Characters from games that you HATE and don't whanna see in PE (or even be inspired)

[moridin84]

Isabela huh? Hmm, isn't that double standard though? If she was a guy then she'd be considered a 'casanova' (e.g. James Bond). 

 

I mean, if you don't like her personality or something it would be different. 

Edited February 2, 2013 by moridin84

[Barothmuk]

Isabela huh? Hmm, isn't that double standard though? If she was a guy then she'd be considered a 'casanova' (e.g. James Bond). 

 

I mean, if you don't like her personality or something it would be different. 

Well from what I gathered from the post it wasn't the promiscuity that was the issue. Rather it was the fact that her promiscuity pretty much defined her whole character.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Elanee (NWN2) would have been great as a creepy stalker, I think her possessiveness should have been played up, I didn't want to be hit over the head with it, but I think it could have been introduced in subtle ways. e.g. She really sides with everything the PC does at first, to an uncomfortable extent. Then she tries to isolate you from your other party members. Then she starts being abusive if you stray or side with other party members.

 

Bishop (NWN2) was offensively bad as a character, and I don't mean his alignment. I don't think he could get any more corny even if he always ended sentences with "muhahahaha" and tied damsels to rail road tracks. He always struck me more as an angsty teenager in dialogue, just saying random "evil" things while in a party of do gooders slaying evil things, it never really made sense.

 

I absolutely hate goofy side kicks, the worst examples of this are probably Grobnar (NWN2) and Kang (Jade Empire). Khelgar (NWN2) and Alistair (DA:O) sometimes verge on this.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

While it's a broad range, I don't want my character to be forced to associate with characters who oppose everything s/he stands for. Like my Lawful Good-ish Paladin working with selfish criminals. One of the most ridiculous aspects of DAII was who a group comprised of people who should logically be trying to kill each other work together, and are virtually forced to: eg. if Anders (fanatical pro-mage) loses control and murders the girl in his Act 2 Quest, Fenris (fanatical anti-mage, on grounds of seeing mages as corrupt and uncontrollable), Aveline (Captain of the freaking Guard) just stand there, and maybe make a few snarky comments. If we're going to have companions with wildly verging loyalties and moralities (which I expect and hope we will), allow us to respond as our characters might logically respond.

[LuccA]

As it was already said by some, the fact that a character is annoying and you wanna "shoot him in the head etc.etc." doesn't mean he or she is a bad character.

Of course this hole topic is very personal, but, by reading it, as well as other topics about NPCs and companions, it may be possible to think of one element that seem to anger most of the cRPGs fans:

Stereothypes. Why are they that bad?

It's hard not to fall in stereothypes even in real life, when you meet someone who belongs to a specific culture, is from a specific country or works in a specific area, as exemples. The fact, in my opinion, that makes a character poor is not if he represents a stereothype, wich most of NPCs will do, but if he can be entirely described by one.

 

As if you come up with an idea for a character ("a rich noble girl who claims to sensitize with the poor, and needs to help them") and, once you had that idea, every dialog, every action she makes must follow up that first idea of the character ("so, during a battle for her life, against a beholder, she would definitly shouts 'For the poor!!!' in the middle of a dungeon"). If every character should have to follow up a predetermined concept, than they would never surprise you, they would never change and so on.

For me, this is a poor character, one who you know everything about at the very first moment you meet him/her.

 

In the other hand, characters must have their personalities, their beliefs and opinions. And those would, of course, influence their actions. But the extension of that personality is so poor in some NPCs, that it can be resumed by only one phrase. The NPC becomes a plane thing, while every person in the world have more than one facet, and can suprise you, even with a story about something you woudn't know he/she likes.

 

And about annoying characters, most of them are the coolest ones. Anomen is a jerk. Who doesn't know one, or have a friend who is? Would you shoot your friend in the head and blabla...? Also, when a character feels a need to feed his ego that way, it's intriguing. I, at least, want to know him better, his motivations, his past etc. For me, that's what makes Jaheira a very good character too, she can surprise you, you can feel she is in conflict with herself, she changes. Also all the characters from PS:T as well. I haven't played Dragon Age, NWN or KotOR, wich seems to be leaders of NPCs complains. But I've played BG2 and PS:T, and there isn't much to complain about the characters from those games, or much to worry about P:E characters too.

Edited February 3, 2013 by LuccA

[moridin84]

Elanee (NWN2) would have been great as a creepy stalker, I think her possessiveness should have been played up, I didn't want to be hit over the head with it, but I think it could have been introduced in subtle ways. e.g. She really sides with everything the PC does at first, to an uncomfortable extent. Then she tries to isolate you from your other party members. Then she starts being abusive if you stray or side with other party members.

 

That is an amazing and unique way of looking at her character.

[PoisonWar]

As it was already said by some, the fact that a character is annoying and you wanna "shoot him in the head etc.etc." doesn't mean he or she is a bad character. Of course this hole topic is very personal, but, by reading it, as well as other topics about NPCs and companions, it may be possible to think of one element that seem to anger most of the cRPGs fans: Stereothypes. Why are they that bad? It's hard not to fall in stereothypes even in real life, when you meet someone who belongs to a specific culture, is from a specific country or works in a specific area, as exemples. The fact, in my opinion, that makes a character poor is not if he represents a stereothype, wich most of NPCs will do, but if he can be entirely described by one. As if you come up with an idea for a character ("a rich noble girl who claims to sensitize with the poor, and needs to help them") and, once you had that idea, every dialog, every action she makes must follow up that first idea of the character ("so, during a battle for her life, against a beholder, she would definitly shouts 'For the poor!!!' in the middle of a dungeon"). If every character should have to follow up a predetermined concept, than they would never surprise you, they would never change and so on. For me, this is a poor character, one who you know everything about at the very first moment you meet him/her. In the other hand, characters must have their personalities, their beliefs and opinions. And those would, of course, influence their actions. But the extension of that personality is so poor in some NPCs, that it can be resumed by only one phrase. The NPC becomes a plane thing, while every person in the world have more than one facet, and can suprise you, even with a story about something you woudn't know he/she likes. And about annoying characters, most of them are the coolest ones. Anomen is a jerk. Who doesn't know one, or have a friend who is? Would you shoot your friend in the head and blabla...? Also, when a character feels a need to feed his ego that way, it's intriguing. I, at least, want to know him better, his motivations, his past etc. For me, that's what makes Jaheira a very good character too, she can surprise you, you can feel she is in conflict with herself, she changes. Also all the characters from PS:T as well. I haven't played Dragon Age, NWN or KotOR, wich seems to be leaders of NPCs complains. But I've played BG2 and PS:T, and there isn't much to complain about the characters from those games, or much to worry about P:E characters too.

 

Very well said, as for dragon age, I really recomend you play the first one + expansion if you enjoyed Baldur's Gate.

And I agree, characters should be affected and changed by/during the journey, even if it's a little bit, not all of us would be moved the same way by an event after all.

But it's this change that helps characters have a compelling character arc, and in the end makes them good characters. Back to dragon age, the origin stories help your

own PC have a character arc, in a significant way.

[AwesomeOcelot]

I'm not a fan of the usual character progression, I don't think people change, I think situations do, people learn and adapt, so the character arc is more about the situational changes than the character. I also don't think that these changes are of the incremental kind.

 

LuccA is completely right about stereotypes not being a problem, but writers stereotyping characters in a way that makes them one dimensional is a big problem.

 

Fallout: New Vegas was pretty excellent with the companions and NPCs so I'm not really worrying about the companions or NPCs all that much. It's telling that Dragon Age, NWN or KotOR franchises have these problems, I suggest that Obsidian left to their own devices don't have this problem.

[drake heath]

I want characters I hate (in-universe wise) in the game if they're well written.

 

I usually hate badly written characters in a different way; in that I hate their writing because it's bad.

 

One such badly written character is some kind of "designated bro" character.

 

You know, one character that apparently I'm suppose to like, care about, and the game apparently thinks I like, and I have no option to tell them I hate them and everything they stand for.

Like Garrus from ME2 and 3, he was so annoying and the game forced Shepard to be his best friend when I hated him.

Edited February 4, 2013 by drake heath

[Alexjh]

I want characters I hate (in-universe wise) in the game if they're well written.

 

I usually hate badly written characters in a different way; in that I hate their writing because it's bad.

 

One such badly written character is some kind of "designated bro" character.

 

You know, one character that apparently I'm suppose to like, care about, and the game apparently thinks I like, and I have no option to tell them I hate them and everything they stand for.

 

Like Garrus from ME2 and 3, he was so annoying and the game forced Shepard to be his best friend when I hated him.

The issue is to some degree, gameplay requires such a character, there is a reason that most western RPGs have avfairly neutral first character to join your cause; they need to have you with someone on your team who will be able to stick with you until you gather more of your team so have to play well with all PCs.  Hence Atton, Alistair, Aveline, Elgar, Kaiden, Carth and so on.  Their function is partially to keep the player alive until the plot is more in full swing.

[Gyges]

I always wonder why i never get stoic giants like Sten in my rpg parties, they always feel more reliable than the witty rogue, self righteous knight or arrogant mage.

[Amentep]

No you're right in that they tried to make Neeshka funny. However, female characters are very rarely intended to provide comic relief, which is often the one thing that makes male archetype characters bearable (Korgan, Minsc and Jan, just citing BG2 examples)

 

Okay, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here anymore. But I thought Neeshka was funny (which is why I usually took her along in NWN2...)

[sesobebo]

being hateable is a valid characteristic. being forgettable is not.

[Kore]

So in conclusion people don't like characters who tell them what to do...  

 

Hell no. I loved Jaheria! She can boss me around all day

[Chippy]

HATED Sten in DA:O.  Thought he might have been inspired by T'ealc in Stargate, but after 10 mins realised he was inspired by that bout of acne most go through as teenagers.

 

Slightly off topic, but Zevran (who was ok) being voiced by that voice actor, and having him do the voices for everyone throughout the first 4 Assassins Creed games has just put me off any further character voiced by that guy.  He really wasn't that diverse.

[Longknife]

So in conclusion people don't like characters who tell them what to do...  

 

 

Oh dear god....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A_mFu0hWgg

[ddillon]

Virgil

[Fluffboll]

Please no character like Bishop from NWN2. From the moment he spoke his first line I knew he were going to betray me and that he were an arrogant **** with no redeeming qualities didn't make things better. The worst part of NWN2 was when you were forced to take that babbling idiot with you, he is the reason I have never managed to replay that game. As soon as I get to that part I sigh and quit the game and don't restart it again until I forget just how much that character sucks.

I generally dislike obvious characters but when they on top of that have nothing going for them either I just hate them.

[Chippy]

Please no character like Bishop from NWN2. From the moment he spoke his first line I knew he were going to betray me and that he were an arrogant **** with no redeeming qualities didn't make things better. The worst part of NWN2 was when you were forced to take that babbling idiot with you, he is the reason I have never managed to replay that game. As soon as I get to that part I sigh and quit the game and don't restart it again until I forget just how much that character sucks.

I generally dislike obvious characters but when they on top of that have nothing going for them either I just hate them.

 

Agree with that and see Bishop as one of the few characters I loved to hate.  He then became a pretty unique party member for me because if only the **** has the skills to do the job, killing the bastard doesn't get the job done.  I expect Wasteland 2 to go down that route as well, which then opens into the discussion of making party members more like real life relationships - but that's another topic.  Leaving Bishop dying on the ground was cool though.

 

Just to clarify I used a 7 letter swear word that became a 4 letter set of stars.  I'd wouldn't use that particular word on a forum.  Well maybe I would if describing Bishop, but didn't here.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Chippy

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Dark, brooding, pretentiously-reluctant heroes who thinnly veils their heart of gold with a gruff exterior. In short, nearly every ranger ever role-played. Bishop of NWN2 is a notable exception, but barely. He had all the trappings of the cliche, but was rotten and evil to the core instead of hesitantly righteous.

 

It's difficult for me to believe so many people dislike Grobnar Gnomehands. If he had been a useful class, he'd be one of my all time favorite NPCs.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Seven Devils Clever]

Really, what I'm getting out of this thread is simply the old adage; you can't make all the people happy all the time.  There are characters listed here that I deeply loved having in my parties that other people loathe with every fiber of their being.  Ok, fair enough.  Everyone is different.

 

So really, what it ultimately seems we're going to need is:

 

- No 'required' characters.  Don't force an NPC into my party for any reason (other than say, personal-story quests where they'd obviously be required, and which are also optional); especially not an NPC you can never get rid of no matter what you do.

 

- Optional party configuration.  You can have just your character, or any selection of other characters you choose.

 

This way, no matter what annoying NPC's are in the game you can simply ignore them and move on with your life.  Or, pick them up for the xp generated by their story quests or similar story arcs that may require them, and then leave them in a 'camp' the rest of the time.

 

-SDC

[ddillon]

- No 'required' characters.  Don't force an NPC into my party for any reason (other than say, personal-story quests where they'd obviously be required, and which are also optional); especially not an NPC you can never get rid of no matter what you do.

But here's the thing: If the plot of an IE-style game does not require certain characters to be in the party, game mechanics could and often do practically require certain characters to be accepted anyway. In D&D-style games, accepting a rogue is practically mandatory if the player character is not a rogue, and yet often there's only one such character. To a lesser extent, the same can be said of other party roles as well: A PC caster is practically required to accept a fighter as soon as possible, and a PC fighter is practically required to accept a healer as soon as possible, etc. It's the nature of the genre: Party roles must be filled. This is one of the reasons why the ability to create as many of the party as desired is so important, to provide an alternative to hated characters (especially likely to be necessary given Obsidian's history). Thankfully, the idiots protesting the Adventurer's Hall were overruled.

[JFSOCC]

Yes, but since we have an adventurers hall, we could create our own, should you so desire

[Ulquiorra]

Yes, but since we have an adventurers hall, we could create our own, should you so desire

 

And i am sure that you will be able to talk to them and know them better, mayby some shots or beers and "Romance" status or "Brothers in amrs" completed.

[Jobby]

 

I would quite like to see a rival char, either a rival for someones affections or a rival for the leader of the group, not something I've seen done that i can think of, if such a character was present i would like there to be a number of ways things could pan out with him depending on your actions and interactions with him and the rest of the party, i just think it would be quite interesting after being whined at constantly to say to an NPC "Think you can do better!?, you lead!" and then have your own opportunity to pipe up with useless annoying spam :D