try to be, simply the most realistic games focusing on character scale (not grand strategy) which is absolutely not what I think, I think cRPGs, unlike other genres of video games, are the games which try to replicate the RPGs you were playing on your table, which if unlike other genre is the relevant part is then actually an opposite philosophy. In many ways the limitations you would get on your table are the core thing which should distinguish the games from other kinds of video games. I prefer when I feel like a GM is organising things.

I think the games I listed above give a good compromise between what you describe as good experience - a PnP RPG approximation - and the benefits of playing on a computer. Benefits that in various ways amount to the ability to save ourselves the mental math and let the computer use "systems that produce consistent emergent behavior between objects and entities" for determining the outcomes of certain complex actions the players can attempt. After all the computer is just a tool, and we are looking to use it optimally to improve the "feels" that PnP gives us.

The "I prefer when I feel like a GM is organising things" is something I fully subscribe to, because a human mind will always be superior to what has been coded in advance, trying blindly to predict the player's actions. But without "systems that produce consistent emergent behavior between objects and entities", which open up freedom for the player to solve quests in multiple ways, the designer is left with just scripting at his disposal, and that's an "evolutionary dead end" for RPG design. With hundreds of hours put into scripting, let alone testing and debugging the scripts, we would still be no match for a human DM coming up with an idea on the fly. Nor with a solution the player comes up with by utilizing the systems.

Eeeeeh... the games you're describing are CRPGs which are different from immersive sims. Seriously, they were around at the same time as the Looking Glass stuff and were clearly very distinct things from one another. I mean you wouldn't confuse Fallout 2 for Thief: The Dark Project now would you?

And to be clear, even Looking Glass themselves made that distinction. Here's them doing exactly that in 1997:

Just some highlights if you can't be bothered reading all that
"Computer Role-Playing Game" is a contradiction in terms... The problem with the whole notion of the "computer role-playing game" is that this cannot happen the same way in a computer game. The social interaction which can be offered by a computer is pretty hollow, and most games don't provide a whole lot to replace it. The tedious mazes of pre-scripted menu options that some games (including our own!) have tried to pass off as "conversations" certainly don't cut it.

What many games have done, which isn't hard, is to copy the forms of a paper role-playing game, which keeps all the sheets of paper from the gaming table at the expense of all the people around it. A computer game can have all the trappings of a paper role-playing game (the Tolkienesque dwarves and elves, the "character classes," "to-hit rolls," and "experience levels"), but without role-playing it's not an RPG. It's computer strategy game about paper RPG's. Some of them are okay.

So... no. You're wrong

 

[Roguey]

RDR2 doesn't have quests. It has missions. Many of its side missions have multiple solutions.

And they give you a mission failed message if you try to deviate in any way from one of the paths they planned. Imsims are about giving you a bunch of tools and letting you come up with your own solutions to obstacles.

 

[Butter]

Everyone memes about the horse testicles reacting to the temperature, but is there any emergent behavior/gameplay that results from systems colliding?

 

[AwesomeButton]

I mean you wouldn't confuse Fallout 2 for Thief: The Dark Project now would you?

The only parallel I'm making when talking about isometric "immersive sims" and immersive sims as described by LGS is that of using systems to solve problems, as opposed to scripting. Dialogue is also a system, but as mentioned the questions and answers are all predefined, so I'm not counting it when I say "using systems as opposed to scripting".

So... no. You're wrong

Wrong about what though?

 

[AwesomeButton]

RDR2 doesn't have quests. It has missions. Many of its side missions have multiple solutions.

And they give you a mission failed message if you try to deviate in any way from one of the paths they planned. Imsims are about giving you a bunch of tools and letting you come up with your own solutions to obstacles.

The main story missions, yes. That's the intent. They are the main story missions. There are hundreds of hours worth of gameplay and self-engineered fun to be had without ever touching the main story form the moment you arrive at Strawberry. There are also discoverable side missions, which are more open to creative solutions, although the usual alternatives are "violent" vs "less violent" to accomodate the karma mechanic, which in the end also serves the main narrative. Most people express opinions on this game while being grossly uninformed about it, or have rushed through the main story in the best of cases.

 

[Roguey]

The main story missions, yes. That's the intent. They are the main story missions. There are hundreds of hours worth of gameplay and self-engineered fun to be had without ever touching the main story form the moment you arrive at Strawberry. There are also discoverable side missions, which are more open to creative solutions, although the usual alternatives are "violent" vs "less violent" to accomodate the karma mechanic, which in the end also serves the main narrative. Most people express opinions on this game while being grossly uninformed about it, or have rushed through the main story in the best of cases.

RDR2 feels like two games with contradictory design goals stapled together, yes.

 

[AwesomeButton]

The main story missions, yes. That's the intent. They are the main story missions. There are hundreds of hours worth of gameplay and self-engineered fun to be had without ever touching the main story form the moment you arrive at Strawberry. There are also discoverable side missions, which are more open to creative solutions, although the usual alternatives are "violent" vs "less violent" to accomodate the karma mechanic, which in the end also serves the main narrative. Most people express opinions on this game while being grossly uninformed about it, or have rushed through the main story in the best of cases.

RDR2 feels like two games with contradictory design goals stapled together, yes.

Agreed. I think the intent was that the player will spend a hundred or so hours living out his old west bandit fantasies, being reckless and a jerk, but this time spent will lead him to identify more and more with the character. So that when the player returns to the main story and the reveleation comes, it will affect him emotionally all the more, and it will be in tune with his deeds from the "open world" phase. It didn't work like this for me, because Arthur struck me as more of a level headed character, already past his wild years and I shied away from being cruel and reckless without cause. But I can see how it could actually accomplish turning the player into a director of his own movie-like experience, with a grandiose character arc for Arthur.

 

[Dave the Druid]

I mean you wouldn't confuse Fallout 2 for Thief: The Dark Project now would you?

The only parallel I'm making when talking about isometric "immersive sims" and immersive sims as described by LGS is that of using systems to solve problems, as opposed to scripting. Dialogue is also a system, but as mentioned the questions and answers are all predefined, so I'm not counting it when I say "using systems as opposed to scripting".

So... no. You're wrong

Wrong about what though?

You're still mostly just describing CRPG mechanics - and more than that (especially since you mentioned Fallout) CRPG mechanics that were already around when Looking Glass were making the original immersive sims. Just using Fallout as the example: yeah, sometimes a lot of the quest design is handled by the actual game engine/mechanics (obviously dialogue and speech checks are more 'authored' quest design) but they're almost all tied to your SPECIAL, skills, traits, perks, dice rolls and so on. It's still very much a Computer RPG, as in a computer game version of a tabletop role-playing game.

Yeah, there's a bit of that in Ultima Underworld and Deus Ex since they're both RPGs but what Looking Glass were doing even as early as Underworld was quite different to what you're describing, especially when it came to emergent behavior. And by the way, you stole that whole, "systems that produce consistent emergent behavior between objects and entities" line from me but I don't think you know what it actually means. I mean, nearly all games have some form of emergent behavior. Fucking Wizardry has emergent gameplay, you ever get to Werdna only to find out he's randomly friendly this time? But no one in their right mind would call Wizardry an immersive sim.

 

[AwesomeButton]

And to be clear, even Looking Glass themselves made that distinction. Here's them doing exactly that in 1997:

The tedious mazes of pre-scripted menu options that some games (including our own!) have tried to pass off as "conversations" certainly don't cut it.

Yeah, that's pretty self-evident. Yet with regards to dialogue, we have nothing better than scripting and branching trees. LGS couldn't come up with a solution for this problem and they chose to design around it, get rid of player dialogue altogether. This boosts believability simply by removing the stunted and limited dialogue system, but imposes other limitations.

There have been curious recent ways to solve this problem in open world games particularly. You may know of the LSPDFR mod for GTA V - utilizing MS' speech engine, it allows you to give voice commands to NPCs which catch certain tagged words and this produces the illusion they react to your commands. Although it feels the interactions are off-script, the dialogue "trees" you could form this way are themselves pretty shallow.

There is also the CyberAI mod for Cyberpunk. That one in theory enables the integration of Open AI with NPCs.

 

[AwesomeButton]

It's still very much a Computer RPG, as in a computer game version of a tabletop role-playing game. [...]

That's also self-evident. It's both the intention and the player expectation.

but they're almost all tied to your SPECIAL, skills, traits, perks, dice rolls and so on. It's still very much a Computer RPG, as in a computer game version of a tabletop role-playing game.

In every game your interaction with the environment is constrained by some rules set beforehand. Whether these rules are visualized as a set of tabletop attribute scores or through the physics engine is just a matter of implementation

The only points I was originally trying to make are that the most fun RPGs I've played are those who have given me systems-based freedom, akin to that of immersive sims. Also, answering the OP question, and agreeing with people who have already said that - I think immersive sim elements are not used more often because it's a lot of upfront effort on the people working on the game engine, and also because there isn't enough collaboration going on between systems designers and environment designers. One set of people make the engine and the systems, another set create the game areas, and the latter don't use the systems to their full extent.

And by the way, you stole that whole, "systems that produce consistent emergent behavior between objects and entities" line from me but I don't think you know what it actually means.

Maybe not "stole", but I quoted something you quoted before that. And the description fits those isometric games I referenced, with the caveat I made.