Why is Gordon Freeman held up as the zenith of silent protagonists?

[Olas]

And already you?re off track. Half Life 2?s story is told in a wide variety of means, dialogue only being one of them, many context clues and important details are scattered around your environment, on computer monitors and TV screen, signs or posters on the wall, context clues hidden in the environment. Sure you learn a lot from hearing people talk, whether it?s directly to you in conversation or overhearing a message playing on the radio, but Half-Life 2 tells a lot of the story non-verbally too, which is good because Gordon spends a lot of time alone throughout the game.

I acknowledged this in my first post. But while the game does much wordless storytelling, the main storyline is undeniably character-driven. More skillful games have managed to do both, without sacrificing the one for the other.

It depends a lot on which game you?re talking about. The first Half Life has almost no dialogue whatsoever, except a tiny bit at the very beginning and end. Half Life 2 similarly only has brief scenes of character interaction, usually lasting a minutes, interspersed between hours of gameplay.

He?s only a defined character in the sense that he has a name, and appearance, and a degree in nuclear physics. His actual past outside his career is left deliberately ambiguous, as is his personality.

The other characters also have defined perceptions of him and defined expectations of him.

Yes, because of the things he DID in Half Life 1, while you were controlling him and the things he continues to do throughout the games. The characters frequently praise your actions. The closest thing I can recall to anyone actually commenting on your personality is Alyx calling you a ?man of few words? which is obviously a joke from the writers. But in the world of Half Life actions usually speak louder than words, and Gordon is a man of action.

No, Gordon is you within the limitations of what the creators could program. There?s no game where you actually get to talk to people, AI hasn?t reached the point yet where that?s feasible. Dialogue options are a bastardization of free agency that basically lets you choose from a few pre-selected phrases while at the same time completely destroying the game?s immersion. In a way not being able to talk put?s emphasis on your actions, which the game always gives you complete control over.

It's not terribly unreasonable to think that players might want to gather information at the beginning of the game. In a Zelda or Dragon Quest game, talking to all the people in the starting area would net you a good amount of usable information (though not the whole story). In Half-Life, Gordon never asks anything of anyone, even though very few players who would act that way if it were them.

Again, how would you want them to implement this? There are AI?s out there than can sorta recognize human language and react in a manner than seems plausibly human, but these take up vast amounts of data and even then they?re hardly perfect. Plus typing things into the keyboard would be pretty immersion breaking. But there?s really no need as all the information you need is provided in the game. If you want to go the Bioware route and provide lists of possible phrases you could possibly allow for more information to be provided, but at the cost of hugely breaking immersion and slowing down the game?s flow. I don?t know about you but I?d kill myself if Half-Life ended up becoming like Mass Effect.

It?s brilliant in that sense isn?t it? The game tells a linear story without ever commanding you where to go, there are no objective markers, or arrows over your head, or invisible walls. Technically you have total freedom of movement, yet the game is guiding you along a chosen path even if it feels voluntary. The strings that the game pulls are invisible, It gives you a sense of total freedom while not actually giving you any freedom at all.

The game commands you constantly through the various NPCs who bark orders at you. While they don't tell you precisely which direction to go at all times (that's left to the level design, which, as you say, is very good), they create a bizarre effect wherein Gordon has no power to make his own decisions, only follow the orders of others from the moment he steps off the train to the moment he delivers the final blow to the Citadel. Even though nobody's with you when you're moving toward Black Mesa East, you're always, unrelentingly moving toward Black Mesa East, and you're doing so because Isaac Kleiner told you to.

The game does not command you ?constantly?, the game never commands you at all. Sometimes characters within the story will ask you to do things, which is completely realistic. But the game never takes control away from you. It never teleports you into a location, never makes Gordon do anything via cutscene. Every step you take in the game has to be done by the player voluntarily. Besides, Gordon spends most of the time in those games alone, nobody leads him from Ravanholme to Nova Prospect, that?s entirely a self-guided tour. Alyx is with you for most of the Episodes, but even then she always waits for you if you stop and she never goes on without you.

I?m not entirely sure what you mean by ?lacking agency?. If you?re complaining that Half-Life has a linear story progression, then you?re basically criticizing the majority of video games. Even most open world games have a linear story progression that you have to follow to reach the end. Link doesn?t have any agency, he has to go through all the dungeons, get the magic whatsits, and kill Ganondorf or whoever the last boss is. Sure some games let you make choices that influence you?re character?s story arc, often with those horrible dialogue options, but that can hardly be expected of every game. I?m not even entirely sure it?s better to have that much freedom since it basically turns the storytelling process over to the player, who might not always know what makes for the best story.
If by agency you simply mean the freedom to control your character?s actions then Half-Life gives you more agency than almost any game I can think of. There are no cutscenes where Gordon acts without you, the only time you can?t control his movement is when he?s trapped in something. And while the actions you take as him may not affect the overall path of the story, they definitely impact whether you win or lose.

Gordon's lack of agency is because he never once makes a decision for himself. What you have to understand about my argument is that I draw a distinction between player agency and character agency.

In Half-Life there is no such distinction. The player?s agency is Gordon?s agency, your actions are his actions, YOU ARE HIM. That?s the point, this isn?t complicated.

Character agency means the character makes decisions during the story that affect his fate; player agency means the player makes decisions that affect the outcome of the game. These factors are not dependent on each other--one can exist without the other.

Only if you want to strip the player of control over his character, which is fine if that?s what you want, but it breaks immersion and you no longer feel like you ARE Gordon Freeman.

A game that provides little or no player agency can still provide character agency, simply by showing us that the character is choosing for himself the paths that the player is forced to take.

A game without player agency isn?t really a game at all, it?s a movie. I like movies, but videogames have their place as well.

I said as much in my original post. Link chooses to board the pirate ship in Wind Waker--no one told him to do it, and the pirates tried to refuse--and it's for this scene and scenes like it that I say Link has agency even though the player doesn't.
In Majora's Mask, at least 60% of the game is optional sidequests, meaning Link undertakes them only at his (and the player's) discretion.

What series are we talking about again? You?re saying you want Half Life to be like Zelda?
Majora?s Mask does have side missions yes, whereas Half Life doesn?t outside of achievements which are mostly just a metagame anyway. What?s the problem? Are you saying you wish Half-Life had side missions? I?d actually agree with you there, it would be cool if Half Life had more things you could do outside the main story, but none of this would require Gordon Freeman to talk, or act on his own. In Zelda it?s YOU who chooses to embark on those side missions, not Link. Taking control away from the player via cutscenes and dialogue doesn?t make a game more open, if anything it closes it off.

As a general rule you should never have more dialogue when you can provide the same information with less. This is true in all mediums but it's especially important in videogames. I love how the Half-Life games keep the exposition relatively short while filling in the details with stuff in your environment. This way it never feels like you're having information crammed down your throat.

If this were a general rule, then dialogue would never have to be more than the one line it takes to tell you exactly what's going on. Dialogue has so many uses that I wouldn't even say exposition is the primary one. I'll defer to my favorite fiction author, Daniel Quinn:

"In real life conversations people seldom say exactly what they want to say (or even know exactly what it IS they want to say). The fiction writer's trick is, first, to know exactly what the character wants to say (even if s/he want to be ambiguous or dishonest); second, to have the character say it (and in the style of language s/he uses); and third to make it sound like normal, spontaneous speech."

Half-Life devotes a fair amount of its dialogue to characterization, not exposition. If Gordon were to get in on this, it would not necessarily be longer, but different. Even if it were longer, it would not necessarily be boring. Half-Life's "not-cutscenes" are already longer than the cutscenes of other action games.

I?d say the ?not-cutscenes? in Half-Life are generally pretty good at delivering just enough detail to fill you in on what you need to know without feeling unnatural or like strait exposition. However, most games where you have the option to talk to people usually end up with you simply staring a character strait in the face for several minutes asking questions. I?m thinking Mass Effect, Fallout, Dragon Age. Sure most of the dialogue is optional, but the player?s natural instinct is to ask as many questions as they can because they don?t know what information is important and what isn?t, these in game conversations typically last longer than any conversation in a movie, book, or even real life would, generally feel unnatural, and completely interrupt the flow of the game. Cutscenes without dialogue options do a better job keeping the flow natural, but once again they completely rip your character out of your hands. The whole point of Half-Life?s manner of story-telling is that it doesn?t do that, it keeps you in control. If you simply don?t like games that are like that then that?s your opinion, and I?m not saying Half-Life is for everyone. If you?re a fan of RPGs you probably won?t like Half Life and vice versa.

But don't act like this is some sort of mistake, or gap in Valve's logic. Valve is a very competent developer. If you ever listen to the commentary in their games it's obvious they treat good game development like a science, as well as an art. Every decision they make is designed to make the games flow better, be more immersive, and be more realistic. Sometimes they can't accomplish all 3 perfectly, but I think they do a good job.

 

[TheRookie8]

Because he NEVER says anything.

And by this I mean, he never talks, whispers, grunts, pants, gasps, whistle or hum...which aside from Chell (I believe), I cannot say for any other so-called silent protagonist.

Seriously, he falls from a huge chasm, breaks both his legs, and never utters a single syllable.

That's dedication.

 

[Spitfire]

I agree that Gordon Freeman's lack of agency limits Half-Life's narrative potential, and I think this is a big issue that Valve have to solve if Half-Life is to go anywhere interesting with its narrative. I don't think the way to do that is by giving Gordon a voice or having dialog options in the game - it should be more organic than that. Rather than prompt the player with a list of choices, the choices should instead be informed by the player's behaviour in the game. For example, in Deus Ex, you're free to kill pretty much any NPC in the game, and doing so, the mere act of it, affects how NPCs interact with you and informs the protagonist's development as a character. Perhaps that's the sort of thing Half-Life needs.

 

[Parker Chapin]

That's because you only see dialogue as the way of developing a character. The thing about Gordon Freeman is that everything the player thinks of and how the player controls him establishes who he is and based off of those definitions the storyline of Half Life shifts dramatically to accompany those changes.

How a player PLAYS Half Life is just as influential to the development of Gordon as much as what they think goes on in his mind. In player might be new to shooters but slowly gets better to the point where he's able to beat a firefight without retrying. His storyline of Half Life tells the tale of a Gordon Freeman who's forced to adapt to a new situation and slowly gets better. Another player might be really good at shooters from the get go and his storyline is based off of how Gordon Freeman is a natural killer. An aggressive player shows a more aggressive Freeman, or maybe we have a jumpy player that shows how Freeman is a bit of a coward. The thing I'm trying to say is that despite have no lick of dialogue or even the player trying to insert dialogue into Freeman's mind, they are still crafting their own stories that have their own emotional arcs by simply playing the game. Because of the fact that Freeman does not talk, it allows for these near infinite stories to exist and not contradict one another. The silent character you play are not boring or static and have real characterization shown throughout the game.

Hek there are many subtle ways you the player define freeman. DO you storm into a room guns blazing. DO you prefer to sneak , do you try to ensure a one shot one kill ration. DO you use the scientists and guards you meet as decoys and shields or do you do your best to keep them safe choosing to face the brunt of the dangers alone? Do you go out of your way to try and save them? Or do you leave them to their fate?

If you're going to make that point, then you must concede that all but the most linear visual-novel type games allow you to define your character, whether that character speaks or not. Nearly every game in existence allows for multiple playstyles, and by extension, multiple interpretations of the character. Silent Hill 2 even chooses the ending based on your playstyle.

It depends a lot on which game you?re talking about. The first Half Life has almost no dialogue whatsoever, except a tiny bit at the very beginning and end. Half Life 2 similarly only has brief scenes of character interaction, usually lasting a minutes, interspersed between hours of gameplay.

I'm mostly referring to Half-Life 2 rather than Half-Life 1, because Half-Life 2 was the one that frequently locked you in a room with characters talking at you. You say it wasn't much, but it was enough to seriously annoy me.

There's a quote from one of the letters of John Adams that I feel is relevant here: "It is, to be sure, a punishment to hear other men talk five hours every day, and not be at liberty to talk at all myself."

Yes, because of the things he DID in Half Life 1, while you were controlling him and the things he continues to do throughout the games. The characters frequently praise your actions. The closest thing I can recall to anyone actually commenting on your personality is Alyx calling you a ?man of few words? which is obviously a joke from the writers. But in the world of Half Life actions usually speak louder than words, and Gordon is a man of action.

Yahtzee commented on that once. He said it was weird that the Resistance regarded Gordon as the new Jesus, because all he (Yahtzee) remembered him (Gordon) doing was running around in underground tunnels failing to rescue his coworkers.

In any case, the way characters act around you suggests that they expect you to be friendly, personable, and happy to see them. You can't make Gordon an asshole, no matter how many toilet paper rolls you throw in peoples' faces.

You're probably going to say that's a limitation of what the developers were able to program. That's exactly why simply making Gordon silent does not magically grant the player agency. Even with Gordon silent, you're not truly in control of him, you're only allowed to go through the set scenarios that the programmers defined. Gordon's silence does nothing more than apply a smokescreen to this fact.

Again, how would you want them to implement this? There are AI?s out there than can sorta recognize human language and react in a manner than seems plausibly human, but these take up vast amounts of data and even then they?re hardly perfect. Plus typing things into the keyboard would be pretty immersion breaking. But there?s really no need as all the information you need is provided in the game. If you want to go the Bioware route and provide lists of possible phrases you could possibly allow for more information to be provided, but at the cost of hugely breaking immersion and slowing down the game?s flow. I don?t know about you but I?d kill myself if Half-Life ended up becoming like Mass Effect.

Walk up to NPC.

Press E.

"Those guys? What, you've never seen a Metro Cop before? Must be nice where you come from."

This suggests that Gordon asked a question, but does not actually show us said question, leaving us to imagine exactly what was said. This is pretty much what games with silent protagonists have been doing for years before and after Half-Life 2.

But you know, maybe you're right, and that's not necessary. My problem is, and has always been, Gordon's and my own lack of agency. This is more of a side thing.

The game does not command you ?constantly?, the game never commands you at all. Sometimes characters within the story will ask you to do things, which is completely realistic. But the game never takes control away from you. It never teleports you into a location, never makes Gordon do anything via cutscene. Every step you take in the game has to be done by the player voluntarily. Besides, Gordon spends most of the time in those games alone, nobody leads him from Ravanholme to Nova Prospect, that?s entirely a self-guided tour. Alyx is with you for most of the Episodes, but even then she always waits for you if you stop and she never goes on without you.

If someone says to me, "Gordon, go to Black Mesa East," and my choice is to either go to Black Mesa East or turn off the game and do something else, then the game has given me a command, whether it came from a pop-up prompt or the mouth of a character. If you call that player agency, then like I said above, you must concede that nearly every game in the world offers player agency, whether the protagonist speaks or not, because you always have the choice to stop playing.

Also, when you emerge from Ravenholm, you stop at a Resistance outpost where Alyx contacts you and tells you her father's in Nova Prospekt. The Resistance members that supply you with a car point you toward the highway you're to take. Along the way, you stop at another Resistance post, where they make sure you're still on the right track. There are stretches of alone time between these points, but nothing you're allowed to do during these interims constitutes a meaningful, fate-altering decision.

In Half-Life there is no such distinction. The player?s agency is Gordon?s agency, your actions are his actions, YOU ARE HIM. That?s the point, this isn?t complicated.

If that's the case, then Gordon's entire agency is the choice between doing what people tell him to do, or turning off the game and doing something else. That's not a choice at all; that reminds me of the kinds of choices prisoners are given before they're walked to the gallows.

What series are we talking about again? You?re saying you want Half Life to be like Zelda?
Majora?s Mask does have side missions yes, whereas Half Life doesn?t outside of achievements which are mostly just a metagame anyway. What?s the problem? Are you saying you wish Half-Life had side missions? I?d actually agree with you there, it would be cool if Half Life had more things you could do outside the main story, but none of this would require Gordon Freeman to talk, or act on his own. In Zelda it?s YOU who chooses to embark on those side missions, not Link. Taking control away from the player via cutscenes and dialogue doesn?t make a game more open, if anything it closes it off.

My point is that Zelda, and other games with silent protagonists, show us ways a character can have agency while remaining silent. I feel we've gotten a little off track. While I said I would like to see Gordon gain a voice, this was a personal opinion that I probably should have refrained from voicing. My problem with Gordon is his lack of agency; giving him a voice is one way to fix that, but it's not the only way.

I?d say the ?not-cutscenes? in Half-Life are generally pretty good at delivering just enough detail to fill you in on what you need to know without feeling unnatural or like strait exposition. However, most games where you have the option to talk to people usually end up with you simply staring a character strait in the face for several minutes asking questions. I?m thinking Mass Effect, Fallout, Dragon Age. Sure most of the dialogue is optional, but the player?s natural instinct is to ask as many questions as they can because they don?t know what information is important and what isn?t, these in game conversations typically last longer than any conversation in a movie, book, or even real life would, generally feel unnatural, and completely interrupt the flow of the game. Cutscenes without dialogue options do a better job keeping the flow natural, but once again they completely rip your character out of your hands. The whole point of Half-Life?s manner of story-telling is that it doesn?t do that, it keeps you in control. If you simply don?t like games that are like that then that?s your opinion, and I?m not saying Half-Life is for everyone. If you?re a fan of RPGs you probably won?t like Half Life and vice versa.

But don't act like this is some sort of mistake, or gap in Valve's logic. Valve is a very competent developer. If you ever listen to the commentary in their games it's obvious they treat good game development like a science, as well as an art. Every decision they make is designed to make the games flow better, be more immersive, and be more realistic. Sometimes they can't accomplish all 3 perfectly, but I think they do a good job.

Half-Life 2 gives you no more control than Silent Hill 2 or Resident Evil 4. Gordon's silence gives only the illusion of control (although in my case, it does the opposite). Showing that Gordon is making decisions for himself, whether he does so with words or not, would not take control away from the player because the player never had that control to begin with. The control was in the hands of the NPCs who gave you orders.

I've listened to Valve's commentary. I know they know what they're doing. But that doesn't mean they're infallible. Gordon's silence in Half-Life 2 was an experiment to try to allow player agency in a linear game, but it didn't work for a number of reasons. That's what happens in science, you perform experiments, and sometimes they don't work.

 

[shadowuser10141]

The only reason Gordon Freeman could ever be considered the height of silent protagonists is because he is in Half Life, that's the only reason for me. I don't see Gordon as anything special at all, I have zero connection with him.

I can relate to him. He is a nerdy academic instead of a badass marine.

 

[Smeggs]

I don't think he's the Zenith. It's the supporting cast around him that built him up to be one of the most popular silent protags in gaming, because as he even lacks grunts or pained noises, it's left all to the player to fill in for Gordon's thoughts and speech. Good fellows make for good times.

Also, if anyone ever voiced Gordon, they'd need to be gruff, but no so much as gravel in a blender...like, not David Hayter gruff.

I'd like someone like Peter Weller, like how he voiced Batman in The Dark Knight Returns.

 

[Olas]

Walk up to NPC.

Press E.

"Those guys? What, you've never seen a Metro Cop before? Must be nice where you come from."

This suggests that Gordon asked a question, but does not actually show us said question, leaving us to imagine exactly what was said. This is pretty much what games with silent protagonists have been doing for years before and after Half-Life 2.

Characters already start talking to you when you walk up to them in the game, I'm not sure what pressing e would accomplish. I guess this idea could sorta work in a "I initiated the conversation" kind of way. Another idea I've heard, though it sounds a bit silly as well, is having Gordon nod to yes or no questions. Vertically for yes, horizontally for no. Again this all assumes there's some huge pressing need for Gordon to give feedback to characters which I've never really felt, creating an awkward solution for a problem that never really existed to begin with.

If someone says to me, "Gordon, go to Black Mesa East," and my choice is to either go to Black Mesa East or turn off the game and do something else, then the game has given me a command, whether it came from a pop-up prompt or the mouth of a character. If you call that player agency, then like I said above, you must concede that nearly every game in the world offers player agency, whether the protagonist speaks or not, because you always have the choice to stop playing.

Also, when you emerge from Ravenholm, you stop at a Resistance outpost where Alyx contacts you and tells you her father's in Nova Prospekt. The Resistance members that supply you with a car point you toward the highway you're to take. Along the way, you stop at another Resistance post, where they make sure you're still on the right track. There are stretches of alone time between these points, but nothing you're allowed to do during these interims constitutes a meaningful, fate-altering decision.

If that's the case, then Gordon's entire agency is the choice between doing what people tell him to do, or turning off the game and doing something else. That's not a choice at all; that reminds me of the kinds of choices prisoners are given before they're walked to the gallows.

That's because it's a LINEAR GAME. In linear games you follow a set path. You complete the next mission to advance. That's how it works. If that's really your whole issue, you could have made this thread about lots of games. The Halo games are linear, why not complain about Master Chief always following Cortana's orders? Why not complain about Link always having to complete the next dungeon that opens up for him? Or Mario always advancing to the next stage. Most games are linear, it's not often that you get to do things that dramatically alter path of the game.

If you want to discuss the pros and cons of videogames with linear stories I'm fine with having that discussion, but I thought this was about Gordon Freeman's speech impediment.

My point is that Zelda, and other games with silent protagonists, show us ways a character can have agency while remaining silent. I feel we've gotten a little off track. While I said I would like to see Gordon gain a voice, this was a personal opinion that I probably should have refrained from voicing. My problem with Gordon is his lack of agency; giving him a voice is one way to fix that, but it's not the only way.

Please explain, because I still don't understand, how exactly the Legend of Zelda Games give you "agency". Because where I'm standing Link has to travel through a sequence of dungeons, usually in a set order, beat a sequence of bosses, acquire an arsenal of weapons, and then fight Ganondorf in a final showdown. That's not agency, that's a linear story. All the little side missions and games you can complete in Zelda don't ultimately change the game's main story arc, they're just extra things you can do if you choose. In Ravenholm you encounter a zombie who's trapped inside a metal cage and you have the option of either turning on a gas pump and burning him alive, or simply walking away and letting him be. Agency? In Half Life 2 Episode 2 you have a race with Dog which you can either win or lose, or not participate in at all and just drive lazily in circles. Agency? Ultimately though none of this chances the game's later events.

Half-Life 2 gives you no more control than Silent Hill 2 or Resident Evil 4.

Because those are both linear games. Well RE4 is at least. I've never played Silent Hill 2 so I wouldn't know.

Gordon's silence gives only the illusion of control

It gives the PLAYER more control over Gordon, it doesn't give Gordon more control over the story. That's not the control I'm talking about. That type of control has nothing to do with Gordon talking or not so I don't see why it's all you bring up.

Showing that Gordon is making decisions for himself, whether he does so with words or not, would not take control away from the player because the player never had that control to begin with.

Gordon making decisions on his own would take away the PLAYER'S control over GORDON. THIS ISN'T HARD? It's a linear game, nothing you do will affect the game's direction but you can at least control everything Gordon does along that linear path. Things like whether you explore a whole house for supplies, or just skip over it, or the exact placement of a bullet to a zombie's head. Gordon acts as a direct extension of your button pressing, that's why it feels like YOU ARE HIM, and not that he's a totally autonomous person that you just occasionally get to slip into for brief intervals.

The control was in the hands of the NPCs who gave you orders.

Speaking of NPC's giving you orders, I believe Dr. Breen gives you quite a few orders throughout the game as well. He's constantly telling you to stop, turn yourself in, or join him, yet you never do. Towards the very end his face appears on every wall terminal explaining why you're making a mistake. You can ignore it, or use your super gravity gun to tear the terminals off the wall and throw them across the room, but you will always defy him and eventually defeat him. For an NPC who gives you orders he seems to have very little control over you. You see, because he's the bad guy and thus the linear story demands that you eventually defeat him. Following a predestined path that the game want's you to go in isn't the same thing as always obeying everyone in the story.

Let's look at another example of this: Portal. Portal follows the exact same design philosophy as Half Life: mute protagonist, linear story. There's only one major character in that game besides yourself, and she spends the latter half of the game telling you to stop what you're doing, and you spend the entire latter half of the game defying her. Defiance is almost the central point of the game, yet you're still technically forced into doing only one thing, because of it being a linear story.

They had a specific story they wanted to tell, they didn't want player's choosing how the story ends, because there was only one proper ending. Perhaps you don't like that kind of game, perhaps linear stories aren't your cup of tea, but it's how Valve's games work.

I've listened to Valve's commentary. I know they know what they're doing. But that doesn't mean they're infallible. Gordon's silence in Half-Life 2 was an experiment to try to allow player agency in a linear game, but it didn't work for a number of reasons. That's what happens in science, you perform experiments, and sometimes they don't work.

Except Half-Life is one of the most beloved franchises in existence, as is Portal, which directly spawned from it. Both Gordon and Chell are very well received characters. If this experiment failed, it failed horribly.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Because he was in very good games.

That's about all there is to it.

Oh you ****, you just stole my answer word for word.

And here I was all ready to post my short and sweet retort like a badass...

*sigh*

 

[G-Force]

snip

By giving players a cutscene based off of their actions is that while the game does mold itself to fit the player's ability the cutscenes presented are final and there leaves very little to interpritation. As opposed to having a silent character wich allows the very story itself to be molded and shapped by the player.

Example, in the events of Half Life 1 G-Man expresses an interest in Gordon Freeman and reguards him as special. Exactly what trait sparked this interest is through the player's actions and mindsent

An FPS expert who just blazed through the game would so an interest in Freeman due to him being a natural warrior on account he never shot a gun before.

An FPS rookie who gets better at the game shows an adaptive Freeman who survived through quick thinking and a will to survive.

An aggressive player shows a Freeman with no fear who can charge into danger

A defensive player shows a cautious Freeman who carefully plans his actions

The list goes on. Due to the fact that Freeman never speaks, the core narrative and the ending can accomadate all these interpritations. The big problem with cutscenes and voiced characters is that their responses are fixed. Chris in Resident Evil will always say and react the same way to a boss fight and keeps his personality to a single type. Meanwhile every player will have a different emtotional response to a large firefight: they can be gleeful for more battles, scared, bloodthirty, apprehensive, nervous, relaxed and among others. Because of the fact that Gordon doesn't talk, my internal monologue is not shattered by what he says. I can't immerse myself as a character where I see a boss battle that makes me nervous but the player character is shouting phrases like "HELL YEAH! and "Piece of cake." You mention other silent protagonists and it is true that they too are easily defined by the player and that's the point. Developers choose to make these characters silent so we can interpret them through our thoughts and actions.

 

[rob_simple]

D'you know what's really weird? The only time I ever hear anyone mention Gordon Freeman is when they say, 'why does everyone think Gordon Freeman is so great?'

Maybe, just maybe, if people didn't keep asking why he was so great, people wouldn't rush to defend him, making it seem like more people give a damn than they actually do.

If I had to posit another solution, though, I'd say that it's because he has a face and a distinctive design. I find it hard to get invested in Faceless Soldier #1473 in whatever military shooter I happen to be playing, but just being able to see what Gordon looks like allows me to build him a personality and a life of my choosing.

 

[Parker Chapin]

Snip

You should read my posts more thoroughly.

You're exercising quite a bit of doublethink here. You're telling me that Half-Life offers complete control over Gordon, while simultaneously telling me that your paths are constrained because it's a linear game. What you seem to mean is that it gives you control because you must press W to walk forward, but if that's your case, then you must concede that nearly every game in the world gives you such control. Even Call of Duty games require you to walk forward for the missions to progress.

I'm perfectly fine with games being linear as long as they don't bullshit me about it. I've said as much in this thread already. Don't tell me that "Gordon is me," then turn around and say "Only within these defined parameters." You can't have it both ways. If your game is linear, make it linear; but make sure the protagonist has the power to make decisions during the story.

Once again, you confuse player control with character control. I know that in Zelda games, you're required to go through the dungeons; I say Link has agency while the player does not, because it's clear in many cases that Link is the one making the decisions, not someone else. And those games at least let you explore the world, meet side characters, and go through the story at your own pace. Again, I'm fine with the game not offering ME control, as long as it puts me in the shoes of a protagonist who DOES have control. Don't try to FOOL me into thinking I'm in control when I'm not.

It gives the PLAYER more control over Gordon, it doesn't give Gordon more control over the story. That's not the control I'm talking about. That type of control has nothing to do with Gordon talking or not so I don't see why it's all you bring up.

Gordon making decisions on his own would take away the PLAYER'S control over GORDON. THIS ISN'T HARD?

Please refrain from personal attacks. Your ever-louder shouting about the PLAYER'S control over GORDON does not make it true. I keep bringing up Gordon's silence because you seem to think that alone gives the player control over him even within the game's linear confines. If you had the exact same game, but the idea to go to Black Mesa East came from Gordon instead of Kleiner, that would rip control from the player, you seem to think. Yet you admitted in your last post that Half-Life 2 gives no more control than Resident Evil 4, a game with both a speaking protagonist and cutscenes. Hell, while Half-Life 2 plops an optional house on the side of its linear path, Silent Hill 2 lets you explore entire city blocks and buildings for optional symbolism--thus giving the player MORE control than Half-Life does, even WITH a speaking protagonist!

Re: Dr. Breen:

One scene that sticks in my memory is the one where Dr. Breen has Gordon, Eli and Alyx in his office. He says to Gordon, "You've made a useful pawn for those who control you," and Alyx shouts, "Don't listen to him, Gordon!" This was interesting to me because it seemed to hint that the Resistance was putting on a facade, that they had been acting friendly with Gordon while knowingly pulling his puppet strings, and that Alyx was trying to prevent you from seeing the truth. The Vorts' confrontation with the G-Man in Episode One may have been not a heroic rescue, but a capturing of an important chess piece. Unfortunately, this is never further explored, and for the remainder of the Episodes, the games assume you're perfectly happy with the Resistance and the Vortigaunts.

Gordon may defy Dr. Breen, but he still wasn't the one who made the decision to invade the Citadel. That was Barney. But it's interesting that you say Gordon made the choice to defy Dr. Breen, even though in the very same breath you claim that for Gordon to make any sort of choice would destroy your immersion. You also point out--rightly--that Chell made the decision to go after GLaDOS (you'll notice I haven't criticized Portal in this thread--don't put words in my mouth), and this did not rip control of Chell from you as you claim it would for Gordon.

If Gordon did defy Dr. Breen by his own agency, then that is exactly the sort of thing the Half-Life series needs more of.

Except Half-Life is one of the most beloved franchises in existence, as is Portal, which directly spawned from it. Both Gordon and Chell are very well received characters. If this experiment failed, it failed horribly.

Daniel Quinn said that things that work are invisible. Valve themselves said that if they do a good job, you shouldn't notice that they did a good job. I have a theory that the reason Gordon is the most talked-about silent protagonist is because his silence is the most visible. Others in this thread have said the same thing. We don't talk about Link's or Crono's or the Kid's silence because their silence just works, and is therefore invisible--but we do talk about Gordon's silence, because he's the one for whom whether it works is debatable.

 

[Parker Chapin]

D'you know what's really weird? The only time I ever hear anyone mention Gordon Freeman is when they say, 'why does everyone think Gordon Freeman is so great?'

Maybe, just maybe, if people didn't keep asking why he was so great, people wouldn't rush to defend him, making it seem like more people give a damn than they actually do.

If I had to posit another solution, though, I'd say that it's because he has a face and a distinctive design. I find it hard to get invested in Faceless Soldier #1473 in whatever military shooter I happen to be playing, but just being able to see what Gordon looks like allows me to build him a personality and a life of my choosing.

You're saying I must be wrong because Gordon isn't as widely praised as I think, while others are saying I must be wrong because Gordon is widely praised. That's an argument I just can't win.

 

[rob_simple]

D'you know what's really weird? The only time I ever hear anyone mention Gordon Freeman is when they say, 'why does everyone think Gordon Freeman is so great?'

Maybe, just maybe, if people didn't keep asking why he was so great, people wouldn't rush to defend him, making it seem like more people give a damn than they actually do.

If I had to posit another solution, though, I'd say that it's because he has a face and a distinctive design. I find it hard to get invested in Faceless Soldier #1473 in whatever military shooter I happen to be playing, but just being able to see what Gordon looks like allows me to build him a personality and a life of my choosing.

You're saying I must be wrong because Gordon isn't as widely praised as I think, while others are saying I must be wrong because Gordon is widely praised. That's an argument I just can't win.

And with that, your internet initiation is complete.

Really, though, I've honestly never understood these 'why do people like something I don't like' threads.

 

[major_chaos]

Isaac talks in Dead Space 2? That's bullshit, why the fuck would they do that?

Because he was a lamp with a bucket over it in the first game, which made it impossible to have any emotional connection with him, and impossible for him to have any connection with the rest of the cast. And please don't skip 2, its an amazing game IMO.

 

[Olas]

Snip

You should read my posts more thoroughly.

You're exercising quite a bit of doublethink here. You're telling me that Half-Life offers complete control over Gordon, while simultaneously telling me that your paths are constrained because it's a linear game.

These aren't contradictory, you control Gordon along an ultimately linear path. The ultimate path of the game is linear, but you control Gordon's actions full when traveling along that linear path.

What you seem to mean is that it gives you control because you must press W to walk forward, but if that's your case, then you must concede that nearly every game in the world gives you such control. Even Call of Duty games require you to walk forward for the missions to progress.

Finally you're starting to understand what I've been talking about all along. You see the difference between Call of Duty and Half Life is throughout Call of Duty your character is frequently performing actions and sequences with little to input from the player. Sometimes you push W to move forward, but sometimes your character will start doing things without you pushing any buttons at all and you're forced to sit and watch helplessly as your character does things completely different than how you would have done them. All this leads to less immersion in what you're actually doing. You don't feel like you are the character because the character is doing things without your input

Half Life always keeps you in full control, except when Gordon is himself unable to move due to factors in the story.

I'm perfectly fine with games being linear as long as they don't bullshit me about it. I've said as much in this thread already. Don't tell me that "Gordon is me," then turn around and say "Only within these defined parameters." You can't have it both ways. If your game is linear, make it linear; but make sure the protagonist has the power to make decisions during the story.

Okay, let's get one thing strait, because you seem to frequently get confused about what kind of control I'm talking about. Or perhaps I'm not being clear enough. There are 2 kinds of decisions you can make in a game.

1. Decisions that actually alter the main storyline, and cause you to have a different ending.

2. Decisions about your immediate actions that don't impact the overall path of the story. Such as side quests, or whether you teleport the cactus in Kliener's lab until it get's incinerated. These are inconsequential but make a game more fun.

Half Life, gives you none of the first type of decision, but lots of the second because you control Gordon's every muscle twitch. A game like Mass Effect gives you lots of the first type of decision, because you can choose what characters live and die and how the game ends, but not as much of the second because many of Shepherd's actions are done in cutscenes where you have no control over him and are just watching from a distance.

Once again, you confuse player control with character control. I know that in Zelda games, you're required to go through the dungeons; I say Link has agency while the player does not, because it's clear in many cases that Link is the one making the decisions, not someone else. And those games at least let you explore the world, meet side characters, and go through the story at your own pace. Again, I'm fine with the game not offering ME control, as long as it puts me in the shoes of a protagonist who DOES have control. Don't try to FOOL me into thinking I'm in control when I'm not.

You can explore Half Life's world at your leisure as well, and go at your own pace. You can spend all day walking around City 17 at the beginning of Half Life 2 before heading to Kliener's lab. You can choose to obey the combine guard and pick up the can and put it in the trash. Or you can throw it in his face and then run away as he chases you. That's control. You can choose to wait around and listen to what characters say, or walk ahead and ignore them. You can stand in Kliener's lab for 18 strait hours crowbaring the wall until the indentations spell "Wank" if you want.

If Gordon started doing this on his own you would lose your control over him.

Snip

Please refrain from personal attacks. Your ever-louder shouting about the PLAYER'S control over GORDON does not make it true. I keep bringing up Gordon's silence because you seem to think that alone gives the player control over him even within the game's linear confines. If you had the exact same game, but the idea to go to Black Mesa East came from Gordon instead of Kleiner, that would rip control from the player, you seem to think. Yet you admitted in your last post that Half-Life 2 gives no more control than Resident Evil 4, a game with both a speaking protagonist and cutscenes.

I meant in the sense that you cannot alter the overall story, or to make it simpler the FIRST kind of decision making that I mentioned above. In terms of actual control over your character, Half-Life 2 gives you significantly more control than Resident Evil 4 does. Quick-time event's don't count as control, they're the illusion of control at best.

Hell, while Half-Life 2 plops an optional house on the side of its linear path, Silent Hill 2 lets you explore entire city blocks and buildings for optional symbolism--thus giving the player MORE control than Half-Life does, even WITH a speaking protagonist!

More things to explore or do doesn't equal more control.

Re: Dr. Breen:

One scene that sticks in my memory is the one where Dr. Breen has Gordon, Eli and Alyx in his office. He says to Gordon, "You've made a useful pawn for those who control you," and Alyx shouts, "Don't listen to him, Gordon!" This was interesting to me because it seemed to hint that the Resistance was putting on a facade, that they had been acting friendly with Gordon while knowingly pulling his puppet strings, and that Alyx was trying to prevent you from seeing the truth. The Vorts' confrontation with the G-Man in Episode One may have been not a heroic rescue, but a capturing of an important chess piece. Unfortunately, this is never further explored, and for the remainder of the Episodes, the games assume you're perfectly happy with the Resistance and the Vortigaunts.

Lol, that's not how I saw it, but you're free to interpret the games as you please.

Gordon may defy Dr. Breen, but he still wasn't the one who made the decision to invade the Citadel. That was Barney. But it's interesting that you say Gordon made the choice to defy Dr. Breen, even though in the very same breath you claim that for Gordon to make any sort of choice would destroy your immersion. You also point out--rightly--that Chell made the decision to go after GLaDOS (you'll notice I haven't criticized Portal in this thread--don't put words in my mouth), and this did not rip control of Chell from you as you claim it would for Gordon.

Why would you have a problem with Half Life but not Portal? In terms of player control they're the exact same. In both you control the player's every movement without actually controlling the path of the story. What makes them different?

If Gordon did defy Dr. Breen by his own agency, then that is exactly the sort of thing the Half-Life series needs more of.

Maybe Gordon did defy Breen of his own agency, and maybe he followed the instructions of Barney of his own agency as well.

None of this should matter though, since this discussion is about players controlling the character.

Isaac talks in Dead Space 2? That's bullshit, why the fuck would they do that?

Because he was a lamp with a bucket over it in the first game, which made it impossible to have any emotional connection with him, and impossible for him to have any connection with the rest of the cast.

Lol, why wouldn't I have an emotional connection to myself? I would think my own survival would be pretty high on my list of things that cause emotions.

 

[major_chaos]

Lol, why wouldn't I have an emotional connection to myself? I would think my own survival would be pretty high on my list of things that cause emotions.

I don't know about you, but I'm fairly sure I'm not a space ship engineer named Issac. I'm a guy sitting down and playing a game where the protagonist is Issac, an individual I can not manage to give any shits about. I find it impossible to not laugh when the best he can muster up when finding out that his comrade has betrayed him and his girlfriend is dead is a sad head nod. Once he gets a voice he becomes an actual protagonist instead of an overglorified RC car, and thus I actually start caring about his losses and triumphs.

 

[Olas]

Lol, why wouldn't I have an emotional connection to myself? I would think my own survival would be pretty high on my list of things that cause emotions.

I don't know about you, but I'm fairly sure I'm not a space ship engineer named Issac. I'm a guy sitting down and playing a game where the protagonist is Issac, an individual I can not manage to give any shits about. I find it impossible to not laugh when the best he can muster up when finding out that his comrade has betrayed him and his girlfriend is dead is a sad head nod. Once he gets a voice he becomes an actual protagonist instead of an overglorified RC car, and thus I actually start caring about his losses and triumphs.

Well I am Isaac when I play DeadSpace, and Isaac is me. I guess that's where we differ. I feel like if he started talking it would totally ruin him for me. Isn't player immersion like really important in horror games?

Also, spoiler alert would be nice.

 

[Parker Chapin]

Maybe Gordon did defy Breen of his own agency, and maybe he followed the instructions of Barney of his own agency as well.

None of this should matter though, since this discussion is about players controlling the character.

You must have come in the wrong door. This discussion has been about agency (agency defined here as the power to make decisions that affect one's fate), not about players controlling the character, since my opening post.

 

[Olas]

Maybe Gordon did defy Breen of his own agency, and maybe he followed the instructions of Barney of his own agency as well.

None of this should matter though, since this discussion is about players controlling the character.

You must have come in the wrong door. This discussion has been about agency (agency defined here as the power to make decisions that affect one's fate), not about players controlling the character, since my opening post.

Okay then, that's a different discussion, but one I'm willing to have.

Again though, I see no connection between this and the fact that Gordon is silent.

If we're just talking about Gordon's agency within the story's basic narrative then I'd say he's really no different than most videogame characters. He carries out objectives that his friends give him, not because he's their slave, but because he wants the same thing they want. It's cooperation really more than obedience. I get the general impression that he wants to see the combine overthrown and for Breen to hang just as much as Alyx, Barney, Kliener, Eli, and all the other humans. If they were asking him to do crazy things like light himself on fire and dance around like a monkey, and he STILL did it, THEN I'd say you have a case for him being purely subservient, but what they ask of you is generally pretty understandable so I see no reason why Gordon wouldn't do it of his own choosing.

You have to remember that at the start of Half Life 2 Gordon is plopped into a world that he's mostly unfamiliar with, he doesn't know much about how the combine operate or where anything is located. In those circumstances it's generally best to listen to those who actually do know the world and how things work.

If you want an example of Gordon acting on his own though you have basically the entire first Half-Life, where there's nobody to tell you what to do, at least up until the point you're about the enter Xen. It's obvious Gordon can operate independently, and throughout much of that game he even combats the us military which seems pretty rebellious to me. Again though most of his action is driven by basic circumstance and survival instinct, not a well defined personality on Gordon's part.