Slow Motion in Videogames—Gameplay Over Style?

Abstract

This article explores a commonly used feature of many different videogame genres, namely slow motion. It discusses the origins of slow motion, its ontological qualities and why it is important to analyze a game mechanic’s audiovisual elements when doing game studies research. Slow motion in videogames can be divided into two broad categories: cinematic slow motion and bullet time. The focus in this article is on bullet time, which allows the player interactive control and an advantage in overcoming enemies and obstacles found in the gameplay. This retooling of slow motion to suit interactive use has consequences for the aesthetic qualities of the effect. Bullet time takes advantage of slow motion’s intrinsic qualities to highlight player control, feedback, and audiovisual spectacle. Bullet time is a good example of how videogames’ gameplay mechanics have a strong focus on rules while also offering an audiovisual experience that creates aesthetic pleasure.

Slow Motion as an Effect

Slow motion is an easily recognizable aesthetic effect that has become a common tool in videogames. It is a feature often used in games that focus on action-oriented gameplay with an avatar. But slow motion is also present in many other genres, including first-person shooter , racing games, fighting games and action games, and it is found in 2D and 3D games, and games that use first- and third-person perspectives. In fact, slow motion’s many different gameplay uses and aesthetic range have made this feature something of a mainstay of gameplay convention.

This article will discuss the origin and ontological qualities in videogames of the slow-motion effect, which originated in film, but has many similarities across the two forms. Both use slow motion to emphasize important information in the story and to highlight what is happening onscreen, while also accentuating the spectacular qualities of what is happening. Yet when slow motion travelled over to videogames, it had to engage with something lacking in film, namely videogames’ rule-based interactivity. Videogames often give the player interactive control over the slow-motion effect. This means that slow motion is often a gameplay feature, and how it is implemented, highlighted, and used in games reflects that purpose.

This article sets out to explore several questions, with the main focus on the use of slow motion in gameplay, which I have chosen to called bullet time, a term that stems from film (Wöllner, Hammerschmidt, & Albrecht, 2018, p. 2): How does slow motion in videogames affect gameplay? Is slow motion different in videogames compared to film because of its connection to gameplay and player control? Does slow motion’s connection to gameplay in videogames add new aesthetic qualities not present in films? Is slow motion simply a gameplay feature or is it also an important sensory feature that affects player experience?

The growing proliferation of slow motion in videogames, makes it necessary to thoroughly examine it, to have a better understand of its historical background and ontological qualities connected to both its audiovisual aesthetics and gameplay elements and different applications. Swalwell and Wilson point out that there is a general suspicion about the visual pleasures of videogames and what these add to the gaming activity in a lot of ludological game research (Swalwell & Wilson, 2008, p. 3). Game studies as an academic field has historically and still often today operated with a two-part orientation when researching videogames: the ludic elements which include rules, goals, conflicts, and outcomes and the audiovisual aesthetics, how the games look and sound. Traditionally, game studies have been usually most concerned with focusing on studying the ludic elements and this can be argued has created the perception that the audiovisual qualities of a videogame are secondary when trying to understand how videogames functions and are experienced (Kirkpatrick, 2011, p. 48–50; Klevjer, 2008, p. 78–79; Mortensen, 2009, p. 90; Rehak, 2007, p. 147–152). By viewing the audiovisual surface of a videogame as simple cosmetic layers over the very core of the videogame’s ludological qualities, runs the danger of downplays the sensuous audiovisual experience of playing a videogame and how visual and auditory aspects can enhance gameplay (MacTavish, 2002, p. 33). Slow motion is a good phenomenon to showcase why it is important in game studies to consider how a gameplay mechanic’s audiovisual elements are design, to better understand how a game experience is created. This is essential knowledge to have for both game researchers and game designers, so when they encounter this feature in their research or game design process, they can either examine or utilize slow motion to make better end product, if it is either a videogame or research.

The Origins of Slow Motion

Slow motion is an audiovisual effect that originated in film. Its aesthetic qualities and function were developed to fit the cinema screen and have become ingrained in popular culture through movies like Bonnie and Clyde (Penn, 1967), The Wild Bunch (Peckinpah, 1969), Hardboiled (Woo, 1992), and The Matrix (Wachowski & Wachowski, 1999). Audiences today are used to seeing slow motion that highlights, exaggerates, and aestheticizes the often violent and spectacular elements of the moving image (Peebles, 2004, p. 45, 48). Slow motion in film is an effect that appears to slow time, affecting all part of the moving image (Bordwell & Thompson, 2001, p. 197). Originally slow motion was a camera effect, achieved by manipulating the number of film frames captured when recording a scene (Cubitt, 2004, p. 207). Typically, the slow-motion scene was captured at a faster rate than it was played back. In the early years of filmmaking, this effect was achieved by overcranking. This refers to the hand cranking required of early cameras when recording film—the cinematographer reeled the film at a faster rate than normal, producing more frames than the typical 24 per second, making what happened in front of the camera appear to slow down when projected at normal speed (Wöllner et al., 2018). As the technology connected to filmmaking advanced, many other ways of producing slow motion became available, such as playing normally recorded footage at a slower speed or using software in postproduction that digitally interpolated frames to create a smoother slow motion. Slow motion has been common in television, too, since the inception of the medium, primarily in sport broadcasting.

Slow motion has become somewhat ubiquitous in today’s filmmaking, to many different ends. It is primarily used as a narrative tool, to underscore an important story point and to direct the viewers’ attention, but also as an aesthetically pleasing effect—a way of highlighting the spectacular action and violence that is unfolding (Bordwell & Thompson, 2001, p. 197). Although slow motion has been used in everything from big Hollywood blockbusters to small independent movies and has been present in filmmaking since the start of cinema, it has not undergone the same long evolution in videogames. The duality Bordwell and Thompson describe is also present when videogames use slow motion, but it has other uses, too.

Videogames started to use slow motion when the technology that videogame platforms used became sophisticated enough to produce the effect with satisfactory quality. At times old games, such as NES games, experienced slow motion because too many sprites appeared onscreen at once, but this effect was unintentional and the result of technological constraints rather than being introduced by the game designer. It was not until the late 1990s that videogames started to introduce slow motion deliberately—the introduction of 3D graphics and greater processing power produced three-dimensional worlds and characters, and through games like Requiem: Avenging Angel (Cyclone Studios, 1999), Max Payne (Remedy Entertainment, 2001), Enter The Matrix (Shiny Entertainment, 2003), and F.E.A.R (Monolith Productions, 2005) the slow-motion effect gained traction.

Slow motion in videogames is often divided into two categories, although these two categories are not absolute and have fluid borders. The first, which I have called cinematic slow motion, is the traditional form of slow motion known from film, in which every part of the moving images shown on screen—characters, objects, and camera movements—is slowed down. In videogames, this type of cinematic slow motion is almost exclusively found in cut-scenes, scripted sequences in-game, and quick time events (QTE). Here, slow motion has the same properties as in film, as mentioned above. After winning a fight in Street Fighter IV (Capcom, 2009), for example, the whole game slows down so the player can view the final, winning blow and fall of the opponent in slow motion. Here slow motion is used as an aesthetically pleasing effect to highlight the player’s win (or loss). In the in-game scripted sequence in Battlefield 3 (Digital Illusions CE, 2011), one of the characters accompanying the player is killed in an explosion during a fast-paced terrorist pursuit in Paris. At this moment, the player loses control over the avatar and has to watch the companion soldier being blown up and impaled by a pipe in slow motion while the avatar, Dimitri Mayakovsky, cries out in horror at the loss of his colleague and friend. Cinematic slow motion is used here to underscore an important story and emotional moment.

Both the aesthetic form and function of this type of slow motion resemble what we are accustomed to in film. The player is forced to passively watch the sequence because interactive control over the gameplay is lost or drastically reduced. Rune Klevjer points out that videogames often use conventions from popular culture, such as film. Videogames frequently convey the narration of events within their fictional universe through cut-scenes, cinematic sequences in which the player loses control over the game and must watch a pre-rendered scene that adopts the audiovisual vocabulary of cinema (Klevjer, 2002). James Newman has proposed a model identifying two fundamental states of engagement with videogames, which he terms “on-line” and “off-line.” Cinematic slow motion is “off-line.” In “off-line” moments, the player has no interactive input with the game. “On-line” sequences occur when the player actively participates in the game via input—what is normally regarded as “playing the game” (Newman, 2002). As “offline” slow motion in videogames closely mimics film—the player has no interactive control or little or no gameplay takes place—this type of slow motion is not the focus of this article. It can be argued that slow motion in QTE has more interactive input than the examples mentioned above, but since the inputs are so simple and the bulk of these videogames follow cinematic convention, I will not discuss QTE further in this article.

The second category of slow motion in videogames, and the focus of this article, is often called bullet time (although variations on the term exist). Bullet time, which is first named in the script to The Matrix, achieved mainstream crossover appeal after being showcased in the movie, and became a registered trademark for Warner Bros (Gareth, Marczak, Mäyrä, & van Vught, 2014). Typically, bullet time in movies refers to a visual effect that makes people, objects and time slow down while the camera is free to move at normal speed. With bullet time in videogames, time is slowed down so the player can, for example, see individual bullets, characters or objects move slowly, while the camera (or avatar) continues to move at normal speed.

Even though it was popularized with The Matrix, bullet time slow motion was first used in films such Zotz! (Castle, 1962) and Kill and Kill Again (Hall, 1981). Both these films included sequences in which a gun fires a bullet that moves in slow motion while the camera or actors move at normal speed. However, it was only when The Matrix came out that bullet time became popularized and the term became common in popular culture (McClean, 2008, p. 53). The Matrix also created the standard on how the aesthetics look and feel off bullet time should be. Max Payne is often considered the first videogame to use bullet time. In Max Payne, the player can trigger a form of slow motion in which time is slowed down and a bullet’s trajectory can be seen in full detail. Avatar movement is also slowed, but the player can react and position the reticle and camera in real time, giving an advantage over enemies in firefights. The game also uses cinematic slow motion—when a player fires a sniper rifle, the camera follows the bullet in slow motion, and when Max Payne or the last enemy in a group is killed, the virtual camera circles around the falling body in slow motion. The notable difference in these instances from traditional cinematic slow motion, however, is that the player is given some degree of interactive control over certain elements when time slows down, such as avatar movements, camera, or reticle, which continue to move in normal time.

After The Matrix and Max Payne popularized this new form of slow motion, many other games incorporated bullet time as an interactive game mechanic, albeit under different names and with gameplay variations—Red Dead Redemption (Rockstar San Diego, 2010) calls this effect Dead Eye, while Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil (Nerve Software, 2005) calls it Helltime. Bullet time is not only connected to gunplay and firefights. In Grand Theft Auto V (Rockstar North, 2013), the character Franklin has the special ability to make everything except the car and player move in slow motion when driving. This gives the player an advantage in the game’s high-speed chases, making it easier to navigate traffic and cut corners. Each of these different forms of bullet time gives the player a core tactical and strategic tool to solve gameplay challenges that are built into the game (Gareth et al., 2014, p. 7).

I would argue that bullet time slow motion’s interactive nature makes it closely connected to the rule-based core of videogames. This aspect of gameplay integration brings a new layer to slow motion in gameplay and is notably different from how cinema uses slow motion. Bullet time is not merely an aesthetic and stylistic tool to highlight important plot points in the story or give the viewer a way to marvel and take in the action. It is also an interactive feature that helps the player advance in the game.

Gameplay Use of Slow Motion

The bullet time, the real time slowing down of time in videogames is usually linked to the control of the avatar, either to help the player beat an enemy or navigate an obstacle. In Mirrors Edge (EA DICE, 2008), for example, the player can activate so-called “Reaction Time,” which slows down time and allows the player to plan and time their next move without losing momentum or tactical advantage. Bullet time has become a popular mechanic not just because it gives the player an opportunity to more easily navigate and fight, but because it gives the player a massive amount of feedback. The slowing down of what happens onscreen creates aesthetic pleasures that are easier to digest.

Douglas Brown and Tanya Krzywinska argue that videogames use many cinematic features, employing them to make a game session feel more meaningful and to lend weight to the gameplay activities undertaken (Brown & Krzywinska, 2009, p. 87). The use of slow motion is one such cinematic feature that fits perfectly with this assessment. Bullet time uses conventions already established by cinema, and when used in-game, it highlights the player’s interactive control and the aesthetic “wow factor” of what takes place onscreen. When slow motion is used in action sequences in film, it is often to highlight the extraordinary kinetic action and the violence centered around the protagonist (Peebles, 2004, p. 48). This means that players are accustomed to the convention of slow motion conveying mayhem and the protagonist’s extraordinary moves. These conventions are a perfect fit for videogames, since bullet time often imparts these qualities in gameplay. In gameplay, bullet time naturally centers the player’s focus on their own level of control and gives audiovisual feedback to the player to signal the moments when advanced movements can be performed in a short time frame—all of which provide the player an upper hand in combat and movement.

The game Stranglehold (Midway Chicago, 2007) is a great example of how the aesthetics of slow motion found in cinema travel over to videogames’ gameplay. Stranglehold is the sequel to action director John Woo’s Hong Kong action film Hard Boiled. The game uses the protagonist from the film and stars Chow Yun-fat in a reprisal of his role as Inspector “Tequila” Yuen. Hard Boiled exhibits many of the distinguishing traits of both the Hong Kong action movie in general as well as Woo’s trademark kinetic, violent gun ballet aesthetics. The film uses a lot of slow motion in its action scenes, which showcase spectacular gun battles, acrobatic moves, and excessive violence. Stranglehold attempts to translate these hallmark features to a videogame format and as such, the gameplay focuses on creating lengthy, interactive balletic shootouts with a cinematic, and spectacular aesthetic. When playing Stranglehold, jumping in any direction, aiming at an opponent or pressing a certain button will slow time. This so-called Tequila time is a variant of bullet time, slowing down everything except the reticule and camera, so the player is given a short window in which Tequila acquires an advantage over his enemies. This feature tries to generate an aesthetic cinematic effect that mimics Woo’s slow motion gunbattles. When activated, a sound effect gives the impression of slow motion. Color drains from the screen, giving the game a sepia-toned look, and everything moves in slow motion. Although a lot of these aesthetic features are grounded in cinematic convention, some of them are there to give gameplay meaning. Sepia indicates that Tequila time has been activated; this is not something seen when slow motion is used in cinema. The effect is more than an aesthetic imitation of Woo’s spectacular balletic firefights; in copying the kinetic style and graceful movements associated with Woo’s spectacular balletic firefights, the effect allows Tequila to use of his environment while shooting at enemies, moving up and down railings, swinging from chandeliers, sliding across tabletops, and riding on carts. Tequila time makes these movements possible within the hectic gameplay, and the game awards the player with stars the more stylishly a kill is performed. So, Stranglehold’s bullet time feature is not just geared toward making the gun fights easier to survive, it also focuses on executing a lot of acrobatic, spectacular movements in these battles. These elements blend together when playing and thus produce an aesthetic experience that mimics the over-the-top action sequences from film while also focusing on interactive control and the player’s surviving the gunbattles.

Bullet time also provides videogames the ability to markedly emphasize audiovisual feedback for the player. One of the most widely known, earliest examples of bullet time is found in Max Payne (Remedy Entertainment, 2001). The game offered a new level of visual detail and boasted in-game audiovisual fidelity and density that few other games could rival at the time (King & Krzywinska, 2006, p. 134). Max Payne used its own game engine, MaxFX, that made possible new, innovative, audiovisual content and effects, including a particle-based system for smoke and muzzle flashes. The game centers on spectacular slow-motion firefights that provides the player audiovisual pleasure beyond the purely gameplay-related experience. Each bullet is a rendered object and has a visible texture. When the player triggers the bullet time function, the bullets’ audiovisual impacts on the enemies and environment appear with remarkable clarity and detail, such as scuff marks on the discharged bullets, and the dust, gunsmoke, and debris that fill the air when bullets hit the tiles and concrete. The “bullet time” feature that Max Payne series is known for has a clear gameplay function. It gives the player an opportunity to react quickly and aim easily at enemies before they have a chance to return fire. Yet it also gives the player an opportunity to enjoy and marvel at the audiovisual spectacle that each gunfight turned into because of the massive feedback each action produced. In Max Payne, each firefight provides a lot of audiovisual feedback to the player, in the shape of debris, textures, particles, sparks, bullets, blood and sound effects. A player can also see how enemies react through the animation of bullet impacts and explosions, and the enemies’ performing acrobatic movements in response to what takes place. The slowing down of time made this level of audiovisual details in the gameplay easier for the player to view, making each showdown not only an exhilarating gameplay moment with a cinematic flair but also a moment that focuses on the perception of the aesthetic spectacle the game produces, based on the actions the player takes. The game feel of jumping over a table while shooting with two guns at multiple enemies feels richer and more enjoyable because of the massive audiovisual feedback these actions produce; slow motion only enhances this spectacle. So often, any type of bullet time feature in-game is also often accompanied of a rich audiovisual feedback on the action performed, like in Max Payne 2 (Remedy Entertainment, 2003), Quantum Break (Remedy Entertainment, 2016), Red Dead Redemption, and Stranglehold to name a few.

Juiciness and Bullet Time

Game designer Jesse Schell uses the term “juicy” to describe a user interface that provides a constant stream of feedback and rewards to the player. Schell notes that user interfaces that provide little feedback are, conversely, often perceived as dry and boring (Schell, 2008, p. 233). Juicy responses are important when playing almost any type of videogame. If a player feels they do not get immediate and solid feedback on their in-game play, the game can be seen as tedious and ambiguous. Jesper Juul also examines this point, referring to what game designer Kyle Gable calls “juiciness.” Gable’s “juiciness” describes a game’s giving copious amounts of positive feedback in response the player’s actions (Juul, 2010, p. 45).

A juicy game not only conveys information about actions a player performs in-game but also conveys the aesthetic, joyful quality of the act. Juiciness is in itself an aesthetic pleasure that affects how the player perceives gameplay and game interactions and should heighten the player’s experience so they feel more competent and in charge, and the game feels more vivid and meaningful. Juul uses this juicy quality in relation to casual and hardcore game design, which reflects what kind of players will be playing the game. He writes that juiciness is often created audiovisually in the non-diegetic space in casual games—that is, it is evoked via the user interface—while in hardcore games juiciness unfolds in the 3D world, therefore in the diegetic space (Juul, 2010, p. 49).

Bullet time effects in videogames always take place in the gameworld, which means the juiciness of what is happening is placed inside the audiovisual gamespace and closely connected to the actions of the characters, player as computer controlled. This is not to say that any type of bullet time in videogames can automatically be considered juicy. But when time slows down, and the avatar and in-game enemies move slowly, giving the player time to execute and absorb in-game action, games need to juice up gameplay so the feedback in the slow-moving world does not become dry and boring. Players are used to an audiovisually spectacular aesthetic when slow motion is used in film, and the same standards are expected to be present when used in games. Game details such as the complete destruction of the environment, a massive volume of particles that fills the air, an advanced animation system that often reacts to what is happening and use of cinematic camera angles like killcams all provide massive feedback to the player, and make bullet time experiences juicy. This also means that bullet time is often used to accentuate the violence and spectacle the player creates.

To exercise violence in one degree or another is a facet of many videogames regardless of gameplay, style, and their use of bullet time. Many of the bestselling titles have conflict and destruction as a major component (Rigby & Ryan, 2011, p. 119). Regardless of whether the game uses photorealistic graphics or a caricatured style, violent acts often provide an abundance of audiovisual feedback in videogames. The highly detailed audiovisual fidelity of violence is often an important sales argument for games. Violence provides a good opportunity for the player to get the feeling of mastery because it provides rich feedback and offers the opportunity to create excitement and entertainment and to bring intensity to the gameplay. Game designers often see the use of graphic and photo-realistic violence as a good opportunity to create engaging and entertaining experiences. Audiovisual graphical violence can create greater excitement in the player and offer a deep, immediate and intuitive-feeling feedback to the senses (Rigby & Ryan, 2011, p. 121, 125–126). Violence in videogames is a highly graphical and auditory experience, a quality bullet time almost always emphasizes. Examples of this can be found in numerous games like Fallout 4 (Bethesda Game Studios, 2015), where the player can slow down time with the V.A. T. S. gameplay mechanic. When activated, the player can choose which body parts of the enemy to attack. This often results in bloody dismemberment in slow motion with animations, sound effects and particles emphasizing the juicy action. Or in Red Dead Redemption 2 (Rockstar San Diego, 2018), where the Dead eye gameplay mechanic slows down the world, giving the player time to pick what targets it want to shoot and how many times. As this happens, the world gets a sepia toned color, the sounds become muffled, and you often get to see the last kill you make from different camera angles. Blood and particles fill the air with sound effects that underscore the gratuitous violent nature of the act together with character animations that reacts to where the enemy is shot. Bullet time’s highlighting of and reveling in player violence is a convention also found in cinematic slow motion. The visceral qualities of death, mayhem, and explosions have always been closely connected to use of slow motion in films (Gareth et al., 2014, p. 9). Many action movies use slow motion to give the viewer the opportunity to take in the details of violence in all its aesthetic glory. Films such as Hurt Locker (Bigelow, 2009), where one of the characters is killed in an explosion in slow motion; Platoon (Stone, 1986), with its famous death scene, in which the character Elias is shot to pieces; and Hard Boiled, with director John Woo’s slow motion bullet ballet action sequences all emphasize the aesthetic properties of the violent scene. This intrinsically violent aspect of slow motion transfers well to videogames’ use of bullet time and its need for juicy feedback.

In his book, The Cinema Effect (2004), Sean Cubitt discusses how slow motion in films operates with a double paradox. Slow motion, Cubitt argues, distances the viewer from what is happening by aestheticizing the action. At the same time, the effect is also often anchored to a particular, subjective point of view. That is, by aestheticizing slow motion, any embodied or emotional sense of what is happening to the characters is removed and the focus instead centers on the enjoyment of the physical action and the sublimation of vision. Yet the subjectivizing element with slow motion, means that the unfolding action and violence that is unfolding are also reanchored in the body of the viewer (Cubitt, 2004, p. 2007). It is the viewer, too, that feels the impact of the spectacular action unfolding onscreen. This double paradox is also present in videogame bullet time. Bullet time gives the player the ability to focus solely on the control it creates, the feedback it produces and the spectacle of the interaction. During bullet time, the game almost always pauses all narrative story arcs and character development, distancing the player from this aspect of the game. The aestheticizing process of bullet time also anchors the player in the action and emphasizes player control. It highlights the present moment, connecting and centering the player’s body and their perception of what is happening. This important aspect of bullet time, which gives the player time to admire and enjoy the aesthetic qualities and audiovisual feedback of the actions they are performing in slow motion, is also an important quality not present in film’s slow motion, since the viewer is engaging in what is happening onscreen.

Spectacle and Aesthetic Use of Slow Motion

Bullet time in videogames in large part takes its aesthetic conventions from cinema. The slowing of time, the massive volume of visible blood and dust particles and sparks from tracer bullets and explosions, and detailed animation all try to recreate the spectacular sensations known from film. Stephen Prince writes that visual effects can be used to create spectacle (Prince, 2011, p. 2). Slow motion is one type of visual effect in videogames (and also film) that has an intrinsic spectacular quality. Bullet time has a natural emphasis on audiovisual spectacle because the manipulation of time draws attention to the hectic audiovisual action in the gameworld. Prince points out that the Hollywood blockbuster has become reliant on computer-generated imagery to create spectacle (Prince, 2011, p. 11–55). Often these action-packed, larger-than-life scenes in film use slow motion to showcase what is going on and let the viewer soak in all the audiovisual details and fidelity of the image. Computer-generated imagery enables movies to present new experiences in the form of action, places, and characters that would not be copious feasible with traditional special and visual effects. This is the same realm modern videogames finds itself in, because its imagery, too, is solely computer-generated, with the same opportunities for producing high fidelity audiovisual experiences. Nevertheless, as mentioned before, videogames offer the opportunity for agency, giving the player the opportunity to interact with the spectacle presented. Visual effects in cinema have often been equated with larger-than-life spectacle, but they also enable greater levels of realism in the world represented onscreen (Prince, 2011, p. 12). The use of slow motion, on the other hand, in both film and videogames, is not a realism effect but a means of creating spectacle, of drawing attention to the audiovisual qualities and detail of events onscreen.

Prince notes that cinema has always striven for sensory immersion and that this objective extends to other media (Prince, 2011, p. 183). Striking imagery and stellar sound effects are also important sources of pleasure in videogames. Audiovisual representation can increase the pleasure of gameplay but also offers pleasure on its own terms (King & Krzywinska, 2006, p. 124–125). Videogames have always had a strong focus on immersion. The use of the word immersion today generally addresses any type of gaming experience but is usually associated with the audiovisual presentation of a digital world and characters, and the ability for the player to become engaged in it. This enjoyment of the sensory experiences of the videogames can be called perceptual immersion. It is a form of immersion centered on the game-world, where the player focuses on the audiovisual presentation and its qualities (King & Krzywinska, 2006, p. 117–118). It can be argued that bullet time tries to accomplish this type of perceptual immersion, with its strong aesthetic dimension and inherently spectacular focus.

Bullet time in games draws on and builds on aesthetic conventions from cinema and cinema’s ongoing love affair with spectacle since the cinema of attraction. Spectacle in games usually comes in two different modes, both of which are also found in contemporary Hollywood action and blockbuster movies. One mode of spectacle invites the player to sit back and admire the quality of the image—its scale, details, textures, lighting, and other impressive audiovisual attributes. This is often connected to the discovery of spectacular vistas and exploration, or pauses in the gameplay where the player is allowed to become a viewer of the gameworld. These contemplative moments invite the player to look and have a more lasting and lingering spectacular quality. The second mode of spectacle creates a more aggressive, explosive impact on the player. This mode is more of an assault on the senses and attempts to create in the player a vicarious feeling of participating in the spectacular action and destruction they are engaging in (King & Krzywinska, 2006, p. 153).

Bullet time in videogames engages both modes. In games like Max Payne 3 (Rockstar Vancouver, 2012) and SuperHot (Superhot Team, 2016), bullet time gives the player time to take in the audiovisual mayhem. To be sure, the player can not only look on, because that risks being quickly killed. Still, the ability to move the camera through the slowly moving world and to focus at greater length on what is unfolding means these bullet time moments provide a clear opportunity for the player to watch—the leisurely and contemplative enjoyment associated with other spectacular elements of slow motion, such as surveying vistas, is not possible in videogames because of the need to react to survive. Bullet time also gives ample opportunity for the impact aesthetics found in many films. This technique focuses on hyper-rapid editing, unstable camerawork and objects hurtling at high speed towards the screen (King, 2000; 2006, p. 335, 340). The goal of this spectacular aesthetic is to create the feeling that the viewer is participating in or is in close proximity to the action, and these qualities are also commonly found in bullet time. As I have mentioned, the juiciness of the game mechanic produces a lot of audiovisual elements that in large part feel thrown onto the screen. That said, impact aesthetics in bullet time lacks the rapid editing and camera shake typical of the effect seen in film. Editing is very seldom present when the player is in control in videogames in the traditional sense, and camera shake would present a problem in bullet time—not only is bullet time introduced into the game to help the player aim, rapid camera shake would be incompatible with the slow-moving world and characters. Geoff King and Tanya Krzywinska point out that the impact in videogames can become more literally and physically to the player in highly stylized forms because of the interactive control (King & Krzywinska, 2006, p. 159). Bullet time is one such a stylized element since its aesthetic form is well-suited to conveying the physical attack the avatar is enduring. Bullet time mostly takes place in combat sequences, which aim to create a sense of assaultive impact and sensation that generates a racing pulse and wow moments to the player. The close proximity to the slow-moving action can happen through first or third-person perspective. In Max Payne 3, the player has an over-the-shoulder view of the action, but in Superhot bullet time takes place in first person. Although the two perspectives have different proximity to the action, both of them create the feeling of explosive spectacle that impacts the viewer and makes the player react and feel close to the onscreen events.

Any type of slow motion in videogame gameplay cannot function solely on its own merit. It cannot just be spectacle, an audiovisual effect, but must also have some sort of gameplay feature. Bullet time often triggers new audiovisual experiences associated with the game mechanisms. A core game mechanic like shooting a gun or hitting an enemy with your fist changes dramatically when it happens in bullet time.

Videogames do not have the same spatial and temporal flexibility that film has, because the player is always in control (or attempting to be). Games happen in real time and give the player agency, a sense of presence in the gameworld through a cybernetic circuit. Videogames cannot give the same aesthetic experience as film, because when gameplay is happening, the player is in control in real time. Film is composed of a mosaic of different shots taken from many different angles and viewpoints; film follows different styles and conventions to create a feeling of continuity that produces different emotional and sensory experiences. Because of videogames’ interactive nature, they are organized rather differently (Brown & Krzywinska, 2009, p. 87–88). Normally, a videogame presents just one temporal domain and offers a single, constant perspective that focuses on the player, rather than disparate shots or angles. This is necessary to avoid creating confusion and to give the player a constant overview of the action in real time. Bullet time gives videogames the ability to approximate spatial and temporal cinematic conventions as gameplay is happening. Max Payne 3 uses many different killcams to show each of the final kills in slow motion and different cinematic shots of each spectacular kill. In other moments, the player shoots with a sniper rifle and the virtual camera leaves its focus on the player in third person view and instead follows the trajectory of the bullet in slow motion and its impact on the enemy. In these instances, it can be argued that bullet time transforms into cinematic slow motion, since in these moments the player loses interactive control over the bullet time and is forced to passively watch. Through fusing together bullet time and cinematic slow motion, the game uses temporal manipulation to create a feeling of editing, then layers this with cinematic camera shots that heighten the spectacular moment. These killcams highlight the player’s action in bullet time and provide a distinctly aesthetic pleasure. This type of bullet time in killcams is also found in other games as Wanted: Weapons of Fate (Grin, 2009) and Stranglehold.

The ongoing tension between the narrative and spectacle in film has been widely discussed. Critics have pointed out that there is a struggle between telling a story and creating spectacle that viewers can enjoy (King, 2000; Prince, 2011, p. 37). Andrew Darley writes that spectacle is the “antithesis of narrative” and infact halts the narrative movement (Darley, 2000, p. 104). Many others, too, have discussed this apparent struggle, or mismatch, between narrative and spectacle in film (King, 2000; McClean, 2008; Prince, 2011; Whissel, 2014). This divide seems even greater with the growing focus on big, visual effects-driven, spectacle-laced blockbusters. This debate can also be found in videogames, but there it is connected to a tension between gameplay and graphics. Many game designers view gameplay as king when it comes to the experiences videogames should produce. Some famous game designers like Chris Crawford almost dismiss the audiovisual aspect of videogames when it comes to game design (Crawford, 2003, p. 107–115; Rouse, 2005, p. xx–xxi). Crawford argues that the audiovisual elements of a videogame are subordinate to the core game mechanics and the rules. If something does not support gameplay, Crawford argues, it does not belong in the game (Crawford, 2003, p. 108). He warns game designers about the use of “eye candy”—that is, cosmetic elements included to enhance the look and sound of a game rather than promoting the gameplay (Crawford, 2003, p. 107). Other game designers, such as Andrew Rollings and David Morris, emphasize the importance of graphics and sound, but they too stress that videogames must primarily be entertaining and have fun gameplay. Great graphics, they argue, will not save the product if the core of the game lacks creativity and good gameplay (Rollings & Morris, 2004, p. 36). However, this distinction is not that simple, just as the tension between narrative and spectacle in film is not that black-and-white.

The frequent complaint about narrative and the use of spectacular effects in today’s movies has generated lively debate. Geoff King, for example, notes that spectacular elements are often centered around people in the story and integrated into the narrative, albeit to a different degree than in the classic Hollywood film (King, 2000). Shilo McClean argues that today’s digital visual effects are included to enhance and contribute to the film’s storytelling, not just to create spectacle (McClean, 2008). One can argue that some of the same concerns connected to gameplay and the focus on graphic qualities in videogames need to have the same nuance. Bullet time in many games is a good example of how gameplay and audiovisual qualities are fused together. For bullet time to function, the game needs high audiovisual quality that provides the player a level of sensory experience and conveys the interactive control they are engaging in during gameplay. Yet it must also provide juicy feedback, create the feeling of spectacle and, on an aesthetic level, give the player something to enjoy with their senses.

Conclusion

Bullet time is a slow-motion effect that in many ways embodies videogame creators’ desire to provide both good gameplay mechanics and an aesthetically pleasing and spectacular effect that the player can enjoy at a sensory level. That is, it enhances the player’s experience not just as a viewer, but within an interactive, real-time setting as a participant. In many games, bullet time is a good fit at the level of pure gameplay, because it is a gameplay mechanic that breathes new life into old mechanics and gives the player a tool to beat enemies and to progress in the gameworld. But bullet time is also a mechanic that is wholeheartedly an audiovisual experience. When it is triggered, it automatically draws the attention of the player to the audiovisual spectacle of what is happening and the game’s feedback on actions the player performs. Bullet time is a good example why it is important to analyze gameplay mechanic’s ludic element, but also its formalistic elements, such as its audiovisual design to fully understand how it shapes the gaming experience. Jasper Van Vught believes that formalism has gained a bad reputation in game studies, as a result of the emergence of ludology, that were more concerned with rules and less concerned with how the rules were presented audiovisually (Van Vught, 2016, p. 5–6). He claims that ludology: “By focusing attention on the game as a machine for generating signs rather than the signs themselves, ludology is limited in what it can do analytically” (Van Vught, 2016, p. 6). A formalistic way of analyzing videogames and the gaming experience, aims to study the formal components of the game through the researcher’s analytical gaming experiences and is not necessarily contrary to the ludological basic view of what constitutes the core of videogames (Van Vught, 2016, p. 4). The problem with the dichotomy between the ludic elements and audiovisual aesthetics that have characterized some parts of game studies, is that one assumes that they are irreversible opposites instead of seeing them together, as a unit. Bob Rehak points out that such approaches to the ludic essence of the videogame and the audiovisual aesthetics mean that: “(…) this leaves traditional approaches with a substantial blind spot when it comes to matters of messy corporeality and sensate (as opposed to cognitive) videogame experience” (Rehak, 2007, p. 153). Bullet time has such corporeal and sensate qualities, consisting of a ludic and audiovisual side, acting together to create an experiential unit, that are essential for understanding its ontological qualities.

Spectacle in videogames can serve gameplay, but it can also be an autonomous artifact of enjoyment. Players can appreciate spectacle for its own sake, especially if the game creates and provides moments that focus on the game’s audiovisual qualities. Bullet time is a perfect vehicle for such a pleasure. Even though it has a strong gameplay function, in the sense that it exists to help the player navigate and beat foes, it also gives the player time and opportunity to enjoy the audiovisual spectacle that is an inherent part of the effect. Bullet time, therefore, has an inherent duality, a trait it shares with slow motion as an effect more generally. This duality of bullet time showcases the meeting point videogames create between player agency through gameplay and the audiovisual enjoyment of the technological qualities of playing, underscoring videogames quality as a playful artifact, a lived object that creates a game experience (Taylor, 2009, p. 331–332). Bullet time is a good example on how videogames are a material and experiential practice of technology (Sicart, 2022, p. 146–147, 149–150), as the feature can be placed between the socio-cultural media-sphere it draws aesthetical conventions from and the phenomenological sphere of a technological feature that need to be used to be enjoyed.

The manifestation of slow motion in bullet time mechanics in games in many ways differs little from how film uses the effect: both emphasize aesthetics and spectacular qualities, even though games also link bullet time to gameplay and player control. It is hard to argue that any type of slow motion in videogames adds any new aesthetic qualities that are not present in films, especially since both mediums today share the same computer-generated imagery that is present in today’s media productions. But bullet time shows how important audiovisual feedback on actions and spectacle is for the player experience in rule-based gameplay. Bullet time brings new aesthetic possibilities and emphasis to videogames when it comes to the spectacular qualities connected to gameplay. Prince points out that film audiences often don’t seek out spectacle for its own sake. Rather, the film viewer wants to experience and see things they have not seen before while also integrating this experience into a well-told story (Prince, 2011, p. 224). The same can be said of bullet time in videogames. Although many forms of bullet time often focus on spectacle and providing the player abundant opportunity to view the audiovisual qualities the effect creates, bullet time must also function as a balanced gameplay mechanic that gives the player the sense that the ebb and flow of play is interesting and fun.