Castle Paradox

[Moogle1]

You can attribute the "characters > plot" argument to me; I believe you're thinking of my argument. I agree that it is reductionist and it depends on the game and the story, but the essence of the argument is that you will remember a good character better than a good plot. The best shows on TV have been character-driven (Law & Order, House, et al.).

My argument against silent characters (which are, however, situationally useful, don't get me wrong) is that it is now possible to allow the player to control all dialogue for the hero. Any argument related to roleplaying is pretty much null and void given that roleplaying is better accomplished with controllable dialogue than with no dialogue.

That said, I prefer my characters to talk.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

[JSH357]

You're all wasting your time even arguing about this.

If the writer doesn't want the hero to talk, then so be it. End of story. You can boil it down to point of view, interactivity, whatever; it's a question of writing style, not game design.

[Camdog]

Isn't writing style part of game design for games with lots of story? Besides, this is a style that is dependent on being part of an interactive medium. You would never have a silent main character in a novel, so I think it's relevant to discuss what works best.

[JSH357]

Actually, you can have a silent main character in any type of fiction. There are plenty of stories in which the main character never speaks a word. These stories tend to rely on imagery and descriptions of body language to characterize.

My point was that this isn't even worth debating. An artist can make his own decisions about how is work is crafted.

[Camdog]

Well, by silent I meant without any real characterization, which you really only see in games. Silent characters in novels will still be characterized through thoughts and actions, whereas in something like Chrono Trigger, you never see Crono's thoughts, and his actions are directed by the party.

I'm still not sure why you say this isn't worth debating, though. Just because it doesn't have a definitive answer doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about.

[JSH357]

I don't think it really is worth debating. This is coming off to me like you guys are trying to turn an artform into a science, which is dangerous. There shouldn't be any specific rules like "RPG characters should always talk unless the game has a job system!" If you start standardizing things, you end up with a stunted medium of expression. General rules are fine, but rules are meant to be broken.

Just face it: Some games call for a silent main, some don't. It's up to the author, and nobody else should have any say against his will. What more is there to discuss?

[msw188]

I really hope that no one who visits these forums takes my opinions as attempts to put forth specific rules. Or even as attempts to put forth general rules, in most cases. It should go without saying that the VAST majority of posts on a game discussion forum (I hesitate to put all) can only be opinion in the end, as long as we are discussing game design, which is an art by sheer virtue of involving creation. But just because art cannot have objective laws assigned to it, that doesn't mean that there is no place for aesthetic theory (unless you're a hardcore relativist, and even then that could be simply taken as your aesthetic theory). I think that even JSH will agree that there are subjects that can and should be discussed about concerning game design.

In this specific case about silent main characters, I think discussion is warranted. I think I've been pretty careful to argue against any set rule, and most of the time I try to put forth that neither is necessarily better. But it can still be helpful to consider examples, personal feelings on the issue, and some reasons behind them. In this way, perhaps we can get a feel for why we might want to use a silent character based on our own writing strengths or weaknesses (and why we might want to avoid one). In JSH's terms, I would say that the speaking volume of the main character is an individual's own artistic decision, but many would feel that the more informed our artistic decisions are, the better.

For comparison, a writer may consider using a strong dose of irony to end a piece. This is an artistic decision, and it is ultimately up to him alone. However, I feel he has a better chance of using it effectively (or effectively choosing to dampen it, or avoid it) if he has taken time to consider it, other examples of it, and what other experienced writers and readers have said and thought about it. Here, we are the other experienced people (I hope). Who is to judge 'effectiveness'? I don't know, but if we don't have some vague notion of it, then we lose most any chance of considering art (or in our specific case, games) good or bad.

[edit: added 'individual's own' into the last sentence of the second paragraph to emphasize that aspect to JSH's comments]

[Iblis]

[msw188]

[Moogle1]