Woffls- Posts: 7,338
| I thought this discussion from Free For All deserved a thread, because it's actually something I've not considered before now, and it could be a very far-reaching discussion. How do we define a character who has nothing to say?
What defines someone as a person? It's not just genetics, because siblings are rarely similar. It's not just other people, because then they'd see everyone the same way. Of course these are a factor, but I consider the main one to be environment. Encompassing those we interact with, what we do, and what we interpret from our surroundings. Can you guys think of any more?
Translate this to games, and it's fairly clear that all of these are a part of most characters, so lets take those same two examples again:
Link
Doesn't say anything, correct. The 'genetics' of this character - how the designer has made him - is usually a small kid wearing the green clothes that so irrevocably tie him back to home. You could consider it as just appearance, but we can already tell that he's out of place in the expanse of Hyrule, and weak before bigger enemies. As part of the story, Link is given the Triforce of Courage, instead of Power or Wisdom. This implies already that Link is neither that strong, nor wise, and relies only on his bravery. Am I reading too much into this, or are these fair assumptions based on the design of the character?
We can see in the reactions of others what kind of person Link is, and his own reactions on occasion. I've lost count of the number of NPC's that hold their hands together, flutter their eyes and say "ohh LINK, you're so brave!", so that's another reason we can call link brave, surely? Looking at how Link reacts when he sees a big boss crawling on the ceiling, the eyebrows go up, his eyes open fully, and the mouth turns to a little circle. He's shocked, but continues regardless, because that's what the character of Link does.
He's not just brave for going on a legendary adventure and saving princesses, he's kind as well because of all the people he saves in between having to defeat Ganon an' all that. Go back to Majora's Mask, and look at the Bomber's Notebook. It's full of NPC's that need help, and you could spend longer on that than stopping the moon from crashing into Termina. This is interesting, though, because it's entirely optional. Here Link actually has the choice to help people with their little dilemmas 'before' - before is an odd concept in Majora's Mask - stopping the moon. Here, the player can impart some of their personality on Link, but either way you're saving all of them eventually.
Link is a brave child/young man, who cares for the wellbeing of others. He never forgets where he is from, and he's SUCH A LAZY BOY. We don't need him to tell us any of this.
Gordon Freeman
Again, Gordon keeps his mouth shut, and makes even fewer noises than Link. The character has a PhD from MIT, stupid thick glasses and a lab coat; he's a scientist. Already we can make assumptions of his character, but not many, actually. Everyone asks so much of him, and he never questions or complains, so maybe he's a complete pushover who happens to be somewhat adept at handling guns?
Other people mostly just explain to Gordon what he needs to do next, or comment on how quiet he is. But one thing that's obvious in Half Life 2, is that everyone you meet knows who Gordon Freeman is. Even the random Rebels and Vortigaunts know who you are, and Dr Mossman is pretty much falling over your awesomeness when you meet her. Freeman has a reputation in HL2, and it was built from his actions in HL, not because he goes up to people and says "Look how awesome I am guys... guys?".
... nearly there! Sorry about the essay, lads
So, have I imposed my own character onto these two examples? Or is the groundwork already laid out for me by the developers? It will be interesting to hear how you all interpret these characters, and, indeed, other silent protagonists, because vastly different interpretations could mess the theory up a little bit.
Essentially, I believe that characters are defined by their design features, how other people interact with them, and their actions in the world. Characters don't need to speak to influence narrative, as feelings can be conveyed and implied through indirect means, and actions speak louder than words. |
SexyJams- Posts: 6,057
| Dead Space 1 Isaac Clarke was brilliant because of his silence.
However, they couldn't have done a better job in Dead Space 2 with giving him a real character of his own. I don't think the silence would be believable the second time round. It sounds stupid, but by the end of Half-Life 2 I sort of wanted Gordon Freeman to just say something. Eventually the whole 'never talking' thing actually sort of takes me out of my emersion because no-one would ever not say anything.
Anyway, I prefer talking protagonists and I may be the only dude that feels that way, but hey. |
guyderman- Posts: 3,891
| I have no preference tbh as long as it suits the game, but if I had to choose one or the other I think I prefer my characters to have a voice. A silent Kratos wouldn't work, for example, as we need to know that he's an angry young man. And the dialogue in the Uncharted games is like the icing on the cake for that series. |
Neon-Soldier32- Posts: 3,903
| May contain spoilers.
I think that Dead Space is an intresting game to use.
In Dead Space 1 I think that lack of a voice adds to the macabre of the Ishimura, helps create more tension and you can tell alot about Issac. Like, when Nicole come up on a vdeo transmission, you can tell that he cares about her and that she is what gives him the strength to carry on through the ship looking for her.
Ho ever in Dead Space 2 Clarke has a voice and this works alright, but I think that it takes away a little from the experience. This doesn't make him more of a characher than in the original game however. On the contrary, I think Clarke is a stronger character in the original than the sequel.
Because him not talking tells us more about him, than the sequel does. In the sequel it's basically, Nicole's haunting me.
In the original Bioshock the protagonist, Jack, narrates 19 words at the very beginning, and a few as the ending to the game, but is silent inbetween the beginning and the end of the game and IMO Jack is one of the strongest game characters I've seen.
Jack's never really had anything before and doesn't have any family on the surface and many things tell us this, by how, easily he follows Atlas' instruction. How, he is willing to kill a Big Daddy just on the off, you know, about an hour after he was in a bloody plane crash.
And you can tell, that he doesn't necessarily want to he wants to get back to the surface. That, being is Rapture is not better than being on the surface.
Show Spoiler
Or, you could just counter my whole BioShock thing by saying that he did what was asked because of 'would you kindly'
|
p0rtalthinker- Posts: 1,737
| Everyone in this thread pretty much sums up my thoughts on the utter foolishness of that which is Jamin Smith. |
Bloodstorm- Posts: 5,988
| Pros and cons of the silent protagonist.....
PROS
Adds abit more mysteriousness into the character.
In the case of Doom Guy, Quake Guy, they're supposed to be YOU!
No bad voice actor/actress.
Silence is golden
CONS
In Gordon Freemans case, the urge to shout "SAY SOMETHING DAMN IT!!!"
Sometimes being mysterious is bad, so much potential characteristics gone.
Cant think of any more off the top of my head, feel free to add some. |
Clockpunk- Posts: 3,417
| Philosophically speaking, every videogame which features interaction within the digital world by a person/creature that is not physically the actual player, is an avatar.
Psychologically speaking, any interpretative qualities ascribed by the presentation of the avatar can, and will, impose character upon the controlled being. Be it Gordon Freeman, Isaac Clarke, the claw of the Dungeon Keeper (which slaps the Imps, picks up beasties, casts spells directly, etc), or even the clown-gloved hand within Theme Park on the SNES. All of these representations impart interpretative qualities to the avatar, making them, technically, characters.
In summary: Avatar - no personality beyond the controller, Character - has own characteristics.
*phew*  |
CheekyLee- Posts: 6,079
| To be frank, the more I have thought about this the more I have realised that I basically prefer silent lead characters. I recall thinking what a step back it was when Tommy Vercetti first spoke in Vice City, and even though I ended up loving the persona, I ultimately think that it was a mistake for the series. For me, GTA 3 was at its best when you were surrounded by larger than life characters, rather than being one yourself. The series, for me, went downhill once it got about a defined person. It didn't really help that CJ was so ... lacking in any kind of personality at all. Or that Niko was ... pretty much the same, truth be told. I'll take an entirely first person game next time if it means going back to what made me love the series in the first place.
As Woffls alludes to, it is always the actions and speeches from other characters that define a character the most. It is only really as a blank canvas that we can truly extend ourselves into a game; any other time we are acting. Link rings so true and is so memorable to us purely because we are providing his thoughts and his dialogue ourselves. We are given boundaries and instructions, but we are not given absolute direction. By putting more of ourselves into the game, we get more out of it in return.
Many people may wonder why one of my favoruite games is Earth Defence Force 2017. The answer may surprise you. It is because I happen to think it is one of the best stories ever told in videogames. How can this be, I hear you ask, when there are basically no cut-scenes, and the so-called lead character never utters a single word? The story is as simple as it gets....
Only, not really. The mould of the story is simple, this is true. It is naught but a shell in which aliens attack the earth, nearly destroying it, and the EDF fight them off. But, it becomes more than that in the mind of anyone who allows themselves to enter into the spirit of it. In the final mission, the voice on the radio that suddenly notices "Well I'll be damned. Somebody survived all those attacks, and is still fighting the enemy." means so much more to me because it was me doing it at the time than if it was pumped into me in between missions when I was just forced to listen. All story in that game is hinted at rather than spoonfed, and I find it more effective and rewarding being asked to do the work myself.
Hearing my nameless colleagues banter allowed me to put faces to them. It allowed me to fill in all the gaps the game left me with my own inventions. So that, when I heard them die, I pictured them more vividly than if they were, say, Anthony Carmine. I felt their losses more acutely, because they were personal. And I'll take that over being told how to feel about something every single time. |
Mr_Ninjutsu- Posts: 7,659
| Quote:Originally Posted by Woffls how other people interact with them, and their actions in the world
From what i've seen and played, silent protagonists are only existant in RPG's; in which you are the character, you are the player who makes those small and big decisions. It's your voice, in theory. However, there are a few cases inwhich games like Half-Life that have a voiceless saviour. But i guess the same theory applies, that you are Gordan Freeman, you are the hero of sorts.
I personally prefer them, but i wouldn't want it for every game. |
SexyJams- Posts: 6,057
| What do you prefer though? It's interesting and compelling to a point, but in my case, and also apparently Bloodstorm's; Gordon Freeman was unbelievable by the end of Half Life 2. When does it pass the point from allowing a person to convey his own personality and character onto a protagonist into where the whole portrayal of this character is just ridiculous because he literally has said nothing to no-one and has gone through the game as a mute.
Personally for me, Isaac Clarke was a brilliant silent protagonist in Dead Space due to the fact that he was very much on his own throughout the majority of the game. Moments that pushed it would be when he'd meet up with Nicole or when he sees Kendra nearer the end and says nothing. However, Visceral recognised the fact that to make him quiet throughout the whole of Dead Space 2 would be extremely foolish as it just wouldn't make sense, and so they made the brave decision to give him a voice. It's a shame that Valve can't do the same with Gordon Freeman, btu I think it's past the point of even being able to by now. |
