Headshots And the Death of Variety in First-Person Shooters

Editor's note: Jon picks up on an argument first made by Giantbomb's Jeff Gerstmann, and considers how everyone's favorite one-shot kill has changed the way we play. -Demian

---

“Headshots are ruining games. Think about the arsenal they give you in Splinter Cell. Think about the remote camera, the sticky mines, the grenades, and EMPs, and all this other stuff, shotguns and assault rifles…and you went through the entire game using the default pistol and then the upgraded version of the default pistol, 'cause it's silenced and you can shoot guys in the head with it really well…all of the spots where you are not being seen by anyone the right answer every single time is shoot that guy in the head…it is ruining games.” – Jeff Gerstmann

There's nothing quite like a game's first perfectly executed headshot. That well-timed squeeze of the trigger catching the crosshairs just as they light up an enemy's dome creates an unmistakable feeling of mastery. You may not have noticed it consciously, but that shot certainly mattered. “You're a big boy now,” the game's saying, “Time to enjoy yourself.”

Headshots — and the ability to instantly kill an enemy with a single shot, or, in the case of multiplayer, score extra damage — have been a part of first-person shooters ever since Goldeneye 007 on the Nintendo 64 (according to Wikipedia that is, so take it with a grain of salt). Headshots add another layer of strategy to a shooter, punishing inaccurate sprays of gunfire and rewarding precise bursts. The removal of a feature no modern shooter goes without would immeasurably dumb down many games — or so it seems.

So what's the problem, then? The way a headshot will instantly kill a target is certainly realistic, even if real marksmen avoid them due to the relative size of the targets. It's also, as previously discussed, a very satisfying way to dispatch foes. 

It's only once the feature's gone that you begin to realize just how it was affecting your play style. Resident Evil 4's combat would not have been nearly as intense if you could take out enemies with one shot to the head from your handgun. Some of the best moments in the game involve hordes of infected villagers shambling in your direction. You have to think fast — take out the legs from under one of them to buy enough time to pop a few bullets into the head of another. If you could kill with a single headshot, the whole dynamic would change. For the boring.

Though Fallout 3 is an RPG first and a shooter second, it's still a very good example of headshots detracting from the otherwise-intricate systems put in place by the developer. Fallout 3 allows the player to pause the game and target an enemy's specific bodyparts. Aside from initial experimentation, you'll rarely choose to shoot an enemy in the arm or leg, even though you can potentially slow them down or disable their weapons. It's just so much more devastating to go for the head and possibly blow your foes' brains out, literally. 

To headshot or not to headshot? From the designer's standpoint, there's no clear winner. Make the headshot less effective and you risk eliminating much of the satisfaction of shooting, while leaving it as is removes much of the impetus to experiment with a game's more obscure features. The familiarity of knowing a headshot is your most effective means of attack is certainly comforting when you're starting a completely new game, but is it a good thing that so many titles are so similar in this regard?

Unusually, I'm not even sure where I stand on this issue, so it'll be very interesting to hear your responses to the topic. Do you like it when an enemy crumples under the weight of a single bullet to the skull, or do you find yourself ignoring a game's expansive list of features because this one tactic is too effective?