That’s the question gaming industry veteran and former lead designer for Ultima Online poses in the title of his latest blog post. And he leads the post off with a quote (from himself) noting — and mourning, to some extent — the loss of the sense of immersion in modern games. That should strike a chord; said phenomenon is something many have bemoaned on this very site, in the comments forms of many articles.

And yet, in answer to his own question, Koster offers a resounding (seriously; it’s in bold text in the article) “no”. Actually, he doesn’t say “no” specifically. What he does say, however, is:

Once upon a time, people actually dying on the field of play was an expected and normal part of sports. Whether it was a game of Aztec tlachtli or plain old rugby, it happened, and was considered an inevitable part of the sport.

Things that we once considered essential to games drift in and out of fashion. And I think immersion is one of those.

…

As I watch my son and daughter play games or participate in role play sessions, I find myself reluctantly admitting to myself that it is a personality type that ends up immersed in this way, and were it not in games it would be in something else. Immersion isn’t a mass market activity in that sense, because most people are comfortable being who they are and where they are. It’s us crazy dreamers who are unmoored, and who always seek out secondary worlds.

It’s just that games aren’t just for crazy dreamers anymore.

…

I mourn. I mourn the gradual loss of deep immersion and the trappings of geekery that I love. I see the ways in which the worlds I once dove into headlong have become incredibly expensive endeavors, movies-with-button-presses far more invested in telling me their story, rather than letting me tell my own.

But stuff changes. Immersion is not a core game virtue. It was a style, one that has had an amazing run, and may continue to pop up from time to time the way that we still hear swing music in the occasional pop hit. It’ll be available for us, the dreamers, as a niche product, perhaps higher priced, or in specialty shops. We’ll understand how those crotchety old war gamers felt, finally.

The article ends on a hopeful note, although not wholly so; one can see the sly critique of the more disruptive monetization schemes present in some modern “free-to-play” games in Koster’s remark about a toll booth on the way to the dragon’s peak.

I think I need to re-read his post a couple more times to make sure I’m fully understanding his point, but I do think he is in general correct about the trends in the gaming market, and about the value of immersion as a gameplay quality.

To be fair, immersion isn’t dead. The success of Skyrim (to take one example) certainly proves that there is value in — and demand for — games that incorporate elements which draw the player deeper into the world of the game and make it easy to become one with the fantasy being woven on the screen. And yet, that only goes so far; Piranha Bytes’ various games arguably offer as much (if not more) in the way of immersion-building systems, and yet have only done passably well in the market. As successful as Skyrim has been (and it has been monumentally successful), its success is not solely because of what immersive experiences it offers. It has broader appeal.

For those of us who came into gaming in the era of Ultima and as subjects of Lord British, immersion will always be a valuable quality to encounter in a game. And yet, it’s worth noting that gaming was, back in that era, far more of a niche thing than it is now. Immersion might once have been a key aspect of games that dominated the market…but how big was the market back then? And how big is it now? What was the average profile of a gamer back then…and what is the average profile of a gamer now? On what did most gamers game back then, and on what do most gamers game now?

And how should game designers be expected to respond to those changes?

The First Age of Update: The more I think about it, the more I think that some definition of “immersion” needs to be settled upon before a solid answer to Raph Koster’s question can really be offered. Over on the UDIC Facebook page, Gallara made the point that immersion is crucial to the idea of games as a break from reality. And I think he is quite correct in saying as much.

Every game needs to draw the player in; every games needs to immerse the player in its…in itself, in some way. Jetpack Joyride has to immerse me in some way, even if that is only through the magnificent simplicity of its design and gameplay. And immerse me it does; that game was a minor addiction of mine a couple of months ago, and I can still waste half an hour trying to get its airborne protagonist just a few metres further into the facility that is the game’s infinite setting.

But in this context, I think Raph Koster is talking about something a little more than this sort of immersion. I think he’s talking about the whole “living world” idea, the concept of a game world that lives and breathes and goes on around the player, almost indifferent to his existence in its midst. The immersion that was found in Ultima, in other words. I don’t ever imagine myself in the place of Barry Steakfries, trying to escape a top-secret research facility with a bullet-shooting jet pack strapped to my back. But I do occasionally imagine myself standing on the shores of Britannia.

I think that’s the sort of immersion Raph Koster is talking about. And I would agree that it’s…not something that’s en vogue these days. Though it is still nice to find it when it happens.