I think I found the problem with game protagonists

[Woodsey]

This comes up a lot when people start bitching over Half Life and Halo.

"Why is Gordon Freeman a good character[footnote]This is ignoring the fact that he gets voted for ironically in any such competition.[/footnote] but the MC isn't? Wah wah wah, fanboys, etc."

Freeman works because they never give him any character beyond some basic background info to support your role, and the in-game acknowledgement from other characters that you do in fact exist.

You can claim you're supposed to project yourself on to the Master Chief all you want, but since they've tried to give him character (and created a green, boring, giant instead), he fails.

 

[Zeema]

I don't mind talking charcters

but i prefer a Talkie to a Silent

[reviews last sentence] what is this the 1950's?

 

[TheBaron87]

There's a reason role-playing works with tabletop games. It's because you have a real life person sitting with you playing as the game master who can translate any reasonable action you wish to perform or line you wish to speak into game terms and offer believable results.

Games are nowhere close to the level of sophistication necessary to give a player anything remotely resembling actual freedom to be their character. Instead, you get one of those multiple choice personality tests and a limited number of scripted outcomes. That's not the developer's fault, the technology is limited. The way I see it, what's the point? When has being given this kind of choice ever actually improved a game? It's a novelty that tricks you into thinking it makes the game somehow deeper, but all it's doing is either locking you out of content until the next playthrough (and most of the game is not an option, so you have to play all of those segments twice) or rearranging the content, and robbing you of the sort of decent story you can only get when a writer is allowed to focus all their energy into ONE character and ONE sequence of events. Sure, you can go to level A, then B, or B, then A, but they have to be completely isolated in continuity to allow the ability to choose the order of events. That's not how you make a compelling story, that's how you make a fetch quest.

There's the argument that it adds replayability but I've replayed Chrono Trigger many, many more times than any game that gave me "choices." Why? Because the game was actually FUN, and the characters were likeable and interesting. Yes, Crono was mute, but the game didn't pull that A or B nonsense, it actually paced itself well and kept the story moving forward. Even without a voice, he was a character. Not like these soulless mannequins we're supposed to project on. I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to believe I'm this character when he's a blank-faced, mute gopher and none of his dialogue choices are things I would ever say?

Even Gordon Freeman had more personality than these worthless "customizable" puppets.

If you really want to choose whether your character is a saint or a douche, play an MMO and interact with REAL people.

Non-linearity is an overhyped, overrated novelty. There have been non-linear games longer than there have been Nintendo games, but when you've only played the current gen I guess even Oblivion looks like a good game.

 

[Zhukov]

I like the whole Fallout/Persona/Dragon Age, etc style. Give your character no voice, but provide a lot of dialogue options.

I think that's the absolute worst way to do it.

In those games my character is still a gormless mute, but a gormless mute that supposedly talks. Worst of both worlds. Also, the dialogues all feel like I'm just navigating a menu rather than participating in a conversation.

The only player-created RPG protagonist I ever got attached to is my Commander Shepard, mostly because she actually bloody talks and can thus express emotion and so on. As for my Vault Dweller, my Grey Warden, My KOTOR guy etc etc... nothing. They have all the personality of walking fence posts.

 

[valleyshrew]

Silent protagnists are done out of laziness rather than artistic integrity.

It costs less and takes less talent when you don't have to write lines or do voice acting. Even much loved games get complaints about bad writing or voice acting so it's easier just to stick in a silent protagonist and be considered a flawless game.

[On Chell] "The fact that there's already this established thing where you can have a silent protagonist, that saves us a lot of time...Obviously we haven't given her much character." Erik Wolpaw

It actually works ok in portal because she's not interacting with other humans and there's no need for her to talk. When Gordon is silent with Alyx, it's a problem.

The silent protagonist seems to go hand in hand with first person views and these are great for gameplay but terrible for narrative. There's no need for artistic camera direction which in games like GTAIV and RDR is hugely time consuming to make interesting for the viewer. Instead the player controls the camera at all times and when characters are trying to talk to him he can jump around the room like an idiot. It's a lot harder to pay attention to the subtlety of characters in a first person game. Assassins creed was third person but made the mistake of leaving camera control during conversations which made them a lot more boring as you just pace back and forth barely able to see the static persons face talking to you soporifically.

"[On silent protagonists] If you change it then you have to think about a bunch of other stuff that kinda changes as a result of that." Gabe Newell

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

While I agree that in some games keeping the protagonist silent, a la Chell/Gordon Freeman, adds another level for the player to engage with the experience by projecting their own personality onto the character. However, the cynic in me also thinks that a lot of developers do this because they're lazy and creating a believable, 3 dimensional character from scratch is too much hard work.

My favorite characters tend to be ones that are already given a voice and certain level of personality, but then you take that and then make them a fully rounded person by choosing their history and behavior for yourself, a la Commander Shepard.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I like the whole Fallout/Persona/Dragon Age, etc style. Give your character no voice, but provide a lot of dialogue options.

I think that's the absolute worst way to do it.

In those games my character is still a gormless mute, but a gormless mute that supposedly talks. Worst of both worlds. Also, the dialogues all feel like I'm just navigating a menu rather than participating in a conversation.

The only player-created RPG protagonist I ever got attached to is my Commander Shepard, mostly because she actually bloody talks and can thus express emotion and so on. As for my Vault Dweller, my Grey Warden, My KOTOR guy etc etc... nothing. They have all the personality of walking fence posts.

Fallout (& Oblivion)? Awesome. Dragon Age 1? I agree with you there.

I think the biggest problem with DAO was that it was a third person perspective game.

In Fallout and TES (First person RPGs), you are the character (which, OT, is my personal favorite style). Your face is your characters face. Your voice is your characters voice. Or you could make all of that up. So you can very effectively fill in the blanks of what your character looks like when he's conversing. He/She doesn't have to be a blank character because his/her expressions are just your expressions.

In DAO on the other hand, they whirred the camera round on you from time to time.....and you got to see this bland, lifeless mannequin, staring blankly into the abyss. And THAT broke it for me.... so yeah, I partially agree.

 

[Argonian alchemist]

-huge snip-

I'm sorry but... your avatar makes me want to beat you to death with a kitchen sink, you have defiled all that I know and love about InuYasha with that picture... you... heartless... bastard...

On a more serious note, lol. -> OT: If it's an RPG, then I prefer silent, unless you can choose more than one type of voice...

I like replaying RPG's A LOT and that's difficult to do if, A: You didn't get to create a character and he/she will look the exact same through every playthrough or... B: The character only has one voice option (per gender of course) making it still feel like the same character...

If an RPG has both of these issues... I normally avoid playing it...

 

[Vault101]

I like the whole Fallout/Persona/Dragon Age, etc style. Give your character no voice, but provide a lot of dialogue options.

I think that's the absolute worst way to do it.

In those games my character is still a gormless mute, but a gormless mute that supposedly talks. Worst of both worlds. Also, the dialogues all feel like I'm just navigating a menu rather than participating in a conversation.

The only player-created RPG protagonist I ever got attached to is my Commander Shepard, mostly because she actually bloody talks and can thus express emotion and so on. As for my Vault Dweller, my Grey Warden, My KOTOR guy etc etc... nothing. They have all the personality of walking fence posts.

Fallout (& Oblivion)? Awesome. Dragon Age 1? I agree with you there.

I think the biggest problem with DAO was that it was a third person perspective game.

In Fallout and TES (First person RPGs), you are the character (which, OT, is my personal favorite style). Your face is your characters face. Your voice is your characters voice. Or you could make all of that up. So you can very effectively fill in the blanks of what your character looks like when he's conversing. He/She doesn't have to be a blank character because his/her expressions are just your expressions.

In DAO on the other hand, they whirred the camera round on you from time to time.....and you got to see this bland, lifeless mannequin, staring blankly into the abyss. And THAT broke it for me.... so yeah, I partially agree.

gaaaahh I think I'd rahter slit my rists than play an RPG in first person..I want to SEE my charachter

as for the manequien...eh no worse looking than the other charachters, and unlike NV they dont talk but they emote

anyway its pretty clear this is all subjective, theres no right and wrong

also somtimes I resent the fact that in games all the OTHER charachters seem mor einteredting than the PC...and somtimes i feel they are rubbing it in my face

 

[lord.jeff]

Zelda, Half-Life do it well by giving you a archetype to act within but staying silent this gives me the best chance to project on the character and still drive the story. Not saying other ways don't work I'm pretty well attached to my racist elf in Dragon Age and I really liked Zidane.

 

[Rems]

For fps' i don't care.

For rpg's i prefer the Baldurs gate, Witcher, fallout, or Dragon Age(though the third person glassy mannequin thing sort of killed it) route of silent protagonist with lots of dialogue options. The Classic rpg route. This gives you more opportunity to really play as yourself or as a persona you create. It also allows you to know exactly what your saying unlike say mass effect where what Sheoard says and what you thought he was going to say are completely different. It also avoids the poor moral mechanic of two opposing choices.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

gaaaahh I think I'd rahter slit my rists than play an RPG in first person..I want to SEE my charachter

as for the manequien...eh no worse looking than the other charachters, and unlike NV they dont talk but they emote

anyway its pretty clear this is all subjective, theres no right and wrong

also somtimes I resent the fact that in games all the OTHER charachters seem mor einteredting than the PC...and somtimes i feel they are rubbing it in my face

Well (RPG) Player Characters are ALWAYS going to be....simpler. They're just supposed to be vessels for you to fill.

And yeah I guess this IS subjective, but I still gotta ask: You'd prefer to look at Blanky Mcdead-face than play a character where YOU have to fill in the gaps as to what the PC's facial expressions are? I mean admittedly you can do that in DAO when the camera isn't pointed at you, but when it does.....I dunno the blankness doesn't disturb you? Not demeaning, just asking.

 

[Vault101]

gaaaahh I think I'd rahter slit my rists than play an RPG in first person..I want to SEE my charachter

as for the manequien...eh no worse looking than the other charachters, and unlike NV they dont talk but they emote

anyway its pretty clear this is all subjective, theres no right and wrong

also somtimes I resent the fact that in games all the OTHER charachters seem mor einteredting than the PC...and somtimes i feel they are rubbing it in my face

Well (RPG) Player Characters are ALWAYS going to be....simpler. They're just supposed to be vessels for you to fill.

And yeah I guess this IS subjective, but I still gotta ask: You'd prefer to look at Blanky Mcdead-face than play a character where YOU have to fill in the gaps as to what the PC's facial expressions are? I mean admittedly you can do that in DAO when the camera isn't pointed at you, but when it does.....I dunno the blankness doesn't disturb you? Not demeaning, just asking.

I havnt played that game in a long time but as I remember your charachter does "emote" as in more or less show facial expressions, it never bothered me, and I loved the cinematic nature of the game (I guess that was the payoff, Bioware games went down the cinematic route so you gotta work it in somwhow..like KOTOR)

the fallout games is where your glassy eyed exspressionless (can you change that in charachter creation? I cant remember) anyway not that it matters in that game since theres no cutscenes..but having a charachter show SOMTHING eather through body language and such is somthing I really like

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

gaaaahh I think I'd rahter slit my rists than play an RPG in first person..I want to SEE my charachter

as for the manequien...eh no worse looking than the other charachters, and unlike NV they dont talk but they emote

anyway its pretty clear this is all subjective, theres no right and wrong

also somtimes I resent the fact that in games all the OTHER charachters seem mor einteredting than the PC...and somtimes i feel they are rubbing it in my face

Well (RPG) Player Characters are ALWAYS going to be....simpler. They're just supposed to be vessels for you to fill.

And yeah I guess this IS subjective, but I still gotta ask: You'd prefer to look at Blanky Mcdead-face than play a character where YOU have to fill in the gaps as to what the PC's facial expressions are? I mean admittedly you can do that in DAO when the camera isn't pointed at you, but when it does.....I dunno the blankness doesn't disturb you? Not demeaning, just asking.

I havnt played that game in a long time but as I remember your charachter does "emote" as in more or less show facial expressions, it never bothered me, and I loved the cinematic nature of the game (I guess that was the payoff, Bioware games went down the cinematic route so you gotta work it in somwhow..like KOTOR)

the fallout games is where your glassy eyed exspressionless (can you change that in charachter creation? I cant remember) anyway not that it matters in that game since theres no cutscenes..but having a charachter show SOMTHING eather through body language and such is somthing I really like

Okay that I can get, sure. And yeah I guess the DAO PCs did have some expressions, but they never seemed very fluid or convincing. Mass effect and Dragon Age 2 does this better.

Now if only they'd stop giving those misleading paraphrases and give the full line of dialogue. I don't like having to guess.

 

[The Harkinator]

I remember thinking in New Vegas 'I wish I could hear my character speak.' Thinking about Geralt in the Witcher he asks and asnwers questions, he doesn't say much (unlike Shepard or Hawke) but at least he talks. I would like the option to choose an accent for my character (but keep the option for a silent protagonist) and get a few varitations (for both genders) like having an American accent, a British accent, a Mexican accent and maybe two others. Yes I know its more complicated than that, there are regional accents and stuff but that didnt stop people from choosing one to represent the whole country before.

In third person games they should always talk. In first person games there should be the option to have your person talk in an accent of your choice. In RPGs you should be allowed to choose your background. Your personality and morality are normally defined as you play.

 

[Vault101]

gaaaahh I think I'd rahter slit my rists than play an RPG in first person..I want to SEE my charachter

as for the manequien...eh no worse looking than the other charachters, and unlike NV they dont talk but they emote

anyway its pretty clear this is all subjective, theres no right and wrong

also somtimes I resent the fact that in games all the OTHER charachters seem mor einteredting than the PC...and somtimes i feel they are rubbing it in my face

Well (RPG) Player Characters are ALWAYS going to be....simpler. They're just supposed to be vessels for you to fill.

And yeah I guess this IS subjective, but I still gotta ask: You'd prefer to look at Blanky Mcdead-face than play a character where YOU have to fill in the gaps as to what the PC's facial expressions are? I mean admittedly you can do that in DAO when the camera isn't pointed at you, but when it does.....I dunno the blankness doesn't disturb you? Not demeaning, just asking.

I havnt played that game in a long time but as I remember your charachter does "emote" as in more or less show facial expressions, it never bothered me, and I loved the cinematic nature of the game (I guess that was the payoff, Bioware games went down the cinematic route so you gotta work it in somwhow..like KOTOR)

the fallout games is where your glassy eyed exspressionless (can you change that in charachter creation? I cant remember) anyway not that it matters in that game since theres no cutscenes..but having a charachter show SOMTHING eather through body language and such is somthing I really like

Okay that I can get, sure. And yeah I guess the DAO PCs did have some expressions, but they never seemed very fluid or convincing. Mass effect and Dragon Age 2 does this better.

Now if only they'd stop giving those misleading paraphrases and give the full line of dialogue. I don't like having to guess.

if they did that though people would complain about how redundant it would be

I havnt playes DA2 but I read ageis before didnt they try and make things more clear with the use of symbols?

anyway they will probably think of somthing in the future

 

[Vault101]

I remember thinking in New Vegas 'I wish I could hear my character speak.' Thinking about Geralt in the Witcher he asks and asnwers questions, he doesn't say much (unlike Shepard or Hawke) but at least he talks. I would like the option to choose an accent for my character (but keep the option for a silent protagonist) and get a few varitations (for both genders) like having an American accent, a British accent, a Mexican accent and maybe two others. Yes I know its more complicated than that, there are regional accents and stuff but that didnt stop people from choosing one to represent the whole country before.

In third person games they should always talk. In first person games there should be the option to have your person talk in an accent of your choice. In RPGs you should be allowed to choose your background. Your personality and morality are normally defined as you play.

the good thing though is that you charachter actually DOES speak (and has alot of cool things to say) except there just isnt an actor reading out the lines, and I guess the payoff there is theres more things you can say and more depth to it

anyway this was one thing I hated about Oblivion, your charachter doesnt seem to talk in ANY way shape or form....

annoying thing is I kinda WISH I could get exited for Skyrim...but I cant and I probably wouldnt like it

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

gaaaahh I think I'd rahter slit my rists than play an RPG in first person..I want to SEE my charachter

as for the manequien...eh no worse looking than the other charachters, and unlike NV they dont talk but they emote

anyway its pretty clear this is all subjective, theres no right and wrong

also somtimes I resent the fact that in games all the OTHER charachters seem mor einteredting than the PC...and somtimes i feel they are rubbing it in my face

Well (RPG) Player Characters are ALWAYS going to be....simpler. They're just supposed to be vessels for you to fill.

And yeah I guess this IS subjective, but I still gotta ask: You'd prefer to look at Blanky Mcdead-face than play a character where YOU have to fill in the gaps as to what the PC's facial expressions are? I mean admittedly you can do that in DAO when the camera isn't pointed at you, but when it does.....I dunno the blankness doesn't disturb you? Not demeaning, just asking.

I havnt played that game in a long time but as I remember your charachter does "emote" as in more or less show facial expressions, it never bothered me, and I loved the cinematic nature of the game (I guess that was the payoff, Bioware games went down the cinematic route so you gotta work it in somwhow..like KOTOR)

the fallout games is where your glassy eyed exspressionless (can you change that in charachter creation? I cant remember) anyway not that it matters in that game since theres no cutscenes..but having a charachter show SOMTHING eather through body language and such is somthing I really like

Okay that I can get, sure. And yeah I guess the DAO PCs did have some expressions, but they never seemed very fluid or convincing. Mass effect and Dragon Age 2 does this better.

Now if only they'd stop giving those misleading paraphrases and give the full line of dialogue. I don't like having to guess.

if they did that though people would complain about how redundant it would be

I havnt playes DA2 but I read ageis before didnt they try and make things more clear with the use of symbols?

anyway they will probably think of somthing in the future

I don't care what anyone else says, the symbols definitely help. DA2's system is MUCH better than ME's "Sissy/Commitment-issues/Shoot-in-the-toe-then-ask-questions" system.

Oooh ooohh Oohh! I know! How about if they have the paraphrases normally.....but if you hover over an option for more than 10 seconds (as I frequently find myself doing) or right click it, the actual response pops up above the wheel, verbatim? That way it's only there when you WANT it to be?

 

[Tharwen]

I think the worst character for this is Preston Marlowe from Bad Company 2. He has about 6 lines in the entire game, and the other characters tend to ignore him most of the time because he doesn't say anything.

Also, I have chosen to forget that scene in the bay towards the end of the game. You know, the one with inhumanly bad writing? The "I give up, we're in way over our head here" "No we're not" "Alright, let's go finish this mediocre storyline! Hoo-rah!" one...?