[Editor's Note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.]
People make a big fuss about presentation these days, but I've always been a big believer that less is more. Essentially, I feel the more voice work that's put into a game these days, the less I'm given a chance to use my imagination or be a part of the experience and interpret things. I hate it -- not with an insane passion, mind you, but I hate being force-fed "heroes" that wear their heart on their sleeve.
I think one day gaming will come full circle and we'll come to grips with some of the old ways being the best ways. The Silent Protagonist will win, because he or she always does. They're persistent like that. needed.
Right now, interpretation has become a waning skill amongst gamers since we're seldom allowed to interpret things any more. People get baffled by characters that are a bit more aloof because they're spoonfed these emo J-rock archetypes or grizzled space marines.
Yet we're often expected just to watch what happens in stories with these Captain Obvious types. People hail Mass Effect's Shepard as a some kind of innovation for being able to interrupt a conversation. I don't like him any better than Tommy Vercetti because I've been taken out of the picture. I liked GTA III guy and the KOTOR protagonists better. I get to be the star.
Let's be honest: There is an extent to where games are about gratifying your own ego. If you're going to argue otherwise, then let's just go over all the trophy/achievement collecting, the speed runs, Hard Modes, the online FPS or MMORPG all-nighters. You play games because they make you feel accomplished, for as temporary as that feeling may last. You play to feed your ego, but you also play to feel something from the stories.
So why upstage the real star here? Why should you be reduced to a passenger? And how does someone else speaking for your character make it feel like you? In real life, people who assume to speak for me get a dirty look.
All that stuff takes me out of the game, it doesn't help me get into it more. Its one thing when the character started out with a voice and mind of his own, like Solid Snake, but its entirely another to make a bunch of silent/unvoiced characters and suddenly plug voice into them.
Some people think its cheesy or lazy to have the protagonist not speak, and yet, I think its rather important they often don't. Since starting up in the early 80s, I've just grown up with characters being this way and really don't like it when I get ejected from the main character's head.
I know there are those of us that have played Ico, Out of this World, Metroid II, Super Metroid and Shadow of the Colossus. If fact, if you haven't played one of them, stop reading right now, save your breath and go play one of them. Super Metroid and Shadow of the Colossus are probably the easiest in that list to obtain, Super Metroid being on Wii's VC channel, SotC from a PS2 used bin.
It's one of those "You had to be there" things. If you never went there, you can't know what the appreciation for those games are. It probably also helps if you grew up with it and played it in-context to the times, but if you don't restrict what you play by graphics and such, you probably won't have a problem.
Now, in many of these games, you had a handful of lines that communicated anything and it wouldn't have filled an entire page. All you had was action and observation. More or less, the developers gave you enough credit to figure out what was going on there. They went about communicating the story with many subtle elements just left to be interpreted.
In the case of Ico, its all about survival. It evolves from that idea into a lot more.while remaining almost entirely unspoken.
You're tossed in this castle, left to die for who knows what reason other than village superstitions because you grew horns growing up. As fate would have it the sarcophagus the village guards stuffed you in falls loose from the wall just after they exit the chamber.
You begin to look for a way out. You come upon this spire and you ascend the stairs, thinking you'll spy a way out. You come upon the cage at the time and find this older girl in it. Another prisoner, so you go about setting her free so she can escape with you.
You try to speak to her, but she doesn't speak your language, so that's out. You at least get her name -- Yorda. And you both start to make your way around, you realize she has powers to take down magical barriers. Well, that's handy, she'll be useful. She can get you out of here.
Along the journey, you begin to realize many things about Yorda. She's very weak. Not stereotypical, feminine weak -- she's just not conditioned for physical activity and she's going to need your help. How long was she in that cage?
Not only that, as you leave her to her own devices and scout out the next obstacle, you see she has a curious nature. In fact, its so curious you begin to wonder if she's ever seen the outside world, been in the sun, been close to birds and things of that nature. To her, everything seems new and interesting. What kind of life has she had here?
And she's a real wanderlust, which can be a bad thing. See, not too long into the adventure, you also encounter these shadows that seem bent on taking her back. They don't seem to care about you at all, but as you've come to realize things about Yorda, you become very protective of her and fight these shadows off with whatever you can get your hands on, even if its usually just a wooden staff. You feel an urgency that's not just because of the impending Game Over screen if they get her.
Its because the game made you care.
And its because you've not only observed and inferred things about Yorda based on the way she acts, it is also because you've felt the touch of her hand, you've felt her heartbeat. What started as your ticket out of this castle has become someone you feel a strong need to protect. She's bonded with you and you feel an almost knightly passion for her, you've gained a sense of honor in protecting her.
There's a bit more to it and you come to more of these realizations on your own -- the nature of what you've been fighting off, Yorda's reasons for being prisoner and why you were brought to the castle. Some of this you pick up on before there's finally some dialog to confirm your feelings.
Its the best way to tell a story, no large budget for voice overs could have told that story better. It wouldn't have been the same story because I would have been taken out of the experience to a great extent by not being Ico. Its because the game sought to bring all these feelings out of you through its design.
And its because we were allowed to step into the protagonist's shoes, it couldn't have been more effective any other way. Nothing they could have spoken would have drawn those same emotions out of you because it became personal. The idea of Yorda, as ethereal as she is, became real.
Why take that potential away from games? It something no other form of media can achieve.
I've heard some people say they want to hear the Main Character speak in Persona games, citing Mass Effect as an example of how it could be "better." I don't see it. I would be ejected from the experience. The MC's feelings would have to be defined by an actor. Even if I was choosing the emotion he goes with, its still a defined voice and might not be the one I had in mind.
Its like reading Batman and imagining his voice in the comic, then watching George Clooney or Christian Bale blow it. It might not be as damaging for a one-off Main Character, but imagine the trouble of giving someone like Link a voice. Actually we don't have to imagine, we've had rather unpleasant animated versions. Remember this one?
And while I'm not a big Dragon Age fan, those I know that love it cite this as one of their reasons for enjoying it: "Unlike Mass Effect, I get to be the main character again, I feel like I'm part of this."
There certainly seem to be people that don't want to be ejected from the main character seat and just be some Hand of God influencing the protagonist, they want to be the character and part of the experience. The silent protagonist is a simple device that brings in the player more easily. Its an inclusive element.
There's also the factor of budget and how complex dialog branches can really get. I mean, if the MC in Persona 3 starts talking, then they're going to want all the people in the social link portions to talk, too. That means more actors, more money spent and lengthier localization times. I prefer quick localization turnarounds, thanks.
That's why Dragon Age had silent protagonists (well, minus the localization thing). You had the races, genders for each race, multiple models for each race. If we had full voice-overs for each version of the protagonist, it might have broken Bioware's budget and put the game on multiple discs. And if they go the Mass Effect route, it becomes less of a fantasy RPG because you're eliminating classes, races and so on. You need that stuff.
Sometimes, its just better to keep it simple.
So I don't think the silent protagonist is going anywhere. He's the past, present and future in video games. So long as players want to be included in the experience and get to experience the emotions for themselves in a genuine way -- or its just not in the budget -- the silent protagonists will be
Contest:
7:00 PM on 01.16.2010
| 
I think it depends on the game... but I recently went back and played Resistance 1 and noticed that Nathan Hale doesn't speak at all in the game (the game is instead narrated by Rachel Parker, another character). I actually really liked this approach as you're right, it's just easier to identify with the character. They gave Hale a voice in Resistance 2 and the game had more a sense of telling a story, but not so much "your" story... more "his" story.
It's a fine line, but obviously there are many ways to do the silent protagonist that work quite well and actually benefit the game.
I'm somewhat surprised Fallout 3 (or Fallout in general) didn't get a mention. I haven't had a chance to play through Dragon Age yet, but Fallout 3 was easily the most immersive RPG I've played in quite some time. The use of the silent protagonist really helps keep you in the experience, instead of being thrown out because the dialogue isn't exactly what you wanted.
I'm still waiting for the day when you can speak directly with characters in a game yourself, removing the need for any preset input.
You're right, though, Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls provide a similar experience and Bethesda is all about you taking the lead in their games. I like the atmosphere those games strive for (even if the quality checking doesn't match the ambition at times).
In other news:Adventure, excitement... a Jedi craves not these things.
I'm not sure I feel that Mass Effect would've been better without all the dialogue. I mean, yes, Shepherd has his/her own voice in a literal sense, but you do direct Shepherd. You more or less play as Shepherd's conscious. I can see how that does limit your proximity to everything going on in the game, though... But the point I'm trying to get at is that Shepherd is not necessarily autonomous. The moral makeup of Shepherd is indeed still player-driven, and the moral makeup of Shepherd can lead to game-universe-altering results.
Link technically has had a voice since Ocarina of Time, too, just not spoken dialogue. I can already shape how his speech sounds in my head based on his various grunts, yells, screams in the post-OoT Zelda's. All the "dialogue" in Zelda pretty much strongly infers what Link has just asked or said, anyway. I would prefer Link to stay at this limited range of "vocality" in future Zelda games, but just making a note that aside from a few option A, option B scenarios that don't effect the game world whatsoever, Link is a pretty written-in character already.
I think we're in this terrible era of gamers expecting everything to be handed to them. Evident by the most popular line up of Halo 3, Gears of War and Call of Duty. Which are by no means bad games, but really lack any characters I empathize with, because none of them are weak (sans maybe the characters of Call of Duty but even with those characters) you always expect them to win the day. Games like Legend of Zelda, Half Life, Bioshock and Dead Space? Their heroes are respectively: A kid, a physicist, a random guy and an engineer. Most of which seem to have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time, thrust into greatness by their situation and perseverance. But I think what also makes them weak is that we are projecting ourselves on these characters, and we're weak, so we automatically empathize with them in their situation.
I agree, the silent protagonist will never truly leave gaming. It's one of the pillars on which our industry stands.
*looks at the author's name*
... Bias!
So I truly hope you're completely wrong.
Left for Dead however gets it right, just little conversations every once in awhile to remind you that the character your supposed to be isn't some antisocial weirdo that everybody likes for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I also liked the way Mass Effect did it too and I really missed the main character having a voice in Dragon Age (Although I realize with all the different race and gender combos you could do in that game it might have been taxing if not down right impossible.
I also fail to see how clicking a box a written text in Dragon Age is really that different than having it spoken in Mass Effect. Either way, the game is putting words in your mouth.
There's room for both approaches, designers just need to be savvy enough to pick the right approach for the story they want to tell and the experience they want to create.
I completely disagree with this statement. Books are far superior than video games in making the reader/player use imagination to fill in the blanks of a character.
The ego thing also really irked me for some reason. I don't play to feed some pathetic inner ego or to gain outward praise. I play because I enjoy playing games, I play harder modes because a challenge is appreciated and I play single player games because I like seeing what creative developer teams can come up with and because I like a good story or gameplay, or both.
The fact you have to bring up trophies and the like only really shows me just how lost gaming has become. People are playing for some lousy worthless virtual trinkets so that people can gasp as the horde of trophies they have in their collection. Its become a e-penis stroking contest and it sickens me. I don't have a platinum trophy and never likely will because gaming isn't about something telling me I'm awesome so I'll feel good about myself. Gaming also isn't about me necessarily projecting myself on every character in every game.
Silent characters can work, but only when you're supposed to be a random undeserving person who has to escape a seemingly impossble situation. Sadly, Gordan Freeman doesn't really fit that bill anymore. Perhaps in the first game you could make that case. But now, he's become to wrapped up in things for his silent persona to work real well. Don't get me wrong. I love Half-Life and so on. But the more I play, the more I wonder whether Freeman is just some guy getting his jollies off from killing things or if he's just a giant tool doing whatever everyone else wants him to do.
What does he want? Why is he going through all of this? I mean, the guy is a physicist. That's all we know. But that very fact means I can't project myself or my imagination on him much at all, even though I want to. I'm not a physicist with a PHD from MIT or something who can pick up weapons and slaughter hordes of aliens and soldiers while running around in some sort of bio-suit. In truth, the story has become too complex for him to remain a silent character. And right there is the nugget of truth, silent protagonists are only useful in games where the story isn't usually complex and most importantly, most everything happening has little to nothing to do with you personally.
Metal Gear Solid games would be horrible without voices. FF games would be horrible without voices. God of War would be horrible without voices. Games as we know it would be horrible without voices. And that special feeling from that few games that don't? They'd stop feeling special in an industry dominated by main character silence. They wouldn't feel so special anymore.
The sad truth is that it's easier to spoon-feed obnoxious stereotypes and hand the story out during the introduction instead of going in medias res and having the strength of story drive us to toward the end.
I do think that the supporting characters should have voice though. In Zelda, for example, I would like to see every NPC with (really good) voice acting. The only characters that should be excluded are Link, Zelda and Ganon.
@Rock - Link moves between being the silent protagonist and a variation I like to call "the one who bears witness." Sometimes Link is in the heart of a story (usually the Triforce installments) and sometimes he's just the guy watching things unfold.
@pbrand - Books let you imagine, yes, but they still influence the image you create. They give you an idea of the place, the character's looks, their voices but there's two large differences - (1) Games are interactive and (2) Games are an audio/visual medium. Books tell you what's going on and while they do let you infer things here and there, you can't interact with them directly.
@Drakengard - You play games because you enjoy playing games? If you're not playing for any sense of accomplishment, the rush of competition or beating some insurmountable enemy, the mood the game creates and you're not playing because the story moves you - then what reasons do you have left to continue?
I find it nearly impossible to empathise with a character who does not assert himself, be he playable or npc. Nearly impossible. Cannot be done. He is merely a window through which I am looking and as such he repels attention. He is only asserted as a character when he invites non-controlled interaction with his environment, which is seldom handled well.
Furthermore I feel the silent protagonist is more often than not used primarily as a narrative device, as in Half-Life and Dead Space, where silence implies consent. This particularly annoys me as it is usually exploited up the bum (the former) and rarely pulled off well (the latter). As it happens Bioshock managed an interesting critique of this and so falls into success in spite of it's horrible exploitation of the submissive player-character.
Also, self-satisfaction does not equate with tending towards one's ego. I think if you tested your statement you would have found it to be an extreme fallacy.
Plus the supporting cast is always subject to change. Even whatever version of Link it is.
For someone like Samus Aran, on the other hand, there's potential. We know she has a history with the Chozo, the Space Pirates, we know she was a respected comrade of General Adam Malkovich. We see her as a warrior and we've seen her moments of humanity.
But like Batman, its getting the voice right that's the trick. I guess I could see her with a voice like Motoko Kusanagi's from Ghost in the Shell or maybe even Argilla's voice in Digital Devil Saga. A strong, but feminine voice. That's how I've imagined her over the years.
My fear is, however, they would get some chick that just speaks blonde, so I'm fine with her staying silent, but I seriously doubt Metroid: Other M is going to be another one that eeks by without voice.
I play games because I enjoy ideas and concepts that exist outside of our own perceived reality. I play because being able to explore something not of our reality creates a certain sense of enjoyment. Accomplishment has little to do with it. Perhaps there is some inner satisfaction involved, but not in an egotiscal manner that would suggest that I play to impress myself or others. I do what I do because it entertains me and leaves me feeling complete, that if I wasn't exploring the creative aspects of the human mind that I would, in fact, be letting a piece of myself die.
I would like, however, to provide further critique on the concept of the silent protagonist. For me, I don't like projecting myself on a character and this stems immensely from understanding who I am. There is no wonder in how I'll respond to questions asked of me. I know who I am, what I strive for and how I plan to react in situations.
When I play Oblvion, or Morrowind, I'm the good guy. Even if I'm an assassin, I'm that assassin with a heart of gold or would play as such if that were the option handed to me. So for me, there is no mystery and emotion is quite deadened in such experiences. I find projecting myself onto a character only brings things down, makes things almost dull and uninteresting.
I would also like to say something against your example of Ico. No, I admit I have not played it myself. Certainly would if I had the time. But what I am about to speak on does not necessarily require that I play the game, so much as understanding the flaws of the silent protagonist. You, or so I took away from your example, feel as if you were able to project yourself on the boy in that game. I would disagree. What you did was assume a role, a role and character that was craftily designed. You became exactly what the developers wanted you become. It was never really you, but rather the boy projecting himself onto you. The protectiveness of the girl wasn't just a matter of survival, or so I'm assuming, but rather a feeling of belonging and purpose. The closer he comes to escaping, the sooner he has to face reality, that because of his horns people shun him, don't want him, don't love him and this hurts him. But this girl, she isn't scared of him, she needs him and gives him a purpose and takes away that fear of loneliness that awaits him beyond. You understood that. Hell, I'm able to grasp that without even playing the game. But the silence is only a part of that. Its Ico's sense of style. But, it could have just as easily and effectively been expressed in words or thoughts.
But back to the point. You did not become the boy. You never were. Rather the boy became you and those are different things. And certainly that makes the game special because its not the norm. But its not better because its different. Its just different. Its not more effective than language either. It was just a choice.
I will say this against spoken dialog. Developers have used it in a lazy fashion. They think that just by giving a character a voice that we will therefore care about them. Not so. If the character does not feel real, act real, present real emotion, real connection with the actor giving him a voice then it is all for nothing. A voice does not make you alive or else a synthetic voice from a computer would suffice in the matter.
What has become apparent from games like Uncharted 2 and Mass Effect is that voice and script is important. If you're going to use spoken words then it needs to be a careful selective and refining process just as it must be for any game that is to connect with us, silent protagonist or not.
The future, ultimately, is no silence. Were we to proceed in that direction, it would not be long before we wound are way back to where we are. There is little future in silence. Certainly it will never entirely disappear. In the few instances it is used, it will be special and memorable, but only because its no the norm. Were it the norm we'd grow tired of the novelty. But voices, there are an infinite number of voices, or personalities, or characters we can write and portray. The future is the industry discovering and maintaining the intimate process required to do voice acting properly and in the cases where voice acting just isn't proper, bring back text even. I'm looking at Bethesda's games on that front. Voices just are not the answer to worlds built heavily on side questing and lore.
Your article offends the very fabric of what gaming should be about: fun. Screw trophies, gamer points, bragging rights, competetive online gaming, etc. I play a game to fall in love with characters, worlds, magic, imagination. I play games to experience things that aren't me, so why do I want to be the hero? I'm not; Cloud is, Kratos is, Shepard is, Link is, Mario is, and some have voices, some don't. For you to say gamers are self-absorbent is offensive. That isn't why I play, I play to experience, not achieve.
This article pisses me off.
It works in some games, particularly those which are not heavy on spoken dialog. It worked in Ico and SotC because there's...no dialog (though the lack of dialog doesn't particularly make the character more you; it just makes them unable or unwilling to talk, in my book), it worked in Persona because...you don't have a presence on the screen in spoken scenes, really. You do when the other characters are text, but not when they speak. Which makes you kind of an impartial observer, who doesn't need voice.
I think the only game where I *wished* the protagonist was silent was FFXII, where...Vaan's "complex emotional response" could have been better done if he didn't talk, and observed (considering that's basically his role anyway). In most other games, I like speaking. In a lot of games with silent protagonists where people talk, it's...awkward for me.
It forces you do to some digging and infer some things that aren't said, but there's also means within the game laid out to connect some of those dots - by the Hunts and Beastiary entries, if nothing else. Making everything obvious would be rather un-Invalice. Anything with politics involved isn't fun if its not a little bit dodgy.
Yeah, but try explaining that to the haters and they'll dismiss it as fanboy talk. Believe me. I've tried.
What I have seen people say is that Vaan should have been the main character. He wasn't, though. He and Penelo are like R2D2 and C3P0. Sure, we started with them, but that doesn't make them main characters. In FFXII's case the main character was rather interpretive like it was in FFVI. Yeah, when you boil it down Terra or Ashe have the most motive to be protagonists, but I'm of the opinion the main characters to those games were not playable at all.
Another thing about silent protagonists and this is kind of heresy for even saying this but I really wish Gordon Freeman had a voice. It actually bothers me when other characters ask me questions and I cant give them an answer. Even if I do give them an answer it doesn't matter, they cant hear me, Im talking to a television screen!
Well, to be fair, Vaan and Penelo aren't as shallow as...okay...Penelo was. Vaan had a deeper purpose for the story than people give him credit for. It takes some intellectual diving into the tale to understand his importance to Ashe overall and most people think that this should be spelled out to them.
But to the point, yes, Ashe was the main character. Vaan was a vehicle into the trouble following the Dalamascan war. Why people can't or won't see that stories do not have to follow the same and often overused structure is bothersome to me. Its as if their overall experience with story telling is strictly from one perspective and that only one perspective can work.
Perhaps we're expecting too much from people?
"I feel good today, Silent Bob, we're gonna make some money, then you know what we're going to do? We're gonna go to that party, we're gonna get some pussy, and I'm gonna fuck this bitch, I'ma fuck this bitch, I'll fuck ANYTHING THAT MOVES! Yo, what the fuck you lookin' at, I'll kick your fuckin' ass! Shit yeah. Doesn't that fucker owe me 10 bucks? You know, fuckin' tonight, we're gonna rip off this fucker's head, and take out his fuckin' soul. Remind me if he tries to buy something, I'm gonna shit in the motherfucker's bag. Hey, what's up baby? What's up, sluts?"
Best introductory dialogue for a character EVER.
Sometimes I wish these games weren't voiced at all so they would have nothing to bitch about. Plus some of the games would get out that much faster and digital download versions wouldn't have to be as large in file size.
Agreed completely.
And on HL2 especially. Freeman should definately do two things until now:
- lead the resistance,
- do Alyx.
Unless as you've stated his psychopath or complete tool.
He's got huge knowagle of deep secrets behind colonisation, alien dimensions etc. after both games. He's also fearsome warrior. Depending on personality - either the leader or his right hand (crafting strategy and supporting more charismatic front-line person). He's absolutelny not in a position to do missions like he does.
And Alyx... she may be chemically rid of any sex drive, but Gordon is not.
---
@topic
I think we need less silent protagonists not more. In some places they actually do really fine, but they're few.
Getting these immersive emotions and allowing player to interprete on his own does not lie in mute protagonist. Don't do player's emotions, don't run around with captain obvious and don't show everything on a plate. You can ruin these with silent pro, or without him.
And huge drawback of silent pro is - you are severly crippled. You can walk, shoot, jump and save the kingdom ... but can't ask for directions in the middle of the city? Your interactions are limited and most dialogues seem like they are leaving someone out... becouse they are. You can't TELL anything and game has to be very crafty to go around such a limit.
Actually I'd say it'd be best to:
- In RPG like games where the hero is not a definitive character and is immersed with player - leave out the voice-over. Talk with text so player doesn't hear any distraction in the voice of his alter-ego.
- Games with a defined hero - vioce.
Half Life 2 felt like that more so because I was a silent character. I didn't really have any cues and most of the time it feels like Freeman is standing and staring at people, like a puppy going doe-eyed for attention. I never feel like I'm making that much of a difference, despite everyone telling me otherwise. I know it's no coincidence that The G-Man simply sums up Freeman as this guy who's just there at the right time though.
I thought Ghostbusters: The Videogame tackled the acting issue pretty well. There was always a space between the cast, or a subtle mark, telling you where to stand and so forth.
I guess that's why I like survival horror games. You're still an actor, but you're given some sense of how your avatar react. I prefer talking because I get a handle on the character, rather than feeling out of place with my more random actions because I'm myself...not the so-called important character I'm supposed to be.
Both Dragon Age and Fallout suffered immensely because of the silent protagonist. In Dragon Age, it was especially bad, because the other characters were so much more interesting than your's. I really wanted to just ditch the fucker from my party altogether.
If we're supposed to care for a character and be interested in his motivations, the player's imagination isn't going to cut it past some point. I'm pretty sure people wouldn't be hailing Half Life and Bioshock as great examples of mute protagonists if there was a lot less shooting and a lot more talking, because that would also mean a lot more reading. Switching between voiced dialog and reading breaks the flow like a parachute.
Since the end of HL2 alyx shoul've gotten her sex drive back
In Dragon Age - my "hero" was heavy armoured blocker.
He was halfway between idealist and pragmatic, also pretty much good and rather conservative (lawful?) - though, his character had no much impact on my perception of the game. Except for a few important decisions.
Though this feeling is not uniform. Some people pointed silence as a plus here, also my brother played Dragon Age heavily thru his character. Deciding everything based on his chosen personality.
Because in reality, almost every single case of a Silent Protagonist was due to budget restraints not a creative choice. So this viewpoint you're promoting is based on wanting to go back to a type of main character story that was never chosen, it was forced upon. There are rare cases like Half Life, where Gordon is intentionally silent, and that makes sense; Valve was trying to make a game FOR gamers (that's also why he' a science geek and wears glasses :P).
But for something like GTA3, KOTOR, or a lot of JRPGs, its just cause it was easier. And in reality you don't really get anything more from that character just because they don't talk. And the idea of putting yourself in every video game as the main character is silly. You can just as well have a role imposed onto you, but tune it to your liking (such as GTA4 or Mass Effect) and its not necessary to make them SILENT.
Anyways I was a tad scatterbrained and may have strayed away from my point. But it was pretty well written, I just disagree.
Going back to Dragon Age and KotOR, if anything having no voice detracts from the experience, at least to me. There's a huge break in conversation while you sit around and think about what you want to respond with, and then everything goes back to normal as it's assumed you gave the option you chose. While the lack of voice in these stems from space issues and is forgivable, it's not any better for having a protagonist who speaks with a chalkboard.
Regarding completely mute heroes, it's all about presentation. Half-Life never really bothered me in that regard, since in the original I always assumed Freeman was doing what he was out of the kindness in his heart, and by Half-Life 2 he had become less of a person and more of an ideal of the revolution incarnate. He doesn't talk because he leads by actions, and his words have been said by countless people before him.
Anyway, that's a bit rambly, so I'll end here, but tl;dr: both have their place depending on how they're implemented. I'd be sad to see either of them go.
I also think that in the Raidou Kuzunoha games, it's nice to not have anybody voiced, since it's a lot easier to imagine what the characters sound like, considering the game takes place in 1920s/1930s Japan. I just don't think voice actors could do a good job of really capturing the essence of that time period without sounding too much like an over-exaggerated caricature of a cliche. It's a lot easier for people to imagine it for themselves since we know how we'd like to imagine what they're saying.
On the other end of that spectrum, on series that I think does a good job of having people talk with each other, and have a non-silent protagonist would be the "Tales of" games. I think the best thing about these games that I haven't seen at all in most other games is the Skits. Instead of forcing character interaction and plot and such on the player through a bunch of cutscenes, you will gradually have skits pop up where everyone talks with each other through animated portraits. The cool thing is if you don' want to watch these, you don't have to. The prompts that come up for them are not mandatory, and you can skip them if you don't want to hear them.
I think that as far as games like that go, Tales of definitely does a very good job of giving us memorable characters that we can really get interested in and be entertained by. J. Michael Straczynski said that the most important thing in a story is to have good characters, because it's through them that you can identify with and connect to the world they're in and the things that happen in it.
So I think both having a silent protagonist and having a character that talks both have their merits, as long as they're done well.
*Reads aloud* "Hmmm...'The silent protagonist will win'? Interesting..."
*Glances down at the author* "'by The Silent Pro--'...HEY!"
YOU ARE BIAS MAN
Plus Western influence plays a big role in the theme of that setting. When it was localized, it was written in the lingo of the period. Women are dames, broads or birds with a nice pair of gams on 'em. There's the flappers and dandies. All that kind of stuff.
Then you have Gerin and Nagi, who have an enigmatic way of speaking that, if voiced, people would have a hard time grasping (similar to Fran from FFXII, which I'm amased to have learned some people didn't like at all, I loved her manner of speaking).
SMT: Nocturne also would have had marginal benefits for being voiced. They really wanted you to be drawm in by the atmosphere, the mood the graphics and sound blended together to present this really surreal and twist world. It was also devoid of life outside of demons.
Then you have Digital Devil Saga. That skewed more Final Fantasy in style while it retained the gameplay of SMT: Nocturne and a Silent Protagonist in Serph. Choices still had an effect on certain elements of the game, but not as dramatic as Nocturne, Devil Survivor or the forthcoming Strange Journey would. Everyone else is voiced but Serph, but they really make it work by maintaining strong themes.
Now my friend came away with Isaac as the stalwart hero, doing all of these tasks because he knew it was the right thing to do, he had to save Nicole, he had to save Hammond. It wasn't about being selfish and wanting escape, it was about doing the right thing. Isaac was a man of humble bravery.
And I think that's one of the most powerful things about the silent protagonist. We can all walk away with a different perspective of the character, making the game more deeply personal to us. I don't think I would have felt the same way, or empathized as much with Isaac if he was walking through all proud and brave because he wasn't to me. He was a regular guy.
I think that's something you just can't do with speaking protagonists, you can't make them what you want to be. I'm not saying that we should only have silent protagonists, but they are something I wish that more developers would consider, instead of just shoe-horning in some cheesy dialogue for their main character. I'm looking at you Darksiders.