Whatever “immersive” means, other people are the exact opposite of that.
If being designed as online games, where live humans interrupting each other’s fun is where the “content” comes from, is the only way to save the immersive sim genre, then let it die.
Alternately, as I’ve suggested over on Discord, there are a couple of options:
- Reduce the cost/risk of making immersive sims by creating a library (similar to SpeedTree) of imsim features (whatever people can agree those might be).
- Define Bethesda’s games as “immersive sims.”
You can’t say the Fallout and Elder Scrolls franchises haven’t been enormous commercial successes. If those were defined to be immersive sims, the genre would clearly be doing just fine. Of course, you could argue those games aren’t immersive sims because of this or that or some other “but they don’t do X” reason… but I could just as easily argue they aren’t all that far off – certainly they’re closer to being immersive sims than a lot of other kinds of games are.
So there’s a question: for those who are certain Fallout and TES and the upcoming Starfield are definitely not immersive sims, what features – specifically – would those kinds of games need to have in order to tolerate calling them immersive sims (and, one hopes, attracting other developers to try to make more such games)?