Survey: Will main character will talk ?

[hackstar]

I want to see if people like or votes for pokemon rom hack,were main character talks....

 

[esperance]

No. The main character doesn't talk in the actual games, and they shouldn't in a hack.

Whenever the main character talks, it's usually awkward and/or out of place. It just doesn't belong in Pokémon.

 

[C me]

You lose the feeling that you are the main character. If the player talks then all you're doing is walking around a world watching people talk to each other.

You want to have your personality show when playing a Pokemon game by having your pesonalised team and stuff not have some premade character play out events for you.

 

[machomuu]

No. The main character doesn't talk in the actual games, and they shouldn't in a hack.

Whenever the main character talks, it's usually awkward and/or out of place. It just doesn't belong in Pokémon.

I don't really see why it doesn't belong in Pokemon. The series isn't exactly defined by its silent protagonists, and I could easily see hack situations where it could work. If it's done badly, that's one thing, but overall I don't see why not.

You lose the feeling that you are the main character. If the player talks then all you're doing is walking around a world watching people talk to each other.

You want to have your personality show when playing a Pokemon game by having your pesonalised team and stuff not have some premade character play out events for you.

But the events are playing out for you. I mean, the games don't really give you much in the way of choice. Despite the fact that the MC doesn't talk, they still make the choices for you and there's very little you can do in the way of personalizing them. After all, your team is hardly an indicator of your personality. I could very well see a naive vigilante that only believes there's good in the world using a Dark-type team (or as they're called in Japanese, Evil-type).

Put that way, it really seems like you're just as detached from the MC regardless. And there are plenty of games out there where you can identify with voiced protagonists- silence certainly isn't the best way to get into character.

 

[esperance]

I don't really see why it doesn't belong in Pokemon. The series isn't exactly defined by its silent protagonists, and I could easily see hack situations where it could work. If it's done badly, that's one thing, but overall I don't see why not.

I'm gonna say that the series is a bit defined by it's silent protagonists. If this was not the case, GF would probably have broken the mold a bit at this point, don't you think? Not to mention Red, who purposely doesn't say anything when you encounter him on Mt. Silver. It's to keep up the silent protagonist bit.

 

[machomuu]

I'm gonna say that the series is a bit defined by it's silent protagonists. If this was not the case, GF would probably have broken the mold a bit at this point, don't you think? Not to mention Red, who purposely doesn't say anything when you encounter him on Mt. Silver. It's to keep up the silent protagonist bit.

Well that's the thing, Red is canonically a silent character, and GS goes further with this by even referencing his silence through Blue/Green. I wouldn't say that they's the series' thing so much as Red's, and it goes further to enforce what I was saying about it being just as personal as voiced protagonists as Red's character is built around this.

In later games, though, despite your characters not having their own lines, they say quite a bit through implication and choice boxes (some of which have full-on sentences- often with one correct, canonical choice) and, when they're not chosen, they have slight personalities of their own and are prone to saying different things than their counterparts, implying that that's just how they are. But all things considered, GF really does go out of their way to show that the MC doesn't have any lines but says a fair bit.

 

[esperance]

Well that's the thing, Red is canonically a silent character, and GS goes further with this by even referencing his silence through Blue/Green. I wouldn't say that they's the series' thing so much as Red's, and it goes further to enforce what I was saying about it being just as personal as voiced protagonists as Red's character is built around this.

In later games, though, despite your characters not having their own lines, they say quite a bit through implication and choice boxes (some of which have full-on sentences- often with one correct, canonical choice) and, when they're not chosen, they have slight personalities of their own and are prone to saying different things than their counterparts, implying that that's just how they are. But all things considered, GF really does go out of their way to show that the MC doesn't have any lines but says a fair bit.

That's sort of what I'm trying to get at. The protagonist is silent because GF wants the player to give their MC their own lines. When a hacker adds lines for you, it takes away a bit of that magic, especially when the lines are not what you would want the MC to say.

 

[machomuu]

That's sort of what I'm trying to get at. The protagonist is silent because GF wants the player to give their MC their own lines. When a hacker adds lines for you, it takes away a bit of that magic, especially when the lines are not what you would want the MC to say.

But you don't really have much leeway. I mean, it's basically the same as Lassie barking about there being a boy stuck in a well. You have no choice in what's said, so it's more like you have no personality (or you're stuck in someone else's body) than you are making the personality.

After all, it's kinda hard to play as a kid aspiring to join Team Rocket when you can't agree to the Nugget Bridge Recruiter's proposition. Put bluntly: it's the lack of choice that limits personality. Silence can work well if you have freedom, but that's a rarity in Pokemon.

 

[Minty Mouth]

I don't like it when the protagonist talks. It's jarring and against the spirit of roleplaying - which, for me, is why I love Pokemon.

Something you can do, though, is have other characters imply that the protag has communicated something. I'm sure that in GF games NPCs say things like: "What do you think of this? What ... you don't like it? No way!" It's a fine line between silent protagonist and otherwise, but this trope - and GFs particular way of handling it - has always been very effective.

If you are going to write lines for the protag, you should do so knowing that you are breaking an embedded convention; that is always jarring for the player. You just have to decide if that's worth it in exchange for the extra lines you will be able to put in.

 

[esperance]

But you don't really have much leeway. I mean, it's basically the same as Lassie barking about there being a boy stuck in a well. You have no choice in what's said, so it's more like you have no personality (or you're stuck in someone else's body) than you are making the personality.

After all, it's kinda hard to play as a kid aspiring to join Team Rocket when you can't agree to the Nugget Bridge Recruiter's proposition. Put bluntly: it's the lack of choice that limits personality. Silence can work well if you have freedom, but that's a rarity in Pokemon.

You seem to have more of a problem with Pokémon's single storyline outcome rather than the silent protagonist. The core games aren't really made with much beyond the basic fulfill the story by traveling through the gyms and fighting the bad team along the way method.

But it's not hard for hacking to add a more dynamic storyline, fortunately.

 

[machomuu]

You seem to have more of a problem with Pokémon's single storyline outcome rather than the silent protagonist. The core games aren't really made with much beyond the basic fulfill the story by traveling through the gyms and fighting the bad team along the way method.

Luckily it's not hard for hacking to add a more dynamic storyline, fortunately.

I think it's fine to have a linear story, it's just that if you want to have a personality and also be silent, you have to offer choice. The Persona series is good at this. Most of your dialog decisions don't change a thing, the game's linear as hell barring its endings, but the main character felt a lot more personal because you had control over what he'd say and how others would react to it. Though the choice doesn't matter in the larger scale- it doesn't affect anything, in the present it does affect completely trivial things and you feel like you did/said whatever.

But that bit about hacking having dynamic stories is kind of what sparked my initial comment. Hacking has all kinds of stories, and though a lot of them follow the formula many of those same ones still treat your character as if they are a person. After all, there's no reason that all hacks should have the same MC. Some may have the MC be a character like many games do, and that's my original point. I see nothing wrong with having a written protagonist, so long as they're interesting or...well, not bad, but there's nothing about it to me that says it has no place in hacks because hacks can (and should) be about pretty much anything.

 

[Minty Mouth]

Some may have the MC be a character like many games do, and that's my original point. I see nothing wrong with having a written protagonist, so long as they're interesting or...well, not bad, but there's nothing about it to me that says it has no place in hacks because hacks can (and should) be about pretty much anything.

The active distinction in this discussion is that between practice and principle. You seem to be talking about principle: there's nothing wrong with a speaking protagonist, as long as it works. But that isn't a particularly controversial statement. Of course as long as it works, in principle, it's okay.

But I think many people who would say that they don't like the idea of speaking protagonists are objecting more based on practice: it's just not feasible to make a good Pokemon game with a scripted hero within the confines of time and workmanship set by practicality.

This sounds like a pretty big claim - and it is - but I think it's justified. It goes right down to the core of why Pokemon games, as we know them, are successful. They are Roleplaying Games in a very specific way: they reveal player identity through interactions with Pokemon. The nature of Pokemon - both as a franchise and as creatures - is important, and GameFreak are good enough that the nature of their franchise is in fact determined by the nature of the creatures with which they populated it. Pokemon are just inherently collectible. So Pokemon is about collecting.

In Pokemon, the identity of your character (and thus your identity as a player) is constructed by your choices: which Pokemon you will train, what you will teach them - when given the choice, "which Pokemon would you choose?" All of these decisions are the real force behind Pokemon. Really, the whole Team Rocket/Plasma/etc thing is a red herring. They are plots in the more traditional sense (think movies or novels); but the headline act is your relationship with your Pokemon. We don't replay Pokemon Crystal for the seventeenth time because we really want to relive Team Rocket's last-ditch grasp for relevance in Johto. Instead, we replay it so we can start a fresh adventure: a fresh character, a clean canvas. How will we construct our identity through our seemingly small choices as a trainer? Who will we be today? Who have we always been? It sounds dramatic but these things are all at stake when you pick your starter and onwards.

In this kind of game - with this kind of system - stories are told when players are given momentous choices. Choices that say something about you when you make them. If you have a game and world that is designed from the ground up to facilitate this kind of storytelling, I think the worst thing you can do is shoehorn yourself, as a writer, into the vessel that the player is supposed to fill. If you do that, you will force the player out. The equilibrium is so delicate that even the hair's-breadth difference between no dialogue and implied dialogue is significant. We know that: people notice it. Nobody complains about implied dialogue.

IMO, violating the silent protagonist trope in Pokemon betrays an ignorance of what makes Pokemon games so appealing in the first place. Or, if not that, it means the hacker enjoys Pokemon for a totally different reason than me. It communicates to me that the design philosophies of the hacker are not compatible with mine. That's why I would avoid any hack that has this feature.

 

[machomuu]

The active distinction in this discussion is that between practice and principle. You seem to be talking about principle: there's nothing wrong with a speaking protagonist, as long as it works. But that isn't a particularly controversial statement. Of course as long as it works, in principle, it's okay.

But I think many people who would say that they don't like the idea of speaking protagonists are objecting more based on practice: it's just not feasible to make a good Pokemon game with a scripted hero within the confines of time and workmanship set by practicality.

This sounds like a pretty big claim - and it is - but I think it's justified. It goes right down to the core of why Pokemon games, as we know them, are successful. They are Roleplaying Games in a very specific way: they reveal player identity through interactions with Pokemon. The nature of Pokemon - both as a franchise and as creatures - is important, and GameFreak are good enough that the nature of their franchise is in fact determined by the nature of the creatures with which they populated it. Pokemon are just inherently collectible. So Pokemon is about collecting.

In Pokemon, the identity of your character (and thus your identity as a player) is constructed by your choices: which Pokemon you will train, what you will teach them - when given the choice, "which Pokemon would you choose?" All of these decisions are the real force behind Pokemon. Really, the whole Team Rocket/Plasma/etc thing is a red herring. They are plots in the more traditional sense (think movies or novels); but the headline act is your relationship with your Pokemon. We don't replay Pokemon Crystal for the seventeenth time because we really want to relive Team Rocket's last-ditch grasp for relevance in Johto. Instead, we replay it so we can start a fresh adventure: a fresh character, a clean canvas. How will we construct our identity through our seemingly small choices as a trainer? Who will we be today? Who have we always been? It sounds dramatic but these things are all at stake when you pick your starter and onwards.

In this kind of game - with this kind of system - stories are told when players are given momentous choices. Choices that say something about you when you make them. If you have a game and world that is designed from the ground up to facilitate this kind of storytelling, I think the worst thing you can do is shoehorn yourself, as a writer, into the vessel that the player is supposed to fill. If you do that, you will force the player out. The equilibrium is so delicate that even the hair's-breadth difference between no dialogue and implied dialogue is significant. We know that: people notice it. Nobody complains about implied dialogue.

IMO, violating the silent protagonist trope in Pokemon betrays an ignorance of what makes Pokemon games so appealing in the first place. Or, if not that, it means the hacker enjoys Pokemon for a totally different reason than me. It communicates to me that the design philosophies of the hacker are not compatible with mine. That's why I would avoid any hack that has this feature.

Hm...though I am quite the fan of what you had to say, I don't quite agree. And the reason for this comes from looking at Pokemon's hacking community objectively. Not the hackers themselves, though, as for this I'll specifically refer to the players. I recently made the statement that the players eat hacks up like candy. Not to say that all hack players don't appreciate attention to detail or explore the game for the game, but ultimately most hack players play Pokemon hacks because they want more Pokemon. Plain and simple.

The story really isn't important, and thus making a silent protagonist isn't really much of a decision to the average hacker. After all, where the true thought process for the average hacker's story is is actually the opposite of the main games. A hacker generally shows their wit through the set-up, where as the main games are pretty standard regardless of the game and become their own unique adventure after the fact. This doesn't break formula, of course. You're still collecting 8 badges and defeating the big bad- and despite how trivial it might seem, making a protagonist that talks takes effort, and more, it would put more emphasis on character and story, which should not happen unless the game is about the characters and/or the story. This generally isn't a Pokemon practice save for in Generation V, but they remedied this by putting stronger emphasis on the personalities of those around you so that the story could continue to carry weight.

That's partially beside the point, but the reason I say all that is because I think most hackers and players do have a different enjoyment of the series than you do. The silent player is, for all intents and purposes, a mere link in the chain that makes up the formula. If you change it, people notice because it's different, it's non-standard, and if you follow the formula to that point and veer off like that, even if it's only one line, it can be jarring and will turn heads. If you don't change it, they don't care, because the masses play hacks for the features rather than the story. Fast forward is often their friend and the more Pokemon the game has the better. This isn't to say an interesting concept or nice looking maps are completely ignored- no, they're actually part of the popularity. Quality's a factor, of course, and a big one.

I'd say that, in no small way, the gameplay is a big part of why hacks are popular (and similarly why mine and the few others' cries for change aren't really heeded), and I think that the hero is merely a part of the package to most. In reality, he's merely an avatar. He's you but not, and he doesn't have a personality. Now, this whole idea of the choices one makes with their Pokemon is who they are doesn't gel with me because I don't really think a person as a trainer and a person as an individual are the same thing. Flannery's a good example. Though in battle she mirrors the type that she uses, out of battle she's a nervous wreck. Could she theoretically channel her trainer-personality regularly? Possibly, but ultimately she's the whole package.

Bringing this back to the MC, in the main games, your character isn't very important to the story- which is to say, who you are doesn't matter. All that matters is that you are the main character, and because the story isn't all too important in these games (but GF does care about its stories, and I do have to stress this), again, who you are doesn't matter and it works out fine. However, if a hack is about the son of Red, a character who actually does have a defined personality (which ironically betrays the whole "avatar" concept), then who you are does matter. Of course, you could still go the silent protag route all you want and it'd be fine, but if you wanted to make a coming-of-age story about this kid? That'd be pretty difficult if he can't talk. It'd also be pretty difficult to get emotionally invested in something like that if he couldn't talk. Could it still capture the adventure and whimsy of the main games if it had this type of story and a voiced MC? Absolutely, I don't see why not. And if you want to make a game modeled after the main games and still have that setup, that'd work too because the games aren't the formula.

Ultimately, for me it boils down to having a likable protagonist, but I'd never decide whether I would play a Pokemon game or not solely based on it simply having a speaking protagonist. Because, as I've mentioned before, I don't feel that Pokemon is defined by its silent protagonist. Sure, the main games are meant to encapsulate the lighthearted nature of being a young child out on a grand adventure, but hacks aren't the main games, and not all hacks should be the same. Heck, I'd say most shouldn't. And regardless of whether the MC speaks or not, they may have a personality as an individual but the trainer is still you. In Pokemon, the trainer is always you, nothing can change that. Those choices you make for your team, whether Pokemon be predetermined, all your own, or hybrids, are your choices and no one else's, not even the main character himself. As a trainer, you always have choices.

 

[Minty Mouth]

Hm...though I am quite the fan of what you had to say, I don't quite agree. And the reason for this comes from looking at Pokemon's hacking community objectively. Not the hackers themselves, though, as for this I'll specifically refer to the players. I recently made the statement that the players eat hacks up like candy. Not to say that all hack players don't appreciate attention to detail or explore the game for the game, but ultimately most hack players play Pokemon hacks because they want more Pokemon. Plain and simple.

The story really isn't important, and thus making a silent protagonist isn't really much of a decision to the average hacker. After all, where the true thought process for the average hacker's story is is actually the opposite of the main games. A hacker generally shows their wit through the set-up, where as the main games are pretty standard regardless of the game and become their own unique adventure after the fact. This doesn't break formula, of course. You're still collecting 8 badges and defeating the big bad- and despite how trivial it might seem, making a protagonist that talks takes effort, and more, it would put more emphasis on character and story, which should not happen unless the game is about the characters and/or the story. This generally isn't a Pokemon practice save for in Generation V, but they remedied this by putting stronger emphasis on the personalities of those around you so that the story could continue to carry weight.

That's partially beside the point, but the reason I say all that is because I think most hackers and players do have a different enjoyment of the series than you do. The silent player is, for all intents and purposes, a mere link in the chain that makes up the formula. If you change it, people notice because it's different, it's non-standard, and if you follow the formula to that point and veer off like that, even if it's only one line, it can be jarring and will turn heads. If you don't change it, they don't care, because the masses play hacks for the features rather than the story. Fast forward is often their friend and the more Pokemon the game has the better. This isn't to say an interesting concept or nice looking maps are completely ignored- no, they're actually part of the popularity. Quality's a factor, of course, and a big one.

Thinking about this, I get a different impression; though I have only been a member of this community for (like) a week, so maybe my perceptions wil change with exposure. I think most hack players play Pokemon hacks for meta-reasons. Mainly, community. They play hacks because doing so makes them feel a part of this community and brings them closer to the people that populate it. I think that's a strong driving force. Sure, they enjoy Pokemon, and are excited and curious to see what can be done by small (or large) manipulations of the formula we know; they kind of have to have a baseline investment in the franchise to even want to be amember of this community. But, I think, if there was no message board, no conversation, just a page with a load of links to hacks, people would play a lot less.

I mean, when you really get down to it (and start making a lot of assumptions which may be projection) even creating and posting a hack is an exercise in identity. You're advertising yourself to the community and building your own confidence as an artist, craftsman, etc. The reasons you make things in the first place, similar to the reasons for consuming things, are the same combination of baseline investment in subject matter and desire to have a place in a community. So what we're talking about when we talk about 'gameplay' is the type of stuff that primarily pertains to the first part, the franchise investment.

Now, I don't know which of the two motivations is strongest, but what I'm trying to say is that I agree with you that gameplay is important to consumers, but I can't disassociate gameplay from story (in my definition of story, at least). From parts of your post it sounds like you draw a distinction between 'story' and 'gameplay', were gameplay includes things like choosing which Pokemon to use and how to raise them, and story is dialogue, and all the stuff like cutscenes which are (generally, barr dialogue options) out of the players control. To me, there are two stories told in every GF Pokemon game: the red-herring subplot about Team Rocket(etc), which is told through more traditional, movie-like means; and the primary coming of age plot about the player character, told through gameplay. In this sense, 'gameplay' and 'story' is a false dichotomy. And, to bring this back to how I started the paragraph, I think when you say consumers are more intersted in gameplay, what you actually mean is that consumers are more interested in the primary (coming-of-age) plot than the secondary evil team plot.

And, if consumers really are more intersted in this, I think a speaking protagonist even steps on their toes, because the writer pushing himself into the hero's head is the writer pushing the consumer out. Yeah, I think it pushes you out only temporarily, and only slightly, so it's easy to ignore/overcome as a player. If you're trying to be (either consciously, or otherwise) the hero character, it's only annoying, not gamebreaking, to have that character do something that you wouldn't. But stepping on consumers' toes, no matter how lightly, is something I would avoid.

I'd say that, in no small way, the gameplay is a big part of why hacks are popular (and similarly why mine and the few others' cries for change aren't really heeded), and I think that the hero is merely a part of the package to most. In reality, he's merely an avatar. He's you but not, and he doesn't have a personality. Now, this whole idea of the choices one makes with their Pokemon is who they are doesn't gel with me because I don't really think a person as a trainer and a person as an individual are the same thing. Flannery's a good example. Though in battle she mirrors the type that she uses, out of battle she's a nervous wreck. Could she theoretically channel her trainer-personality regularly? Possibly, but ultimately she's the whole package.

Actually, I agree with you here. I didn't mean to say that who you are as a whole person is determined by who you are as trainer; what I meant to say was that people have to think it does - both the characters themselves, and the players. Flannery is a good example because she might be shy and nervous in real life, but if she batles with fire types, she gets to be someone else for the duration fo the fight. To her Pokemon and her challengers, she is the person she wishes she could be more like - so this whole thing about identiry as a person through identity as a trainer is all about wearing masks; whatever mask you want to wear, or feel you need to wear.

Bringing this back to the MC, in the main games, your character isn't very important to the story- which is to say, who you are doesn't matter. All that matters is that you are the main character, and because the story isn't all too important in these games (but GF does care about its stories, and I do have to stress this), again, who you are doesn't matter and it works out fine. However, if a hack is about the son of Red, a character who actually does have a defined personality (which ironically betrays the whole "avatar" concept), then who you are does matter. Of course, you could still go the silent protag route all you want and it'd be fine, but if you wanted to make a coming-of-age story about this kid? That'd be pretty difficult if he can't talk. It'd also be pretty difficult to get emotionally invested in something like that if he couldn't talk. Could it still capture the adventure and whimsy of the main games if it had this type of story and a voiced MC? Absolutely, I don't see why not. And if you want to make a game modeled after the main games and still have that setup, that'd work too because the games aren't the formula.

And then we have the games where the hacker wants to tell the story of a pre-existing character, such as Red's son (whom I don't know). In these cases, there's not as much room for the player in that character's head, because it's already occupied with a fully-fledged person, predefined before the player pick up the controller. But my question is why would you want to tell that story in a Pokemon game? IMO, that kind of story telling, where the point-of-view character is predefined, is for movies and novels. Games can - and should - tell their stories differently. Allowing the player to be the hero is more powerful than allowing the player to tell a preexisting hero where to move. (You see this kind of problem in games such as Final Fantasy XIII). If you really want to tell the story of Red's son with him as the PoV character, doing so in a game is not the best way. It is one way, of course, and you could do it. But the conflict between the player's desire to be in the hero's head and the writer's desire to be in the hero's head is always going to be at least an inconvenience.


That's why in principle I am against making the player character pre-determined. In practice it can come out okay, even enjoyable, but you're working in suboptimal conditions as a creator if you set yourself parameters that are internally conflicting. In fact, I'm against making the player character predetermined in all game design. Now, that doesn't mean that speaking protagonists are always bad. The protag speaking is just one way to predetermine his character. And that's why I, also, would not always ignore a game just because of that one feature. I have in the past ignored Pokemon hacks like Snakewood in particular because I heard they had speaking protagonists, but even I myself know that I'm being too quick to judge. It's similar to how I won't read a book if it has a prologue. I'm stubborn, and I've set myself criteria based on precedent that (surprise surprise) I've now taken on as a part of my identity. That makes it hard to shift these bad habits. I do think that my reasoning for being cautious of these things is good, but my ultimate behaviour is overly exclusionary, yes.

It's like advertising a job. You set up all these elaborate aptitude tests that are way too exclusionary. There are a million people who could do the job well who couldn't pass the test; but the ones that do pass the test will generally have a much higher chance of being successful in the job. It's a defence mechanism. I've yet to read a book with a prologue that was good, or play a Pokemon hack with a speaking Protagonist that was good.

But having said all this I think I might try Pokemon Snakewood, just to see.

 

[machomuu]

And then we have the games where the hacker wants to tell the story of a pre-existing character, such as Red's son (whom I don't know). In these cases, there's not as much room for the player in that character's head, because it's already occupied with a fully-fledged person, predefined before the player pick up the controller. But my question is why would you want to tell that story in a Pokemon game? IMO, that kind of story telling, where the point-of-view character is predefined, is for movies and novels. Games can - and should - tell their stories differently. Allowing the player to be the hero is more powerful than allowing the player to tell a preexisting hero where to move. (You see this kind of problem in games such as Final Fantasy XIII). If you really want to tell the story of Red's son with him as the PoV character, doing so in a game is not the best way. It is one way, of course, and you could do it. But the conflict between the player's desire to be in the hero's head and the writer's desire to be in the hero's head is always going to be at least an inconvenience.


That's why in principle I am against making the player character pre-determined. In practice it can come out okay, even enjoyable, but you're working in suboptimal conditions as a creator if you set yourself parameters that are internally conflicting. In fact, I'm against making the player character predetermined in all game design. Now, that doesn't mean that speaking protagonists are always bad. The protag speaking is just one way to predetermine his character. And that's why I, also, would not always ignore a game just because of that one feature. I have in the past ignored Pokemon hacks like Snakewood in particular because I heard they had speaking protagonists, but even I myself know that I'm being too quick to judge. It's similar to how I won't read a book if it has a prologue. I'm stubborn, and I've set myself criteria based on precedent that (surprise surprise) I've now taken on as a part of my identity. That makes it hard to shift these bad habits. I do think that my reasoning for being cautious of these things is good, but my ultimate behaviour is overly exclusionary, yes.

See, and this is really where it comes down to Gaming as a storytelling medium. I'm the type of person that thinks that Video Games are just as good a storyteller as anything else, and I prefer them since I'm not one for books or non-animated, non-comedic television (generally, there are a good number of exceptions). I've always seen Video Games as just another medium, and the creator can mold it any way they want, just like a show, or a movie or a book. Most of my favorite games, really, are the ones where the main character speaks. Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward is a good example of this, and it's probably my favorite game (still on the fence, but it's top 3 at the very least). VLR is a Visual Novel, which is a genre that isn't inherently made up of video games but several of them are (ie Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Time Hollow, Danganronpa, etc.), and VLR is one such game. In VLR, you follow Sigma, a character with a predefined personality, going through this game of trust and betrayal set up by Zero III.

This game is a perfect example of why I don't have to be the character to identify with them. In VLR, you make choices, and these choices will always change the story. However, what these choices are are in no way indicative of the player's (or the MC's) personality and a game makes a point of the choices being more a matter of your state of mind and necessity than anything else. Despite this, there is still a lot of things to consider when making these choices, as they affect your life and the lives of those around you. But it is important to note that Sigma is not you. The game plays in first person to put you in his shoes, but the choices are very specific, and 99% of the actions of the game (well, in the VN section, not the puzzle portion) are acted by Sigma as a part of the story. It sounds like this would make for a very impersonal story, but it's actually quite the opposite. When you choose to betray someone, you feel the regret as well as the victim's scorn, and when you make sacrifices or lose someone, you feel Sigma's pain. You're not Sigma, but the game intentionally puts its weight on you, because despite not being the person they're talking to, when you talk to someone, they look at both you and Sigma. Because despite you not being the character in the story, in a very real sense you are the person in the story. You are not Sigma, but you identify with him and you share emotions with him, and his dialog adds a lot the game. And VLR certainly isn't the only game to nail this.

And the importance of identifiability vs silence is that the former opens up a lot more doors for the story. I haven't said this so I'll say it here: I'm drawing up a hack that follows up on a war in the Pokemon world. Not that one that Lt.Surge told of, and original one. It's a hack that I created more with the story in mind than the gameplay (or rather, I'm motivated to create it because of the story rather than what I can do with the gameplay specifically), and though I could make it a roleplay or a fan fiction since I do like to write, gaming is my favorite hobby, and I feel I could effectively build a game that's both fun and compelling taking place in the Pokemon world. The gameplay's important to me, but the story is just as much- it just wouldn't be all of the things I want it to as an animation or as text.

---

But, at the end of the day, I really think this has to be an "agree to disagree" matter, for a two reasons. The first being that, and you may have noticed this elsewhere, but when I look at Pokemon hacking (as a concept, not as it is), not a single part of me thinks it needs to be like the main games. I say it doesn't need to so much to the point that now it's just annoying noise, but the question "why would you want to tell that story in a Pokemon game?", to me, is the exact thing as that same question without the word "Pokemon". I see hacking as a mostly unexplored frontier for endless possibilities where you can create what you want. Despite the nature of most hacks, in a perfect world I'd imagine the hacks weren't trying to follow the formula and were just about...well, anything. And second is because of the statement after that, Story and characters are two things in gaming that I look at just or nearly as much as the gameplay, music, and art direction (all of which are important to me). I've just never seen gaming as a weaker storytelling medium than other media, and so I couldn't really approve of it restricting itself to one trope of main character.

 

[shadowmoon522]

i find it funny that the main character doesn't speak a word yet most of the npcs act like he/she is at times.
then there are the other times when the npcs misinterpret the silence like that battle girl in victory road(kalos) who asks if your nervous or exited and settles with nervous after the battle.

 

[Percy]

Maybe in special events. I like it when the MC talks.

 

[mymycool9]

When I play Pokemon I come up with responses in my head. If the responses are given, it's just no fun.

 

[HippoSucks]

I would not mind if this was implemented to a certain extent. Another possibility is if the main character is given a few choices of statements and the player can select which statement to say. This would be similar to the start of the games when the Professor asks the player his name or if they are a boy or a girl.

 

[Phasesaber]

Sonic talked, Mario didn't. Who still has a game system?