The Time I Was a Madman in Half-Life 2

[Lilani]

I think choosing a silent protagonist should depend on exactly whose eyes you want the story to be told through. If you have a set player-character like Nathan Drake, then the story is going to be "Uncharted--as interpreted by Nathan Drake." Or perhaps more accurately, "Uncharted--as interpreted by a fly on the wall observing Nathan Drake dealing with all this shit." In the Half-Life games and Portal, the story is told by the world around you. There are all sorts of stories in the environments and the NPCs in the HL games, and a good portion of Portal's story is told through the environments and the general state of Aperture. These elements that the player is supposed to slowly soak in would be undermined if they were constantly being filtered through the player-character's stream of consciousness. Or at the very least, they would be significantly changed.

So silent protagonists work for HL and Portal because the story is intended to be viewed through the player's eyes. It's not about the player learning about how Chell feels about Aperture, or how Gordon feels about the G-Man, or any of their emotional journeys. It's about the player experiencing the world and taking their own emotional journey.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Having played Bioshock Infinite (along with everybody's dog and mum) I think that silent protagonists is a thing of the past, something held onto out of laziness and budget restrictions rather than wanting the player to "fill the shoes". Not that I think Half Life 3 will benefit from giving Gordon Freeman a voice, unless he says something at the very end, in a very 'oh snap' moment or something.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Here's a counterpoint; Why fleshed out protagonists aren't always good(may contain spoilers).

Forcing main characters to have a voice, to express opinions and stances on issues might distance the player from the game.
My prime example being Bioshock: Infinite
Booker Dewitt, a depressed gambler that sold his infant daughter to cover his debt, who murdered native americans and became an alcoholic with a suicide wish, who by the way was also a Pinkterton who beat the shit out of workers when they went on strike.
How the FUCK am I, or anyone, supposed to relate to that?!

How could I possibly don that mantle?

Further on, when you enter a flying city with robot horses, robot men, magic drinks that grant you superpowers and you face off against armies of men, Booker doesn't give a shit.
He is unsympathetic, egotistical, violent and a man of vices. It doesn't make him a bad character, but it makes him thoroughly unrelatable.
I'd love to read about him in a story, but to play him distances me from the game and I'd much rather play a silent character or one with dialogue choices at least.

Give me Gordon Freeman over Booker Dewitt, any day.

Addendum:
I prefer not to play scripted characters in games, because I want to shape the experience to my enjoyment when I play.
If I have to fit someone elses shoes, it becomes a job of sorts.
It's different from a book or a movie where you might think a character is doing something wrong or doing something stupid.
In a game, if you're forced to do something you don't agree with, it becomes infuriating.

As the writer said at the beginning of the article, I'm sure a lot of us aren't physicists who know how to operate guns. How am I supposed to relate to a mute physicist?

I don't think a lot of people would be able to be an absolute mirror of Booker Dewitt, I'm sure not, but personally I can empathize and fathom why he would or would have done such things (he reacted very appropriately when his HANDS WERE BURNING OFF!). I can't empathize with Gordon Freeman because he is a arm and a gun... occasionally cans and bottles that I throw at at the Combine.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I completely agree with Ed Smith, it's far more immersive to have an actual talking protagonist even if that guy is completely unrelatable and a complete moron than a mute who getting into situations that would drive most people gibberingly insane and yet never even gives the occasional snide comment.

Really though, my favorite kind of protagonist is the silent protagonist's close cousin the multiple choice dialog protagonist, since if the writer gives enough options that make sense I can probably find something pretty close to what I would have probably said in whatever situation the protagonist finds themselves in, which is much more immersive even if the dialog choices don't amount to much of anything in the end. My favorite version of multiple choice protagonists is the ones like Commander Shepard, ones that not only have choices in their dialog but also have actual voice acting for that dialog, though probably due to the expense that doesn't happen often.

 

[duchaked]

Ed Smith's previous articles struck me as a bit odd with his train of thought, but this one is somewhat reflective of the gaming culture's attitude towards silent protagonists. think more and more people are starting to want a bit more from their characters. at least I know I do, but I did just replay the Mass Effect series (all characters story dialogue) and of course Bioshock Infinite lol

 

[JemJar]

FWIW, I agree entirely with the author of the piece and salute his balls in laying into one of the biggest, most over-hyped franchises and characters to do it. Half Life and it's sequels are good games, but the narratives are a mess, in large part because Freeman isn't participating as anything other than a sort of deus ex machina himself.

I'm not saying silent protagonists aren't viable. My favouritest game ever is System Shock 2, which has an entirely silent protagonist. But SS2 doesn't have the character ever interact with other humans. And SS2 does have RPG style levelling up of skills - a decision mechanic which ties a player to their character. I couldn't pick up my friend's save game and play his character the way I play my character. My character plays my way. My character's interactions with the world are framed entirely by my choices.

But the best, most immersive first-person game I've ever played is Thief: The Dark Project. Garrett isn't silent. And far from taking the player out of the world, Garrett's wry observations and monologues about the world around him drag the player into that world via his head and his eyes. Thief 1's story-telling is among the finest in the history of videogaming.

 

[Falsename]

I don't know how this has become a 'featured article', it's not even well written or a good idea to base an article off of.

It's just one person thinking up random things and putting pen to paper, there's no fundamental backing to Ed Smith's claims rather than just 'this is my opinion'. An opinion a lot of people probably oppose.

Oppose isn't the right word. Ummm, it's contradictory. No one things of Gordon Freeman as a madman who stares like the darkness of eternal night... or something. He's just silent, from back in a time when games were all silent. Half life and it's sequels are OLD GAMES. We have dialogue now. But even if we didn't, everything would still be the same because silent protagonist's aren't a bad thing. They're immersible.

So no this article probably wasn't worth reading, but then it did make for some stimulating thoughts on my end, so that's something atleast.

 

[grumpymooselion]

I was curious what you had to say, up until you hit the, "He never speaks" thing. I've heard this before, so many times, it's sad. And guess what? I still don't care that he doesn't speak. In many ways, I've found, over the years, the silent protagonist is better than one that speaks, especially one that speaks that's incredibly annoying/that I don't like. This is especially true of RPGs where a out loud speaking protagonist seems to mean creating my own character is near impossible, and from what developers have said over the years it only seems like it limits choice, rather than expanding it.

It's a good thing you're not saying silent protagonists aren't viable, but it's a bad thing that you've brought this nonsense up yet again because it's idiotic. Thief: The Dark Project was a claustrophobic (thanks to the, "because the environments have to be small for the graphics to be good!" era of development) and pale thing compared to Thief or Thief the Metal Age. This isn't just nostalgia talking, I still play the first two games - the fact that I can revisits them without losing what I originally found in them is exceptional. Thief: The Dark Project, after my first play through - I never wanted to play again. It wasn't terrible, but unlike its earlier entries it didn't grab me enough to bring me back for more.

If the most immersive first-person game you've ever played is Thief: The Dark Project you need to play far more first person games. This doesn't seem like an article, it seems like a, "Hey a lot of people don't like those silent protagonists right? I'll jump on that bandwagon!"

 

[MrHide-Patten]

As the writer said at the beginning of the article, I'm sure a lot of us aren't physicists who know how to operate guns. How am I supposed to relate to a mute physicist?

How's a geek or nerd supposed to relate to a guy who works in a lab who gets thrust into a situation with aliens, soldiers and "zombies"? A hell of a lot more, is my guess, since it caters to idle fantasies where you get thrust into an exhilarating adventure and escape your dreary life.
Like others said, they just substitute Gordon with themselves. Since you don't use your Phd or experience with theoretical physics throughout the game, there's no requirement for you to become a lab-geek, specifically.
The premise is that it's an ordinary guy who's thrust into an unknown situation and most should be able to relate to that.

It's not perfect, by any stretch, but I would say it's better.

I don't think a lot of people would be able to be an absolute mirror of Booker Dewitt, I'm sure not, but personally I can empathize and fathom why he would or would have done such things (he reacted very appropriately when his HANDS WERE BURNING OFF!). I can't empathize with Gordon Freeman because he is a arm and a gun... occasionally cans and bottles that I throw at at the Combine.

I can empathize with Booker, sure, I get that a hard life will make you do stupid shit, it's not tough to figure out.
I've had bad stuff happen to me, and I've done stupid shit in return, but the key difference between me and Booker is that I manage to take a step back and look at things and don't let my past ruin my present or future in most situations.
The thing is, that you're him and if you don't agree with his thoughts and actions, then there's a barrier.

So while I can understand him, I don't want to sympathize with him, because he honestly seems like a thoroughly unlikeable person(from the beginning). Like I wrote, I'd love to read about this character, because there'd be a lot to investigate and experience throughout his journey.
But I don't want to play him, because at the moment where you get off the boat, it's you, not Booker, that should call the shots.

I think this is where our preferences simply differ, since I can certainly see why playing a mute character would distance others from the game.

All in all, I prefer a game that gives you choice. While Gordon never got any choice, the lack of a personality and a voice allowed me to use my own.
In a game like Mass Effect, you keep looking at Shepard during dialogue and feel appropriately distanced, but still get to make choices according to your wishes, so despite the fact that you never talked from a first person perspective and it wasn't your voice(and in my case even gender), I still felt more like Shepard at the end, that it was my journey, my story and my world, than I ever did with Booker Dewitt.

The problem with the Gordon Freeman and Booker Dewitt comparison is that ultimately, you make as much choice as Gordon Freeman as you do as Booker (perhaps a little bit less). Essentially both character's are killing people by their hundreds with a female companion.

I can't honestly say I disliked Booker or found him unlikable, but then it was a possibility, now I'm not saying they should just give Gordon Freeman a voice for the sake of trends but Gordon Freeman cant be likeable, cant be unlikeable, he's a cipher, a non entity.

With Booker you get to take initivative through him, he conveys information to you (the one pulling the strings) and you can act upon it. But with Gordon and other silent Protagonists their actions are entirely reactionary, they are being told what to do and what their objective is. This is especially obvious through the transition from Dead Space 1 and 2, in the second Isaac was given a voice and was turned into a character.

A great character cannot react to everything, they have to have initivative. So in that sense, Gordon Freeman isn't a character, he's a figure you slap on the box and what the other character's call you.

 

[JemJar]

It's a good thing you're not saying silent protagonists aren't viable, but it's a bad thing that you've brought this nonsense up yet again because it's idiotic. Thief: The Dark Project was a claustrophobic (thanks to the, "because the environments have to be small for the graphics to be good!" era of development) and pale thing compared to Thief or Thief the Metal Age. This isn't just nostalgia talking, I still play the first two games - the fact that I can revisits them without losing what I originally found in them is exceptional. Thief: The Dark Project, after my first play through - I never wanted to play again. It wasn't terrible, but unlike its earlier entries it didn't grab me enough to bring me back for more.

I think you're confusing Thief: The Dark Project (which is the first game in the series) with Thief: Deadly Shadows, which was the third game in the series.

And I'm not really sure what point you're making on silent protagonists with respect to the early Thief games - Garrett isn't a silent protagonist at all in the first two games, although I'm struggling to remember any in-game dialogue involving him, most of his lines being monologues triggers by certain events or reaching certain points.

 

[sadmac]

RE: Op:

Because a character that's a weird mute sociopath and nobody notices is bad.

A character giving a tearful monologue about their lost daughter while humping a houseplant in the corner to make coins come out of it is worse.

 

[Weaver]

On the flipside, take Bioshock Infinite as a counter example. Booker never shuts the fuck up. He talks aloud at everything he sees, even when no one is around or no one is listening at all. That takes me right out of the game because no human being sees a chair in the middle of the ocean in a light house with no one in it and says "GUESS THEY WANT ME TO SIT IN THEIR FANCY CHAIR!" to the emptiness of the ocean.

 

[Angnor]

I have to say, the way you talk about not wanting to put yourself into the characters, how you'd rather be told the story than be part of it.

Are you sure you actually like videogames?

I get what you're saying here, but maybe you'd enjoy spending that time reading or watching movies more?

 

[themilo504]

like Smilomaniac pointed out there?s the issue of playing a character that you simply don?t like a problem that games with a silent protagonist doesn?t have to deal with.

also i don?t really think making a protagonist mute is a decision born out of fear its either a deliberate choice like half-life or portal which I think would not have been as funny if the protagonist wasn?t mute or they just don?t care enough to write dialogue for the main character.

I really like the way the devil survivors and persona game handle main characters every time they say something the player has to select what even if the choice is between saying hi and hello Sometimes you literally have one choice but you still have to select it.

Most of the time all it changes is one line of dialogue from the person you?re talking too but it really does make the game more immersive and I could easily see it being used very well in both games with strong character focus and games without.

 

[Jubbert]

You're right. Half-life 2 would have been way better with Gordon constantly going "WHOA, THE CITADEL. HUH." or "MY GOD, THEY ENSLAVED PEOPLE LIKE SLAVES. I'VE GOT TO STOP THEM!!" or "YOU JUST GOT BARRED. CROW-BARRED, THAT IS."

 

[OutsiderEX]

I've always put a bit of my own spin on playing Half-Life. I remember my first playthrough of HL2. I essentially placed myself into the role. I talked back to characters, sometimes mentally, sometimes breathed out. Usually making fun of stuff, sometimes taking things a bit more seriously. Having fun with the silence.

One thing that strikes me is that in the Citadel when Breen harangues you, accusing you to name him one thing that you'd created. I answered out loud and surprisingly enough without sarcasm or irony. 'Hope'. Of course, he went on to say 'I thought so' but that's always struck with me, despite the cheese that's attached itself to the memory. At the time, it was immersive; I'd placed myself into being Gordon Freeman, recognising that it wasn't just about survival or just doing what the game told me too, Freeman had become a symbol and as I played the role, it's how I thought of him and how I chose to interpret what he would say.

Another fun thing is seeing how different voiceless characters are interpreted by others; I was surprised to see completely alien to me versions of how other people had seen Cipher from Ace Combat Zero.

These supposedly blank characters allow us to interpret how they would view the world and how the world views them and can give the same game an entirely different feeling depending on who's playing it.

To me, it's not escapism. I mostly play simulators for my escapism. It's more like acting a role in a play where everyone else has the lines, but you're adlibbing and reacting to how the world thinks of you and how you see the world.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I think half life works operating under the pretense that gordon talks, but you can't hear him. Every character in half life 2 treats him like hes the life of the party. Barney in particular seems like he was gordon's frathouse buddy or something. Not talking to people doesnt make you friends. As you said, it's creepy, especially with the amount of killing he does. Every human character is not only nice to him but also warm and friendly. If he really just sociopathically murdered their enemies with a crowbar and never spoke I'd think if anything they would treat him with cautious respect and nervous compliments. Also that aside, you can give commands to the resistance fighters when they're following you and theres no animation for it if i recall correctly.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I don't know how this has become a 'featured article', it's not even well written or a good idea to base an article off of.

It's just one person thinking up random things and putting pen to paper, there's no fundamental backing to Ed Smith's claims rather than just 'this is my opinion'. An opinion a lot of people probably oppose.

Oppose isn't the right word. Ummm, it's contradictory. No one things of Gordon Freeman as a madman who stares like the darkness of eternal night... or something. He's just silent, from back in a time when games were all silent. Half life and it's sequels are OLD GAMES. We have dialogue now. But even if we didn't, everything would still be the same because silent protagonist's aren't a bad thing. They're immersible.

So no this article probably wasn't worth reading, but then it did make for some stimulating thoughts on my end, so that's something atleast.

They're old, but they're not that old. The original Half Life came in 1998, at a time when /most/ FPS protagonists were chatty bastards, in large part thanks to the success of Duke Nukem. Half Life 2 came in 2004, at a time when silent protagonists in /any/ genre were unusual. It was a deliberate decision on the part of Valve to use a silent protagonist as an experiment in storytelling, an experiment that many of us (including the author and myself) feel was a miserable failure. It's high time somebody goes out and says it: the emperor is butt naked.