A few weeks back an editorial appeared on frugalsworld by Mark Bush.
His discussion raised some interesting points about the nature of
simulation reality and suspension of disbelief. I've pulled some quotes
from Mark's article together with part of a discussion at
COMBATSIM.COM™ from 1997 and '98 as the basis of a consideration of the
finer points of immersion and the "willing suspension of disbelief."
In his article Mark comments that, "What most of us appear to be
looking for is the chance to be a pilot for a few hours. We are really
trying to simulate the experience of being a pilot rather than trying
to simulate flight as such. When we sit down to Falcon 4 or Mig Alley
or whatever may be our sim of choice we are looking to lose ourselves
in this fantasy world .... You could say that we are looking for a
pilot sim rather than a flight sim."
Some of you are undoubtedly looking primarily for a pilot sim,
others for an aircraft sim. Still others are looking for a realistic
combat environment (read: dynamic or very close to it). But Mark's
point about "the experience" of being a pilot (an air combat pilot,
that is) is the real linch pin.
In late 1997 and then in 1998 I wrote an editorial
about immersion and campaign systems, and later expanded my thinking
using the analogy of a wheel - the hub and the spokes. In that article
I argued that dynamics were the key in "the willing suspension of
disbelief" (Coleridge).
I still think that I was right. But my focus on dynamics tended to
obscure the real issue: believability. The problem is that where
dynamics is definable and mostly quantifiable, believability is very
personal and takes in some subjective elements. In fact,
"believability" is not merely subjective, it is itself both fluid and
dynamic. Mark gets at the "subjective" component as his editorial
continues...
"So how important is a realistic FM in sims. If we are honest
about it, most of us would not recognise a realistic flight model if it
jumped up and bit us on the ass!! Now I'm not saying that most of us
don't understand the physics behind flight or what mathematically
constitutes a good flight model. In fact many of us have a very
thorough understanding of the subject. What I am saying is that most of
us have no clue what it really feels like to fly a real military jet.
"The reality is that we have no frame of reference as to what is a good
flight model. We go by feel and opinion most of the time. If in our
opinion it doesn't feel like we imagine the real jet feels then it
ain't gonna hold us in that little fantasy for very long is it. And
there's the rub. It doesn't matter how accurate the FM is, if it
doesn't convince us that it feels like the real thing then we won't buy
into it. As most of us don't know what the real thing feels like the
importance of accuracy is just an illusion. "
TAW War Room
"What is more important is what it takes to convince us that it feels
real. This depends to a large degree on our background and outside
interests . . . .
If you are more of a propeller head like me and got your references
from reading Janes and talking to real pilots and learning as much as
you could about the planes etc then your expectations are a little
higher.
"For me a simplistic avionics suite kills the immersion and pulls me
out of that little world. Does that mean the avionics and flight model
have to be accurate? No, it just means that they have to be convincing.
"
And this, likewise, is extremely personal. Mark makes the point
that it takes more to convince him that these things are realistic than
it does some others. This truly is "the problem," from the standpoint
of the combat simulation designer.
Going Deeper
But there are some deeper forces at work here, Luke! I am
thinking of Andy Hollis' argument that while F15 lacked a fully dynamic
campaign system, it still had excellent immersive powers. Andy's
description of the F15 campaign ran like this:
"F15's campaign system is very dynamic. It also is not like any
currently existing system, so trying to use labels like "semi-dynamic"
or "fully dynamic" as people have come to use them would be inaccurate.
F15 Map
The goal of a dynamic campaign is to provide a compelling series of missions
that combine together to provide a sense of : 1) overall purpose, 2) progress
and cause/effect due to the player's actions, 3) being part of a much larger
world, where the actions of others have causal effect, not just your own, and
4) continuity through resource management (planes, ordnance, aircrews) and world
integrity (dead things stay dead and regenerate over time as appropriate).
The final key element, though, is variety, which provides for replayability and
a strong sense of the unexpected. This can be accomplished in more than one
way and each way has its advantages and disadvantages."
Looking back now, I think the element Andy neglected was the "feel" of
the environment itself, though he might have intended to include that
feeling in his reference to the "larger world." There is little
question in my mind that Andy understood these things intuitively, even
if in this case he didn't quite put it into words.
I would argue that that feel of a dynamic environment is paramount
in creating believability and even raw "fun." And the dynamism of that
environment extends to both simulation and interface. What I mean by
the dynamism extending to the interface is the flow between missions
and the form and frequency of supply of intelligence (debriefing,
mission assessment, pilot records, mission planning elements etc.)
And here is where Pixel Multimedia and JANE's have come close to solid
gold with USAF, and where Rowan and Empire have come close to solid
gold with MiG Alley. USAF has an AWACS like interface which helps
provide a sense of dynamism, and the strength of the graphics engine
contributes greatly to an immersive environment. The detail of pilot
records helps greatly to the sense that missions really matter.
MiG Alley, on the other hand, in its fifth campaign allows a
degree of player interaction that surpasses even Falcon 4.0. The amount
of information available on a particular target and the ability of the
user to determine both strategic and tactical dimensions contribute
greatly to immersion via the sense of responsibility for the overall
campaign.
I have used this term "immersion" a number of times now. How do I define it? Immersion occurs when a game looks
more and responds more like the real world, does a better job at
helping me care about my alter ego and what happens to my platoon/squad
etc, connects events in a logical and believable manner, is less
predictable (while remaining true to reasonable strategic and tactical
considerations), has an interface which is unobtrusive and fluid, and
also supplies important tactical and strategic information relatively
transparently, then it is more or less immersive.
In the end, it seems that "immersion" is a very broad topic, and each
of us will find that different approaches enhance our own experience.
The success of USAF is due in large part to a dynamic balancing of a
number of factors that are important to a very broad cross section of
the sim community. MiG Alleys appeal is quite different, but in the end
may prove almost as broad via an entirely different set of "spokes."
An Art and a Science
The problem is that simply assembling the correct spokes to a
solid hub may not in itself make for the perfect simulation. What I am
getting at here is that there is a "gestalt" to good simulation design
that makes it more of an art than a science. In fact, art and science
must come together to make a really good simulation product, because
"the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."
But whatever the reasons that a particular military simulation
appeals to you, most will agree that it must immerse the virtual pilot
in a believable world. If it can do that without demanding that one
read a four hundred page manual and spend fifteen hours flying each and
every week, it will increase the economic viability of the developer.
In the end, that is a very important goal!
