The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
For me it goes hand in hand with the themes of lack of control and being manipulated by forces beyond your comprehension. It's surrealistic and, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Or in the case of Portal, it makes a bizarre sort of sense. If not for the necessity of seeing the protagonist through portals, I would've been happy to assume that it was supposed to be me bouncing through those sterile rooms.
The less the character knows, the better this technique seems to work.
It makes sense in Portal because Chell has no one to talk to.
You might be able to argue that HL has thematic reasons for having a silent protagonist, but it makes no logical sense that no one wants to hear the input of the guy who they hold up as their hero.
But they are hearing it. I'm the one responding. You say how it makes "no logical sense" but that's only if you presume that you're not supposed to be taking that character's role. When playing HL2 I've felt it works very well.
Also, you bring up Bioshock, but the main character from Bioshock had plenty of opportunities to say anything he wanted, but he never did.
What? What does any of that even mean? How does the player as Gordon Freeman communicate their input? How does it make any sense to even suggest that the player uses the silent protagonist as a vessel in the game world but the majority of communication is done with a weapon of some kind and is otherwise mute?
For me it goes hand in hand with the themes of lack of control and being manipulated by forces beyond your comprehension. It's surrealistic and, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Or in the case of Portal, it makes a bizarre sort of sense. If not for the necessity of seeing the protagonist through portals, I would've been happy to assume that it was supposed to be me bouncing through those sterile rooms.
The less the character knows, the better this technique seems to work.
It makes sense in Portal because Chell has no one to talk to.
You might be able to argue that HL has thematic reasons for having a silent protagonist, but it makes no logical sense that no one wants to hear the input of the guy who they hold up as their hero.
But they are hearing it. I'm the one responding. You say how it makes "no logical sense" but that's only if you presume that you're not supposed to be taking that character's role. When playing HL2 I've felt it works very well.
Also, you bring up Bioshock, but the main character from Bioshock had plenty of opportunities to say anything he wanted, but he never did.
No no, I understand the idea that what the player is saying and thinking are supposed to be substituted in. But it doesn't make sense in HL because the characters don't react to what I'm saying at all. When I'm in the elevator at the beginning, no matter how much I as Gordon talk, Alyx still says "you're not much of a talker, are you?" Or whatever the line is.
The reason this is acceptable in Bioshock is because most of the time you're being spoken to through a radio, so even if you did talk the other character wouldn't be able to hear you. When you're talking to a person face to face, they really don't care about what Jack has to say.
For me it goes hand in hand with the themes of lack of control and being manipulated by forces beyond your comprehension. It's surrealistic and, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Or in the case of Portal, it makes a bizarre sort of sense. If not for the necessity of seeing the protagonist through portals, I would've been happy to assume that it was supposed to be me bouncing through those sterile rooms.
The less the character knows, the better this technique seems to work.
It makes sense in Portal because Chell has no one to talk to.
You might be able to argue that HL has thematic reasons for having a silent protagonist, but it makes no logical sense that no one wants to hear the input of the guy who they hold up as their hero.
But they are hearing it. I'm the one responding. You say how it makes "no logical sense" but that's only if you presume that you're not supposed to be taking that character's role. When playing HL2 I've felt it works very well.
Also, you bring up Bioshock, but the main character from Bioshock had plenty of opportunities to say anything he wanted, but he never did.
What? What does any of that even mean? How does the player as Gordon Freeman communicate their input? How does it make any sense to even suggest that the player uses the silent protagonist as a vessel in the game world but the majority of communication is done with a weapon of some kind and is otherwise mute?
Better mute than having him impose his thoughts over mine. When I'm in the game I just find myself naturally responding to them in my own mind. The point is that you are supposed to be the main character, and it feels a lot more natural to me than something like Crysis.
Major: "We've got to take out those AA's on the harbour!"
Nomad:"That doesn't sound too difficult!"
Me: "WTH?! What kind of idiot says that?!"
Major: "You want the job? You GOT IT!"
Me: "Nice going. Ass."
Yeah, that voiceover didn't do anything to bring me into the game, or help me emote with the characters. It ended up doing just the opposite and drawing me out of the game every time he said something.
For me it goes hand in hand with the themes of lack of control and being manipulated by forces beyond your comprehension. It's surrealistic and, of course, doesn't make any sense.
Or in the case of Portal, it makes a bizarre sort of sense. If not for the necessity of seeing the protagonist through portals, I would've been happy to assume that it was supposed to be me bouncing through those sterile rooms.
The less the character knows, the better this technique seems to work.
It makes sense in Portal because Chell has no one to talk to.
You might be able to argue that HL has thematic reasons for having a silent protagonist, but it makes no logical sense that no one wants to hear the input of the guy who they hold up as their hero.
But they are hearing it. I'm the one responding. You say how it makes "no logical sense" but that's only if you presume that you're not supposed to be taking that character's role. When playing HL2 I've felt it works very well.
Also, you bring up Bioshock, but the main character from Bioshock had plenty of opportunities to say anything he wanted, but he never did.
No no, I understand the idea that what the player is saying and thinking are supposed to be substituted in. But it doesn't make sense in HL because the characters don't react to what I'm saying at all. When I'm in the elevator at the beginning, no matter how much I as Gordon talk, Alyx still says "you're not much of a talker, are you?" Or whatever the line is.
Until we get characters that can actively and intelligently parse human speech, that's about as close as we're going to get. And to be honest, I'd far prefer that method than the Crysis example I gave before, it works far better for me.
The reason this is acceptable in Bioshock is because most of the time you're being spoken to through a radio, so even if you did talk the other character wouldn't be able to hear you. When you're talking to a person face to face, they really don't care about what Jack has to say.
He never talked with Bridgette Tenenbaum even though she was right there. Doesn't say anything to Julie Langford. Never said a word when Atlas showed his face, not even a cuss or any sort of reproach. Heck, never tried to talk to any of the little sisters, not even at first to try and calm them down when any sane person would at least try to placate them in his situation.
I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on Bioshock then.
And it feels more natural to me to actually be able to respond. Rather than stand around and be lectured to as my 'comrades' expect me to do all the work like a busy, but quiet beaver. I doubt very much that the silent protagonist says nothing by choice. That they actually have a cauldron of thoughts bubbling just below the surface if not for their stoic nature.
And it feels more natural to me to actually be able to respond. Rather than stand around and be lectured to as my 'comrades' expect me to do all the work like a busy, but quiet beaver. I doubt very much that the silent protagonist says nothing by choice. That they actually have a cauldron of thoughts bubbling just below the surface if not for their stoic nature.
Being "able" to respond to me implies choice, which obviously isn't the case in either scenario.
And it feels more natural to me to actually be able to respond. Rather than stand around and be lectured to as my 'comrades' expect me to do all the work like a busy, but quiet beaver. I doubt very much that the silent protagonist says nothing by choice. That they actually have a cauldron of thoughts bubbling just below the surface if not for their stoic nature.
Any multiple choice options still aren't going to be what I want to say, no matter how hard they try, they can't answer my questions or give me responses. This is for any number of reasons, and ultimately, the actual lack of choices that would result would just plain constrained. Or you'd be given the choice to ask about things, but they can't give you an answer and they'll brush it aside somehow for the sake of the plot. Ultimately, that would feel far more frustrating. And if you go the multiple choice route like Mass Effect then I don't feel like I'm supposed to be the main character, this guy is the main character and he's saying crap.
Given that choice, silent protagonist still works best for me. I understand it doesn't work for some other people. Fine, but for crying out loud, stop trying to make it out as if this is just something that's broken with the game and the only reason that Valve don't fix it is because they're too dumb to realise it.
And it feels more natural to me to actually be able to respond. Rather than stand around and be lectured to as my 'comrades' expect me to do all the work like a busy, but quiet beaver. I doubt very much that the silent protagonist says nothing by choice. That they actually have a cauldron of thoughts bubbling just below the surface if not for their stoic nature.
Any multiple choice options still aren't going to be what I want to say, no matter how hard they try, they can't answer my questions or give me responses. This is for any number of reasons. And if you go the multiple choice route like Mass Effect then I don't feel like I'm supposed to be the main character, this guy is the main character and he's saying crap.
Given that choice, silent protagonist still works best for me. I understand it doesn't work for some other people. Fine, but for crying out loud, stop trying to make it out as if this is just something that's broken with the game and the only reason that Valve don't fix it is because they're too dumb to realise it.
I don't give a shit why Valve made their choice. I just like pointing out that it's just as silly to suggest that it's better to have a silent protagonist whereupon I can use my personal values and yet be completely unable to communicate them with anything else rather than to assume the role of somebody else like an actor in a movie or play.
And it feels more natural to me to actually be able to respond. Rather than stand around and be lectured to as my 'comrades' expect me to do all the work like a busy, but quiet beaver. I doubt very much that the silent protagonist says nothing by choice. That they actually have a cauldron of thoughts bubbling just below the surface if not for their stoic nature.
Any multiple choice options still aren't going to be what I want to say, no matter how hard they try, they can't answer my questions or give me responses. This is for any number of reasons. And if you go the multiple choice route like Mass Effect then I don't feel like I'm supposed to be the main character, this guy is the main character and he's saying crap.
Given that choice, silent protagonist still works best for me. I understand it doesn't work for some other people. Fine, but for crying out loud, stop trying to make it out as if this is just something that's broken with the game and the only reason that Valve don't fix it is because they're too dumb to realise it.
I don't give a shit why Valve made their choice. I just like pointing out that it's just as silly to suggest that it's better to have a silent protagonist whereupon I can use my personal values and yet be completely unable to communicate them with anything else rather than to assume the role of somebody else like an actor in a movie or play.
No, you feel it's silly. I feel it works for the game brilliantly. So you don't like it, I understand that, but just because you say it's a bad choice doesn't automatically make it one either. What I'm trying to do is explain the reasoning behind it. That's all.
And it feels more natural to me to actually be able to respond. Rather than stand around and be lectured to as my 'comrades' expect me to do all the work like a busy, but quiet beaver. I doubt very much that the silent protagonist says nothing by choice. That they actually have a cauldron of thoughts bubbling just below the surface if not for their stoic nature.
Any multiple choice options still aren't going to be what I want to say, no matter how hard they try, they can't answer my questions or give me responses. This is for any number of reasons. And if you go the multiple choice route like Mass Effect then I don't feel like I'm supposed to be the main character, this guy is the main character and he's saying crap.
Given that choice, silent protagonist still works best for me. I understand it doesn't work for some other people. Fine, but for crying out loud, stop trying to make it out as if this is just something that's broken with the game and the only reason that Valve don't fix it is because they're too dumb to realise it.
I don't give a shit why Valve made their choice. I just like pointing out that it's just as silly to suggest that it's better to have a silent protagonist whereupon I can use my personal values and yet be completely unable to communicate them with anything else rather than to assume the role of somebody else like an actor in a movie or play.
No, you feel it's silly. I feel it works for the game brilliantly. So you don't like it, I understand that, but just because you say it's a bad choice doesn't automatically make it one either. What I'm trying to do is explain the reasoning behind it. That's all.
Is this an actual response to the posted message or the message you perceived? I mean, I can understand how easy it would be to confuse my saying it's silly to suggest that silent protagonist is better than a non-silent protagonist with me saying that silent protagonists are silly.
Neither side is, in fact, absolutely correct. You are just being silly to suggest that pretending I'm Gordon Freeman or Jack in Bioshock (who apparently can speak but chooses not to even though he's in an environment so fucked up that practically anybody with a real voice would be questioning the everloving shit out of even the most loosely sane human they found...) is supposed to be inherently superior to pretending that I'm somebody else in any other game where the protagonist has a 'voice'.
Just because one works for you and the other doesn't isn't a confirmation of your point. Sarcastic concessions aside...
And it feels more natural to me to actually be able to respond. Rather than stand around and be lectured to as my 'comrades' expect me to do all the work like a busy, but quiet beaver. I doubt very much that the silent protagonist says nothing by choice. That they actually have a cauldron of thoughts bubbling just below the surface if not for their stoic nature.
Any multiple choice options still aren't going to be what I want to say, no matter how hard they try, they can't answer my questions or give me responses. This is for any number of reasons. And if you go the multiple choice route like Mass Effect then I don't feel like I'm supposed to be the main character, this guy is the main character and he's saying crap.
Given that choice, silent protagonist still works best for me. I understand it doesn't work for some other people. Fine, but for crying out loud, stop trying to make it out as if this is just something that's broken with the game and the only reason that Valve don't fix it is because they're too dumb to realise it.
I don't give a shit why Valve made their choice. I just like pointing out that it's just as silly to suggest that it's better to have a silent protagonist whereupon I can use my personal values and yet be completely unable to communicate them with anything else rather than to assume the role of somebody else like an actor in a movie or play.
No, you feel it's silly. I feel it works for the game brilliantly. So you don't like it, I understand that, but just because you say it's a bad choice doesn't automatically make it one either. What I'm trying to do is explain the reasoning behind it. That's all.
Is this an actual response to the posted message or the message you perceived? I mean, I can understand how easy it would be to confuse my saying it's silly to suggest that silent protagonist is better than a non-silent protagonist with me saying that silent protagonists are silly.
Neither side is, in fact, absolutely correct. You are just being silly to suggest that pretending I'm Gordon Freeman or Jack in Bioshock (who apparently can speak but chooses not to even though he's in an environment so fucked up that practically anybody with a real voice would be questioning the everloving shit out of even the most loosely sane human they found...) is supposed to be definitely superior to pretending that I'm somebody else in any other game where the protagonist has a 'voice'.
In that case it comes down to a "this is your opinion, that's mine", and we don't really have any problem or anything to discuss.
Shall we move on then?
EDIT: Look, if you feel I've been coming off as condescending that was not my intention. Honestly, I thought you were the one that was coming off as condescending. Shall we just call it quits if we both acknowledge that nobody's trying to pass off opinions as absolutes here?
For me it goes hand in hand with the themes of lack of control and being manipulated by forces beyond your comprehension. It's surrealistic and, of course, doesn't make any sense.
But it's not for everyone and that's okay.
This is a big part of it. Also:
When you have a silent protagonist, you can potentially imprint your own thoughts and feelings on it, yes, but it also makes the character completely benign in the story. Freeman is everyone's hero and yet no one gives a shit about what he has to say on any given matter.
But that's the idea. Freeman is everyone's hero, but wtf do they actually know about you?
They just know your that guy in the orange suit, with the horn-rimmed glasses, the gun and the piles of smoldering alien corpses in his wake.
Your their hero, but they don't KNOW you.
They imprint onto FReeman their ideas of what his goals are (ie - saving the human race) as much as you the player do.
EDIT: Also, "Silent Protagonists" are used in books. Sorta. The equivalent would be a character we see but who's thought processes we aren't made privy too.
In fact, it's alot like a movie. We don't really know what the character himself is thinking, but we can infer it from his actions.
I enjoy games with both silent protagonists (HL2), and more verbose ones (Max Payne), but saying that whether or not you can hear the character makes a huge impact on the story is kinda silly. Aliens vs Predators had silent protagonists, but I wouldn't call the story line great. Like wise, sometimes protagonist really need to shut the fuck up, ala Crysis, and (don't kill me) some of the FF games.
It comes down to this, there are well written stories with silent protagonists, and poorly written ones with speaking ones. The story can and will be influenced by whether or not the protagonist can talk, but you can write a amazing story (Portal) without dialog.
Also, some plots are terrible with terrible protagonists and terrible dialogue, but the story still rocks. Dead Rising for example.
"I've covered wars ya'know!"
Did I get my point across without insulting anyone?
Another game with an awesome story, Freedom Force.
EDIT: Also, "Silent Protagonists" are used in books. Sorta. The equivalent would be a character we see but who's thought processes we aren't made privy too.
In fact, it's alot like a movie. We don't really know what the character himself is thinking, but we can infer it from his actions.
Do people think of silent protagonists as being like, say, Calloway from Great Gatsby -- that is, the viewpoint character who is not the emotional centerpiece of the story? (I know, not exactly. I'm wondering if it's analogous -- a viewpoint character who isn't the protagonist, a protagonist who doesn't speak.)
EDIT: Also, "Silent Protagonists" are used in books. Sorta. The equivalent would be a character we see but who's thought processes we aren't made privy too.
In fact, it's alot like a movie. We don't really know what the character himself is thinking, but we can infer it from his actions.
Do people think of silent protagonists as being like, say, Calloway from Great Gatsby -- that is, the viewpoint character who is not the emotional centerpiece of the story? (I know, not exactly. I'm wondering if it's analogous -- a viewpoint character who isn't the protagonist, a protagonist who doesn't speak.)
What? Gatsby was the emotional centerpiece yes, and it could be argued that he might have even been the protagonist, but that doesn't mean Nick Carraway (:P) was silent, emotionally or physically. I think Nick was the protagonist, as the symbolism in the story revolves around the rich (Gatsby, his girlfriend, his girlfriend's wife, etc...) and the poor (the gas station guy and his wife.) With Jack being the middle class, he wittnesses the strife around him, which (in my opinion) makes him the protagonist, along with other things. If you assume me to be correct in naming Nick as the protagonist, he certainly isn't silent.
But now you have me thinking... hmmm..... good point. What about plays? In Antigone there are two Tragic Figures, Antigone (duh) and Creon, but the viewers are represented by the chorus. In the Lottery, the viewers/readers are from the viewpoint of the townspeople, who are technically silent.
Hmm... o_O
EDIT: Wow, I totally missed your point.
Yes, the viewpoint character doens't have to be the protagonist in books, which usually makes for a good read, but almost all silent viewpoint characters (controlled by the players) in games are the protagonists.
EDIT2: Goddamn it, now you really have me thinking. I don't think silent protagonists are analagous to viewpoints characters in stories.
EDIT: Also, "Silent Protagonists" are used in books. Sorta. The equivalent would be a character we see but who's thought processes we aren't made privy too.
In fact, it's alot like a movie. We don't really know what the character himself is thinking, but we can infer it from his actions.
Do people think of silent protagonists as being like, say, Calloway from Great Gatsby -- that is, the viewpoint character who is not the emotional centerpiece of the story? (I know, not exactly. I'm wondering if it's analogous -- a viewpoint character who isn't the protagonist, a protagonist who doesn't speak.)
Doesn't really work imo. The silent protagonist is still the protagonist.
It's more sorta like an unreliable narrator. One who's motivation must be deduced from his actions rather then what he tells us his motivations are.
EDIT: Also, "Silent Protagonists" are used in books. Sorta. The equivalent would be a character we see but who's thought processes we aren't made privy too.
In fact, it's alot like a movie. We don't really know what the character himself is thinking, but we can infer it from his actions.
Do people think of silent protagonists as being like, say, Calloway from Great Gatsby -- that is, the viewpoint character who is not the emotional centerpiece of the story? (I know, not exactly. I'm wondering if it's analogous -- a viewpoint character who isn't the protagonist, a protagonist who doesn't speak.)
What? Gatsby was the emotional centerpiece yes, and it could be argued that he might have even been the protagonist, but that doesn't mean Nick Carraway (:P) was silent, emotionally or physically. I think Nick was the protagonist, as the symbolism in the story revolves around the rich (Gatsby, his girlfriend, his girlfriend's wife, etc...) and the poor (the gas station guy and his wife.) With Jack being the middle class, he wittnesses the strife around him, which (in my opinion) makes him the protagonist, along with other things. If you assume me to be correct in naming Nick as the protagonist, he certainly isn't silent.
But now you have me thinking... hmmm..... good point. What about plays? In Antigone there are two Tragic Figures, Antigone (duh) and Creon, but the viewers are represented by the chorus. In the Lottery, the viewers/readers are from the viewpoint of the townspeople, who are technically silent.
Hmm... o_O
EDIT: Wow, I totally missed your point.
Yes, the viewpoint character doens't have to be the protagonist in books, which usually makes for a good read, but almost all silent viewpoint characters (controlled by the players) in games are the protagonists.
EDIT2: Goddamn it, now you really have me thinking. I don't think silent protagonists are analagous to viewpoints characters in stories.
S'what I get for not looking up a book I haven't read in 15 years.
I agree with (and am not trying to argue against) the notion that Freeman is the protagonist in Half-Life.
But Carraway and Gatsby are split versions of what a protagonist usually is in fiction. Carraway is the viewpoint character, while Gatsby is the emotional story arc (I state with the confidence of somebody who got the name wrong because he read it half a lifetime ago).
Is the use of the silent hero in video games doing something analogous?
I rarely if ever identify with Freeman. I don't see him as an extension of myself (maybe I'm supposed to, but I don't). I see him as a character in a story, just like, for example, the Prince in Sands of Time. The difference between the two (beyond game genre, story genre, setting, and tone) is that the Prince does a whole bunch of self-commentary to establish an independent character. You could drop the Prince into a blank room with a glowing white orb in the middle, and while you might not know word for what what he'd say, most people who played and enjoyed Sands of Time would, I postulate, come up with something along the same lines:
Something like, "Oh, great. What am I supposed to do with this? This is far beneath my dignity!" General mix of sarcasm, bravado, and the arrogance of a youthful noble covering his fear.
Also note: first game. The one before he started smoldering with generic rage.
Or I could be full of crap. Maybe you were all thinking of something different.
In any case, you drop Gordon into that same room, and you also know exactly what he's going to do: nothing. Nothing except what you do. He's not a character you're meant to attach to. He's a vehicle for the plot.
So maybe I've been hitting it wrong, thinking of Freeman being like Carraway -- a guy who fulfills half the purpose of a normal protagonist, leaving the other half elsewhere (Carraway gives camera-eye but lets Gatsby be the emotional connection, Freeman... uh, does the same thing? Sorta?). There's nobody who fulfills the Gatsby role for Freeman's Carraway, so the metaphor fails. Ultimately, Half-Life isn't a story about a character. It's a story about a plot. Freeman is the cleanest possible implementation of someone who doesn't get in the way of that plot, a camera-eye and some gameplay mechanics that let some players observe the story and others inject themselves into it.
No no, I understand the idea that what the player is saying and thinking are supposed to be substituted in. But it doesn't make sense in HL because the characters don't react to what I'm saying at all. When I'm in the elevator at the beginning, no matter how much I as Gordon talk, Alyx still says "you're not much of a talker, are you?" Or whatever the line is.
Until we get characters that can actively and intelligently parse human speech, that's about as close as we're going to get. And to be honest, I'd far prefer that method than the Crysis example I gave before, it works far better for me.
Just because there are poor examples of games with speaking protagonists does not mean that games with speaking protagonists are inferior.
The reason this is acceptable in Bioshock is because most of the time you're being spoken to through a radio, so even if you did talk the other character wouldn't be able to hear you. When you're talking to a person face to face, they really don't care about what Jack has to say.
He never talked with Bridgette Tenenbaum even though she was right there. Doesn't say anything to Julie Langford. Never said a word when Atlas showed his face, not even a cuss or any sort of reproach. Heck, never tried to talk to any of the little sisters, not even at first to try and calm them down when any sane person would at least try to placate them in his situation.
I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on Bioshock then.
No, Bioshock does the Half-Life thing where you inject your own thoughts and words for Jack. In Half-Life this fails because the other characters treat Gordon like he's not talking. In Bioshock it does work because whatever Jack says is not going to have a significant effect on the speaker. Tenenbaum is behind a pane of glass too thick to break and is speaking through an intercom; she probably can't hear you. Langford is flipping the fuck out and is, again, behind a thick sheet of glass. Atlas is a bit busy running away to listen to what Jack is saying. In any scenario where the consoling the Little Sisters would make sense, they either don't listen because they haven't been healed yet or saying consoling words is appropriate considering that Jack is stroking their hair.
Also, Jacks actions speak for him better than any words could, I think.
Same with Freeman.
In any case, you drop Gordon into that same room, and you also know exactly what he's going to do: nothing. Nothing except what you do. He's not a character you're meant to attach to. He's a vehicle for the plot.
He'll do and say whatever you think he should.
Freeman is a character revealed through his actions. His motivations for those actions are yours to fill in as you see fit.
Personally i thought games such as Mass Effect, Knights of the Old Republic, and The Witcher, as well as Baldurs Gate series ect are the very top of storytelling in gaming simply because the games are epic and involving, and at the same time you -are- the characters in the stories, you choose the responses and in some cases even create the main character to your liking. These games are also a seamless blend of game mechanics and story blended together with very little cut scenes and a lot of deep interaction. I think these game had it right spot on of what true storytelling in games should be like, the medium is all about interaction so its natural that we should be allowed to be the character in the story, not just be the 3rd person watching them only to play them in fight scenes.
EDIT: Also, "Silent Protagonists" are used in books. Sorta. The equivalent would be a character we see but who's thought processes we aren't made privy too.
In fact, it's alot like a movie. We don't really know what the character himself is thinking, but we can infer it from his actions.
Do people think of silent protagonists as being like, say, Calloway from Great Gatsby -- that is, the viewpoint character who is not the emotional centerpiece of the story? (I know, not exactly. I'm wondering if it's analogous -- a viewpoint character who isn't the protagonist, a protagonist who doesn't speak.)
Possibly. One reason I adore FF XII so much is - even though the dynamics between the cast were apparently down to a conflicted development process and demands from the suits at Squenix - I really liked the end result. I didn't feel I was Vaan, or identify with him per se, but I thought it was a welcome change to be almost literally standing back and watching other people's stories. It made the cutscenes feel a good deal less incongruous, for one thing.
Sorry if I led anyone to believe I dislike silent protagonists, or that I think any particular game is rubbish solely due to choosing voiced over mute or vice versa. I don't - I was just speculating on whether, out of any of these big titles, you could have developed them going the other way and still have ended up with anything like the game we know now. I think in a lot of cases you could, probably, though of course the issue's such that you'd lose countless fans regardless of how good your alternate take on Halflife or Metroid or whatever was.
Of course, Bioshock would be significantly harder to re-do with a protagonist who talks given (potential massive spoilers, though I'm assuming most people reading the thread have played the game)
there's no way of convincingly portraying subliminal conditioning. The entire mute protagonist angle in that game stems from the idea that your character isn't - by extension, you're not - even thinking about the implications of unthinkingly doing whatever Atlas suggests. The second you get the player invested in the idea the main character can actually say anything to whoever he comes across, or even talk to himself, you're dealing the story a heavy, heavy blow - you're inviting the player to think "What would I do? Why would I do it?" when the game's based around someone never properly considering that. I couldn't see the twist halfway through working even a fraction so well if most of the people who played the game were consciously thinking "Jesus, I knew this faux-Irish prick would turn out to be the bad guy. Why didn't I just throw this radio away the minute I first decided that?" every other second prior to that point.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
Posts
What? What does any of that even mean? How does the player as Gordon Freeman communicate their input? How does it make any sense to even suggest that the player uses the silent protagonist as a vessel in the game world but the majority of communication is done with a weapon of some kind and is otherwise mute?
Do not engage the Watermelons.
The reason this is acceptable in Bioshock is because most of the time you're being spoken to through a radio, so even if you did talk the other character wouldn't be able to hear you. When you're talking to a person face to face, they really don't care about what Jack has to say.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Better mute than having him impose his thoughts over mine. When I'm in the game I just find myself naturally responding to them in my own mind. The point is that you are supposed to be the main character, and it feels a lot more natural to me than something like Crysis.
Major: "We've got to take out those AA's on the harbour!"
Nomad:"That doesn't sound too difficult!"
Me: "WTH?! What kind of idiot says that?!"
Major: "You want the job? You GOT IT!"
Me: "Nice going. Ass."
Yeah, that voiceover didn't do anything to bring me into the game, or help me emote with the characters. It ended up doing just the opposite and drawing me out of the game every time he said something.
Until we get characters that can actively and intelligently parse human speech, that's about as close as we're going to get. And to be honest, I'd far prefer that method than the Crysis example I gave before, it works far better for me.
He never talked with Bridgette Tenenbaum even though she was right there. Doesn't say anything to Julie Langford. Never said a word when Atlas showed his face, not even a cuss or any sort of reproach. Heck, never tried to talk to any of the little sisters, not even at first to try and calm them down when any sane person would at least try to placate them in his situation.
I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on Bioshock then.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Being "able" to respond to me implies choice, which obviously isn't the case in either scenario.
Any multiple choice options still aren't going to be what I want to say, no matter how hard they try, they can't answer my questions or give me responses. This is for any number of reasons, and ultimately, the actual lack of choices that would result would just plain constrained. Or you'd be given the choice to ask about things, but they can't give you an answer and they'll brush it aside somehow for the sake of the plot. Ultimately, that would feel far more frustrating. And if you go the multiple choice route like Mass Effect then I don't feel like I'm supposed to be the main character, this guy is the main character and he's saying crap.
Given that choice, silent protagonist still works best for me. I understand it doesn't work for some other people. Fine, but for crying out loud, stop trying to make it out as if this is just something that's broken with the game and the only reason that Valve don't fix it is because they're too dumb to realise it.
I don't give a shit why Valve made their choice. I just like pointing out that it's just as silly to suggest that it's better to have a silent protagonist whereupon I can use my personal values and yet be completely unable to communicate them with anything else rather than to assume the role of somebody else like an actor in a movie or play.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
No, you feel it's silly. I feel it works for the game brilliantly. So you don't like it, I understand that, but just because you say it's a bad choice doesn't automatically make it one either. What I'm trying to do is explain the reasoning behind it. That's all.
Neither side is, in fact, absolutely correct. You are just being silly to suggest that pretending I'm Gordon Freeman or Jack in Bioshock (who apparently can speak but chooses not to even though he's in an environment so fucked up that practically anybody with a real voice would be questioning the everloving shit out of even the most loosely sane human they found...) is supposed to be inherently superior to pretending that I'm somebody else in any other game where the protagonist has a 'voice'.
Just because one works for you and the other doesn't isn't a confirmation of your point. Sarcastic concessions aside...
Do not engage the Watermelons.
In that case it comes down to a "this is your opinion, that's mine", and we don't really have any problem or anything to discuss.
Shall we move on then?
EDIT: Look, if you feel I've been coming off as condescending that was not my intention. Honestly, I thought you were the one that was coming off as condescending. Shall we just call it quits if we both acknowledge that nobody's trying to pass off opinions as absolutes here?
This is a big part of it. Also:
But that's the idea. Freeman is everyone's hero, but wtf do they actually know about you?
They just know your that guy in the orange suit, with the horn-rimmed glasses, the gun and the piles of smoldering alien corpses in his wake.
Your their hero, but they don't KNOW you.
They imprint onto FReeman their ideas of what his goals are (ie - saving the human race) as much as you the player do.
EDIT: Also, "Silent Protagonists" are used in books. Sorta. The equivalent would be a character we see but who's thought processes we aren't made privy too.
In fact, it's alot like a movie. We don't really know what the character himself is thinking, but we can infer it from his actions.
It comes down to this, there are well written stories with silent protagonists, and poorly written ones with speaking ones. The story can and will be influenced by whether or not the protagonist can talk, but you can write a amazing story (Portal) without dialog.
Also, some plots are terrible with terrible protagonists and terrible dialogue, but the story still rocks. Dead Rising for example.
"I've covered wars ya'know!"
Did I get my point across without insulting anyone?
Another game with an awesome story, Freedom Force.
Do people think of silent protagonists as being like, say, Calloway from Great Gatsby -- that is, the viewpoint character who is not the emotional centerpiece of the story? (I know, not exactly. I'm wondering if it's analogous -- a viewpoint character who isn't the protagonist, a protagonist who doesn't speak.)
What? Gatsby was the emotional centerpiece yes, and it could be argued that he might have even been the protagonist, but that doesn't mean Nick Carraway (:P) was silent, emotionally or physically. I think Nick was the protagonist, as the symbolism in the story revolves around the rich (Gatsby, his girlfriend, his girlfriend's wife, etc...) and the poor (the gas station guy and his wife.) With Jack being the middle class, he wittnesses the strife around him, which (in my opinion) makes him the protagonist, along with other things. If you assume me to be correct in naming Nick as the protagonist, he certainly isn't silent.
But now you have me thinking... hmmm..... good point. What about plays? In Antigone there are two Tragic Figures, Antigone (duh) and Creon, but the viewers are represented by the chorus. In the Lottery, the viewers/readers are from the viewpoint of the townspeople, who are technically silent.
Hmm... o_O
EDIT: Wow, I totally missed your point.
Yes, the viewpoint character doens't have to be the protagonist in books, which usually makes for a good read, but almost all silent viewpoint characters (controlled by the players) in games are the protagonists.
EDIT2: Goddamn it, now you really have me thinking. I don't think silent protagonists are analagous to viewpoints characters in stories.
Doesn't really work imo. The silent protagonist is still the protagonist.
It's more sorta like an unreliable narrator. One who's motivation must be deduced from his actions rather then what he tells us his motivations are.
S'what I get for not looking up a book I haven't read in 15 years.
I agree with (and am not trying to argue against) the notion that Freeman is the protagonist in Half-Life.
But Carraway and Gatsby are split versions of what a protagonist usually is in fiction. Carraway is the viewpoint character, while Gatsby is the emotional story arc (I state with the confidence of somebody who got the name wrong because he read it half a lifetime ago).
Is the use of the silent hero in video games doing something analogous?
I rarely if ever identify with Freeman. I don't see him as an extension of myself (maybe I'm supposed to, but I don't). I see him as a character in a story, just like, for example, the Prince in Sands of Time. The difference between the two (beyond game genre, story genre, setting, and tone) is that the Prince does a whole bunch of self-commentary to establish an independent character. You could drop the Prince into a blank room with a glowing white orb in the middle, and while you might not know word for what what he'd say, most people who played and enjoyed Sands of Time would, I postulate, come up with something along the same lines:
Also note: first game. The one before he started smoldering with generic rage.
In any case, you drop Gordon into that same room, and you also know exactly what he's going to do: nothing. Nothing except what you do. He's not a character you're meant to attach to. He's a vehicle for the plot.
So maybe I've been hitting it wrong, thinking of Freeman being like Carraway -- a guy who fulfills half the purpose of a normal protagonist, leaving the other half elsewhere (Carraway gives camera-eye but lets Gatsby be the emotional connection, Freeman... uh, does the same thing? Sorta?). There's nobody who fulfills the Gatsby role for Freeman's Carraway, so the metaphor fails. Ultimately, Half-Life isn't a story about a character. It's a story about a plot. Freeman is the cleanest possible implementation of someone who doesn't get in the way of that plot, a camera-eye and some gameplay mechanics that let some players observe the story and others inject themselves into it.
Or, again, maybe I'm full of crap.
Just because there are poor examples of games with speaking protagonists does not mean that games with speaking protagonists are inferior.
No, Bioshock does the Half-Life thing where you inject your own thoughts and words for Jack. In Half-Life this fails because the other characters treat Gordon like he's not talking. In Bioshock it does work because whatever Jack says is not going to have a significant effect on the speaker. Tenenbaum is behind a pane of glass too thick to break and is speaking through an intercom; she probably can't hear you. Langford is flipping the fuck out and is, again, behind a thick sheet of glass. Atlas is a bit busy running away to listen to what Jack is saying. In any scenario where the consoling the Little Sisters would make sense, they either don't listen because they haven't been healed yet or saying consoling words is appropriate considering that Jack is stroking their hair.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Same with Freeman.
He'll do and say whatever you think he should.
Freeman is a character revealed through his actions. His motivations for those actions are yours to fill in as you see fit.
Possibly. One reason I adore FF XII so much is - even though the dynamics between the cast were apparently down to a conflicted development process and demands from the suits at Squenix - I really liked the end result. I didn't feel I was Vaan, or identify with him per se, but I thought it was a welcome change to be almost literally standing back and watching other people's stories. It made the cutscenes feel a good deal less incongruous, for one thing.
Sorry if I led anyone to believe I dislike silent protagonists, or that I think any particular game is rubbish solely due to choosing voiced over mute or vice versa. I don't - I was just speculating on whether, out of any of these big titles, you could have developed them going the other way and still have ended up with anything like the game we know now. I think in a lot of cases you could, probably, though of course the issue's such that you'd lose countless fans regardless of how good your alternate take on Halflife or Metroid or whatever was.
Of course, Bioshock would be significantly harder to re-do with a protagonist who talks given (potential massive spoilers, though I'm assuming most people reading the thread have played the game)
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)