A reader looks at what makes a good or bad video game character, and decides that personality has little to do with it.
And so talk turns to characters. Who are the best? But, more importantly – what makes them the best?
There are three categories when judging a character in a game: aesthetic, ability, and personality. The third aspect is rarely all that important, even in narrative-led experiences like a role-playing game. For personality will cover everything you need for a successful character in the passive media – things like complexity, depth, growth and humour. In a fighting game, ability is everything. If what a character can do doesn’t excite you, then why should you play as that character? Aesthetic would then be second.
Mortal Kombat’s Sindel with her Cruella de Vil hair, scary eyes and fingernails sharp enough to puncture steel was always a very charismatic design, I thought. Plus, she could fly – so she wasn’t just the Queen of Edenia, she was the Queen of Cheap Jerks, too. And I loved her for it. Conversely, why do Americans love Quan Chi so much? I just don’t get it. He’s some bald, pasty emo who can fire snot-covered skulls. Admittedly, the fatality in Mortal Kombat 9 where he beats someone to death with their own leg is quite hilarious – but I still never pick him over Baraka or Johnny Cage.
Aesthetic is most important for platform game characters. You scoff? Who won the war for hearts and minds in British playgrounds during the early 1990s? It was Sonic. Because he looked cooler. Mario looked like somebody’s dad. Poor Dynamite Headdy had it even worse. Headdy looked like a complete dork in that bow-tie (Sorry Matt Smith, you’re just plain wrong.) and shoes that your parents would only make you wear if you had been especially naughty. As such, only a handful of people probably gave this brilliant, Lynchian fantasy a try.
Also, successful and likeable are not synonymous. Take Kratos from the first God Of War. Very nearly a successful character. Stop that laughing. He is utterly repugnant, but he has spent his life determined to be so for the sake of being the best on the battlefield. All of his woes he brought upon himself. I believe we were never meant to like him. But his reward was undeserved and there is a poorly misjudged attempt at humour early on just before your battle with the Hydra.
Kratos just straight up kills a man for no other reason than the developers found it funny. Had the victim in question been snooty towards Kratos or mistreated him in some way, then there would have been poetic justice and that would have been fine. You meet the victim again in hell, and Kratos kicks him to his doom a second time. Not only is it not funny the second time, it made me seriously question the ethics of those involved in the game’s development.
But so what? God Of War is still an excellent game. That Kratos failed as a character didn’t hurt the game that much, the game had other faults that were far more serious. Skyrim doesn’t even have a main character you can really relate to – who they are is left entirely to your imagination. And as charming and witty as Dante was in up to Devil May Cry 4, he is incredibly shallow with only one readily discernible dimension to his character. Doesn’t much matter when you’re that damn entertaining, of course.
And humour is so crucial, especially if, like Dante, there is only as much depth as a McDonald’s cheeseburger. But what I really want to see in games is writers who have really done their homework on their characters. Writers who know their characters inside out. Characters like Prince Laharl from Disgaea – who boasts the most impressive characterisation development I have yet to see in any game. Flonne and Etna – the literal devil and angel on his shoulders, who accompany Laharl and grow with him – each a significant contribution to each other’s arcs.
Or what of Bastilla Shan from Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic? There is a key moment in the plot that you can scarcely believe in the first playthrough. But on subsequent play and talking to Bastilla again, you realise that the seeds of this shocking development had been there since her childhood. Or pretty much everybody from the last two Persona games? Mitsuru and Yukari’s very sweet, very believable gradual friendship? Junpei’s heartbreaking journey from class clown to tragic hero? Or the usually cool Akihiko having an emotional breakdown in a moment I dare not spoil here?
And let’s not forget Nanako from Persona 4. So hard to make convincing child characters who you don’t want to throttle on sight in any medium – but Nanako is inarguably awesome. The mere attempt at argument proves you’re a bad person.
Making characters this good and this memorable requires genuine love for them and an understanding of what makes the characters you like work for you. And an understanding of why someone like Kratos fails even on his own terms. And a really cool pair of red trainers certainly helps.
By reader DMR
The reader’s feature does not necessary represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. As always, email gamecentral@ukmetro.co.uk and follow us on Twitter.
