I'm not a fan of silent protagonists. Wherever I have the choice, I prefer to play a rich, well-written, characterized protagonist, and when I encounter a stupid one, I don't think ?This guy should shut his mouth,? I think ?This guy should have been better written.? That said, I do know that silent protagonists have their place, and having thought about it, I've come up with four types of games where I think silent protagonists really do best:
1. Games without character driven storylines. Some games don't try to tell a story, and that's fine. Some games have minimal stories meant only to provide context to the gameplay experience. These are games like Doom, Quake, Portal, Half-Life 1. If the player has no one to talk to, then there's no reason for the player to talk.
But there are also games that tell non-character driven stories that are often very good. Zelda is one example, but the real master, I think, is Dragon Quest. Dragon Quest games are brilliant in their fairy tale simplicity; usually they're about a party traveling around the world, getting caught up in little stories in the places they visit. In Dragon Quest III, there were no defined player characters, as every party member was player-created. And yet, it works.
2. Games that tell stories in non-verbal ways. This is something indie developers have been having fun with. In Bastion, the Kid doesn't speak, but neither does anyone except the lone narrator. Machinarium told a complete story with zero dialogue. Some games come up with creative alternatives to traditional methods of storytelling, and are often brilliant for it.
3. Games that give you the means to build your own character. Such as Bethesdra RPGs. You can define your character's race, gender, and look, and in your head, their personality and backstory. Once you have that, you can make decisions and act in accordance with your character. In Morrowind, I didn't define my character's personality all at once, but pieced it together as I played the game--almost as if I wasn't building a character at all, but discovering one who already existed. I got attached to my Morrowind character even though 90% of her characterization was in my head.
4. Games where the character doesn't speak for actual, in-universe reasons. In other media, you see this in intelligent animal characters such as Gromit, or cursed characters like the scarecrow in Howl. These characters are usually richly characterized in non-verbal ways. Sadly, the only video game character I can think of who fits here is Amaterasu, who, sure enough, has loads of non-verbal characterization. This is something I would like to see more of in gaming.
Then there's Half-Life 2. Unlike any of the games I named above, Half-Life 2 has a character-driven, dialogue-driven storyline run by everyone involved except Gordon. Eli, Alyx and Breen drive the plot while Gordon is merely swept up in their currents. Gordon is not an undefined character; rather, he's a defined character in a defined storyline who happens to never speak and have no personality.
In discussions, I'm usually told that you're supposed to fill in Gordon's personality yourself, or that "Gordon is you." However, if Gordon were me, then the first thing he would have done after stepping off the train in City 17 was think of the least suspicious way to ask someone what the hell was going on. So the "Gordon is me" thing trips on its own feet right out of the gate. Half-Life 2 asks you to roleplay but gives you no space to do so. You're forced to follow the game's set sequence of events, and the only thing you have the power to choose is how you feel about it.
I'm also usually told something about how non-interactive media do characterization better, and video games allow for something more than that. Whether that's true or not, Half-Life 2 is not a good example of what video games are capable of. The main storyline is little more than an interactive movie, one where the lead character happens to never speak. The strength of it comes from the loads of details for keen-eyed players that tell a thousand wordless stories, but these don't depend on a silent protagonist, and wordless storytelling has been done by games without sacrificing the main character.
It's also usually pointed out that the G-Man provides an in-universe reason why Gordon has no control over his fate. But since we've learned next to nothing about him or his plans in 2.67 games, I can't help but see him as a plot device built to justify Gordon's lack of agency. In other words, Gordon isn't silent because he's a pawn of the G-Man, he's a pawn of the G-Man because he's silent.
There are a couple things that are important to remember when discussing silent protagonists:
1. There's a difference between a character whose dialogue is not shown, and a character who doesn't speak. Zelda and Dragon Quest games are peppered with points where it's clear the protagonist spoke, but we're left to imagine their exact words for ourselves. These games also usually characterize their protagonists subtly and give us an idea of their personalities. There was a time when I thought, "If they're going to do that, what's the point of keeping Link silent?" But I realize letting players fill in the missing dialogue has value, because I usually provide a personal touch that wouldn't be there if the dialogue was shown. This method has its limits, though; the more complex and character-driven the story you want to tell, the more likely you'll do best to show the main character's dialogue. It would never have worked in Spec Ops: The Line, for example.
Meanwhile, Gordon Freeman simply never speaks. Inexplicably. There are no points in the game where he seems to have said something, which means all we have to fill in are his unspoken thoughts. Nobody notices or cares that Gordon never speaks to them. Claude from GTAIII was retconned to be an actual mute, but in the game, no one acknowledges or acts realistically about his muteness.
2. The important factor isn't speaking, but agency. Agency means that the character makes choices that decide his fate. I've heard it said that a protagonist who doesn't make such choices is not a protagonist at all. There are silent protagonists who have agency. Link (in the later Zelda games), the Kid, and the Dragon Quest heroes come to mind. Likewise, there are speaking protagonists who don't have agency, such as Desmond Miles--these tend to be the most hated characters of all. Gordon is notorious for his complete lack of agency. This is what makes him so unlikeable to me; his silence is a more superficial factor.
With all this in mind, why is Gordon Freeman always the first name that comes up in discussions of silent protagonists, and why is his the picture always adorning the magazine articles? Developers like Nintendo and Armor Project have, through years of practice, learned to wield the silent protagonist to much greater effect, and indie developers have come up with much more interesting methods of non-verbal storytelling. Even Half-Life's ability to tell stories through its world is second to the Silent Hill series.
Half-Life 2 is a product of the awkward puberty of gaming, being made with the sensibilities of Half-Life 1 (that is, the sensibilities of old-school FPS), but with modern character-driven storytelling applied to it in a way that just doesn't work. I have a feeling this is why Half-Life 3 hasn't seen the light of day; because Valve has hit their limit as to what they can do with this dysfunctional formula, but they can't risk the ire of the fandom by changing it. They wrote themselves into a corner.
People like to act as though video game storytelling is completely divorced from other forms of storytelling. The truth, however, is that video games are born from and part of the same artistic stream that is the legacy of mankind, and so has plenty in common with its brothers. Just as some games tell minimal stories, or tell non-verbal stories, or tell open-world stories, some games tell interactive but linear stories, and this, too, is fine. These types of games have elements in common with the linear, non-interactive storytelling of other art, and one of those elements is that the story centers around a round protagonist.
Even though I know it will never happen, I would like to see Gordon gain a voice. If he's written as well as Alyx Vance, it could be great. Alternatively, they could go the other way, forget about Alyx and Eli and Barney and join Painkiller in the league of modern old-school action games, which clearly there is a market for. I just think it would be a bad idea to stay where they are now.
What do you all think?
1. Games without character driven storylines. Some games don't try to tell a story, and that's fine. Some games have minimal stories meant only to provide context to the gameplay experience. These are games like Doom, Quake, Portal, Half-Life 1. If the player has no one to talk to, then there's no reason for the player to talk.
But there are also games that tell non-character driven stories that are often very good. Zelda is one example, but the real master, I think, is Dragon Quest. Dragon Quest games are brilliant in their fairy tale simplicity; usually they're about a party traveling around the world, getting caught up in little stories in the places they visit. In Dragon Quest III, there were no defined player characters, as every party member was player-created. And yet, it works.
2. Games that tell stories in non-verbal ways. This is something indie developers have been having fun with. In Bastion, the Kid doesn't speak, but neither does anyone except the lone narrator. Machinarium told a complete story with zero dialogue. Some games come up with creative alternatives to traditional methods of storytelling, and are often brilliant for it.
3. Games that give you the means to build your own character. Such as Bethesdra RPGs. You can define your character's race, gender, and look, and in your head, their personality and backstory. Once you have that, you can make decisions and act in accordance with your character. In Morrowind, I didn't define my character's personality all at once, but pieced it together as I played the game--almost as if I wasn't building a character at all, but discovering one who already existed. I got attached to my Morrowind character even though 90% of her characterization was in my head.
4. Games where the character doesn't speak for actual, in-universe reasons. In other media, you see this in intelligent animal characters such as Gromit, or cursed characters like the scarecrow in Howl. These characters are usually richly characterized in non-verbal ways. Sadly, the only video game character I can think of who fits here is Amaterasu, who, sure enough, has loads of non-verbal characterization. This is something I would like to see more of in gaming.
Then there's Half-Life 2. Unlike any of the games I named above, Half-Life 2 has a character-driven, dialogue-driven storyline run by everyone involved except Gordon. Eli, Alyx and Breen drive the plot while Gordon is merely swept up in their currents. Gordon is not an undefined character; rather, he's a defined character in a defined storyline who happens to never speak and have no personality.
In discussions, I'm usually told that you're supposed to fill in Gordon's personality yourself, or that "Gordon is you." However, if Gordon were me, then the first thing he would have done after stepping off the train in City 17 was think of the least suspicious way to ask someone what the hell was going on. So the "Gordon is me" thing trips on its own feet right out of the gate. Half-Life 2 asks you to roleplay but gives you no space to do so. You're forced to follow the game's set sequence of events, and the only thing you have the power to choose is how you feel about it.
I'm also usually told something about how non-interactive media do characterization better, and video games allow for something more than that. Whether that's true or not, Half-Life 2 is not a good example of what video games are capable of. The main storyline is little more than an interactive movie, one where the lead character happens to never speak. The strength of it comes from the loads of details for keen-eyed players that tell a thousand wordless stories, but these don't depend on a silent protagonist, and wordless storytelling has been done by games without sacrificing the main character.
It's also usually pointed out that the G-Man provides an in-universe reason why Gordon has no control over his fate. But since we've learned next to nothing about him or his plans in 2.67 games, I can't help but see him as a plot device built to justify Gordon's lack of agency. In other words, Gordon isn't silent because he's a pawn of the G-Man, he's a pawn of the G-Man because he's silent.
There are a couple things that are important to remember when discussing silent protagonists:
1. There's a difference between a character whose dialogue is not shown, and a character who doesn't speak. Zelda and Dragon Quest games are peppered with points where it's clear the protagonist spoke, but we're left to imagine their exact words for ourselves. These games also usually characterize their protagonists subtly and give us an idea of their personalities. There was a time when I thought, "If they're going to do that, what's the point of keeping Link silent?" But I realize letting players fill in the missing dialogue has value, because I usually provide a personal touch that wouldn't be there if the dialogue was shown. This method has its limits, though; the more complex and character-driven the story you want to tell, the more likely you'll do best to show the main character's dialogue. It would never have worked in Spec Ops: The Line, for example.
Meanwhile, Gordon Freeman simply never speaks. Inexplicably. There are no points in the game where he seems to have said something, which means all we have to fill in are his unspoken thoughts. Nobody notices or cares that Gordon never speaks to them. Claude from GTAIII was retconned to be an actual mute, but in the game, no one acknowledges or acts realistically about his muteness.
2. The important factor isn't speaking, but agency. Agency means that the character makes choices that decide his fate. I've heard it said that a protagonist who doesn't make such choices is not a protagonist at all. There are silent protagonists who have agency. Link (in the later Zelda games), the Kid, and the Dragon Quest heroes come to mind. Likewise, there are speaking protagonists who don't have agency, such as Desmond Miles--these tend to be the most hated characters of all. Gordon is notorious for his complete lack of agency. This is what makes him so unlikeable to me; his silence is a more superficial factor.
With all this in mind, why is Gordon Freeman always the first name that comes up in discussions of silent protagonists, and why is his the picture always adorning the magazine articles? Developers like Nintendo and Armor Project have, through years of practice, learned to wield the silent protagonist to much greater effect, and indie developers have come up with much more interesting methods of non-verbal storytelling. Even Half-Life's ability to tell stories through its world is second to the Silent Hill series.
Half-Life 2 is a product of the awkward puberty of gaming, being made with the sensibilities of Half-Life 1 (that is, the sensibilities of old-school FPS), but with modern character-driven storytelling applied to it in a way that just doesn't work. I have a feeling this is why Half-Life 3 hasn't seen the light of day; because Valve has hit their limit as to what they can do with this dysfunctional formula, but they can't risk the ire of the fandom by changing it. They wrote themselves into a corner.
People like to act as though video game storytelling is completely divorced from other forms of storytelling. The truth, however, is that video games are born from and part of the same artistic stream that is the legacy of mankind, and so has plenty in common with its brothers. Just as some games tell minimal stories, or tell non-verbal stories, or tell open-world stories, some games tell interactive but linear stories, and this, too, is fine. These types of games have elements in common with the linear, non-interactive storytelling of other art, and one of those elements is that the story centers around a round protagonist.
Even though I know it will never happen, I would like to see Gordon gain a voice. If he's written as well as Alyx Vance, it could be great. Alternatively, they could go the other way, forget about Alyx and Eli and Barney and join Painkiller in the league of modern old-school action games, which clearly there is a market for. I just think it would be a bad idea to stay where they are now.
What do you all think?
