This is in response to Fenstermaker's open question.
There are a few things wrapped up in my opinion of an engrossing character. While most of this falls under the description of 'seemed like a real person,' I think that's a little vague to get any mileage out of somebody responding with that.
I don't really think interesting traits and repetitive quirks provide any sort of positive or thoughtful response from me; if characters (companions) are meant to provide a sensible mirror of the player character's actions or a window into the culture of the world they inhabit, the mere fact that they have unnatural traits isn't the point. In fact, I'd say some of the characters I've had the most personal attachment to haven't been anyone out of the ordinary. Some of the characters which I remember years later have become memorable from a few simple series of dialogues or actions. A youtube videogame critic named MrBtongue stated in one of his videos that he remembers Chief Hanlon's "cool story" dialogue quite fondly because the dialogue had no relation to gameplay and had nothing to do with anything in the game except from a perspective of the character in question.
I also fondly remember this dialogue, along with Joshua Graham's recitations and Arcade Gannon's deadpan jokes. I hope none of this is merely due to Josh's writing style and more to the reasons of why the dialogue exists.
The reason I'm not going to call these certain examples realistic characters is because realism to me means something more acted than written. A lot of people responded positively to Vaas in Far Cry 3 because he was professionally acted out ab lib, giving him a lot of detail that isn't given to characters who are written and then voice acted later. Written characters in videogames and books have lots of definitive statements, they always have a logic behind their statements, and they don't make the many mistakes people do in conversations every day. This isn't fun to listen to, prohibitively costly for tons of extra useless voice acting lines, and not worth the effort.
But what makes those previous FNV characters I mentioned so great was because, while they did not necessarily act like a real person, they were written in a way that produced investment in their lives from the player. There is a missing set of dialogue in Mass Effect 3 at the end of the game between the main character and something of a companion, Captain Anderson. It can be reintroduced back into the game by messing with a single file. This missing dialogue introduces some of the most captivating dialogue present in the Mass Effect series for a character very well known by that point. Anderson drops just a few lines about what he's never done in his life and then two to Shepard about family. This simple conversation underscores the entire point the story was going for, and is an example of some of the few moments of a very human conversation in the entire series.
What makes a great character or companion? Write them like they actually care about their lives. They say random things that interest them, and it's up to the PC to respond positively or dismiss it as pointless BS. They withhold information that they don't feel comfortable sharing not because the game needs to keep some ideas under the table, but because people everyday feel uncomfortable about sharing any number of things. Don't give them a backstory, give them the perception of their own backstory, and all the inhibitions and courage that that would give a real person.
Also I've never really played any old RPGs so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about.
This is in response to Fenstermaker's open question. There are a few things wrapped up in my opinion of an engrossing character. While most of this falls under the description of 'seemed like a real person,' I think that's a little vague to get any mileage out of somebody responding with that. I don't really think interesting traits and repetitive quirks provide any sort of positive or thoughtful response from me; if characters (companions) are meant to provide a sensible mirror of the player character's actions or a window into the culture of the world they inhabit, the mere fact that they have unnatural traits isn't the point. In fact, I'd say some of the characters I've had the most personal attachment to haven't been anyone out of the ordinary. Some of the characters which I remember years later have become memorable from a few simple series of dialogues or actions. A youtube videogame critic named MrBtongue stated in one of his videos that he remembers Chief Hanlon's "cool story" dialogue quite fondly because the dialogue had no relation to gameplay and had nothing to do with anything in the game except from a perspective of the character in question. I also fondly remember this dialogue, along with Joshua Graham's recitations and Arcade Gannon's deadpan jokes. I hope none of this is merely due to Josh's writing style and more to the reasons of why the dialogue exists. The reason I'm not going to call these certain examples realistic characters is because realism to me means something more acted than written. A lot of people responded positively to Vaas in Far Cry 3 because he was professionally acted out ab lib, giving him a lot of detail that isn't given to characters who are written and then voice acted later. Written characters in videogames and books have lots of definitive statements, they always have a logic behind their statements, and they don't make the many mistakes people do in conversations every day. This isn't fun to listen to, prohibitively costly for tons of extra useless voice acting lines, and not worth the effort. But what makes those previous FNV characters I mentioned so great was because, while they did not necessarily act like a real person, they were written in a way that produced investment in their lives from the player. There is a missing set of dialogue in Mass Effect 3 at the end of the game between the main character and something of a companion, Captain Anderson. It can be reintroduced back into the game by messing with a single file. This missing dialogue introduces some of the most captivating dialogue present in the Mass Effect series for a character very well known by that point. Anderson drops just a few lines about what he's never done in his life and then two to Shepard about family. This simple conversation underscores the entire point the story was going for, and is an example of some of the few moments of a very human conversation in the entire series. What makes a great character or companion? Write them like they actually care about their lives. They say random things that interest them, and it's up to the PC to respond positively or dismiss it as pointless BS. They withhold information that they don't feel comfortable sharing not because the game needs to keep some ideas under the table, but because people everyday feel uncomfortable about sharing any number of things. Don't give them a backstory, give them the perception of their own backstory, and all the inhibitions and courage that that would give a real person. Also I've never really played any old RPGs so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about.
