Separator

Why the First-Person Shooter Is Doomed

Bithead
Friday, July 16, 2010

Wolfenstein 3D

Editor's note: Developers intend first-person games to imitate the way we experience our own lives, right? Unfortunately, the only means of interaction in these titles is via the barrel of a gun. Jon chose to question this convention and concluded with some eerie suggestions. Is the genre doomed? -Omar


The first time I killed a nazi was in my middle-school typing class. I don't remember how my fellow student found and loaded Wolfenstein 3D onto our computer. All I remember is staring at the screen and watching him mow down pixilated soldiers. My 12-year-old psyche inflamed in primitive bloodlust with every downed corpse. Despite the distraction, I somehow still learned to type, which was a good thing since Doom was a year away. QWERTY was no match for the BFG.

Clearly, first-person shooters offer something primal and unique: the illusion of carrying weaponry and blasting foes before your very eyes. But why must we exclusively tote guns? How else might we harness the innate strengths of first-person immersion? In writing, a first-person narrator can tell any kind of story: family drama, crime thriller, quirky romance, or even a children's fable. But today we rarely see genres other than shooters use this point-of-view. Such wasn't always the case. 

 

Early RPGs like Dungeon Master used the first-person perspective to envelop us in an underground world of fantasy more effectively. Jumping Flash! put you in the shoes (and behind the eyes) of a robotic rabbit, leaping around a technicolor playground. The technology of CD-ROM and polygonal environments provided game makers with the storage space and graphical fidelity to explore new ways of controlling one's character, a feat early games couldn't pull off. But the experiment was short-lived. By the mid-90s, Doom and its progenitors would dominate the use of first-person in a trend that has yet to fade.

 Dungeon Master

Exceptions do exist. Portal looks like a modern FPS but it's more of a first-person puzzler. Curiously, your mode of action is still shooting a gun. Mirror's Edge gave us the modern first-person platformer along with an exhilarating experience. Unfortunately, while it was fun, Mirror's Edge's failure among critics is indicative of why more run-and-jump games don't use this perspective.

Maybe the limited range of precision that occurs when you're thrust into a protagonist's body damns the first-person to an eternity of shooters. But then again, maybe not. At times, playability has nothing to do with it. When games give us the option of a first-person camera, many of us prefer it to over-the-shoulder perspectives. When I first played Star Fox on my SNES, I zoomed in to the cockpit mode and shot down asteroids from the vantage point provided by the Arwing's window. I missed the feeling of motion I got while watching those graceful barrel rolls from behind my ship. 

Perhaps we experience games in first person regardless of our onscreen perspective. Espen Aarseth, notable game scholar, expresses something close to omniscience in describing how he perceives Lara Croft while playing Tomb Raider, "When I play, I don't even see her body, but see through it and past it." In essence, Aarseth creates his own first-person point-of-view, regardless of the visual data. Doom wowed us with an early taste of character identification that was visceral and immediate. You weren't controlling a space marine because you were the space marine. Unfortunately, 21st-century minds crave more immersion. We are well versed in avatar theory and project an endless series of selves through online symbols and pseudonyms. What once felt vibrant and new -- holding a fake gun in a fake world -- now feels like just another empty shell.

I don't dislike first-person shooters. I'm just not interested in them. Maybe it's the glut of testosterone-filled battles that have dulled my senses through oversaturation. Take me someplace other than Gritty War-torn Valley #27. Give me something else to do other than duck, cover, and shoot. With the proliferation of shooters at this year's E3, a backlash is inevitable. Flood the market and you risk drowning. My question is what new idea will cut through the smog of gunpowder and give players that thrill they first felt while roaming corridors in search of pixelated demons, some twenty years ago. After decades of feeding our id, perhaps our rational selves deserve some playtime. 

 
Problem? Report this post
JON IRWIN'S SPONSOR
Comments (8)
Bithead
July 16, 2010

Thanks for the post, Omar!  But whoa -- Easy on the editing, hmm?

Default_picture
July 16, 2010

Well, I hate to break it to you, but shooters sell. So whether or not you like them (or aren't interested), they are not going anywhere. I also think that you are ignoring that fact that every year there are innovative shooters released that push the genre (and gaming in general) forward. I could essentially make the same argument as you did about any genre, generalizing what they do to the point where they seem dull and unprogressive.

100media_imag0065
July 16, 2010

Shooters are here to stay. They may be about 20 years old, but they still sell and are still looked upon as the go to games of this generation. Heck, the two most played games on the Xbox Live is Halo and Modern Warfare. Not to mention one of the best games I have played in years is Metro 2033, a first person shooter. Although I agree they can sometimes get stale, other times they can be refreshing.

Bioshock is a great example of a fps taking what is normal shooter material and making something fresh. You used Mirror's Edge as an example and seemed to insinuate the game received poor reviews. As a matter of fact, it has a very respectable score of 81 on metacritic.

Half Life, Killzone 2, Metro 2033, Bioshock, System Shock, Left 4 Dead, Borderlands, etc, etc, etc. Almost every year we get great, original, or just flat out fun first person shooters dropped in our laps. This year is no exception, Singularity was a blast.

There is a reason they keep making them. We keep buying them. There is a reason we keep buying them. We continually want them. I agree that I would love to see more change. Yet somehow I find it hard to believe that FPS's are going anywhere. Too many of today's gamers love them. Sure, a lot of us grew up with Zelda and Metroid (which they still make). However, today's gamers grew up with Call of Duty and Halo.

Bithead
July 16, 2010

@Andrew: I'm not calling for shooters to go away, as I realize that would never happen, nor should it.  I'm just thinking aloud as to why I've personally lost interest in them. But you're right, that the same argument could be made for any genre out there.  I'd actually love to see such an argument, say, against platformers: Running & Jumping ain't that progressive, either.   Yet for some reason, I'm drawn more to these types of games than FPS'es.  To each his pwn, I guess.

4540_79476034228_610804228_1674526_2221611_n
July 16, 2010

I think the reason FPS's get so stale is beauase a certain theme or setting becomes the flavor of the year (or 5) and it just gets overdone to the point of being stale. It used to be WWII. Now it's modern combat. Every now and then you get something slightly different that strays from the pack (bioshock, borderlands, portal). I love shooters, it's probably my favorite genre, but variety is sorely missing.

What about a sequel to Hexen that has you hurling magic instead of bullets,and closing the distance with axes instead of knives? How about a shooter that takes place not that far into the future, but far enough so that we're not using the same weaponry we've been using in Call of Honor: Current Combat 7, in which america is suffering its second civil war and the fighting takes place all over the continent?  Now imagine that same scenario just happens to be taking place right at the same time extraterrestrial life finally makes contact with earth..in a violent way. Now that's a story! 

Or what about taking stale scenarios and flipping them?  Wouldn't it be neat to play through the eyes of the weird insect-like alien race invading earth (or defending their home planet from invading humans) instead of the other way around? Or how about WWII from the german perspective (not that our overly sensitive and overly politically correct society could actually handle that).  

By the way, I love the title of your article. 

Bithead
July 17, 2010

@Ed: Good points.  In fact, I never intended to say Mirror's Edge was poorly reviewed.  That line was almost wholly re-worded by the editor when they posted this to the front page. Here's my original line:

"Mirror's Edge (2008) gave us the modern first-person platformer, and the experience was exhilarating, if not indicative of why more games don't use this perspective: it's hard to see where you're going, an irony worthy of Shakespeare."

Wordy and hard to follow?  Sure.  But nothing to do with the game's critical response.

@Michael: Thanks.  I was going to title it "Why the First-Person Shooter is Call of Dutyed" but it just didn't have the same ring.

Default_picture
July 17, 2010

Should I feel guilty that I feel more immersed in pre-Quake FPS games(Doom, Duke3D, etc.) than even the latest ones that try so hard to immerse you? And when I say immersed, I mean actually feel like you're there.

Default_picture
July 18, 2010

A long time ago, 2D tournament fighting games, such as Street Fighter II, were the big thing in gaming, but they were eventually displaced by the first person shooter. Today, Street Fighter IV is practically a niche title.

There's a good chance that something will eventually displace first person shooters. I just don't know what it is.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.