In Defense of Silent Protagonists
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Usually when I hear people say this, it's in response to things like 'Gordon Freeman is one of the best video game characters ever'. In that sense there is some validity refuting it. If Freeman is indeed a 'blank canvas', then how can he be a good character when he essentially has no attributes of his own?
If anything it would make him a nothing character.
If anything it would make him a nothing character.
I've always thought of it like I'm experiencing a story through the eyes of a character within it, rather than trying to insert myself into the story. As you say, Sometimes the game might make you do something you don't want to, but if it gives me a good reason for my character to do something, then I'll feel a lot less annoyed.
I think the silent protagonists can be done well but half-life's method of having loads of scenes where people talk at you, and ask questions which are just left with awkward pauses is not he best way of doing it.
I think the silent protagonists can be done well but half-life's method of having loads of scenes where people talk at you, and ask questions which are just left with awkward pauses is not he best way of doing it.
Thank you, Shamus!
Especially in regards to the voiced FPS character. Having a floating voice, seemingly out of mid air, always confuses the hell out of me. You can't anticipate it, because you can't see the body language, so it's just... there, with no real connection to the character your controlling.
I have a soft spot for silent characters in general, both in games and movies. One of my favourite characters is Gromit from Wallace and Gromit. And my favourite character in Howl's Moving Castle is the scarecrow, who is literally nothing more then a scarecrow that hops around. Something about a character just shutting the hell up really makes them likable.
Especially in regards to the voiced FPS character. Having a floating voice, seemingly out of mid air, always confuses the hell out of me. You can't anticipate it, because you can't see the body language, so it's just... there, with no real connection to the character your controlling.
I have a soft spot for silent characters in general, both in games and movies. One of my favourite characters is Gromit from Wallace and Gromit. And my favourite character in Howl's Moving Castle is the scarecrow, who is literally nothing more then a scarecrow that hops around. Something about a character just shutting the hell up really makes them likable.
That bothers me too. It makes it seem like your character is mute, or providing answers that you just aren't hearing (through expressions, body language, etc.), rather than being a blank slate.necromanzer52 said:
Chell in Portal 1 is a good way around that: Even if she could speak, GlaDOS wouldn't listen. That opening with Wheatley in the second game was painful, though; Chell was expected to speak, but you couldn't make her do so.
The problem with Freeman as a silent protagonist is that the only thing he's lacking is a voice. He isn't a blank canvas or an open book to which you can apply your own thoughts/feelings/choices. From visual appearance to his relationship to everyone in the world (and, perhaps more importantly in this case, their relationship to him), he is 100% defined and set in stone. Outside of jumping around the room or looking away when people are talking at you, you don't really have any agency at all as Freeman. You're simply a mute with a defined place in the world, which is not what makes for a strong silent protagonist at all.
"When the main character speaks, the spectrum of possible audience reactions collapses and the writers tell us outright, YOUR CHARACTER IS ANGRY ABOUT THIS. NOW YOU ARE SAD. NOW YOU ARE TRIUMPHANT."
Schrödinger's protagonist! As soon as they speak, the waveform collapses.
Edit: You make an excellent point, StryderShinryu. Gordon Freeman is anything but a blank canvas.
Schrödinger's protagonist! As soon as they speak, the waveform collapses.
All Portal 2 did was play Chell's muteness for laughs, I didn't see it as being painful. That part where he asks you to say something and then a button prompt for the spacebar with the word "Speak" beside it was genuinely hilarious. I don't think there are many different ways to achieve immersion other than "I am the character", even in first person games.Thunderous Cacophony said:
Edit: You make an excellent point, StryderShinryu. Gordon Freeman is anything but a blank canvas.
There is a sort of zig zag to silent protagonists, where they only speak outside of game play. It's quite difficult to get right, but occasionally it works, like in Metro 2033 where the game is presented as Artyom writing his memoirs. During loading screens he gives his impression of the situation, whilst during the play itself he says precisely one word in the entire game.
It allows Artyom some development as a characters and to advance the story, but doesn't constantly impose a reaction on the player whilst the action is happening.
It allows Artyom some development as a characters and to advance the story, but doesn't constantly impose a reaction on the player whilst the action is happening.
I think you're trying to understand the issue from the wrong perspective.
Why is Gordon Freeman such a good silent protagonist? Because characters you talk to just talk, you're not expected to answer. There are no rigidly defined "dialogue" scenes, and you don't see him from a third person perspective. It also helps that Gordon Freeman is never expected to talk at all.
Now take Corvo from Dishonored, characters from Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, or the characters in The Elder Scrolls: they're expected to talk back, make choices (and also choose what to say). They've evidently spoken before, and in the case of Corvo and the characters in Bloodlines , even have a history in the world. There are rigidly determined "dialogue" scenes, where your character talks back. Only you never hear him/her do that. It feels weird, out of place. It makes no sense whatsoever to not include a voiced protagonist in these games. Worst of all the offenders are the games where non player characters ask your character questions, pause for a short period of time waiting for your mute characters' answer, and then continue as if you spoke. Which you most certainly didn't.
Portal. How you're expected to talk in the beginning of Portal 2 is slightly out of place, but overall, it's a perfect example of a game where the protagonist should be silent. You just do, you're being talked at, you don't need to answer because nobody's going to listen anyway.
Why is Gordon Freeman such a good silent protagonist? Because characters you talk to just talk, you're not expected to answer. There are no rigidly defined "dialogue" scenes, and you don't see him from a third person perspective. It also helps that Gordon Freeman is never expected to talk at all.
Now take Corvo from Dishonored, characters from Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, or the characters in The Elder Scrolls: they're expected to talk back, make choices (and also choose what to say). They've evidently spoken before, and in the case of Corvo and the characters in Bloodlines , even have a history in the world. There are rigidly determined "dialogue" scenes, where your character talks back. Only you never hear him/her do that. It feels weird, out of place. It makes no sense whatsoever to not include a voiced protagonist in these games. Worst of all the offenders are the games where non player characters ask your character questions, pause for a short period of time waiting for your mute characters' answer, and then continue as if you spoke. Which you most certainly didn't.
Portal. How you're expected to talk in the beginning of Portal 2 is slightly out of place, but overall, it's a perfect example of a game where the protagonist should be silent. You just do, you're being talked at, you don't need to answer because nobody's going to listen anyway.
I almost think "Protagonist" is too strong a word. The Silent Catalyst, maybe? I am perfectly okay with that. As mentioned, I would also much prefer a character who is silent versus a character who is stupid, contrived, and/or speaks just to fill a gap or be heard.
Why Catalyst? You are entity that propels the gameplay and the story. Through your actions things happen, puzzles are solved, explosions combust, baddies are beaten, people are saved, and you are in the perfect position to witness it all. No floating or disengenuous voice to rip you out of your immersion, no silly dialogue choices that contradict your own projected motivations and goals.
Why Catalyst? You are entity that propels the gameplay and the story. Through your actions things happen, puzzles are solved, explosions combust, baddies are beaten, people are saved, and you are in the perfect position to witness it all. No floating or disengenuous voice to rip you out of your immersion, no silly dialogue choices that contradict your own projected motivations and goals.
I'm sick of 'em.
Silent protagonists are fine in games that are entirely gameplay focussed (eg Doom). But in games with a story it's just awkward. Dishonored and the Metro games are good examples, especially since those two protagonists do technically talk (Corvo picks silent dialogue options a few times and Artyom narrates during loading screens).
Yes, fine, Valve gets something of a pass because they're really good at it.
Bioshock Infinite proved that you can have a good story and a good chatty protagonist in a first person game.
Really, if developers can't create a decent main character then they have no business putting a story in their game at all.
Silent protagonists are fine in games that are entirely gameplay focussed (eg Doom). But in games with a story it's just awkward. Dishonored and the Metro games are good examples, especially since those two protagonists do technically talk (Corvo picks silent dialogue options a few times and Artyom narrates during loading screens).
Yes, fine, Valve gets something of a pass because they're really good at it.
Bioshock Infinite proved that you can have a good story and a good chatty protagonist in a first person game.
Really, if developers can't create a decent main character then they have no business putting a story in their game at all.
Shamus.... THANK YOU!!!I understand that people don't like it when all the other characters are talking, and you(or your character rather) says nothing/says things without sound, but you can't say it doesn't work sometimes for some people.
I liked Dragon Age 2's voice acting better than Mass Effect's, but I still prefer the silent Warden in D.A. Origins to them both.
Less to hear, but more to say.
That is complete nonsense. Your ability or want to do one thing does not affect your ability to do another. It's like complaining about a lack of focus on secondary characters when a plot's entire point is to deconstruct its main character. They're irrelevant and focusing on them is missing the point. Same thing with silent protagonists: their "character" is not the point. Infinite using a speaking protagonist relatively well is irrelevant; your issue is with peopleZhukov said:
(And interestingly, Infinite has to invoke everyone's favourite video game trope - protagonist amnesia - to make Booker work.)
From a story telling point of view its difficult to understand why Freeman doesn't speak, why the NPCs all treat him as if he's always been that way. Is he mute? Has he gone the distance in NDA terms and taken a true vow of silence? If so to either of those proposed ideas, why?
To me Gordon seems to be an empty shell controlled by whatever force deigns to take over his processes. It barely passes muster to me that a physicist is proficient in military grade weapons, athletics and survival. I am aware there ARE people out there who are cerebral and physically fit at the same time (I personally feel that the body's physical state directly affects mental agility) but its not widespread or common. We usually see the "nerdy" (for lack of better terms) type as either skinny, overweight or just relatively out of shape.
So what makes Gordon different? No background on him other than the proposed "He's a scientist" makes for weak character development. EXCEPT when you choose to give him a background yourself. But still you are confined to the dialogue at hand with NO way to interact with the other people involved in the story. In that it is absolutely linear and shows no matter what you do there are only two ways the story can go, either Gordon submits to the plot or dies.
No interaction means he is predetermined to navigate the obstacle course of Half-Life's arc, and thus becomes G-Man's puppet and then the resistance's puppet. He's a shell, and all the crazy antics you can have him do during NPCs one-sided actions around him do not change the state of the story. No one reacts to Gordon's strange antics with exception of the microwave in HL1. Its as if every strange thing you decide to do as Gordon is all in his head and the exposition surrounding him supports that theory.
It holds your hand while fooling you into believing you give Gordon a voice. I would support this article if and only if the actions you do (Deus Ex's Womens Restroom comes to mind) have even a minor effect on the living world around him.
I still love the Half-Life series but that doesn't mean I agree the Freeman is the best silent protagonist ever. It feels like being trapped in one of those theater productions that instead of being on a stage are rather happening as you travel from room to room in a building (I forget the term).
To me Gordon seems to be an empty shell controlled by whatever force deigns to take over his processes. It barely passes muster to me that a physicist is proficient in military grade weapons, athletics and survival. I am aware there ARE people out there who are cerebral and physically fit at the same time (I personally feel that the body's physical state directly affects mental agility) but its not widespread or common. We usually see the "nerdy" (for lack of better terms) type as either skinny, overweight or just relatively out of shape.
So what makes Gordon different? No background on him other than the proposed "He's a scientist" makes for weak character development. EXCEPT when you choose to give him a background yourself. But still you are confined to the dialogue at hand with NO way to interact with the other people involved in the story. In that it is absolutely linear and shows no matter what you do there are only two ways the story can go, either Gordon submits to the plot or dies.
No interaction means he is predetermined to navigate the obstacle course of Half-Life's arc, and thus becomes G-Man's puppet and then the resistance's puppet. He's a shell, and all the crazy antics you can have him do during NPCs one-sided actions around him do not change the state of the story. No one reacts to Gordon's strange antics with exception of the microwave in HL1. Its as if every strange thing you decide to do as Gordon is all in his head and the exposition surrounding him supports that theory.
It holds your hand while fooling you into believing you give Gordon a voice. I would support this article if and only if the actions you do (Deus Ex's Womens Restroom comes to mind) have even a minor effect on the living world around him.
I still love the Half-Life series but that doesn't mean I agree the Freeman is the best silent protagonist ever. It feels like being trapped in one of those theater productions that instead of being on a stage are rather happening as you travel from room to room in a building (I forget the term).
I'm unconvinced it's an introvert-extrovert thing. I'm quite introverted, and I'm not confused when a first-person character starts talking; I usually play with subtitles, I pay attention to the story (even if the game tries to distract me), and designers generally have the decency to put dialogue in scenes where it's obvious who's talking (except Bethesda).
In light of that, I like FPSs that try to characterize their lead. The new Call of Juarez: Gunslinger did a magnificent job at it (though, to be fair, the protagonist is also the narrator). The lead character had both colorful panache and a subdued melancholy in his narration, and it all showed in the gameplay. FPSs are a genre in need of such quick, intense shots of characterization--since they tend to be short and intense themselves--and I don't think they can afford go with silent protagonists as a default. I think they are only justified for a very specific kind of story, and it's one most FPSs don't have.
The silent protagonists I've liked have been in RPGs and open-world games; however, in such a game I know the focus won't be on the internal emotional turmoil of the protagonist, and instead on exploration, discovery, and telling the story of a place or a time more than the story of a person. I, or a projected ideal of me, can be the protagonist, but there is an intimate emotional dimension that is completely lost in the process.
In some cases, it doesn't matter: Deus Ex: Human Revolution was the story of a time more than that of Adam Jensen, and it lost nothing; in fact, it wold have been fine if Adam had been a silent protagonist (though his half-whispered rasp really grows on you after a while). But if the story had been about Adam Jensen, newly-minted post-human cyborg coming to terms with his transformation, then having a silent protagonist would have been crippling for the game.
The silent protagonist is like the documentary-style shaky-cam - they're both immersion-building tools that can work wonderfully. But if you use them habitually or thoughtlessly, they're horribly out-of-place, and the audience notices.
In light of that, I like FPSs that try to characterize their lead. The new Call of Juarez: Gunslinger did a magnificent job at it (though, to be fair, the protagonist is also the narrator). The lead character had both colorful panache and a subdued melancholy in his narration, and it all showed in the gameplay. FPSs are a genre in need of such quick, intense shots of characterization--since they tend to be short and intense themselves--and I don't think they can afford go with silent protagonists as a default. I think they are only justified for a very specific kind of story, and it's one most FPSs don't have.
The silent protagonists I've liked have been in RPGs and open-world games; however, in such a game I know the focus won't be on the internal emotional turmoil of the protagonist, and instead on exploration, discovery, and telling the story of a place or a time more than the story of a person. I, or a projected ideal of me, can be the protagonist, but there is an intimate emotional dimension that is completely lost in the process.
In some cases, it doesn't matter: Deus Ex: Human Revolution was the story of a time more than that of Adam Jensen, and it lost nothing; in fact, it wold have been fine if Adam had been a silent protagonist (though his half-whispered rasp really grows on you after a while). But if the story had been about Adam Jensen, newly-minted post-human cyborg coming to terms with his transformation, then having a silent protagonist would have been crippling for the game.
The silent protagonist is like the documentary-style shaky-cam - they're both immersion-building tools that can work wonderfully. But if you use them habitually or thoughtlessly, they're horribly out-of-place, and the audience notices.