Thanks for finally answering. Let me ask you, when you say "it is all you notice," do you mean that you are no longer capable of noticing things in the real world? So if I were to walk up to you and ask you a question, you wouldn't hear me?
The rest of it I get... although to me, that sounds like a perfectly good description of "engrossed." Feeling engrossed, emotionally invested... those are things I also feel when I'm playing a game I really like. Same as if I'm watching a movie I really like. The only thing I can't say is that I am still conscious of things that happen outside the game world.
So I still don't really see the difference between "immersed" and "engrossed." I'm pretty sure that to most people they are interchangeable. You're the only person I've talked to who was so adamant that there is a difference.
Somebody walking up to you and talking you would break you out of it. That is why a proper environment is important, to eliminate such external distractions. Though if you were trying to sneak by me, it would be fairly easy.
Maybe I'm using a different meaning of engrossed, then. But whether my immersion is more intense than your engrossed or my engrossed is less intense than yours, I would definitely put them on two different levels.
Look, I understand that it's difficult to talk about subjective experiences. But you're not even trying. I asked you a very simple question, by "experience" do you mean "memorable?" It's a yes or no question. How hard is that?
No, I don't mean memorable. When I say that something is an experience, I mean that it occupies all of your senses. You see it, and it is all you notice. You hear it, and it is the only relevant sound. You are paying full, complete attention to it, you are completely engrossed, you are hanging on every word, you are emotionally invested in what is going on. You can simply watch and enjoy a movie, or you can experience it. It is not the experience of watching the movie, but the experience of the movie itself.
I'm not denying anything... I'm asking you to be CLEAR. I asked you for an explanation point-black 5 posts ago, you didn't bother to say anything beyond "it's another level." If you have a real explanation, why aren't you saying it?
And you think that's clear? I asked you what you meant by "experience" and you ignored me. Usually when people use the word experience like that, they mean it as a synonym for memorable. As in: "boy, that concert sure was an experience!" So I'll ask you again, by "something being an experience," do you mean "memorable?" If not, what do you mean?
Words. Fail. Me.
I have no idea how to describe it any better than I have in the rest of our conversation. Your insistence on more precision is not going to magically make me able to express it. English is not designed for talking about things at this level.
The only description you've given me so far is "on a deeper level." Obviously that doesn't adequately explain anything.
Okay... so you're claiming that there's a distinct difference between feeling "immersed" and feeling "engrossed" in a game, but you can't articulate what that difference is, beyond the fact that it's "on a deeper level." Is that correct?
The entire conversation I have been explaining it. I have listed many attributes of it, but everytime I try to draw the distinction, you simply deny its existence. You failed to see the difference between experienceing something and something being an experience. I really do feel like I'm describing color to the blind. I have articulated it to the best of my ability.
You described it as "on a deeper level." Would you please add some more detail to that explanation?
If everything I've said so far has not adequately explained it, I don't know if anything will. What is the difference between red and blue, perceptually speaking? I can say that they are different, but how do you explain the difference?
Ah, you're right. But when you initially described it you said "it's on a deeper level." That sounds like a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. It sounds like you're saying it's the same feeling but more intense. If you're trying to say that it's a different feeling, then why don't you try to describe the actual feeling, because "on a deeper level" is much too vague, don't you think?
You know, in case you want to speed this up... all of the people I've discussed this with eventually concede that the definition of "immersion" is basically to feel involved or engrossed. It's the only definition that makes sense, and it's what best describes how most people feel. Can we just skip to the part where you'll agree with that, by any chance?
I have described the feeling. You refuse to believe it is distinct. An immersive game is a completely different thing than a good game. It is a completely different thing than a realistic game. Its completely different than having a good storyline. It encompasses all of these, and more. It is a meaningful term, with implications and nuance. It may be overused and misused, but it does have meaning.
It's not that it's hard to accept, it's just that I'm wondering if that's the only distinction for you, because that's as good as no distinction. If the only difference is in the intensity of the feeling, then you're admitting it's the same feeling. Are you admitting that?
That would be a quantitative difference. Its a qualitative difference.
A "level deeper"? So then, it's the same feeling but just more intense? Is that the best you can do to explain the difference between "immersed" and "engrossed," because that's just vague hand waving, you haven't explained anything yet.
There is a qualitative shift. Why is that so hard to accept?
This is where I disagree with you strongly. I especially don't like that you use the word "must." It's like you think everyone has the same preferences as you. But that's wrong... I've already explained to you that I prefer games to not do things like hide the interface, for me that causes me to be less immersed/engrossed.
I said its not about hiding the interface, its about making it unnecessary, and streamlining what you do have so it is seamless. If you ever notice the interface, it is not designed right.
Example:
red dead redemption. To quick travel, you go into the start menu, select the map, place a waypoint, leave the menu, go to a clear space outside of town and away from roads, go into the select menu, go to the second inventory page, and use the campsite, then from the campsite menu select quick travel, select the waypoint, and finally you have a loading screen and end up where you want to go. It is not streamlined at all, and every time I deal with it, I very acutely notice that I am dealing with an interface. In contrast, the minimap is there, shows what it needs to clearly, and you can use it seamlessly. It is a GUI element, but it is done seamlessly.
How receptive I am depends on the game, same with anyone. Some games which are commonly considered "immersive," like Amnesia, I have trouble getting into. It's not because the game doesn't have the right "immersive" properties, I just don't like the game very much. Other games which are considered "immersive" I love, like Demons' Souls and Minecraft. When I play them I feel very focused on what is happening. Are you going to tell me that what I'm feeling isn't a "deep enough level" to be called immersion?
I said that immersive was only a pre-requisite. A game can be immersive and not immerse you. I said that, so you can't use that as an example to disprove my definition. You have to be engorssed in the game first, since it failed to engross you, it failed to immerse you. I specifically said that happens, so you are clearly misunderstanding what I said if you think that disproves them.
And if you aren't seeing the difference between what you feel and simply being engrossed, then you probably aren't experiencing immersion.
I'm not saying your experiences aren't real, I'm saying you are either misunderstanding your own experiences, or not communicating them well. You keep insisting there's a difference between being engrossed and immersed, but you're being very fuzzy on describing what that actually is. I'm sorry, but I don't know how you could expect anyone to know the difference based on your explanations so far. And don't take that as criticism, I expect it to be difficult since those words are usually used as synonyms.
Ok, lets try this:
Immersion is a level deeper than engrossed. Just as engrossing varies from person to person, so does immersion. However, a game must be designed in a certain way to allow that final transition. This property can be called "immersive". An immersive game will not necessarily immerse you, but you will only be immersed in an immersive game. It also requires the player to be receptive to it. How receptive you are varies from person to person, and also by your mood, your environment, and attitude towards the game. I'm guessing you are not very receptive. I'm not the most receptive person, but I have experienced immersion from time to time.
Fair enough, but do you agree with me that to be immersed basically means the same thing as to be engrossed? If not, what's the difference? If you aren't capable of explaining it, perhaps you don't know? This would seem to strengthen my point.
No, its not really the same thing. You can be engrossed and not immersed. I have explained it over and over, you are the one who is incapable of grasping what I mean. Immersive is a completely different property than being a good game. It is related to, but distinct from, being engrossed. I have been engrossed in a game but not immersed. I have played many great games that were not immersive. I don't understand why you are insisting that my experiences are not real.
Fair enough, but if it's a figure of speech then what does it mean? Does it simply mean you feel engrossed in the game? Then do you agree with my definition of "immersion" as the feeling of being involved/engrossed?
I feel like I am trying to describe color to the blind. There is a very real phenomenon that I would label as "immersion", and I have experienced it. Yet you keep insisting that I have not, it doesn't exist, and its just a buzzword the industry made up. It has different levels, it is very rare that a game can achieve the "trance-like" intensity, but it is still a distinct thing. Its a term that encompasses many aspects of the game, and has a real meaning to many of us, yet you keep insisting it is a pointless term.
Maybe its like the term "epic". It gets thrown around a lot, and is often used as a synonym for "cool", or "awesome". However, there is a deeper, more grandiose meaning.
Example: Look at this picture
Its called an "epic" fail, but that is not really that epic.
This song, in contrast, carries the true meaning of the word
And don't start going on about how an epic is a long, multipart poem. That is the original definition from which the modern usage was derived, then destroyed by overuse.
Immersion has real connotations for a lot of us. It means something, we can comment on it, and get annoyed when a game breaks it. It is a desirable, but not a necessary, thing for a game to achieve. You don't get it, and I don't think I am capable of describing it to you any better. That is fine. But don't try to tell me its meaningless.
Lold what an idiot. Thats like saying that for example Valve shouldnt fix all kinds of exploits in their games that allow players to cheat and ruin everyones gaming experience. You cant stop people from making cheat modifications, thats why its developers job to make their game as hard to be cheated as possible, and for example this kind of thing like stopping x ray users from seeing blocks shouldnt be hard job.
If people keep cheating on servers and ruin peoples games those people may quit minecraft which of course isnt good for Notch.
Its developers job to fix cheat exploits just like all other development.
If you can suggest an adequate solution, I'd be all for mojang implementing it.
I'm pretty much aware of that and also that they'll never rewrite it by themselves but Minecraft being a Java app is the first and main reason why it's a huge bloatware. Love how people trying to protect it when someone says "my comp can run Crysis 2 at high but I have to switch Minecraft to fast to have 20 fps" by saying "it's a complex world" and "every block has to be rendered, no pre-renders etc." I mean, come on: those all are damn CUBES with less polygon count than in Final Fantasy 7 not to mention the 16x16 texture pack. Sure Java is cross-platform and not the product of an "evil corporation" but a 3D Java game always needed at least one generation better computer than a C++ one needed.
Honestly, you don't think those are the reason why Notch uses Java do you? He learned it in school and got stuck at it. This have been stated a thousand times: Notch is a great mastermind but a dog would program better with lass bugs after eating a certain amount of books on programming.
You are confusing poorly optimized code with java. java is NOT the problem there. For one, its using openGl for its graphics, which IS C, so any speed differences there are moot. And java is only about 10% slower than C++. Optimizing the code will have a much more profound impact that using another language will. You yourself are blaming notch for being a bad programmer, and blaming the language for the poor performance.
I don't agree that any of those things inherently makes the game more engrossing. Sometimes it's better for the interface to show a character's status. There's no right way to deliver backstory to the player, how Mass Effect does it is just one possible way and I don't see how it makes the game more engrossing, personally I think that backstory is better delivered through the main narrative, reading a bunch of journals is not much different than reading a textbook. It's fine if you're interested in the world, but completely boring if you're not.
If you don't liketo read, that method is not going to be very immersive for you. If you do like to read, that makes the world seem much more fleshed out. If you have every played the Myst series, practically the entirety of the narrative comes in the form of journal entries. It is a very interesting game, and a very immersive one too.
I don't really know what that means. The way I interpret "breaking immersion" is that something about the game annoys you and it makes the experience less fun or involving. In which case, "breaking immersion" seems like an overly fancy way of saying that.
Its a mental state. If you aren't immersed to begin with, those small annoyances aren't going to break you out of it.
I wouldn't go that far. Personally, when I play video games I don't become a zombie who is incapable of noticing anything that's happening in the real world. Do you?
Not incapable. If someone talks to you or there is something going on, you will realize it. But if there isn't anything that demands you attention, your fulll attention can be on the game world.
Right, but one way gives you MORE information than the other, and that is the heat bar. Now, if it's not that important to know when your gun overheats, maybe it's fine to just show it the visual way. But if it's important, there should probably be a "heat bar" or some such thing. That's a more efficient way to convey information to the player.
The red barrel can give you that information too. Its not a binary indicator, it turns redder and glows brighter. Sure, the bar may be more precise, but it is unnecessary precision. If precision was that important, you could simply display everything as a number to 10 decimal places. But its normally not important.
I don't see how one of those options is more engrossing than the other.
stopping to muck around with menus breaks the flow of the game.Its not "kill them and move on", its"kill them, stop, rifle through them, toy with menus, then move on"
Well, I don't really like the story in Starcraft 2, (or any Blizzard game,) so I only play it for the multiplayer. But it seems to me that Starcraft can be very engrossing if you're in the midst of an intense battle or whatever. How is that not immersive? I believe any game can be immersive. If the person playing feels involved, then it is immersive. That's the only meaningful way to define what "immersion" is.
It can be engrossing, but its not immersive. They are similar, but not synonyms.
No, Amnesia is designed to embrace the popular concepts of what an "immersive" game is supposed to be. But for me, it fails at being an immersive game. It needs more of an interface, it's annoying to have to check the menu to see your health / sanity. It needs more of a main character and story to be involving for me. It's monsters need to present some kind of threat, but they don't because you don't lose anything if you die, and in fact you actually gain progress because the monster will be gone. I just don't really like the game that much, so I don't feel very engrossed when I play it... so for me, it's not immersive. Everyone has different opinions, but personally I find Silent Hill to be much more immersive than Amnesia.
If you are worrying about your health and sanity, you aren't immersed. They aren't things that you are supposed to be constantly worrying about. Amnesia is not the most immersive game in the world. it is a game that rides on its ability to immerse you, without really possessing the capacity to immerse you itself. You have to meet it halfway.
That doesn't make any sense. Everything you do is an "experience." If you enjoy a game, you are enjoying the experience by definition.
You can watch a movie on an iphone, and enjoy it as a movie.
You can go to an imax theater, with surround sound, have it encompass all of your senses, and enjoy it as
an experience.
I often watch tv shows while working, and enjoy them as a show.
I watch dr. who in fullscreen, turn out the lights, lounge in my easy chair, and enjoy it as a full experience.
Pong may be a good game, but it is not really an experience.
Its an entirely different level of engagement than simply partaking in it as a game. There is the experience of playing the game, and then there is playing the game AS as experience.
You don't understand immersion. That does not mean it doesn't exist. Many gamers, like myself, are able to engage with games on that level. Just because you don't doesn't mean other's don't, or that our complaints regarding it are irrelevant.
Sounds like some sort of trance state. Nope, never experienced that. I've felt engrossed in games before, but not enough to forget that I'm holding a controller. It's just like watching a movie... the more you like it, the more engrossed you will be... but you never feel like you're "in" the movie. At least I don't. Same thing with a game, I always know I'm controlling an avatar. It's hard to feel like you're in a game when your player avatar touches something and you can't feel it, or gets hit by a spear and you don't feel any pain, know what I mean?
It kinda is. You are so engrossed by the game, that nothing else matters. And there are things that can break you out of this state. Hence "immersion breaking". Interface issue can be one of the biggest immersion breakers. As soon as you try to do something and it doesn't work right, you get frustrated by it, and it breaks the immersion. GHaving to do something that is clearly outside of the game world, like navigating menus, and it distracts you. You hit a loading screen, and it breaks the immersion. An enemy bugs out, it breaks the immersion. A message box pops up saying "please wait, finding connection" and the immersion is broken.
And while you don't feel like you are in the movie, you can forget that there is anything else going on. You don't literally feel like you are in the game, but the reality of the game is the only relevant reality.
I understand what you mean, but doesn't it seem strange to say that something feels real, but is not realistic? Does realism necessarily mean that the game world has to be exactly like our world? Anyway, when I said that immersion means "realism," I'm trying to say that the game world feels real, not necessarily that it simulates our world. So I think we're talking about the same thing but using different words.
In that usage of the word, yes, it is part of it. But it is not the same thing. The world feeling real is part of it, but there is more to it than that.
*Unobtrusive* interface, sure that's good game design. Only in the sense that the interface shouldn't be ugly and clutter up the screen. But the best interface gives you all the information you need and seems appropriate for the game. I don't agree that the best interface is no interface... games that try to hide their interface too much usually have the gameplay suffer as a result. For example, it's annoying to have to go into the menu every time you want to see your health bar.
You don't want to hide the interface. That is the wrong thing. However, you can design it in such a way that the interface isn't necessary.
Example:
You have a Gatling gun that overheats.
option 1: add a heat bar on the side of the screen
option 2: make the barrel turn red and glow, and five clear indications when it overheats
You are presenting the same information, but one way is integrated into the experience.
Another Example:
You have a morality system.
option 1: you present the player with a popup window, and they select which action they take, which determines their morality
option 2: you present the player with a situation within the game world, and let them react to it. Depending on how they deal with the situation, you affect their morality.
Yet Another example:
You have an inventory, and enemies have loot upon death.
option 1: you approach the enemy, and activate a menu. You are presented with their items, their weights and costs, and you can drag them over into your inventory
option 2: the loot is dropped into the world on death, and you can run over it to pick it up.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that when someone tells me a game is "immersive," that's telling me nothing about the game. All you're telling me is that you personally felt involved for whatever reason. That's nice, but it's nothing more than saying a game is "good." It's like describing movies with the word "engrossing..." various kinds of movies can be engrossing to people for various reasons, but there's no particular qualities that a movie needs to have to be "engrossing." And there's no particular qualities that a game needs to have to be "immersive" beyond simply being a game that people enjoy.
engrossing is similar. Like engrossing, immersive can vary from person to person. But A game can be a great game and still lack immersion. Starcraft II, for instance. Great game, interesting story, yet not immersive in the least. Other games are designed around immersion. Amnesia: The dark descent, is entirely based on immersing you in the world. That is part of the "play in the dark with headphones" recommendation. It helps create the spooky atmosphere, but it also cuts down on external distractions that can break the immersion.
Immersion goes beyond simply enjoying the game. Its about being able to enjoy the game, not just as a game, but as an experience. There are a lot of things that can impact it. The proper use of music, the cinematic design of the game, the believability of the characters. You aren't going to have much luck being immersed in a game you aren't enjoying(though its not strictly impossible), but its an entirely different criteria.
0
Somebody walking up to you and talking you would break you out of it. That is why a proper environment is important, to eliminate such external distractions. Though if you were trying to sneak by me, it would be fairly easy.
Maybe I'm using a different meaning of engrossed, then. But whether my immersion is more intense than your engrossed or my engrossed is less intense than yours, I would definitely put them on two different levels.
0
No, I don't mean memorable. When I say that something is an experience, I mean that it occupies all of your senses. You see it, and it is all you notice. You hear it, and it is the only relevant sound. You are paying full, complete attention to it, you are completely engrossed, you are hanging on every word, you are emotionally invested in what is going on. You can simply watch and enjoy a movie, or you can experience it. It is not the experience of watching the movie, but the experience of the movie itself.
0
Words. Fail. Me.
I have no idea how to describe it any better than I have in the rest of our conversation. Your insistence on more precision is not going to magically make me able to express it. English is not designed for talking about things at this level.
0
The entire conversation I have been explaining it. I have listed many attributes of it, but everytime I try to draw the distinction, you simply deny its existence. You failed to see the difference between experienceing something and something being an experience. I really do feel like I'm describing color to the blind. I have articulated it to the best of my ability.
0
If everything I've said so far has not adequately explained it, I don't know if anything will. What is the difference between red and blue, perceptually speaking? I can say that they are different, but how do you explain the difference?
0
I have described the feeling. You refuse to believe it is distinct. An immersive game is a completely different thing than a good game. It is a completely different thing than a realistic game. Its completely different than having a good storyline. It encompasses all of these, and more. It is a meaningful term, with implications and nuance. It may be overused and misused, but it does have meaning.
0
That would be a quantitative difference. Its a qualitative difference.
0
There is a qualitative shift. Why is that so hard to accept?
I said its not about hiding the interface, its about making it unnecessary, and streamlining what you do have so it is seamless. If you ever notice the interface, it is not designed right.
Example:
red dead redemption. To quick travel, you go into the start menu, select the map, place a waypoint, leave the menu, go to a clear space outside of town and away from roads, go into the select menu, go to the second inventory page, and use the campsite, then from the campsite menu select quick travel, select the waypoint, and finally you have a loading screen and end up where you want to go. It is not streamlined at all, and every time I deal with it, I very acutely notice that I am dealing with an interface. In contrast, the minimap is there, shows what it needs to clearly, and you can use it seamlessly. It is a GUI element, but it is done seamlessly.
I said that immersive was only a pre-requisite. A game can be immersive and not immerse you. I said that, so you can't use that as an example to disprove my definition. You have to be engorssed in the game first, since it failed to engross you, it failed to immerse you. I specifically said that happens, so you are clearly misunderstanding what I said if you think that disproves them.
And if you aren't seeing the difference between what you feel and simply being engrossed, then you probably aren't experiencing immersion.
0
Ok, lets try this:
Immersion is a level deeper than engrossed. Just as engrossing varies from person to person, so does immersion. However, a game must be designed in a certain way to allow that final transition. This property can be called "immersive". An immersive game will not necessarily immerse you, but you will only be immersed in an immersive game. It also requires the player to be receptive to it. How receptive you are varies from person to person, and also by your mood, your environment, and attitude towards the game. I'm guessing you are not very receptive. I'm not the most receptive person, but I have experienced immersion from time to time.
0
No, its not really the same thing. You can be engrossed and not immersed. I have explained it over and over, you are the one who is incapable of grasping what I mean. Immersive is a completely different property than being a good game. It is related to, but distinct from, being engrossed. I have been engrossed in a game but not immersed. I have played many great games that were not immersive. I don't understand why you are insisting that my experiences are not real.
0
I feel like I am trying to describe color to the blind. There is a very real phenomenon that I would label as "immersion", and I have experienced it. Yet you keep insisting that I have not, it doesn't exist, and its just a buzzword the industry made up. It has different levels, it is very rare that a game can achieve the "trance-like" intensity, but it is still a distinct thing. Its a term that encompasses many aspects of the game, and has a real meaning to many of us, yet you keep insisting it is a pointless term.
Maybe its like the term "epic". It gets thrown around a lot, and is often used as a synonym for "cool", or "awesome". However, there is a deeper, more grandiose meaning.
Example:
Look at this picture
Its called an "epic" fail, but that is not really that epic.
This song, in contrast, carries the true meaning of the word
And don't start going on about how an epic is a long, multipart poem. That is the original definition from which the modern usage was derived, then destroyed by overuse.
Immersion has real connotations for a lot of us. It means something, we can comment on it, and get annoyed when a game breaks it. It is a desirable, but not a necessary, thing for a game to achieve. You don't get it, and I don't think I am capable of describing it to you any better. That is fine. But don't try to tell me its meaningless.
0
If you can suggest an adequate solution, I'd be all for mojang implementing it.
1
You are confusing poorly optimized code with java. java is NOT the problem there. For one, its using openGl for its graphics, which IS C, so any speed differences there are moot. And java is only about 10% slower than C++. Optimizing the code will have a much more profound impact that using another language will. You yourself are blaming notch for being a bad programmer, and blaming the language for the poor performance.
2
If you don't liketo read, that method is not going to be very immersive for you. If you do like to read, that makes the world seem much more fleshed out. If you have every played the Myst series, practically the entirety of the narrative comes in the form of journal entries. It is a very interesting game, and a very immersive one too.
Its a mental state. If you aren't immersed to begin with, those small annoyances aren't going to break you out of it.
Not incapable. If someone talks to you or there is something going on, you will realize it. But if there isn't anything that demands you attention, your fulll attention can be on the game world.
The red barrel can give you that information too. Its not a binary indicator, it turns redder and glows brighter. Sure, the bar may be more precise, but it is unnecessary precision. If precision was that important, you could simply display everything as a number to 10 decimal places. But its normally not important.
stopping to muck around with menus breaks the flow of the game.Its not "kill them and move on", its"kill them, stop, rifle through them, toy with menus, then move on"
It can be engrossing, but its not immersive. They are similar, but not synonyms.
If you are worrying about your health and sanity, you aren't immersed. They aren't things that you are supposed to be constantly worrying about. Amnesia is not the most immersive game in the world. it is a game that rides on its ability to immerse you, without really possessing the capacity to immerse you itself. You have to meet it halfway.
You can watch a movie on an iphone, and enjoy it as a movie.
You can go to an imax theater, with surround sound, have it encompass all of your senses, and enjoy it as
an experience.
I often watch tv shows while working, and enjoy them as a show.
I watch dr. who in fullscreen, turn out the lights, lounge in my easy chair, and enjoy it as a full experience.
Pong may be a good game, but it is not really an experience.
Its an entirely different level of engagement than simply partaking in it as a game. There is the experience of playing the game, and then there is playing the game AS as experience.
You don't understand immersion. That does not mean it doesn't exist. Many gamers, like myself, are able to engage with games on that level. Just because you don't doesn't mean other's don't, or that our complaints regarding it are irrelevant.
1
It kinda is. You are so engrossed by the game, that nothing else matters. And there are things that can break you out of this state. Hence "immersion breaking". Interface issue can be one of the biggest immersion breakers. As soon as you try to do something and it doesn't work right, you get frustrated by it, and it breaks the immersion. GHaving to do something that is clearly outside of the game world, like navigating menus, and it distracts you. You hit a loading screen, and it breaks the immersion. An enemy bugs out, it breaks the immersion. A message box pops up saying "please wait, finding connection" and the immersion is broken.
And while you don't feel like you are in the movie, you can forget that there is anything else going on. You don't literally feel like you are in the game, but the reality of the game is the only relevant reality.
In that usage of the word, yes, it is part of it. But it is not the same thing. The world feeling real is part of it, but there is more to it than that.
You don't want to hide the interface. That is the wrong thing. However, you can design it in such a way that the interface isn't necessary.
Example:
You have a Gatling gun that overheats.
option 1: add a heat bar on the side of the screen
option 2: make the barrel turn red and glow, and five clear indications when it overheats
You are presenting the same information, but one way is integrated into the experience.
Another Example:
You have a morality system.
option 1: you present the player with a popup window, and they select which action they take, which determines their morality
option 2: you present the player with a situation within the game world, and let them react to it. Depending on how they deal with the situation, you affect their morality.
Yet Another example:
You have an inventory, and enemies have loot upon death.
option 1: you approach the enemy, and activate a menu. You are presented with their items, their weights and costs, and you can drag them over into your inventory
option 2: the loot is dropped into the world on death, and you can run over it to pick it up.
engrossing is similar. Like engrossing, immersive can vary from person to person. But A game can be a great game and still lack immersion. Starcraft II, for instance. Great game, interesting story, yet not immersive in the least. Other games are designed around immersion. Amnesia: The dark descent, is entirely based on immersing you in the world. That is part of the "play in the dark with headphones" recommendation. It helps create the spooky atmosphere, but it also cuts down on external distractions that can break the immersion.
Immersion goes beyond simply enjoying the game. Its about being able to enjoy the game, not just as a game, but as an experience. There are a lot of things that can impact it. The proper use of music, the cinematic design of the game, the believability of the characters. You aren't going to have much luck being immersed in a game you aren't enjoying(though its not strictly impossible), but its an entirely different criteria.