LUCIDSTILLNESS'S PROFILE

Yes I agree with the others; the animation is very impressive. It reminds me of the animated portraits we used to see in point and click adventure games.

The water looks quite nice too.

Ah, but being silent and having no agency are two very different things, especially in a video game, where the player is invited to take on the role of a character. Empireonline rated Gordon Freeman as the #1 video game character, and provided the following justification:

It would be a disservice to Freeman's laconic charm to say he's void of personality due to never uttering a word - or being directly seen, save for the box art and glimpses in sister titles Opposing Force and Blue Shift. In keeping Freeman mute and unseen, Valve cannily laid the groundwork for a character that players can fully embody, enabling each would-be Freeman to shape Gordon's persona themselves.

There's a bit of Gordon in all of us, you see: noble, mischievous, intelligent and, beneath it all, a kick-ass action hero bubbling beneath the surface. Given a dozen third-person cutscenes and lines of snappy dialogue, Gordon Freeman may not be half the icon he is today. As it stands, he effortlessly sets the benchmark for aming protagonists and accomplishes it all in complete silence, with a crowbar in hand.

http://www.empireonline.com/features/50-greatest-video-game-characters/default.asp?film=1

So in short, yes, the player makes the character endearing through their actions, but in order for that connection to be made, Valve first had to painstakingly create the perfect silent protagonist to enable that point of empathy. Freeman's triumphs are the player's triumphs, and Freeman's design is a perfect example of how less is more.

I'm not sure why you have a low opinion of Spec Ops: The Line's narrative, seeing as it is widely (and deservedly) praised as one of the best stories in the genre, but I'd like to read your thoughts. On the subject of less being more, however, many of the conflicts between the ludonarrative and the embedded narrative can be solved by proper use of the aforementioned empathy between the player and the avatar. One of the reasons Spec Ops is so fantastic is because it 'tricks' the player into thinking that Walker is a typical, generic FPS protagonist, which allows the player to almost subconsciously associate his actions with their own, only for the story to jar the player back to reality when Walker demonstrates agency of his own, which by that time had allowed the association to set for so long that many players felt depressed or even physically ill as the narrative progressed.

A cheap shot? Maybe, but undeniably effective, as reviewer Yahtzee pointed out:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6021-Spec-Ops-The-Line

And, yes, it's true that Spec Ops definitely has ideas to share (not to mention some apparent dissonance between gameplay and story intent), but who's to say it's so wrong for a game to explore such complex issues while placing the player in a context where they must experience them first hand? It is, after all, one thing to discuss political problems from the comfort of our armchair; it's another thing entirely to actually be placed in a context where those issues are immediately relevant, and video games have the power to do just that, while no other media can.

Yes, there have been many times when I've been fighting a boss and I'll accidentally skip the first page of dialogue because I pressed the action key, as I was not expecting there to be any talking.

Why are you comparing abusive and violating actions to the actions of two consenting adults?

"I admire your ability to die!" might just be the greatest line ever in a work of fiction.

I do agree with LockeZ too; I've sometimes missed dialogue during battles because I accidentally pressed the attack select button/key. Actually, I suppose seeing whether or not all enemies can be defeated by pressing one key would be a good acid test for any combat system.