That list ranked the characters based on likable, effective, or dangerous they are and Nate was explicitly shown to be a reprehensible individual by this series standards with his. I get he's trying to be friendly and funloving but a joke to him is a potentially terrible fate for Russell, the only character we see him interact with in a vaguely positive manner; his treatment of Walt, Jean, Wyatt, Clyde, and to a lesser degree Russell himself makes up the bulk of his characterization. Combine that with his views of women, his complete lack of discrimination and mercy, and his hedonistic viewpoint in general and you get one psychotic menace to society.
Plus, he just isn't the most complex character out there: he is essentially Kenny, Jolene, and the Save Lots Bandits with most of the good stuff squeezed out in favor of some diet Negan, which means he lacks any real motivation and goals beyond getting wasted, harassing people, and telling bad jokes.
I understand you're entitled to your own opinion but if I may, I don't believe Nate compares to the depravity committed by Crawford or the B… moreandits or anyone else on this list. I agree he certainly has his villainous moments of asshole ness however you have to look at it for what it is. Nate chased down Wyatt and Eddie for what is said to be vengeance after Eddie shot his friend for no reason. He also saves Russell's life (twice, determinate).
Sympathetic is Clementine...8 year old..lost her parents...gonna die without you helping her.
Likable is Carley...she listens to you and offers you advise...she never expects anything more than you are willing to give.
Appealing seems to me that is just another word for likable...or maybe you could use it for S1 Kenny...a man on a redemption arc like Lee..a flawed character who sacrifices himself but redeems his soul of bad things he may have done.
Here's an interesting question that I'll ask here instead of my questions thread for the sake of encouraging discussion: What is the difference between being likable, being sympathetic, and being [for lack of a better word] appealing?
Appealing seems to me that is just another word for likable...or maybe you could use it for S1 Kenny...a man on a redemption arc like Lee..a flawed character who sacrifices himself but redeems his soul of bad things he may have done.
Well, the Kenny example seems like it would fall under sympathetic, so I guess you're right about that.
Sympathetic is Clementine...8 year old..lost her parents...gonna die without you helping her.
Likable is Carley...she listens to you and … moreoffers you advise...she never expects anything more than you are willing to give.
Appealing seems to me that is just another word for likable...or maybe you could use it for S1 Kenny...a man on a redemption arc like Lee..a flawed character who sacrifices himself but redeems his soul of bad things he may have done.
why is this character always depressed?
they were raped
It'd be more interesting if she lived with it and wasn't permanently affected, maybe only showing the scars in very specific circumstances.
That's how most people are after all.
My investment of a character depends on
Motivation: What drives the character and to what goal.
Past: Where did they come from now that … morewe know their motivation.
Morality: Are they so driven that they would do horrible things to reach their goals...what kind of person are we dealing with
These 3 things are the pillars that you build a character on. Allow me to demo a character
Gretchen Allison Apple
Age :19
Past: Raped at age 15, left for dead by her assailant she survived and was unable to describe the man. Since then every day is a struggle with depression and the fear of being hurt again. Before the incident she was into track and field, her room has many dust covered trophies as silent reminders of a life she left behind.
Motivation: Rebuilding her life and overcoming her fears.
Morality: Gretchen was a troubled child even before the incident. Her parents divorced when she was 10, she blamed her mother. Her inte… [view original content]
why is this character always depressed?
they were raped
It'd be more interesting if she lived with it and wasn't permanently affected, maybe only showing the scars in very specific circumstances.
That's how most people are after all.
Well of course she will overcome it...but no one example is the same...some people walk a dark path before returning to the light of the hope of a normal life.
why is this character always depressed?
they were raped
It'd be more interesting if she lived with it and wasn't permanently affected, maybe only showing the scars in very specific circumstances.
That's how most people are after all.
Depth or even more cliche vibes? I don't know, maybe if they went with the original characterization of Troy, I could sorta buy that piece of information, but its already a bit hard to believe given their portrayals and super weights as is. And honestly speaking, I feel like it'd just add even more unfortunate implications to a character that already feels kinda fanfic-y, when you think about it.
One of the most important thing is individuality in a character. Not just a "good" guy or a "bad" guy, but someone who has real reasons for being that way, reasons that are individual to that person. I.E Kenny. A man who definitely has his flaws (like leaving Shaun to die in ep1), loses a lot (his entire family, all his friends, then Sarita in S2), but still always tries to look out and care for those that are closest to him (Lee if you are loyal to him, Clem, his family and AJ). You know no matter what he is going to protect them from whoever, friend, walker or enemy no matter what it takes.
Now is Kenny a good guy or bad guy? From my POV he is a good guy that has done some bad things in order to survive and keep his family safe, others might disagree, IDK. But that's why Kenny has always been my favorite.
On the other side you have the Stranger. A clearly deranged man who becomes obsessed with Clementine in order to find his own personal redemption after the death of his family, which you unknowingly have caused. He might have been a normal survivor guy before zombies started to roam around, and might have been somewhat sane, yet probably teetering before his family died. Yet all of these caused him to go over the deep end.
One of the best villains of the game (So far) is Carver, for the way that he is and how he acts. As much as I like the confrontation with the Stranger, he is really just there to make you look back at your old decisions and see if what you did was right or wrong.
Its very unnerving, since its not blatant abuse and power control, but Carver is quite sadistic, yet not entirely unreasonable. He feels that the way that he runs things is what has keep people alive, people that he needs in order to rebuild his way. Clearly the power has gone to his head, and he's not above murder. He clearly calloused, but you can almost see why without even knowing who he was before hand.
Would she try to hide her pain, put on a mask, figuratively, but you trigger her; like, if you touch her or have a kleenex, bc it remind her of chloroform?
Does getting a panic attack give one character development?
Depth or even more cliche vibes? I don't know, maybe if they went with the original characterization of Troy, I could sorta buy that piece o… moref information, but its already a bit hard to believe given their portrayals and super weights as is. And honestly speaking, I feel like it'd just add even more unfortunate implications to a character that already feels kinda fanfic-y, when you think about it.
I doubt Jane would be that delicate...if they had gone the route of having her abused by Troy which is where her shooting him in the dick came from...it probably would have made her disgust with Kenny another violent man more believable. Instead the writers went with...HEY...THEY FIGHT!!!
Would she try to hide her pain, put on a mask, figuratively, but you trigger her; like, if you touch her or have a kleenex, bc it remind her of chloroform?
Does getting a panic attack give one character development?
Really? You never got that self-insert-esque vibe from her prominence and treatment?
Or are you specifically referring to my hesitance towards the whole "Bitter Chick was Raped Once" trope?
Not all the time, just that she used to be. Clementine was so special to people because they saw her start out as a little girl in a world of zombies, bandits, and psychos that was taught how to survive both on her own and with other people. She overcame the odds and became "stronger" while still managing maintaining many of the traits that made her so likable and sympathetic--that's what made her special.
One of the most important thing is individuality in a character. Not just a "good" guy or a "bad" guy, but someone who has real reasons for being that way, reasons that are individual to that person.
Yeah, that's part of what made Season 1 so interesting and why Sarah was one of, if the only Season 2 characters to earn my investment.
One of the most important thing is individuality in a character. Not just a "good" guy or a "bad" guy, but someone who has real reasons for … morebeing that way, reasons that are individual to that person. I.E Kenny. A man who definitely has his flaws (like leaving Shaun to die in ep1), loses a lot (his entire family, all his friends, then Sarita in S2), but still always tries to look out and care for those that are closest to him (Lee if you are loyal to him, Clem, his family and AJ). You know no matter what he is going to protect them from whoever, friend, walker or enemy no matter what it takes.
Now is Kenny a good guy or bad guy? From my POV he is a good guy that has done some bad things in order to survive and keep his family safe, others might disagree, IDK. But that's why Kenny has always been my favorite.
On the other side you have the Stranger. A clearly deranged man who becomes obsessed with Clementine in order to find his own perso… [view original content]
Being an underdog all the time is a cliché.
Not all the time, just that she used to be. Clementine was so special to people because … morethey saw her start out as a little girl in a world of zombies, bandits, and psychos that was taught how to survive both on her own and with other people. She overcame the odds and became "stronger" while still managing maintaining many of the traits that made her so likable and sympathetic--that's what made her special.
Also you look fucking weak.
F@(K you!
Oh, well I suppose; my bad. Though you also argue that being an underdog all the time would make you a case of not judging a book by its cover if you usually overcome those odds.
Prime example of why being the underdog all the time sucks....Star Trek Voyager....every week they were at the mercy of something...it was not Star Trek...it was victim trek....they finally learned that it is not bad to have them actually start out ahead and explore and help others along the way. But that first season...was sorta like Carver beating the shit out of Kenny every week...and all they had to do was do something simple to get out of it but they used the prime directive as a crutch for what was really shitty writing. Eventually they got a lot better.
Oh, well I suppose; my bad. Though you also argue that being an underdog all the time would make you a case of not judging a book by its cover if you usually overcome those odds.
Ah, there's the Shatner-speak I've come to expect!
But that first season...was sorta like Carver beating the shit out of Kenny every week
Ah, so an asshole beating a smaller assholes face in, eh?
...and all they had to do was do something simple to get out of it but they used the prime directive as a crutch for what was really shitty writing
I don't watch Star Trek, so I had to look that up: basically, no meddling. Maybe its because of Kingdom Hearts, but I do believe it can be an interesting idea for testing the character's alignment,but I agree it becomes a crutche for bad writing if overused for drama.
Prime example of why being the underdog all the time sucks....Star Trek Voyager....every week they were at the mercy of something...it was n… moreot Star Trek...it was victim trek....they finally learned that it is not bad to have them actually start out ahead and explore and help others along the way. But that first season...was sorta like Carver beating the shit out of Kenny every week...and all they had to do was do something simple to get out of it but they used the prime directive as a crutch for what was really shitty writing. Eventually they got a lot better.
I sometimes got the vibe that it's easier to write for a brand spankin' new character than a pre-established one because there's a lot more freedom with what you can do compared to one that has already been developed. Do you agree with this or due you think it's a misconception and/or has exceptions to the rule?
Sometimes, it can be hard to come into a series and write for a character that is popular. Because no matter what you do, someone is going to yell that you are doing it wrong. So you introduce new characters that you get to define without worrying about preconceived notions.
I sometimes got the vibe that it's easier to write for a brand spankin' new character than a pre-established one because there's a lot more … morefreedom with what you can do compared to one that has already been developed. Do you agree with this or due you think it's a misconception and/or has exceptions to the rule?
Sometimes, it can be hard to come into a series and write for a character that is popular. Because no matter what you do, someone is going … moreto yell that you are doing it wrong. So you introduce new characters that you get to define without worrying about preconceived notions.
Maybe, maybe not. It's mostly Walking Dead focused, with some general questions being asked every now and then. The intention was to gauge what everyone looks for in various characters and if it has any consistent correlation with why they like the characters they do.
Gonna copy all this random stuff here for convenience/information sake; feel free to ignore it. Or not; I really don't give a damn:
A relatively defined character has goals(find parents, , survive), virtues(helpful, merciful, fraternity), and weaknesses(naivete, fear, size).
an individual with feelings, thoughts, and motivations of her own that drive her through her experiences.
A woman who had an uncomfortable relationship with the villain and has insecurities about her pregnancy burdening the group-- why didn't this work?! It was so shallow, by the numbers, and potentially offensive that it didn't amount to much.
I felt Luke had better chemistry with her than Kenny because he asked her about these things and usually trusted her to be able to do certain things, even if it came at the comparative cost of not standing out much or doing anything spectacular himself.
He had a defined motivation, he had an explained backstory, and he had an actual established outlook that was so unexpected that he stood out despite(or rather, because of) being Kenny's friend.
Something Season 1 had down pat was that pretty much every character with more than two minutes of screentime were given positive traits as well as negative traits, even if some(Kenny, Carley, Doug) were more obvious or balanced than others(Larry, Lilly, Ben). I would imagine Carlos would be another Lilly situation: he comes off as a bit too strict and even critical at times, but taking the time to speak with him as the story progress would reveal that he is actually a very thoughtful person whose just under a lot of stress due to his fears and pressures getting the better of him. Their friendship with Sarah could also cause them to concern themselves with him at times and thus want to get him to like you for her sake. So, when things start getting tense and Carlos starts losing it, people could be compelled to want to help him through this tense time because they had seen plenty of indications that he is a good person. Carlos in the final game does actually have something resembling an arc, but similar to Luke and Alvin, his character isn't really given much time to be properly explained and thus his lack of immediate redeeming qualities causes most people to deride him despite his not being a bad person.
the risk you take as a writer and creator. Pretty much every character besides Clementine and maybe characters like Michelle and Matthew were created with a story to be told with the goal of getting the players invested enough to want to see it through to the end and at least have a reaction, whether it be positive or negative. Whether you love their flaws or hate their strengths, that's your choice as an individual consumer and what drives you to interpret them as one thing or another. Part of the reason characters like Kenny and Sarah are so mixed is because their interaction towards the player character changes based on their choices. Characters who received a certain type of feedback got their portrayals in later episodes affected by it. Some examples include a disliked character being given a positive portrayal;Other examples appeal to the disliked nature of said character for catharsis sake. So while the reaction to any character may be positive, negative, or mixed, it's just an experimental reaction to what you made as a creator. Whether your intentions for a particular character succeeds or not, it's your duty as the writer to tell their story to the best of your ability and just hope for the best.
Why introduce this character with this pretty obvious set-up for interaction and development going forward if you weren't gonna properly conclude her story arc and her death was gonna do nothing for the protagonist or the plot itself besides kill her off?
The point of Luke's character was that for all his attempts to be this ideal paragon, he's a normal human being with inherent flaws that hold him back from living up to this image. In other words, a deconstruction of the hero complex.
Maybe, maybe not. It's mostly Walking Dead focused, with some general questions being asked every now and then. The intention was to gauge w… morehat everyone looks for in various characters and if it has any consistent correlation with why they like the characters they do.
Why do you think people are quick to demonize and condemn heroic or friendly characters(Kenny, Luke, Sam), but forgive and glorify villainous or antagonistic characters(Carver, Jane, Randall)?
Why do you think people are quick to demonize and condemn heroic or friendly characters(Jane, Luke, Sam), but forgive and glorify villainous or antagonistic characters
(Carver, Kenny, Randall)?
I dunno...Carver may have had good ideas, but he let his own personal interests get in the way of his leadership. Also he was a prick. Kenny, brain damage and plain assholeness...Randall...guy was ass.
Demonize Jane Luke and Sam...easy...people hate those that are better than them.
Why do you think people are quick to demonize and condemn heroic or friendly characters(Kenny, Luke, Sam), but forgive and glorify villainous or antagonistic characters(Carver, Jane, Randall)?
Why do you think people are quick to demonize and condemn heroic or friendly characters(Jane, Luke, Sam), but forgive and glorify villainous… more or antagonistic characters
(Carver, Kenny, Randall)?
I dunno...Carver may have had good ideas, but he let his own personal interests get in the way of his leadership. Also he was a prick. Kenny, brain damage and plain assholeness...Randall...guy was ass.
Demonize Jane Luke and Sam...easy...people hate those that are better than them.
I definitely believe that a good guy's positive traits should be what makes them a hero in the end and a bad guy's negative traits should be what makes them a villain. Outside of that, there's plenty of room to make a good guy not the most righteous and the bad guy less despicable for the sake of making them more multi-layered characters.
For example sake, Luke should've had more moments where he got to save the day on his own as well as moments where he isn't the nicest, to show that just because he's trying to do the right thing doesn't mean he isn't capable of having bad moments on his own. Conversely, Carver should've had his history with Luke, Alvin, Carlos, and Rebecca explained so as to make it clear that while he is ultimately the evil one, he does have at least a few legitimate reasons to be so angry towards them and he really was doing what he decided was best for his community outside of this.
I've heard you all praise Kenny as probably the best character, in part because he is so controversial, a scene stealer, and a “living legend.” While I don’t know if I’d say that is a good thing, personally, I couldn’t help but wonder with the way things have been playing out with recent installments, how do you guys think another character on a similar level as him could come to be? Like, I’m legitimately curious: what, from a base level, made him work the way he did and how could similar energy go into creating another character along his line?
EDIT: For what it's worth at this point, I'd like to clarify that I didn't necessarily mean a Kenny clone--Lord knows we've had way too many of those already. I meant a character that might be worth talking about in-depth and that whatever else he's known for.
If i am being honest i can't see Telltale making another character like Kenny again. He was a one off i'd say. There is no character that is so polarised as he is. Sean Vanaman and his team wrote the character and now they are gone. Telltale are terrible these days, most characters have nothing interesting about them but almost every character from season 1 had something great about them. At least those characters had some background info
To all "Kensplainers" as I've heard you called, but particularly dan290786, wdfan, OneWayNoWay, NorthStars, BroKenny, @TWDazehnuu, @TheAutis… moreticGamer, @Deltino, and @UrbanRodrik
I've heard you all praise Kenny as probably the best character, in part because he is so controversial, a scene stealer, and a “living legend.” While I don’t know if I’d say that is a good thing, personally, I couldn’t help but wonder with the way things have been playing out with recent installments, how do you guys think another character on a similar level as him could come to be? Like, I’m legitimately curious: what, from a base level, made him work the way he did and how could similar energy go into creating another character along his line?
EDIT: For what it's worth at this point, I'd like to clarify that I didn't necessarily mean a Kenny clone--Lord knows we've had way too many of those already. I meant a character that might be worth talking about in-depth and that whatever else he's known for.
Was thinking about making a thread about this for a while which would go into a little more detail. It was a good thing in my opinion as you need characters that are a driving force in the game that contribute to the drama, with the knowledge that not everyone will like them. Like Dan said - it's gonna be hard for them to make another character like Kenny. Almost impossible for season 3 I think, given the shorter episodes. The most important thing is to get a lot of audience members to care about the character. You need to do more than just have a broken, angry guy (Conrad) or some badass redneck with a beard (Tripp).
To all "Kensplainers" as I've heard you called, but particularly dan290786, wdfan, OneWayNoWay, NorthStars, BroKenny, @TWDazehnuu, @TheAutis… moreticGamer, @Deltino, and @UrbanRodrik
I've heard you all praise Kenny as probably the best character, in part because he is so controversial, a scene stealer, and a “living legend.” While I don’t know if I’d say that is a good thing, personally, I couldn’t help but wonder with the way things have been playing out with recent installments, how do you guys think another character on a similar level as him could come to be? Like, I’m legitimately curious: what, from a base level, made him work the way he did and how could similar energy go into creating another character along his line?
EDIT: For what it's worth at this point, I'd like to clarify that I didn't necessarily mean a Kenny clone--Lord knows we've had way too many of those already. I meant a character that might be worth talking about in-depth and that whatever else he's known for.
Comments
That list ranked the characters based on likable, effective, or dangerous they are and Nate was explicitly shown to be a reprehensible individual by this series standards with his. I get he's trying to be friendly and funloving but a joke to him is a potentially terrible fate for Russell, the only character we see him interact with in a vaguely positive manner; his treatment of Walt, Jean, Wyatt, Clyde, and to a lesser degree Russell himself makes up the bulk of his characterization. Combine that with his views of women, his complete lack of discrimination and mercy, and his hedonistic viewpoint in general and you get one psychotic menace to society.
Plus, he just isn't the most complex character out there: he is essentially Kenny, Jolene, and the Save Lots Bandits with most of the good stuff squeezed out in favor of some diet Negan, which means he lacks any real motivation and goals beyond getting wasted, harassing people, and telling bad jokes.
Sympathetic is Clementine...8 year old..lost her parents...gonna die without you helping her.
Likable is Carley...she listens to you and offers you advise...she never expects anything more than you are willing to give.
Appealing seems to me that is just another word for likable...or maybe you could use it for S1 Kenny...a man on a redemption arc like Lee..a flawed character who sacrifices himself but redeems his soul of bad things he may have done.
Well, the Kenny example seems like it would fall under sympathetic, so I guess you're right about that.
In the context of these games (and maybe in other things as well), what makes a character for you?
What constitutes a badly written character and how/when does it go wrong?
It'd be more interesting if she lived with it and wasn't permanently affected, maybe only showing the scars in very specific circumstances.
That's how most people are after all.
That's apparently what they had in mind for Jane at one point, which I'm sooo glad they didn't go with if I'm being honest.
Would have added depth to a character that we still do not know much about.
Well of course she will overcome it...but no one example is the same...some people walk a dark path before returning to the light of the hope of a normal life.
Depth or even more cliche vibes? I don't know, maybe if they went with the original characterization of Troy, I could sorta buy that piece of information, but its already a bit hard to believe given their portrayals and super weights as is. And honestly speaking, I feel like it'd just add even more unfortunate implications to a character that already feels kinda fanfic-y, when you think about it.
One of the most important thing is individuality in a character. Not just a "good" guy or a "bad" guy, but someone who has real reasons for being that way, reasons that are individual to that person. I.E Kenny. A man who definitely has his flaws (like leaving Shaun to die in ep1), loses a lot (his entire family, all his friends, then Sarita in S2), but still always tries to look out and care for those that are closest to him (Lee if you are loyal to him, Clem, his family and AJ). You know no matter what he is going to protect them from whoever, friend, walker or enemy no matter what it takes.
Now is Kenny a good guy or bad guy? From my POV he is a good guy that has done some bad things in order to survive and keep his family safe, others might disagree, IDK. But that's why Kenny has always been my favorite.
On the other side you have the Stranger. A clearly deranged man who becomes obsessed with Clementine in order to find his own personal redemption after the death of his family, which you unknowingly have caused. He might have been a normal survivor guy before zombies started to roam around, and might have been somewhat sane, yet probably teetering before his family died. Yet all of these caused him to go over the deep end.
One of the best villains of the game (So far) is Carver, for the way that he is and how he acts. As much as I like the confrontation with the Stranger, he is really just there to make you look back at your old decisions and see if what you did was right or wrong.
Its very unnerving, since its not blatant abuse and power control, but Carver is quite sadistic, yet not entirely unreasonable. He feels that the way that he runs things is what has keep people alive, people that he needs in order to rebuild his way. Clearly the power has gone to his head, and he's not above murder. He clearly calloused, but you can almost see why without even knowing who he was before hand.
Would she try to hide her pain, put on a mask, figuratively, but you trigger her; like, if you touch her or have a kleenex, bc it remind her of chloroform?
Does getting a panic attack give one character development?
Only because you do not like the character.
I doubt Jane would be that delicate...if they had gone the route of having her abused by Troy which is where her shooting him in the dick came from...it probably would have made her disgust with Kenny another violent man more believable. Instead the writers went with...HEY...THEY FIGHT!!!
Being an underdog all the time is a cliché. Also you look fucking weak.
Really? You never got that self-insert-esque vibe from her prominence and treatment?
Or are you specifically referring to my hesitance towards the whole "Bitter Chick was Raped Once" trope?
Not all the time, just that she used to be. Clementine was so special to people because they saw her start out as a little girl in a world of zombies, bandits, and psychos that was taught how to survive both on her own and with other people. She overcame the odds and became "stronger" while still managing maintaining many of the traits that made her so likable and sympathetic--that's what made her special.
F@(K you!
Yeah, that's part of what made Season 1 so interesting and why Sarah was one of, if the only Season 2 characters to earn my investment.
Ok for the record..I did not mean YOU...just in a general sense being the underdog all the time makes you look weak.
Oh, well I suppose; my bad. Though you also argue that being an underdog all the time would make you a case of not judging a book by its cover if you usually overcome those odds.
Prime example of why being the underdog all the time sucks....Star Trek Voyager....every week they were at the mercy of something...it was not Star Trek...it was victim trek....they finally learned that it is not bad to have them actually start out ahead and explore and help others along the way. But that first season...was sorta like Carver beating the shit out of Kenny every week...and all they had to do was do something simple to get out of it but they used the prime directive as a crutch for what was really shitty writing. Eventually they got a lot better.
Ah, there's the Shatner-speak I've come to expect!
Ah, so an asshole beating a smaller assholes face in, eh?
I don't watch Star Trek, so I had to look that up: basically, no meddling. Maybe its because of Kingdom Hearts, but I do believe it can be an interesting idea for testing the character's alignment,but I agree it becomes a crutche for bad writing if overused for drama.
What constitutes depth?
I sometimes got the vibe that it's easier to write for a brand spankin' new character than a pre-established one because there's a lot more freedom with what you can do compared to one that has already been developed. Do you agree with this or due you think it's a misconception and/or has exceptions to the rule?
Sometimes, it can be hard to come into a series and write for a character that is popular. Because no matter what you do, someone is going to yell that you are doing it wrong. So you introduce new characters that you get to define without worrying about preconceived notions.
Yeah, that's my thought as well. Of course, Kenny and Jane(as clunky as hey was) are evidence of both ways.
Shouldn't this be in Telltale talk?
Maybe, maybe not. It's mostly Walking Dead focused, with some general questions being asked every now and then. The intention was to gauge what everyone looks for in various characters and if it has any consistent correlation with why they like the characters they do.
Gonna copy all this random stuff here for convenience/information sake; feel free to ignore it. Or not; I really don't give a damn:
A relatively defined character has goals(find parents, , survive), virtues(helpful, merciful, fraternity), and weaknesses(naivete, fear, size).
an individual with feelings, thoughts, and motivations of her own that drive her through her experiences.
A woman who had an uncomfortable relationship with the villain and has insecurities about her pregnancy burdening the group-- why didn't this work?! It was so shallow, by the numbers, and potentially offensive that it didn't amount to much.
I felt Luke had better chemistry with her than Kenny because he asked her about these things and usually trusted her to be able to do certain things, even if it came at the comparative cost of not standing out much or doing anything spectacular himself.
He had a defined motivation, he had an explained backstory, and he had an actual established outlook that was so unexpected that he stood out despite(or rather, because of) being Kenny's friend.
Something Season 1 had down pat was that pretty much every character with more than two minutes of screentime were given positive traits as well as negative traits, even if some(Kenny, Carley, Doug) were more obvious or balanced than others(Larry, Lilly, Ben). I would imagine Carlos would be another Lilly situation: he comes off as a bit too strict and even critical at times, but taking the time to speak with him as the story progress would reveal that he is actually a very thoughtful person whose just under a lot of stress due to his fears and pressures getting the better of him. Their friendship with Sarah could also cause them to concern themselves with him at times and thus want to get him to like you for her sake. So, when things start getting tense and Carlos starts losing it, people could be compelled to want to help him through this tense time because they had seen plenty of indications that he is a good person. Carlos in the final game does actually have something resembling an arc, but similar to Luke and Alvin, his character isn't really given much time to be properly explained and thus his lack of immediate redeeming qualities causes most people to deride him despite his not being a bad person.
the risk you take as a writer and creator. Pretty much every character besides Clementine and maybe characters like Michelle and Matthew were created with a story to be told with the goal of getting the players invested enough to want to see it through to the end and at least have a reaction, whether it be positive or negative. Whether you love their flaws or hate their strengths, that's your choice as an individual consumer and what drives you to interpret them as one thing or another. Part of the reason characters like Kenny and Sarah are so mixed is because their interaction towards the player character changes based on their choices. Characters who received a certain type of feedback got their portrayals in later episodes affected by it. Some examples include a disliked character being given a positive portrayal;Other examples appeal to the disliked nature of said character for catharsis sake. So while the reaction to any character may be positive, negative, or mixed, it's just an experimental reaction to what you made as a creator. Whether your intentions for a particular character succeeds or not, it's your duty as the writer to tell their story to the best of your ability and just hope for the best.
Why introduce this character with this pretty obvious set-up for interaction and development going forward if you weren't gonna properly conclude her story arc and her death was gonna do nothing for the protagonist or the plot itself besides kill her off?
The point of Luke's character was that for all his attempts to be this ideal paragon, he's a normal human being with inherent flaws that hold him back from living up to this image. In other words, a deconstruction of the hero complex.
Idk, I just feel it could have been interesting to see how that worked across all telltale characters
True. If you wanna, you can create a similar thread that covers all bases wherever you're referring to.
Also, fuck, you're old.
Why do you think people are quick to demonize and condemn heroic or friendly characters(Kenny, Luke, Sam), but forgive and glorify villainous or antagonistic characters(Carver, Jane, Randall)?
Apparently @DabigRG has forgotten how to be nice. Also his feet stink.
Hey, you're not much better, ya witch!
And my smell feet normal, thank you!
I dunno...Carver may have had good ideas, but he let his own personal interests get in the way of his leadership. Also he was a prick. Kenny, brain damage and plain assholeness...Randall...guy was ass.
Demonize Jane Luke and Sam...easy...people hate those that are better than them.
Although I will say Jane is definitely obnoxious for that reason (in-universe skill set wise) among many others.
I definitely believe that a good guy's positive traits should be what makes them a hero in the end and a bad guy's negative traits should be what makes them a villain. Outside of that, there's plenty of room to make a good guy not the most righteous and the bad guy less despicable for the sake of making them more multi-layered characters.
For example sake, Luke should've had more moments where he got to save the day on his own as well as moments where he isn't the nicest, to show that just because he's trying to do the right thing doesn't mean he isn't capable of having bad moments on his own. Conversely, Carver should've had his history with Luke, Alvin, Carlos, and Rebecca explained so as to make it clear that while he is ultimately the evil one, he does have at least a few legitimate reasons to be so angry towards them and he really was doing what he decided was best for his community outside of this.
To all "Kensplainers" as I've heard you called, but particularly dan290786, wdfan, OneWayNoWay, NorthStars, BroKenny, @TWDazehnuu, @TheAutisticGamer, @Deltino, and @UrbanRodrik
I've heard you all praise Kenny as probably the best character, in part because he is so controversial, a scene stealer, and a “living legend.” While I don’t know if I’d say that is a good thing, personally, I couldn’t help but wonder with the way things have been playing out with recent installments, how do you guys think another character on a similar level as him could come to be? Like, I’m legitimately curious: what, from a base level, made him work the way he did and how could similar energy go into creating another character along his line?
EDIT: For what it's worth at this point, I'd like to clarify that I didn't necessarily mean a Kenny clone--Lord knows we've had way too many of those already. I meant a character that might be worth talking about in-depth and that whatever else he's known for.
If i am being honest i can't see Telltale making another character like Kenny again. He was a one off i'd say. There is no character that is so polarised as he is. Sean Vanaman and his team wrote the character and now they are gone. Telltale are terrible these days, most characters have nothing interesting about them but almost every character from season 1 had something great about them. At least those characters had some background info
Was thinking about making a thread about this for a while which would go into a little more detail. It was a good thing in my opinion as you need characters that are a driving force in the game that contribute to the drama, with the knowledge that not everyone will like them. Like Dan said - it's gonna be hard for them to make another character like Kenny. Almost impossible for season 3 I think, given the shorter episodes. The most important thing is to get a lot of audience members to care about the character. You need to do more than just have a broken, angry guy (Conrad) or some badass redneck with a beard (Tripp).