Speak Up!
Keep Freeman QuietThis 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
6th October 2008
8th October 2008
11th October 2008
16th October 2008
2nd November 2008
2nd November 2008
5th November 2008
5th November 2008
5th November 2008
6th December 2008
23rd October 2010
23rd September 2011
Show the nine other comments
Due to the age of this article, comments are now closed