Many writers and game designers seem to think that, when creating FPS games for mass-market, a silent main character is the best way to involve a player within the game's narrative and universe. While I find some academic truth in that, most of the time this tactic proves itself wrong when, plainly, the main character never says anything, especially when people actually talk to him. A good example of this situation is Gordon Freeman. At this point, Gordon has gone through two main adventures, and two episodic ones. And since 1998, he hasn't said one word. Why? Valve seems to think that it's easier for a player to put him/herself in Gordon's shoes, rather than the character imposing himself on the player. I still find this to be too academically-based thinking, as most pieces of entertainment do not work that way. There is no silent character in movies or books (most of the time, anyway), and readers/viewers meld with their narratives quite easily, with no real loss in their entertainment value. I understand that those are passive mediums, but they're still basing themselves on a narrative, sometimes a complex one at that. Seeing Alex talk to Gordon over and over without responding actually pulls me out of the narrative, only because real life doesn't work that way. At this point, Gordon has something to say. He's gone through a lot, and never hearing what he has to say on the matter confuses me. And that confusion is the main problem I find with games like Half-Life. I remember the part in HL1, where the commandos knock Gordon out and drag him to the trash compactor. I was worried about Gordon. I wasn't worried about myself. I worried about what was going to happen to him, and how he must be feeling right now. But right as he gets thrown down the chute, he says nothing on the matter and heads out to kill more of the bad guys. That could have been so much more interesting if Gordon said something, anything about what just happened. Another example is BioShock. It's interesting to know that the main character actually does talk, but only at the very beginning of the game. When playing that opening sequence, didn't you start to become attached to the character? In your mind, he actually was someone. He's a person with wants and needs, and (supposedly) a back history. You'll soon realize that that one sentence is all he apparently has to say, and it's actually disappointing to see (or rather hear) him become a mute so quickly into the adventure. How awesome would it have been to hear him say more? His one sentence was written quite well, so I'm sure Ken Levine could have made him a great character, one that doesn't annoy you too much (I'm looking at you Tidus:)). In my mind, that was one of the game's biggest disappointments.

A good example to see how complex your story can become when adding in a voice for the main character is the change from GTA3 to Vice City. You have the unknown guy, and then you have Tommy Vercetti. Which is more memorable? And which game was easier to get into? First answer: Tommy is more memorable. Second answer: both. There was no problem getting into Vice City's universe, even when the character overtook the player's personality. But how much more complex was Vice City's narrative now that the main character can use vocal chords? Tommy Vercetti is someone to me, as are Carl Johnson and Niko Bellic. Although the story isn't Pulitzer-prize worthy, it seemed to be a little more complex when compared to GTA3.

It's weird to see some designers/writers think a silent protagonist is the best way to go when so many other games have proven them wrong. Now, I won't say to never have a silent protagonist, as the woman in Portal really doesn't need to say anything at all (GlaDos stole the show, anyway), but if you're looking to create a complex narrative, then please, let their be voice!