I'm a weak man, I can't resist keeping posting.

Originally Posted by Niara
Yes; we don't like it – that's a given and automatic part of this entire conversation. We don't like these things because they create immersion dissonance that, with the frequency and magnitude it occurs, completely breaks all suggestions of proper immersion in the game world.

This.

"God is dead and we killed him" - Friedrich Nietzsche.

There are no more supremely right or correct takes on anything, just subjective experience; everything comes down to personal liking, it is, as Niara said, an automatic part of the conversation.
Every single criticism in this entire forum, constructive or not, can be traced down to some people not "liking" a particular feature.

That said, even if there's nothing sacred and univocal anymore, an RPG is a genre with a well defined and accepted set of rules and features that put roleplaying and immersion as their top priority, the same way an RTS puts strategy as its top priority and an FPS puts shooting phases as its top one.

Ok then, what is immersion?

To quote the Oxford University:
Quote
A well-known psychological effect triggered by narrative texts is the reader’s (or listener’s) experience of being mentally drawn into the storyworld, a feeling which is often referred to as immersion. The intensity of the experience of being immersed is not only dependent on various cognitive and emotional propensities of the immersed subject but also determined by particular features of the narrative text. The more a text enables the reader to construct an embodied simulation of the described situation, the more intense the immersive experience will be.

If we accept this definition, then it is sensible to say that every feature or mechanic that creates a dissonance between what we are experiencing and its internal coherency is going to be detrimental to the player immersion.

Now, why do we accept some "immersion-breaking" features, like the turn-based combat that freezes time, and not weapons glued to our backs or the ability to teleport from anywhere?

Because this is a game and not a movie, it must be interactable and fun to play. Still, some are necessary in order for a game to be interactable and fun to play, while others are not.
What is the boundary between what is necessary and what is not? It is purely subjective.

And yes, Larian is the master of the game they are producing and they are more than legitimate to make it their version of fun. But I, the customer, want a product that I enjoy, not a game the provider enjoys (if we enjoy the same thing all the better). This is why I, we, everyone are advocating for features they like but, even if everything is subjective, given the context some requests have more weight and are more reasonable than others.


Let us assume that the game will have no tweakable options except for graphical ones such as the resolution of FPS cap.
In this case, when deciding whether to insert or remove a particular feature the golden rule (here as when developing any product) is to put said feature on one scale plate, while on the other the core value of the product must be put.

Is this immersion-breaking feature (and in a videogame, 90% of features are intrinsically immersion-breaking) bringing more benefit to the enjoyment of the game than the immersion that it is taking away from it?

Again, the balance of the scale is subjective, but it is possible to have an honest and down to ground conversation on some features which are, in my opinion, pretty easily discerned.

For example:
- Are weapons glued to the backs of our characters bringing more fun and enjoyment than the visual annoyance they bring to some people?
- Is the fact that a badger can borrow itself on the top of a cage bringing more enjoyment than the suspension of disbelief it causes?
- Is the possibility to instant disappear from a camp full of hostile goblins without likewise explanations, even if there are no portals around, something fun or something detrimental to the core value of the game?

I think that all the above features are bad, for the simple fact that the game claims to be a roleplaying game (core value = immersion). If it was advertised as a turn-based strategy game I would have no problem with it.


Will taking away these features bring more harm than good? Again, it's subjective but no, I don't think so.
I honestly think the most harm would be to take away a little chuckle from people who don't particularly care about immersion, versus the more enjoyable experience for all the others, which I think are the majority since they are buying an RPG.

Again, under the assumption that no options except for graphical ones are going to be available.

--------------------------

Originally Posted by Niara
We could take the badger example:

It doesn't matter whether I use the ability to burrow into the hanging cage (to, say, get the cool loot on the dead skeleton there): I don't – but I see that it is possible, and I cannot choose not to see that it is possible. I cannot choose to avoid seeing that this is possible before the game shows me that it is; after that I know that it is, and I'm reminded that it is every time I wish to use the ability.

Which was exactly the same sentiment I have with unlimited fast travel:

Originally Posted by Sharet
The current iteration of fast travelling in this game is exactly like that scooter. I can refuse to use it but it's still there, parked next to a horse. It's a bit difficult to stay immersed in this scenario.

-------------------------

To end on some positive notes:
1) Larian's people, on the off chance that you are reading, I love your game and what you are doing. In this forum, you are going to read 90% negative things just because no one wants to change the dozens of them that are already super good. People, me included, are arguing only because they want the game to be the best version of what it can be.
2) People in this thread, let's not antagonise and stigmatise anyone, even if we profoundly disagree with one another.