Well the “silent-hero” would happen to be more of a purer type II avatar, one of its purposes being to facilitate the identification (crap, not the exact word I’m looking for… maybe projection would do ?) of the player.

I have the feeling it was/is mostly a japanese tool and, to be fair, I think it’s not so much a problem of poor writing skills in the devellopment teams as an inate problem with the japanese language which made it mandatory (at least for type II): anyone who’s studied japanese can tell you that it’s next to impossible to write for more than a few sentences without giving away social markers (rank, sex, place in society, assumed archetypal behavior…). Just the choice of a pronoun can give away the sex of the character, and complete neutrality itself feels strange (in both senses of the word: strangers in japan, not being part of the social system, are being limited to the use of neutral pronouns, any attemtps to use a specialised marker is generally met with punishing laughter) and un-natural.

I really feel what players were upset about wasn't that Miyamoto misportrayed someone they knew so well, but that he forced onto them, as the people behind the controllers who had always been able to so strongly identify with Link, certain characteristics that they refused to take on: childishness, color, expressive emotion"”things not in tune with traditional gamer masculinity.

I’m not sure. The conscensus with players around me seems more that they resented the team making the game for still enforcing those traits and not trying to make Link a full adult again at last (we all loved both Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask, and consider them jewel of game and level design, but let’s face it, the Zelda franchise’s been using mostly the same narrative tropes since its begining. We were hoping for something that would put the narrative level on par with the game and level design excellence, or at least something wildly different. Majora had been so close).

he forced onto them, as the people behind the controllers who had always been able to so strongly identify with Link…

Can you take a character who so many gamers have “always been able to so strongly identify with” and also label that character “personality-less”? ;-)

Even if that personality is not defined through dialogue, I think it’s hard to argue that a character HAS no personality, if people are “strongly identify[ing] with” him.

We could probably come to an agreement that there are different ways of giving a character a personality (or even that the gamer population at large may assign a character a personality, failing a motion by the developer to define one for them), but I find your argument that “first-person silent” characters have no personality somewhat lacking in consistency. ;-)

Yes, that’s true, but I don’t think it serves your original point… in your original post you say:

by allowing room for all possible personalities, we find ourselves with some rather personality-less heros. How well does any of really know Link? Search your feelings. You know this to be true.

Obviously, the many gamers who rebelled against the “kiddieness” of Wind Waker felt that they did know Link very well, and that Miyamoto “got him wrong” with Wind Waker, even though he still remained a silent character.

Those same gamers, in general, seem to be rejoicing over the “darker” look to Link in Twilight Princess, because they think that’s the “right” way to do the character. To me (even though I don’t agree with those particular folks and think both approaches are totally valid), that implies that even when a developer goes out of their way NOT to tie a character down to a certain look/voice/etc, that doesn’t stop most gamers with identifying with the characters, sometimes very strongly.

The real reason so few of "~em talk, and have so little to say when they do, is that it would require writing human dialogue* and developing the character's personality. You may have noticed that there are very few people in the games biz who can do this well - or who are even aware that such things can or should be done.
OMFG (and I don’t use that abbreviation lightly), I could not agree more. But you SO do not want to get me started on ignoring the importance of trained writers in the video game industry. It makes me so angry I could punch a wall.

I don't see what the issue is, especially when we're using Link as an example and have to take into account what they did with non-verbal personality indicators in Wind Waker
And just think about how well that expressive, kiddy Link went over with the Zelda fanbase at large. I loved (most of) Wind Waker, but there were plenty of gamers ready to personally beat Miyamoto to death with their copy.

Well, imagination helps. ;-)

Seriously, I don’t see what the issue is, especially when we’re using Link as an example and have to take into account what they did with non-verbal personality indicators in Wind Waker. The kid Link may not talk (beyond the attack yelps and such), but nobody can argue he didn’t have personality. When he was excited, angry, scared, disappointed, confused, whatever emotion they wanted to give him, you knew. His facial expressions and body language conveyed much more than badly written, then-badly-translated dialogue would have.

As for Gordon Freeman, I would say the silent character thing worked much better in Half Life 2 than it did in Half Life 1, because they did such a good job with the way other characters reacted to him (/you, whatever). You didn’t get a very strong sense of who *Gordon* is, but you did form relationships with the other characters *through* Gordon, which I think is far more immersive than listening to Duke Nukem spout one-liners about bubble gum.

When you give a title character a strong personality, you risk not only the consequences of poor writing or voice acting, but also simply turning people off because they don’t like that type of character. I was utterly charmed by the Prince in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, and so I really enjoyed playing through the game. I was equally repulsed by the character they gave him in Warrior Within, and may never finish that game because of it.

I’ve almost never had a problem, though, “giving” a personality to (or reading one into) silent characters, and it really doesn’t bother me much. If it’s a good game with compelling things to do, I can handle the “who and why” side of things if they don’t give it to me. Maybe I spent too much time tying beach towels around my neck to make cloaks as a kid, who knows. :-p

It brings a lot to the character! You need more than just a silent over-the-shoulder view to identify with someone.

*That is, beyond cut-scene mission briefings and NPCs shouting orders at you a la Call of Duty.

Okay, you have been watching waay to much Star Wars, dear.

I’ve never heard it dubbed “first-person silence” before, but this seems to be a common discussion about how much personality to give a pre-designed protagonist like Gordon Freeman and Link (vs the roll-yer-own open-ended protagonists of a lot of RPGs): as the designer, do you keep the character mute so that the player can define the protagonist’s personality for themselves; or do you let the character speak? I think it’s a question of whether you want the player to become that character or you want the player to empathize with that character.

Personally, when playing a game with a pre-defined protagonist, I prefer that character to have a pre-defined personality too. Since Link, Gordon Freeman, and all the rest don’t look anything like me (or what I would want to look like), I can’t role-play them - I can’t “become” them in the game - so instead I want the game to make me empathize with them. Freeman’s a cipher and I can’t empathize with a cipher: I just don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to him; so I never really got into the Half-life games.