There is really no point in arguing with him. He takes anyone who doesn't want to search for information as lazy assholes, when the plain truth of it is that it is simple ethics to present a full story in a completed, $60 game. No one should have to automatically assume that more essential information is out there. Novels are meant to enhance the story, not fill in the huge holes.

Novels are meant to enhance the story, not fill in the huge holes.

Welcome to the 21st century. Where FPS focus on action and RPG's focus on story.

I surmise you guys were this upset as well that Halo: Combat evolved didn't brought a 400 page book explaining The Fall of Reach, the Fall and reclaiming of harvest.. Pretty big hole.
Or that Gears of War 1 didn't come with a 400 page book explaining the Imulsion Wars that lead to E-Day or the past 15 years prior to the game itself. Oh wait you were also upset that a great quantity of FPS made thus far doesn't bring a free 400 page novel with your 60 dollar purchase. I am in the ball park there?

If this game was an RPG have no doubt I would be right there with you with forks and torches demanding more filling into the story. But honestly ask yourself are you so surprise that an FPS focuses more on action than story that justifies this outcry?. Is like arguing RPG's are too long.

But this is an FPS. A snap shot at a period of time during a conflict.

Novels are meant to enhance the story, not fill in the huge holes.

Welcome to the 21st century. Where FPS focus on action and RPG's focus on story.

I surmise you guys were this upset as well that Halo: Combat evolved didn't brought a 400 page book explaining The Fall of Reach, the Fall and reclaiming of harvest.. Pretty big hole.
Or that Gears of War 1 didn't come with a 400 page book explaining the Imulsion Wars that lead to E-Day or the past 15 years prior to the game itself. Oh wait you were also upset that a great quantity of FPS made thus far doesn't bring a free 400 page novel with your 60 dollar purchase. I am in the ball park there?

If this game was an RPG have no doubt I would be right there with you with forks and torches demanding more filling into the story. But honestly ask yourself are you so surprise that an FPS focuses more on action than story that justifies this outcry?. Is like arguing RPG's are too long.

But this is an FPS. A snap shot at a period of time during a conflict.

First of all, you really need to stop making assumptions. That's not working out for you. If you present your side of the argument without belittling differing opinions, you'll have a lot more credibility.

Nobody expects a 400 page novel with our 60 dollar purchase. Just the opposite, in fact. A game's story is important regardless of genre, and it's possible to tell a succinct, action oriented story without leaving massive plot-holes behind. Look no further than Crysis for an example. Crysis and Warhead left many questions unanswered, but don't confuse unanswered questions with plot-holes. Sometimes a question doesn't need an answer. In Crysis, it makes perfect sense that nobody knows anything about the Ceph. In Crysis 2, it makes ZERO sense that none of the tertiary characters mentions Alcatraz's inability to speak UNLESS he was meant to be a silent protagonist. And it's not like this would have required 20 pages of back-story to explain. It could have been addressed in ONE LINE of dialogue. That's what's so irritating about Richard Morgan throwing this "Alcatraz is mute" sh!t at us, when the game pretty much forces the player to assume that Alcatraz is a silent protagonist from the get-go.

In Crysis 2, it makes ZERO sense that none of the tertiary characters mentions Alcatraz's inability to speak UNLESS he was meant to be a silent protagonist.

But maybe he was meant to be a silent protagonist and Peter Watts gave us a reason, maybe Morgan wrote the story for the game but Watts wrote a book about the game, like his own version which is pretty close

In Crysis 2, it makes ZERO sense that none of the tertiary characters mentions Alcatraz's inability to speak UNLESS he was meant to be a silent protagonist.

But maybe he was meant to be a silent protagonist and Peter Watts gave us a reason, maybe Morgan wrote the story for the game but Watts wrote a book about the game, like his own version which is pretty close

Maybe so, but isn't that still a glaring inconsistency?

A silent protagonist is a story-telling device. It's used, as others have pointed out, to put the reader/player in the shoes of the hero. Just because a protagonist is a silent protagonist doesn't mean that he lacks the ability to speak within the game world's fiction. Look at Soap from Modern Warfare. He is a silent protagonist in the first game, but in Mw2, when the player assumes the role of a soldier under Soap's command, we hear Soap speak and see his face.

Now look at Alcatraz. By the same logic, in Crysis 3, if the player doesn't assume the role of Alcatraz but Alcatraz is a character in the game, we should be able to hear his voice/see his face.

Maybe a silent protagonist could theoretically also be a mute character? Though it would be needlessly confusing, there's nothing preventing a writer from using the silent protagonist device with a character who literally cannot speak (within the game's fiction). But there's a reason that we can't just assume that Alcatraz is a mute - as I've previously stated - every other main character in the game speaks directly to him, he never responds, and nobody says boo about it. That pretty much forces the audience to assume that Alc is a silent protagonist and NOT a mute.

Obviously this isn't a big deal to a lot of people, and that's fine. Me, I'm a writer and it stands out to me, so I like discussing it, that's all. Your opinion is perfectly legitimate as well. However, if I were Peter Watts, I'd damn sure play Crysis 2 and realize that Alcatraz is a silent protagonist and not a literal mute before I write about how he supposedly lost his voice during the events of Crysis 2.

*edit* Check out this article. It's an excellent breakdown of the different types of silent protagonists. Alc. falls into the second category. http://www.giantbomb.com/silent-protagonist/92-54/

Don't be fooled by my location, I'm not from English speaking country I'm just too lazy to change it. When i said silent i actually meant mute like he can't speak but the game didn't give us a reason but Watts did. Then the reason should be in the game but maybe there were several reasons why he can't speak and they let your imagination do the work. Watts in the other hand had to pick one and went with no vocal cords.But now he speaks through the suit. At the end his voice was a mix of Prophet and the suit and maybe Alcatraz. About the other characters, they don't know he is mute except for Gould but most of the time they gave him orders and didn't wait for answers, 2-3 times they asked him something and they just guessed the answer. I don't see a reason why he can't be mute.

Edit: From you link i would say he is something like a Secretive type, I would be cool with that.
Anyway I'm getting confused so I'm just going to say that I liked Peter Watts story version because it gave some reasons and more information.

Exactly, Alcatraz is a character even if it has any voice.