[Lorric]

Hello HLP. I need your help with something please.

For the last three weeks or so I’ve been struggling with a big, big decision that needs to be made, and I just can’t seem to break this deadlock. I’m wanting to resume work on my campaign, but what’s stopping me is whether to switch the player character from their current “Alpha 1” style silent protagonist to giving them an actual voice and personality of their own to go with the three wingmen that the player has who are characters. For now they’ve been the ones telling the story, while the player simply has to be “Alpha 1” and go and whoop some ass. And that’s fine. And that was “the plan” when I first started, and has been up until now. But I’ve been inspired lately to seriously think about making the player character into a character as well. And I just can’t decide what’s best, stick with “the plan” and keep the player as a silent protagonist, or bring a “fourth musketeer” if you like to the party. If I work on my campaign then make the switch later, it just means more work to do to turn the silent protagonist player into a main character in the already existing missions and script. And not just any main character, surely the player has to be the main character, yes? The decision is mine to make, but I really am struggling to make it on my own. So that’s where you lot get to come in!

Now, please understand I’m not interested simply in numbers who are for or against silent protagonists, so there's no poll here. I want people to talk about which they think is best and why. Do you prefer to just fly and be yourself and does a character persona being transplanted into your pilot bother you? Or do you prefer to be in another person’s shoes as they tell the story while you help them blast their way through their enemies? I need to see something persuasive that resonates with me to break my deadlock. I have tried looking at things online about gaming protagonists, silent vs character, and it hasn't helped. If anything, in a weird sort of way, it's made me want both at the same time, which is of course impossible. The arguments made me feel more stronger about the merits of both options, rather than knocking one down in favour of the other. So maybe here, with a more focused question instead of gaming in general, I can get the answer I seek.

Oh and if anyone wants to try the demo of my campaign, it’s linked below, you need Wings of Dawn. Input from anyone who’s actually played it and can thus talk about my campaign specifically, whether from trying it now, or because they tried it in the past, could well be especially helpful.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=83179.0

Thank you for your time. I never thought I'd run into a problem like this when I started!

[General Battuta]

If your campaign deals with relationships and character interactions, you should seriously consider giving your character a voice. Silent Gordon Freeman was an excellent fit and a masterful narrative choice for Half-Life 1; by the time of Episode 2 and Portal, Valve had grown to resent their own self-imposed restriction.

A silent protagonist is probably a better fit for a cog-in-the-machine story in which the player's subjectivity is purely reactive and your avatar's internal states shouldn't be expected to have any real influence on the narrative.

[General Battuta]

The reason you find both arguments compelling is because they're both correct. Silent and voiced protagonists are the correct choices for different kinds of narrative. In order to break your own deadlock, you need to know what kind of story you're telling.

[Lorric]

If your campaign deals with relationships and character interactions, you should seriously consider giving your character a voice. Silent Gordon Freeman was an excellent fit and a masterful narrative choice for Half-Life 1; by the time of Episode 2 and Portal, Valve had grown to resent their own self-imposed restriction.

A silent protagonist is probably a better fit for a cog-in-the-machine story in which the player's subjectivity is purely reactive and your avatar's internal states shouldn't be expected to have any real influence on the narrative.

I do want the three to develop into close friends, and react to events in the story and some other characters. So I'd want the same for if three became four.

I haven't played any of those games you use as examples though.

But at the same time, the player isn't controlling big decisions if that's what you mean. The player isn't directing the machine. The player isn't even squadron commander, the player is a wing commander. In missions where more than one ally wing is present, the player cannot give orders to any but their own wing. That may change further on though, I haven't decided.

What do you suggest?

[General Battuta]

When you have a silent protagonist, your character's internal states - his or her subjectivity - can't return to the game world to affect the plot or characters.

If the focus of your story is on the relationships within the wing, you need to decide whether you want the player character to be a spectator on that dynamic (with occasional decision power, if you so choose) or an active participant.

But if you pick the latter and make your PC a speaking character, bear in mind that this is going to come with defined internal states. The player can't fill in their own subjectivity, can't say 'Hrm, I like Alpha 2 and I hate Alpha 4' - they have to deal with PC's scripted opinions. People sometimes talk about this as a barrier to immersion; I don't think that's particularly important, since the mute contrivance is just as disruptive. But it is critical to think about as you write the characters.

It's perfectly possible to write the kind of story you're after with a silent protagonist. You're just going to have to use your other characters to do all the heavy lifting. Your choice here is how to establish bonds between the human player and your three wingmates: do you want them to be defined, dyadic interactions the player learns about, or inferred relationships the player establishes with the three NPCs?

[Lorric]

When you have a silent protagonist, your character's internal states - his or her subjectivity - can't return to the game world to affect the plot or characters.

If the focus of your story is on the relationships within the wing, you need to decide whether you want the player character to be a spectator on that dynamic (with occasional decision power, if you so choose) or an active participant.

But if you pick the latter and make your PC a speaking character, bear in mind that this is going to come with defined internal states. The player can't fill in their own subjectivity, can't say 'Hrm, I like Alpha 2 and I hate Alpha 4' - they have to deal with PC's scripted opinions. People sometimes talk about this as a barrier to immersion; I don't think that's particularly important, since the mute contrivance is just as disruptive. But it is critical to think about as you write the characters.

It's perfectly possible to write the kind of story you're after with a silent protagonist. You're just going to have to use your other characters to do all the heavy lifting. Your choice here is how to establish bonds between the human player and your three wingmates: do you want them to be defined, dyadic interactions the player learns about, or inferred relationships the player establishes with the three NPCs?

Yes, I've had many of these kind of thoughts rattling around in my brain lately.

When I first started making the campaign, I was more concerned about being able to FRED missions. I did still want a story, but I was more concerned with missions, so I went with the silent protagonist as a safe bet. I even made mention of the fact it might seem awkward the player's wingmen are giving the orders when the player is wing leader, although the player is of course still in control and can order the wing around. That would be certainly the most desirable thing to change.

I want there to be a focus on the relationships and the impact the events of the war has on them. As I said I have been inspired to make the player-character a part of that.

But at the same time, as you say, on the flipside, you take certain things away from the real-World player by doing so, which makes the silent protagonist a safe bet. Even for me, the character wouldn't be a copy of what I'd do in the same situation, the character would be an actual character.

If the player-character stays silent, it would be implied the wingmen like the player. Which would really revolve around praising the player for success, and staying loyal to the player in failure (since it's a branching campaign, so you can lose missions and still continue.) There'd be a bit more to do with it than that, but if the player became a character, then they'd like the player for who he is (it will be a male player-character. If silent, gender will not be specified.) Making the other three do the heavy lifting is what I've been trying to do so far.

[Lorric]

Please, don't be shy.

[Rheyah]

If you want your character to effect the world around them, they need a voice.  If you want them to be witness to it, they don't.

[MatthTheGeek]

That's ridiculously oversimplifying. The Antagonist's protagonist (see wut I did thar?) was silent, yet he affected his universe more than anyone else in decades.

[General Battuta]

Didn't he talk a bit? Or was that only in the opening cutscene? Or am I confabulating wildly?

[Phantom Hoover]

I definitely remember him having conversations with Joshua throughout.

[AndrewofDoom]

He was nameless, but the protagonist talked throughout the campaign from time to time. The things he did say were rather simple.

Spoiler:

Though if you resist Edward in the end, he does say much more meaningful things. Namely he decides what he wants to do with his life.

[Kie99]

Generally I prefer the silent protagonist.  The active protagonist who has a massive impact, who makes big choices that I can't effect irks me.  Blue Planet fell flat for me partly because the protagonist had dilemmas and I had no choice in how I reacted to them and some of my character's reactions seemed absurd.  I accept that was necessary for the narrative direction but it doesn't really work for me.

A character-protagonist can be done well, Transcend is a great example of an active protagonist, but his a role with few genuine dilemmas - a scenario presents itself and his choices are to die or to do as his directives suggest.  It wouldn't have been as good with a silent protagonist, but it would have worked with a silent protagonist minimal changes.

Unless it's necessary for the story you're trying to tell (ie. if your guy gets split off from his team-mates for a few missions and you want to break off the boredom) or you're exceptionally confident in your writing ability I'd stick with the silent one.

[Rheyah]

That's ridiculously oversimplifying. The Antagonist's protagonist (see wut I did thar?) was silent, yet he affected his universe more than anyone else in decades.

Yes, provided you are willing to give the character unlimited agency, the ability to deal with EVERY problem on their own terms and no real sense of connection to the world.  None of this applies to real character development.  Further, the Antagonist also had another character who essentially talked for the player character and commentated on choices you made in game.

That's one type of story telling which is only possible provided your character has little to no connection to the world around them beyond a single minded goal.  Which is FINE.  But if you want to develop a world beyond that, your character needs to speak or find another way to directly interact.  That requires dialogue.  You can't tell the story of a group of mercenaries down on their luck unless you are willing to develop the relationship between the wingmen.  I don't care how well written your dialogue is - when you have a silent protagonist, your choices are made for you and ultimately Freespace only has so many ways to express yourself.  You shoot stuff, click stuff or press buttons.  You can't rest a hand on someones shoulder.  You can't nod gruffly.  You can't warp physics or reality.  You just shoot stuff.

A completely silent protagonist with agency is also far more demanding scripting wise than one with dialogue.  That's why Freespace 2 was so well written because it was the perfectly written story with a silent protagonist - you ultimately don't matter to the story.  Only your deeds do.  You also, notably, lack agency, which leads to the idea of the campaign being linear.

[Rheyah]

To shorten what I'm saying - if you want to affect the world, you can do one of two things.  Give the protagonist personality or give the protagonist agency.  Giving the protagonist dialogue through their personality is a very easy way of giving the protagonist agency.  Restricting the dialogue of the protagonist forces their agency to be dependent on actions and thus reduces the amount of things you can do in your campaign.  It especially restricts interactions with other characters such as wingmen.

You don't have to forcefeed the dialogue, either.  There's plenty of methods in modern FREDing to make dialogue choices.

[InsaneBaron]

It's an interesting question.

One of the big narrative questions when writing the story for a video game is that the player and the player-character have to mesh well. If the player dislikes the player character or disagrees with their actions, that disrupts the experience. In a sense, the player needs to agree with the player character's actions.

One useful shortcut to achieve this is the silent player character. The player can project their emotions onto the PC. This works well if the PC's actions are pretty straightforward- go on a mission, complete objectives, repeat.

Another way to do it is the sandbox approach: the PC's actions are completely up to the player. This method has its advantages obviously, but it doesn't work if the author is attempting to convey a specific story, rather than put the player in a sandbox and turn them loose.

Speaking player characters with author-defined personalities are the hardest to write, but when done right are very successful. A few examples of well-written speaking PCs:

Samuel Bei: Bei is sympathetic, and at the same time admirable. Bei's effectiveness as a PC is due not only to how he is written, but to the way the whole plot is written; his two major decisions (allying with the Vishnans and defecting to Earth) are prepared for in the plot to the point where the play agrees with them when they happen.

Master Chief (Halo): Contrary to the popular misconception, Master Chief DOES speak and has a defined personality (although one characteristic of that personality is that he's not very talkative). Nonetheless, his motivations are clear and simple: Save Humanity.

Sunder Marcel (Transcend): The player sympathizes with him, because he's as confused as the player is by the crazy situation he gets in to. However, he doesn't go crazy (he's perhaps the only character who stays sane) and acts rationally to stop the apocalypse.

The PC from The Antagonist: Again, as confused as the player is at the start. Learns things at the same time as the player. Sympathetic.

Based on the description of your campaign, Lorric, it sounds like it could be done either way. A speaking player character would be harder to write, but might end up fitting better into the squadron dynamic if done effectively.

Lastly, it is certainly possible to make a power, emotional, character-driven story even with a silent protagonist. I like to hold up Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War as a capital example of this. The player is a silent protagonist known only by his callsign, Blaze. However, you're leading a a four-pilot squadron, and your wingmen have very significant personalities. The player's reactions to events are guided by the wingmen's reactions. Blaze is not cut out of the squadron dynamic; his wingmen refer to him, compliment his skill, and even argue over his nicknames. One of the most emotional moments in all gaming occurs when

Spoiler:

Davenport, the comical motormouth of the team, dies

(a really good LP if you want to see for yourself)

[Lorric]

First, thank you everyone so far. It's funny, Battuta made me lean slightly towards going for a player-character, and now I'm leaning slightly towards sticking with the original plan. Heh, I want both aspects and I can't have them...

Kie99, if he's referring to Aquarius, together with InsaneBaron, highlight the potential problems with talking protagonists. I also dislike Bei, yet InsaneBaron is holding him up as a prime example of a talking protagonist done well. It's subjective. It's Bei and Sandman from Wing Commander Saga that make me worried about a talking protagonist. I can tolerate him much of the time, but other times he really gets under my skin. I'd trade him in for one of his wingmen in a heartbeat. And Sandman in the middle of the campaign I straight up disliked, but he managed to claw his way back to neutral by the end of the campaign.

It's an interesting question.

One of the big narrative questions when writing the story for a video game is that the player and the player-character have to mesh well. If the player dislikes the player character or disagrees with their actions, that disrupts the experience. In a sense, the player needs to agree with the player character's actions.

One useful shortcut to achieve this is the silent player character. The player can project their emotions onto the PC. This works well if the PC's actions are pretty straightforward- go on a mission, complete objectives, repeat.

Another way to do it is the sandbox approach: the PC's actions are completely up to the player. This method has its advantages obviously, but it doesn't work if the author is attempting to convey a specific story, rather than put the player in a sandbox and turn them loose.

Speaking player characters with author-defined personalities are the hardest to write, but when done right are very successful. A few examples of well-written speaking PCs:

Samuel Bei: Bei is sympathetic, and at the same time admirable. Bei's effectiveness as a PC is due not only to how he is written, but to the way the whole plot is written; his two major decisions (allying with the Vishnans and defecting to Earth) are prepared for in the plot to the point where the play agrees with them when they happen.

Master Chief (Halo): Contrary to the popular misconception, Master Chief DOES speak and has a defined personality (although one characteristic of that personality is that he's not very talkative). Nonetheless, his motivations are clear and simple: Save Humanity.

Sunder Marcel (Transcend): The player sympathizes with him, because he's as confused as the player is by the crazy situation he gets in to. However, he doesn't go crazy (he's perhaps the only character who stays sane) and acts rationally to stop the apocalypse.

The PC from The Antagonist: Again, as confused as the player is at the start. Learns things at the same time as the player. Sympathetic.

Based on the description of your campaign, Lorric, it sounds like it could be done either way. A speaking player character would be harder to write, but might end up fitting better into the squadron dynamic if done effectively.

Lastly, it is certainly possible to make a power, emotional, character-driven story even with a silent protagonist. I like to hold up Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War as a capital example of this. The player is a silent protagonist known only by his callsign, Blaze. However, you're leading a a four-pilot squadron, and your wingmen have very significant personalities. The player's reactions to events are guided by the wingmen's reactions. Blaze is not cut out of the squadron dynamic; his wingmen refer to him, compliment his skill, and even argue over his nicknames. One of the most emotional moments in all gaming occurs when

Spoiler:

Davenport, the comical motormouth of the team, dies

(a really good LP if you want to see for yourself)

And yes, it is for these reasons I went initially for the safe bet of a silent protagonist. And now I'm leaning towards it again.

I unfortuantely have not met the other protagonists you speak of. I do plan on playing Transcend sometime though. Also The Antagonist. Since you're here, I'll tell you that as I had played the games in your first review I talked about, and haven't played the games in the second, I'm going to take another approach again to the third. This time, I intend to play The Antagonist sometime, then immediately after, read your review.

Indeed. That's the problem! It can be done either way in my campaign.

But this Ace Combat 5 sounds very interesting indeed. It sounds like they've made their game exactly in the way I originally intended to make mine. I may well be able to take from them ideas on how to do this well in mine. So I will watch the LP. Thank you, InsaneBaron.

[Mobius]

Interesting topic.

I prefer a silent player character, and guess what, it's nice to find out there are still debates about the subject: a few years ago, I had the impression that character driven campaigns were dominating and influencing FREDders in a way that I found worrying. In the past I've been criticized for considering Blue Planet, Transcend and similar campaigns (which don't follow the style seen in the main FreeSpace series) as part of a specific genre people may or may not like instead of examples of next generation campaign designing.

Please mind that this could be a false dichotomy: you're saying that you either have a BP-like campaign where the player character is a key factor, or a campaign that follows to the letter the original FreeSpace games and their player character-free policy. You're not considering the "grey" part of the argument, a hybrid between the two: for example, you may create a campaign where the player doesn't say a word during the missions, but other than that is a pure player character, with proper characterization and stuff like that.

As weird as it may seem, I believe character-driven campaigns where the player character talks actually kill immersion. I'm a big fan of jRPGs where characters have all kinds of problems and say all kinds of things, but a message from Alpha 1 is not like one of Squall Leonhart's monologues, sorry. I don't think a space shooter can tell a story in that sense unless it's designed like Star Ixiom, a hybrid game between space shooters and jRPGs, which I recommend you to play if you get the chance.



Make something like that possible in FreeSpace and I may change my mind.  Back to the topic, as somebody else already did I would like to cite the main FreeSpace campaigns, in particular FS2, as superb examples of very good campaigns that don't require the player character to talk. In FS2 the player character was always the same, but the way the campaign evolved made me feel like I was fighting a real war from different perspectives as pilots of different squadrons doing different things. A talking player character would have pretty much killed immersion during the Terran-Vasudan exchange program: when I played those missions, I felt like the player was a Vasudan because everything around me felt Vasudan.

PS
I agree with InsaneBaron: Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War, also known as Squadron Leader, is a super example of a game with an elaborated plot where the player character doesn't say a word.

[Luis Dias]

I smile at the possibility of a campaign where the protagonist starts deviating in character on what the players would expect him to behave, in a crescendo until the players are screaming absolutely horrified and angrily at the actions and words of the player. It could also be a comical experience or a very inspiring one. A lot of variations come to mind, the most cliché of which is the "psichopathic good guy" who keeps being an absolute genius in both being a jerk and a professional.

e: Imagine a scenario where you just had an intense skirmish and are below 30% hull damage. The campaign recognizes this threshold and instead of having a sympathetic protagonist that tries to get the job done and get out, starts creating all sorts of public relation nightmares, instigating skirmishes with even more people and getting them to fight you. While you the player are thinking "shut up, you're making things worse!", the protagonist just keeps on getting more enemies to go after you and why not, alienate potential friends that could possibly help you. A frigate appears and the voice is all "Get the **** outta here, you lazy **** fat prick, or you'll slow me down" or something original, funny.

Then at the end if you survive, the protagonist will rant on how everyone seems hell-bent to get him and how there's no ****ing friend to help you ever. Or how good he is and how he doesn't need any friends whatsoever.

Damn, I like this campaign already.

[Hellzed]

I was wondering : would it work to play on this "mute character" to build a character driven campaign ?

Other characters would start to ask Alpha 1 if s/he remembers what s/he is doing between missions... If going from a mission directly to another one makes sense... How long has it been since s/he slept, took a shower... If s/he remembers what's beyond a subspace portal/a briefing room... And something weirder : how does Alpha 1 seems to *remember* missions like s/he was there before, fighting the same enemies in the same way, and remembering how to avoid her/his own death... And what's Alpha 1's real name ? does s/he even know it ?