The Time I Was a Madman in Half-Life 2

[Vigormortis]

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.

And here I was convinced I was one of the only posters on this forum who got that. Who understood that that was/is the purpose behind Freeman being silent.

Games like Half-Life, Portal, and others aren't there to tell a story, in the traditional sense, but rather presenting a story-verse, and sequence of events, from which the player experiences the story. Whereas much of the tale of, say Mass Effect, is told through player-NPC dialog exchanges, cut-scenes, and log-books, something like Half-Life tells much of it's tale through environmental clues, NPC dialog, and event progression. In a way, making it the players story and not Freeman's story.

Neither method is any more or less "valid" than the other. Great narratives can be presented through either philosophy. Which is why it irks me so when I hear people completely dismiss one or the other simply because it's not what they're used to. Or worse, because someone did one method poorly. (thus, assuming ALL examples are poor) As if to say, "Modern games have silent protagonists and are bad, therefor silent protagonists are bad."

I've been saying these things for years, but it seems my words always fall on deaf ears.

 

[plainlake]

I dont really agree, I have never been more invested in a world where the character I play as talk "for" me. For whenever he/she says something that I never would I get pulled out of the experience and suddenly play as a fly on the wall. I think you should look into the extra credits shorts "JRPGS versus western rpgs" and "the myth of the gun"

 

[Wicky_42]

What's better? A mute character that doesn't respond, or one that does but utters completely stupid rubbish?

This. Farcry 3 is a great game, but during a chase sequence early on, the panicked shouting, bitching, whining and insulting was just so out of place as I one-shotted pursuing trucks with an infinite ammo grenade launcher before the gunner had noticed me. The player character shouting out "women driver" insults and jokes to his girlfriend was just really jarring: up until then he was my avatar, but then he broke my immersion because I couldn't identify with such a sociopathic character who seemed to be getting kicks from taking the piss out of his traumatised, terrified girlfriend.

In the right places, written well, player character dialogue can be really powerful at bringing you into the world, or easing plot exposition, or making you seem more a part of the world. On the other hand, if what he's saying is too far removed from what the player is thinking, it can have the opposite effect ("Who is this wanker, and why doesn't HE drive if he thinks he's so good?!")

Though perhaps I should question why the mass slaughter he'd been engaging in up until that point made less impact than a few poorly scripted lines of dialogue...

 

[MagnusX7]

Reading this my initial reaction was that you had a terrible idea, then I read the second page. I like silent protagonists, however I would like to trust people to tell me their story and do it with confidence. If that means that their character needs to have a voice so be it. Bioshock infinite was not ruined because Booker had a voice, He was silent when required and spoke when necessary and it was cool. I think that game had a... shite...no not shite.... ending, but I still see the potential. But since I like my blank slates I would settle for branching dialogue where it's understood that I'm saying what I've chosen. If the writing is a little better than Baluder's Gates that has potential as well. At the end of the day what I want the developers to do is what they feel the most comfortable with and makes the story shine the most. I can agree that they should have every option at their disposal.

 

[The Random One]

I love Half-Life 2. Of course I do, because I'm a rational human being.

I will find you.

And I will punch you.

Metaphorically speaking, with all the reasons why I find Half-Life 2 to be a mediocre game at most.

 

[-Datura-]

I love Half-Life 2. Of course I do, because I'm a rational human being.

I will find you.

And I will punch you.

Metaphorically speaking, with all the reasons why I find Half-Life 2 to be a mediocre game at most.

Mediocre, yes -- ten years later, after most of the industry caught up to bar which HL2 launched into orbit. YOU WEREN'T THERE, MAN!

 

[Aitamen]

Imagination. When my character doesn't speak, it's assumed he says something, or acts as I would (Were I he, or as I would as myself in rare occasions where that makes sense, like in Thief). Personally, this causes a fair bit of dissonance with me because I've yet to see a character act as I would that wasn't at least party blank (For example, in every love-triangle where a guy is hounded by two girls, my response is to fuck both of them, and if one's not ok with that, the other wins... in most societies this is frowned upon, so it's never in the coding). In RPGs, this is more understood and notable in older games: You generally assume the PCs have said something to illicit response, without having to hear them say "We are on a noble quest for the Holy McGuffin! Have ye any knowledge to aid us in our quest?" everytime you speak to anyone.

Further, lack of voice is not lack of character, specifically. Crono is a fantastic example of this. He is a person, and he has goals and somewhat defined reasons for doing what he does, responses to his surroundings, etc. Sonic and Knux, in S3&K, are another solid example. The fact that you can head-canon them in various ways is part of the greatness, and allows for more people to feel settled with the character (For example, I've always seen Sonic as the eco-terrorist that tears up 'botnik's neat stuff to benefit humanity because he's a naturalist dickbag. It's not who I am, but it makes more sense to me in context of the character and his actions).

In terms of Gordon, I've always thought he was actually mute, and was kinda cold *because* of it. Also why he'd be a researcher... he's alone with his data and his work, and everyone else can fuck off. Yeah, lady, you have issues... I've got a brain that puts everyone to shame and a hard time communicating because my vocal functions don't exist. Guess which one I care about more.

 

[StompinPaul]

I think I get the point of the article, and it is something of an issue though I feel like the Half-life series in particular was always kinda clever about addressing the protagonist's lack of speaking.
However, I think that the opposite approach has its share of potential pitfalls as well. If you give the player avatar a specific character, you either have to railroad the play experience so that the character's actions match their words and mannerisms, or you run the risk of there being immersion-breaking dissonance between the player character's actions and attitude. Imagine if at point Gordon Freeman responded to a comment by saying something like "I've always been a practical person, I never do anything that doesn't help me reach my goals" as he stacked boxes on top of each other to see if he could bump his head on the ceiling. Or if a character was preaching the virtues of respect for fellow man while simultaneously lighting people on fire because the player wants to see the cool death animation. The advantage of the silent protagonist is that the player can make the character do whatever they want, and though it will sometimes be odd it won't be inconsistent.
Of course, in both cases your mileage will vary. Some people have an easier time ignoring or hand-waving their own actions in the context of the story, and prefer the player avatar to be a fully fleshed out character like all the major NPCs. Others will prefer to have the game account for what they as the player choose to do (or at least not have the two be directly contradictory) and by contrast are willing to have a specific, fleshed out character for the protagonist sacrificed to achieve that.
At the end of the day, I don't think either approach is wrong, they just accomplish different things.

 

[Aitamen]

Or if a character was preaching the virtues of respect for fellow man while simultaneously lighting people on fire because the player wants to see the cool death animation. The advantage of the silent protagonist is that the player can make the character do whatever they want, and though it will sometimes be odd it won't be inconsistent.

As a side-note to this, this is exactly what Ultima 4 was about, and how the later Ultimas happened. This absolutely can work, but only if there are consequences for actions built into the mechanics themselves (and doubly so if there's no save scumming, as a side-note).

 

[Morgan120]

What a very silly article. The author clearly has no understanding of the narrative theory that goes into a silent protagonist. To suggest that a protagonist is silent in order to allow the player to put themselves in their shoes is to completely miss the point and is a gross misreading of the intent of the writers/designers.

The idea behind the silent protagonist is to provide a filter through the which the story of the game can be viewed. Freeman's ideas and speech would get in the way of the authored story being told. Literally, Freeman is a camera that allows you access to that world - he is barely a part of it, reacting to events happening around him rather than inducing them.

A silent protagonist allows the player to view the events being told in a subjective manner, rather than through the thoughts and speech of a specific character. That is the advantage of a silent protagonist.

To suggest that the authorship of a game is diminished because of the inclusion of a silent protagonist is to completely misread the situation. The author himself says that his background is in film. Perhaps he would do well to remember that games are not films, and therefore use different means of storytelling to allow the plot to unfold.

I'm surprised that The Escapist allowed an article of this low quality to be published.