TIGSource Forums

Based on a topic on Character Engage, what similarities do popular characters have that stand out or show the reason for their popularity.

I would say a great story, relate able personalities, but what about the core design. Can we really relate to the prince in katamari, or would you not even find him successful.

Maybe the characters aren't even as important as the game itself and the main character is a secondary experience or bonus.. (FPS) but my argument here would be with the new DMC and how it's very annoying tagging along with the new Dante. So what opinions do you have?

That they were in a popular game.

Other than that they're usually relatable and powerful in some way but I'm sure people can come up with many exceptions.

A lot of the most successful game characters are not characters at all,
Gordon Freeman and Master Chief for example are blank slates for the player to project themselves into.
People might say they like Gordon Freeman but what they mean is they like themselves and the cool stuff that they did in the world of half-life

But as for real characters I think they always need to be
-relate-able, if they are too abstract to empathise with then they are not going to be very successful
-believable, the actions they take need to align with what rational and realistic characters would say or do, if a character starts going off and doing things that don't make any sense in the players mind then the sync is broken and it makes the character less likable.
This is why I'm really sick of FarCry 3 now, given the backstory of Jason Brody the things he does don't make sense, he outright dumps his girlfriend for no reason other than he wants to stay on a hostile island so he can kill people for sport.
If you are an ADD 13 year old, there may have been some synchronization with the character at that point, but given his backstory and what any rational human being would do, it made no bloody sense.
-interesting, if a character doesn't have unique quirks and manor-isms that make them fascinating then they are as good as the thousands of grey and boring faces that surround you and you wont engage with them.

I think with our medium there's an important distinction to be drawn between player characters and non-player characters.  NPCs are subject to many of the same criteria as film characters, but with PCs you have an intimate relationship between the player and the character that can take many forms depending on the game design.

This relationship is interesting, and tangental enough that it probably warrants its own topic (http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=31880.0)...

Mario
link
kirby

???

Mario, Link, Kirby. Aside from the obvious that they are all in successful games what else makes them similar.

Jackson31 brought in the point that we project ourselves into the some of the most popular game characters and this is no different. They don't seem to be much of a blank slate but each three don't really have a definite personality aside from what any typical hero has. All three are not the most talkative trio, somewhat limited color palette, and not sure what else aside from the extremely obvious like multiple games, nintendo, male and so on. 

Depth. Final Fantasy VII's Cloud / Sephiroth two characters that are still well regarded in the gaming world. The game story only helped to give them the depth needed, but they are individuals that people can relate to in one side or the other. Well rounded characters with development and history. A rich character with a little thought of how they got that way can develop a character to even begin with. (My own opinion anyways)

cloud and sephiroth are pretty shallow/boring as far as personalities go

Maybe cloud - but you can't deny Sephiroth's popularity, as a character he has cross gamed multiple times through Square and Square Enix, because of the popularity of FF7 and its characters it spawned 1 movie (unsuccessful because of bad marketing strategies) 2 games (Dirge of Cerberus (epic fail but many tried it cause of the link to FF7) & Crisis Core (only available on PSP, when a large portion of fans owned PS systems) The depth of Sephiroth through out the stories was the center. The character had story to him, even if you hate him it still makes him more well known. Thats a great character.

Sucessful character are just perfect "mask" that allow us to project into a "role" in world where this role make sense, aka they are affordance for actions and mood. Deep character is just a kind of these affordance, not the only one.

Sucessful character are simply good concept that foster relatedness. Generally they have key "hooks" that differentiate them and anchored the role affordance. Their form follows their function.

Contrast can help making the hook stand up, for example mario is the average everyday (plumber are hard worker, justify the presence of tube in the level and also are do-er, which is all the right affordance for the action) man saving the pretty princess from the dragon (normalcy/heroic contrast), a knight would have been more straightforward and less engaging.

Role must be meaningful, it does not mean they must not be nonsensical, the mario show that despite the odd match for a plumber, it still has the right hooks.

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? Link is known as a favorite and even he basically a peasant whom becomes a knight. I think the contrast idea is great and every little detail adds to the game but the point of this thread was to see what common traits our favorite heroes have and as obvious as it is to say they were in a successful game, maybe that is all it takes.

So a really common element in most "successful" game characters, which bothers me, is that they're antisocial.  The story is written to proceed as a sequence of successes, and the player-character is demonstrated to be self-reliant.  Interpersonal interactions are mostly undertaken as a matter of necessity, and those which aren't are framed as reward-based challenges.

I feel as though we might need a better metric of "success" than the quality or financial success of the respective game.  Mario is a successful character, but in the majority of Mario games he's about as interesting as a dog toy.

Well a way it could be based on preference as well as by mass appeal would be to just note one of your favorite characters as well as noting one thing they have in common with someone else favorite character. Hopefully a trend would start to emerge. Either way, so far what seems to be a common occurrence with the most popular (player) characters are their anti social behavior, extra ordinary abilities, shallow background(?) and design wise what I see with the big daddies of popular characters is a monochrome color that defines them.

@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.

Not necessarily true, games like Elder Scrolls other RPGs have special reward and/or experience gained from helping others, in fact its a major part of other games to explore the entire world and get to know it. Necessity to explore the entire world is only a personal decision. As for the Mario I gotta agree. He was a character that became an icon first and foremost. An icon that hailed to the generations of Console gaming. Now the icons have changed as generations grow up playing Halo 4 and such. Mario is iconic but he was never really developed.

Well sonic has plenty bad game and survive on character alone, and it is one of the stronger visually character of the bunch with a concept so unique it's hard to clone without stealing his identity.

While not a game, Hello kitty is pretty popular and is entirely base on this concept of "mask", see Sanrio theory of "social communication" and the Japanese concept of amae, sega itself is has said to use this concept for sonic.

There was a lot of excellent game that get ignored once the next good game was out because they didn't have such an identity.

What do successful characters have in common?
Success.

Now, once you define that term for yourself, then you can understand how to make a successful character.

For instance: If you intend for a character to be hated, annoying, easily forgettable, then would it be a success or not if they're unpopular?

Employing these mediocre, forgettable or annoying characters can act as a contrasting backdrop for your other characters and make them stand out even more.

However, even the most mundane of characters can become iconic.  "It's dangerous to go alone, here take this."

Please let me know if you discover the secret sauce for generating popularity by design.  I have a viral marketing strategy that would be killer, if only anyone knew how to consistently make videos popular...

Knowing what makes something popular and knowing how to make it popular is two different things. Popular girls tend to be pretty, but pretty girls are not necessarily popular.

Discussions like this one is what gave us all those awful cartoon animal mascots in the 90s.

It's also what give us the fundamental of art that are teached, the thing is to confuse principle with rules and formula. Find the principal, not the formula, and get informed by them when you create something personal, do not BLINDLY follow them. Rules of third didn't prevent great art to be made, nor it has removed freedom of expression of artist.

I agree with many posts here, and the desire to study and discover the secrets of success.  Just posting counter examples -- Bad Characters as a design choice, to manipulate player perception.

Additionally, trends seem to have a lot to do with success, as does install base.  Folks site Sonic the Hedgehog.  I put it to everyone that it's the gameplay and the fact that the game came with the console that are more a factor in Sonic's "success" than actual character design.  He could have been a primary colored chinchilla, and it would have made little difference.  Once enough young people experience something then age, a number of them develop nostalgia and wear rose colored glasses.  All I'm saying is: Take off the glasses if you want to see the characters, then examine them in context.

Funky Trademark laws also have a lot to do with the repetition of characters.  It cost more to mark a new character.  IMO, to dissect the success of characters discount the forced platform titles like Mario and Sonic -- They can still be analyzed, but are too clouded with other factors to be good indicators of how to design for success.

That is to say: Not all great character designs are measured as "success" among all people.  IMO, sonic is a failure.  I cared nothing for him, there was no character development or reason to give a damn about what the spinning and looping ball of blue on my screen actually was.  In the late 80's early 90's "dude with attitude" was a common trope -- A trend.  Would sonic have been an emotional character who cared deeply about the little woodland creatures that popped out of the bots he just busted, and shed sparkling tears of joy at their release he would have been unsuccessful at that time, but nowadays such a thing would be gobbled up by the masses.

Edit:
Think of Mario Bros.  The one with the pipes that shoot fireballs and you flip over the turtles.  Was it due to Good character design?  Or was Mario's appearance in Super Mario Bros. merely due to ease of maintaining a trademark, and essentially slowly forced down everyone's throat until they consider it a successful and popular character?  

I personally hated Super Mario Bros compared to the other games I got with my NES.  It was a crappy game that you couldn't go backwards in, and the characters were wholly forgettable.
SMB2 was much better, the characters had a style of their own.  SMB3 though has no difference between Mario and Luigi but color.  Great game for the worlds and gameplay, but failure on all fronts when it came to main character -- Peach and the Kupas had nice design.  I consider King Kupa & his kids the best character designs in the Mario series.  However, what if Nintendo had chosen some other property to push as their platform title?  Wouldn't the old Mario and Luigi still be forgettable characters that no one talks about if they had only appeared in the original Mario Bros?  Are they really great character designs or was it the surroundings and repetition (a key marketing mechanic) that made Mario popular?

TL;DR: Many shitty characters are quite successful.  Meh.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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.