Support NeoGAF

[Fimbulvetr]

Having a silent protagonist is a form of artistic license, it's a conscious stylistic choice that makes sense when you're trying to maintain the player's immersion. I think they pulled it off really well. The game managed to be enchanting but never took itself too seriously.

Silent protagonists can still be executed horribly, regardless of intention.

See Alyx falling in love with bland-action-hero#89436.

 

[Riposte]

999 is a rare exception, being a visual novel. It is a good story (at least the right story path is good.) Dragon Quest V is also a good story, you are right on that as well. I'm not 100% through it, but I've been playing it and enjoying it a bit.

999 is a puzzle game.

Really stupid people categorize games as visual novels because of the way stories are shaped and told in them. You could snap 999's story sequences onto Street Fighter if you wanted to, cutting out the large and varied puzzle sequences for 2 round fights. (The game has 10+ puzzle rooms, which contain dozens and dozens of puzzles. Ultimately the game's story structure itself is sort of a puzzle you can figure out without looking at spoilers.)

Again, 999 is a puzzle game. An adventure game to be specific.

 

[man/man]

Silent protagonists can still be executed horribly, regardless of intention.

See Alyx falling in love with bland-action-hero#89436.

But Gordon isn't really a bland action hero, he's a nerdy scientist with a crowbar. I found him much less bland than the typical anime superteen with rockstar hair and a sword.

 

[thanks]

999 is a puzzle game.

Really stupid people categorize games as visual novels because of the way stories are shaped and told in them. You could snap 999's story sequences onto Street Fighter if you wanted to, cutting out the large and varied puzzle sequences for 2 round fights. (The game has 10+ puzzle rooms, which contain dozens and dozens of puzzles. Ultimately the game's story structure itself is sort of a puzzle you can figure out without looking at spoilers.)

Again, 999 is a puzzle game. An adventure game to be specific.

Okay, it's a puzzle game.

Huge assholes call people really stupid for mistaking a puzzle game for a visual novel on an internet forum.

 

[Snuggles]

Except Gordan is the focus of the story. You are the focus of the story. And these people talking to these floating crowbar are driving me insane. I can play as character with their own personality. I can play as a character who's personality I shape. I cant play a fucking mute in a story with constant one way conversations.

Well, some (creepy) people say Alyx is the focus of the story, and some would say the conflict across City 17 is the focus of the story, and you're just the floating (and murdering) cam that goes through it, but I agree for the most part. I'm not really crazy for Half Life 2, even though it's a solid FPS.

I stand by my stance for the most part, Gordon is more of an observer than a participant, but I do feel that there a some moments, like Alyx's adoration and praise that kind of cross the line into uncomfortable pandering.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

I agree on the actual plot itself, and how it cheapens the whole mute "link to the game" thing. That said the general method is plenty effective. It's entirely interactive, and doesn't ever break the immersion of an experience the way cutscenes do.

But you are still forced to stick to an area while characters talk exposition.

It's just that you can meander around the room and generally act like a 5 year old while the real adults talk about important matters, thus destroying any sense of scene direction.

But Gordon isn't really a bland action hero, he's a nerdy scientist with a crowbar. I found him much less bland than the typical anime superteen with rockstar hair and a sword.

He literally has no personality.

You cannot be blander than a emotionless, mute gun holster.

 

[hosannainexcelsis]

Having a silent protagonist is a form of artistic license, it's a conscious stylistic choice that makes sense when you're trying to maintain the player's immersion. I think they pulled it off really well. The game managed to be enchanting but never took itself too seriously.

I don't mind games with silent protagonists. Dragon Quest V pulled off a silent protagonist very well. Other games with a similar first-person perspective as Half Life 2 have done a similar style of storytelling better by keeping the player character separate from anyone else in the game world (Penumbra, e.g.). By having Gordon constantly up close and personal with people and not having any way to respond but by smashing things or waving a gun, I can't take him or world around him, happy to act as if he's the smartest man in existence, seriously.

It's easier to develop characters outside of the main, and that's how I think it should be in most cases. The main is the dude that we put ourselves into, so sometimes it's best to leave that character open to interpretation.

The problem is Gordon isn't left open to interpretation - we're told that he's a genius MIT PhD, we're told that he's humanity's only hope, we're told (and in gameplay experience) that he's unearthly talented in combat. This isn't some RPG where you actually get some measure of control over who you want the protagonist to be.

My point is, Gordon, or similar characters in other games, are not the focus of the story. They only exist to give us an objective POV of the characters and events that surround them.

Truth be told, I haven't finished Half-Life 2, so maybe things will change. But as far as I've played, I can't say any of the various people Gordon has met are well-developed.

 

[schick85]

Bad Company 2. Jesus Christ. 4 guys can seemingly overtake an entire continent without getting hurt but they apparently didn't finish elementary school since they can't speak in coherent sentences. Also, the likelihood of the Japanese in 1940 building an EMP bomb back when electricity wasn't that important (compared to today's need) is about as likely as me watching the second season of Game of Thrones. (not very likely).

Besides the nonsense you give about EMP, those are the exact reasons why you should be loving it. It's like saying you didn't like Inglorious Basterds because they all speak stupid and Hitler wouldn't have died the way he did. There's a lot to appreciate from the story/plot/narrative. Unfortunately, you failed to see it.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

I stand by my stance for the most part, Gordon is more of an observer than a participant, but I do feel that there a some moments, like Alyx's adoration and praise that kind of cross the line into uncomfortable pandering.

But every character treats Gordon like the second coming and he is responsible for many major blows to the Combine.

The rebellion only really shifts into high gear once he shows up.

 

[jg4xchamp]

But Gordon isn't really a bland action hero, he's a nerdy scientist with a crowbar. I found him much less bland than the typical anime superteen with rockstar hair and a sword.

He's still plenty cheapened by the constant praise that he gets(and Im not all that on point on my half life lore, but isn't he one of the big reasons the combine came over and took over? wasn't that his screw up?)

Yeah the actual character is more of a humble man with none of the action hero strength or whatever. He just ends up shooting his way from point A to point B anyway like all of em. Except people love him, and then there is the whole Alyx wanting to bone him thing which just gets cringe worthy at times given that she basically wants to smang a brick.

He's lifeless. That may be the point, but at the same time he's not a great character. He's just a brick. Eli or Alyx would be great characters or G-Man(admittedly the most interesting part of the Half Life universe)

 

[man/man]

He literally has no personality.

You cannot be blander than a emotionless, mute gun holster.

I guess we just have different views on what video game narratives should accomplish. When I'm just watching cutscenes of "my character", I can't help but wonder why I don't just go read a book instead. However, if I'm plopped into a convincing and atmospheric world without having words put in my mouth, I can easily buy into the conceit of that game.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

It's not the worst story ever, but it's the most disappointing plot I've experienced in years - Mass Effect 2. In fact, considering the emphasis the series places on narrative, and Bioware's reputation for crafting story-driven "RPGs", it's astounding that ME2 had such an atrocious main story that eviscerates the overarching plot for the entire series. I mainly took issue with a few details -

Cerebrus & Shepard's Death- Going from the evil organization in the first game to an organization whose noble ideals are befuddled by questionable actions was a huge retcon that I still have trouble accepting. Shepard's death event can be attributed to Bioware wanting Shepard to be tied to Cerebrus at best, and as a lazy instance where gameplay requirements (class reset) influence the story at worst. Following the resurrection, Shepard's given no choice in the matter of joining Cerebrus (there is the typical Biowarian illusion of choice where saying "no" does nothing). Despite Shepard's actions of thwarting Cerebrus' plans in the first game, The Illusive Man makes no mention of those events, which was jarring. Furthermore, by taking the "Sole Survivor" background in the first game, Shepard's squad was wiped out by Cerebrus' actions, and a juicy confrontation stemming from this event is conspicuously absent.

Shepard's resurrection was a giant missed opportunity as well. On the other end of the plot spectrum, Planescape Torment shows how much potential such a plot device has, but ME2 treats it as largely inconsequential, with Alliance Officers and other important characters brushing away the issue after a single line or two. Shepard ends up with a similar body, ship and ship crew as compared to the first game following the resurrection, with the only difference being Cerebrus' name printed on the side of his ship - a profoundly stupid thing to do considering the reputation the organization has. But then again, like most choices in the Mass Effect universe, this lacks the expected consequence of Alliance Officers treating Shepard as an adversary when the Normandy docks at a space station.

Reapers and Collectors - The Reapers went from being a cold and calculating machine species to having their mysterious aura taking a beating due to the bungling actions of their minions, the Collectors. Introducing the Collectors as a new threat midway through the trilogy was a questionable decision, especially so when the Reapers have already been shown to be intimidating adversaries with their presumed limitless numbers.

Which brings me to their supposed intent to harvest millions of humans to construct a human reaper. Following the utter disdain the Reaper from the first game shows towards organics, this sudden plot detail was illogical - even more when a single Reaper is not enough to win the war, as the first game showed. All in all, it seems like a lazy attempt to inject some drama by having human abductions, which will presumably cause the player to want to take down the collectors. That, and having a cartoon villain named Harbinger spewing stereotypical villainous one-liners. Meanwhile, the Reaper story scarcely makes any headway since where it left at the end of the first game.

The Suicide Mission Setup - ME2's main plot was spread paper-thin across the whole game, but the much hyped-up plot development that is foreshadowed from the very beginning is the supposed "suicide mission." In fact, it seems that the entire game's plot developed from this central suicide mission idea, which would explain for how little main plot there is in the game. Unfortunately, I couldn't take it seriously when my *entire* party boarded the shuttle for no reason, leaving Normandy defenseless and the ship's crew vulnerable to being kidnapped. I realize that this was done to instill a sense of urgency into the proceedings, but the utter hilarity of my entire squad being crammed into a tiny shuttle for no reason was only surpassed by my incredulity at Bioware's writers not noticing how idiotic it is for all of Shepard's party to board the shuttle after refraining from doing so over two games. This was when I began to appreciate that ME2 had as little main story as it did, since more plot developments of this caliber would have left me senseless.

The Final (frustratingly binary) "Choice" - If there's one instance in a Bioware game that exhibits the idea that Bioware's handling of choices in WRPG games is lackluster compared to Black Isle/Troika/Obsidian/CDPR games, it's this one. Shepard is faced with the dilemma of blowing up the collector base, or handing it over to Cerebrus, when the logical option would be to hand it over to the Alliance instead. By doing so, the tired plotline that carries over from the first game - the Alliance not believing the Reaper threat - can be finally resolved, and research can be done to combat the Reaper threat using their own technology. The millions of humans who were abducted could also be identified based on their unused bodies, paving the way for their families to be notified. Instead, we are faced with a dung-brained Shepard taking the moral high-ground on the basis of not wanting to "sacrifice the human species' soul" nonsense.

There are other numerous plot holes and retcons, like the ammo clips making a comeback and magically appearing during Jacob's loyalty quest, Mordin inexplicably gaining possession of a Collector bug and Ashley meeting with Shepard after it seemed she was in the process of being abducted, which all effectively made me want the game to end so that I could be done with the brain hurt the numerous plot inconsistencies were causing. As a result of ME2's plot, humanity's supposed "special" status and Shepard's transformation into the galaxy's sole hope, akin to Master Chief and Gordon Freeman, I have no hope for ME3's story at all.

Bravo sir. Complete agreement.

 

[HK-47]

Wait someone isnt going to watch season 2 of Game of Thrones?

 

[water_wendi]

Just thought of one really, really, bad story in a video game. Phantasmagoria 2: A Puzzle of Flesh. Its kind of straddling the "so bad its good" label.. hated it when it came out though. Whereas Harvester was seemingly bad on purpose, this felt like the developers thought they had something good.

 

[hosannainexcelsis]

999 is a puzzle game.

Really stupid people categorize games as visual novels because of the way stories are shaped and told in them. You could snap 999's story sequences onto Street Fighter if you wanted to, cutting out the large and varied puzzle sequences for 2 round fights. (The game has 10+ puzzle rooms, which contain dozens and dozens of puzzles. Ultimately the game's story structure itself is sort of a puzzle you can figure out without looking at spoilers.)

Again, 999 is a puzzle game. An adventure game to be specific.

OK, let's clear this up once and for all.

In Japanese terminology, a distinction is often made between visual novels proper (abbreviated NVL), which are predominantly narrative and have very little interactive elements, and adventure games (abbreviated AVG or ADV), which typically incorporate problem-solving and other gameplay elements. This distinction is normally lost in the West, where both NVLs and ADVs are commonly referred to as "visual novels" by Western fans.

999 is technically a ADV since it has interactive segments beyond branching decision points. It is not entirely wrong to call it a visual novel though; that term is meant to show that its style of storytelling is in that Japanese tradition instead of the Western adventure game tradition. In particular, 999 is part of Chunsoft's long line of sound novels.

Sound Novels is a trademark of Chunsoft, which used the term for its novel games such as Portopia Renzoku Satsujin Jiken, Otogirisō, Kamaitachi no Yoru, Machi, 428: Fūsa Sareta Shibuya de (which received a perfect 40/40 score from Famitsu), and more recently 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

I guess we just have different views on what video game narratives should accomplish.

Really? Because I think they should be good.

When I'm just watching cutscenes of "my character", I can't help but wonder why I don't just go read a book instead. However, if I'm plopped into a convincing and atmospheric world without having words put in my mouth, I can easily buy into the conceit of that game.

Why does the protagonist have to be "your character"? When do you get to claim ownership of said character?

Why can't gameplay be a vehicle to more closely endear you to the protagonist who is an actual character, rather than a floating arm with a gun?

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I definitely have more trouble playing games where I can't empathize with the main character at least a little. If I'm playing a silent protagonist, I'd at least like him/her to have some kind of implied personality. The more the better like the Persona 4 dude or Wind Waker Link.

 

[man/man]

Why can't gameplay be a vehicle to more closely endear you to the protagonist who is an actual character, rather than a floating arm with a gun?

Well, I guess what I'm arguing is that games could be that, but they haven't really reached that point due to amateur writing. But as you've pointed out, there's a lot of stuff out there I haven't touched that could potentially change my mind.

 

[RustyNails]

Sorry if this one is mentioned previously, but Ninja Gaiden 2 is my pick. Oh lord. I am dead serious when I say that I was laughing hysterically during every cutscene. I don't even remember the "story" to be honest, which was just a filler to experience the (awesome) gameplay. Holy shit, it was bad. I understand that the real star of the game was the gameplay and story was there to move things along, but man, make it at least serviceable!

Apart from frustrating camera and the non-story, the game is a must-play for fans of hardcore gaming.

 

[Snuggles]

But every character treats Gordon like the second coming and he is responsible for many major blows to the Combine.

The rebellion only really shifts into high gear once he shows up.

This is true, and like I said about Alyx, those moments are mostly just about pandering the player and making them feel important, but my point is...what do we know about Gordon? He's just some dude in orange armor with emo glasses, that's about it. The memorable characters are the non-playables, the ones we observe like Alyx, Eli, Barney, G-Man and Dr. Wallace. Anyone who's played Half Life 2 can describe those characters to a T, but Gordon? He's just a husk that's filled up by us.

Gordon doesn't even need a name, we could type in our own name and customize his appearance and it wouldn't make a difference, he's just a vessel that we occupy throughout the story, and the truly important characters are those that we observe.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

This is true, and like I said about Alyx, those moments are mostly just about pandering the player and making them feel important, but my point is...what do we know about Gordon? He's just some dude in orange armor with emo glasses, that's about it. The memorable characters are the non-playables, the ones we observe like Alyx, Eli, Barney, G-Man and Dr. Wallace. Anyone who's played Half Life 2 can describe those characters to a T, but Gordon? He's just a husk that's filled up by us.

Gordon doesn't even need a name, we could type in our own name and customize his appearance and it wouldn't make a difference, he's just a vessel that we occupy throughout the story, and the truly important characters are those that we observe.

That's the problem though.

Despite not even being a character he's actually driving the story forward.

It's not like he's some random rebel who just happens to survive all these important battles and watch things unfold. He is personally responsible for the destruction of the citadel and the rallying of rebel forces, yet he can't even say "hi".

 

[fabricated backlash]

Really? Because I think they should be good.



Why does the protagonist have to be "your character"? When do you get to claim ownership of said character?

Why can't gameplay be a vehicle to more closely endear you to the protagonist who is an actual character, rather than a floating arm with a gun?

But that misses the whole potential of interactive storytelling then. The mute protagonist is a blank slate onto which the player can project his/her own set of ideas while taking in the narrative and characters from his own perspective. He is only so much defined as that you know his backstory and adjust your persona accordingly.

Videogames can and should be doing more than what books, movies and theater do. They have the possibility of first hand experience (albeit simulated yeah) and are actually able to deliver a story the way that movies and books simply can't.

Still, I wouldn't argue that a fleshed out main character that is introduced with movies and spoken lines is inherently worse, it's just that such an approach isn't exactly pushing the interactive possibilities of videogames, and could probably be done in any other media form.

 

[Snuggles]

Despite not even being a character he's actually driving the story forward.

This is kinda silly, but I wouldn't say he's a non-character as much as he's an un-defined character. He most certainly exists within the Half Life universe, as you said, he's a BFD, but the lack of a defined personality allows us to put ourselves in his boots. If he said things we didn't want him to say, or if he had motives we didn't agree with, it would probably kill the immersion which is a big part of the Half Life experience.

He is personally responsible for the destruction of the citadel and the rallying of rebel forces, yet he can't even say "hi".

it's his crippling speech impediment

 

[RustyNails]

That's the problem though.

Despite not even being a character he's actually driving the story forward.

It's not like he's some random rebel who just happens to survive all these important battles and watch things unfold. He is personally responsible for the destruction of the citadel and the rallying of rebel forces, yet he can't even say "hi".

I'm in the same boat. I don't connect with the HL universe in anyway whatsoever. I know I'm supposed to fill the void that is Gordon Freeman, but everyone seems to already know who he is so there's no point in defining him. Just give him lines and make the story more fleshed out. It's also severely limiting as you cannot converse with any NPC. All they do is "Ah, Gordon Freeman!" then follow it up with sentences.

 

[Snuggles]

Just give him lines and make the story more fleshed out. It's also severely limiting as you cannot converse with any NPC. All they do is "Ah, Gordon Freeman!" then follow it up with sentences.

If you could converse with those NPC's, what would you say?

 

[whalleywhat]

They added personality/dialogue to Samus, and that worked out perfectly.

 

[zoukka]

They added personality/dialogue to Samus, and that worked out perfectly.

SHAZAM

 

[HK-47]

They added personality/dialogue to Samus, and that worked out perfectly.

Shitty writers will write shitty stories. Samus works as a mute cause of her isolation.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

But that misses the whole potential of interactive storytelling then. The mute protagonist is a blank slate onto which the player can project his/her own set of ideas while taking in the narrative and characters from his own perspective. He is only so much defined as that you know his backstory and adjust your persona accordingly.

But you still aren't interacting with the medium when you imagine some fanfic personality for your Gordon.

Who is going to react to those ideas of yours in HL2?

Not Alyx. She wants me to bone her regardless of what I see Gordon as or how I really feel about her.

Videogames can and should be doing more than what books, movies and theater do. They have the possibility of first hand experience (albeit simulated yeah) and are actually able to deliver a story the way that movies and books simply can't.

Indeed, but the idea that they should limit themselves to a single storytelling device for the sake of people who want to make believe just doesn't seem right.

Still, I wouldn't argue that a fleshed out main character that is introduced with movies and spoken lines is inherently worse, it's just that such an approach isn't exactly pushing the interactive possibilities of videogames, and could probably be done in any other media form.

And dialogue exists in books. Why are movies like Citizen Kane so intent on using dialogue when they're a visual medium? That shit is so text-retro.

The thing about each level of media? Just because it can expand on storytelling with new ideas doesn't mean it benefits from ignoring old ones. A character with a personality will always be better than a Gordon Freeman.

That said, silent protagonists don't necessarily all have to be Gordon Freeman(i.e. horrible).

Protagonist like the Demi-Fiend(SMT Nocturne) or The Exile(KOTOR 2) are good examples of blank-slate protagonists done right, but for different reasons.

And in the same vein pre-defined characters can still be interactive, such as Denam Pavel(Tactics Ogre) or Geralt(The Witcher series).

 

[clifftrapremover]

Bravo sir. Complete agreement.

Very good points made on the weaknesses of Mass Effect 2, I hope people at Bioware get to read that constructive criticism.

Back more to the point of the thread: it would be unethical not to mention again how bad the story in Brute Force was. Somehow the gameplay was made worse by the incoherent verbal refuse constantly spit at you between levels.

 

[RustyNails]

If you could converse with those NPC's, what would you say?

"what's going on?" would be first. Really I wanted to shout at the screen. The game thinks it's providing you with a sense of freedom in not restricting the conversations, but it's extremely restricting when you want to know more about the world you live in, the characters that inhabit it, and the events that unfold in it. I find it slightly condescending tbh.

 

[Snuggles]

"what's going on?" would be first. Really I wanted to shout at the screen.

Good call Marvin Gaye, but I always got the impression that the conflict is clear

The combine are the oppressive force ruining everything and you are a freedom fighter who can pry their grasp and sends those fuckers straight back to hell.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

This is kinda silly, but I wouldn't say he's a non-character as much as he's an un-defined character. He most certainly exists within the Half Life universe, as you said, he's a BFD, but the lack of a defined personality allows us to put ourselves in his boots. If he said things we didn't want him to say, or if he had motives we didn't agree with, it would probably kill the immersion which is a big part of the Half Life experience.

If every character was the way the viewer wanted them to be, they'd all be either extremely obnoxious or flawless Mary-Sues.

DO NOT WANT!

If you could converse with those NPC's, what would you say?

"Stop fucking standing in my way, rebel scum"?

Alternatively: "Why me? You had the suit right there. It protects you from radiation and shit. So why do I, a theoretical physicist, need to put on the suit and fight crime? Can't someone with actual combat experience do that?"

They added personality/dialogue to Samus, and that worked out perfectly.

So what you're saying is.... every character ever is horrible?

 

[EatChildren]

Half-Life's story is exactly how I want it for the kind of game it is.

 

[RustyNails]

The combine are the oppressive force ruining everything and you are a freedom fighter who can pry their grasp and sends those fuckers straight back to hell.

Sounds awfully generic. I guess it's apt for this thread

 

[RyanardoDaVinci]

MGS4
Mass Effect 2

What could have been, my friends... what could have been.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

But Gordon isn't really a bland action hero, he's a nerdy scientist with a crowbar. I found him much less bland than the typical anime superteen with rockstar hair and a sword.

You can't say he's either bland or non-bland character, because he doesn't exists - it's just a camera with a weapon. Period.

The way Valve did the silent protagonist in HL2 is awful. It was perfect in HL1 because very few people were talking to Gordon, and those who did very often died shortly afterwards; Gordon was all alone through most of the game, there was no one he could talk to.

Here though, there's constantly someone talking, praising him as a hero/god, or falling in love with him (Alyx). Gordon being mute just doesn't make sense here, it just feels weird and creepy (Alyx!).

I love the beginning of the Half-Life 2, when you enter the city, see all those guards, flying cameras taking photos, big screens with talking head, oppressed people scared for life. That was a great way to do the narrative that was only possible in video game because I actually felt like scared little shit when guards were shouting at me and pushing me around (who didn't pick the can up at the beginning of the game when the guard told you to do so?), or when I had to run for my life on roofs. But later, when you actually meet people and they start talking to you (and it seems they expect you to answer them) it just doesn't feel right, it's forced.

 

[Snuggles]

If every character was the way the viewer wanted them to be, they'd all be either extremely obnoxious or flawless Mary-Sues.

DO NOT WANT!

I agree, but as I said, Gordon is undefined. He's not who I want him to be, he just is. I have no bearing on his path. The things I want him to be are only the product of my imagination.

"Stop fucking standing in my way, rebel scum"?

Alternatively: "Why me? You had the suit right there. It protects you from radiation and shit. So why do I, a theoretical physicist, need to put on the suit and fight crime? Can't someone with actual combat experience do that?"

So what you're saying is.... every character ever is horrible?

By that logic, or any logic for that matter, all videogame characters are idiots. No matter how loud we shout at the screen, they'll will do what their creators intended them to do. In most games, we have no purpose and sit idly by as the plot plays out without our involvement. We will always play the hero, or some variant of it, aside from a few exceptions .

 

[fabricated backlash]

But you still aren't interacting with the medium when you imagine some fanfic personality for your Gordon.

Who is going to react to those ideas of yours in HL2?

Not Alyx. She wants me to bone her regardless of what I see Gordon as or how I really feel about her.

Indeed, but the idea that they should limit themselves to a single storytelling device for the sake of people who want to make believe just doesn't seem right.

And I never implied that they should. I just stated that games should find their own way of story telling that is not taken completely from other media without proper consideration of the medium.

And dialogue exists in books. Why are movies like Citizen Kane so intent on using dialogue when they're a visual medium? That shit is so text-retro.

Interestingly enough Citizen Kane was and is still hailed as one of the first great examples of different crafts bound together flawlessly in a single work. And I think games should strive for that as well. HL2 sure isn't there yet, as is no game in my view. I am fully aware that a new media format isn't inherently throwing everything that came before it over board, but it modifies it with its own narrative tools and creates its own way of telling stories.

The thing about each level of media? Just because it can expand on storytelling with new ideas doesn't mean it benefits from ignoring old ones. A character with a personality will always be better than a Gordon Freeman.

As a character yes, as a vehicle for the story of Half Life 2? Hardly. I would never argue that Gordon Freeman is a good character. Like I said, he's a blank slate, but he is perfect for how Half Life and Half Life 2 are build. Now the next logical step for games like that would be more vocal user interaction. HL2 is far from presenting the premier model of user integration into the narrative, but I firmly believe that it is a key stepping stone of getting there.

That said, silent protagonists don't necessarily all have to be Gordon Freeman(i.e. horrible).

Again, Gordon Freeman isn't even a character, the player is, and the vessel Gordon Freeman is merely a pre set body that each player inhabits. Each player has it's own idea about who Gordon Freeman is for him/herself, which is kind of the point. Is that make believe?

Protagonist like the Demi-Fiend(SMT Nocturne) or The Exile(KOTOR 2) are good examples of blank-slate protagonists done right, but for different reasons.

And in the same vein pre-defined characters can still be interactive, such as Denam Pavel(Tactics Ogre) or Geralt(The Witcher series).

Good points, but I guess you still need to equate that these examples have a completely different scope. While I agree that they use the interactivity well, and manage to tie it up with traditional characterization pretty well, they are also meant to portray a character, unlike HL2, which lets the characterization of Gordon up to your reactions to the NPCs treating you.

(who didn't pick the can up at the beginning of the game when the guard told you to do so?).

... i instinctively threw the can at the guard lol

 

[Havok]

The things I want him to be are only the product of my imagination.

I imagined him in Episode 2 pointing and saying 'hey watch out for that thing on the roof, don't let it stab you', but he never did

 

[Snuggles]

I imagined him in Episode 2 pointing and saying 'hey watch out for that thing on the roof, don't let it stab you', but he never did

well, you should have imagined harder

 

[Fimbulvetr]

By that logic, or any logic for that matter, all videogame characters are idiots. No matter how loud we shout at the screen, they'll will do what their creators intended them to do. But if we could actually say those things, we would have no purpose and would just sit idly by as the plot plays out without our involvement. We will always play the hero, or some variant of it.

I'm only functioning off the horrible "Gordon is supposed to be you so it's okay!" logic.

I'm not gonna expect a fixed character to be anything other than what the story establishes them as.

Or was the correct answer to your "what would you say?" question "....Whatever" (the "Whatever" is optional).

Also doing what his creators intended is an inherent problem for Gordon because they intended for him to do a job that others were more than qualified for but pass off because Gordon is the chosen one.

Kinda like how you can't make Shep in ME2 give TIM the finger and contact Admiral Hackett.

i.e. their intended roles are stupid.

 

[Pureauthor]

Again, Gordon Freeman isn't even a character, the player is, and the vessel Gordon Freeman is merely a pre set body that each player inhabits. Each player has it's own idea about who Gordon Freeman is for him/herself, which is kind of the point. Is that make believe?

That Gordon Freeman isn't a character isn't the main problem. It's that Gordon Freeman isn't a character while simultaneously inhabiting a universe that insists on treating him like one.

 

[sonicmj1]

"Stop fucking standing in my way, rebel scum"?

Alternatively: "Why me? You had the suit right there. It protects you from radiation and shit. So why do I, a theoretical physicist, need to put on the suit and fight crime? Can't someone with actual combat experience do that?"

This may have been a good question in Half-Life 1 (though Gordon actually does have some measure of combat training in the suit), but in Half-Life 2, Gordon is pretty well qualified. He didn't just survive the Black Mesa incident (fighting with Vortigaunts, aliens, the military, etc.), he defeated the hivemind conducting the invasion of earth on his own. That's about as well-qualified as you can get.

I guess it's strange that the suit wasn't used before his return, though.

Half-Life 2's storytelling works for me, but I can understand why it would bother people. I still found myself building connections to the supporting cast, despite my character's inability to speak. Episode 2, especially, was pretty well done, IMO. Even with Gordon's silence, the dialogue is as well-written as anything Valve puts out.

I don't think anyone's going to top that Animal Soccer game that cosmicblizzard linked earlier.

 

[Snuggles]

I'm only functioning off the horrible "Gordon is supposed to be you so it's okay!" logic.

I'm not gonna expect a fixed character to be anything other than what the story establishes them as.

Horrible logic? Seriously? It's pretty much the intention Valve has had, and the intention that the many other developers have had when creating a voice-less hero. It's a pretty common idea. You'll have to sweep many great games under that rug if you really feel that way.

It is not clear why Valve (and many others) would take that route?

Also doing what his creators intended is an inherent problem for Gordon because they intended for him to do a job that others were more than qualified for but pass off because Gordon is the chosen one. That's just nitpicking, and I think you'll have a hard time finding a better solution, or hell, any other solution.


i.e. their intended roles are stupid.

Who would be more qualified? I've played these games and I honestly don't know, maybe Dog?

But, yeah, we could drag down the plot with details, but as I said before, praising Gordon is just praising the player. They are synonymous with each other. Gordon is un-defined, but he's the hero, and you earn that as you work your way through the games.

There would be nothing to gain from stopping and asking if there could be a better hero than the Freeman.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

And I never implied that they should. I just stated that games should find their own way of story telling that is not taken completely from other media without proper consideration of the medium.

Interestingly enough Citizen Kane was and is still hailed as one of the first great examples of different crafts bound together flawlessly in a single work. And I think games should strive for that as well. HL2 sure isn't there yet, as is no game in my view. I am fully aware that a new media format isn't inherently throwing everything that came before it over board, but it modifies it with its own narrative tools and creates its own way of telling stories.

So how is using gameplay to endear yourself to a preexisting character not using the old mediums and exploring new ones at the same time?

Not sure if you realize this, but a lot more subtle things go into interactive storytelling than just the player playing make believe or making choices.

As a character yes, as a vehicle for the story of Half Life 2? Hardly. I would never argue that Gordon Freeman is a good character. Like I said, he's a blank slate, but he is perfect for how Half Life and Half Life 2 are build. Now the next logical step for games like that would be more vocal user interaction. HL2 is far from presenting the premier model of user integration into the narrative, but I firmly believe that it is a key stepping stone of getting there.

Again, Gordon Freeman isn't even a character, the player is, and the vessel Gordon Freeman is merely a pre set body that each player inhabits. Each player has it's own idea about who Gordon Freeman is for him/herself, which is kind of the point. Is that make believe?

Then why do other characters make assumptions about Gordon? If you're gonna make a blank slate then go all the way, don't half-ass it and then have characters in the story project onto him.

Good points, but I guess you still need to equate that these examples have a completely different scope. While I agree that they use the interactivity well, and manage to tie it up with traditional characterization pretty well, they are also meant to portray a character, unlike HL2, which lets the characterization of Gordon up to your reactions to the NPCs treating you.

The Demi-Fiend isn't mean to portray a character. He is a player avatar. The only time the story makes assumptions about him is once in the beginning where it's implied he likes videogames and has maybe a passing interest in the occult(two things that have a high chance of being true for any person into a game like Nocturne).

In fact Nocturne deconstructs character interactions like those between Gordon and the rest of the HL2 cast, because the only people who make assumptions of the Demi-Fiend are pompous self-righteous hypocrites who don't listen to anyone else.

Spoiler

Also one of the game's storylines can literally only function under the assumption that he's a blank slate.

 

[Snuggles]

Then why do other characters make assumptions about Gordon? If you're gonna make a blank slate then go all the way, don't half-ass it and then have characters in the story project onto him.

The only assumptions made are based on his actions, and not his character. He fucks shit up at City 17 and acts as a freedom fighter, so characters make a not half-assed, but full-assed assumption based on that. I mean, he takes down fucking helicopters afterall. It's not like you step off the train and are called the 'freeman', it's earned by your actions through out HL2 and the expansions.

 

[Open Source]

For western games where story was an important part of the game, I'd say Hellgate: London is among the worst. The story meanders for 80% of the game, then turns utterly nonsensical and esoteric towards the end. That plus some really lame pre-rendered cutscenes showing...a book. Diablo's story, cliche and shallow as it was, is a masterpiece compared to this one.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Horrible logic? Seriously? It's pretty much the intention Valve has had, and the intention that the many other developers have had when creating a voice-less hero. It's a pretty common idea. You'll have to sweep many great games under that rug if you really feel that way.

It is not clear why Valve (and many others) would take that route?

The concept behind a voiceless hero makes sense. I do not think Gordon is a good one.

That's all.

Who would be more qualified? I've played these games and I honestly don't know, maybe Dog?

Barney.

But, yeah, we could drag down the plot with details, but as I said before, praising Gordon is just praising the player. They are synonymous with each other. Gordon is un-defined, but he's the hero, and you earn that as you work your way through the games.

There would be nothing to gain from stopping and asking if there could be a better hero than the Freeman.

Other than plot coherency.

They only assumptions made are based on his actions, and not his character.

Characters constantly respond with "I'm fine"s and "I'm sure Gordon"s assuming Gordon is some caring friend who only wants what's best for them. He has a love interest.

In reality they point him to places, and he somehow ends up drowning in badguy corpses.

He fucks shit up at City 17 and acts as a freedom fighter, so characters make a not half-assed, but full-assed assumption based on that. I mean, he takes down fucking helicopters afterall.

He gets sent to places by other people and just happens to screw shit up for the Combine with his improbable combat skills(also none of the other rebels are really competent enough to grab a rocket launcher apparently, a monkey could probably kill more combine with that thing than they can).

 

[Snuggles]

The concept behind a voiceless hero makes sense. I do not think Gordon is a good one.

That's all.

Aside from the flirtations from Alyx or the praise from the mutants, how is he different than any other voiceless hero? How would the Half Life 2 story benefit from him butting in with his thoughts?

Barney.

You mean the guy working UC with the combine? I fail to see how he'd make a better freedom fighter or hero in any way. He's a pretty slim character, to say the least.

Characters constantly respond with "I'm fine"s assuming Gordon is some caring friend who only wants what's best for them. He has a love interest.

In reality they point him to places, and he somehow ends up drowning in badguy corpses.

Which characters? I'm just now replaying the games thanks to this thread, but I honestly can't think of any NPC's that said they're fine when I tried interacting with them. The only characters that seemed to have any familiarity with Gordon are the scientist, Eli and Barney, but those interactions are limited at best.

He gets sent to places by other people and just happens to screw shit up for the Combine with his improbable combat skills(also none of the other rebels are really competent enough to grab a rocket launcher apparently, a monkey could probably kill more combine with that thing than they can).

I don't know what to say to this, aside from the fact that it's a videogame and we play as the main character. What would you suggest instead? Should Gordon sit back as someone more plausible tackles those objectives?