I'm curious about this. I'm guessing that by first person you mean with the consumer actually having game-like input and interaction with the experience, otherwise you could just as easily tell your story in a first person movie, right?
No. First, because nobody makes movies actually in first person to the point where freaking Doom
doing a sequence in it was a big deal.
Second, because observing in first person is not the same thing as being in first person. There is a very palpable difference between reading the palace raid I, Jedi
and spotting a group of stormtroopers, checking your remaining shield levels, plotting a strategy to evade or destroy them, and executing that strategy in Jedi Knight
. The FPS conquered the gaming industry on that difference, and the adventure game didn't.
Third, play MGS2 and tell me how immersed you feel.
Buy-in, suspension of disbelief. By making the player an actor, you achieve it far more readily than you can with any other mechanism because simply using the controls they are accepting and acknowledging as valid your world. They have to. Interactivity is very powerful tool in getting that basic buy-in. That's why we have endless Battlefield sequels making more money than most movies or books could ever dream of. They're weak stories not because of the demands of the medium; their medium has made their weakness seem far stronger than it actually is.
Bad videogame storytelling is more compelling to most people than good out-of-game storytelling. The medium isn't an inherently weak one, but an inherently strong one; even if your proposed conflict exists it's easily overridden by the medium's inherent ability to garner basic buy-in.