Vulnerability - The sign of a good character?

Recommended Videos

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Aiddon said:
most game characters, in all honesty, lack true vulnerability and it's hurting game writing. The reason most writers do that is because they know they have to ego-stroke the players and pander to their wish-fulfillment. It's why I'll never consider player avatars or silent protagonists to be good characters or characters at all. Even characters that AREN'T just player Sues tend to only be liked due to their shallowest of qualities (i.e. because they're "badass") instead of because they're complex, troubled individuals who go through adversity of many kinds and become more complete for it. Until game writers start doing that and stop ego-stroking the players (the West is ESPECIALLY guilty of all of the above) will game writing actually graduate to being on the same level as film, literature, or television.
I very much agree to this. Sure they might have daddy issues or a lost family or something, but it never seems to affect their ability to carry on and kick ass. I think the most vulnerable I've ever felt playing a game is Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Daniel is truly affected by the things he sees and hears, and he can literally become so scared he faints for a moment. Hell, the entire premise of the game is based on a huge show of vulnerability: He erased his memory because he was so disgusted with himself about the things he'd done and too scared of the shadow to carry on.

Had it been any other video game, he would have just kept going and found the strength to carry on out of his sheer, natural badassery. He would have kept fighting to achieve "redemption" or something, but instead he gave himself amnesia just to prevent himself from going mad with guilt and fear. That makes a pretty compelling and believable character, in my opinion.

It would be very interesting for more developers to explore the idea of a character's fears and vulnerabilities affecting the story like that. I understand it's hard to get it to affect the gameplay, but at the very least give them some legitimate insecurities to overcome, apart from the generic "My parents are dead" or "My partner is dead" or "My child is dead" or all that drivel. It's not tragedy and loss that define a person's character--it's how they react to that tragedy and loss.

In other news, everyone here seems to be going on about "vulnerable" characters and how they can be flat or uncompelling or whatever. Well, saying a character is "vulnerable" is like saying they're "happy" or "stubborn" or "loud." Sure those are traits, however if they're well-written those are naturally not going to be the only traits they have. I think it's safe to say if we're talking about "good" characters, we're talking about well-rounded ones. And in that context, a "good" character with vulnerability would have it so the vulnerability is only a facet of them. Sure Daniel was quite vulnerable, but in his letters he was also curious, guilty, angry, and even went a bit mad for a while. He was extremely bitterly vindictive when he learned he was deceived. And yet, he was still vulnerable as he needed to erase his memory to put that aside and carry on.

So no, vulnerability isn't the "only" trait needed to make a good character. Like any other trait it's one of many that should be used in varying degrees according to what is necessary for the individual character. However, I personally would argue at least a bit of vulnerability in some shape or form is necessary for a truly great character. Of course not every character should be easily pegged as "vulnerable" when asked to describe them, however just enough to make them rounded and add an accent to their character should be revealed somewhere along the line. Even the great Kamina from the show Gurren Lagann had a few moments of vulnerability, and if Kamina isn't badass I don't know who is. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrYTkWhOMaQ]