next »

[gunswordfist]

Title makes this self explanatory

[ness io kain]

Haha, this reminds me of a particularly awful thread I was reading on the GMC once, a long while back (this kind of stuff is why I determined no good could come from spending any further amount of time there [although, to be fair, I have no idea what it's like nowadays; things could be better]). It went kind of like this:

"Man, I want to come up with a unique character concept. Like Mario, you know... He's an Italian plumber who eats mushrooms and throws balls of fire. Who comes up with this stuff? How do I come up with something like that?"
"Well, just come up with some elements and put them together, you know. Who is this guy? What is his job? What abilities does he have?"
"So, like... if he was a French electrician who likes to eat fish and has the power to shoot freeze rays?"
"Yeah, I think that could be good."


The bottom line is that forced creativity... is forced. And it's not really creativity at all. There reaches a point where you're trying hard enough that you're guaranteed to fail. Overthinking never results in solid ideas.
All the times I've come up with interesting characters, it's just come out of drawings. I doodle something, change things here and there, and eventually develop something interesting. It seems like a very physical process rather than something that involves a lot of calculation and evaluation. It comes pretty naturally to me, and I feel like it's more of a "talent" matter than a "skill" matter, if you'll allow me to break it down into such categorizations... But I think you can acquire it if you get in the habit of messing around like this. I feel like the visual part comes first, and the conceptual bits are attached to it. Since we're talking about "iconic" characters, a lot of it is just going to be first impressions - things you can notice right away from how the character is shaped, how it moves, how it sounds, etc.
I think interesting things can come out of intentional restriction or generalized goals as well; it could be good to find out what you can, can't, should, and shouldn't do by asking yourself what you need the character for.

The Chapman brothers of Homestar Runner fame are the absolute kings of ace character design. In my eyes, they have no rivals. They make weird, weird stuff and there's just nothing else like it. Their character's bodies are staggeringly inconsistent... Some look like over-simplified humans, but others barely look like living things at all. And yet, there's a startling amount of uniformity; they all look like they belong in the same cartoon... there's still a distinctive, shared style.
I think a lot of this is because they chose simple designs that:
1. Would be easy to draw many times
2. Would animate easily
It's clear some thought went into the process; the designs were refined and such, but basically they figured out their needs and just output raw creativity until they came up with things they liked.

As a basic summary, I would say that good, iconic character designs come from patience... But not persistent thought and planning... just trial and error. Doodle. Doodling is your friend.
I may be slightly biased toward the visual side of things... but the question seems to be largely visual anyway.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the "iconic" part is not entirely inherent to the character design itself... It's kind of an outflow of context, in a way. You could have a character that is a generic blue box thing, but your particular style and use of it are going to be key to its association with the game it belongs to. There will be subtleties, unavoidably, that make it at least slightly different from other things, and its placement in a particular context will provide the distinction of "Oh, hey, it's that one blue box thing! Yes, this blue box thing; not the other one."

[Kuppo]

Pick an animal.
Anthropomorphize it.
Give it some simple, catchy name like Bill or Pappy.
Make it jump around and shit.
Success.

[HöllenKobold]

I heard that having a very recognizable silhouette or shape for the character tends to help a lot. Extending from that, I guess we can assume that the character's silhouette should be assembled from geometric shapes and not be like Bayformers. But I ignore that and look into GQ and Vivi to steal fashionable clothing to make my characters HIP, and give them catchy one-liners. yeah~

[gunswordfist]

Haha, this reminds me of a particularly awful thread I was reading on the GMC once, a long while back (this kind of stuff is why I determined no good could come from spending any further amount of time there [although, to be fair, I have no idea what it's like nowadays; things could be better]). It went kind of like this:

"Man, I want to come up with a unique character concept. Like Mario, you know... He's an Italian plumber who eats mushrooms and throws balls of fire. Who comes up with this stuff? How do I come up with something like that?"
"Well, just come up with some elements and put them together, you know. Who is this guy? What is his job? What abilities does he have?"
"So, like... if he was a French electrician who likes to eat fish and has the power to shoot freeze rays?"
"Yeah, I think that could be good."


The bottom line is that forced creativity... is forced. And it's not really creativity at all. There reaches a point where you're trying hard enough that you're guaranteed to fail. Overthinking never results in solid ideas.
All the times I've come up with interesting characters, it's just come out of drawings. I doodle something, change things here and there, and eventually develop something interesting. It seems like a very physical process rather than something that involves a lot of calculation and evaluation. It comes pretty naturally to me, and I feel like it's more of a "talent" matter than a "skill" matter, if you'll allow me to break it down into such categorizations... But I think you can acquire it if you get in the habit of messing around like this. I feel like the visual part comes first, and the conceptual bits are attached to it. Since we're talking about "iconic" characters, a lot of it is just going to be first impressions - things you can notice right away from how the character is shaped, how it moves, how it sounds, etc.
I think interesting things can come out of intentional restriction or generalized goals as well; it could be good to find out what you can, can't, should, and shouldn't do by asking yourself what you need the character for.

The Chapman brothers of Homestar Runner fame are the absolute kings of ace character design. In my eyes, they have no rivals. They make weird, weird stuff and there's just nothing else like it. Their character's bodies are staggeringly inconsistent... Some look like over-simplified humans, but others barely look like living things at all. And yet, there's a startling amount of uniformity; they all look like they belong in the same cartoon... there's still a distinctive, shared style.
I think a lot of this is because they chose simple designs that:
1. Would be easy to draw many times
2. Would animate easily
It's clear some thought went into the process; the designs were refined and such, but basically they figured out their needs and just output raw creativity until they came up with things they liked.

As a basic summary, I would say that good, iconic character designs come from patience... But not persistent thought and planning... just trial and error. Doodle. Doodling is your friend.
I may be slightly biased toward the visual side of things... but the question seems to be largely visual anyway.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the "iconic" part is not entirely inherent to the character design itself... It's kind of an outflow of context, in a way. You could have a character that is a generic blue box thing, but your particular style and use of it are going to be key to its association with the game it belongs to. There will be subtleties, unavoidably, that make it at least slightly different from other things, and its placement in a particular context will provide the distinction of "Oh, hey, it's that one blue box thing! Yes, this blue box thing; not the other one."

Thanks for the post. I'll try to be 'natural' with it

[eclectocrat]

Obviously this depends on the gameplay a LOT, but independent of other variables I would pick something that most of your target audience would:
1) relate to OR
2) want to be like OR
3) can get away with doing things that express widespread fundamental urges repressed by society (GTA style)

So I think that rules out a game where you are Hitl.. err..  a tyrant trying to commit genocide.

[namre]

I heard that having a very recognizable silhouette or shape for the character tends to help a lot. Extending from that, I guess we can assume that the character's silhouette should be assembled from geometric shapes and not be like Bayformers. But I ignore that and look into GQ and Vivi to steal fashionable clothing to make my characters HIP, and give them catchy one-liners. yeah~

I agree. Take the example of how the characters from Team Fortress 2 was made. Valve paid great attention to the silhouettes. Not only did this help in gameplay, it also gave the characters their unique characteristics.

For more information, check out the developers commentaries on TF2 on the game itself or on YouTube.

[Inanimate]

I heard that having a very recognizable silhouette or shape for the character tends to help a lot. Extending from that, I guess we can assume that the character's silhouette should be assembled from geometric shapes and not be like Bayformers. But I ignore that and look into GQ and Vivi to steal fashionable clothing to make my characters HIP, and give them catchy one-liners. yeah~

I agree. Take the example of how the characters from Team Fortress 2 was made. Valve paid great attention to the silhouettes. Not only did this help in gameplay, it also gave the characters their unique characteristics.

For more information, check out the developers commentaries on TF2 on the game itself or on YouTube.

An interesting way of brainstorming a character could be making an interesting silhouette, then making an approximate character to fit it.

[Seth]

Pick an animal.
Anthropomorphize it.
Give it some simple, catchy name like Bill or Pappy.
Make it jump around and shit.
Success.

Give it a backwards baseball cap, a skateboard, and a yo-yo.

[Pineapple]

For me, it's never the characters themselves that stand out, but rather the quality of their games. You can make the most distinct, bizarre, and unmistakable character in the world but if the game it's in is unmemorable then the character itself goes nowhere.



This is an image of what's currently one of the most recognizable characters in indie gaming. Note the total lack of unique features (let's face it, it's nothing more than a suicide bomber that looks like green man-parts), backstory, or anything, and yet the character is an instantly recognizable icon.

Put the exact same creepers in any mediocre game and do you really think it'd be anywhere near so memorable?

[noah!]

Personally, I think that personality is just as important as design. You can have an iconic character design, but if the character is poorly written, then he'll be forgotten at best. Don't just make a character, make a person.

Failing that, try market saturation. It's tough to forget a character whose face is on everything. ;-)

[jwk5]

Let's take a look at a few iconic characters and see what they've all got in common. Say, Mario (Super Mario Bros.), Wolverine (X-Men), and Kratos (God of War).


[1]Color Scheme: Each of these characters have a simple (but harmonious) color scheme that is easy to "read" and recognize. With mario the dominant colors are red and blue and are and there are touches of white, brown, black, peach, and yellow. Other than black and white, you'll note that most of these less dominant colors in the scheme are close to either red or blue on the color wheel. Wolverine has a similar deal going on only with yellow and blue being dominant. With Kratos white and red are clearly dominant, and the less dominant copper color is pretty close to red on the color wheel.

It is not just the colors themselves that are important, but also their arrangement. The red on Mario's arms keep them separated from the blue of the legs and body and allows the player to easily spot their placement at all times. Because the white and brown are used sparingly they draw attention to themselves which is useful for adding emphasis to Mario's punching actions (breaking blocks, etc.) and foot placement.

Wolverine and Kratos share a very similar color composition that places emphasis on their legs, arms, and pelvis. This is a very key element to designing characters who are centered around combat as it makes their action poses very readable (and keeps your attention on where they are striking). The emphasis of the pelvis makes poses where the upper body overlaps the lower body more "readable" because there is a clear color separation (so the overlap is more apparent). Since Kratos and Wolvering both center around weapons attached to their hands and arms putting emphasis on their arms is crucial.

[2]Form: Both Kratos and Wolvering are clearly built for fighting. You don't just see it in their muscular bodies but also on their faces and posture. Mario's cartoony composition gives off a much less serious feeling. The exaggeration of his hands and feet tell you that they are important aspects of his character and help describe what he is about (jumping, stomping, punching, etc.) and his pudgy belly tells you that you probably won't see him at the gym any time soon (though you'd think all that cardio from the running and jumping would make him much slimmer) but his general posturing tells you despite that fact he is pretty mobile. Kratos and Wolverine are usually posed in ways that suggest they are very lithe and fast despite their size and the way Mario looks when he runs and jumps (very haphazard) helps define his comical nature.

[3]Costume and Equipment: Mario's plumbing attire obviously helps explain that he is a plumber, but as mentioned the emphasized white gloves and brown shoes show that his hands and feet are very important aspects of his character. With wolverine his costume is almost a series of arrows pointing into his body and down to his feet suggesting a lot of foot action, and his gloves break away from the main flow of the body costume design giving them emphasis. Kratos' costume is very barbaric and helps put emphasis on his savagery and having the chains wrapped around his arms (a lot of small details) draws a lot of attention to them.





There are a lot more descriptive elements you can look at, but the key word to remember here is "descriptive". From the arrangement of the colors down to the shape of the body all elements of the character should describe what the character is about. That is what makes them "iconic", their whole being serves as an "icon" that describes the idea behind them. It is easy to recognize iconic characters for pretty much the same reason it is easy to recognize programs by their icons on your desktop. If the icon is well designed (or otherwise stands out) you can spot it in a crowd and you can immediately recognize what it is meant to represent.

[shig]

A badly designed character featuring in a very well-known game will be an iconic character. I think that in that aspect, marketing is much more important than art design.

[jotapeh]

A well-designed character in a bad game gets passed over to linger in obscurity for all time.

[Konidias]

Iconic characters aren't made. They're born.

I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true. Characters aren't designed to become iconic... of course most people would want whatever they create to be iconic, but it's not something you can just create. It's something that just happens over time.

I don't really think a silhouette is going to make a character iconic. Good silhouettes just help to distinguish things. They don't make them distinguished. (if that makes any sense at all) If you take a silhouette of Mario, of course it looks recognizable, because the character is so recognizable that it would be hard to not piece together his image from a silhouette... But if he wasn't iconic, the silhouette wouldn't be as obvious.

All you can really do is try to make an interesting character and hope for the best. It's up to the players whether or not that character becomes iconic or not. You don't really have any control over it.

Also to the person saying you can't force creativity or else it will feel forced... You do realize that a lot of 8 bit icons were made out of forced creativity? Mario has a mustache only due to the fact that it showed up better than a mouth in the original sprites. Can you imagine Mario without a mustache? Yet there it is, because of a forced creative decision.

[ness io kain]

Also to the person saying you can't force creativity or else it will feel forced... You do realize that a lot of 8 bit icons were made out of forced creativity? Mario has a mustache only due to the fact that it showed up better than a mouth in the original sprites. Can you imagine Mario without a mustache? Yet there it is, because of a forced creative decision.

That's working within restrictions, something I did touch on in my post (when I talked about the Chapman brothers and their simplification for the sake of easy animating). It's a good thing. Thinking inside boxes isn't bad, and I never said it was.
What I actually meant by the phrase "forced creativity" is clear enough from the context (I gave a specific practical example, after all) that I doubt I actually need to reiterate... But I'll try to put it into a simple sentence: If you think too hard, you're doing it wrong.
After you have a basic concept down, you can start working through the subtleties j2k5 talked about. But please, in the name of all that is good and sensible, do not do what those GMC kids were trying to do (which, arguably, also had a lot to do with having too large a focus on preexisting successful examples instead of more abstract concepts).
I'd be interested in asking some of the people around here who have come up with nice, recognizable characters how they went about doing so. I would bet it had a lot to do with sketching and experimentation and very little to do with "Oh noez, I need to make a unique character, what I does?"

[Konidias]

If you think too hard, you're doing it wrong.

I think you're being a bit pretentious. When did you write the rules on creativity?

There's nothing wrong with thinking too hard... I mean, it could very well lead to the most iconic character ever created. The moment you start telling people they are "doing it wrong" is the moment you've boxed yourself in to a specific way of thinking.

You could create an iconic character by just doodling, or by thinking really hard about it, or by literally using the "French electrician who likes to eat fish and has the power to shoot freeze rays" idea and it could be amazing.

It's not so much about the idea for the character itself. It's about the execution of that idea, and the audience's collective opinion of the character.

I'd be interested in asking some of the people around here who have come up with nice, recognizable characters how they went about doing so. I would bet it had a lot to do with sketching and experimentation and very little to do with "Oh noez, I need to make a unique character, what I does?"

I'd be more interested in asking those people if they created the character with the intention of it becoming iconic. I bet most of them just made a character because they thought it was cool or out of necessity or whatever. Not because "this is going to be an awesome character that will be cherished by millions, and here's why..."

[shig]

Iconic characters aren't made. They're born.

 

A well-designed character in a bad game gets passed over to linger in obscurity for all time.

I wouldn't consider Bubsy to be well-designed at all. To me, he's just ugly and bland.

[ness io kain]

If you think too hard, you're doing it wrong.

I think you're being a bit pretentious. When did you write the rules on creativity?

There's nothing wrong with thinking too hard... I mean, it could very well lead to the most iconic character ever created.

I've never seen it done.
So that's not pretension; it's warranted skepticism.

The moment you start telling people they are "doing it wrong" is the moment you've boxed yourself in to a specific way of thinking.

And gladly so.
If I see somebody trying to dig a five foot hole with a needle, I will tell him he's doing it wrong. And when I have to dig a hole, I will use a shovel. Coming up with a new way of doing that is a waste of time, because people have already invented plenty of effective ways to accomplish the task... I choose the one that is possible with the resources I have.
Granted, what we're talking about here is a less concrete matter, so it should be handled with a greater deal of subjectivity. That doesn't mean we should reject all semblance of definiteness, though; I will continue to speak with objective words.
If someone goes about designing characters in the way described earlier, I think that person is headed for failure.
It's my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with it, and you're encouraged to fight to prove me wrong (in a practical way; i.e., design a good character in a way I don't like, or show me somebody else who has already done so). But I'm not going to talk loosely. I'll say something is "right" or "wrong", "bad" or "good"... not because I think I'm the standard, but because I'm entitled to an opinion on these things.

...By the way (Re: the last bit of your post, and other various stuff in this thread so far), I've been taking "iconic" to mean something more like "distinctive" than "recognized", since that bit does have a lot more to do with marketing and the like. I'm probably stretching the actual meaning of the word quite a bit, but I was trying to focus on the things we have direct control over in the design process, which I imagine was supposed to be the point of the topic in the first place (but I'm just guessing at this point).

[mirosurabu]

The GMC kids example doesn't sound bad. The advice too doesn't sound bad. In fact, it's a step towards learning how to give personality to your characters (and not just make them random personality-less characters).

Doodling can go before or after personality is set, it doesn't really matter. These are just two different approaches. I think if you doodle first and expect personality to be emergent, it's more likely that personality will be lacking. If you come up with personality first and then doodle with personality direction (or restriction) in mind, you may end up with less interesting visual appearance, but if you do it good, you will end up with awesome.

Writers come up with great personalities all the time and they don't doodle. Still, for most games, doodling is a must, so yeah, I guess, doodling is vital.