Opinion: The First-Person Immersion Myth
September 8, 2009 12:00 PM | Simon Carless
[In this opinion piece -- originally printed in the August 2009 issue of Game Developer magazine in shorter form -- editor-in-chief Brandon Sheffield considers the barriers to immersion of the increasingly ubiquitous first-person perspective in video games.]
Talking with our previous magazine art director recently, I recalled something I’d forgotten: First-person games can be quite intimidating.
We tend to accept first-person as a de facto viewpoint for several popular genres today, and it also saves developers from having to develop a camera system independent of the player’s control. But it is rather daunting, and has a high learning curve for those who haven’t already experienced many first-person games.
The art director in question is a more casual player, and to her, first-person games seem disorienting and conceptually difficult. Talking about this reminded me of my first FPS experience, Wolfenstein 3D for the Atari Jaguar.
Not having been able to afford a computer growing up, this was my first interaction (in perhaps '97 or '98) with a proper FPS. I tried playing the game for about an hour, and came away dizzy and unable to read, because my eyes were jumping around on the page.
This experience had me pretty convinced that first-person games weren’t for me, all the way until Halo 2 hit and someone convinced me to give it another shot. Perhaps that’s not a good thing for an editor of Game Developer to admit, but it’s true.
I have since learned the power of the first-person viewpoint in terms of what you can show on screen, and the interactions that become possible. But I spoke with my fellow editors, and several had recollections of difficulty penetrating that first-person wall. The reason for that is likely that we are used to seeing games and movies play out before us in a third-person view. Having an avatar gives us a strong frame of reference, and allows us to better navigate the world. If I see a little running guy, and I try to make him jump, I can gauge that distance.
If I have to jump in first-person mode, where are my feet? Are they below the camera directly? How far can I jump, when everything feels like it’s based on my perspective? If I look up a bit, the platform in front of me looks different than it did before. A 14-year-old boy will take the time to figure this out, and will wind up having an excellent experience. An older or more casual user will likely be much more daunted, and less inclined to even pick up such a title.
The Immersion Question
Are first-person games inherently more immersive? A lot of developers seem to presume that they are, but let’s take a second look. Consider the last time you felt like you actually were the character in a game you played. I’d be willing to guess that most people will say “never.” We don’t generally take on the role of the character we’re playing, except as children in imaginary play.
What most of us do is identify with the character -- and how can you identify with a character you can’t see, a character who usually doesn’t even talk or have any opinions about the horrible things going on around him? This goes back to the “silent hero” dilemma that has existed ever since role-playing made its way into the electronic world, notoriously perpetuated by the Japanese console RPG.
Almost all first-person games have this sort of silent character, one whose only interaction with others is usually taking orders until they turn their backs, and then just shooting and collecting things. That doesn’t seem inherently immersive to me. It can be, but it isn’t necessarily, as is often assumed. Western RPGs like Fallout 3 (or earlier games like Ultima IV) do a somewhat better job by at least allowing the player to make some dialog choices -- but still, the character isn’t you.
What makes a game immersive or otherwise is not the viewpoint, of course; it’s the situations, external characters, and tasks that get you involved. One of the characters I’ve identified most with is the boy from Ico, and he doesn’t even speak a real language. The oppressive environments and his seeming innocence simply made him a sympathetic character.
It’s difficult to empathize or identify with a camera or floating gun. I can empathize with De Niro’s character in Once Upon a Time in America, even though I don’t agree with what he does, simply because his world is so well-realized, and I can see how he reacts to events. In first-person games, there is no reaction on the part of the character, and it becomes difficult to feel anything about him or her.
First-person games are incredibly important to the industry, and have moved many genres forward in significant ways. The viewpoint is doubtless here to stay, and I want to emphasize that I am actually a fan of the concept. But I do think it’s worth taking a step back. I feel that as an industry we’ve come to our own conclusion that first-person games are inherently intuitive and more immersive, simply by virtue of their camera position, and in spite of the problems they bring up.
I would submit that just because we’ve gotten used to this style of game doesn’t mean everyone has. It’s important to realize that making a first-person game almost necessarily means making a game for the dedicated gamer.
Break Down the Wall
Innovations on the interface side could help lower the casual block, perhaps through the Wii, Project Natal, or the PS3’s new motion controller. Regardless, it will take a lot of work and concerted effort to penetrate the casual audience with a first-person camera. The question is whether we even need to, when there are so many camera systems that games have yet to fully explore.
After this editorial went up in the magazine, a couple people mailed me to say that they feel I have too closely tied character identification with immersion, and that’s not my intention. That’s just an example, coupled with the control barrier, that bars the first person viewpoint from being inherently more immersive. Third person cameras that get caught in walls and show a complete lack of knowledge of cinematography can be just as confusing.
But I do feel that there is a thinking among many developers that if a game is first-person, the player will automatically feel as though they are in the game themselves. I submit that there is a lot of work to be done before that is true.
Categories:








15 Comments
Absolutely! People identify with character, not with floating voids where character could be. Did people enjoy Portal because they were put in the shoes of Chell, free to feel as Chell would, reacting as Chell would under life-threatening circumstances? No! We loved GladOS!
Jesse | September 8, 2009 1:48 PM
Personally, I dislike third person games for the same reasons you dislike first person ones. Having an avatar creates a disjoint that just doesn't feel right. Plus spending hours staring at someone's back doesn't really help me empathize with them, it makes me feel alienated.
Biff | September 8, 2009 3:50 PM
>Consider the last time you felt like you actually were the character in a game you played. Iâd be willing to guess that most people will say ânever.â We donât generally take on the role of the character weâre playing, except as children in imaginary play.<
I think you're oversimplifying a touch here.
I recall at least four times I have jumped at something in a first person game (just like the apocryphal (?) story of early film goers ducking as a train came at them) whereas I have never once felt something approaching fear in a third person game.
This doesn't have anything to do with being the character as make-believe, but rather being in the physical space.
Jason Dyer | September 8, 2009 8:30 PM
Jesse; you got it twisted. I didn't just identify with the character in Portal. No. I was the character, acting as I would under life threatening circumstances. GladOS was a B****. Part of me loved how well-realised a B**** she was, but that isn't the immersed emotion. Identifying with your character isn't what games can do. That's what any fiction does!
So what did Portal do that people think is so special? Let's get technical; the player engages in a simulation of being in a fictional situation, and get to pursue almost any course of action a person in this situation would perform. -Killing yourself, or using the Portal gun to get to the next area, in this case.
Ironically this was because of the very elaborate story, where we were basically human guinea pigs, as we are in all linear games. In Portal your character's motivations, past life and little freedoms, were basically your own as you played. In Spiderman 2, despite what a person could feasibly do in his fictional position, you can't use your powers to murder innocent civilians in Spiderman, or anything. There isn't even a pause menu where you could go in and change his attitide. Nothing! XD
Player and character both have an offer they can't refuse. So they pick the same thing... All humans have a survival instinct at our core. Our decision to go for life is basically all the character repesents. (Some people may have chosen insanity and starvation, and consequently been annoyed that they didn't have the ability to get their character doing rolly pollys, masturbating, or wiping their bums all over the walls with fitting commentary from GladOS or whatever. Naturally we don't hear from these people.)
Anyway, I don't think all games have to make such a high fantasy, contrived story to make players feel at one with their character instead of shallowly role-playing. They could just make the player be there when the character makes moral choices and decisions. Imagine a Batman game where the player gets to put themselves in the place of the young Bruce Wayne, and grow into their own version of the batman. I think a lot of us would just kill ourselves, wuss out or get hold of guns amd develop into something more akin to The Punisher or The Crow. Letting us do that is a way of being respectful to the fiction. Most players won't develop a character like the original Batman, but they'll still have a character that represeants them, and shows what a different or weaker personality would be like in place of the usual striving conservative.
If developers want players to care about an exotic character with a culture and back story all of their own, they shouldn't just let us identify with them in cutscenes and then let us pretend to be them in a couple of makeshift levels which are like an impression of the fiction.. They should let us show our own character- of course some things are handed to us on a plate in life, (families, radio active spider bites etc, and these things remain our origins), but It should be up to you how to react to them, throwing our culture back in our parents faces if we choose to.
Rowan Atkinson said that when his character, Blackadder, was doomed to die in the battle of the Somme in the scene at the end of the week, he got a very peculiar feeling. He felt nervous, afraid. He couldn't get much sleep. There was no way out. The character he wrote tried pulling at straws, trying to get out of it, but he was doomed. He couldn't have just written that he got away somehow, that would have been lying. -Soldiers didn't get away- And so he felt a very true empathy with the thousands of men who died in The Somme. May they rest in peace.
Games are the medium that could do this for it's consumers.. Other mediums? Those adventure books where you roll a dice and choose a way to react to a big troll you come across, and then turn to the reffered page to see how it turned out? Dude, those are games.
Here is the interview where Rowan Atkinson talks aboutit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gr0Fa_QPNU
little willy | September 8, 2009 8:33 PM
lol mammoth post!... I aint even talked about the 1st person vs 3rd person stuff yet... Another night.
little willy | September 8, 2009 8:35 PM
Extra comment: what we have is a situation where one can coinhabit the space of another character but not necessarily feel as if they are the character -- i.e. that they are speaking the lines the character delivers.
I think existing terms of narrative perspective drawn from literature aren't adequate for describing the situation.
Jason Dyer | September 8, 2009 8:38 PM
I don't have much against first person as a viewpoint or anything. But I do think it's strange to just assume that they're the most immersive. And if they are, isn't it a bit funny that there aren't really any games that have done anything with that?
Most (all?) of the games I still list as having a large affect on me while I was playing and both in my life were all third person in one way or another. And I don't mean just making me jump or have a visceral reaction (which can be cool!). Just, any reaction that could be considered to be linked to an emotion other than surprise has typically been in other types of games.
Silent Hill caused a real, palpable reaction in me. Earthbound built a world around me and showed me what it could do with it. Games like Final Fantasies have driven me with interesting stories. Shadow of the Colossus...well, so on and so forth.
If First Person is so damned immersive, well, somebody get out there and do something with it.
P.F. | September 8, 2009 11:52 PM
In my view, immersion depends from other factors rather than perspective. I understand why so many newcomers to the videogame world point the First-Person as the most immersing of all game genres, although that's a basic and largely unverified assumption.
Jason Dyer's example of L'Arrivée d'un Train en Gare de la Ciotat does illustrate the sort of basic immersion that derives from great new developments in the manipulation of visual technologies. In the case of videogames, 3D graphics are not even required, nor any process of identification with the avatar: just ask any of those classic arcade players who mastered Centipede or Asteroids if they weren't entirely immersed when playing them. Not just the process of concentration and abstraction; I mean the gameplay and interaction that lead so many people into saying "I actually felt like I was piloting that ship in Space Invaders" - when all there was on the screen, in a nutshell, were a few pixels moving around and some blips coming out of the speakers.
If, on the other hand, you wish to discuss deeper levels of immersion and emotional response then I suppose that a whole new article with a new approach is in order. Thank you for a good read!
dieubussy | September 9, 2009 3:34 AM
first person games don't make me feel more immersed. they make me feel claustrophobic, because the field of view is so narrow.
i find it easier to see one's immediate surroundings in 3rd person, because the camera is actually away from the character.
bunnyhero | September 9, 2009 9:21 AM
"Consider the last time you felt like you actually were the character in a game you played. I’d be willing to guess that most people will say never.' We don’t generally take on the role of the character we’re playing, except as children in imaginary play."
This is a blatantly false premise. People are deluding themselves when they say that they are not the protagonist: yes, you're controlling something with traits that probably don't match your own, but YOU'RE the one making the decisions and taking action. It would be ridiculous to say, "Event A happened because CHARACTER B took action C." That kind of language only makes sense for non-interactive sequences.
People wouldn't even know what buttons to press if they weren't, on some level, reacting to what's on-screen as if they were actually there.
Rat | September 9, 2009 12:01 PM
While I've never felt I was the character in a game, I've felt I was in their situation a few times. Almost all of those were in first person games. First person games are inherently more immersive, but it takes solid design to make it work.
Rack | September 10, 2009 5:49 AM
I really disagree with you first person/third person theory here. The point of a first person game isn't to make you empathize with a vacant unseen character. The point is to embody that character. First person games don't need a brilliantly developed player character. You can fill in the gaps yourself. When you're in a game and npcs are talking to YOU and things are happening to YOU, it draws you in.
Third person games are great, but they immerse you in a different way. They make you identify with the player character. They have to, or what do you care what happens to them? That character isn't you.
Thats the difference. Whenever you play a first person game you are roleplaying to a certain degree. You put yourself in the characters shoes. When you play a third person game you are getting involved in that other character's story. That can be very compelling. You can better see the personality of a third person character. They tend to be more rounded out in the story with lots of dialogue and cutscenes.
Still, in a third person game I feel more like a companion to the main character in his adventure. In a first person game my concern for my own well being is projected onto the character. I already care what happens because they aren't a vacant floating gun they are a surrogate for me to experience my own adventure.
Playing a third person game is more of a cinematic, movie like, experience for me. Which can be quite enjoyable and it is a more familiar way of story telling. But playing a first person game is like nothing else I have experienced. I long for more games that make me feel as personally involved with the story as Half-Life 2. Where I can have my own adventure, and I can feel personal attachment between the characters and myself. That is my idea of immersion.
Roque | September 12, 2009 3:26 AM
I just wanted to add that I didn't mean to completely dismiss your article in my response. It seemed very well thought out. I also think there are plenty of third person games that are more immersive than plenty of first person games. Not to mention plenty of third person games that would be completely unplayable in first person. Perspective alone does not draw you into a game. But I think the best first person games really are a uniquely different experience and can be extremely effective at empowering the player to exist IN the world of the game and not just it's periphery.
Roque | September 12, 2009 3:48 AM
I prefer first person games because they are first person. In this respect they do seem more immersive than having to play a game (which is really like a Movie that you control) in third person mode. The third person mode most of the time is annoying to me because your character gets in the way of the action.
Having said thus I will come to the crux of my belief on this subject.
It in the long run really doesn't matter if it's first person or third person because what makes the game really immersive is good story telling and the depth at which that story is told.
I have played some third person games and loved them like Heavy Metal Fakk 2, Star Trek SD9 The Fallen and both Max Payne's to name a few.
I am also getting older and I find my taste changing. These days I prefer FPS sneakers and FPS RPG's as opposed standard "shoot em ups".
Multiplayer I will not do at all. It's all about getting myself immersed in a really good story. Having a frag fest is not my idea of any kind of story.
I hear Mass Effect is really good as will be Alpha Protocol but these days if a third person game doesn't offer a first person mode I just can't get into it. I get lucky sometimes and find a first person mod for a game that for me makes the game playable.
If your going to do third person anyway it's easy to implement a first person mode and I think all game developers should do this with their games so they don't lose out on money by making the game one or the other. It's the smart thing to do business wise, and every bodies happy.
John Phoenix | October 1, 2009 12:07 AM
Third person is not imersive, I think the word is being used wrong. You may identify with the character but how can you be imersed in the character, you are still you. Only in 1st person view where you are there, no 'safe' third person view. I believe that 3rd person is a cop out, a fudge, an ego trip, a conspiracy of sorts and the whole conversation should be moot because you should be able to choose the view you want to play in not have it dictated by the developer. Sure 'recomend' a view but allow people to choose their own style of play.
The rise of 3rd person is because there are lots of people that just can not hack the view, and thats a problem causing games manufactures to shy away from creating them. They dont want to be sued because of someone throwing up on their computer. The second reason is Console controllers, totally lame for fps quick reactions. Third is egoish. Games manufactures and designers want to spend huge budgets in getting the one thing that they have control over correct. The block of pixels called 'your character' that blocks view and does ' oh so wonderful moves' on screen in front of you the draw the mind away from the increasingly shallow game play and story. Also added the extra limited game play area to stop 3rd person characters falling off cliffs cus they can not judge the distance to the edge. Finally the console manufactures only want games in 3rd person on all systems because if a game came out on the PC where it was also 1st person then it would soon show up the advantages of the PC with keyboard and mouse and how much better the game is in 1st person view.
Its not their fault the current generation have been brain washed to some degree that 3rd is best and are so blinkered and under the thumb of the people who control the purse strings that the game HAS to sell on ALL platforms, be no better on any platform and be SAFE and guarenteed to make money. Play safe, little story, average length, pretty graphics, sells to the masses.
Worse is the dumming down of the few 1st person games to just shooting, The likes of Half-life 2 and Fallout 3 especially are few and far between taking a bold step to allow all view 'gasp' and the users to have the choice.
A the future unfolds we are getting more and more choice in everything except the view we wnat to play a game. I'm NOT against 3rd person but, come on, let me at least play the game the way I want to?
Imagine only being able to watch tv on a 15inch screen when there are larger screens out there but the program only can be viewed on a 15 inch screen., see ... a pointless restriction. Other examples, a bike with only one gear, or lights of only one brightness or browser with only version of flash compatible with it, it soon would not be used.
I admit that this post is 'angry' but its time the consumer got back the choice thats been lacking over the last few years.
Finally whats with this over the shoulder view? is it there to increese frame rate?
I do believe that changing view at the appropriate time is essential, Thief 3 had this right where the view went 3rd when hugging the wall and one of the jedi games jumped to 3rd for blade combat.Seeing thsi intelligent view change would be good. Flattening yourself against a create in 1st, the camera flicks to 3rd and you peek around the corner and back to 1st as you take off to the next create.
I know most of you wont agree with me because you yourselves are products of our games society and 'Pink Floyd' ( a band in the 70's) had a good phrase for our society. 'The public wants what the public gets', see... no? rather than the public gets what the public wants? still none the wiser.
Thanks for reading all the way through.
Skepsis | March 28, 2010 5:49 AM