Silent Bill

I find the idea of silent game characters a rather strange choice in gaming. Why build a world where everyone can talk and interact with other bar one? Why give character a face and a name but refuse to make the final jump in giving them a voice? I just find it odd that worlds get built with so much detail but one detail is missing with the player's entry point into said world not saying single damn thing.
In fact to have a Player Character silent when everyone else isn't does portray them in a rather puzzling manner. Do they have poor social skills? Do they have trouble interacting with the people around them? Are they shut-ins who spent many years of their life cut off from the rest of the world that they missed out on some vital communication skills?
If anything, the lack of voice in a Player Character doesn't really suggest anything about them: What they think, how they view the world around them and how they perceptive being repeatedly handed tasks to complete for the populace. The last point is of particular note: We know the scenario: The Player Character is given tasks by the populace in order to advance further in the game - but the PC accepts this without a second thought. But really how does he/she really feel about this? Would they get irate that no one can do things for themselves? Would he/she get annoyed that he/she's continually getting sidetracked from their main quest? I think Lenny Bruce said it best when he declared that: 'Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government."'

Yet many gamers think otherwise - and as result, the likes of Link, Samus Aran and Gordon Freeman are continually thought highly of in gaming circles. The reason being is that because the character is silent, the gamer is free as they please to build their own opinion about them. I guess that argument has weight with one's personality being built up through one's actions rather than the words spoken - and previous attempts to make a personality (ie Legend of Zelda cartoon and Metroid Other M), have been pathetic to say the least. That may be the case but I refuse to accept the idea that the silent character is meant to be the eyes of the gamer in the game world. They aren't me: Why? Because they have an appearance and a name that I don't really have a say in. The characters I've played in both Baldurs Gate and World of Warcraft are mine because I made them and guided them through their
respective game worlds - whereas Link is....... well.... everyone's Link.

So yeah, for me playing a character who already has a name and face but no voice doesn't mean they are me in the game itself. If anything, the games that want to involve the player themselves are those that a) address them directly, b) make the player feel like they're making some kind of difference and c) remove any visual representation of the PC.
That being said I think the games that have done this best are Starcraft and Bioshock. Starcraft did so by having a well-written script with characters address the player directly - helped considerably by some solid voice acting - and really created the impression the player was making a difference. Bioshock also took a brave step by refusing to make any visual reference to the PC (apart from hands and a bit of arm) and through placing the player in situations that challenged linear gameplay.

So, if anything, building a character a face, a name but no voice strikes me as a little odd - like a runner that jumps numerous hurdles but then chooses to not clear the last one. If this is a character that's meant to represent me, the player, then why do I have a set name and appearance?