A silent protagonist vs a hero that speaks

Which makes a better protagonist? I think both have their merits, but I'd like to hear what some other people think.

It depends on the story itself, not the character.  Sometimes creating a silent protagonist is not intentional.  Other times it is.  Gordon Freeman is one example of a silent protagonist that does not speak.  It leaves Gordon very undefined, and more easily allows a player to project themselves into Gordo's shoes.  His story is told by the way the characters around react to the Player. 

It has a downfall tho.  A totally silent protagonist also risks making the character seem unbelievable because of the lack of definition.  Players dont always need to project onto the main character, but can project on to at least one in the group.  A piss poor example is Hope in FFXIII (13).  Hope was not the main character, but the target demographic was intended to be able to project on to him more than any of the other characters.  And that game fell apart on itself.

I think if the choices the Player makes are supposed to have an impact on the world, the Protagonist should have a voice.  Half Life and Gordo, the Player really didnt get any sort of real choice.  Clear the room or run past bad guys, continue story, clear area, continue story.

What might work better is a balance between the two.  The character doesnt initiate certain actions, the Player does.  It helps the player connect with the character better.  Oh dear, where is my wallet?  Player grabs wallet and returns it, thats Player making the choice, not the character in a Cutscene.  Timing is what is important there.  The actions define the personality of that character without words, but in the way that other characters react to Player actions over character on character actions.  Giving the Protagonist a voice may cause a conflict between the character the player is supposed to project themselves into the role of, and the Player themselves.  If the Player is forced to do something that conflicts with the way they would behave in the real world (steal the wallet, then threaten the guy) the suspension of disbelief is lost.  But if the Player just watches what the protagonist does, its a little more tolerable but can still break that relationship IF the Player can not relate.

There is a unique relationship between the Player and the Main Character / Protagonist.  The Protagonist needs to be able to reflect the Player in every way possible, so adding less definition to their personality allows for a wider audience.  Being too defined causes personality clashes.  Again, a balance there is needed.

Many of the RM series games I've played, I never felt connected with the Protagonist.  Some games hop around between cutscenes, other games the characters are talking AT me, not with me.  If you can create a Protagonist that I can project myself into the role of, then you've done your job as a storyteller.

You make some really good points and I agree with you on a lot of them. It very much so depends on the story and not the character so much.

Sometimes it is hard to tolerate voiced protagonists, and sometimes it is hard to relate to the silent ones.

I'm currently working on a project with a silent protagonist. In the past, I have always used voiced protagonists, so this is the first time I am trying to tell a story with a silent main character. The reason being is like you said, in my last project the main character had too much definition and a lot of people who played it hated the guy because he was so intolerable. Even looking back now, yeah, I hated him too!

We'll see how the silent protagonist pans out. It is definitely an interesting way to tell a story.

BTW my favorite silent protagonist is Mario from Super Mario RPG. What a hero.

I think its definitely worth an effort to try a silent protagonist, just to see how things pan out.

One game worth noting, that many of this generation may not have played, Chrono Trigger.  The first time I played it, I didnt realize that the main character was completely silent!  I think what happened was the story was told in such a way that the "voice" of the character, or more to the point, the lines of text were replaced by requiring the Player to perform the actions of that text.  For example, in the beginning when meeting the first character, the "text" of "here is your pendant" is replaced by Player acting out the return of the pendant.  The text involved in that scene comes from the other character, something like "thank you for returning my pendant" which allows the Player to feel as if they were the ones interacting with the other character instead of controlling a Sprite on a screen.

Slightly off topic.

Learning from failures.  Such as Syfy channel movies.  Those movies are typically considered to be absolutely terrible.  Ive seen enough that I study for patterns in the way they tell their stories.  There is typically a set of stereotype characters.  Kids are always hackers.  Captain Coffee: the Commander in Chief that knows nothing about the tech at hand, just barks out orders for some subordinate to "get it done".  The first character introduced is usually nameless and dies during the reveal of the monster or naturally occuring threat to others.  The unlikable protagonist.  The useless military or police presence that do not listen to the warnings issued by the protagonist.  The supporting cast is completely irrelevant and the story many times would occur with or without their involvement, and are just along for the ride.

What Ive noticed from the total failure of Syfy channel movies is that their dialogue is amost always Situational based.  "We need to get from here to there".  They basically spew objective information: The volcano is a threat, the monster is a threat, we can survive / win if we...".  Its almost always a reaction to the situation.  Warn others.  Quick, get out of the car before the electromagnetic shockwave kills us.  Phew, that was close.  Oh look, such and such supporting character is dead.

What they do not do is to react to the other characters.  Authority never listens to those who see the initial problem.  Those characters are going to have their own unique relationships with each other, just as the Viewer (player in games) is expected to have with the Protagonist.  They forget that Captain Coffee doesnt just have a relationship with his subordinates and Protagonist, but the other supporting cast.  The other supporting cast will have other types of reactions and relationships with everyone else.  These things are nearly never defined.  In a movie, there is rarely time to have more than one or two lines of dialogue between every cast member involved.  A cast of 5 characters means there needs to be 25 lines to define those relationships.  So those lines are written to be as impactful as possible and not take three hours to explain that so and so are lovers.  I think that for important relationships, main characters, or groups of characters need this.

In context of a game, those lines are what define the Players expected relationship with each other important character.  These lines doesnt need to be a spoken line by the Players character, as is the case where the other character both explains what the Player / Protagonist did, and shows a reaction to those actions.  "Thank you for returning my pendant."  Its a reaction that accoplishes both explaining and keeping the Players character from stating the obvious, which is where I think dialogue gets boring. 

The situational dialogue I think is best reserved for non party characters, such as townsfolk, but they need to react to the situation.  "The volcano is going to erupt because of the Dragon!"  Yeah, okay, so why are you standing around with your thumb in your ass?  "Im going to move to another down because the Dragon in the volacano will make it erupt!"  Standing around there is acceptable because that character shows a reaction and intent to leave.  Its a bit more than two dimensional.  The two dimensional character is one that states only the obvious without having ANY reaction to an obvious situation.  Those are the super boring dull characters that are completely hated by most people.  And since many stories are told in RPG's through the dialogue of the situational responsive characters, the less they react to that situation, the less impact the story will have on the player.

"I hope daddy can do something about the dragon in the volcano!"  It explains what needs to be the Players next objective as well as showing that characters reaction to that situation.  Really, that dialogue is still very dry.  "Im terrified that the Dragon in the volcano will make it erupt!"  I bit more emphasis on that characters reaction to the situation.  The abbreviation of text keeps the player from getting bored by providing double meaning.  Both a reaction and explanation of what they are reacting to.  Its not appropriate in all cases, but look at Syfy and why their movies suck so bad!  They dont react, just state the obvious.

Sometimes, this is all heavily related to Scripts.  One of the scripts I worked on modifying heavily was Wachungas Multiple Message Windows.  One of the technical reasons for this was a storytelling style, where if the Player is to be offered a choice, that "Choice" needs to come from the Players character.  So, something simple "Do you want to buy something?" would show a second Dialogue Bubble that originates from the Players character "Um... [Sure! / Not right now...]"  Its very simple, but reinforces the idea that the Player controls the Protagonist and defines who they are expected to project on to.  The choice of buy or dont buy doesnt define the Protagonist as any specific personality archtype by replacing their dialogue with what the Player decies the characters need.  This is Projection of the Player on to the Protagonist and helps to build that relationship, and how Scripts are useful to accomplish this.

One of the other things I did with the Scripts that support Storytelling was to reinforce the idea that the Player can "walk away" from an NPC with too much dialogue.  The more the Player feels like they are "in control" of the Protagonist helps with that Projection.  When townsfolk NPCs trap the Player into long dialogue, the Player may feel like they are NOT in control and it undermines that Projection.  And from a technical aspect, I think that technical cause is why many RPG Maker games fail.  Take a look at Chrono Trigger again.  The Player is allowed to walk away from many NPCs when they talk.  During cutscenes, some actions are controlled by the game.  They had this absolutely right many many years ago, but we didnt catch on to why the Player was allowed to walk away.  Now not every game does this, but how many successful first tier games did allow this?

Much of this is my choice of style and it wont be appropriate in every game out there.  But if you want to see how this style works, my "Collection of Art and 100% Compatible Scripts" is over in the XP Scripts section.  It took me a long time to develop that "Style".  The first script I ever did was Zeriab's Caterpillar, upon which I based my Caterpillar.  The Caterpillar dialouge is also contained in that "Collection" but also shows the evolution of characters being "forced" into long script explanations that traps the Player.  There are a bunch of Maps in the "Collection", each built with the idea of teaching how to use a specific Script.  Later scripts and maps allow the player to just "walk away" while the earlier stuff "traps" the Player.  So both styles are there.  As its a Tech Demo and not really a game, I didnt mind having inconsistent styles.

It may sound like I am pumping my own stuff, again, which I do have a tendancy to do, but try to do so with valid reasons.  The point isnt to promote my own stuff, but to show how Technical things like Scripts can either hold a game back or help the Player to build and maintain that sense of Projection onto the Protagonist.

One of the other things I feel that is sorely lacking in RM, some due to technical limitations, is efforts to tell stories through Body Language.  More than 90% of what we communicate is Non Verbal.  During important Cutscenes, the movement of Sprites around the screen conveys that Body Language.  Chrono Trigger, again, is a prime example of this.  Although the main character did not speak, he told you how he is "feeling" by reacting to the dialouge and situations with Body Language.  There were a ton of different poses and sprites for Chrono as well as the other important characters.  We dont have many different poses other than just a "walk animation" for 99% of our RM characters.  That makes it difficult for us to use body language to tell our stories.  But we dont have to literally animate and sprite out every single pose a character can use in a game.  Again, my own stuff, MMW has a feature to make a character change their poses as dialogue appears on the screen.  That little stuff adds greatly to a characters body language.  And the reason I did it in a script was because the Player can walk away, which makes directional based poses an absolute nightmare to event out, but easy as three characters in script.  "Can I have that?\F+" where as soon as the statement finishes, while the dialogue is still up on screen, that character asking will change their "foot" and "reach out" to be given what they are requesting.  Body Language.

In summary, although a Protagonist may be complely or almost completely silent, they can still be made to be complex characters through their Body Language.  Rushing to offer aid to a character the Protagonist cares deeply about, or turning their back when they are experiencing self conflict.  Chrono was one of those characters who told his story through his Body Language with very little dialogue.  Gordon Freeman was not as the Player was always in control of where Gordon was looking.  Although a character may not speak, they can convey what they think and how they feel non verbally, or non-texually.  I think that generally, those types of reactions that a Protagonist may be given with Body Language conflicts less with the Players personality than a text based response.  I know Im blathering, but hopefully some of this is useful to anyone that reads my longwinded posts...

There are some merits to having a silent protagonist, but on a whole I'm not a fan of the concept. It's difficult for me to really immerse myself in a story if the protagonist doesn't speak. Games with voiced player characters often do a much better job of telling a story in my opinion.

That being said, the main allure to having a silent protagonist - the idea that you, the player, are the protagonist - can be applied to non-silent protagonists as well. Games like Mass Effect in particular had a strong lead in Commander Shepard, but his character evolved based on how you, the player, chose to develop him. I think that's overall the best route to take when developing a lead character.

Heretic brought up another good point earlier with characters in the game talking at you, and from what I can tell this occurs mostly in games with silent protagonists. It's almost as if the player character's only role in the game is to blindly follow orders and leads while killing enemies along the way, effectively turning them into a simple device for moving the plot forward.

+1 Ryosis.

My favorites actuals games are still the Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age and all the Telltalegames's games. I love when the player can choose his answer and when this action are an impact in the story, even if the impact in question is small.

I don't really like the JRPG because of that. There a very good stories but i don't fell involved in them. It's like a movie.

In a game, you can do something. So my best option is a mix. The player can choose a lot of answers et after his choice, he can see his Protagonist say the answer selected and the reactions of others characters.

However, i really like the heretic86's functions and description to how make a good scene and it's not incompatible with the mix.

So the reason I chose to use a silent protagonist is because I want to draw more focus on the other characters. In my current project, the protagonist just kind of acts as a means for the player to go through the world. If you are familiar with the Suikoden series, the protagonist was silent, but the focus was mostly on all the characters around him. I'm going for a similar approach.

The reason why I made this choice was because I wanted to make a world where anybody can be the hero, and everybody has their own story. My rule for this project is that if I make a character, I am giving them an entire life and story, as well as the option for the player to get to know that character a little bit more if they so choose. Because of this, I sacrificed having a very strong and vocal main character because I felt it would have clashed with these elements. My main focus was to make a main character that you won't hate. Also, unlike most RPGs, the main character doesn't talk for a reason in relation to his character history, and not just because I want to have one.

That being said, I totally agree that a voiced protagonist is better. Commander Shepherd is awesome and it's fantastic how Mass Effect shapes his/her personality based on how you play the game and your different conversation choices. But again, my current project and story is just testing to see how well I can flesh out my supporting cast.

I rather liked Shining Force's silent protagonist. He was given a voice in the GBA remake and I felt that it took away a lot of the immersion I once had in the game. Couldn't enjoy it as much, but I'm not sure if it's just me disliking the fact that they changed something so huge in the remake.

That said, I tend to enjoy a lot more games that have silent protagonists (such as Pokemon and Zelda). It could be a personal preference.

The game I started and am never-going-to-finish-at-this-rate but keep writing more and more music for features a silent protagonist. A *literally* silent protagonist. He's a mute, and can only communicate through pen and paper or signing. I thought it would be an interesting twist on an old trope. It makes for some interesting challenges when writing up scenes, and it causes things to play out in unique ways as a result.

When a game has a silent protagonist, the writers tend to compensate by having other characters talk "for" the hero. For someone who is a mute, I imagine this would be profoundly impeding and frustrating, trying to express your opinions, your personality and feelings, cutting through everyone's snap interpretations at the same time. Another point I'm trying to touch on as I chart this out.

I'm not contributing much to the debate in the way of taking a side I realize, but I thought that if I shared the points of interest I've come across so far it might further stimulate discussion.

Silent protagonists I can only stand when, as Heretic says, they're done in such a way that you don't really notice that they're silent. A few games do this quite well, and let you get halfway through a game before ever realising "when has my character ever actually said anything?" and it leaves the character projectable, but also still defined and interested whether you care to immerse yourself or not.

They are, however, in my opinion total garbage if you ever notice they're silent. If you spend the first half of the game sitting being far too aware of the fact that the character just rudely ignores people and refuses to speak, it can kill the immersion for you and make the character look flat and empty.
I think Zelda is actually quite bad for this as I can never help but notice Link is silent, whereas Chrono Trigger is done really naturally.

I think the clue question to ask yourself would be whether it or not it appears as if your character is simply a silent protagonist, or whether it appears that your character is just refusing to speak or interact with the world, expecting people to read their mind.

This is a good criteria. If it's getting in the way of the gameplay, purposelessly, then you have a problem. It should be a feature and not a stumbling block or a crutch.

The term "silent" typically only says a protagonist does not speak.  But "Actions speak louder than words".  If a protagonist is both non-verbal, and actions ignored, the "silent protagonist" becomes a bit of a problem for the Player.  Mario is usually a non-verbal protagonist, but the actions of the Player are carried through to the Mario character.  But Players barely notice.  Many old school action games are just like this.  Contra, Life Force, Blaster Master, etc.  Games that dont have a protagonist dont really apply.  Tetris and loads of other puzzle games.  Again, Players barely notice.  Why?  Because giving the Protagonist some sort of dialogue doesnt always make the game fun for the Players.  Even the original Legend of Zelda has Link completely silent, and thats carried through to many many other Zelda games spanning multiple systems.  The reason that so many games have silent protagonists is that giving the main character any form of dialogue doesnt always equate to a better gaming experience.  But even these protagonists are not truly silent as their Actions are what are considered important.  Was Mario able to defeat Bowser only to find out that "the princess is in another castle"?  Did Link defeat the Level 1 Boss?  Those are the Actions that are important to both the Player and progression of the game. 

Old School games use verbally silent protagonists as the norm.  So it was quite rare for the Protagonist to have a voice.  The original NES Ninja Gaiden did give the protagonist a voice and some dialogue.  But old RPGs didnt always give the player a voice.  Im not 100% on these, but the first Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy (terrible games by todays standars), the Protagonists were speechless, but again, it didnt detract from the game being fun.

Literal dialogue for the Protagonist is sometimes implied and interpreted.  When Link walks into that very first cave, it is implied that Link said hello to the old man who says "Its dangerous to go alone, take this" and offers Link his first weapon.  Pressing the A Button (or equivilant button) to trigger conversations with NPCs in most early RPG games is implied as the Player saying "Hello" to that NPC and we are just ending up with an abbreviated version of their conversation.  Limiting the length of the dialogue of those conversations was usually due to the technical limitations at the time.  However, there was a silver lining to making the dialogue come out very short.  And that was the Player was able to get the point of the conversation, although the actual text did not reflect how people would really talk to each other.  Players can get bored if there is too much dialogue, especially from the "Random NPC".

Dialogue during Cutscenes can really enhance the story, but trapping Players into Unskippable Cutscenes with EVERY NPC I think really detracts from Gameplay.  That is probably the main reason I didnt really care for games like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect.  Just flat out too much talking.  Talking that trapped the Player.  This style placed emphasis on what the Protagonist says as being far more important than what they do.  RPG's by their very nature are supposed to be more "detail oriented", but there is a limit to how much dialogue can come from the average NPC.  Too much or too little talking in an RPG can severely affect the Balance of Gameplay.  Is this a game about fighting monsters and bad guys, or is this a Digital Novella?  Later installments of Final Fantasy got in the really bad habit of making their Cutscenes Unskippable and having far more dialogue than gameplay.  Its even worse in Fallout 3.  I dont to have a conversation with a truly unimportant NPC about the full history of belly button lint.  Yet, Im practically forced into it in order to advance the story.  Skyrim for example had an awesome opening sequence.  Dialogue was appropriate.  Characters talked about what was relevant, introduced the story, as well as reacted to major situations.  The introduction of a giant dragon that poses a threat for everyone in the realm is most certainly important enough to be talked about.  However, after the opening sequence, the game turns into a series of Fed Ex quests and NPCs start handing out dialogue of toe-nail clippings as if it that is more rewarding than going after a Dragon.  Thats about where I stopped playing.  Very pretty, but very boring.  The reason it was boring was, as I mentioned, the dialogue is completely irrelevant to the overall story.  I shouldnt need to have meaningful conversations with EVERY DAMN NPC on the face of their planet in order to keep going forward.  Yet, I was practically forced to do this in order to get equipment and experience.  Emphasis was placed on what the Protagonist says over what they does.  The choice to "spit on a sweetroll before giving it to a bully" is not relevant in any way because I never met that NPC again after the opening sequence in Fallout 3 again.  Another game I quit playing.

Dont get me wrong, I love having detail in games as well as fleshed out characters.  But there is a point where the game stops being about "defend the realm from the dragon" and the more important choice is whether or not you decided to spit on the sweetroll.  One of the main reasons I like using the Multiple Message Windows message system in my RPXP games is that I know I tend to get a little "wordy".  Also known as 'word vomit' or flat out 'verbal diahhrea'.  It gives Players to walk away from what they might consider to be "long and boring" useless dialogue and does NOT trap them.  Cutscenes do have some forced dialogue.  And those cutscenes are supposed to express something highly meaningful to the overall story.  Such and such character dies, introduce the bad guy / guys in a meaningful way.  Explain that the bad guys are bad guys through their actions, not through their "Dickishness" of dialogue.  The only dialogue that is truly forced on to the Player is dialogue that is highly meaningful.  The rest is as optional as I can make it. 

As my game is still a long way from being finished, I tried to come up with a style that balances out too much and too little detail.  NPC's are used as Plot Tools to give details about what needs to be relevant to the Player at that time.  I tried to make that dialogue short and easy, but also provide some detail in a way that fits the enviornment, and appropriate for how an NPC would behave to a stranger.  The NPC's are used to help the Player advance the story without automatic advancement with Dialogue only.  And yes, I do some Implied Protagonist Dialogue without actually putting the text directly in.  I believe that if I were to have made NPC's into all Cutscenes, the Protagonist would walk up to the NPC and say something to them in order to start a conversation.  Having the Protagonist walk up to every single NPC and say varying forms of "Hello.  Im new in town.  What can you tell me about what I am supposed to do?" every single time, any Players would cry out "this is retarded" and quit the game immediately.  So I completely leave that Protagonist Dialougue out as it is still implied but detracts from the overall gameplay.

The opposite of too much dialogue is also true, too little dialogue.  The player is expected to have some sort of reaction when presented with the challenge of the game, and make that challenge their own.  Players need to be able to understand why so and so is a bad guy or is a threat in a way that doesnt become boring.  Many RPG Maker games fail to flesh out characters in a balanced way.  This is the bad guy.  He is an evil king.  Why?  Because I said so now go kill him.  Okay, so he is a bad guy because you said he is a bad guy but he never did anything to me.  This is where dialogue and Cutscenes do become important.  The Protagonist doesnt always need to speak.  Sometimes it is useful, sometimes it can bore the Player, and sometimes, it can cause a disconnect between the Player and the Protagonist if they say either too much or too little.  Players want to Play, they want to feel as if they are in control of the outcome of the game.  They want to explore, interact, and be the reason the plot moves forward.  Classic movies sometimes are accused of horrid plot flaws.  For example, Raiders of the Lost Ark (Indiana Jones), the Protagonist was completely useless.  Everything in the movie would have happened without the Protagonist of Indiana having been in the story at all.  Nazis would have found the Ark, opened it, and all died, sans Indy.  Sure, the movie was still fun in its day, but thats not the type of game I want to play.  As a Player, I would want to be at least a part of the reason the story keeps moving forward.

In order to experience that story, I feel that the Players need some dialogue to know that they are having an impact on a series of events that leads to a certain outcome.  I dont think most Players are going to want to know if the potted plant of some random NPC was made in either China or Mexico because it has literally nothing to do with the story.  If the Protagonist I am controlling as a Player is to be Silent and Non Verbal, then my Actions need to have tremendous meaning.  Movement triggers relevant cutscenes.  Pressing the "A Button" starts conversations without the Player saying a word.  Defeating any Bad Guy needs to cascade into a series of consequences and appropriate reactions from other characters and rewards for the Player.  It is all possible to do with or without Protagonist Dialogue.

The thing is, Excessive Dialogue is no substitute for Gameplay.  Lets face it, Maps are a lot more difficult to put together than to give an NPC some text.  Putting together new graphic packages for an appropriate enviornment is a lot more difficult than giving an NPC some text.  Making games is a LOT of work.  And this is because games are more than just Dialogue.  Everything except the text is a lot of work.  The Maps, the Enemies, the Scripts, the Database, the Graphics.  These are all the things that the Player will experience and want to experience in lieu of lines of text.  If I only wanted lines of text, I'd be an avid book reader, and a single picture, sprite, or image would be completely unnecessary.  Games are more like Movies.  We want to see some enviornments relevant to the situation of the characters.  And some dialogue is almost always necessary.  Bad dialogue can ruin a movie, just as it can ruin a game.  Its not the Dialogue that makes games fun, its the gameplay, and creating that "bond" between the Player and the Protagonist is one of the biggest parts of that experience.

Silent Protagonist games can still be fun because the Players Actions spoke louder than words ever could.