Analysis of Immersion and Flow in Cozy Games --Take Journey and Gris as Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow and immersion are essential criteria for evaluating a game's design quality. In recent years, with the development of society, the design and thinking of games have changed in line with the trend of The Times. People are increasingly seeking ways to release pressure from work and life pressure. Besides battle games creating excitement, cozy games have received more attention from the public. This thesis analyzes the relevant literature to summarize the internal relationship between flow, immersion, and cozy game design and takes the two cozy games, Gris and Journey, as examples. The visuals, the game soundtrack, and the narratology of the two games will be analyzed to prove the excellence of their design and how to make players get a good flow immersion experience. This thesis finds that cozy games, compared to extreme games, prioritize enhancing players' spiritual well-being, and most of these games pay more attention to exploring social issues and the beauty of life. Finally, this thesis will refer to game addiction and how game designers will rethink game design in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".