What makes a good video game character?

[RuralGamer]

I prefer characters to be either unbelievable and funny or in some way flawed; I hate all these smug, "master-race flawless" characters that pollute a lot of modern games. Far too many characters lack any emotion or personality other than smug bastard. Although I never completed it through it being intolerable, Kaim in Lost Odyssey seemed to have the possible makings of a great character; he had lost his memory and had memories of people he'd known so long ago, yet didn't know who they were.

Some of the best video game villains are ones who have an established reason to be the villain, rather than just being evil for the sake of evil. For example, Saren in Mass Effect genuinely beliefs that by helping the Reapers, he can stave off galactic Genocide.
Don't know who here has seen the James Bond films, but in my opinion, the two best villains in the entire series are Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Le Chiffre for me; if more game characters were like them, they'd be better. Blofeld is the best villains I've ever seen because he is enigmatic and cunning. His organisation is run on very disciplined lines and possess an animal charm that allows him to dominate his subordinates; in the books, Fleming compares him to Napoleon or Hitler in the way he can amass power through his personality and abilities. Le Chiffre is the smart villain, but he himself is weak and cowardly; he panics when things go wrong and is asthmatic; far too many villains in both film and games lack human traits.

 

[Elamdri]

So firstly what qualities define and make a good video game character in general? Not just the strong writing aspect but other things such as Gender, looks, appeal, strengths, flaws etc...going on from that what makes a bad video game character for the same reasons, are they bad because the writing isn't strong enough/blank canvas character or are they just a really unlikeable character.

Honestly, there is nothing particularly different about video games that makes a good video game character any different from a good movie character. Good character design one of those things that is fairly universal across all medium. Now, with stuff like Aesthetics of the character, while these attributes are important, they come last. How a character looks physically has an impact on what roles they can serve. For example, Jack from Mass Effect 2 could not serve a domestic female role in that game. Therefore, if design her visually first, you have a problem. The player is going to notice if how the character acts and thinks don't mesh with the visual form. Now, that isn't to say that having a character who is visually different from how they behave/think/talk can never work, but it must be a part of the narrative.

The true hallmark of good character design are things like personality, beliefs, behavior, interests, actions; the things that make us human. Without these things, it's impossible to relate to a character because we don't really see them as people. This is fairly uniform across all media, but like movies, and perhaps even more than movies, video games are a medium that allows for much better character development through actions. Vice versa, it can be difficult to get into the heads of characters to learn what they are thinking. Generally, since we tend to view the story from the protagonist's point of view, what a character doesn't tell us either in dialogue or actions, we don't know. That can sometimes result in akward character development problems where the storyteller needs to get something across about a character, but it would be too akward for the character to just say "Oh, by the way..."

Is there a difference between a good character and a likeable one? In that instance is it possible for every character in the game be a likeable/good character even if they are not the protagonist? (antagonist, general goon etc)

This is confusing, when you say "likeable" do you mean a character that someone would agree with? A good (well-designed) character should always be likeable (enjoyable) but that doesn't mean that likeable (enjoyable) character needs to be the hero. Villains benefit JUST as much for good character design as heroes do, and whoever is enjoying your story should enjoy your villains as much as your heroes.

I mean, Darth Vader is your classic example here.

Lastly (I think) which do you prefer more, the 'blank canvas' character such as Master Chief, Gordon Freeman, guy from Crysis or maybe Shepard where you project yourself onto this character or a character with their own motivations/goals/backstory such as Solid Snake/Nathan Drake/John Marston.

Blank Canvas "Characters" aren't really characters, they're Avatars for the player to assume in the narrative.

It really comes down to a matter of "Am I playing MY story, or am I playing So-and-So's story?"

 

[Manji187]

I will take a "real" character over a blank canvas character any day.

But even with real characters...there's the risk of them being defined by what they do (to a significant extent). If there is too little character exposition (like giving a glimpse of their thoughts/ feelings) too much will be inferred from their actions.

In most cases the player simply does not know (nor can he reasonably without exposition) what goes on in the mind of the character.

IMHO a great character is a character you gradually get to know, possibly to the point of actually understanding him/ her the way he/ she really is.

 

[Mista Gav]

Is there a difference between a good character and a likeable one? In that instance is it possible for every character in the game be a likeable/good character even if they are not the protagonist? (antagonist, general goon etc)

This is confusing, when you say "likeable" do you mean a character that someone would agree with? A good (well-designed) character should always be likeable (enjoyable) but that doesn't mean that likeable (enjoyable) character needs to be the hero. Villains benefit JUST as much for good character design as heroes do, and whoever is enjoying your story should enjoy your villains as much as your heroes.

I mean, Darth Vader is your classic example here.
[/quote]

That's what I was trying to get at with Darth Vader, he isn't exactly the good guy but he's still a great character down to design and his personality. I think when I use the term 'likeable' I mean someone the player can empathise with and understand whether they are morally good or bad whereas an unlikeable character is someone that the player can't empathise with whether it's bad writing or even if it's intentional for the character to be unlikeable, it's still possible to have a good character.

I'm aware that characters are in more mediums than video games so yea the questions can be applied to anything really, books, films, music or anything with some overarching plot.

 

[Vault101]

Ive never liked this Idea of a a blank charachter, I just DO NOT find it anymore imersive it just makes it harder to care about whats going on

ok it can work in some cases like Half life or even dead space but most of the time it just feels lazy

the other thing is that most blank charachters are white brown haird males so really THEY are the only ones that might find that imersive at all

 

[Vault101]

I've actually been thinking about the mechanics of a good vg character lately, and the first one to pop in my head was Gordon Freeman. The reason why I think he's such a fantastic protagonist is that even though he never speaks, you can FEEL the weight that the character holds by the way the NPCs act around him. They're always like; OMG it's Gordon! He'll save us! Or something like; Now that Dr. Freeman's here, we'll surely get out of this mess! So you always feel like a major badass while playing the HL games, all without a single one liner from Gordon's lips, which is why I believe he succeeds in being a great silent protagonist, and I'd like to see other games attempt this.

It's the same for Master Chief in that Halo games. To a lesser extent sure, but it's definitely still there if you listen to the marines talk in game. And that's why I get pissed when I hear people call MC a generic blank slate character, they're just not paying close enough attention to the subtle moments.

I agree about gordon freemen, theres somthing about the whole setup that makes me care alot about all the charachters

however as I said in my other post I think the problem is is that often black charachters are usually white young males, I am not a white yong male therefore I dont and cant see myslef in the role, and if theres nothing there It really puts me off

(that said it can work somtimes, like Bioshock)

 

[Elamdri]

That's what I was trying to get at with Darth Vader, he isn't exactly the good guy but he's still a great character down to design and his personality. I think when I use the term 'likeable' I mean someone the player can empathise with and understand whether they are morally good or bad whereas an unlikeable character is someone that the player can't empathise with whether it's bad writing or even if it's intentional for the character to be unlikeable, it's still possible to have a good character.

I'm aware that characters are in more mediums than video games so yea the questions can be applied to anything really, books, films, music or anything with some overarching plot.

Ultimately, character design when it comes to villains works like any other character. It's two entirely different things to hate a villain because they're the villain vs. hating the villain because they're stupid/boring/bland/unbelievable. At the end of the day, in most stories you are NOT supposed to empathize with the villain, but just because you don't like the villain doesn't meant that the villain is a poorly designed character.

 

[Wutaiflea]

I believe I've said before that for me, a good character is consistent. A character should behave and react to things in an understandable way, based on what their background is. Then this should be the basis for growth- ie. showing the character under pressure might result in different behaviour and a gradual shift in character. I find characters that have sudden shifts in behaviour for no good reason to be the worst kind.

From a physical design aspect particularly for computer games, I believe main characters (protagonists and antagonists) should look distinct from other characters. I can't really think of why other appearance factors are otherwise important.

I also don't think that a good character is necessarily likable. Sometimes it's the obnoxious behaviour you personally can't stand that shows the character is well-rounded and congruous.
I'm particularly reminded of Leiliana from Dragon Age- I hated her because she reminded me of things I don't like in people I've known, rather than because she was a poorly realised character.
This works for antagonists in much the same way.

As for build-your-own characters, I like the halfway house style of Commander Shepard- you're given elements of freedom (such as gender and appearance) but you create a composite background from pre-selected parts.
I think games like Oblivion which seem to offer total freedom actually make the protagonist feel pretty redundant- you are effectively just a camera whizzing along, and have next to no influence over your dialogue.

 

[Engarde]

At least in games, one problem or flaw I don't like in characters is them having the supergood superbad morality. It really bothers me, and I much prefer more confused or grey morals, and it is even better when a character questions their morals. An example for me, at least, is Commander Shepard.

A personal example of someone I consider a bad character in games is Gordon Freeman. I felt when I was playing that all I did was show up and save the day, never make any decisions, never say a word, never be human, never have any character. Was just a crowbar and a hazmat suit. An absolutely bland character. Part of that stems from being silent, however. Though I have felt that silent characters can be done well, an example is the anime Baccano, and that lady with the knives whose name escapes me at the minute.

One thing I seem to notice with characters across all mediums is that alot of people don't like the ones who aren't good looking. I can't think of any specific examples at the minute, but when a character doesn't feel aesthetically pleasing in some form, they seem to garner some scorn. This doesn't necessarily mean attratictive, however. It is hard to pinpoint since aesthetics tend to be subjective. An example might perhaps be Rochelle from l4d2, though that could be people not liking the dialogue. It is hard to tell when people are making excuses and when people are making legitimate criticisms. For all I know, it could just be a coincidence and that bad aesthetics and poor writing coincide often.

On another note, there is a difference between a good and a likable character, in my eyes. An example I can use is Viserys (the older sibling of Daenerys in A Game of Thrones). He comes across as an antagonist and arrogant git, as the reader tends to view things from the view of Daenerys. Despite this, he is human and understandable, motivations explored, and while I may hate him with a fury, I consider him a good character.

I seem to have my head jump to novels for examples of good characters. I wonder why that is? Also of note, I said mean things about a valve and bioware game. Please, I mean no offense, what I feel is subjective, and no harm should come of it.

 

[Elamdri]

Also of note, I said mean things about a valve and bioware game. Please, I mean no offense, what I feel is subjective, and no harm should come of it.

Nope, too late. Somewhere, at some point in time, you are going to be accosted by angry fans wielding lead pipes.

 

[Vern5]

Okay, I'm going to assume that the tabula rasa (playing as yourself) characters are not worth discussing. A Player avatar is only as much a character as the player is.

A well defined, memorable character does not have to be likeable at all. He (or she) could be a huge douchebag and betray everyone around them for personal gain at every chance they get. The difference between a character who is considered annoying (and thus, not memorable) as opposed to downright villainous is characterization.

A villain (or hero) needs to be well characterized complete with obvious depth of motivation and consistency of personality in order to do well. Actually, consistency is probably the most important quality in this regard; lack of consistency creates weak characters in the long run.

Don't even consider likeable qualities unless you are trying to design a cute, fuzzy creature you can make girls and children squeal over.

 

[Hiikuro]

So firstly what qualities define and make a good video game character in general? Not just the strong writing aspect but other things such as Gender, looks, appeal, strengths, flaws etc...going on from that what makes a bad video game character for the same reasons, are they bad because the writing isn't strong enough/blank canvas character or are they just a really unlikeable character.

Is there a difference between a good character and a likeable one? In that instance is it possible for every character in the game be a likeable/good character even if they are not the protagonist? (antagonist, general goon etc)

Considering this is a topic I have a deep interest in, I'll share my (fairly incoherent) thoughts. Though I have to start by saying that I consider a good character to be a character that can't be summarized in one sentence, or easily put into any archetype. Thus I am more inclined to like characters which are realistic.

I believe that a well-designed character is not made to fit a role, but is rather caught up in a role. An example of this is Gordon Freeman, which as a scientist never would've expected to have to fight off aliens in the first place (though I bet he dreamed he would, being a scientist and all). Unfortunately, Freeman was never really developed as a character, thus I don't find him to be very interesting.

Making a good character requires a LOT of work. I find there is an incredible amount of minor personality traits one have to consider to make a good character. They way they speak, what their beliefs about the world are, how they react to certain situations, specific phrases they like to use, and so on.

I find writing for a character to be just as difficult as making one (if not worse). To write for a "deep" character you have to know the character extremely well, that would mean knowing the character better than ones closest friends. And thinking about this for every action one describe them doing.. is exhausting.

I don't think a good character necessarily have to be likeable. My personal example of this is Jack from Mass Effect 2, which I couldn't stand in the least, but which I regard an interesting character nevertheless.

Short version / conclusion: I find a good character is not created for a role, but is caught up in a role. And that a good character is not a vessel for the plot, but give the impression that they seem to think about what they do (Example: Why did she say that? If she had to explain it, it should be more than "Because the plot says so")

 

[WolfLordAndy]

As to the arguement with blankslate vs full character. It depends on if you like reading a book in the 1st person or the 3rd person.

In the 3rd person you are an observer, watching what is happening, and thus all the characters will have full personality of their own. However in a 1st person book, you become the main character, so while they still have a personality and talk, it is often lessened somewhat so that you cna be drawn in more.

I like blank slate characters in things like RPGs or MMOs, where you actually have participation and personality of your own in a game. But in a FPS campaign or linear story games, then I find its better to have a full person, and you're just along for the ride (think Assassins Creed... you're effectively playing a guy playing a game in his own head, so he's just along for the ride, watching his ancestor's personality, nothing of his own).

I'd also say Masterchief isn't that blank a slate... yes we never see his face, but he has a voice, and a personality, makes decisions without asking the player, etc.

I'm intreagued as to what part of your graphic design course made you think about characters tho? I'm in my final year now (HURRAH!) on a graphics degree, all I can guess at is if they're teaching you about target audiences...? Or is it for you to create your own characters to sell to people?

Also of note, I said mean things about a valve and bioware game. Please, I mean no offense, what I feel is subjective, and no harm should come of it.

Nope, too late. Somewhere, at some point in time, you are going to be accosted by angry fans wielding lead pipes.

Crowbars surely?

 

[JoJo]

I think something that often helps characterisation is the character having someone to believe in or protect, whether that be an ideal or another person. My favourite video game characters are those who aren't perfect but will always stick to certain values, e.g. protecting the young. I'm not really a fan of whiny characters or those who don't care about other people as I find them hard to connect to.

 

[Mista Gav]

I'm intreagued as to what part of your graphic design course made you think about characters tho? I'm in my final year now (HURRAH!) on a graphics degree, all I can guess at is if they're teaching you about target audiences...? Or is it for you to create your own characters to sell to people?

The module that involves characters is called Writing for Design, we're essentially picking a topic and researching into that. It gives full freedom into the world of design so I could have picked anything from copyright, typography, advertisment, ethics and more. Even then there's freedom to delve into a topic of choice and discuss it further into a 2000 word essay.

I guess I just got interested in characters after noticing a few adverts on TV not promoting games but other products like insurance and cereal and so it just got me thinking about characters in video games and which ones are good and which ones are bad. It's not just the personalities I'm interesting though as I really like the aesthetics that go into them too...I guess it's something I'd like to pursue in the future so I'm just gathering ideas really.

 

[cowsvils]

I think that when it comes to aesthetics a lot of attention needs to be put into making a character feel like they match their aesthetics. If the personality and look go together it really can push the effectiveness of their character to another level.

 

[The Apothecarry]

I tend to prefer characters with a deep history. Master Chief may be a blank slate but he has a lengthy history which is more or less examined in the novels.

I'm at DigiPen trying to get a Bachelor's Degree of Science in Game Design. Most of what I'm doing is math and code, so I examine the more creative aspect of design in my spare time. I can get very bored sometimes.

 

[DreamerM]

I have an exception to the "blank slates are boring" rule. Well, I don't but hear me out.

Dragon Age: Origins sucked me right in exactly the way a blank-slate character never does, because although -I- was nobody, I was surrounded by such well-realized and complicated characters that I ended up playing again and again as different people, simply to learn more about my companions.

 

[penguindude42]

I believe a character is only as good as the work they appear in.

-TOM

 

[zaiggs]

So firstly what qualities define and make a good video game character in general? Not just the strong writing aspect but other things such as Gender, looks, appeal, strengths, flaws etc...going on from that what makes a bad video game character for the same reasons, are they bad because the writing isn't strong enough/blank canvas character or are they just a really unlikeable character.

Personally, if a character is written well and has depth, they appearance doesn't really play into whether I like them or not. There are plenty of character that may look cool or "bad-ass" or at least the general interpretation of such, but have little to no depth at all.

Is there a difference between a good character and a likeable one? In that instance is it possible for every character in the game be a likeable/good character even if they are not the protagonist? (antagonist, general goon etc)

A character can be made well but be an antagonist. I may not like them, in the sense of liking someone as a person you'd want to hang out with, but I can see when an antagonist is made well and sometimes it makes you more able to hate them. Or in some cases it can make you empathize with their goals.

Lastly (I think) which do you prefer more, the 'blank canvas' character such as Master Chief, Gordon Freeman, guy from Crysis or maybe Shepard where you project yourself onto this character or a character with their own motivations/goals/backstory such as Solid Snake/Nathan Drake/John Marston.

As I said above, I'm not a fan of flat cardboard characters. Blank slate characters can often be two dimensional, but in those games the focus is generally less on the character you play and more on the story, the world, and the events that take place in that world. In the case of Gordon Freeman, a friend of mine hates that game because there is "no characterization". I'd say there doesn't need to be. The story unfolds around you and you play the role of a character living through those events.

I'd say there's a lot of stuff that goes into creating a character that many of us don't really notice when we play the game.

The big one for me is showing vs telling. I watched a friend play through the beginning of "Metroid other M" and was appalled by the amount of "telling" that the game did. I realize that it's a different type of storytelling, but I'd rather see how a character is feeling vs the character speaking their emotions. "I'm sad." So am I when I hear that from a character in a game.