[SypheDMar]

Vassago's Dirge and BP2 are both amazing campaigns, and both were relatively recent. I doubt that silent protagonists were going away because of the former. But BP2 made me attached to certain characters due to the interactions with them, and still feeling like a cog in the machine for the first act (something associated with silent protagonists in FS mods).

[Lorric]

@ Mobius

The debate is nice, but I wish I didn't need to have it in the first place!

I have actually thought about somewhere inbetween, but I'm sure I'd really struggle to decide how far inbetween I wanted to go, and then I'd struggle to stick to it as I'd constantly be getting pulled in one way or the other as the story unfolded. It's going to have to be one or the other. I have seen what you describe though, G-Police and it's sequel handle it well. The Protagonist doesn't talk in the missions or the briefings, only in a few cinematics in both games. The rest of the time he doesn't say a word, but goes off on these monolgues in the cinematics. I'm pretty sure you never get to see what he looks like as well. The game doesn't really do characters though, there are a few minimal characters. It's basically cog in a machine stuff.

Oh, on you imagining yourself flying as different pilots in different squadrons, you still get treated as a Terran when you're with the Vasudans, right? You fight like a Vasudan! Didn't that mess up your imaginings of being a Vasudan?

Anyway, good to see another big endorsement of Ace Combat 5. I'm getting pretty high hopes that that will be helpful to me.

@ Luis Dias

What would you call that? A Trolltagonist?

[General Battuta]

There's no 'debate', and there never has been - the solution has been clear (well, at least to some notables, including: the writer of FS2, me) since retail: FreeSpace can support all kinds of stories. The question is what works best for your campaign, for the story you're trying to tell.

Some people in the community have had literal freakouts over the idea that one type of campaign might be better than the other, as if FreeSpace is inherently built for one style. Fortunately the actual narrative architects of FreeSpace were sophisticated enough to understand heterodoxy.

Volition's Saint's Row series is a really interesting example of how to do player agency. The PC speaks pre-scripted lines but the player can choose from a number of predetermined personalities.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Volition's Saint's Row series is a really interesting example of how to do player agency. The PC speaks pre-scripted lines but the player can choose from a number of predetermined personalities.

And that is a feature I really wish more games would implement, too. The downside is that it massively multiplies writing/voice acting requirements.

[Phantom Hoover]

Another permutation on this is the approach of TES-model RPGs, where the player character has a voice and influence on the world but still has next to no intrinsic characterisation.

[Killer Whale]

I prefer talking protagonists, probably because of experience with more stories that do it right that those which do silent protagonists right. One thing that I notice though: the more a protagonist is a person, and less a vessel for the audience to put themselves in, the more people will drop the story because they don't like the character.
That's not necessarily a bad thing (why accommodate an audience which don't appreciate the author's taste?), but you will start to lose people as your character becomes less generic. (Which may be why wingmen tend to have bigger variations in personality and values, while the audience proxy (player character) tends to be molded by the events around them and social norms/expectations, if they develop at all)

[NGTM-1R]

It really doesn't matter.

Hell, you can even have Alpha 1 actually respond to Command without characterizing them much at all, if you want; you don't have to be silent to be in the mould of the original campaigns.

[Spoon]

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.

Dimensional Eclipse - The Singularity has the jerkiest of jerk main player characters that I've seen in any freespace campaigns so far. Alas the release that is currently available on the forums isn't the full version of the campaign so I can't really recommend playing it as of this moment.
But it's definitely a different experience to play a character that is so damn loathsome

[InsaneBaron]

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.

Glad to help! I brought up AC5 because your description of Plan A reminded me of it. Mobius's name is actually taken from the game before it in the series   also very good, but it doesn't have the same squadron dynamic.

Basically, it looks to me like a risk-reward calculus. A silent protagonist would be the safe approach: easier to write, less likely to go haywire. There's nothing wrong with having a silent protagonist at all. A speaking protagonist would be the high-risk-high-reward approach; if done right it might well add to the effect, but it would be harder to do well and more likely to turn out wrong. I say "turn out" because, in my experience, it's very hard to judge how people will react to your own work until you put it out there. Like you said about Samuel Bei, there's a degree of subjectivity here- some people will integrate with a given speaking PC better than others.

@Hellzed: Homesick's "recommendations" for the first couple missions actually do that.

Spoiler:

Team! It's time to cut back on the silly chatter! Did you hear Alpha 1 complaining about having to fly a Loki? Did you hear Alpha 1 yakking about sitcoms? Did you hear Alpha 1 talking at all? No! Alpha 1 is a professional, and you all could learn a lesson from him!

[Mobius]

I'd like to point out that in Ace Combat 5, the player character is not 100% quiet. During certain conversations, at some point the player is asked a yes or no question which can be answered by pushing the left (YES) or right (NO) button of the joystick. Most of the times answering yes or no to a question asked by a wingman would change his/her reaction, nothing in particular... but I recall at least one part in the late stages of the game, where the player guided a task force on the ground to an enemy base by deciding whether or not said task force should take shortcuts in order to get to its target. Shortcuts meant more enemies, the other routes were safer but required more time.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, twice in the main campaign the player is asked a yes or no question that basically was the game developers' way to let the player decide which one of two missions in a branch should be played. In fact, the player needs two playthroughs of the main campaign in order to play all missions.

Lorric, this may serve as source of inspiration.   

[InsaneBaron]

I'd like to point out that in Ace Combat 5, the player character is not 100% quiet. During certain conversations, at some point the player is asked a yes or no question which can be answered by pushing the left (YES) or right (NO) button of the joystick. Most of the times answering yes or no to a question asked by a wingman would change his/her reaction, nothing in particular... but I recall at least one part in the late stages of the game, where the player guided a task force on the ground to an enemy base by deciding whether or not said task force should take shortcuts in order to get to its target. Shortcuts meant more enemies, the other routes were safer but required more time.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, twice in the main campaign the player is asked a yes or no question that basically was the game developers' way to let the player decide which one of two missions in a branch should be played. In fact, the player needs two playthroughs of the main campaign in order to play all missions.

Lorric, this may serve as source of inspiration.   

Well, he's still silent in that you can't hear him. But yes, that's an interesting campaign idea.

[Hellzed]

@InsaneBaron : I was thinking about something a bit different. What if Alpha 1 has no real characterisation because he is not an actual human being, but a *simulation* of a human being in a specific environment (a galactic war...) ?
(of course he is, we are playing a video game)

Now, think about an explanation that wouldn't break the fourth wall. What if the Shivans were simulating every moment of this war with powerful quantum computers (thus breeding a whole population of "virtual humans" and "virtual vasudans") ? A glitch could happen, with some of these virtual humans gaining consciousness of what they are, "where" they are, and what they are really doing.
But there is no escape from a Shivan's dream...

[mjn.mixael]

The Matrix is so 1999.

[Hellzed]

What's comforting with the idea of The Matrix is that you still have a body somewhere.
Given it would be a simulation, a whole story could happen in a blink. For example, the last seconds of a shivan cruiser hit by a beam (the damage explaining computer malfunction).

[Lorric]

Glad to help! I brought up AC5 because your description of Plan A reminded me of it. Mobius's name is actually taken from the game before it in the series   also very good, but it doesn't have the same squadron dynamic.

Basically, it looks to me like a risk-reward calculus. A silent protagonist would be the safe approach: easier to write, less likely to go haywire. There's nothing wrong with having a silent protagonist at all. A speaking protagonist would be the high-risk-high-reward approach; if done right it might well add to the effect, but it would be harder to do well and more likely to turn out wrong. I say "turn out" because, in my experience, it's very hard to judge how people will react to your own work until you put it out there. Like you said about Samuel Bei, there's a degree of subjectivity here- some people will integrate with a given speaking PC better than others.

I've watched quite a few of the videos now. The last one I watched was

Spoiler:

Operation Footprint.

It's the same general idea as mine, but it has it's differences. Like the Yes/No thing. That would just be a nuisance in a Freespace game I think. They also have the highest saturation of chatter I've ever seen in any game. I like lots of background chatter but this is the first game I've ever seen where I think it's too much. It's literally non-stop, you literally don't get a moment's respite from it. Anyway, such a thing isn't really possible in a non-VA Freespace game. I'm trying to keep chatter to a minimum when the player is engaged.

But it is pushing me to want to do as I originally planned, seeing a game where it has been done with a silent protagonist. Even the Yes/No thing seems largely inconsequential to me. I might find it a nuisance if I was playing that game too. It does occasionally matter, like when Wingmen are asking if you approve a plan or not, but otherwise seems largely inconsequential. I wouldn't mind seeing what the response would be if Blaze were to say no to his boss on that first mission though!

It has always felt like risk reward too. A little bit like hitting that gamble button on a fruit machine. Of course, those things are rigged... but it really could have that kind of double or nothing impact, a bad player character really can blow the whole damn thing, because of that special impact they have. A bad character is just some jerk/moron/annoyance that's around, but having that character speak and act for the player is a whole different matter.

On the other hand, they can have a tremendous enhancing effect to a game. I think I'll be going with silent protagonist at this point. I'll be watching more of the videos as relationships within the team have not yet been touched on really. That reporter guy is interesting, he's kind of serving as what the player's perspective would be if the player wasn't silent.

The Matrix is so 1999.

The Matrix is everywhere.

@ Mobius

Thanks for the input. There isn't really anything I can add to your post though that hasn't really been said in my response to InsaneBaron.

[Mobius]

By the way, AC5's yes or no system is rather simple, but could be used as a base for a more interesting and complex game experience.

You could use subtitles to show multiple options and let the player make a decision that may change the outcome of a mission. Imagine for example that ship X is not following the orders given by Command... what would you do? Contact the ship itself, inform Command via a secure comm channel, or ask your wingmen what they noticed? This is just an example.

[Lorric]

By the way, AC5's yes or no system is rather simple, but could be used as a base for a more interesting and complex game experience.

You could use subtitles to show multiple options and let the player make a decision that may change the outcome of a mission. Imagine for example that ship X is not following the orders given by Command... what would you do? Contact the ship itself, inform Command via a secure comm channel, or ask your wingmen what they noticed? This is just an example.

I don't think I want to do such a thing. It could be messy in the middle of a mission. I also don't know how it would be done.

However, it is a branching campaign. Maybe I could do something like give the player a briefing which presents two or three plans for a mission, and the player gets to choose which one to go with, leading to two or three different missions.

[Mongoose]

By the way, AC5's yes or no system is rather simple, but could be used as a base for a more interesting and complex game experience.

You could use subtitles to show multiple options and let the player make a decision that may change the outcome of a mission. Imagine for example that ship X is not following the orders given by Command... what would you do? Contact the ship itself, inform Command via a secure comm channel, or ask your wingmen what they noticed? This is just an example.

FS2 by way of Bioware?

[General Battuta]

Been done yo

I don't think I want to do such a thing. It could be messy in the middle of a mission. I also don't know how it would be done.

However, it is a branching campaign. Maybe I could do something like give the player a briefing which presents two or three plans for a mission, and the player gets to choose which one to go with, leading to two or three different missions.

It's been done a lot and it's pretty easy. BP2 and JAD both have mid-mission dialogue choices and lots of decisions. JAD even has a mouse-driven dialogue system, but it's likely to be a bit more challenging.

[Axem]

Been done yo

I don't think I want to do such a thing. It could be messy in the middle of a mission. I also don't know how it would be done.

However, it is a branching campaign. Maybe I could do something like give the player a briefing which presents two or three plans for a mission, and the player gets to choose which one to go with, leading to two or three different missions.

It's been done a lot and it's pretty easy. BP2 and JAD (eventually) both have mid-mission dialogue choices and lots of decisions. JAD even has a mouse-driven dialogue system, but it's likely to be a bit more challenging.

Fixed for accurate-ness. And the mouse driven dialogue system is so much easier (both for the player and the FREDder) to use than training messages.