About Gordon Freeman and other Silent Protagonists in terms of their relationship with the player

[Midnight Crossroads]

They have their uses, but the ambiguity can really divide a fanbase as your character might not be the correct character in the eyes of the creator should they ever decide to get rid of that ambiguity. See, Other M. (Just as an example, please don't let this become a discussion about Other M.)

Valve touched on this issue humorously in Portal 2. It was pretty refreshing to see a developer poke fun at themselves.

Personally, I'm not a fan of silent protagonists. In general, at least. I prefer more fleshed out characters as I never really see myself as the protagonist. I see the character. My friends, when describing a game, speak in the first person when referring to the character. I speak in the third.

 

[octafish]

Freeman is Jay Gatsby. That is one of the clever things about the character. You learn about him from the way others react to him.

 

[Jimmy Sylvers]

The way I see it is that Gordon Freeman is a character that has been written but Valve have asked you to act the role of Mr. Freeman. Gordon does actually talk, we just don't hear it because it is supposed to be whatever we are thinking his motivation is here. Sure this is a very John Everyman kind of approach but I think it is a better option than making you sit and listen to a very heavily defined character that you completely hate.

Jack from BioShock is another good example of this, I think if he spoke it would have ruined the atmosphere and too specifically defined the experience.

I much prefer silent protagonists because I prefer the world around me to tell a story than listen to some generic American voiced protagonist drone on with exposition for hours.

 

[Terminate421]

Here are two examples of silent protagonists, one that works and one that doesn't.

Gordon Freeman does not work. The problem is that your situation can be resolved in many scenarios, yet it's never explained why he never talks. You can't identify with him because your being told who you are but you cannot "make it up" like an RPG. His opinion SHOULD matter, but he never gives one.

Alcatraz from Crysis 2 works because it's explained why he doesn't talk, he's a walking corpse, he can't exactly do much communication even with the suit. The situation throughout the game is life or death, you're not given much alternative options from a story perspective. And your character isnt some significant war hero, just a grunt who was mortally wounded and given a suit. His opinion wouldn't matter because it's entirely out of his control.

 

[Vigormortis]

Sometimes I think people mistakenly praise Freeman as a character when what they really want to do is praise the games' narrative, storytelling and, in particular, the excellent support characters that lead you through it.

What was really superb about HL2 was how the game flowed without the use of cutscenes, or ever removing you from the first person perspective. Anyone who enjoyed Children of Men will know how powerful a tool the single shot scene can be, well this is 10 hours worth.

Overall I was completely immersed in it, but I never felt like Freeman was a 'character' (not in the way that other narrative actions games have them, Nathan Drake et al), more a pair of eyes to watch Valve's story unfold.

Alyx is the real hero.

My thoughts exactly. As a "character", Freeman is a tool. A device through which the player experiences the narrative. As such, he isn't a well-written, defined character but rather a method with which to immerse the players into the story.

Also, kudos on the Children of Men reference. That was not only a fantastic hard science fiction film, but also an exquisite example of how to tell a story entirely from a single characters unbroken point of view. After seeing it for the first time a friend of mine actually said to me, "You know, this movie makes me think that a Half-Life or Bioshock movie could actually work."

After a moments thought, I replied, "You know...you may be right."