Malevolent

As other people have said, I think that this is entirely a matter of opinion. Several of my favorite characters of all time are prone to polarization in terms of fans' opinion on them. Jack, from ME2, I personally loved. I have a strong affinity toward empowered, badass bitches that don't take nothing from no one. Yet she is one of the most reviled characters of Mass Effect 2, between her hostile personality and appearance. I also love Reaver from Fable 2 (not so much Fable 3, he was too much for me). Also an incredibly despised character. Not only is he a hedonist in every sense of the word, but he's a turncoat and a coward. Some players loathe him not only for his personality, but for the fact that he gets away with treachery. I've encountered a few who felt their character was "depowered" or "made helpless" by the fact that Reaver was able to betray/outsmart them in the Fable 2 narrative twice, and there was nothing they could do about it. To me, that's a sign of good writing. Having characters that divide people, because it means you've done a good enough job to merit a strong reaction. Even if a character is despised by the bulk of the community, that means you've succeeded in your job to elicit a response. It's the characters that are forgettable and don't leave a strong reaction in the slightest that tend to be the "bad" characters. I guess the only other "oopsy" besides a bland character is a character than invokes the opposite of what it was intended to. If a character is SUPPOSED to be likeable and held in high regard by the majority of the population, but then comes across as an annoying bastard you want to space/shove down a mining shaft... well. I guess you could write that off as a nominal, unintended success? But that's just my two cents.

Romances are a touchy area for me. To be entirely honest, I tend to enjoy them, but half of the nerdy pleasure I derive has to do with what non-romanceables lack. In general, characters that aren't being romanced have fewer dialogues, and aren't explored to the same depth. While you may become familiar with their backstory and their personality, the greatest degree of reactivity is found in romanceables. They'll react to more stimuli and be more aware of your comings and goings. You influence them to a greater degree, and they feel the most grounded in the world. If we had characters that had as much of their backstory explored, as much of their personality revealed, as much of their opinion to a current event shown... I think my like of romances would dwindle. It would still be present because it's an interesting angle to explore in roleplaying, but honestly, I have a strong love of bromance. Having a character in game who you can not only become friends with, but very good friends, would be amazing. Someone whose dialogue you can play off of, someone who you know will be there for you, even if you choose not to romance them, that would be something else. Sure, we had characters like Imoen and Mission, but they never hit the bromance mark. Both felt more like a kid-sister you constantly had to rescue from danger (Imoen especially). She felt more like someone who leaned on you for everything. You were her rock, but when it came time, it never seemed like she was yours. I'd also like to see a sort of rivalry bromance or relationship develop. Someone who respects the hell out of you, but might not necessarily like you. Maybe someone you can have a battle of wits with? I usually find that opposing characters are some of my favorite, and a personal and interesting relationship with an adversary, or grudging ally could be an interesting route to explore. Which is another thing that I've noticed. Aside from romance being the preferred/only method to become thoroughly acquainted with a character, friendship is the other. Can a character not express themselves in detail while disagreeing with us? Granted, generally one is more inclined to talk with someone they're friendly with, but given their presence in the party, I generally assume they aren't completely vitriolic in their feelings for the PC. And disagreeing with you can consist of more than just whining or saying "no". That being said, if bromances or rivalmances or sibling-like relationships were implemented, I would be a happy camper. Romances are all well and good and something I'd still explore with characters for whom it makes sense, but they wouldn't be the only way to sate player curiosity.

I'm a big fan of the no-voice acting approach, especially where an RPG is concerned. Overall, I understand the gaming industry's desire to move toward a voiced player character--the current desired execution is becoming more and more cinematic. Having a main character that isn't voiced breaks immersion when everyone around them speaks. But for an RPG, it is extremely limiting. I've made characters who don't fit their voice, appearance wise. Looking at them and hearing their voice actor speak is jarring. Then there's the role playing aspect of it. A voice actor's read of a line confines you significantly. We'll say that there are three different general responses to a statement, as tends to be common in the gaming industry, and especially Bioware. When the character is unvoiced, I can imagine my character's voice saying it however I want. If someone my character knew just died, I can respond with "I'm fine." They can sound sarcastic, apathetic, on the verge of tears, outraged, or distant. The voiced approach, while more immersive in some regards, doesn't provide the same breadth in way of customization.