Your thoughts on 'mute' protaganists

[TheRocketeer]

Absolutely not. Mute protagonists are a horrible anachronism.

If the writing and characterization of your game is so terrible that you think the player could do better by filling in the vacuous, gaping wound you've deliberately left in your cast, then it's probably not exactly a selling point in the first place.

And if your casting and writing is excellent, then the gap left will be all the more egregious and unforgivable. Case in point: the Half-Life series. People claim that the voice acting and characterization in the series is matchless, and it certainly is far above average. But all of that is rendered completely null whenever I witness the alien, awkward attempt to pry the Doom marine's Ivy League cousin into an ostensibly human interaction. Any emotional or natural interaction involving Gordon is invalidated from the start because Gordon isn't human; he's a floating camera that lives only to murder.

Defenders of the technique claim that it allows them to project whatever personality they feel like onto the 'character.' I won't argue that, but I'd like to point out that you can also project whatever personality you prefer onto a volleyball, with exactly the same results.

Another defense is that a lot of great games have used this technique, like Half-Life and Chrono Trigger. This is a fallacy, though; just because a good game does this doesn't mean the game was improved by it. It's something akin to saying heroin must make you a great guitarist because tons of musicians used it back in the glory days of rock and roll.

There simply isn't a single decently written game that is improved by this awful device, and all games utilizing a silent protagonist would be improved by giving their heroic mute real, actual characterization. The only things keeping this device in place are nostalgia and inertia, two forces that constantly conspire to make the gaming industry worse, yet never better. I thought people would finally get this concept once Mass Effect blew everyone out of the water. Would Commander Shepard have been in any way improved by simply occupying space while your crewmates made every important decision and every important even occurred around rather than to the Commander, a la Crono or Gordon? And was your Commander Shepard any less 'your' character for having a personality, a voice, and a role beyond the execution of everything in front of him? Thought so.

There is, however, one instance in which a silent protagonist is ideal, these being instances in games like The Elder Scrolls, in which the protagonist is in concept and in practice exclusively of the player's own devising. Even those, however, are more attributable to technological limitations rather than any boon to narrative or setting; if you could make a character like this say and emote whatever you wished, wouldn't that immeasurably augment their gravity as the player's vessel in the world?

The Resident Evil series could also have been vastly improved with the help of silent characters... but I digress.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I generally don't like it, but can see how it fits into certain games. What bothers me most about it, however, is when the mute blank canvas character is praised as the paragon of a good character. This is patently false as the whole point of a mute character is for the player to themselves become the character, meaning the character has no "character" to begin with. Never mind a complex one like Cloud as even a simply defined character like Mario is a much better character than Freeman or Chrono.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

If there are moral choices then I'd prefer it if the character doesn't talk since its me that fully controls who they are. But if its a linear game and I'm playing a set character I demand talk to actually build the freakin' character.

 

[Treblaine]

I hate it. I seriously hate when your character doesn't talk. In my opinion, it's lazy and cowardice. What you don't want to scare off some buyer with a protagonist they might not like? Let THEM fill in the blanks? Cheap, that's what it is. Give them traits, characteristics, emotions, a voice. Let them emote. Perhaps they can't afford a good writer and voice acting? I prefer when my protagonists have personalities and can speak, without a doubt.

yeah, that's the problem with Half Life 2, poor voice acting and writing.[/sarcasm]

You have to realise a key element of the half life games is the completely unbroken 1st person perspective, and I can count on one hand the number of times it skips over anything you may see in the entire Half Life series, and is very subtly done like at the end of an episode.

It is one thing to move to a cutscene where the camera looks at the character you control, then it is a good time to have them emote/speak. But looking at the world through their eyes it just doesn't work when a voice is heard and it is supposed to be coming out of your own head. It is just disconnecting, disconcerting and weird.

In fact EVERY SINGLE THING that Gordon Freeman does in the Half Life games is 100% controlled by you. There isn't even a one scene where you do something you didn't initiate. You walk everywhere by pressing the keys or are physically moved by something in the game. At no point does 'the game' ever take control of what you can do, only limit what you can do.

 

[SnipErlite]

Half Life worked very well. Other games probably not so much.

Also welcome to the Escapist. Follow the rules and, for the sake of all that is holy, Stay out of The Basement!

 

[Tarquinius Superbus]

Link not talking is going to be awkward in future Zelda games if Twilight Princess is anything to go by.

 

[Treblaine]

Absolutely not. Mute protagonists are a horrible anachronism.

If the writing and characterization of your game is so terrible that you think the player could do better by filling in the vacuous, gaping wound you've deliberately left in your cast, then it's probably not exactly a selling point in the first place.

And if your casting and writing is excellent, then the gap left will be all the more egregious and unforgivable. Case in point: the Half-Life series. People claim that the voice acting and characterization in the series is matchless, and it certainly is far above average. But all of that is rendered completely null whenever I witness the alien, awkward attempt to pry the Doom marine's Ivy League cousin into an ostensibly human interaction. Any emotional or natural interaction involving Gordon is invalidated from the start because Gordon isn't human; he's a floating camera that lives only to murder.

Defenders of the technique claim that it allows them to project whatever personality they feel like onto the 'character.' I won't argue that, but I'd like to point out that you can also project whatever personality you prefer onto a volleyball, with exactly the same results.

Another defense is that a lot of great games have used this technique, like Half-Life and Chrono Trigger. This is a fallacy, though; just because a good game does this doesn't mean the game was improved by it. It's something akin to saying heroin must make you a great guitarist because tons of musicians used it back in the glory days of rock and roll.

There simply isn't a single decently written game that is improved by this awful device, and all games utilizing a silent protagonist would be improved by giving their heroic mute real, actual characterization. The only things keeping this device in place are nostalgia and inertia, two forces that constantly conspire to make the gaming industry worse, yet never better. I thought people would finally get this concept once Mass Effect blew everyone out of the water. Would Commander Shepard have been in any way improved by simply occupying space while your crewmates made every important decision and every important even occurred around rather than to the Commander, a la Crono or Gordon? And was your Commander Shepard any less 'your' character for having a personality, a voice, and a role beyond the execution of everything in front of him? Thought so.

There is, however, one instance in which a silent protagonist is ideal, these being instances in games like The Elder Scrolls, in which the protagonist is in concept and in practice exclusively of the player's own devising. Even those, however, are more attributable to technological limitations rather than any boon to narrative or setting; if you could make a character like this say and emote whatever you wished, wouldn't that immeasurably augment their gravity as the player's vessel in the world?

The Resident Evil series could also have been vastly improved with the help of silent characters... but I digress.

Unbroken 1st person perspective.

It is just disconcerting to hear a voice that is not yours apparently come out of your own head. It only works if the camera moves to a third person perspective for your playable character to emote. But that can break the flow of the game and isn't it a distraction anyway?

The advantage of unbroken 1st person perspective is GAMEPLAY immersion (games are games FIRST), you having 100% control over everything that happens in Half Life games, the game does not take control or initiate a single action. You decide where to look, when to shoot, where to move.

Mass Effect wasn't rated higher than Half Life 2 because the cutscenes can only ever be as good as a great movie or play. Games like Half Life and Fear do what non-video-game media just can't do.

That's the thing, there is a fundamental disconnect between cutscenes and gameplay as you

One way Half Life could be improved is give you the ability to say certain things depending on context (like Shepard in mass effect and so many RPGs) that would appear as text on screen, but I think it would be a mistake to have some voice actor speak the lines if the 1st person perspective. It would be unnecessary and disturb the 1st person immersion.

And I think you have to agree your opinion is definitely a minority opinion considering the sheer number of hugely successful games with silent protagonists.

In many ways the term "protagonist" is an incredibly inappropriate term for the title character of a video game, as often he is not merely the person you are passively observing and rooting for.. you ARE them! Or the game is going it's best to leave that perception that you aren't just playing a sophisticated "choose your own adventure" book but YOU are on an ADVENTURE!

Books are rarely told from a 2nd person perspective but almost by definition most games are.

We need to cast aside the old rues that worked for film, TV and plays.

If you start seeing games as GAMES and not merely as films with gameplay in between then you'll realise what an incredibly vital tool that silent "protagonists" are.

 

[ntw3001]

I can't stand protagonists who talk. It's better for immersion. Not that I'm especially interested in playing in the character of, say Mario or Gordon Freem, but I find that rather than playing through the story, it seems like I'm escorting someone else through it. I don't know why writing methods peculiar to films keep ending up in games; it's shockingly obvious that it doesn't work. I'm going to guess that writers know this, but don't make anything better because the target audience of most games is at a age where they think 'more realised characters' means 'cleverer'. While in a traditional film or book narrative this is, I guess, a fair generalisation, games aren't the same. The chief difference is in the player's interaction, and in games like this there isn't any. I'm watching a film, but I have to keep clicking on things and pressing buttons to make it progress.

Now, games like Bioshock and Half-life I can get behind. Because while there is a story, I don't have to pretend some deep involvement. I do stuff, and by doing this I move the plot forward. I don't have to hear what the protagonist thinks and then pretend to be the protagonist. I'm the driving force behind the story, which unfolds as other characters respond to me. I think of these games as having been made by developers who understand that they're making games.

 

[Treblaine]

I hate it. I seriously hate when your character doesn't talk. In my opinion, it's lazy and cowardice. What you don't want to scare off some buyer with a protagonist they might not like? Let THEM fill in the blanks? Cheap, that's what it is. Give them traits, characteristics, emotions, a voice. Let them emote. Perhaps they can't afford a good writer and voice acting? I prefer when my protagonists have personalities and can speak, without a doubt.

yeah, that's the problem with Half Life 2, poor voice acting and writing.[/sarcasm]

You have to realise a key element of the half life games is the completely unbroken 1st person perspective, and I can count on one hand the number of times it skips over anything you may see in the entire Half Life series, and is very subtly done like at the end of an episode.

It is one thing to move to a cutscene where the camera looks at the character you control, then it is a good time to have them emote/speak. But looking at the world through their eyes it just doesn't work when a voice is heard and it is supposed to be coming out of your own head. It is just disconnecting, disconcerting and weird.

In fact EVERY SINGLE THING that Gordon Freeman does in the Half Life games is 100% controlled by you. There isn't even a one scene where you do something you didn't initiate. You walk everywhere by pressing the keys or are physically moved by something in the game. At no point does 'the game' ever take control of what you can do, only limit what you can do.

I find it funny that no where in my post have I mentioned Half-Life yet fanboys of it seems to take offence. Yes alright dude. Whatever. It's still cheap and lazy. There's no reason why Gordon couldn't speak, the story is set, it isn't a fucking rpg. We already know that he's going to save the world bla bla bla. "Let the player feel and speak instead of Gordon" seems like a cowardly move. In my eyes. I would have had much more respect for the series if the guy would have conveyed his emotions so I could relate to the fucking character instead of just "seeing through his eyes".

And I never said anything about cutscenes. They could've let us keep the control but just let him fucking speak. Though I have, in a previous post on this very thread, said that the mute protagonist bollocks can be done correctly if done smart - Half-Life being one of them, if not the only. I guess you're quick to jump on people to defend your beloved series, that's cool I wouldn't have the energy to check all the pages either.

I respect games much more if they'd let mutes speak. "Being a character doesn't mean he is a character". Different people want different things. I prefer deep characters with fascinating dialogue, others the silent roleplaying aspect. Nothing is wrong, all that matters is that we have fun while playing.

You don't get it, what you are asking for is like asking for more character development in a book told from the 2nd person perspective.

If you want deep characters to passively observe, go watch a movie or read a book, there are loads of really great ones out there. If you want to TRULY BE IN a story then how about you play Half life WITHOUT the preconceived notion of:

"Gee, I wonder what Gordon freeman is feeling, what he wants to say or how he feels about this"

NO! WRONG! You're prejudice of what you expect from a game is spoiling your experience. You have to realise that there is no Gordon Freeman, there is no Link, there is no Jack (Bioshock), only YOU!

Look these games can be full of so many other deep, interesting and complex characters but why are our obsessed with trying to figure out what the director wants "your character" to feel/believe/want when it is not like that: you feel what you feel, you want what you want, you believe what you believe.

In other media like films the purpose of the film is to DEMONSTRATE what the protagonist's emotion/motivation are, in very immersive games like Half Life the purpose is to INDUCE the emotion/motivation in you!

I'm not saying games can't develop a deep+complex playable character... just that they will never be THAT good because they can only ever aspire to be as good as a movie, yet at the end of the day it still has to be a game.

And that dichotomy can land a game in the worst of both worlds. The more layers you add to you playable character the harder it is to play it and get immersed into the game since that character is your avatar for interacting with a complex game world and all the characters in it.

 

[Treblaine]

I can't stand protagonists who talk. It's better for immersion. Not that I'm especially interested in playing in the character of, say Mario or Gordon Freem, but I find that rather than playing through the story, it seems like I'm escorting someone else through it. I don't know why writing methods peculiar to films keep ending up in games; it's shockingly obvious that it doesn't work. I'm going to guess that writers know this, but don't make anything better because the target audience of most games is at a age where they think 'more realised characters' means 'cleverer'. While in a traditional film or book narrative this is, I guess, a fair generalisation, games aren't the same. The chief difference is in the player's interaction, and in games like this there isn't any. I'm watching a film, but I have to keep clicking on things and pressing buttons to make it progress.

Now, games like Bioshock and Half-life I can get behind. Because while there is a story, I don't have to pretend some deep involvement. I do stuff, and by doing this I move the plot forward. I don't have to hear what the protagonist thinks and then pretend to be the protagonist. I'm the driving force behind the story, which unfolds as other characters respond to me. I think of these games as having been made by developers who understand that they're making games.

Yeah, that's what I feel as well only you put it a hell of a lot more clearly and concisely than I did.

 

[Treblaine]

You're right. Thinking about it, making first person games with a mute guy probably is the way to go. For the immersion factor it brings. Or perhaps a mix of both, speaking sometimes and not speaking other times. Hm, that was actually a great idea I get your point. But sometimes I want more from the developers and slapping a "Mute" sign on the protagonist just feels like they've killed 50 flies in one swing. Lazy fuckers

Oh well, I suppose I'm in the minority here. Shame. It'd be nice to see someone understanding that what separates games from books and movies is interactivity. As long as you have that and add atmosphere, pacing, various story telling techniques, interesting characters, good dialogue then you can create a fantastic immersive adventure - and being interactive at all times. And I'm not talking about a game like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy. The "mute guy who can't see his own body" is just one way of many to tell a story and immerse the player. Obviously not for you, in fact, You're coming across as if it's the ONLY way to do it. Very arrogant.

Nah I'm glad that we have options. You play the games you dig and I'll play mine And everyone goes home happy. Thankfully, I'm open to all ideas and play all type of games. Strategy and fps, mute and talky bastards, adventure and puzzle games, point-and-click to hack and slash. So I'm not missing a thing. Sometimes I enjoy a good mute adventure. Sometimes I crave for something else

Well the invisible feet thing is another practical effort, because it is easy to get a camera to move as if a point of view, but matching virtual feet with the ground and those movements has traditionally been extremely hard. Sometimes it can be better to look down and see nothing than see some disembodied zombie feet that are moonwalking all over the place as you walk around. Portal seemed to have sorted that though.

Also it's not just 1st person adventures that benefit from the mute protagonist, in all the Legend of Zelda games Link has always remained mute save for a few onomatopoeias... yet at the same time highly emotive in terms of body language. Seriously, half the time Link seems like a silent film star depending on overstated gestures. Perhaps this is down to how it is a Japanese game made for the world market where he may not be so luck as to get a great voice talent.

Other mute protagonists are found in the most unlikely places, like in most RTS games, in all the Command and Conquer games you are a faceless, voiceless commander to spite being of such huge importance as to lead all the major campaigns to victory in a world war. Yet would it really help for every time you ordered troop to a certain location, you had to hear a voice order them to do it.
In many ways that can cause a disconnect. If you just click to order an attack with an immediate "roger, sir" and they go to task, that gets you tangibly connected to the battle. But if each order you have to hear A VOICE read out that order, if feels less like you are controlling the battle, more you are merely controlling someone who is controlling the battle. Degrees of separation are increased even further as any confirmation of "roger, sir" is implicitly not directed at you but the origin of the voice.

But point and click adventures, those I don't think would benefit from a silent protagonist. Since you really are just pointing your character which way to go, that really is a story where the particular internal wills and emotions of the protagonist are important to the plot.