next »

[gimymblert]

You think character as personality, I say they are symbol too. Symbol don't need personality, they need concept.

There was half a dozen character in the vein of mario and sonic, what did these two stand out more? Maybe quality and exposure help too, but that's not all. I'm sure we can find character that wasn't more than fad and didn't stay (ninja turtle). Note: i'm a huge ninja turtle fan.

[Evan Balster]

@evan what do you think would be a good way to change this tradition? Maybe having a more organic conversation with others would break the mold but this is easier said than done.

Someone started to touch on this in the player/character thread.  A small number of deep, dynamic relationships in a game have the potential to be much more interesting than a massive number of potential shallow ones.  It's neat that you can marry (nearly) anyone in Fable, but imagine a game where you have a single close friend or significant other throughout the game who you frequently interact with.  That character would inevitably be a lot deeper and more developed.  Now make it so most interactions with that character are more sentimental than strategic or story-relevant -- this way players aren't obsessively wiki-ing what to say or fixating on what they thing will get them the "good ending" -- and voila!  Players will be inclined to make choices that express their emotions toward that character.  I've been planning something similar to this in a project of my own.

To expand on that "sentimental" remark -- I think the player's optimization instinct can really mess up role-playing in games.  As an example, there are items in Fable you can only get to if you marry this awful, black-hearted woman any decent person wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.  (It's in her bedroom)  One could argue that obsessive collection is part of role-playing but I tend to disagree.

[VortexCortex]

You think character as personality, I say they are symbol too. Symbol don't need personality, they need concept.

I think of characters as being CHARACTERS.  Look up that word.  Symbolic Face-Men?  Sure, there's lots of success here.  Although I put it to you it's pointless to duplicate the success of a marketing machine behind a forced face-man.  That's not going to advance the medium or show insight except into the marketing world, which is fine, if you've got millions, you can make a Symbol popular.  However, I still won't give a damn about the crap symbolic character.

Have you got any examples of symbols without personality that are successful outside of being forced down folks throats by millions of dollars of marketing?  I'd just love to hear about it.  Eg: Kirby has lots of personality, and is symbolic.  What's Mario symbolic of, eh?  Please do enlighten me.

You're basically paraphrasing me now:

What do successful characters have in common?
Success.
...
TL;DR: Many shitty characters are quite successful.  Meh.

Edit: If I sound a bit hostile, it's because I don't take kindly to being told how I think.

[gimymblert]

It's not exclusive, it's my point, it need to represent something before it has any depth, otherwise it's confusing. If you read my posts before, that concept need to create relatedness and have some singularity (generally contrast). Proof is that meme are pretty successful and live and die on concept alone, there is no money involve.

[malicethedevil]

creating depth of relationship in a character is difficult unless its part of the progression of the story line. Like Star Wars Force Unleashed when Vader's Apprentice runs off to quell the rebellion he listens to another Jedi and gains a relationship with that character through the game the relationship deepened which would be difficult to pull off in a game form like Fable or Elder Scrolls. Depth of character comes from the story, and back story of a character as well as emotional levels and responses, but in a game like Fable the emotional responses were the Player's control.

[Alex Higgins]

I don't know... I am starting to think the one way to make a character "successful" is to just make the game play amazing. Yes, Mario is a great contrast to his element but would it still have been just as good if he was a knight in shining armor?

I still think that Mario's personal characteristics themselves are vital to his rise in pop culture. If he were a pixel, or some grotesque-looking rat thing, or a jumping toilet, he would not be a popular icon. Super Mario Brother's appeal doesn't just come from the platforming - a lot of it comes from the game world and the characters who inhabit it. Mario may be not be well developed, but he isn't just an avatar - he's still a proper character who is relatable both through his appearance(cute-ish human) and motivations (save the princess).

EDIT: Crap, totally forgot to read the second page. Whoops.

EDIT 2: Done. Just want to add - this doesn't mean that Mario's a great character, or that the game's success and marketing weren't also huge factors - but just having a simple, likable character in itself is crucial, even if s/he's totally shallow.