jonbee77: Insofar as movement speed is concerned, I think the movement speed bothered some people because at first it works since there're things to avoid and/or kill, but after they're dead and you still have to move through the area then it becomes a chore. Even quick travel didn't solve the problem because you still ended up having to move through several screens of emptiness. Perhaps they could have added a few more locations to the quick travel. A better solution is probably to just have the player be given the ability to sprint. This way the player could move slow when there're lots of enemies and could move fast when the area is empty. They could even ride a horse if players think that's more immersive. Ultimately, I think every game needs some sort of flexible teleport system because the preset waypoint or teleport systems don't work very well in my view.
Some players do like to travel on foot because they think it's immersive. However, I think this only works well when the environment presents a threat or at least changes over time. An empty environment is not compelling. Yes, it's more realistic to have to move through the environment, but if it's empty it's a wasted opportunity to produce enjoyment.
I think most players - which constitute the vast bulk of the mainstream - only like to travel on foot the first time through an environment - irregardless of any threats or changes to that environment afterwards. Effectively, these kinds of players can only be satisfied with new environments. Thus, quick travel in already visited areas and lots of new areas is the only real solution for them.
What this boils down to I think is some players have higher expectations for new content. Players who talk about liking immersion have lower expectations and don't mind traveling or doing things in old content as long as it has some things changed. Players who have higher expectations cannot be satisfied with small changes, so they need completely new environments.
My theory - or hypothesis - is immersion gamers are lacking in their ability to absorb information somehow. This causes them to have very low content consumption. They display more repetitive behaviors in games. They cloak this underlying reason in fancy words like realism and immersiveness, but these words are just distraction from the truth. They want the game to be slower and more repetitive and don't care what the means is. Players who need new environments to be truly satisfied, by contrast, absorb information much faster and so they require newer things at a higher pace. These players will treat repetitive games as though they were vindictive or broken, not realizing that some gamers (and game makers) actually want games to be more repetitive.
I'm not speaking in a void. There's research out there that backs up my theory. For example, there's one research study on rats where repeated stress stimuli shrunk the learning centers of the brain and caused those rats to display much higher amounts of repetitive behavior. They also found that the area of the brain which handles habit (otherwise known as repetition) had grown.
So I can speculate immersion gamers have experienced stress in their past and this has shrunk the learning centers of their brain and also grown the areas of the brain controlling habit. They have then become less tolerant to new things and more inclined towards old things. This is why they like game features which slow down the game and reward repetition more. Because they still have learning centers of the brain they still require some new things or changes to old things, but they're not learning-focused.
Note I've also seen research that links the size of the area of the brain controlling habit with the ability of the rat to repeat something. In other words, if it's larger then the rat is slightly better at repeating something. So there's a possibility immersion gamers are better at playing repetitive games than non-immersion gamers and this is not because they're more interested in playing.
I'm sorry but do you really believe what you are typing? If you have found studies that (IMO do not prove much either way) then post links because all we have is your word(with lets be honest is not much to go on). I do not see how you could right this and think it would not offend people. You are narrowing what people mean with they talk of realism and immersive for your own purpose.
