A question about Heroes

[Moosetroop11]

I like heros who learn about things throughout the game. Its a great way to teach the player about the world your rpg is set in. If your character knows everything about the rpg world, then you'll have to find another, more difficult way to teach the player about your rpg. If you know waht I mean... the player learns as the hero learns.

[ZeroKirbyX]

Originally posted by Ace of Spades
Well, I like it when the main hero developes throughout the game. By this I mean change in personality because of hardships, relations with others and so on. For example, in my game Ace is spoiled, selfish, uncaring and lazy (with things he doesn't want to do at least). But, as the story progresses, because of things he faces his character changes. That's the kind of hero I like, someone who changes because of what happens to them. If the hero is automatically like "I am gonna save the world because it's the right thing to do and I should do it!" or something stupid like that, and that same attitude applies throughout the whole game, then the character is really flat. It's kinda like the arogant badass character, who stands alone. This character almost always changes the way he acts, whether it be because of a person or an event, this character's change is usually expected. If he stays a jerk the whole game, people usually get sick of him. Anyyyway... characters who have good personalities, ones where they actually have emotions instead of "omg save the worldz!!!11." Those are what I like.

Yeah. My char Sengal in the beginning, has no mercy, shows no reason, and lobs off a guys head. Not heroish. Then he meets a monk who joins you and sees the way that people all around are suffering, and begins to change his ways. But when you do that type of thing the char can't do a 360 like from evil to good. They still need to maintain a bit of their original personality.

[Almeidaboo]

Well...Let me share something with you guys. I just got Magna Carta, and I´ve been playing it crazy since I got it. Here are my impressions:

1- Calintz, the main character, is a general from a mercenary group. He´s famous and well known in the lands he dwell. He´s strong and has nice leadership. Thumbs up for that.

2- The game focus on the conflict between 2 races and, although it is quite clichè, the story stands up well, with some "brand news" in the plot. Thumbs up.

3- As said b4, the storyline is about war, conflict. Even though conflicts are supposed to be tense, there HAS to be chill out moments. Magna Carta is tense 100% of the time. Calints, in 30 hours of gaming, never laughed or smiled. Thumbs down. Big time.

What do I want to say with that? For me, a hero must be, in a bigger or lower level, a hero. Me must outstand the "majority" with at leat one feature. Calintz has strenght, leadership and a awesome voice. He looks cool (although it takes time to accept that he´s a guy).

But Calintz lacks charisma in some level. He isn´t a open person, and is moved by hatred. That totally wrecks him, cause after an hour playing you can´t take his seriouness (sp?) anymore.

Now take Jack Russel, from Radiata Stories. He´s weak and lame. He has no leadership and he´s a brat. His voice is a kid´s voice, no one respects that. He was beaten by a girl (no offense Carmen, I´m pretty much sure you could beat me up...).

BUT! Jack has a hot back (portuguese expression that makes no sense in english): his father was great. Jack is still lame and weak, but now he has a motivation: surpass his weakness to make it up for his name.

And here comes the PLUS: JAck is comical. At one point he actually says (when Ridley is leaving to deal with a major problem): "Hey, your trouble is my bubble!...Wait, that doesn´t make sense!". Jack, a weak and lame knight wannabe carries you through a short game (25 hours tops) in which you laugh you a.ss off all the time and actually enjoy playing each second, cause the serious plot is balanced with the good moments.

Strong and awesome Calintz, PWNED, by weak and lame Jack Russel.

Hope that was helpul! XD

[coasterkrazy]

I like, your description, Almeida! Very clever approach if you ask me.

Anyway, I think, like some people here, that the main hero shouldn't really be a "hero" at all. Like in my game I'm trying to make the two main characters not really heroic at all. They are normal people. And just because one's a guy and one's a girl DOESN'T MEAN THEY FALL IN LOVE!!! But cliches are another story, although they kinda tie into this. Like the hero always having some weapon of meaning. To me, it's just a weapon. You use it for self-defense or to attack if need be. My kind of hero doesn't have some fantastic weapon, but rather just something he/she uses to fight. Also, I like the main character to be normal, and not some great being or lowlife in one way or another with changed ways (yeah, I know that second one is popular and all, but I feel like I've seen it a lot). Like, Carmen said, I like to be able to relate to the hero. Which is also why I dislike games that are of that classic final fantasy medieval era. Even if it's a normal medieval life, I can't feel the hero as much.

To put it simply, the closest to my ideal hero is Ness: though the psi powers are abnormal, every RPG has to have something, and Ness is just from a little suburban-type town with normal people. His weapon is also nothing special (at least in the beginning I haven't played through it), just what he can use - baseball bats and stuff like that. The only thing I don't like about him is the fact that he doesn't talk. That's another thing my ideal hero does is talk - I mean, what kind of person NEVER talks!?

I guess it just comes down to what you personally like. Wow, I better stop writing, I've written more than I thought!

[ZeroKirbyX]

Originally posted by coasterkrazy
I like, your description, Almeida! Very clever approach if you ask me.

Anyway, I think, like some people here, that the main hero shouldn't really be a "hero" at all. Like in my game I'm trying to make the two main characters not really heroic at all. They are normal people. And just because one's a guy and one's a girl DOESN'T MEAN THEY FALL IN LOVE!!! But cliches are another story, although they kinda tie into this. Like the hero always having some weapon of meaning. To me, it's just a weapon. You use it for self-defense or to attack if need be. My kind of hero doesn't have some fantastic weapon, but rather just something he/she uses to fight. Also, I like the main character to be normal, and not some great being or lowlife in one way or another with changed ways (yeah, I know that second one is popular and all, but I feel like I've seen it a lot). Like, Carmen said, I like to be able to relate to the hero. Which is also why I dislike games that are of that classic final fantasy medieval era. Even if it's a normal medieval life, I can't feel the hero as much.

......They're stick figures. How much can you relate??? "I have no digits......... HE'S JUST LIKE ME!" XD

[WarxePB]

ZKX
l......They're stick figures. How much can you relate??? "I have no digits......... HE'S JUST LIKE ME!" XD

PWNED! XD


Although I have to disagree with CK on the Ness thing. Part of what makes the protagonist interesting is their motivations in life. If I remember correctly, Ness didn't really have a motivation - he just kinda decided to go out and save the world. I think that a character with an actual reason to save the world - even it's something as cliche' as a "chosen one"-esque setup (especially if they didn't really want to do it in the first place), is tons more interesting. Not to say EarthBound sucked or anything, mind you.

[ZeroKirbyX]

Originally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
Not to say EarthBound sucked or anything, mind you.

Dude, how can a game with a guy named Poo AND pull it off NOT be good? XD

[Meiscool-2]

Originally posted by ZeroKirbyX
Dude, how can a game with a guy named Poo AND pull it off NOT be good? XD

POOR SENTENCE STRUCTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Earthbound was meh to me.

[Linkizcool]

Originally posted by carmen
well. to put it in two words:

Conflict. Sacrifice.

Now what makes one "just" in this theory is if the effort is put towards a common good and not a selfish one.

And Perseverance and Realising what they've sone wrong in their past and doing what they can to fix it.

[shinotebasiiackh]

Originally posted by Linkforce

quote:

Originally posted by shinotebasiiackh A hero shouldn't be a 'hero'. A hero should be a normal person who is pushed into a conflict and is forced to be 'heroic'

That's actually a really good point.  But...I can be forced to save a cat from a tree.  That doesn't make me a Hero.  It was a conflict where I had to be heroic...but I'm not really a Hero.  Get it?

And would you make an RPG about saving a cat from a tree? Earth to captain dip*******************

[carmen]

well. He didn't say it'd make a good RPG. Then you get into whats exciting and appealing.

his point was that there are diff lvls of heros. So I guess that "earth to" comment was you talking to yourself.

and yeah. comment on this. gone.

[Revolution911]

..Screw heroes, make the RPG from the Villians point of view.

[Grandy]

 Making a game throught the villains point of view would make them the heroes.

[Revolution911]

You get my basic idea. Make the "hero" EVIL.

[Grandy]

 Good and evil are relative points of view, what you find evil, someone will find good. You can say you played as the villains in FF7, destroying that rocket, most people in the world we're against you, that makes you the villain, yet, you are the hero. Isn't fun how it works?