So you're probably aware of Gamespot's All Time Greatest hero competition. I think it's a neat concept although I'm really disappointed by the hero selection made by Gamespot. But that's a different issue that could have me rambling for pages about my favorite characters (how could April Ryan not be included?). What I'd like to discuss is actually one thing that has been somewhat bothering me about the community's reaction to this competition, and that is what people define as a hero or great character.
Perhaps Gamespot made a mistake in naming this the "Greatest Hero" competition. "Greatest Protagonist" or "Greatest Character" would've been more appropriate. But this is where I want to discuss the community's reaction. I'll break it into several points to make it easier to read.
- People's definition of hero.
I remember reading a comment in the forums saying that characters like Niko Bellic didn't deserve to be in the competition because they weren't true heroes. True to an extent and again I believe that this is mostly due to the somewhat in appropriate naming of the competition. However the nature of those comments makes me think that some people almost find it offensive that anti-heroes are involved. It's like they'll only root for a goody two shoes hero. Really? I mean is there no room for badasses in gaming? I don't know but personally I'd find it very boring if every single protagonist in gaming was a perfect role model. I find it refreshing when a game features protagonists that don't mind breaking the rules or whose motivations aren't entirely pure. But hey, to each their own.
- Are these heroes really characters?
So now we get deeper into what I want to discuss. Take a look at the heroes involved in the competition. How many of them would you actually qualify as great characters? Mario? A guy in red overalls who rarely speaks and has been saving the same damn princess for over two decades? Pac-man? Bo-Jackson (are you kidding me...)? A lot of the heroes involved in the competition are just mascots or simply happened to be the playable characters in their respective games but have never really developed a compelling character. I recently posted a comment in fellow Gamespot user ClayMeow's blog, explaining the reasons why I wouldn't even consider Gordon Freeman a great character, even if I love the Half Life series, which brings me to my next point.
People are judging based on the games they like, not on the characters themselves.
This one is understandable in a way. Many gamers grew with these characters so even if they're not particularly great or well developed, their affection for them is somewhat logical. But recently I read a post saying that Chell should've been included in the list. Who the hell is Chell you ask? The playable character in Portal. Portal is a game that pretty much everyone loved and without a doubt the game's antagonist (GLADOS) would qualify as a great character. But Chell? What do we know about her? Nothing. I'm inclined to believe that the person who named her was simply thinking about how much he/she enjoyed Portal and therefore thinks highly of the character because it reminds him/her of the game. Other comments go along the way that "X" character saved the world in this game and did it all by himself/herself. If we go by this definition, virtually every character in every generic shooter could qualify as a candidate for the title of greatest hero of all time. And finally...
Some people are taking the contest way too seriously.
Once again I'll bring ClayMeow's post as a reference. He posted a link to his blog (which was based on why he thinks Freeman is the greatest game hero) in the forums and one of the first responses he got was that Freeman couldn't be the greatest hero because his story wasn't finished yet and we didn't know if he was triumphant or not. I raised my eyebrow at that response but the next one was the one that called for a moment of silence. I'll even quote it (without naming the user though):
"No, If gordon ends up dead he CAN be called a hero, his story will be over. If he ends up molesting an 8 year old boy and then beating Alex with his crowbar, not so much."
Are you kidding me? The sheer idea that Valve would take that direction is ludicrous, but really, who the hell even comes up with that idea? No offense to the user who posted that comment, but seriously, take a chill pill.
[EDIT]: Now that I've thought about it, I'm fully aware that this blog kind of falls victim to this point...
____________________________________
Having exposed those points I'd like to state what I define as a great gaming protagonist or character in general (or gaming hero... *sighs*), and that could easily be summarized in three words, personality, uniqueness, charm.
- Personality: You gotta have a personality in order to be recognized. Pushovers, cardboard cut characters, or those who never speak completely fail here. Characters need traits that define them and let us know who they are. We gotta get an idea of their motivations as well as what they stand for. Otherwise the character won't be defined by their personality but by whatever surrounds them.
- Uniqueness: Having a personality is necessary but if the character is a generic one then it's all for nod. A character could display many likable traits but if all that's done is copy/paste the traits of other characters, then the character goes down the drain. A character has to stand out from the rest in order to be great. This point can also encompass any larger than life qualities a character may have. Superhuman strengh, magic powers, etc., those are also qualities that can make a character stand out from the rest.
- Charm: This what it all boils down to. Is the character likable or not? Going back to what I said in my first point, this isn't about whether the character is good or evil. It's about how much they win you over with their personality. GLADOS from Portal is a great example of a likable villain. Niko Bellic from GTA IV and April Ryan from The Longest Journey are polar opposites as far as personality, values, and motivations are concerned, yet they are both likable characters.
____________________________________
So that's it for my pointless rambling. I'll end this post with something more productive and some shameless promotion by linking you to my latest set of reviews, most of them for older console (!) games. Lots of high scores I know but hey, I enjoyed the hell out of all of them...
Comments
There are some who I do not know, now that will happen for many people I guess. I think Niko Bellic is a great character too.
From what I understand you are creating a bracket of those you think will win based on the gamespot users votes?
Think that there are a lot but a lot of kids in this community and what the hell they know about you mention in this blog? Its just for fun
April Ryan not being on that list is just crazy... go Guybrush Threepwood & Manny Calvera!
But if you look around Gamespots's selection of heroes, you'll notice that there are plenty of characters from really old adventure games, like Guybrush Threepwood and Manny Calavera, which goes to show you that the staff actually did consider all genres. I still can't even begin to conceive how they passed up on April Ryan.
As for the other point, I agree. I guess part of the reason why I give more importance to this criteria is that I'm more inclined towards games with great stories and interesting characters, as opposed to overly unrealistic games. To each their own.
And glad to know you enjoyed the blog, it's been a while since I wrote anything.
@nutcrackr:
Those three characters are amongst the first I would nominate if I could replace several heroes in the competition. About Agent 47, it's funny how despite being a clone he manages to come across as unique. Seriously, how many clones trained to assassinate would seek spiritual guidance...
And yes, the bracket is supposed to be your prediction of how voting will turn out.
Thanks and you're right, this blog may come off as a bit too serious which kind of contradicts my fourth point...
The Smash Brows Brawl analogy is actually really good. Most kids just want to imagine Kratos beating the stupid out of Mario... actually I would pay to see that.
@illmatic87:
Sonic is a somewhat different case I guess. Despite technically being just a mascot, he does have a lot of things that make him unique like his super speed. I remember how thrilling it was to turn into Super Sonic in Sonic 2 for the Genesis (...nostalgia...). Also, in his latter games he actually does seem to develop a modicum of personality, though not exactly a memorable one. It doesn't help that those games haven't been that well received. I still think he falls short of being a good character.
And go Threepwood and Calavera indeed!
Personally, I'd pay to see anyone beat the stupid out of Mario. Kratos would however tear off one of his arms and use that to beat him with, which might be worth paying extra for.
Mario might be iconic and he might be legendary, but I would not consider him a good character or hero. He's just a place holder that smashes things.
Oh, why do you have to tease me with such a beautiful scene....
Words can't even describe how much I hate the Mario "character". I understand that he brings out the nostalgic factor in most gamers who probably grew up with his games, but to call him a good character, let alone the greatest, is pathetic. Had Luigi been the main character instead of Mario, it wouldn't have made any difference at all. We'd have people voting for the idiot in green overalls instead. Mario is just a mascot, a face for a company, but not a character.
@WalkingP:
Hey! It's been a while since you've shown up. Glad to know you enjoyed this blog.
If it were up to me only Lara Croft, Niko Bellic, Cate Archer, and Jade would make the cut from Gamespot's list. I can think of so many great characters that didn't make the cut that it's ridiculous.
I'm still fuming at the omission of April Ryan...
Because if you have the vivid imagination I have, you can now watch that scene whenever you like.
EDIT:
The fact that Nathan Drake is losing to Pikachu, sums up everything that is wrong with this contest.
Also I think this is a little unfair since adventure games and RPGs tend to have more fleshed out character that is easier to fall in love with - a case in point is April Ryan from TLJ or The Nameless One from Planescape Torment. Those two would get my vote I think.
YES! Yes, yes, YES, yes, YEEESS and more YES. I cannot begin to describe how much I agree with this. The INCLUSION of "characters" like Pac-Man and Frogger and the EXCLUSION of folks like The Nameless One is a travesty of heroic proportions. (Pun intended.)
Well I do have a vivid imagination... actually, the things that are occurring to me are probably way nastier than that
.And now that the first round of voting is over it's quite clear just what kind of "hero" will emerge victorious; Guybrush Threepwood, Cate Archer, Nathan Drake, all out in the first round, while Yoshi, Mario, and Pikachu are advancing...
@raven28256:
Indeed, the list of great gaming heroes (real heroes) is way too big and varied to narrow it down to one. I'd prefer to see a hall of fame for great gaming heroes instead.
@jepsen1977:
Given their nature, the Adventure and RPG genres are certainly a better place to find well developed and interesting characters. However I feel that every game that's going to attempt to create a hero (or anti-hero) should go out of their way to give us a strong reason to root for that character. In my opinion the GTA games are great examples for that.
@nocoolnamejim:
Knowing you, I had a feeling you were going to agree with me on this one, but it's nice to see you do so in such an emphatic way!
But for the record, The Nameless One is included on the list.... sadly he's losing to Ryu Hayabusa
That's the biggest problem with the Gamespot community or the whole gaming community for that matter. Too many immature kids who simply don't know jack and spoil things that could've been great.
By the way I just read your blog on "Games that never get old". I remember doing a post on a similar subject a long time ago, but it wasn't anywhere near as detailed. By the way, I didn't leave a comment there because there are simply way too many comments already, but it was a great post nonetheless. Your whole blog is really interesting actually, especially for old-school gamers.
@JodyR:
Thanks for the inclusion on the weekly Community Blog!
I understand that this kind of feature is never easy for the staff because odds are you'll never be able to please anyone. As much as I'd like it, there are certain gaming icons that simply couldn't be ignored, so I'd actually say that you did a good job in at least trying to cover all bases. I still say that a simply name change could've gone a long way into making the competition much clearer.
Hey man.
Given your avatar it's no surprise you voted for JC. Sadly he's losing his current match up so looks like he'll be out in the first round. But hey, look on the bright side, Lara Croft may very well have a direct confrontation with Mario in the third round. The idea of her losing directly to that fat plumber is just sickening.
By the way, sorry I had missed your previous blog. Good luck on the current semester and try not to get lost from here.
.I agree on most of what you've written, though I obviously come to different conclusions than you. Then again, isn't that the beauty (or is it a curse?) of this contest? We all have our opinions of what makes a character go from mere protagonist to hero. Hero is such a subjective term.
It is sad to know that JC Denton is losing to Mario! I don't hate Mario, but I don't regard him as a hero character at all. Denton on the other hand is your perfect example. Well, not everything has to make sense.
Checking your PS 2 reviews.
@ChiliDragon Posted Sep 1, 2009 4:03 pm ET SYdoggXxX
Personally, I'd pay to see anyone beat the stupid out of Mario. Kratos would however tear off one of his arms and use that to beat him with, which might be worth paying extra for.
Mario might be iconic and he might be legendary, but I would not consider him a good character or hero. He's just a place holder that smashes things.
But I think GS intentionally went with the nomenclature of Hero, which is a pretty vague prospect. It certainly doesn't equate to character depth. After all, most people associate heroes with what they've done, not who they are. And since we're judging what they've done, the gaming experience is a heavy factor. Mario may not be a deep character, but he's certainly done a lot, not the least of which was to provide players with some memorable, truly fantastic gaming experiences. The same can be said of Gordon Freeman, who has all the character of a cardboard cutout.
I hope I'm not rambling incoherently here, but what I'm trying to say is that like voting for someone simply because they're well known or platform exclusive, voting for them because of their character is equally flawed when we are talking about the Greatest Hero.
Still, Gordon won and that's all that matters.
Before I even start with my reply....
YOU!!!! I thought you had given up on keeping up with the GS community. Good to see you back. For the record, I had been tracking some of your latest reviews, like the one for FEAR 2 and Arkham Asylum. Great stuff as usual.
Anyway, back on the subject, I definitely agree that an emotional attachment can be established with a character-less hero simply by virtue of the fond memories you may have of his/her adventures.
Hell, I won't lie, I was rooting for Gordon towards the end of the competition, partly because I wanted Nintendo to lose (yeah, I hate them), but also because regardless of the lack of depth in his character, I love the Half Life universe and he did act "heroically" in his adventure.
In an ideal world, game developers should always bother to at least include a modicum of character in any hero they create, that way arguments like this one wouldn't be necessary.
And I'm in absolute agreement with you over the need to add more depth to videogame characters. Folks like Mario were fine back in the day when gaming was in its infancy, but if developers really want to give the impression gaming is a serious form of art, they need to step up their game when it comes to characters. Though once again in defence of Mr. Freeman, I understand fully Valve's idea behind their choice to make their hero a faceless mute. After all these years, I wouldn't have it any other way.
khatibi22
But after all gaming is all about fantasy, super power, godlike heros, our ultimate ideals. So the criterions is certainly very different than when we choose like a footbar star