Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Chikout

Terrain and the immersion question.

Recommended Posts

Nothing has been disproven because the word "immersion" means different things to different people.  All that was proven was that people have an idea of what immersion is and that that idea, that is different from person to person, is important to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty bad way to treat a discussion like an argument to be won, and then claim victory over someone because you aren't convinced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Nothing has been disproven because the word "immersion" means different things to different people.  All that was proven was that people have an idea of what immersion is and that that idea, that is different from person to person, is important to them.

You were claiming that people, with all their different ideas of what immersion is, in overwhelming majority considered that it is not important. They expressed, in all those uknown polls all over the Internet, that they don't care about immersion, as opposed to rules and mechanics of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jaebird said:

It's a pretty bad way to treat a discussion like an argument to be won, and then claim victory over someone because you aren't convinced.

  "However, the game was designed as a game that focused on mechanics first, and then they pair that up with the setting after.  

I have seen polls and have been in enough conversations on a global scale where I am comfortable saying a lot of us because the overwhelming majority of people that don't care about immersion are usually the overwhelming result of the polls and online discussions.  

The people that get angry or upset with it are usually removed from the groups or forums if they continuously complain about it in a detracting manner which speaks to me that the moderators of those groups are also of the same mindset. "

The bolded sentence is not the discussion about terrain and the immersion, it is  a statement of fact, which can be verified, proved or disproved. Whether the new terrain breaks the immersion is a matter of opinion, whether the majority of players cares only about the mechanics of the game is a matter of fact. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I give you a gold star, will you feel like you won a debate?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not important to win a debate.  It is, however, important (if we want to have a healthy discussion) to abstain from things such as stating our opinions as if they were facts or inventing data to support these "facts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok so ... on this forum based on that poll people want whatever it is that they think immersion is to be present.

My version of "immersion" is simulationist rules that are "realistic" because thats what I see get tossed about a lot.

We had a facebook poll in our group a few weeks ago dealing with something similar.  The overwhelming majority there was that immersion has no place in board or card style games. 

I guess my perspective comes from interacting with primarily people that don't care about immersion, whatever that immersion is.  Polls here show something different.  So while I will say communities will obviously differ, I will still stand by mystatement that most people don't seem to care about immersion, if immersion means simulationist "realistic" rules. 

That was what I was referring to when I was discussing "immersion".  Thats what "immersion" meant to me when I made that statement.

As that was my interpretation of the word, I'm willing to bet if you posted that poll here, asking if you think rules should be realistic or not, that the vast majority would say no.  So that comes down to me using a word that means different things to different people.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe unpopular opinion but I think most of what GW have come out with so far for AoS terrain has been pretty ugly.

Case in point are the realm of battle boards that you see at most GW stores. They are so tacky looking, at least to me. I'd much rather see a nice green board with natural looking hills and other landscape features, or a desert, whatever as long as it looks like it could be a real landscape.

Having said that I do like the Ophidian Archway and Realm Gates. They are both pretty cool.

Edited by 123lac
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Ok so ... on this forum based on that poll people want whatever it is that they think immersion is to be present.

My version of "immersion" is simulationist rules that are "realistic" because thats what I see get tossed about a lot.

We had a facebook poll in our group a few weeks ago dealing with something similar.  The overwhelming majority there was that immersion has no place in board or card style games. 

I guess my perspective comes from interacting with primarily people that don't care about immersion, whatever that immersion is.  Polls here show something different.  So while I will say communities will obviously differ, I will still stand by mystatement that most people don't seem to care about immersion, if immersion means simulationist "realistic" rules. 

That was what I was referring to when I was discussing "immersion".  Thats what "immersion" meant to me when I made that statement.

As that was my interpretation of the word, I'm willing to bet if you posted that poll here, asking if you think rules should be realistic or not, that the vast majority would say no.  So that comes down to me using a word that means different things to different people.

Ok, thanks for clarification.

Sorry if my tone was a bit too aggressive. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the terrain looks good but i do resent the obligation to take it. I suspect theyll get points in the GHB, which will make them fine as options. Spamming out terrain and endless spells alongside the latest iteration of the rules is a double edged sword - sure its cool, but too much and itll lead to burn out. 40k is already releasing its second cycle of 8th ed codexes two years after edition release, i wont be impressed if AoS goes the same way!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Captain Marius said:

40k is already releasing its second cycle of 8th ed codexes two years after edition release

This is kind of disingenuous - they're on the 2nd cycle of codex releases because of a concerted effort to get every book up to 8th edition speed with stratagems, proper WL traits, relics, etc. This isn't some scenario where they just fired out books for the sake of doing it - they announced this well ahead of time as a stated goal. I'd rather GW maintain a brisk release pace where books get updates even if models come later - I'd rather have more armies at a 2.0 level in rules than have a few armies there alongside great models. GW can use releases like Wrath and Rapture and Carrion Empire to splash in new models but making people wait years before getting their book updated is intolerable. 

And as to the main point - as much as a vocal (minority) complain about them here, the minute GW released an army without a terrain feature or endless spells you'd be met with a wailing and gnashing of teeth about how GW hates their army, they've been slighted, and this is a great injustice.  

Edited by SwampHeart
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There are (still) scientific theories to define immersion, or more correctly which set up categories. So there is a universal understanding of what immersion is, people just don‘t use those due to not looking them up =}

you might experience immersion differently, it will most likely still fit into one of the categories:„Engagement, engrossment, total immersion“ (Emily Brown and Paul Cairns, 2014, „A Grounded Investigation of Game Immersion“) to Name just one way of correctly labeling „immersion“.

it seems to me that you @Dead Scribe think that „z = immersion. which is just one of many parts and refers to the realism „of the game world“ which can mean a lot of things.

 

can we please drop the „immersion means different things for different people so I can’t be wrong“ argument? There is a common Core of it’s meaning:

citing from the same paper as above: „As the intuitive use of the word suggests, immersion is indeed used to describe the degree of involvement with a game.“ - There you have what immersion „means“ (with rsvn.) so let‘s Just refer to that meaning instead of whatever you call immersion. 

 

Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the degree of involvement with a game" - go post that across several forums and groups and get feedback on what sentence means to each individual.  I promise you will get a wide array of answers returned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

"the degree of involvement with a game" - go post that across several forums and groups and get feedback on what sentence means to each individual.  I promise you will get a wide array of answers returned.

involvement
/ɪnˈvɒlvm(ə)nt/
noun
  1. the fact or condition of being involved with or participating in something.
    "US officials produced evidence of his involvement in drug trafficking"
    Synonyme: participationactionhandMehr
     
    • emotional or personal association with someone.
      "she knew that involvement with Adam would only complicate her life"
       
       
       
      your arguments still don‘t hold up. Just because people don‘t know the definition of a word does not mean that it has different meanings, it just means the asked persons aren‘t ingormed enough to answer to that word correctly.
      You use a lack of Information as an argument but it is not.
       
      “people have a vastly different opinion on what an elephant is“ (while they don‘t really know what an elephant looks like) - your argument
       
       
Edited by JackStreicher
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Captain Marius said:

I think the terrain looks good but i do resent the obligation to take it. I suspect theyll get points in the GHB, which will make them fine as options. 

I don’t expect that at all. They are so ingrained  in the allegiance abilities that giving them points would be very hard to balance from this current  point. 

But we’ll see :) 

 Fully agree with the rest of your post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your arguments still don‘t hold up. Just because people don‘t know the definition of a word does not mean that it has different meanings, it just means the asked persons aren‘t ingormed enough to answer to that word correctly.

Ok then.  You carry that torch fella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part I do like the scenery but totally see where people are coming from with it being a "must include" because they do offer a lot for the given army in a game play sense.   We will see a lot of these scenery pieces on tables going forward it seems.

I don't agree with the arguments of logic of how/why that piece got to the "front lines" type of thing though.  I have not seen the story behind the forge for Fyreslayers so I may decide differently at that point but I just got the Blades of Khorne Battletome this weekend and in the first few pages it says that when the mortal bloodbound and immortal legions of blood march together to war the very fabric of reality tears and Khorne's kingdom from the realm of chaos starts to materialize around them.  I easily can visualize this from their vivid descriptions and I can also easily see this brass war shrine folding through one of these tears in reality with gaseous billowing of sulphur and rivulets of blood without it necessarily rising from the ground.

When I first read the FEC Battletome however, I exactly imagined the Abhorant Ghoul king raising his arms like the Night King and his throne assembles itself and rises from the earth from the long forgotten dead in the ground.

Wyldwoods mystically sprouting and growing to full size under the power of a treelord ancient or Allarielle herself is an awesome mental image as is the disgusting count part in the Gnarlmaw of Nurgle.  Gnawholes, etc. are all really thematic and cool.

I can totally see a Cyghor or Ghorgon (or even a pack of them) being tasked with lugging a huge herd stone that they ceremoniously smash down into the earth followed by a crazy ritual right before the battle.  In some ways the Daughters of Khain bring their "scenery" with them in the totem/golemesque avatars and blood cauldrons.

I DO hope that they continue to be inventive and break it up a bit though.  A default scenery piece that just fulfills  a similar function as everyone else's is not that exciting in the long run.   I just finished my Nighthaunt army but have to build some gravestone markers to go with them since they are not a prebuilt kit.  I am about to start on an Idoneth Deepkin in earnest (have them all built and a few painted but now time to get to work) however I have not bought the boat and don't really like the look of it.  I think I will scratch build something or get something from an aquarium store instead just for my own aesthetic tastes so I totally understand people not wanting to spend their money/time/paint on some of these things as well.  I just don't find it very hard to imagine a way for this stuff to make sense on the battlefield within the context of the Mortal Realms.

I do think this is something to relay back to GW though if it bothers you.  Either thru their feedback channels or the survey coming up but there is a good chance that a lot of people are digging this as at least "something" new for their army if it is one of the ones without new models on the horizon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JackStreicher For all your insistence that there's a widely accepted scientific definition of immersion, I find it absolutely hilarious that the first sentence on the first paper in your first posted link is this:

Quote

The term immersion is widely used to describe games but it is not clear what immersion is or indeed if people are using the same word consistently. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immersion
/ɪˈməːʃ(ə)n/
noun
 
  1. 1.
    the action of immersing someone or something in a liquid.
    "his back was still raw from immersion in the icy Atlantic sea"
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Think that they are great - I do get the immersion arguement - but Aos is a game spread across fractured magical realms not on a single normal world so all previous concepts of normal do not really apply 

Most importantly they look great and give armies a small buff  which means that they add to the game rather than distract from it

Edited by HobbyKiller
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can appreciate where people are coming from in regards to "annoyed about having to buy it" to be fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, 18121812 said:

@JackStreicher For all your insistence that there's a widely accepted scientific definition of immersion, I find it absolutely hilarious that the first sentence on the first paper in your first posted link is this:

 

It‘s funny how you read the first SENTENCE and you think you know everything about the paper. 😉

Yup, that‘s the way to get Information: reading the headline 🤣

🤦🏼‍♂️

Also I never claimed what you claim that I claimed good Sir.

If you read on you‘d know that they tried to define it, managed to define it and that there are similarities on what people feel as „immersion“ which is a very good point to start at. 🧐

Edited by JackStreicher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+++ Mod Hat On +++

I think this thread has run it's course. Very annoyed with how some of you have been behaving towards each other as this is not the place where we want you all to clash over your version of the game vs mine.

I'm locking this now

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...