FireFly said:

I don't see any actual argument, here. Just you stating one approach is better than the other. Would you be happy if I simply replied in a similar vein "no, it's not", and left it there?

Click to expand...

I feel like I already provided my reasoning. The reason I simply said "this is better / this is worse" is because of the skewed way in which you described each option.

As far as I can tell, the particular trade-off they took in the Half-Life series - by having a mute character - didn't work for you, and from that you're inferring that it didn't work for everyone, and that it was therefore a bad decision. And you just can't make that jump.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

I'm stating my opinion and giving the reasoning for it.

You don't get to react as yourself in any game in the sense that you have very limited control over your character. If you're blocked by a waist high wall, and the developers didn't program a 'mantling' animation then you're stuck. In fact for the most part all you can do is aim and fire, and interact in very limited and prescribed ways. See a cup of coffee: can you pick it up and drink it? No.

The game works because you accept these arbitrary limitations, as part of the fabric of what you can and cannot do. In that regard, not being able to talk is merely one of a hundred limitations.

Click to expand...

You're stating obviously true things. Of course I can't just say whatever I want. Of course I can't just interact with any object the way I would want to. The point is: some of these limitations are more annoying and limiting than others. "Just accept it" is not an acceptable answer. I want the narrative to be done in such a way as to make that particular limitation (that I can't say or anything) less annoying. Simply making the character a mute is not how I want it dealt with. Having him say a few lines at points where it would make sense is a reasonable way to reduce the annoyance factor. It would help flesh out the story too.

To use the most literal analogy: imagine that you're transported into another universe, in someone else's body, and as a consequence of this you can't talk.

Click to expand...

This is worse.

Now imagine that you're transported into someone else's head, and have to watch them make decisions. See the difference?

Click to expand...

Yes. This is better. (Again: "make decisions" is an exaggeration of what's being desired here. The only true decisions you get to make in a HL game = how and when to shoot stuff. This is hardly a matter of making decisions. It's a matter of narrating what happens. Making me a mute makes the narrative worse. It's inconsistent.)

As I said before, there's no 'right answer'. You like one solution: great! Just don't try to pretend it's ideal for everyone.

Click to expand...

I'm not. I suppose I could make some claim that *most* people would probably enjoy it more, but even then I'd be guessing at best.

You're right, there is an objective reality to Gordon, it's just not one Valve have definitely decided on. That's why they've explicitly refused to settle things one way or the other.

Here's what Marc said in an e-mail reply to me many years back:

"Given current technical restrictions, there is no instinctive way to
talk back in a game, or to have characters respond intelligently to what
you say, or to have the game respond to the infinite number of things
you might feel like saying. I have to confess, I'm not sure what true
reality is. Maybe the vortigaunts know."

Click to expand...

Sure. And this is a copout answer. That's why I don't like it.

The whole barrier is far overstated too. It's not rocket science. Halo may not be some narrative masterpiece, but having MC speak every now and then is perfectly acceptable. It doesn't break you out of the experience... it just works. It even works when they (oh no!) show the guy from a 3rd person perspective.

Equus Bellator Apex said:

What happens in Gears of War 2?

Click to expand...

Marcus Fenix comedy hour, featering Dom and MAARRRIIIAAAAA and a gaint worm sinking cities.

It's basically Bulletstorm, but without the self-parody. Other than that it's fine though.

THIS.

The part that killed me the most is, when they originally discussed the synopsis for the game years ago, it sounded fuck awesome. Then the characters ruined it, l'cie this, Fal Cie THAT. What the hell happened?!

Mr. B Natural said:

They didn't convey much of anything in HL2 or its episodes. Nothing much has happened. Episode 1 was all about just exploring a tower and blowing it up.

Click to expand...

Your summary needs a lot of work. In terms of plot, Episode 1 was all about foreshadowing the arrival of the Advisors and the escalation of the conflict by means of a Macguffin (the data packet), which would later be integral to the closure of the portal and reveal the location of the Borealis (which should prove pivotal to the plot of HL3, whatever happens). As far as "intangibles" go, HL2 and the Episodes are at their heart a depiction of a family undergoing great trials and losses, and weighty decisions that could divide them further.

Likewise, HL2 conveyed far more than just running on rails and destroying shit. It established the central familial unit, examined the underlying relationships a little and presented its survival of the first of many hurdles (the Mossman betrayal and the resulting confrontation at the Citadel). It also introduced figures such as Advisors and Stalkers before they took on a sense of gravity in the episodes. Without people in the world to exist alongside them, they're just monsters on the screen without tangible impact. The most they can inflict upon you is surprise/fear and some hitpoints lopped off a bar. That's certainly a limit of technology, I won't say of it otherwise, but reducing the PC and constructing your NPCs does reap a significant advantage here. There isn't the jarring process of "finding" the disembodied voice when it chooses to speak, nor that of adjusting to sudden quick cuts as my camera is taken from me, everything I need to know is given from the world and the people in it, seamlessly and uninterruptedly. That needn't lend itself to all games or genres, but I find it to work in games that have similar objectives (ie humanizing NPCs and writing a story around them, striving for seamlessness [sic]).

It may certainly be argued that even if Freeman isn't the primary character in a narrative sense, he remains the primary character in a ludological (ie game mechanics) sense. I've been careful to restrict its usage to the former only, deriving the signifier character from whether or not characterization is a focus and result. "Vehicle" better describes the entity from a purely mechanical standpoint because it conveys pure locomotion and action. Games can certainly have an amalgam, a "character vehicle", but in regards to Half-Life and games like it, the divide is distinguished well enough.

So, there is no disagreement that whatever we end up calling Freeman, he remains the central entity at play ludologically. There's no controversy there, he's clearly the primary vehicle in a field abounding with them. But even then, the games will time and time again engineer dependency on others. Sometimes it's merely expressed as the presence of companions, or the presence of lethal companions that have to be safeguarded to function uninterrupted, at others it's a companion vehicle shooting for you while you provide it light and line of sight, and sometimes it's expressed as vehicles providing ammunition and health when you need it, or opening accesses through the level. So even though in this sense Freeman is still the central vehicle at play, the games still go out of their way to reinforce that the struggle is not merely one vehicle versus a group of others, but of group against group. This more often than not meshes well with something that the narrative also conveys: cooperation and a concerted effort against numerous/powerful foes. If it was just Freeman and his crowbar, the game would be so mechanically (or ludologically) and aesthetically (or narratively) different that it would be a far different game with far different points of focus. As it happens, I've played so many HL2 mods where it's indeed "Freeman alone against the world" that I'm amply familiar with what that plays and feels like. A great deal changes.

Well, Half-Life 2 was definitely pretty sparse in terms of plot development. There's no denying that. 90% of it was the lone-wolf adventures of Gordon Freeman.

The episodes were full of various plot happenings though.

RedRedSuit said:

Well, Half-Life 2 was definitely pretty sparse in terms of plot development. There's no denying that. 90% of it was the lone-wolf adventures of Gordon Freeman.

The episodes were full of various plot happenings though.

Click to expand...

There was certainly a lot of lone "point a to point b" traversal, but pivotal plot events/battles tended to occur in the presence of allies and companions, rather than in their absence. The same is true of the episodes of course, but they tend to be a lot more dense with plot development and feature more companionship during traversal between pivotal fixtures of plot. But yes, HL2 was definitely sparse in comparison.

Botolf said:

There was certainly a lot of lone "point a to point b" traversal, but pivotal plot events/battles tended to occur in the presence of allies and companions, rather than in their absence. The same is true of the episodes of course, but they tend to be a lot more dense with plot development and feature more companionship during traversal between pivotal fixtures of plot. But yes, HL2 was definitely sparse in comparison.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that a lot of Half-Life 2's story is also told through the levels you make your way through the game. Two examples: The Combine walls eating the city and the surrounding area, the ocean levels being low (ships stuck on shore, piers looking like they shouldn't be where they are).

FireFly said:

1.) Write the player out of the game, by replacing him with a fully realized character who acts of his own accord and is observed by the player in a detached way, as he makes decisions for him.

2.) Give the player space to think and react as himself - as if he really was trapped within the game universe, by imposing a single narrative restriction; no one is going to talk for him.

Click to expand...

Gordon doesn't really fit into either category though. HL2 doesn't even attempt the illusion of choice.

The main story is still making decisions for you, Gordon just doesn't really mention it.

Dax01 said:

Not to mention that a lot of Half-Life 2's story is also told through the levels you make your way through the game. Two examples: The Combine walls eating the city and the surrounding area, the ocean levels being low (ships stuck on shore, piers looking like they shouldn't be where they are).

Click to expand...

Definitely, though I do think it went a bit too far in that regard. These are things that would have been talked about by citizens in and around the city, even if only in oblique allusion (ie "Used to be a nice neighbourhood behind all that", "Could get your feet wet here, once upon a time"). I think the Episodes do a better job of drawing attention to the world, but they also balance specificity and vagueness a bit better.

Botolf said:

In a sea of sentient tits, hapless princesses, and sex objects, Alyx Vance is the fish you choose to fry? And as a Mary Sue? Can we go into detail here?

Click to expand...

I personally view Alyx Vance as a sex object, although not your typical one.

"Oh Gordon you're so cool" *blushes* "Oh Gordon you're so awesome!" *blushes* "Oh Gordon you're so incredible!" *blushes*

The fact that she can fall in love with a mute that doesn't say or react anything to her is incredibly awkward, silly, and very-nonsensical.

Wrong thread.

Am I the first in this topic to venture into the land of FF7?

beef3483 said:

My pick. It really is sad when you think of all the cutscenes you had to endure throughout the series only to have it end like that. This game singlehandedly ruined my perception of both MGS and Kojima.

Click to expand...

+1

the story was just like okayyy... but then the ending a Freaking Wedding common...

Sonic Chronicles. Good god was that diabolically terrible. It's probably the only plot I can think of that I felt like was just... raping my eyes, over and over and over. Good god. Hell, I'd say even 06's plot was better than this... thing (though at least I only experienced that particular abomination through an lp).

Laughing Banana said:

I personally view Alyx Vance as a sex object, although not your typical one.

"Oh Gordon you're so cool" *blushes* "Oh Gordon you're so awesome!" *blushes* "Oh Gordon you're so incredible!" *blushes*

The fact that she can fall in love with a mute that doesn't say or react anything to her is incredibly awkward, silly, and very-nonsense.

Click to expand...

You're basically describing a type of Mary Sue here, but I don't see it. Yes, she congratulates the player at junctures for a job well done, but the overwhelming majority of her lines deal with the problems at hand without heaping praises upon the player. Praise itself isn't bad when it's used sparingly, but to some it seems that any occurrence is grounds for declaring a character a player-fellating Mary Sue (and among the most blatant, according to DeadTrees). Really? Are we incapable of painting in more than two shades here?

I just beat FFXIII, and I want to kill myself.

That was just awful. So needlessly, repetitively melodramatic. So utterly nonsensical. I can't believe people spent at least four years making a game built around this story.

I need to play RE4 again to wash the bad taste out of my mouth.

sonicmj1 said:

I just beat FFXIII, and I want to kill myself.

That was just awful. So needlessly, repetitively melodramatic. So utterly nonsensical. I can't believe people spent at least four years making a game built around this story.

I need to play RE4 again to wash the bad taste out of my mouth.

Click to expand...

Same, even worse is that I am now plugging away in the post-game grind. I loathe the game, but can't stop playing the fucker.

Botolf said:

In a sea of sentient tits, hapless princesses, and sex objects, Alyx Vance is the fish you choose to fry? And as a Mary Sue? Can we go into detail here?

Click to expand...

...Sure, I guess.

Here are the important things we learn about Alyx during the course of the series:

-She loves her pa!
-She misses her ma!
-She hates the Combine!
-She likes Gordon. Really, really, reaaaaaaaalllllly likes Gordon, to the point of making porno-level come-ons.
-She just so happens to be skilled at firearms usage, operating and repairing teleportation hardware, advanced robotics, singlehandedly breaking into fortified prisons, slaughtering Combine soldiers, reprogramming turrets...did I miss anything?
- -She's never, ever, ever, depicted doing anything ethically dubious.
-Her only trait that could possibly be called a character flaw is...she just loves the resistance/Eli/Gordon too damn much!

The only other major female character in the series is Mossman. In contrast, here are the important things we learn about her:

-She's jealous of Gordon
-She's an obstructionist
-She's incompetent and has to have Alyx fix her screwups
- -It's insinuated that *GASP* she has lust in her heart for Eli. What's utterly bizarre about this is that not only is it never confirmed or denied, it has no bearing on how the story plays out, and is never even referred to again. It's an accusation that's meant to hang in the air like a wet fart, and in the context of the story, it's just another point scored against her by the writers.
-It's also insinuated by Alyx that Mossman stole Eli's work. This, too, has no bearing on the story and is never followed up on...but hey, Mossman's known to be a liar and Alyx isn't, so who're you gonna believe?

It could be that this is all just a scathing indictment by the writers of the madonna/whore dichotomy prevalent in male-dominated society. Personally, I'll just call it indefensibly awful characterization.

KenOD said:

Inane plot of generic rage where a secret weapon, of which is actually less of a threat then many grunts you face, and a mystery of a missing wife where they throw into your face so often without ever telling or showing you why you should care. Everyone that shows up and talks has no real meaning, except Super Joe to slap fans of the original games perhaps, and do nothing to move the story in any real direction other then to repeat the very fact the character's wife is missing.
When we get to the end, oh and what an ending it is. Where a character who doesn't matter dies off that we guess we should care about and the mystery of the missing wife is solved in full. Oh and what an ending it is, if anyone hadn't guessed it at the start or cared to begin with.

Click to expand...

-She likes Gordon. Really, really, reaaaaaaaalllllly likes Gordon, to the point of making porno-level come-ons.

Click to expand...

Likes him enough to make a quip here and there, but otherwise keeps her distance. Sounds like a recipe for perpetually unresolved and unacknowledged tension, not love. I very much doubt it'll ever go beyond that.

-She just so happens to be skilled at firearms usage, operating and repairing teleportation hardware, advanced robotics, singlehandedly breaking into fortified prisons, slaughtering Combine soldiers, reprogramming turrets...did I miss anything?

Click to expand...

Care to add something that would be nonsensical for the daughter of a scientist with roboticist leanings, and a member of an armed resistance movement? She was raised and taught among scientists and specialists, many of which have the same capabilities and skills that she possesses in the HL2 games. A Mary Sue is bothersome because its talents are implausible.

-

Spoiler

She's deemed "special" at an early age by supernatural forces (a development taken straight out of the moldiest pulp)

Click to expand...

-She's never, ever, ever, depicted doing anything ethically dubious.

-Her only trait that could possibly be called a character flaw is...she just loves the resistance/Eli/Gordon too damn much!

Click to expand...

What about demonizing people without cause? Mossman, near-duplicity aside, was a competent scientist who was decidedly working for the resistance's well-being, and Alyx misjudged her before she even had justification to do so. Her later intractability made negotiation impossible, and it was Mossman that extricated the Resistance from a tricky situation, because she remained flexible, whereas Alyx was not and nursed a petty grudge. She made a bad situation worse of her own volition.

Mossman certainly had marks against her, but they were predominantly conveyed to us by Alyx, who by no means can be regarded as objective or "always right" as Mary Sues are wont to be. She had a personal vendetta against the character and gave partial and self-serving information, and in the end wound up being entirely wrong about her. We're of course intended to favor thinking of Mossman as unlikeable and as shady because she's been framed that way by Alyx, because ultimately the intention is for us to make the same mistake and have our first impressions subverted. Ultimately, Alyx doesn't get the Mary Sue outcome of "being right all along", she makes a friend out to be an enemy, only to have that friend bail her out regardless. The accusations dispel and don't warrant mention after this point because it's clear that they were petty in foundation, and far more urgent matters are at hand.

RedRedSuit said:

Absolutely not.

I'm stating my opinion and giving the reasoning for it.

Click to expand...

In that case, there's really nothing to discuss in the first place. If you tell me that Valve's decision to use a mute protagonist didn't work for you, then I can't exactly turn round and tell you that actually it did.

It's a further question however, as to whether Valve made the right decision, in general , and to answer that we need more than just your personal experience of the HL series. That's why I brought up the advantages of Valve's decision - to show how it might be beneficial to certain players. I obviously can't invalidate your experience.

You're stating obviously true things. Of course I can't just say whatever I want. Of course I can't just interact with any object the way I would want to. The point is: some of these limitations are more annoying and limiting than others. "Just accept it" is not an acceptable answer. I want the narrative to be done in such a way as to make that particular limitation (that I can't say or anything) less annoying. Simply making the character a mute is not how I want it dealt with. Having him say a few lines at points where it would make sense is a reasonable way to reduce the annoyance factor. It would help flesh out the story too.

Click to expand...

And whether one restrictions is more annoying that another restriction is entirely subjective. My point however was just to say that it is possible to accept certain limitations, while still being fully immersed in the experience, while still feeling like you really are 'there' within the gameworld. And that this, I believe, applies to not being able to talk, too.

That's just to say that for those that can accept this limitation, Valve's decision has a number of benefits. You feel you shouldn't be forced to accept this. Others may feel they shouldn't be forced to accept another voice speaking on their behalf.

The compromise you suggest is quite compelling, but there's still a very delicate balance to be made. The more Gordon speaks, the less room there is for the 'player'. However, the less Gordon speaks, the less 'complete' his character appears (why does Gordon only speak at certain times, and not at others?).

Valve's solution is almost to not take a stand either way, and to allow the player to create his own identity. I think there are clear benefits to that, and the appeal of the Gordon persona lies largely in his sheer mysteriousness. Moving forward with a new character, though perhaps some sort of compromise would be a good solution.

Sure. And this is a copout answer. That's why I don't like it.

Click to expand...

Well, it's no answer. Valve simply decided not to fill in that part of the story. It's like asking them: what happens 2000 years after the events of Half-Life 2, and them replying "no idea". Is that a copout, or just the truth?

Fimbulvetr said:

Gordon doesn't really fit into either category though. HL2 doesn't even attempt the illusion of choice.

The main story is still making decisions for you, Gordon just doesn't really mention it.

Click to expand...

I guess the choice is more about how you react to your lack of freedom; it's more an emotional choice than a physical one.

FireFly said:

In that case, there's really nothing to discuss in the first place. If you tell me that Valve's decision to use a mute protagonist didn't work for you, then I can't exactly turn round and tell you that actually it did.

It's a further question however, as to whether Valve made the right decision, in general , and to answer that we need more than just your personal experience of the HL series. That's why I brought up the advantages of Valve's decision - to show how it might be beneficial to certain players. I obviously can't invalidate your experience.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I've found this discussion quite interesting, even though of course in the end it's just an exchange of (supported) opinions.

I still feel they made the wrong decision in general, but in order to prove that I would have to run some kind of survey that would show that The People would enjoy "my way" more than VALVe's way... and even then it would be up for debate. I just feel, though I cannot prove, that that when people list the advantages of the way VALVe did it, they overstate these advantages even relative to how important they themselves hold these advantages, deep down. Yes, it's quite presumptuous of me to say that last thing, but hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

Still I agree that there are advantages either way.

Well, it's no answer. Valve simply decided not to fill in that part of the story. It's like asking them: what happens 2000 years after the events of Half-Life 2, and them replying "no idea". Is that a copout, or just the truth?

Click to expand...

Well, the original answer of VALVE's that you quoted is both. I'm sure it's the truth. It becomes a bit of a copout as well at a certain point. The 2000 years thing is obviously an exaggerated example that's not really analogous. I could provide an equally exaggerated example the other way: let's say the character model VALVe chose for Alyx was a gray box, and their explanation was, "To be honest, we're just not sure what she looks like, so we went with a gray box... the player can fill in the details." That would be a copout even if it were true.