"Likable" Characters

stealth toilet

stealth toilet

Moderator
I remember when Niko Bellic came on the scene in GTA IV, one of the almost universally agreed upon strengths of the game was the "likable" main character. I'd never really heard such concerns about a game's main character before. How the character looked might be an issue, or perhaps how their voices sounded, but for the most part the main character in a videogame was a vacuous entity who fulfilled a single function: let the player imagine themselves as the main character. Many didn't talk, many were purposefully generic, and you couldn't even see many others (first-person games). Whether or not a character was "likable" didn't matter.

I don't know if this changed with GTA IV, or if that was just when I started noticing it, but I've found that the now ubiquitous obsession with a character's "likability" is really frustrating. As someone who is deeply (even overly) concerned with videogames maturing into art forms on par with that of films and books, it is disheartening to hear a game get shunted for not having "likable" characters. The idea that a game should pander specifically to what someone likes really limits the scope and range of material that games can portray and deal with. Many great literary characters, or ones projected on the silver screen, are great because they force us to confront and think about many things we don't like confronting and thinking about. If a character doesn't appeal to one's sentiments that doesn't make the character worthless or irrelevant or the product of a failed attempt to make it likable, instead it might be attempting to expose what it is about that character, or about people like that character, or about what that character signifies that one doesn't like. It is an opportunity to review one's own sentiments and perhaps re-evaluate their attitude towards such characters.

I guess my question for everyone here would be how much do you really think about whether characters are "likable" or not, and what criteria do you use to determine that? I guess I'm curious as to why there seems to be such a preoccupation with whether or not a character is likable, instead of thinking about what a character stands for, what their traits are, how the character fits into the story and with other characters, and those sorts of topics. Or even instead of saying whether or not a character is likable, why not discuss what is likable and why? Do those discussions happen too?
 
stealth toilet said:
I remember when Niko Bellic came on the scene in GTA IV, one of the almost universally agreed upon strengths of the game was the "likable" main character. I'd never really heard such concerns about a game's main character before. How the character looked might be an issue, or perhaps how their voices sounded, but for the most part the main character in a videogame was a vacuous entity who fulfilled a single function: let the player imagine themselves as the main character. Many didn't talk, many were purposefully generic, and you couldn't even see many others (first-person games). Whether or not a character was "likable" didn't matter.
Click to expand...

With how fast technology has been advancing, it makes a bit of sense that we are now seeing much more fleshed out characters. I think the reason that most were generic back in the day was because of limitations in the hardware. You either gave the character personality, or you spent the extra resources on AI and other gameplay features.

I don't know if this changed with GTA IV, or if that was just when I started noticing it, but I've found that the now ubiquitous obsession with a character's "likability" is really frustrating. As someone who is deeply (even overly) concerned with videogames maturing into art forms on par with that of films and books, it is disheartening to hear a game get shunted for not having "likable" characters. The idea that a game should pander specifically to what someone likes really limits the scope and range of material that games can portray and deal with. Many great literary characters, or ones projected on the silver screen, are great because they force us to confront and think about many things we don't like confronting and thinking about. If a character doesn't appeal to one's sentiments that doesn't make the character worthless or irrelevant or the product of a failed attempt to make it likable, instead it might be attempting to expose what it is about that character, or about people like that character, or about what that character signifies that one doesn't like. It is an opportunity to review one's own sentiments and perhaps re-evaluate their attitude towards such characters.
Click to expand...

You can go back to generic characters but I think in the end that would be much more boring. Which I guess can be attributed to the masses not wanting to think when they are engaged in a form of entertainment. I agree, you can't please everyone, but once you add personality to a character, not being likeable comes with the territory. Again, if people aren't willing to challenge their minds or tolerate things that might annoy them, it's not going to change.

I guess my question for everyone here would be how much do you really think about whether characters are "likable" or not, and what criteria do you use to determine that? I guess I'm curious as to why there seems to be such a preoccupation with whether or not a character is likable, instead of thinking about what a character stands for, what their traits are, how the character fits into the story and with other characters, and those sorts of topics. Or even instead of saying whether or not a character is likable, why not discuss what is likable and why? Do those discussions happen too?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what my criteria is yet. I can be open to many different types of characters. I can suspend my disbelief. I guess the reason why liking a character is important to most is because they are no longer assuming the role, they're controlling a character that is already pretty much been defined.
 
In my honest opinion, I feel if we give the main character enough leverage to fall back on. Will that character be loved or hated in the long run? One question that pops into mind is how far in a game do we realize this character is worth sticking with?

Another trend in leading character is the macho man. With Duke Nukem returning and Bulletstorm's Grayson Hunt. It's all about attitude and being raunchy as possible. Gears of War is another example of how characters can show emotions and remain that toughness. While as a game like Tales of Vesperia has a silent hero who doesn't say much until the middle of the game. It took me a while to accept Yuri since I thought it he was merely a side-character from the get go and ended up in a similar scenario like Bartz from Final Fantasy V.

I agree as well, how in the world do they fit into the storyline is a prime factor of what they should be. Since we never know these days of who is going to live or die given multiple endings compared to games from the past. Which is a crying shame, since I personally can't trust a game's motive when every game lately wants to go with a "M. Night Shyamalan twist". I really can't trust one game I play without being shocked or awed by the climax which forms the structure of when the group of supporting characters band together with the hero or he makes that decision on his own after something bad happens to one agreement of saving the world or city or whatever it may be.
 
Off the top of my head, I think likability is pretty important. You have to play through several hours with the characters and it is much harder if you don't like them. It can also detract from intended elements of the game if the characters aren't likable.

Take for example, the original Mass Effect. I don't like Ashley or Kaiden. As many times as I have played it, I still find this to be so. So, spoiler warning here:

It kind of kills the impact for me of having to choose one or the other to die on Virmire at the end of the game. I would leave both of them if I could, and not feel bad about it.

Granted, there are enough people that do like those characters for this to not be the best example, but I think that gives the gist of it.
 
Mai Valentine said:
Off the top of my head, I think likability is pretty important. You have to play through several hours with the characters and it is much harder if you don't like them. It can also detract from intended elements of the game if the characters aren't likable.
Click to expand...

I Pretty much agree with this however....

I am going to go with examples from the videogame series that has my favorite characters when it comes to character development and how much "I" like them, and is the Tales of series.

Particularly in Tales of the abyss when you originally meet the main character you are bound to absolutely hate him (name is Luke) he is naive, whiny, annoying, snotty, etc... but by the end of the game he develops himself to become quite likable and even then some spasms of his old personality show a bit... other characters in the same game tend to be introduced in such a way that I always thought they were going to be a pain in the butt to carry around but their personalities were so well developed that I grew to like them.

As Mega mentioned Tales of Vesperia has a character whom is really hands off with what is going on in the progress of the story and doesn't get truly involved until later on, and the decisions he (and his party) make can be quite controversial.

And that to me are my favorite kinds of characters... those who show the full spectrum of their personalities, the nice, annoying, and bad sides to them. If they are just badass characters with no faults whatsoever then they tend to be mary sues that I am ok with but not particularly like that much...
 
What's interesting is that "likability" seems to be a kind of "meta-discussion" that takes place, so instead of discussing what makes a character appealing or not appealing the discussion seems to center around whether or not they are appealing.

For example, Zidart seems to feel that a character's complexity contributes to whether or not he likes them. So when Zidart expresses that he likes a character, he's really saying is that he likes the fact that a character is complex. It's not that the character is necessarily more or less "likable" than other characters, but that the character is more or less complex than other characters.

Creepindeth seems to feel that the character should exhibit some qualities the player exhibits (or wants to exhibit), and that the ability to identify with that character is what makes them likable or not. Again, it's not that the character is necessarily more or less "likable" than other characters, but that the character is more or less "identifiable" to the player than other characters.

Mai seems to feel that a character's depth is what makes the character likable or not, even if she doesn't necessarily like their personalities. So in Mai's case, it's not that the character is necessarily more or less "likable" than other characters, but that the character is more or less "wholly developed" than other characters. This is particularly interesting because so much of it relies on the storytelling aspect of the game, and not just the individual characters as such. Very interesting.

Perhaps I'm misquoting some of you, so please feel free to object to what I've just said, but my initial suspicion that "likable" is a kind of shorthand for a wide range of discussion concerning videogame characters seems to be somewhat justified. I would like to hear more though, before I make any grand assertions.
 
Well sticking with the Mass Effect example with Kaiden and Ashley, I see what you are saying about depth. I mean you can talk to them and learn more than you want to know about what makes them who they are. I just don't like them. Ashley is a xenophobic goody-goody who doesn't like that you have aliens on your squad, and Kaiden is just boring.

Likable to me, I guess, means a lot of different things. I like playing characters that aren't like me, because it's nice to play out that fantasy. Being sarcastic and snarky and saying what I really want to say as renegade Shepard, for example, is so much fun.

Most recently, I like characters that are trying to do the right thing. Maybe the way they go about it is not right, but the end result is that they are trying to do what they think is the right thing.
 
stealth toilet said:
For example, Zidart seems to feel that a character's complexity contributes to whether or not he likes them. So when Zidart expresses that he likes a character, he's really saying is that he likes the fact that a character is complex. It's not that the character is necessarily more or less "likable" than other characters, but that the character is more or less complex than other characters.
Click to expand...

Pretty much... there are characters who look good and can be "likable" such as Dante and maybe some fighting game characters that have flashy moves that look eye popping... but as far as which ones are my favorites, that usually tends to be the ones that are more complex.

And sometimes complexity might make my opinion on a character completely different. Again an example from Tales of the abyss... a lot of people absolutely hate a character named Anise, she is young, naive, her voice is extremely annoying, her play style is different. But because of the decisions she made and the experiences she went through and the development that she goes through during the game I grew to like her and completely forget about the shallow image that she has of an annoying little brat.

I can agree with your original post where you mentioned that developers might spend too much time trying to make a character likable by making him a total cool and sexy, and for me that sometimes is good enough (such is the case of Dante) but for me it stands out when they go out of their way to make a complex and still likable character.
 
Mai Valentine said:
I think Master Chief is awesome, too. What makes him likable, do you think?
Click to expand...

i think its the way Master Chief carries himself in the game. he is loyal and strong. he is a new age soldier and i think that's why everyone likes him :)
 
I think this is an interesting topic to revisit.

I started playing Tales of Vesperia again after I had played FFXIII and when you compare the two, ToV is leagues better in terms of story and combat. So I asked myself, why is it that I still love FFXIII anyway? So much so that I played it through twice?

The paradigm system is ok but not great and the story is good as long as you read the datalog to understand some of the finer points. But what I really like about FFXIII is the characters. Especially Lightning and Fang, but all of them are pretty awesome in their own way. I love the way that everyone kind of grows throughout the game.
 
I think the reason why Master Chief is so likable (for me) is because he has Cortana. In some ways, she is his conscience and guide, speaking for him.

A cast of characters that has had a particular impact on me was Persona 4. They seemed like they could've been real, you know? Yosuke, Chie, and Yukiko, it seemed like over time they became characters I cared about. Nathan Drake is another character I love because he would react in some situations the way I would. As weird as it sounds, I like characters I can depend on. Did that make sense? :lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top