-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Why do immersive sims tend to struggle financially?
- Thread starter Cosmic Voyager
- Start date
The main trait of an immersive sim compared to a typical single player shooter iis that it's a game built on systems rather than setpieces and that combat isn't necessarily the main point of the experience as much as creating the illusion of being... Well, immersed in a highly interactive virtual environment.
Game Maker's Toolkit had a good video about the genre... Even if some of its optimism at the time didn't age particularly well in hindsight:
Been playing through Dishonored 2 recently and the Clockwork Mansion blew my mind. Fantastic level.
It's a shame a lot of these games don't sell better cause I absolutely love them. Good thing tho is that their open-ended and systemic approach to gameplay has been showing up in a lot of games, including Zelda most surprisingly.
OP
OP
Immersive sims can have all that too (see Bioshock and to a lesser extent Prey/Deus Ex). Dishonored just happens to be an imsim with few gun options.
But yes, you're right that I was intentionally exaggerating when I made that comment lol
OP
OP
Awesome, thanks! I'll have to give that a watch tomorrow
Honestly, I'm not sure Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be a full-on immersive sim, not to the level of Deus Ex 1, Dishonored, or even Skyrim. It's probably going to be closer to The Outer Worlds and Fallout New Vegas, just with a much bigger budget.
There might be sort of a venn diagram here -- most of the first immersive sims definitely were first-person RPGs: Ultima Underworld, System Shock, Deus Ex 1, Arx Fatalis, etc. The more recent ones are more like action games with RPG elements since they took out the character stat sheets and all that jazz. Obsidian's games kept that stuff and steered more towards to it, since they're really just offshoots of their old isometric RPGs they had to build in the framework of Bethesda's immersive sims.
New Vegas obviously has all the immersive sim elements of Fallout 3's engine, but Outer Worlds doesn't have a world, AI, or physics system that's reactive in quite the same way. Player choice in those games is more defined by dialogue choices and character building. Games like Fallout 3, Skyrim, and other immersive sims are more about playing with the systems in real time. CDProjekt's games edge more towards the former. All three Witcher games have slightly systemic elements in their worlds -- the way NPCs and creatures react to you and the worlds around them, but they never really went full immersive sim to the point where you could actually use that to solve quests. Maybe the difference is that in true immersive sims you can find your own solutions to problems. 2077 is going to be more like a straightforward first person RPG.
As for Bethesda's games, Fallout 3 and Skyrim definitely count, but Fallout 4 begins to shed some of those elements. I haven't played Bethesda's earlier games yet. And honestly, this is the one element that people who try to copy Skyrim or make Skyrim comparisons miss. People look at Skyrim and see "first person RPG" but don't really see all the ways people can manipulate the game through the physics and AI, or even all the role-playing possibilities the AI provides. I think the main reason Skyrim is so enduring is because not a single game since has managed to encapsulate all its elements. Some games have iterated on individual aspects of Skyrim, but none have iterated on the whole formula. The closest is Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which in my opinion also counts as an immersive sim.
I'm not really sure it's the openness by itself that pushes people away. Games like GTA, Minecraft, Rust, and DayZ are really popular and those are totally open, and let players pretty much do whatever they want.
Though it might indeed be the speed of the gameplay and the fact that most immersive sims tend to focus on environments that, while smaller than full sandbox games, aren't linear and thus don't have the immediate appeal of either one. It's almost impossible to quickly describe what they even are.
A big thing is, we haven't figured out a good way to tell players "there's no wrong way to complete this objective".
btw. sorry I'm quoting you lewiep. it's just a random note on thief deadly shadows. playing that game again recently with the 'sneaky upgrade' mod was so good, widescreen resolutions and gets rid of a lot of the in-level load zones. so many cool small things in that game I dont remember appreciating back when it came out, the kind of open map part walking around getting missions and going to sell stuff you steal, and things happen and change on that map. beautiful game. the quite overpowered lean into wall surfaces button is awesome.
Great informative video, this is also some nice additional material:
Immersive is a term that existed before game reviews, lol.
Immersive sims are called that because unlike other sims which tend to use an overhead perspective with the player accessing it's systems in a god-like way, they use a first person perspective and have the player access it's systems through an in-game avatar that is bound by human limitations.
I'm currently playing Dishonored, so it's easy to explain. The game is great. Its level design is amazing, its world design is cool and its story is correctt (it isn't very original). But even if I'm enjoying it, I know that I won't play the DLC or Dishonored 2, because it's too stressfull to play it.
In regular FPS, RPG or adventure game, when you play on easy, you're almost invincible. So you play and kill who you want. In Dishonored, you should be sure to don't kill anyone, you should find all collectibles (because otherwise they will be lost forever) and if you want to do it easily, you should never be detected. I know, nobody forces me to dot that: you can just kill everyone if you want. But since the game has consequences, I don't think I'm really free to do whatever I want.
When I play Dishonored, I'm always worried. Is there anyone here? Can I go there? Will I miss something if I go this way? If I use a sleeping arrow now, will I have enough sleeping arrow for the rest of this quest? It's just too stressfull. Plus, I don't like the division of a game between a few long missions, because if I know I won't have the time to finish a mission the same day, I usually just don't start it and play something else.
In regular FPS, RPG or adventure game, when you play on easy, you're almost invincible. So you play and kill who you want. In Dishonored, you should be sure to don't kill anyone, you should find all collectibles (because otherwise they will be lost forever) and if you want to do it easily, you should never be detected. I know, nobody forces me to dot that: you can just kill everyone if you want. But since the game has consequences, I don't think I'm really free to do whatever I want.
When I play Dishonored, I'm always worried. Is there anyone here? Can I go there? Will I miss something if I go this way? If I use a sleeping arrow now, will I have enough sleeping arrow for the rest of this quest? It's just too stressfull. Plus, I don't like the division of a game between a few long missions, because if I know I won't have the time to finish a mission the same day, I usually just don't start it and play something else.
I dunno. These people with their elongated bodies looking right at me like some kinda Jacobs ladder fever dream look like monsters to me. I can't tolerate it. They remind me of the woman in the painting in IT.
I think immersive sims require a lot of investment on the part of the player. You have to choose to kind of get in them in more of a surface level. You have to emotionally kind of invest.
Other types of games might be engrossing, and fully have my attention, but they don't necessarily require me to really inhabit a character like an immersive sim does.
Immersive sims also just do not trailer well at all. They are by their definition sim-like, and try to be immersive, which means a lot of the gameplay is very...normal. Straight forward.
Sometimes it's easier to play a game that is flashy and like eating potato chips. I know I can play some third person action game, and yeah maybe the mechanics will require me to get invested, and the story will intrigue me, but I don't have to truly inhabit the player emotionally and actually suspend my disbelief that i'm in a space. And honestly? That takes effort to do. And most of the time when I get home from work, I am tired and exhausted, and I kind of just want to click buttons, be it hard or mindless or whatever.
You simply will never appeal to the vast majority of people if you are requiring mental effort on their part to use their imaginations and get involved.
That investment is what makes them so rewarding, and also what means they will never be hugely financially successful.
Other types of games might be engrossing, and fully have my attention, but they don't necessarily require me to really inhabit a character like an immersive sim does.
Immersive sims also just do not trailer well at all. They are by their definition sim-like, and try to be immersive, which means a lot of the gameplay is very...normal. Straight forward.
Sometimes it's easier to play a game that is flashy and like eating potato chips. I know I can play some third person action game, and yeah maybe the mechanics will require me to get invested, and the story will intrigue me, but I don't have to truly inhabit the player emotionally and actually suspend my disbelief that i'm in a space. And honestly? That takes effort to do. And most of the time when I get home from work, I am tired and exhausted, and I kind of just want to click buttons, be it hard or mindless or whatever.
You simply will never appeal to the vast majority of people if you are requiring mental effort on their part to use their imaginations and get involved.
That investment is what makes them so rewarding, and also what means they will never be hugely financially successful.
They're not trying to be like simulators as we think of a simulator like a flight simulator which is trying to sim real life with no narrative. The focus is on firstly being immersed, and secondly on trying to simulate a real world to achieve that. This world can be fictional. Simulating it means it lives and breaths and exists beyond the player. The point is to immerse you with that simulated reality. The realness of it doesn't really matter. Simulate as a word simply means to "imitate the appearance or character of" something."
The goal is to create a curated experience but one that doesn't feel curated or controlled. This is why so many things are simulated. You can pick up things, break things, do things how you want to, and the world will attempt to simulate how those things would respond, rather than simply being authored.
Yes, all games do this to an extent, but the focus here is specifically to appear as a simulated reality specifically built to immerse you and make you feel as you are there.
This is why game-y elements are reduced, like HUD and menus and XP bars. Those are not things that draw the player in and make them feel immersed in a simulated reality.
Genre names are so bunk anyway. In traditional roleplay, one takes on a specific role to inhabit. This makes sense as it transitions to something like DnD, where one inhabits a role there as well, and the world that person is in is abstractly represented with stats. Well, games pulled from those stats, and now we have games that are very much about those stats that don't actually require any roleplaying of you at all, and yet no one complains about calling them "roleplaying mechanics." Like, in DnD, if I play a mage, and I spec high talents specific to a mage, the specs are part of the roleplaying, but also so is me inhabiting that player. But you can have games nowadays with stats, where there's no real roleplaying at all, and still have it called an RPG because it has stats and builds. Like Dark Souls gets called an RPG, even though I'm not really getting into character for it. Like, yeah I'm sort of playing as someone, but I'm I reaaaally roleplaying? Not...really. Not in the original sense of the word. I can if I want to, but it's not really part of the experience.
Point is, despite drifting away from the actual meaning of RP to something tangentially related has not stopped or confused discussions when someone says "Oh this game I played was an RPG or an MMORPG."
Trying to force genre names into one understanding of a given word doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Just because simulation means one thing in one place doesn't mean we have to say it means the same thing in another place, when the definition of the word simulation in its more neutral sense still best describes the goal of a genre.
Immersive sims want to use simulation to achieve immersion. That's all there is to it. It doesn't mean they have to be full simulators. It just means they are using simulations or the appearance of simulations to achieve immersion.
Can that get messy? Sure! But so can like...every genre.
I honestly thought Immersive Sim was just the new name people were trying to use to trick people into playing a Walking Simulator game. I don't know if I would consider Bioshock a sim of anything.
Ah shame, I actually really liked it though it wasn't as good as Human Revolution. I still had a blast exploring in the cyberpunk world.
My main complaint was the forced in Breach mode to try and get people to buy microtransactions was total garbage...
Well, I'm not very good at games. I like when things are more straightforward.
Immerse sims underpower you to force creative and often stealth solutions. It only makes me cheese the game whenever possible (low on resources, having to use a weak melee attack for example). So what I play is vastly different than high plays I watch or read. It is a bit frustrating and I entually stop playing.
I'm might not be the only one who thinks like this. Basically, they are too complicated.
Immerse sims underpower you to force creative and often stealth solutions. It only makes me cheese the game whenever possible (low on resources, having to use a weak melee attack for example). So what I play is vastly different than high plays I watch or read. It is a bit frustrating and I entually stop playing.
I'm might not be the only one who thinks like this. Basically, they are too complicated.
love the subgenres, but immersive sim is a dumb name.
Maybe call it Emergent Sim, cause that's what's basically it's main strength: systemic gameplay
Maybe call it Emergent Sim, cause that's what's basically it's main strength: systemic gameplay
I mean, I can see the dislike for the name - but it's two decades old by now, and it never really implied immersiveness in the modern "it's a great looking FPS" sense. More in that it tried to place the player in a simulated world that existed and worked irrespective of the player's influence or input.
Sounds more like your fault than the games. Most immersive sims that aren't Thief allow you plenty of ways to spec for straightforward combat. You might miss things with that approach but it would be the same with stealthy or non combat solutions.
I wouldn't either, because it barely qualifies as part of the genre.
Other games listed here, on the other hand...
Just because the style is (deliberately) unsettling to a certain extent, that doesn't mean it's not good.
I dunno. These people with their elongated bodies looking right at me like some kinda Jacobs ladder fever dream look like monsters to me. I can't tolerate it. They remind me of the woman in the painting in IT.
In fact these screenshots only reinforce the point the user you are answering to was making: Dishonored had AMAZING art direction.
And stylish s hell, too.
I'm sorry, what? Thief Deadly Shadows has a third-person mode?
I probably did read something about that in reviews when it came out, but it never stuck and I've been thinking it was a third-person game this whole time. I've kept putting off playing it because of that.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If anything they are often among the most intuitive titles around. An almost idealized streamlined form of gaming, where basically anything you can come up to inside a give set of rules/subsystems may actually work to some extent.
Which means a lot of natural interactions with the scenario/characters in one immersive sim tend to work better and give a more meaningful feedback than in most games (where these things are only "scenario").
And it's not like the genre is particularly unpopular either. The good ones have an incredibly high appreciation rate. A lot of people who actually TRY these games end up loving them. In fact when someone plays a good immersive sim, there are very good chances to see it being listed in that person's list of favorites.
The issue seems to be rather that they turn very few heads to begin with, so they rarely sell well.
That's why you have this contrast between these games being highly rated while being poorly performing on shelves.
There was a thread on this very topic about a month and a half ago. I'll repost what I said there:
I watched a good recent video on the history of Immersive Sims here. It's long but worth a watch if you're interested in the history of the genre:
What I picked up from this is outside of a few examples, most Immersive Sims are not only hard and expensive to make, they're also often not worth it as many are commercial failures. That said, some do go on to become huge successes, but it's very rare. Add to this that many fans of individual games of this type may not even realize it's part of the larger genre of Immersive Sims (the genre has done a bad job at communicating it's even a genre, what it's central appeal is, and how these games are connected in game design outside of the most hardcore enthusiasts of the genre. Most gamers don't even know what an Immersive Sim really is and many haven't even heard the term before).
I think this genre has serious untapped potential, but there needs to be more easing into it. I actually think "dumbed down not really immersive sim" Immersive sim-like games need to have more of a presence before the actual main genre can take off. There's been several successes that fit this genre, but I don't think most people even realize they're a genre and the terminology used hasn't aged well in the last decade, nor has it really caught on.
I also think the genre needs to do away with a few of its tropes being necessary: IE I know currently a qualification for these games is they must be first-person, but I feel that's more a forced definition based on what's existed so far than a necessity for this genre to work.
I watched a good recent video on the history of Immersive Sims here. It's long but worth a watch if you're interested in the history of the genre:
What I picked up from this is outside of a few examples, most Immersive Sims are not only hard and expensive to make, they're also often not worth it as many are commercial failures. That said, some do go on to become huge successes, but it's very rare. Add to this that many fans of individual games of this type may not even realize it's part of the larger genre of Immersive Sims (the genre has done a bad job at communicating it's even a genre, what it's central appeal is, and how these games are connected in game design outside of the most hardcore enthusiasts of the genre. Most gamers don't even know what an Immersive Sim really is and many haven't even heard the term before).
I think this genre has serious untapped potential, but there needs to be more easing into it. I actually think "dumbed down not really immersive sim" Immersive sim-like games need to have more of a presence before the actual main genre can take off. There's been several successes that fit this genre, but I don't think most people even realize they're a genre and the terminology used hasn't aged well in the last decade, nor has it really caught on.
I also think the genre needs to do away with a few of its tropes being necessary: IE I know currently a qualification for these games is they must be first-person, but I feel that's more a forced definition based on what's existed so far than a necessity for this genre to work.
Anecdotal, in my experience the people I know who make snoring sounds when these games are shown at E3 or say these games look like trash are the same ones who want to smash something in 8 hours and not really think about what they have to do in the process. Again, anecdotal just based off the people I play games with and friends.
It's been quite some time, but I think you can play entirely in first person, entirely in third person, or switch between the two freely.
Clearly.
i don't even think Dishonored actually needs to be defended frankly.
if anything the art style is one of its highlights, not something that hinders it.
There have been moments playing it where I found myself genuinely in awe with it, especially in some of the late levels.
groovy. I wish it did it for me because, as I said, I love the ideas behind both Dishonored and Prey.
I love these games but my impression is that they ask more of players. There isn't instant gratification - you slowly peel back layers of the games as you play. They require patience and thinking.
The crowd today on the whole wants something fast and easy to get into and stuff like FPS, BR etc provide that. And multiplayer
It's too bad because these are done of my favorite games and I wish we had way more of them. I feel like people hate moved on and the audience left is us old gamers lol pining first better days
The crowd today on the whole wants something fast and easy to get into and stuff like FPS, BR etc provide that. And multiplayer
It's too bad because these are done of my favorite games and I wish we had way more of them. I feel like people hate moved on and the audience left is us old gamers lol pining first better days
The perfect immersive sim would, in my mind, be a kind of fully realized branch of singleplayer gaming. With no upper limit to tech, talent, budget, and development time, I believe the output of that fantasy would be like 50% immersive sims. The core tenants of the genre are what many devs strive to emulate already: Choice, cascading systems, deep environmental storytelling and interaction, versatile gear/tools, intricately designed spaces and multiple paths, etc.
The reality, obviously, is that there are limits to tech, budget, and dev time, so only a few games attempt to tackle all of these areas, with the majority of games specializing in only one or two things, with maybe a third given less priority. What specializing does is allow devs to drill down and lather the game with production values, flashy made-for-trailer gameplay, and elevator pitch descriptions. Let's be honest, until Dishonored most of these games didn't even carry themselves with eye catching animation. How do you market immersive sims after an Uncharted demo? When the industry is in the midst of a Rockstar hype cycle? When the wide reach of easy to pickup multiplayer games, looting, and infinite battle pass content is locking people into feedback loops every night? Sure you might strike gold with a sleek, coherent, cohesive Deus Ex: Human Revolution perfect storm, but even they couldn't replicate that with Mankind Divided. Most of the time, immersive sims are left to fend for themselves with low key, longform gameplay demos showcasing why this genre is special. How many casuals are really going to go out of their way to watch 30 minute demos of an unknown thing? Maybe if you're CDPR and worked youself into a Witcher 3, but there ain't a dozen Witcher 3s running around every year. Keep in mind this is all before getting into game pacing, deeper player investment, and a required intrinsic fascination with systemic consequence. The immersive sim isn't a snack genre. You have to chew these games slow, and swirl your wine.
They're hard to make, hard to market, and ask more from the player than most games with similar aesthetics. Until we reach the point where tech has caught up to ambition and immersive sim qualities are mainstream, this genre will never have a consistent presence. Fortunately, you can see the tide turning this gen with a shift to more and more systemic elements, inch by inch. That will trickle down. The road will be littered with Dishonored 2s but the industry will catch up eventually.
The reality, obviously, is that there are limits to tech, budget, and dev time, so only a few games attempt to tackle all of these areas, with the majority of games specializing in only one or two things, with maybe a third given less priority. What specializing does is allow devs to drill down and lather the game with production values, flashy made-for-trailer gameplay, and elevator pitch descriptions. Let's be honest, until Dishonored most of these games didn't even carry themselves with eye catching animation. How do you market immersive sims after an Uncharted demo? When the industry is in the midst of a Rockstar hype cycle? When the wide reach of easy to pickup multiplayer games, looting, and infinite battle pass content is locking people into feedback loops every night? Sure you might strike gold with a sleek, coherent, cohesive Deus Ex: Human Revolution perfect storm, but even they couldn't replicate that with Mankind Divided. Most of the time, immersive sims are left to fend for themselves with low key, longform gameplay demos showcasing why this genre is special. How many casuals are really going to go out of their way to watch 30 minute demos of an unknown thing? Maybe if you're CDPR and worked youself into a Witcher 3, but there ain't a dozen Witcher 3s running around every year. Keep in mind this is all before getting into game pacing, deeper player investment, and a required intrinsic fascination with systemic consequence. The immersive sim isn't a snack genre. You have to chew these games slow, and swirl your wine.
They're hard to make, hard to market, and ask more from the player than most games with similar aesthetics. Until we reach the point where tech has caught up to ambition and immersive sim qualities are mainstream, this genre will never have a consistent presence. Fortunately, you can see the tide turning this gen with a shift to more and more systemic elements, inch by inch. That will trickle down. The road will be littered with Dishonored 2s but the industry will catch up eventually.
I've spoken before about how Deus Ex and Morrowind sorta broke gaming for me. For the first time all the weird/random shit I'd try in games was not only responded to, it was rewarded and encouraged. They've been my favorite thing ever since. Even stuff like Rockstar games are at their very best when they adhere heavily to immersive sim design philosophies.
Between the major leap in console CPUs coming next gen, and the amazing things coming out of smaller studios in recent years(Pathologic 2, Kingdom Come Deliverance) I'm very optimistic about the future. I also think VR and Immersive Sims are natural bedfellows and can't wait until we get experiences built around both.
Between the major leap in console CPUs coming next gen, and the amazing things coming out of smaller studios in recent years(Pathologic 2, Kingdom Come Deliverance) I'm very optimistic about the future. I also think VR and Immersive Sims are natural bedfellows and can't wait until we get experiences built around both.
Reading through this thread, I'm not sure that's the issue. Because Skyrim and Breath of the Wild both figured this out, and sold very well.
The problem with games like Deus Ex and Prey is that they punish you very hard at the beginning of the game for trying to do anything.
One of the first things I did in Deus Ex was find a gun that shot sleeping darts. It had a minuscule amount of ammo, and the first guard I shot with it didn't fall asleep, alerted his friends instead, and I died. That's... not encouraging of experimentation.
Prey isn't quite that harsh. But the beginning of the game is full of stuff you can't do, not because you're not clever enough, but because you're not high level enough. It's like, sure, if you somehow get two more levels in lock picking, you can go through this door. But in the meantime, good luck leveling, because you're also too low level to be effective in a firefight.
You can push through the early harshness of these games, and level up to the point where you can do a set of things. But you really have to be committed to the game in order to do so.
Compare to Skyrim, where you can pick locks, swing swords, and persuade people right off the bat. Later areas will gate off some of these options, but by then you've picked what you like, and don't mind so much.
Or compare to Breath of the Wild, where there is very little leveling and you can do pretty much anything you can imagine. You just have to think to try.
Open ended stimulationist games can do very well. They just don't do as well when they follow Deus Ex's model and make it as difficult as possible to engage with the fun open ended mechanics.
Last edited:
Well, this is already happening to some extent.
As others pointed, BoTW while not being first person is extremely focused on systemic design that closely resembles the core philosophy behind most systemic sims. Here's another Gamer's Toolkit video on the topic:
And every Rockstar title in the last years tried (with mixed results) to expand on its systemic systems as well (depsise keeping them mostly at the margins of the core narrative rather than integrating them directly into it).
See, that's what I like about these types of games. If I put zero points in guns I want my character to be Bad At Guns.
because nobody has ever topped bioshock 2.
if your immersive sim doesn't let me throw bees just fuck off.
if your immersive sim doesn't let me throw bees just fuck off.
I think the problem is that these games are very cumbersome to play with console controllers.
The point of being immersive is that the world needs to react to your actions as you expect.
It's difficult to feel that way if you can't even accurately pick up that damn cup on the table.
The point of being immersive is that the world needs to react to your actions as you expect.
It's difficult to feel that way if you can't even accurately pick up that damn cup on the table.
Which isn't how it's used in referring to games in reviews. It's used as a quality.
It's a characteristic, not a badge of merit (if not subjectively).
Your entire crusade against the term in this thread is frankly a baseless joke.
Sorry that I can recognize that "immersive" has been used as a mark of quality when reviews talk about games, but you can pretend whatever you want. It's a very literally pretentious - in that it contains pretentions - term.
No matter how many people keep quoting me and somehow forgetting how game discourse has been over the last 3 decades, that won't change. Immersion is pretty uniformly talked about as a mark of quality. No other genre names itself about how great it is in some aspect. Pretentious.
Your entire crusade for the term in this thread is frankly a baseless joke - maybe someday you'll realize that people are allowed to continue making points, even if they're negative.
Last edited:
a fantastic apple pie does not cease to be fantastic because you're picky and dont like apples
