Vulnerability - The sign of a good character?

[Pink Gregory]

Just thought this might make an innaresting discussion point.

When we're presented with a character, be it player character or NPC, we often notice that they aren't particularly well fleshed-out, or only serve a certain purpose; and I guess in a videogame, that's fine, but is still the lowest common denominator.

But focusing on one particular aspect (in this discussion)- vulnerability - which many I've seen seem to lack; how do you feel the presence of a weakness, or just a display of a vulnerability: fear, insecurity, panic etc. contributes to a character?

Not sure 'blank slate' style PCs really apply to this, thinking about it, although perhaps there's something to be said about a well fleshed-out PC not being possible purely in game in, say, a Bethesda game.

 

[veloper]

Not really. Damsels in distress have plenty of vulnerability to go around, but such characters rarely more than cardboard cut-outs.

A good character is a rounded character with many aspects.

 

[Vegosiux]

The moment you focus on one particular trait too much, the character is going to look rather one-dimensional. Writers have this obnoxious habit to go into lots and lots of drama on a character's weakness, crisis, and so on, as well, and that doesn't help. I suppose it's an attempt to make them look "deep", but if you go too deep, well, you've again only taken the jouney downwards in one dimension...

 

[Pink Gregory]

I don't mean that the entire scope of a character being vulnerable makes a good character; the focusing part I mean in the discussion, not for the character, I'll just tidy that up a tad.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

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.

 

[dyre]

It's not a bad thing to have, but it's just one of many traits that can add to a good character if used properly and in moderation. It also doesn't fit in every character either, some people just spend less time worrying about their insecurity than others.

I guess I'd lump vulnerability with any number of other character traits (ambition, courage, bias, naivete, etc)...just one of many colors on the palette for crafting an interesting character.

 

[Vern5]

You're right. A well rounded, believable character has both strengths and weaknesses that define their personality, their decisions, their morality, etc.

The moment you focus on one particular trait too much, the character is going to look rather one-dimensional. Writers have this obnoxious habit to go into lots and lots of drama on a character's weakness, crisis, and so on, as well, and that doesn't help. I suppose it's an attempt to make them look "deep", but if you go too deep, well, you've again only taken the jouney downwards in one dimension...

Vego is correct as well. A strong character has weaknesses but is not defined by them. And while focusing on a character's weaknesses can generate sympathy, sometimes we don't want to be pitying that character. It's all about balancing.

Personally, I don't like characters who are vulnerable to panic even if they are competent once they get over it. A decent weakness is a vice that the character can't shake or an obscure phobia that he desperately tries to hide from the world. In fact, is is probably more interesting to look at how a character fights their fears rather than how those fears prey upon them.

 

[Terminate421]

It depends.

Take Dead Space, Isaac is a great character. You can understand that he's an engineer in shock over his dead girl friend and has enough experience to defend himself after the USG Ishimura.

 

[alphamalet]

Vulnerability is a sign of a good character? Try selling that idea to Anita Sarkeesian.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Vulnerability is a sign of a good character? Try selling that idea to Anita Sarkeesian.

Well there's a difference between having vulnerabilities and being only vulnerable with no other qualities.

 

[TrevHead]

Vulnerabilities in characters can be a good thing, but as already been said some devs dwell on it too much. FF13 has gotta be the worst example I've played, where every single character had their own problems they had to overcome, I never finished it but I suspect that at the end of the game there's an announcer saying "Now then kid's the moral of the story is don't talk to strangers"

 

[jamesworkshop]

Well it depends on what you do with it, a weakness can be used for different purposes, the weakness of Alcatraz in crysis 2 the second the nanosuit fails, which happens a few times lends a tragic edge to the character, the power fantasy breaks down making you as weak as a kitten after having spent half the game kicking cars and going invisible at will.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It's pretty formulaic and cliche to have characters defined by a weakness. It's like, you could either have a complex enigmatic character or a character who is memorable and distinctive because he is incontinent.

The is one major area though where all characters must be largely defined be vulnerability and weakness or it just does not work. And that is the Horror genre. No horror game can really work as horror with a protagonist who can dodge bullets, is a perfect shot and is generally unstoppable.

 

[The Madman]

It can't be their main defining attribute or it can be frustrating, but having some sense of vulnerability or even just basic humanity is essential towards creating a well-rounded character. We're human after all, even the toughest of us has some weakness, some breaking point where they just sit down and say "I'm done, I've had enough!". We can all sypathize with that, we can all understand it.

The trick is in doing it well and making it believable, since when done badly it just tends to results in a character that comes off as whiny or unlikable. Example: Squall from Final Fantasy. What an ass.

Do wish more rpg allowed me to play my character with some sense of vulnerability. My favourite parts in games like Mass Effect are often those moments where I get to play my character, Shepard in this example, just bowing under the perceived weight of their responsibility. Wish more games would allow me to flesh out my character that way. It fleshes out companions as well as you get to see their reaction as well. Just good storytelling!

 

[Ron Alphafight]

Vulnerability is one aspect of a good character. It can't be what defines them, unless the story is about how they overcome it. And even then it takes good writing to make them likable.

But as Tizzy said a character with no flaws is boring and one dimensional. I don't think I've heard anyone say how deep and fleshed out a character Duke Nukem is. Every person alive has a flaw or vulnerability, so characters without any are not relatable. Even superheroes have a vulnerability. It humanizes them.

Games have definitely made progress with creating good characters though.

 

[Confidingtripod]

games have trouble writing vulnerability because of the gameplay, its hypocritical to have a character in a moment of weakness curbstomp through another dozen guys to get to the next plot point where their sad, but a player will get frustrated if forced to play as a character who is in a sensitive state.

my advice: switch controll point or make it tha you have o fight a perticularly tough enemy indirectly/run from it, reinforces the feeling of weakness in the play without frustrating the player

 

[Something Amyss]

Good characters are nuanced. Vulnerable characters can be as flat as a sheet of paper and just as thin.

Vunerability is often used as a defining trait, and it's going beyond those traits that makes a character have any real strength or depth. It can be an element of a good character, but it is not the sign of one.

Of course, the problem here is that most people seem to want player avatars, shallow, one note characters they can imprint themselves upon and enjoy badass fantasy.

This is kind of a big deal, as often the game part of a video game doesn't mesh with the idea of a fleshed out character.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I don't think it's a rule. I'd say the original Conan was a good character(although everyone who tries to write stuff for him now suck and steryotypes him.)

He was strong, charismatic and very clever in a cunning uneducated way. He never showed weakness, never backed down and I could totally see him hanging out with me throwing back beers when you read his dialougue.

 

[Rawne1980]

In RPG's it can work.

If it is well written and not "hey folks, i'm all vulnerable and I may cry any minute now" every 5 minutes.

Reason I say RPG's is because we like to have fleshed out characters with a bit of personality.

But keep it the fuck away from my action games. The last thing I want to playing is Captain Killsalotforthesakeofit stopping his spree of homicidal glee to pick a flower and dwell on how upset he is being a walking muscle with ears.

I don't care if my action characters have any personality, i'm playing them to kill shit not get emotionally involved.