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