Keep Freeman Quiet
This is in response to this article.
The silent protagonist is a plot device that is becoming more and more popular. What makes it interesting is that it is a gaming-specific form of storytelling: In a movie, the action unfolds in an omniscient style where a character's involvement can be portrayed visually, speech or no speech. In a video game, however, removing the voice of the main character - the player - tricks the audience into a sort of immersive stupor; look, he's not speaking, it must be me in the game! While plenty of other games had done it beforehand, the release of Valve's Half Life 2 really kicked this gimmick into gear. Unfortunately, while it's been done properly a few times, too many developers use it as an excuse for bad writing - Half Life 2 included.
Now, before anyone grabs their pitchforks and tries to pin down my address, let me explain. Half-Life 2 is a great game. It featured innovative physics, impressive graphics, and satisfying action. The Source engine was and is a revolutionary platform for developers and modders everywhere. However, Half-Life 2 did not have a good script. Why? Because there was no main character. There was simply a floating hand on the screen that ran through City 17 shooting people in the face; a floating hand that people wanted to talk to for some reason. From the moment we were introduced to Alyx, people around Gordon Freeman wanted to gab and gab and gab at his disembodied arm, as if it would care. The problem with Gordon's silence is that it hinders the script; characters talk as if they're having an in-depth conversation with a completely mute character, even reacting to supposed reactions on his part.
"What do you think, Gordon?"
Gordon doesn't think anything. He's five fingers and a forearm. Granted, there is a legitimate artistic idea behind casting the player as the protagonist - but Valve really didn't do such a good job. With such a dense science-fiction script, secondary characters seemed completely oblivious of Freeman's lack of response, explaining vastly complicated pseudo-science hooey to him - Mossman's lecture about the Combine "not factoring in the dark matter equations" in particular is guilty of spewing exposition at the player. Stripping a game of cut scenes and forcing players to experience the story 100% through the eyes of the protagonist is a bold move. Some concessions must be made to make the player feel there, though: for one thing, the animation needs to be absolutely stellar. Half-Life 2 is a resounding failure here. I play a lot of first person shooters, so it's a little bizarre for me to criticize Gordon as being a floating arm - after all, my favorite genre revolves around an arm and a gun on the side of the screen - but it's one of the only games where I've been aware of this glaring fault. In every given situation, Freeman's hand stays in the same position. He doesn't lower it to sprint, he doesn't bend it to jump, and he certainly doesn't put his gun away in the company of allies. No, Gordon is ever vigilant, ready to bust a cap in anything that moves.
Like the best silent movies, it's entirely possible to create a game that doesn't need constant dialogue. Again, however, like movies, there must be some visual representation to compensate. Recent shooters like The Darkness, Crysis, and Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway - even though they lack silent protagonists - have offered fantastic visual cues to humanize the characters we control. Things like recoil, running, melee attacks, and switching weapons are all handled with detailed animation, whereas in Half-Life 2, Gordon simply holds the gun in the same position. It may seem like a fairly petty thing to complain about, but given the amount of credit the game seems to get for being so atmospheric, it seems a little odd that it doesn't even feel like we're in control of a human being. Likewise, the lack of any knowledge about Freeman besides what we're told by people talking to us - great, he's a scientist with an MIT degree! - creates a rift between the player and the character. Since the game is entirely linear, we know Gordon has to react to people somehow. Because we have no choice over his actions, we can't become Gordon, because Gordon makes all his decisions himself somehow. With no options on the part of the player, a story as involved as Half-Life 2 just feels crippled without a lead part.
Valve has offered good examples of silent heroes, however. Portal is simple, in gameplay and story, and the lack of a definite character serves to highlight the lab-rat atmosphere that the series of tests and GlaDOS's psychotic, Big Brother-esque instructions serve to create. There are no secondary characters hanging around expecting answers from a mute; there is simply the player, the antagonist, and a twisted story to experience. Another shooter that gets it right is Bioshock (and its predecessor System Shock 2), allowing players to make their own decisions in regards to combat style, weapon customization, and a series of choices that affect the outcome of the game. Similarly to Portal, Bioshock provides the player - taking the role of the central character - with a dark story to uncover, and very few characters to interact with. Unlike Half-Life 2, the suspension of disbelief isn't broken. There is no rebel leader to think that handing the only Rocket Propelled Grenade his team has to the silent man who walked into the room five minutes ago is a good idea, and no Alyx to hang around attempting to create romantic tension between her fully developed character and a hovering limb holding a firearm.
Main characters with no script of their own is also a common element in adventure games and RPGs. While it worked decently throughout the 2D era, in the age of high-definition gaming it seems a little odd to provide completely linear stories without a main role. The Legend of Zelda is particularly guilty of stretching this gimmick out; even with cut scenes in place, recent games are starting to feel hindered by the lack of an actual protagonist. In third-person, though, we can still see responses communicated visually, something first-person games must strive to imply. It's hard to tell a story with a missing character, and even harder when players are assuming control of them and seeing the world through their eyes. If we have to be given complete control of a characters emotions, we should have some control over their actions, too. Otherwise, it just feels an excuse to not have to write anything.
The main argument for having a main character that does not speak is that it makes the experience easier to connect with. That's not necessarily true. Plenty of shooters have provided harrowing gameplay without deleting a role from the script; to bring up a previous example, The Darkness is a totally linear game that features plenty of dialogue and scenes that take place outside of the character's head; however, the rest of the presentation more than makes up for these out of body experiences. The idea of a silent protagonist isn't bad, just used poorly. Characterization is an important factor in storytelling, and while it can be done silently, it requires talent and careful implementation to preserve any suspense of disbelief. It certainly shouldn't be the standard for shooters, either - a floating arm by any other name is still just a floating arm.
Comments
anticitizen one on Wednesday 5th November 2008
Bart: Maybe you are a mere husk of a person and that prevents you from experiencing any kind of human emotion - let alone fill Gordon's shoes. Just kidding, buddy. And if you don't like being called "buddy," then replace it with "chief." Again, I will say, the technology does not exist to create the optimal, immersive game world. As long as controls are limited to being button presses or simple arm swings, we're not going to see a significant leap forward. For my money, though, I'd say Half-life 2 comes closer to being that idyllic escapist fantasy than any other game.
Bart on Wednesday 5th November 2008
I see what you're saying, but I still find it hard to be sucked into Half Life 2 when it just feels so lifeless. Considering the NPCs have/had such great facial animation, it confused me how bare-bones everything else was. I couldn't care for the characters because they all acknowledged my presence - my own presence, not Freeman's. Freeman doesn't exist because he is not a character. He is "you" superimposed on the gameworld, and that's too much of a gap to ask a player to fill in my opinion.
anticitizen one on Wednesday 5th November 2008
Would animation really fix the problem? Everything the main character does in Far Cry 2 is beautifully animated, but all that serves to do is make me dizzy - all that jostling of the camera when I'm sitting perfectly still. Furthermore, I notice when the cart seemingly drives itself in Half-life 2, but I'm more disturbed at the way Marty twitches like a meth addict when I steer commandeered jeeps using WSDA in Far Cry 2. Freeman is a ghost for good reason. Another problem with increasing the amounts of animation is that it sharpens the disparity between what's happening off-screen as opposed to on-screen. Even in the most minimalist of shooters, the input using buttons does not even approximate what happens on-screen. Would it really help to aggravate that problem? Using cut-scenes for exposition also causes this problem but for a different reason. I remember playing Metal Gear Solid and the total let-down I felt after the cut-scene where Snake confronts Gray Fox because all I could do in the fight was the same punch-punch-kick animation over and over again. That problem is still quite apparent in MGS4. More animations have been added to null some of the pain but the underlying problem is still there: the controls are flagrantly inadequate. Even the Wii's controls bear only rudimentary similarity to the on-screen action. The truth is that the technology does not yet exist to give a fully immersive experience. Furthermore, the examples you give are flimsy at best. BioShock suffers from the same problems that Half-life 2 does (if you consider them problems). When Atlas talks to you using the radio, why doesn't Jack ever say, "10-4, good buddy?" If, in fact, he lacked the equipment to respond then all I have to say is, "Well, how convenient!" Even so, Rainbow Six: Vegas scared the hell out of me when the protagonist would talk because I would frenetically scan my surroundings trying to find that sinister, southern-accented poltergeist that seemed to follow me everywhere. In addition, where Half-life 2 excels and BioShock fails miserably is in the way NPC's are rendered. In BioShock, I felt more relief than shock in the golf club scene because it was comforting to know I had ridden the world of such a freakish looking creature. A great deal of effort has gone into the character models in Half-life 2 and all I can say is that I care for the characters in Half-life 2. I can't say the same for BioShock. Ah, Portal. I like Portal but the only reason it works so well is because its design is so austere. It's three hours long and there aren't any pesky NPC's muddling up the works.
Kazerad on Sunday 2nd November 2008
You make a lot of nice points (especially about how little actual animation Gordon has), though there's a few points I'd like to nitpick that hurt your argument: -Nobody actually presumes responses from Gordon. In fact, several times they acknowledge the fact that he never speaks. -Since Gordon is a well known, heroic figure in the resistance (perhaps since he seems to be the only one capable of running through City 17 shooting people in the face), it makes sense that other rebels would want to talk to him even if he does not respond, and also that they would give him an RPG (if I recall correctly that base had been informed in advance of your arrival). -I completely disagree about the part with Mossman's lecture being guilty of "spewing exposition". To be exposition it'd have to be explaining something important to the player. Rather, it's simply developing Mossman as someone who is very enthusiastic about teleportation research, and can ramble about it even without getting a response (keep in mind that Gordon and her are both physicists, so she is assuming he understands and cares).
Brouhaha Abounding on Sunday 2nd November 2008
I liked your pieces on Gordon and his narrative...or lack there of. I think Valve does a pretty good job with getting away with not letting him speak, despite it making no sense when interacting with other characters. But they dazzle us with just about everything else so we let it pass. I think it's very clever, but also very lazy writing, which sounds like a conundrum. I think the problem lies in how far the player is willing to (like you said) narrate themselves. For me, I didn't do any of that. Mario never talked, but that doesn't mean his games weren't fun. I hope more games don't take on this non-speaking hero, because not everybody has skilled enough writers to barely pull it off like Valve does. And on a side note. There's never a mirror or reflective surface in all of Half Life 2...really? I think it detracts from the game, because it just isn't realistic. I suppose vorgons and headcrabs aren't either, but with all the trashed houses you go through...not a single mirror. Perhaps the combine are trying to keep the most deadly weapon out of Gordon's hands.
Add your own +
More comments (9 total)