Does a Protagonist have to be likable?

[The Afrodactyl]

Not from a game, but Sergeant Kage from the Warhammer 40,000 series "The Last Chancers" is a complete asshole.

 

[skips]

Neil Howie in the original Wicker Man is probably the least likable character in the whole film.

 

[manythings]

Name a truly evil character you can view positively?

That's what I'm talking about though... someone you aren't supposed to view positively. You're supposed to be shocked and appalled by their actions. I don't know about you, but when I play as a good guy, I usually get sick of their do-goodery. It gets sickly sweet and pisses me off, in the end I'm hoping they get offed (which is what happened in Harry Potter and Eragon).

The exact opposite is something I'd hope would happen in a series where the character is the bad guy. You'd start off seeing nothing but a sadistic prick, doing pricky things. By the end of the game/movie/book, you'll be wanting to see what they're going to do next, wether out of a newfound sadism or simply to find out what the fuck they'll do next.

I'm getting a clearer idea of what you mean but, to use a pretty good analogy, a villain doesn't wake up in an evil bed, put on an evil robe, go down an evil staircase to sit at an evil table to eat an evil breakfast while reading "Today in Evil" the magazine which he recieved from the evil paperboy who has his evil address on his evil list of evil subscriptions.

A plain evil guy is just as uninteresting as a plain good guy unless he is only seen every now and again doing his evil thing.

 

[manythings]

It doesn't matter who the protagonist is; whether good or evil wins; how likeable characters are so long as whatever it is (books, games etc.) is enjoyable.

Also, isn't it interesting that 'the good guy/girl' always wins, but often the slightly less good guys/girls die in droves? Killing the main character is some kind of taboo seemingly, but the less important (yet usually more likeable) characters are fair game, and actually create a great emotional response by dying.

The hero is the person you are meant to be most invested in with regard to the story, if the person you are meant to be rooting for the most is killed then it just seems kind of cheap like a jump scare. Add to that you now have to create a new hero for the viewer/reader to follow and they'll spend the rest of the book looking for the death of this character.

Killing them halfway through is a bit silly (though I've seen it done fairly well; can't remember exactly where) but at the end? It doesn't matter if they die, but they still rarely do.
Sometimes it would help the story if the final battle killed them. Sometimes it would make more sense.

See I've never really gotten that rationale. "If he dies it's more REAL" is about as valid as "Dark and Gritty makes for a better story". There are easily as many situations where a guy can't die as there are ones where he will die. It's overused that the hero triumphs overall but just killing a guy because it's "realler" is just a gimmick. A damn cynical one too.

 

[klakkat]

A protagonist doesn't have to be GOOD, but he does have to be likable. Perhaps not someone you want to meet (again, Kratos is a good example there) but they have to be relateable in some way, and be interesting enough to carry the story. One thing game writers need to keep in mind is that the protagonist gets the most screen time, so if they're uninteresting or annoying, then the entire game will be too.

But why do they have to be relatable? Cell is a popular DBZ character, but I doubt anyone can really relate to him. As stated above, Darth Maul is very popular, but again who can relate to the Sith lord? People seem to like them because they're mysterious and interesting, not necessarily relatable.

Neither Darth Maul nor Cell are protagonists; neither one is interesting enough to be the primary character in the story; I suspect that if they tried it would be received poorly, and their popularity would sink. They are good examples of popular secondary characters and popular villains, but that's it.

Weird, I always want the bad guys to win. It's usually the perfect goody-two-shoes who gets on my nerves.

Remember that "good guy" is not always synonymous with "protagonist." What makes a character likable and relatable varies depending on the observer. If the antagonist has more qualities that you admire than the protagonist, then it is somewhat natural to root for the antagonist.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Neither Darth Maul nor Cell are protagonists; neither one is interesting enough to be the primary character in the story; I suspect that if they tried it would be received poorly, and their popularity would sink. They are good examples of popular secondary characters and popular villains, but that's it.

Okay, so there's not that much you could do with Cell (as we pretty much know him right from creation and his motives). But I think it'd be pretty easy to see game or book following Darth Maul, or at least the rise of.

I suppose Frieza is a better example than Cell. He has a whole backstory to flesh out, he's annoying, cowardly, arrogant and (at least to me) pretty unlikable as a person. However, there are motives to things he does (also the build up to those motives), such as profit and even fear. Would it not be interesting to see that developed on? We might see him as simply being an ass because he can, but there could be a more complex story behind him that tells us otherwise.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Nope. There are also the protagonists that can actually be flat-out obnoxious, although they should get better by the end of the film if they don't want people to throw things at the screen.

 

[Romidude]

I haven't played God Of War but isn't Kratos an evil hate-ridden fuck?

 

[Kooler]

Well I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about, but I would say that Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye was THE most unlikable character I've ever come across. As a result I hated that book.

 

[Chefodeath]

Likeable no, compelling yes. We don't like stories about two dimensional bad guys not because we just find ourselves unable to relate to them, but because they're just really boring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTkQ2mnn-ZE&feature=related

Watch how a blatently and for no reason evil character like the Emperor does when introduced to some real life situations. His character is completely unable to exist out of its little Star Wars box, providing humorous absurdity as he tries to find a job. Does it make a funny 4 minute video clip? Sure. Would it make a good full season sitcom? no.

I think a good example of an unrepetently bad character who still makes a good protagonist is Cartman from South Park. His reasons are always unfailingly shallow and selfish, but he still has those reasons. He isn't evil just for the sake of being evil.

The thing is we need to be able to relate to our protagonists, and being able to relate to them usually leads to liking them, even when they are complete assholes.

 

[Nayr]

could look at it like this. Emil from tales of symphonia 2 was one of those whiney "good" characters and he was the worst character I have ever seen, let alone he was the main character. Kratos is a great character from the first one and would have been a way better lead than Emil even though Kratos is kind of cold. Having those kind of characters in their own spin offs would be great because then you could learn more about them.

 

[Blobpie]

No, if the protagonist is unlikeable it can add depth.

Or the protagonist could be an anti-hero