Mary Poppins' Bag? IDK

Anyone ever think it was kinda weird in Lord of the Rings that these giant eagles would aid in fights against orcs and other treacherous creatures, yet they didn't think of using them to fly Frodo to Mordor to destroy the ring?? Then do you spend a good conversation with someone trying to come up with justifications as to how this mis-match could fit into the diegesis? "Maybe the 'eye' can detect the power of the ring better when it's in the air so it's far too dangerous for Frodo?" "Maybe the flock of eagles like to stay neutral and not pick sides?" We all know that if the eagles DID fly Frodo to Mordor it would be a very short film, but that's not the point. When films have these lapses in their story lines I always think it would have been better if they just slip in a simple explanation and we can all move on. Yet, they tend to think if they don't draw particular attention to the structural incoherence that the audience will overlook it or accept it as a flaw.

When it comes to gaming I think there are many things that are left unexplained, and being the annoying person I am, I need to find a suitable justification for the problem. When I saw this, it made me happy I wasn't the only one:

In class we have been talking about how a sense of immersion can be broken once an aspect of the game presents something that doesn't realistically make sense. However, in some cases I think we overlook the incoherence BECAUSE we are so immersed, especially when our world of concern is fixated on other matters.

For example, in games like Call of Duty you are given a wide selection of guns you can alternate between while you are in battle. It could be seen as structurally incoherent as you wonder how one man can hold so many guns at one time. Players may  notice this incoherence at first, but who would be thinking about that once there are 50 guys shooting at your head? Your world of concern is concentrating on killing as many people as you can and therefore are distracted from "How the hell am i holding so many guns!?" The game is so fast-paced in nature that often I think players wouldn't have time to think of such things, and during gameplay I'm sure it would be considered a low priority. Yet most combat games include the multiple selection of guns and it has become such a common flaw that gamers most likely accept this as an incoherent feature and still become totally immersed in the diegesis of the game.

This links well with what Lauren Taylor says about consistencies inside the game. She says "Diegetic immersion requires that the game have a consistent world, so that the player is not forced from immersion by inconsistencies of the game space." (Pg. 14) In relation to the multiple gun feature in many games, so long as they keep this consistent within the game space (as well as maybe within the genre of combat games) then players can continue to be immersed without inconsistencies. Therefore, if it's a consistent structural incoherence then players will be immersed and happy.

However, I think in some games, providing a consistent flaw throughout the game can still detract from immersion. In Hitman Absolution, I couldn't help but notice that on every mission, where it be in a corn field, in a library, or in a hotel room, there seems to be massive storage bins everywhere you go. Clearly it is to conveniently dispose of the bodies, but in ways it is so unrealistic that it breaks any form of immersion from occurring. Call of Duty and other shooting games can be wavered with their multiple guns features as it's just a solution to accommodate the needs of the game in the most practical way possible. But with Hitman I feel designers are rather lazy or lack innovation as they could easily create other forms of 'disposal' without breaking the players immersion in the game.

It could go either way really.