I've been meaning to respond to this for a while. For me the character has to have understandable motivations and actions. It isn't as impor… moretant whether they are good or bad. I can appreciate a bad guy or girl that is written well. I'm not a fan of "I want to rule the world cuz I'm EVIL muahaha" villains. Carver and Joan are good examples of what NOT to do. They had workable motivations but Telltale half a**ed developing them to the point they come off as cartoon villains. The Stranger was a great villian because his motivation wasn't slap dashed together and you could sympathise with him even though he was an antagoinst. Conversely good people, gone wrong characters are something I enjoy. This is why Kenny and Lilly are great characters and some others had the potential to be. Last but not least is characters who I can relate to on a personal level even if I don't like them exactly. Sarah, Bonnie, and Kate are examples. Like if you've been i… [view original content]
Controversial Topic I know: How do you feel about how Javier and/or Clementine is implemented into the story? What are some positives and what are some negatives?
Not one of those people you mentioned but Lee seemed logical but you really can't make a logical character. He has to be emotional at least to a degree otherwise it'd be kinda boring since he won't react to important events or tough choices.
To @IronWoodLover, though @Auruo, @Louche, @MarijaaNo7, @BetterToSleep, @prink34320, and maybe other Lily fans may also have some input on t… morehis as well,
I recall you mentioning that one of your issues with Javier was that he is yet another emotional protagonist rather than a logical one. How does this apply to the previous characters and what would a good logical protagonist be like to you?
I like villians who have a reason for being evil/bad or ones that have relatable/sympethetic traits that try to pull the character to their sidem also ones that last a bit long. A Nate for example isn't a bad villian but you want someone with longevitiy.. Carver was hyped up a lot, had a lot o fintrigue then he died in the 3rd episode and not a lot was kinda done with him........cool. Randall and Norma were good though Norma seemed like a good person. I'd say Randall was the best written one.
Who is your favorite villain? What is it about them that makes them stand out to you? What do you like to see in villains in general? And what kind of villain would you like to see in the future?
I definitely make choices based on morality and what seems to be the most logical answer. I'm more of a goody-two-shoes and will probably pick to sympathize with someone unless I absolutely cannot stand them or don't think what they did is forgivable.
How do you feel about how Javier and/or Clementine is implemented into the story?
The simple answer would be poorly, but perhaps the most honest answer : they're implemented into the story in such a way that there's little to no benefit to them as characters or the story TT wanted to tell.
What are some positives and what are some negatives?*
The two most negative attributes this created in the story were the flashbacks and the mystery van. In a very real sense , I don't think the Garcia family has the opportunity to win over the audience from the moment time flashes forward and by some Bermuda Triangle effect they avoid experiencing all of the apocalyptic scenarios we've come to know from two seasons of the game and several instances in the show / comic -- for four years. Not only does this deprive us of bonding with these characters at their most vulnerable times , and deny us the chance of discovering a deep dynamic between adults and children : this approach tears down the fabric of Kirkman's universe. It's no longer the breakdown of humanity - it's a family road trip.
Clementine being playable only in flashbacks disconnected her from the story. She appears in the present times like Batman - not the hero the story needed ( but for a large part of the fanbase, she was the hero Season 3 deserved ). Her story arc is disjointed , unable to be completed or even developed in her brief appearances. Her trust in people is restored almost magically, nearly as instantaneous and undeserving as her romance plot : all the while her whole reason for existing in this plot thread is never resolved.
As for the positives for how they were implemented : the flashbacks I criticized are a highlight. Their past has a great deal of character moments that are memorable. The shame is we didn't have those as the whole story we played first.
Controversial Topic I know: How do you feel about how Javier and/or Clementine is implemented into the story? What are some positives and what are some negatives?
Which type of characterization and development do you think is for the best: characterization that's in your face and spelled out or development that is subtle and requires active observation/investment?
Hmm probably somewhere in between honestly. Too subtle and it's going to go over a lot of people's heads on the first play which is when ppl are most emotional and invested in characters/outcomes. Too black or white and the writer risks the character being perceived as boring for a valid reason or conversely too abrasive, and/or labeled a one-note character. If I had to pick one personally I would say subtle since it adds depth to the gaming experience and heightens the realistic feel. Not every person has a personality that can be put in a box and so not every character can. Details make the character.
Which type of characterization and development do you think is for the best: characterization that's in your face and spelled out or development that is subtle and requires active observation/investment?
Hmm probably somewhere in between honestly. Too subtle and it's going to go over a lot of people's heads on the first play which is when ppl… more are most emotional and invested in characters/outcomes. Too black or white and the writer risks the character being perceived as boring for a valid reason or conversely too abrasive, and/or labeled a one-note character. If I had to pick one personally I would say subtle since it adds depth to the gaming experience and heightens the realistic feel. Not every person has a personality that can be put in a box and so not every character can. Details make the character.
For what little it's worth, did you like the fact that Mariana was David's daughter Gabe's sister or would you have preferred if she stayed his cousin?
Kenny: defined, good. Kenny is a controversial character whose personality is pretty consistent throughout the series imo. He is an abrasive, in your face character but it works for him not against him because we can empathise with him and/or or spent more time with him than other characters in the same vein (Larry, Carver, David)
Sarah: combination, leaning subtle, good. This is a character a lot of people wrote off early as stupid or retarded but there is actually a lot of nuance to her character and a lot going on here if you are good with cues. She is different to Ben who had a very consistent defined character aside from confronting Kenny and Duck who was also defined and left no room for growth/evolution.
Jane: defined, bad. I think the writers tried to give Jane some depth and imply underlying motivations with the Jamie story but it didn't wash for me. I saw very little development to her character subtle or otherwise and nothing to suggest she isn't all about herself even when she appears to do a good deed. Molly also fell flat but to be fair she wasn't in the picture for very long so it was excusable.
Lilly: true composite, good. She felt like she had to be the bad guy, but she really wasn't, until she was and she felt like s**t for it but life goes on. This is one of those characters that could be a real person. She had the defined personality she wanted you to see and the subtleties that showed who she really was. Bonnie was almost the inversion of this, the person who is positively perceived by her peers but has a selfish streak. Unfortunately I think this was written to less effect than Lilly's characterization since Bonnie has a lot more depth and nuance than Eleanor but is kind of dumped in the same boat in players' perspective.
Luke: subtle, bad. Luke wasn't as defined as a lot of people thought. This is an example of so subtle it goes over people's head. He had some internal conflict not to mention conflicting creed with Carver and the potential to be No More Mr. Nice Guy rather than just "the nice guy" The writers painted him into a corner by ALWAYS overshadowing these subtleties with bigger personalities like Kenny.
Well he was supposed to of learned that family is a responsibility and should not be taken for granted....A man who could not even face his dying father becomes a man who steps up and protects his family.
Well he was supposed to of learned that family is a responsibility and should not be taken for granted....A man who could not even face his dying father becomes a man who steps up and protects his family.
That is what they were going for.
Exactly...somewhere in the bowels of TTHQ...I am almost certain is a pretty damn good game...but for whatever reason they ripped things out and began to rewrite shit...and so the Biggest season yet...turned out to be the shortest.
Probably. Also, @Fangirl101 linked me an interview with Shelly Shenoy in my Composite Character thread. You should give it a read--I know I'm about to.
Exactly...somewhere in the bowels of TTHQ...I am almost certain is a pretty damn good game...but for whatever reason they ripped things out and began to rewrite shit...and so the Biggest season yet...turned out to be the shortest.
Probably. Also, @Fangirl101 linked me an interview with Shelly Shenoy in my Composite Character thread. You should give it a read--I know I'm about to.
Probably. Also, @Fangirl101 linked me an interview with Shelly Shenoy in my Composite Character thread. You should give it a read--I know I'm about to.
To @dan290786 and other skeptics: You occasionally express doubt or indifference to the idea that any new character will be able to replicate similar feelings to that of the characters in Season 1. While what the problems with the new casts are discussed often and somewhat obvious, I'm curious as to what you thoughts to the contrary are. What characters came even remotely close to reaching a similar benchmark and what did they manage to get that other characters did not?
Honestly @DabigRG no character from Season 3 or most of their other games has come anywhere close to anyone from Season 1. I care more about Brie or David and Travis more than the Season 3 cast combined. I shit you not. Telltale have lost their way and don't know how to give characters decent development anymore and that is all because they would rather make short episodes, 90% cutscenes and not give us the opportunity to talk to people and get to know them for us to care. That is some of the main problems.
So i'm sorry to your question, for me there is none that have even come anywhere close
To @dan290786 and other skeptics: You occasionally express doubt or indifference to the idea that any new character will be able to replicat… moree similar feelings to that of the characters in Season 1. While what the problems with the new casts are discussed often and somewhat obvious, I'm curious as to what you thoughts to the contrary are. What characters came even remotely close to reaching a similar benchmark and what did they manage to get that other characters did not?
Honestly @DabigRG no character from Season 3 or most of their other games has come anywhere close to anyone from Season 1. I care more about… more Brie or David and Travis more than the Season 3 cast combined. I shit you not. Telltale have lost their way and don't know how to give characters decent development anymore and that is all because they would rather make short episodes, 90% cutscenes and not give us the opportunity to talk to people and get to know them for us to care. That is some of the main problems.
So i'm sorry to your question, for me there is none that have even come anywhere close
Having just seen Wonder Woman, here's a question that relates to motives and characterizations just as well as themes and morals: Is it better to be a straightforward or even one-note for the sake of clear-cut, complete consistency or is it fine to fluctuate and even conflict a bit for the sake of having a more complex result? When should the line be drawn with either?
Well that's the thing isn't it. It just depends on the story you want to tell.
Example: We take two different Superheroes
Superman...He stands for truth and justice....very rarely is there any ambiguity in the characterization. Because of the nature of his powers...the only people who can really challenge him, are usually those that have nefarious plans and must be stopped. There is no real room for nuanced characters in his stories unless you really work at it.
Batman on the other hand lives in shades of grey. Batman stand between very vile people and the good people of Gotham. And while he rarely kills...he is not above crippling and violently beating the shit out of others. Also he has been known to work with unsaviory types to bring down worse. He will cut deals to do the greater good.
Each type can be a rewarding story...but it depends on the story you want to tell.
Having just seen Wonder Woman, here's a question that relates to motives and characterizations just as well as themes and morals: Is it bett… moreer to be a straightforward or even one-note for the sake of clear-cut, complete consistency or is it fine to fluctuate and even conflict a bit for the sake of having a more complex result? When should the line be drawn with either?
By reflecting how human beings actually are and how we can and/or do behave.
What constitutes "having no personality?"
It's often not so much that the character literally doesn't have a personality (most of the time, anyway), but more so that they're lacking in having much depth or not going beyond just being one type. Like, If you have a character who's mostly all around good and kind, or evil and cruel, but doesn't have any other qualities to balance them out and to make them more complex and dimensional, it's safe to say that the character's lacking and a lot would say they have little personality. A good character just being good all the time is probably the most commonly seen and easiest example, as human beings in real life are psychologically incapable of being such. We have flaws and contradictions, and when a character doesn't, it makes them a little boring and easy to dislike.
Well that's the thing isn't it. It just depends on the story you want to tell.
Example: We take two different Superheroes
Superman..… more.He stands for truth and justice....very rarely is there any ambiguity in the characterization. Because of the nature of his powers...the only people who can really challenge him, are usually those that have nefarious plans and must be stopped. There is no real room for nuanced characters in his stories unless you really work at it.
Batman on the other hand lives in shades of grey. Batman stand between very vile people and the good people of Gotham. And while he rarely kills...he is not above crippling and violently beating the shit out of others. Also he has been known to work with unsaviory types to bring down worse. He will cut deals to do the greater good.
Each type can be a rewarding story...but it depends on the story you want to tell.
How does a character have personality to you?
By reflecting how human beings actually are and how we can and/or do behave.
Wha… moret constitutes "having no personality?"
It's often not so much that the character literally doesn't have a personality (most of the time, anyway), but more so that they're lacking in having much depth or not going beyond just being one type. Like, If you have a character who's mostly all around good and kind, or evil and cruel, but doesn't have any other qualities to balance them out and to make them more complex and dimensional, it's safe to say that the character's lacking and a lot would say they have little personality. A good character just being good all the time is probably the most commonly seen and easiest example, as human beings in real life are psychologically incapable of being such. We have flaws and contradictions, and when a character doesn't, it makes them a little boring and easy to dislike.
How could Luke have been a better written, more interesting character? How could he have been an equal rival/foil to Kenny/Carlos without needlessly compromising his characterization? Do you believe these two objectives reconcilable or is it possible that they were mutually exclusive?
Hey ya'll! I was just digging threw older threads again and found one dedicated to talking about Season 2's Writing. So for the sake of posting something that isn't a question here, Im gonna repost my critiques from there. So let's start off with the only Scrappy Character I'd say I somewhat dislike: Preggers Rebecca!
So, let's talk a little bit about how Rebecca is the character who even I think is among, if not the worst member of the Cabin Group.
She was introduced as an absolute bitch who isn't just like towards Clementine and Nick, but Alvin as well. Plus, should you stay silent during her first appearance, actually tries to take the gun from Nick so she could presumably execute Clementine on the spot, something Lilly learned was a big no-no when I'm at the controller. She was the number one person against helping Clementine ahead of Nick and arguably Carlos, in which she gets on Alvin's case when he tries to stand up for her and later determinately helps her behind Rebecca's back. While I tried to consistently immerse myself in the game which meant thinking like Clementine would after what has happened over the past 16+ months, Rebecca was probably one of the first times Clementine acted in a cruel manner because I legitimately thought Rebecca was so much of a bitch at the time that basically blackmailing her into getting her attitude in check was the proper response at the time even if I don't know if Clementine would go that far.
Come the second episode, her being vindictively suspicious of Clementine at first before becoming very kind and tender towards her has little to no transition for it, making her change in attitude less natural and more sudden. That was a legitimate problem that couldn't be just ignored by some players, though it is kinda funny how what I consider to be the best episode of the Season is also the one that introduces a few of the problems that later episodes would have, just nowhere near as problematic. I used to think the occasional hatred I've seen for her was a tad unfounded, but looking back on it, it's more like a case of Never Live It Down. Then again, that creepy moment where Clementine got her to zip it in Episode 1 was cathartic enough for me, plus it takes a lot of character to own up to your mistakes/misdeeds and I respect that. For the rest of the episode, Rebecca seeks encouragement from Clementine concerning her stress over her family, before determinately losing Alvin due to a pissin' match between Carver and Kenny.
One of the many things that made Episode 3 feel so bare was the fact that it didn't explain her relationship with Carver so that we would have a better idea of what her dilemma was. As someone who tries to be patient and forgiving of those I think have some good on them, this was an omission that I think hurt her arc quite a bit since it fails to retroactively justify her initial hostility towards Clementine, who she opposed on the grounds that she could be working for Carver. I'd even argue she was less justified than Brie, since her respective villain was several feet above her group and actively out to purge them, while Rebecca is the main reason that Carver both comes after the group and hauls them all back to camp when he catches most of them. With that critique out of the way, she actually gets a fair amount of limelight as a soon-to-be/recently widowed woman who goes through some serious separation anxiety concerning the absence of Alvin, forms something resembling a friendship with Kenny and Sarita, and helps formulate an escape plan at super time using her previous position as a secretary making announcements through the PA system. She eventually gets her payback in the form of a front row seat to Carver's karmic death, where we get this quiet moment where Rebecca walks over to his corpse, slowly kneels down to pick up his pistol, and glances down at him with the same cold expression still on her face. It might just be me, but I think this is another big example as to how her relationship with Carver affects the strength of the story: while this was meant to be something of an empowering moment for Rebecca due to the destroyer of her family being brutally executed, I feel like it wasn't as powerful as it should've been because it wasn't earned as much as it should've been.
In episode 4, she finds Clementine and Jane after they get separated from the rest of her group and has her previous insecurities dug up due to losing her nerve while trying to sneak through the herd and Jane's insensitive comments about the upcoming arrival her baby. After this, she spends the majority of the episode hanging around the Parker's Run statue as everyone else (besides Kenny and Sarah) goes off to prepare for the delivery process. Maybe Clementine could've recalled Christa's own baby during the period where Rebecca was going through labor and have helped with the knowledge she gained from that experience, but this isn't what happens. While I don't think we needed a birthing minigame, Rebecca joined in on what was definitely a serious overarching problem with Season 2: Clementine herself doesn't really matter much to a certain degree, to the point that pretty much everything she should have a personal investment in feels like it was either downplayed, cut short, or simply moved in favor of the likes of Kenny and, to a slightly lesser extent, Jane. While I do like the few conversations they have together because it really serves to show how humble Rebecca has become sense Clementine was first brought to the Cabin, she spends the rest of the episode in the company of Kenny, who is recruited on Bonnie's behalf to help guide Rebecca through her pregnancy using what knowledge he has from when Duck was being born. After a close call, a few funny lines, and a stressful birth period, Rebecca gets a few hours to spend clinging to her baby as her health declines due to complications involving the birthing process and the oncoming cold weather. She ultimately serves as the fuse that sparks the blastout with the Russian Group as she passes away sitting on a tire desperately holding onto her baby as the group talks and later argues with the returning Arvo, as her walker ends up being headshot by Clementine/Kenny in order to protect the baby.
And in episode 5, the group all gather around her deader body and mourn her loss after the firefight with the Russian Group ends, which also ends this sequence when Kenny attacks Arvo due to being angry about Rebecca's death. Not to mention that out of all the Cabin Group members who had died, only Rebecca and Alvin are portrayed in a positive light at this point due to putting her trust in him and being the parents of the baby who would motivate Kenny to behave much more actively aggressive towards friend and foe alike. While Kenny and/or Jane's fate end up being sealed with his well-being acting as a tipping point, AJ goes on alongside Clementine to survive the Season and is expected to be a recurring element in Season 3.
The fact of the matter is that some players never forgave due to her 180 from her bitchy attitude. At least she, Nick, and Sarah were definitely established with the intention to develop their storylines in mind, but the way they ended up being executed was mixed. I have yet to see anymore than one person(zombiebonnie) say they legitimately liked her and she had the most complete(if a bit by the numbers) storyline of the three. And even then, "Who's yo Baby-Daddy" isn't exactly the most attractive or politically correct basis for a character. Maybe it's a sign that I should just go back and examine her character more thoroughly, but the only keywords I associate with her at the moment are Pregnancy, Family, and Vulnerability.
I would have kept in the 'darker' aspects of Prescott which were cut out, mainly the fact that crimes could be punishable by hanging and the walkers hanging from "Prescott neckties" (nooses) around the town, as part of Tripp's "firm but fair lawman" attitude. I might have been paraphrasing, but I think that was part of Tripp's original characterisation, or at least something brought up in the AMA.
I would also have had him be part of Conrad's scheme to use Clementine as a bargaining chip to get into Richmond (mainly for him to get revenge for Prescott, though), but turning against Conrad when he holds Gabe at gunpoint.
I'd also have liked, if he is still alive in Episode 5, to have seen him confront Eleanor about what happened with Joan, especially if the player didn't shoot Conrad.
I'd have like'd him to be more level headed and reserved. It felt like he was just there to be the stereotypical loud guy with the occasional funny catchphrase. His constant obsession with Eleanor kind of put me off him too, he's like a child that doesn't understand the word no.
I'd have like'd him to be more level headed and reserved. It felt like he was just there to be the stereotypical loud guy with the occasiona… morel funny catchphrase. His constant obsession with Eleanor kind of put me off him too, he's like a child that doesn't understand the word no.
I would have kept in the 'darker' aspects of Prescott which were cut out, mainly the fact that crimes could be punishable by hanging and the walkers hanging from "Prescott neckties" (nooses) around the town, as part of Tripp's "firm but fair lawman" attitude. I might have been paraphrasing, but I think that was part of Tripp's original characterisation, or at least something brought up in the AMA.
Good point.
I would also have had him be part of Conrad's scheme to use Clementine as a bargaining chip to get into Richmond (mainly for him to get revenge for Prescott, though), but turning against Conrad when he holds Gabe at gunpoint.
Interesting.
I'd also have liked, if he is still alive in Episode 5, to have seen him confront Eleanor about what happened with Joan, especially if the player didn't shoot Conrad.
Yeah, I'm perplexed they didn't follow up on that situation either way since they went out of their way to have The Executioner shoot him in the neck if you picked him and then show that he's still alive but unconscious a bit later.
I would have kept in the 'darker' aspects of Prescott which were cut out, mainly the fact that crimes could be punishable by hanging and the… more walkers hanging from "Prescott neckties" (nooses) around the town, as part of Tripp's "firm but fair lawman" attitude. I might have been paraphrasing, but I think that was part of Tripp's original characterisation, or at least something brought up in the AMA.
I would also have had him be part of Conrad's scheme to use Clementine as a bargaining chip to get into Richmond (mainly for him to get revenge for Prescott, though), but turning against Conrad when he holds Gabe at gunpoint.
I'd also have liked, if he is still alive in Episode 5, to have seen him confront Eleanor about what happened with Joan, especially if the player didn't shoot Conrad.
How do you feel about having things about the characters spelled out for you? Do you feel that can be helpful or even necessary at times? What are examples of areas where that would've/could've been useful? Any exceptions?
Comments
Great post and I mostly agree.
Controversial Topic I know: How do you feel about how Javier and/or Clementine is implemented into the story? What are some positives and what are some negatives?
Not one of those people you mentioned but Lee seemed logical but you really can't make a logical character. He has to be emotional at least to a degree otherwise it'd be kinda boring since he won't react to important events or tough choices.
I like villians who have a reason for being evil/bad or ones that have relatable/sympethetic traits that try to pull the character to their sidem also ones that last a bit long. A Nate for example isn't a bad villian but you want someone with longevitiy.. Carver was hyped up a lot, had a lot o fintrigue then he died in the 3rd episode and not a lot was kinda done with him........cool. Randall and Norma were good though Norma seemed like a good person. I'd say Randall was the best written one.
I definitely make choices based on morality and what seems to be the most logical answer. I'm more of a goody-two-shoes and will probably pick to sympathize with someone unless I absolutely cannot stand them or don't think what they did is forgivable.
How do you feel about how Javier and/or Clementine is implemented into the story?
The simple answer would be poorly, but perhaps the most honest answer : they're implemented into the story in such a way that there's little to no benefit to them as characters or the story TT wanted to tell.
The two most negative attributes this created in the story were the flashbacks and the mystery van. In a very real sense , I don't think the Garcia family has the opportunity to win over the audience from the moment time flashes forward and by some Bermuda Triangle effect they avoid experiencing all of the apocalyptic scenarios we've come to know from two seasons of the game and several instances in the show / comic -- for four years. Not only does this deprive us of bonding with these characters at their most vulnerable times , and deny us the chance of discovering a deep dynamic between adults and children : this approach tears down the fabric of Kirkman's universe. It's no longer the breakdown of humanity - it's a family road trip.
Clementine being playable only in flashbacks disconnected her from the story. She appears in the present times like Batman - not the hero the story needed ( but for a large part of the fanbase, she was the hero Season 3 deserved ). Her story arc is disjointed , unable to be completed or even developed in her brief appearances. Her trust in people is restored almost magically, nearly as instantaneous and undeserving as her romance plot : all the while her whole reason for existing in this plot thread is never resolved.
As for the positives for how they were implemented : the flashbacks I criticized are a highlight. Their past has a great deal of character moments that are memorable. The shame is we didn't have those as the whole story we played first.
Which type of characterization and development do you think is for the best: characterization that's in your face and spelled out or development that is subtle and requires active observation/investment?
Hmm probably somewhere in between honestly. Too subtle and it's going to go over a lot of people's heads on the first play which is when ppl are most emotional and invested in characters/outcomes. Too black or white and the writer risks the character being perceived as boring for a valid reason or conversely too abrasive, and/or labeled a one-note character. If I had to pick one personally I would say subtle since it adds depth to the gaming experience and heightens the realistic feel. Not every person has a personality that can be put in a box and so not every character can. Details make the character.
Agreed. Who would you cite as examples of each way and a combination?
For what little it's worth, did you like the fact that Mariana was David's daughter Gabe's sister or would you have preferred if she stayed his cousin?
Kenny: defined, good. Kenny is a controversial character whose personality is pretty consistent throughout the series imo. He is an abrasive, in your face character but it works for him not against him because we can empathise with him and/or or spent more time with him than other characters in the same vein (Larry, Carver, David)
Sarah: combination, leaning subtle, good. This is a character a lot of people wrote off early as stupid or retarded but there is actually a lot of nuance to her character and a lot going on here if you are good with cues. She is different to Ben who had a very consistent defined character aside from confronting Kenny and Duck who was also defined and left no room for growth/evolution.
Jane: defined, bad. I think the writers tried to give Jane some depth and imply underlying motivations with the Jamie story but it didn't wash for me. I saw very little development to her character subtle or otherwise and nothing to suggest she isn't all about herself even when she appears to do a good deed. Molly also fell flat but to be fair she wasn't in the picture for very long so it was excusable.
Lilly: true composite, good. She felt like she had to be the bad guy, but she really wasn't, until she was and she felt like s**t for it but life goes on. This is one of those characters that could be a real person. She had the defined personality she wanted you to see and the subtleties that showed who she really was. Bonnie was almost the inversion of this, the person who is positively perceived by her peers but has a selfish streak. Unfortunately I think this was written to less effect than Lilly's characterization since Bonnie has a lot more depth and nuance than Eleanor but is kind of dumped in the same boat in players' perspective.
Luke: subtle, bad. Luke wasn't as defined as a lot of people thought. This is an example of so subtle it goes over people's head. He had some internal conflict not to mention conflicting creed with Carver and the potential to be No More Mr. Nice Guy rather than just "the nice guy" The writers painted him into a corner by ALWAYS overshadowing these subtleties with bigger personalities like Kenny.
What makes a character likable? How can any of that apply to any character of any Temperament?
What exactly was [most] Javier's character/story arc?
Well he was supposed to of learned that family is a responsibility and should not be taken for granted....A man who could not even face his dying father becomes a man who steps up and protects his family.
That is what they were going for.
Ah, so things we didn't get to see outside of flashbacks.
Exactly...somewhere in the bowels of TTHQ...I am almost certain is a pretty damn good game...but for whatever reason they ripped things out and began to rewrite shit...and so the Biggest season yet...turned out to be the shortest.
Probably. Also, @Fangirl101 linked me an interview with Shelly Shenoy in my Composite Character thread. You should give it a read--I know I'm about to.
Nothing new in that interview....we knew the character changed quite a bit...though Shelly seems to be a very talented woman.
Yeah, I just got through with it myself. And yes, she does.
[removed]
It was not helpful, I guess.
I am sorry.
It's okay, you were only trying to help. No skin off my nose.
im currently reading it and just also wanted to say that my problem with Kate is that i dont like her character not her voice actor.
To @dan290786 and other skeptics: You occasionally express doubt or indifference to the idea that any new character will be able to replicate similar feelings to that of the characters in Season 1. While what the problems with the new casts are discussed often and somewhat obvious, I'm curious as to what you thoughts to the contrary are. What characters came even remotely close to reaching a similar benchmark and what did they manage to get that other characters did not?
Honestly @DabigRG no character from Season 3 or most of their other games has come anywhere close to anyone from Season 1. I care more about Brie or David and Travis more than the Season 3 cast combined. I shit you not. Telltale have lost their way and don't know how to give characters decent development anymore and that is all because they would rather make short episodes, 90% cutscenes and not give us the opportunity to talk to people and get to know them for us to care. That is some of the main problems.
So i'm sorry to your question, for me there is none that have even come anywhere close
Damn. Season 2 would've been a better reference, but ah well, thanks for answering anyway!
How does a character have personality to you? What constitutes "having no personality?"
Having just seen Wonder Woman, here's a question that relates to motives and characterizations just as well as themes and morals: Is it better to be a straightforward or even one-note for the sake of clear-cut, complete consistency or is it fine to fluctuate and even conflict a bit for the sake of having a more complex result? When should the line be drawn with either?
Well that's the thing isn't it. It just depends on the story you want to tell.
Example: We take two different Superheroes
Superman...He stands for truth and justice....very rarely is there any ambiguity in the characterization. Because of the nature of his powers...the only people who can really challenge him, are usually those that have nefarious plans and must be stopped. There is no real room for nuanced characters in his stories unless you really work at it.
Batman on the other hand lives in shades of grey. Batman stand between very vile people and the good people of Gotham. And while he rarely kills...he is not above crippling and violently beating the shit out of others. Also he has been known to work with unsaviory types to bring down worse. He will cut deals to do the greater good.
Each type can be a rewarding story...but it depends on the story you want to tell.
By reflecting how human beings actually are and how we can and/or do behave.
It's often not so much that the character literally doesn't have a personality (most of the time, anyway), but more so that they're lacking in having much depth or not going beyond just being one type. Like, If you have a character who's mostly all around good and kind, or evil and cruel, but doesn't have any other qualities to balance them out and to make them more complex and dimensional, it's safe to say that the character's lacking and a lot would say they have little personality. A good character just being good all the time is probably the most commonly seen and easiest example, as human beings in real life are psychologically incapable of being such. We have flaws and contradictions, and when a character doesn't, it makes them a little boring and easy to dislike.
Interesting points, if a bit irrelevant.
Fyi, the aspect/moral of Wonder Woman(the now playing live action movie specifically) I'm referring to is kinda spoiler-y.
Nice post.
Incidentally, it also reminds me I asked a similar question months ago in my questions thread.
How could Luke have been a better written, more interesting character? How could he have been an equal rival/foil to Kenny/Carlos without needlessly compromising his characterization? Do you believe these two objectives reconcilable or is it possible that they were mutually exclusive?
Hey ya'll! I was just digging threw older threads again and found one dedicated to talking about Season 2's Writing. So for the sake of posting something that isn't a question here, Im gonna repost my critiques from there. So let's start off with the only Scrappy Character I'd say I somewhat dislike: Preggers Rebecca!
How would you have made Tripp a better, more defined character?
I would have kept in the 'darker' aspects of Prescott which were cut out, mainly the fact that crimes could be punishable by hanging and the walkers hanging from "Prescott neckties" (nooses) around the town, as part of Tripp's "firm but fair lawman" attitude. I might have been paraphrasing, but I think that was part of Tripp's original characterisation, or at least something brought up in the AMA.
I would also have had him be part of Conrad's scheme to use Clementine as a bargaining chip to get into Richmond (mainly for him to get revenge for Prescott, though), but turning against Conrad when he holds Gabe at gunpoint.
I'd also have liked, if he is still alive in Episode 5, to have seen him confront Eleanor about what happened with Joan, especially if the player didn't shoot Conrad.
I'd have like'd him to be more level headed and reserved. It felt like he was just there to be the stereotypical loud guy with the occasional funny catchphrase. His constant obsession with Eleanor kind of put me off him too, he's like a child that doesn't understand the word no.
My thoughts near exactly!
Good point.
Interesting.
Yeah, I'm perplexed they didn't follow up on that situation either way since they went out of their way to have The Executioner shoot him in the neck if you picked him and then show that he's still alive but unconscious a bit later.
How do you feel about having things about the characters spelled out for you? Do you feel that can be helpful or even necessary at times? What are examples of areas where that would've/could've been useful? Any exceptions?