In Defense of Silent Protagonists

[Parker Chapin]

But there's a bigger thing. You see, I don't play games in order to "project my personality" onto anything. I'm a pasty white guy who spends too much time in front of a computer screen and types up long retorts to Internet articles, why on Earth would I want to take that with me into a game? No, I play games to forget who I am in real life for a while, and step into the life of someone else. Video games are at their best not when the protagonist is acting as I would act in real life, but when I've forgotten how I would act in real life and become invested in this person who is not me. Sometimes I find, in the midst of a game, that my inner voice has taken on the voice and speech patterns of the character I'm playing as, and that's how I know the game has really grabbed me.

That's something that other mediums do far, far better than videogames. That's the kind of experience that a good first-person perspective novel excels at. Video games aren't suited to detailed character studies, and usually come off as half-baked in comparison.

Video games have an unparalleled ability to tell a story by giving the player a world to interact with. Myst told a more compelling tale just through environmental design than most "cinematic" games have even come close to. Hell, Doom 3 was a stronger narrative experience when I was wandering around in the dark listening to audio logs than any game I've played that tried to build up a strong main character.

I love me a good novel, but video games can do it too, and they can do it in ways that other media can't. Have you ever played the Silent Hill series? They have compelling, untold stories told through the environments and the world alongside rich, detailed protagonists, delivered in an atmospheric experience that wouldn't work in a non-interactive medium. Nothing is sacrificed. Spec Ops: The Line told a story in a way that no novel or movie could have, and Martin Walker was a thousand times more interesting than any Doom marine.

It seems to me like silent protagonists have a few places where they work best. Games that are clearly not about telling a story (Doom) or games that let you build your character in the engine (The Elder Scrolls). But games that are trying to tell a definite story, with a rich cast of side characters, only hurt themselves by centering it all on a blank nobody.

It also seems to me like a lot of people in this thread who speak out against speaking protagonists do so because they're imagining a poorly-written dipshit who says stupid things and does things that don't make sense. Of course, anything sucks if it's done poorly. But a well-written character can do the opposite; they can draw you in, they can make you more immersed in the world, and they can give you something else to talk about when the game is over. Those well-written characters are the ones worth treasuring.

 

[tmande2nd]

Eh ...nnnnnnooooo.

Sorry a silent protagonist is just lazy.
I seriously cant play Dragon Age Origins anymore, because the warden is just so...lifeless.
I enjoy hearing a conversation in game, only hearing HALF of one is just silly.

"What do you think about this"
-blank stare-
"Huh I guess, but what about that?"
-blankly stares and then grabs chin-
"If you say so"
"Now what about this issue here?"
-Crosses arms and glares-


I mean honestly its boring as hell to me.
People can like it all they want.

But a silent protagonist is just very boring to me.
Like a mannequin that gestures awkwardly, and transmits lines telepathically.

Not a real character to me.

 

[Drauger]

This is the main reason i loved dragon age and hated dragon age 2 ...... this is also the reason dont enjoy mass effect that much.... shepard is a douche..... i kind of like femshep but still its kind of meh....

 

[duchaked]

while I agree, I also would note that it definitely goes both ways
can have a bad voiced protagonist (annoying?), and there are times when a silent protagonist is bad too (the rest of the game isn't able to support it)

I'm okay with Halo or Metro where the character doesn't talk during controlled gameplay at least. guess being a mute works in CoD cuz you can't not do what they tell you to anyway

 

[Disthron]

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with voiced over FP characters. It makes for a lot more natural dialogue. I thought the interaction between Booker and Elisabeth was really good. Perhaps that's the exception, maybe you disagree and think it was horrible.

 

[Spearmaster]

I am glad to see this article. I believe that a silent protagonist, for me at least, increases the immersion of the game by allowing me to project myself as the game character rather than being a fly on the head of some guy doing stuff and I just get to steer the gun. It is an art all its own to have a game story and have a silent protagonist to make the player feel like part of the game rather than just controlling the game.

Why is Gordon Freeman one of the best game characters? Its because I am Gordon Freeman.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

Counter: RPGs. Specifically, RPGS with a blank slate protagonist. Give him a voice and he isn't a blank slate anymore. Suddendly, the charater has any emotion the voice actor chooses to convey in any given scene. Elder Scrolls games, New Vegas, Dragon Age: Origins, and SMT games would be ruined for me.

Yeaaahh...

See, I hate it when RPGs do that. Dragon Age Origins and Knights of the Old Republic were significantly worsened in my eyes because of the silent protagonists. When my character spends every conversation standing stock still with all the expressive power of a fence post while the NPCs chatter away like actual people, it ruins the illusion. It doesn't feel like a conversation between two or more people because one of those people isn't participating, it just feels like me picking from a list of if-then/query-response options.

It works a bit better in the TES and new Fallout games because those are first person, so I can't actually see my fence post of a character trying to take part in non-conversations. Not that it matters, since the the dialogue in those games was complete garbage anyway.

 

[Vigormortis]

Not gonna lie. I kinda resent when people talk about silent protagonists, and every time the go-to-guy is Gordon Freeman; never with even a faint mention of the mega-popular game that started the silent protagonist trope: Chrono Trigger. Maybe I'm just old, but that's my go-to when I think of a silent protagonist.

Doom and Wolfenstein came out well before Chrono Trigger. And, they too were "mega-popular". They're often included in the discussion of silent protagonists.

Even before Doom we had characters like Mario, Link, and a slew of others that almost never uttered even a single syllable.

Sorry a silent protagonist is just lazy.

That's bullshit and you know it.

Crafting a compelling narrative; one filled with interesting characters, immersive environments, and good pacing; around a silent protagonist is far more challenging than writing a standard narrative around a voiced protagonist.

To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Granted, not all writers accomplish that feat. Many a title in the video game industry is testament to that. But to dismiss silent protagonists as a valid plot device simply because there are some bad examples is nonsense. Not unless you're willing to apply the same logic to voiced protagonists.

 

[Balkan]

It depends on the game, sometimes it works (Portal, Half Life) the worst kind of silent protagonist is the one who is a mute only during the gameplay. Resistance 3 and Bad Company 2 did that, the playable character is interesting and talkative into cutscenes, but when the gameplay part starts he shuts up and just takes orders. That makes the story feel very divided from the game.

 

[Freakazoid]

Really, if developers can't create a decent main character then they have no business putting a story in their game at all.

That is complete nonsense. Your ability or want to do one thing does not affect your ability to do another.

I was referring to this part of the article:

"Also, - and I know I complain about this a lot - but your average game writer really isn't up to the task of creating an interesting, deep, and noteworthy protagonist."

If a developer is using silent protagonists because they don't have the chops to create a decent protagonist then I have absolutely zero fucking interest in experiencing whatever dross they would produce in place of a narrative.

Writing a good character and writing a good plot are two different things.

Reeeeally...?

Because I'd say there's a lot of crossover between the skills involved in writing a good character and a good plot.

I'm trying to think of good stories with crappy characters and I'm not coming up with anything. Do you have some examples?

Isaac Asimov is the perfect rebuttal. All his characters exist only for the purpose of exposition and the occasional flat conversation. His books are still amazing.
See, if a story is about people and their interactions, then good characters are important otherwise their relationships are pointless and uninteresting. But Asimov wrote about ideas, not people. Nightfall, The Last Question and the Foundation series are all examples of brilliant stories that lack any characters with real depth. Still some of the greatest stories ever written.

 

[-Dragmire-]

I see the divide of opinions falling more in how the players view themselves in relation to the character. From what I've heard from Shamus, he's the type of player to view the protagonist as his own character within the limitations the game's narrative provides. In this instance, having a character speak, have ideas/opinions removes him from the character Shamus is portraying, even when spoken to in-game. When spoken to by an npc, the character does respond, just in the player's head. So while the player doesn't choose what they are going to be doing next, they know why they have chosen to do it. Basically, the player chooses the flavor of the food they're eating within the confines of what they're eating. They are told they've eaten their favorite ice cream, the player makes it mint. If that makes sense.

To people who don't project their personality onto the character as strongly, this feels very wrong. The character has a defined past, has had relationships with various people, his/her character is set, naturally, they should have a voice. These people don't live their character, they see it as a position already taken by the protagonist who, as a separate entity, should be voiced as much as the npcs that talk to him/her are voiced. It feels weird to see a conversation between two people, one of whom you are just sharing the sight of, and have one side just staring as the other continues a one sided conversation. In the food example, it feels more natural to have the foods flavor and how the character feels about it defined after being told what the food is because the character already has a taste for it. They are told they've eaten their favorite ice cream.... what flavor is it? My understanding of this character and his/her views would improve if I were told what flavor of ice cream is so good to be their favorite.

...

......


Well, I'm sleep deprived and probably projecting on quite a few people so I'll stop my rambling.

EDIT: Oh, right... I'm the second type.

 

[Rblade]

the article pretty much reflects my feelings on the matter.

the 'blanks' people complain about are only blanks if you don't attempt to fill them. In a well designed game, one where not only do they not put words in your mouth but the actions of npc's also leave room for multiple explinations, you have to voice the character yourself. like the article said, Gordon respondes, he speaks, you just have to wake the slumbering roleplayer in you to make it come to life.

I actually love games that give you the bare bones emotes to respond to situations. When playing solo PvE back in the day in WoW I usually had a ton of 'interactions' with NPC's that where unique to the way I saw my character and azaroth. You have to want to give characters personality without it being spoon fed all the time. And if you don't like that the more story driven games that tell you a well designed tale, like bioshock, are more for you.

here is me hoping we will one day have a game where every conversation will simply give you a wide range of emotional responses to pick from that is the same for every conversation AND let the AI respond to it in meaningfull way. Would this require a powerfull AI, yes, but I sure as hell would prefer a game investing in a strong social AI then in better graphics. Allowing you to create your own social sidequests in open world games, hitting on NPC's and hanging out at their place as a crude example.

 

[Kahani]

every game

Ultimately, I think this little two word phrase sums up the entire problem. Almost all arguments of this type seem to be based on the assumption that there is a one size fits all solution to all game design. In this case, the claim is that because silent protagonists don't work in some games, or aren't liked by some people, they should never be used in any game. And that's just silly. Gaming is easily the most versatile form of media we have. Not only is there such a huge variety of game types possible that the only reason we even consider them to be the same medium is because there's a computer involved somewhere along the line, but they can exactly replicate every other form of media we have. So it's just ridiculous to claim that a certain storytelling device or game mechanic should never be used. Can a film work with a silent protagonist (hint: silent films existed for quite a while before talkies were invented)? Then so can games.

Anything can be done badly or used inappropriately, and often things become overused because they're done right once and everyone immediately jumps on the bandwagon to try and copy that success. But that in itself proves the point - if it sucked the first time no-one would bother trying to copy it. So sure, say that silent protagonists are overused. Say that they're done badly in specific cases. But don't say that they should never be used at all, because claiming any such device should never be used is just silly.

 

[bjj hero]

In Defense of Silent Protagonists

Shut up, already.

Read Full Article

I think it really depends on what youre doing with the game. The Doom marine didnt have a lot of reason to talk, it worked. The Dishonoured silent protagonist just kept reminding me its just a game whenever he sat gawping as people monologued at him. Apparently he had a long satanding personal relationship with the princess but never said a word to her, not Im glad youre safe after she was kidnapped, not to comfort her when whe was upset, reassure her when her world was colapsing, entertain her, nothing.

It just felt lazy.

 

[Lilani]

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.

Isn't this also true of every other silent protagonist ever? At least, every silent protagonist that's a part of a linear story? Like Samus and Link and Chell? No matter what you do or don't say your adventure is going to be the same, and they all have established relationships with the world around them. The "blank canvas" aspect applies to what the character is thinking as they do these things. As Shamus pointed out, it allows the player to decide the motivations of the person you're controlling. Is Gordon doing all this because he's just trying to survive, or does he have some sort of genuine love for Earth and he wants to save it? Does he really love Alyx, or is he put off by her constant flirtations? Does Link really have some sort of sense of duty to saving Hyrule, or does he just want to make sure Gannondorf doesn't ruin his chances of hooking up with Zelda? That's all up to you.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

There's a better way of letting the player project onto the character, and that's to have them create the character. I project much more onto say, my skyrim character or my commander shepard than I do onto gordon. Gordon Freeman has an identity and even a voice, you just can't hear him. At the beginning of half life 2 barney treats him like he was the life of the party back in the day. Also, nobody is afraid of him. All gordon freeman does is kill. You mean to tell me that nobody is intimidated by the armored guy with a goatee who runs around busting skulls in with a crowbar and responds to them by silently staring right into their eyes? I don't buy it. I feel totally disconnected from the cardboard cutout I'm supposed to be wearing as a mask.

I actually project better onto master chief than I do gordon freeman. When he speaks, he speaks professionally and calculated, because he's extremely disciplined. He's been trained not to show his emotions. When I play master chief, all the other characters see the same stoic cyborg whos eyes I am. But they don't know what's going on in his head. That's my playground.

The difference is that if I think "Man Keys is a *****," Chief may as well think the same thing, but Keys ranks above him, so he's still going to take the orders. If Gordon is supposed to be me, and I don't care about Eli or Alyx, then why is Gordon helping Alyx rescue Eli? Gordan makes defining actions that may conflict with what I would do and I'm given no context with which to understand his priorities. If I'm playing a game on the rails anyways, leaving something as crucial as the main character out of it feels incomplete.

 

[Lilani]

But there's a bigger thing. You see, I don't play games in order to "project my personality" onto anything. I'm a pasty white guy who spends too much time in front of a computer screen and types up long retorts to Internet articles, why on Earth would I want to take that with me into a game? No, I play games to forget who I am in real life for a while, and step into the life of someone else. Video games are at their best not when the protagonist is acting as I would act in real life, but when I've forgotten how I would act in real life and become invested in this person who is not me. Sometimes I find, in the midst of a game, that my inner voice has taken on the voice and speech patterns of the character I'm playing as, and that's how I know the game has really grabbed me.

Two things. First, it doesn't necessarily have to be your personality you project. It's basically roleplay, like what you do with Shepard in Mass Effect. You're just filling in the blanks as to why you think the character is doing what they're doing. Does Gordon really love Alyx, or is he just using her to save the earth? Is Gordon really being kind and trying to save the earth, or is he just trying to survive and doing whatever it takes to accomplish that end? That's all up to you. The narrative isn't trying to force a whole backstory and motivation down your throat. You are simply given the world and situation on a plate, and you decide what you do with it.

And secondly, just because you personally don't like to roleplay doesn't mean the mechanic itself is a failure. More often than not those are the exact "tired defenses" I see from people who think they don't work. "I am bored by them," I find them to be dull," "I find them to be empty and hollow." Well, I find sports games to be a total waste of time and money that bore me to tears just thinking about them, but I'm not about to say that means their mechanics aren't solid. They are what they are, and the fact that I personally don't like them doesn't make them inherently bad.

 

[themilo504]

I disagree, in my opinion, silent protagonist are fine, characters without any dialogue are bad, it damages the story since it makes no sense when you actually think about it.

i also find it hard to project on a video game character, because I know that If I were really in those shoes, I would die very quickly and probably painfully.

you don?t need long and complex dialogue trees, just the option between saying, sure lets go rescue eli, and, I guess we have to rescue eli now.

If you expect a lets go to the beach option, turn off the game and go play skyrim or fallout new vegas, clearly a linear game is not for you.

 

[Kargathia]

Special shout-out to Far Cry 3, for exactly proving the point as to why we'd sometimes rather have a silent protagonist.


LISA I'M COMING!!