First-Person Shooters Are Not Like Movies and That is a Good Thing

Bryan Young

Spring 2001

I went... to the Toy Convention in NYC... and that pretty much broke me.  It was the sixth consecutive year that I petitioned Hasbro to add a story to Monopoly.  How much fun can the game be without a story?  Who is that old man?  Why are the top hat and the shoe competing?  Once again, they denied my request.  I don't think boardgames will ever be half the widely accepted art movement that, say, German Expressionism is until somebody at Hasbro tries to stretch themselves a little.

-- Chet “A Road to E3 recap”

The study of computer games in general, and the First-Person Shooter (FPS) specifically, is a new field of research. Much has been written about the effects of these types of games, positive as well as negative, but little if anything has been written about the games themselves or the culture of the people that play these games. This work is attempting to lay the groundwork and trying to determine, if only in a broad and inexact manner, what FPS’s are, culturally speaking. This essay is merely a focusing of the telescope (or perhaps the microscope) in an attempt to figure out what exactly it is that we are looking at. Once the subject is in focus, then it is possible to decode and deconstruct what is in the field of vision. The study of gamers and gaming must achieve some sort of clarity, and this paper is one attempt to bring single player gaming into focus.

When most critics discus computer games, they tend to do so in terms of motion pictures. On the surface, it seems that such a comparison is appropriate and justifiable. Both mediums are transmitted via both audio as well as visual means. Both appear on screens of some sort. Both have come to be created by teams of people. Both are forms of entertainment.

However, these similarities only go so far. The use of the phrase, “on the surface” was not accidental. Any meaningful similarities between the two mediums appear only there: on the surface. All of the comparisons listed above are only superficial and deal with form not content. A hand-grenade and a pineapple are similar in form, but are drastically different in content.

The fact that the similarities are only skin deep does not stop most critics from attempting to apply the standards of one medium to the other. Since computer games are much more recent developments it is almost always the standards of movies that are applied to games. This has been done to such a large extent that a formalized school of computer game criticism that does not apply the standards of motion pictures to games has yet to develop. It is not surprising, when seen in this light, that when computer games are evaluated using the tools of the film scholar, computer games almost always come up lacking. A Car does not do a very good job of being a tree, and if you insist on comparing it to a tree, then you will never be happy with your car.

Computer games in general, and First-Person Shooters in particular, should not be thought about or evaluated using criteria that were created to discuss motion pictures. To do so is a disservice to what computer games are. This misapplication of ideas serves to create an atmosphere where computer games appear inferior to motion pictures which leads to game producers attempting to create games that are more like movies. Movies are not games and in order to make games more like movies they must be made less like games. Gamers have created their own standards for what makes a game fun and interesting. Those criteria are not the criteria for a good movie. Computer games have been wrongly judged in terms of movies and by trying to make good movies, computer game produces are inevitably going to make poor games.

Steven Poole notes that horror themed games, such as Resident Evil, are often compared to horror movies (66). In fact Resident Evil, a zombie-themed game that originated on the Sony Playstation, goes so far as to borrow camera angles from horror movies in order to make the game seem more like a movie. One of the biggest criticisms of the game, however, was exactly those cinematic camera angles. While they created drama, they also “always seem[ed] to change at the most inopportune times, like when you step around a corner to shoot a zombie or when you draw a weapon” (MacDonald). The attempt to make the game more like a movie has had a negative impact upon the gameplay.

Poole tells us why it is that the horror genre “provides the aesthetic compost for supposedly ‘filmlike’ videogames” (66). He states:

No one has yet claimed that a videogame is like a good comedy film... or that a videogame tells a heartbreaking romance. The answer is that the horror genre can easily do away with character and plot; it is the detail of the monsters, the rhythm of the tension and shocks, that matter. Plot and character are things videogames find very difficult to deal with.

The fact is that Silent Hill and Resident Evil resemble each other far more than they resemble any film you care to name. (66-67)

Like the horror genre, action movies can also, "easily do away with character and plot." The very title of the genre, "action," states what is the most important element of the action movie. In this way, if FPS's are to be compared to movies, it can be said that the FPS is an action movie stripped of everything that can distract from the action. In its most pure form, the First-Person Shooter has very little plot or character development.¹ The FPS is an action movie purified and distilled down to its essential ingredient: action. If evaluated in these terms, the FPS can be seen as being superior to action cinema, rather than inferior to it. Unfortunately, most discussions of videogames that compare them to motion pictures do not use this criterion to compare the two media forms.

When compared to motion pictures, videogames in general, computer games specifically, and the FPS most specifically are prone to the criticism that they are weak on plot. Although this is often true, this lack of a strong plot is often presented as a deficiency and a means of making the videogame medium and the FPS genre appear to be lacking when compared to motion pictures, and thus less important or less serious.

In a number of ways, this comparison is faulty. In emphasizing the video part of the term videogames, those who make this comparison are committing a grave error by forgetting that while videogames may in fact be categorized under the wide umbrella of types of video, they are more firmly placed under the umbrella of types of games. First and most importantly, Videogames are games. The fact that they are video is of secondary importance. When people write about Monopoly, they do not criticize it for its lack of plot. When people discuss videogames, they should not criticize them for their lack of plot.

The First Person Shooter, made famous by games such as Doom, Quake, and Duke Nukem, is arguably the most popular form of computer game on the market today and the type of videogame that is the most likely to be criticized for its lack of plot. In the FPS, the attempt is made to immerse the player into the game by showing the game from the point of view of the character. The player sees the game world through the character’s eyes (hence the term first person). In most FPS, the player sees an arm jutting up from the bottom of the screen that is most often carrying a some sort of gun hence the use of the word shooter (see figure 1). The intent is to make the player feel as if they are in the game. Notice that the intent is to make players feel as if they are in the game rather than watching the game.

Critics are correct when they say that the plot of these games is shallow and secondary. The plot for Doom can be summarized as being about demons that have taken over and you are the last man who can stop them. The story for Quake and Duke Nukem both involve repelling alien invasions. In many of the games, the plot is only told through the manual that comes in the box.

Plot is not the point. Action is the point. If a comparison to movies must be made, then it is more accurate to say that they are like the last half of an action film when the plot has been explained and all that is left is for the hero to beat the bad guys. There are other types of videogames in which plot is much more important. The role-playing game (RPG) series Final Fantasy is so well known for its plots that a Final Fantasy movie is going to be released this year. On the other hand, there are types of videogames that have no plot at all. After all, what is the plot of Tetris?

Let's stop here for a moment and discuss some of the ways in which First-Person Shooters are different from films.

When you watch Goldeneye, you want to be like James Bond.

When you paly the N64 game Goldeneye, you are James Bond and in that way you don't deliberate or try to gues, “what would Bond do?” but what should I do? In that way, it is more actively performative

The notion that the FPS must have a plot is not only pervasive amongst the critics of the games; it has become a part of the mindset of the developers as well. This compulsion to plot is becoming more and more of an obsession within the gaming community and it is starting to have a negative effect on the games. The game Soldier of Fortune is a victim of this unnecessary plotting.

Based on the magazine of the same name, the game revolves around a real John Mullins, a real person who is a former soldier of fortune, and his fictional attempts to recover stolen nuclear missiles and avenge the death of his partner. The gameplay is compelling.

While playing the game, however, there are portions where the actual playing stops and the player is expected to sit there and watch and listen as the story unfolds. One of the "cut scenes," as they are known, is a stereotypical action scene. In the third person, rather than the first, we see the John Mullins character plant a bomb, run out of the building, and dive to the dirt as it explodes (see figure 2).

The scenes where the player is forced to watch the Mullins character perform actions that could have easily be performed by the player themselves are the most extreme cases of when the cut scenes break the flow of the game. Cut scenes of this type have the effect of taking the control of the environment out of the hands of the players. When these cut scenes occur, is it nearly impossible not to be frustrated.

The game puts forth a set of rules and expectations for the player. For example, on one level, the player is told that he must blow up a base. There is little to tell the player that, at key moments, control of the game will be taken away from them; therefore, using the established parameters of the gamer, the player naturally expects that they will blow up the base. Unfortunately rather than blowing it up themselves what actually occurs is that the player watches the base get blown up. The player is moving from area to area, getting closer and closer to the goal and then the game suddenly stops and the player has to sit there and watch a movie.

That most games allow you to hit a key and skip these scenes, is a doubly revealing feature. It reveals how disposable these plots are and it also shows how irritating players find these scenes. It seems obvious that inserting cut scenes in this manner is an attempt at making first person shooters more like motion pictures; however this is a trend that is not only wrong minded but also ruins the flow of gameplay.

There are ways that cut scenes can be used without hurting the gameplay. The problem with cut scenes like that of the bomb planting is that it jars the player and interrupts the flow of the game. The player does not do the act; the act is done to the player (Poole 81). The cut scene involves the player's character and so in that way it takes control away from the player. There is another type of cut scene however.

A very common element in many FPS's is using levers or switches to activates something somewhere else in the level. In Soldier of Fortune, there is a scene in the first level where the player throws a lever and the game plays a short cut scene of an overhead door opening. This door is located outside the player’s field of vision and so this cut scene lets the player know what the effects of what they have done. This illustrates a type of cut scene that does not involve the player's character directly, but gives new information about what is happening within the game. Scenes of this type can be a means of enhancing the player’s awareness of the surroundings and can aid the gameplay.

This type of cut scene does not show the player's character. Instead it shows the results of a character's actions. This difference is a key in determining whether a cut scene has the possibility of detracting or adding to the enjoyment of the game. An "active cut scene" shows the character doing something, but it is not action that the player controls. It takes control away from the players and makes them a spectator. A "reactive cut scene" shows the effects of a player's actions. This type of cut scene furthers the gameplay by letting the player see the results of what they have done, thereby eliminating frustration that could result from the player running around trying to find the results of their actions. In this way it helps to further one of the elements of flow by providing, “clear, unambiguous feedback to a person’s actions” (Turner 48). When the switch is thrown and a short reactive cut scene plays, the character gets immediate feedback. An active cut scene, however, disrupts the flow of the game not only, as previously discussed, by turning the player into a watcher, but also, like cheating, by disrupting the “ordered rules which make action and the evaluation of action automatic and hence unproblematic” (Csikszentmihalyi 47). Active cut scenes can, therefore, be seen as akin to cheating. They de-empower the player and make the gameplay experience unrewarding by introducing elements that are incoherent and contradictory to the player’s expectations.

By using cut scenes, the game creators are making the game more cinematic, this much can be agreed upon easily. But what cannot be agreed upon as easily is whether or not this is, in general, a good thing. If games such as Soldier of Fortune can be said to have a narrative, then the specifics of the narrative, aside from the cut scenes, are created by the player. For example, when three guards confront a player, the player has the choice of how to react to them. The player can kill guard one, then three, then two, or can kill guard two, and run past them, or any of a number of variations.

The game creators have painted the backdrop and have set the scene, but it is up to the player to act out the part. If it is a play, it is an improvisational one. The director lets the actor loose on the stage and lets the specifics of the story develop organically. The player is an actor, not a viewer. If the scenario of the game is that the player is to plant a bomb in a missile silo, then it is up to the player to decide exactly where to plant the bomb. The player should be able to plant the bomb wherever they want -- even in an area outside of the target zone where the explosion would be ineffective. In the Half-Life mod², Counter-Strike, if playing a bomb scenario as a terrorist, this type of action is possible. In Counter-Strike, the bomb can be planted anywhere within the bomb area.³ Soldier of Fortune (SOF) does not allow players to do this. In contrast to Counter-Strike, the bomb in SOF is not a selectable inventory item.⁴ In fact, it does not show up in the player’s inventory. The player is not even allowed to plant the bomb in the correct location, so control over that minor detail of the narrative is denied the player. When the player reaches the bomb plant point, a cut scene takes over. The narrative is taken out of the hands of the human and the player goes from being an actor to being a viewer. The person playing goes from creating the narrative to simply interpreting the narrative. All of this is done in the attempt to make the game more cinematic.

In this way, any of the empowering effects of computer games are undercut. In the actual playing of the game, the person in front of the keyboard is in control. The decision of who to kill, what actions to take and how to take them are theirs. It is true that the actual number of distinct, unique motions may be limited – there are only so many different types of movement the programmers can include (in many games it is impossible to lie down, for example) – but the ways and the order in which those combinations are put together are infinite. Also, it is true that the decisions of what to do are somewhat limited, as you cannot decide to take your character down to the beach for a nice day in the sun. In that way it may be a false sense of empowerment, or a very limited form of empowerment, but in the gameplay the player still does at least feel empowered, they feel in control. The same cannot be said of cut scenes. Therefore, whatever sense of empowerment that comes from playing a first-person shooter is eliminated and the player is de-empowered and made powerless. Maybe cut scenes are to blame for school violence?

The instant a cut scene comes on the monitor, the player disappears. At that point, the game has no player, only a watcher. Watchers are unable to effect the events that are unfolding on their monitor. Moreover, in that moment, it cannot truthfully be said that they are watching a game. To call it a game implies that the person paying attention to it is involved in some sort of activity, be it mental or physical. While watching something, be it a cut scene, movie or infomercial can certainly be said to be some form of activity it is not the same sort of activity that constitutes a game. To this end, it cannot be accurately said that when a cut scene appears, that the person is watching a game. At this point, the computer program ceases to be a game and is something much more akin to a movie. In some ways, it would certainly be possible to judge the merits of a cut scene using cinematic criteria, but to do so would miss the point. While it is indeed very much like a movie and it may suit our purposes to call it one, the person who started the computer program did not double click on that icon for the purpose of watching a movie. They did it to play a game. There is no gameplay in a movie. While there may be said to be a type of flow in movies, it is not the type of flow that the player desired when they started the program and more importantly the change from one type of experience to another has the ability to destroy all flow.

Andrew Darley who has written a book entitled Visual Digital Culture: Surface Play and Spectacle in New Media Genres but does not appear to really understand the games. They have an emic perspective and that perspective skews their views because they are mis-applying the old rules of movies and television to a form that is not like those forms, but only appears to be like them. Appearances can be deceiving.

A problem occurs when people within the gaming community read these criticisms. These critics all to often are applying an etic perspective on things and that perspective is, at time, misleading. To make an analogy, it is similar to Radway reading romance novels. Radway had a different literacy and thus read the romance novels differently than the group of women she talked to. Just like Radway, critics of FPS’s who are not gamers have a different literacy than people who do play games. Neither Radway nor Darley knows how to read the subject they are talking about. Radway, however, was insightful enough to see this and sought out romance readers to find out what they get from them, how they read them. Darley does not do that. To be fair, his book was not about FPS gaming in particular, but the fact still remains, he was applying his perspective incorrectly. My shoes do not have a particularly good plot, either. Neither shoes nor first-person shooters are about plot.

Darley then goes on to make his bias toward narrative clear. “The so-called ‘back-story’ of Quake, presented in the instruction booklet that accompanies the game disc, is short and basic in the extreme” (150). “Nevertheless, I would suggest that the background story is a relatively minor part of the game genre – any significance that it pretends to have evaporates once the game is underway” (151). “In the action-oriented game certainly, though I would suggest this is true for most computer games, fictional narrative as it is traditionally understood is de-centered — relegated to a subordinate position within the overall formal hierarchy that constitutes the game aesthetic” (151). “In terms of traditional narrative meaning, games such as Quake are even more shallow than the blockbuster movie or the music video” (154). That Darley has a chapter entitled, “The Waning of Narrative: New Spectacle Cinema and Music Video” certainly indicates that he considers the blockbuster and music video to be shallow and vapid in their own right and to indicate that Quake and the rest of the FPS genre are even more shallow is a damning statement.

Yes, First-Person Shooters are shallow in terms of narrative. However, Darley stops there and fails to discuss what these games are good at or how gamers enjoy them. He discusses interaction and image, but it seems clear that he does not value them as much as he values narrative. By saying that games are shallow in terms of narrative and then not stating that they are strong in other areas seems to make it appear as if FPS games should be strong in terms of narrative and that they are not is a crying shame.

Darley is not a gamer and this influences his perceptions.

he is not treating the games he discusses as games at all, but simply another form of (narrative) text and in this way he fails to take into account the individualized and unique aesthetic of gaming into account. Because of this, he is writing things that are not indicative of what a game like Quake is actually about from a gamer's perspective.

But Andrew Darley has a book that is part of the Sussex Studies in Culture and Communication series. He sounds important. While it is certainly unlikely that a majority of gamers have read Darley’s book, he is not the only scholar or critic that thinks that narrative and plot are important elements of gaming and therefore the message that plot and narrative are important to games is getting through.

That people feel the need to compare computer games to movies seems to be indicative of the fact that computer gaming is both fairly new, as well as primarily being seen as something that is aimed at children. The form factor of the computer brings with it connotations and expectations of what games should be like. The games are played on what looks like a television. They do not have commercials (at least not explicitly) and so they must be like movies. This assumption has the effect of transferring the evaluative criteria from one medium to the next. It looks (superficially) like a movie and therefore it is natural to assume that it should be evaluated like a movie, e.g. in terms of plot and story.

This seemingly logical progression is flawed in that it only evaluates superficial similarities. These superficial similarities are only a small part of the story. It has been shown that applying the aesthetics of motion pictures to a First-Person Shooter can be detrimental to the flow experience. The comparison of computer games to movies neglects the heritage of gaming. They are games and therefore a game like Counter-Strike has much more in common with the childhood game of Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians than it does with any film.

The gaming industry has come under criticism by non-gamers, that is those that do not regularly play computer games, for not adhering to the standards of the film medium. Because this criticism comes from both people who are perceived as having come sort of authority because of their title or position as well as from more high profile and more highly regarded forms of mass communications such as magazines or television, some members of the gaming industry, as well as the gamers themselves, seem to have started to believe that computer games in fact should have deeper more complex plots and storylines. This causes elements of motion pictures to be inserted into the games. Unfortunately, as has been shown, these filmic elements do not always help to enhance the gameplay. In fact, as is the case with Soldier of Fortune, they actually serve as a hindrance and can cause frustration within player.

Many people within the gaming community, be they gamers or game makers, need to reevaluate and rethink what a First-Person Shooter is and what makes them fun to play. All games, be they computer, board or otherwise, live and die by gameplay. People with in the industry seem to assume that by improving the plot and storyline they will automatically make better games. The way that many game designers seem to be going about improving plot and story is by trying to make the games more cinematic through the use of cut scenes and dramatic camera angles. It seems that there is an important question that has been left unasked, namely, “Is adding filmic elements the best way to enhance gameplay in a First-Person Shooter?” Certainly opinions on the answer to this question will be varied, but it seems likely that with an infinite number of ways to enhance gameplay, the addition of filmic elements will low on the list. Hopefully by questioning the necessity of emulating motion pictures, game designers and players of all kinds, and those involved First-Person Shooters in particular, will no longer feel that the phrase, “just a game” is a derogatory remark.