How to create a hero in which they will believe

... Or rather, how not to create a hero that will be similar to "thousands of the same."

Inspired by the article about monsters in games.

Now a huge number of games has been invented, and in these games a huge number of heroes exist and interact. They can be anyone - people, beasts, fairies, dragons, aliens, or the Universe knows who else.

We believe in some heroes, but not in others.

And it does not depend at all on the fact that the “real” is a character or a snail from far space. A person can be portrayed so dull and dull that they want to turn off the game and forget about it, and the complex life story of a space snail on the contrary can make a player laugh or cry, depending on the plot.

A huge number of soap operas causes only laughter, although they seem to be talking about real human feelings, which should be well known to all of us. And over the stories from Starcraft, Warcraft, The Last of us, Mass Effect, The Witcher many tears were shed.


It all depends on the skill of the creator. How much effort he puts in ... and how often he will ask questions not only to himself, but also to the character.

Какой он этот персонаж? Добрый, злой или сам еще не определился? Есть ли у него друзья, семья? Где он вырос и как жил в детстве? Он отважный, осторожный, безумный берсерк без чувства страха или последний трус? Адекватный вообще или уже давно сошел с ума? Как бы он поступил в такой ситуации? Что бы сказал на такую реплику? И, наверное самый главный вопрос - А логично ли то, что он сейчас будет делать? Не идиот ли он?

Every action must have a reason. Each action will have consequences.

How will the player react to the person who holds the gun at his forehead? (remember the scene from People in Black). Laugh heartily, wrong, and will not take such a pseudo-shooter seriously. Why? Because ... well, it is clear why, it will not be an adequate person to take aim at himself, this is not logical!

And if the hero has beaten off the memory so much that he really forgot from where the gun shoots and how to take it at all? The reaction of the player will not be so negative, rather even sympathetic. Why? Because the strange actions of the hero are explained and justified. The hero is not a fool, he just forgot everything. And it can be understood.

Let's remember the famous characters of games, any. Let it be, for example, Mario, Isaac Clark, Geralt of Rivia. Absolutely random characters whose names first came to mind.

How do we see Mario? He is active and cheerful, ready to chat and meet new creatures.

How does Mario behave? Actually, communicates and meets. Goes to his goal, overcoming obstacles not only with the help of force, but using the mind and ingenuity.

Can you believe in such a character? I think yes. His appearance, behavior and life goals do not contradict each other.

Конечно, сейчас существует множество модификаций для игр где Марио заливается алкоголем и избивает черепашек, а потом они с Пич уносятся в закат на фоне пепелища оставшегося от Грибного Королевства. И это в определенных случаях даже весело, но это определенно НЕ Марио.

Isaac Clark from Dead Space. Went to look for a wife, and got into the thick of things. Seen enough of this, from which normal people ride the roof.

How do we see Isaac? At first he is just looking for his wife. Then, when things are getting worse, they are running around dead cuts of meat and breaking through the hero himself to do the same, Isaac is just trying to survive.

How does Isaac behave? Yes, just like any of us in such a situation: “AAA WHAT IS IT ?! * convulsively firing a plasma cutter into everything that moves”

Тут авторы избежали типичнейшей ошибки создателей любого хоррора - ситуации когда главный герой уверенно и без тени сомнения идет в темный подвал из которого доносятся странные звуки и громко спрашивает "Кто там?". А ты сидишь и буквально кричишь "Стой, кретин! Возьми хотя бы швабру! А лучше пистолет!" Думаю, все знают эту сцену и всех раздражает ее тупость.

Isaac gradually adapts and becomes more rigid, cuts the enemies already confidently and without panic cries. Then strangeness begins and Isaac is frightened by this, begins to panic and look for ways to become "normal" again. Is it logical Is logical. We all want to be normal (well, in the form in which we understand it).

Если бы Айзек радостно согласился со всем что видит, влился бы в коллектив и стал Властелином Галактики это было бы определенно интереснее. Но этот Айзек которого мы уже успели узнать никогда и ни за что такого бы не сделал. И это тоже мастерство автора - прописать персонажа так, чтобы зритель или читатель мог с уверенностью сказать "этот персонаж никогда бы такого не сделал!"

Can you believe in such a character? Definitely yes.

The Witcher Geralt.

How do we see Geralt? An experienced warrior, monster killer and more. Witcher, mutant, subhuman. And yet the wanderer, who was sick of the madness around him, and therefore tries to keep neutrality. People do not accept him because he is a mutant, other races do not like for the same reasons, with monsters of which he kills, too, you will not make a special friendship (although there are exceptions ...).

How does Geralt behave? He tries to make a living and not get stuck in history. He is a loner who is fed like a wolf's legs. If in a random fight the witcher breaks something or stabs with a knife, it will not be better from this. Therefore, Geralt does not interfere. Keeps neutrality. He shuns people because they shy away from him. Not in a hurry to rush to the rescue of the first comer and remove from the tree the first gallows, because those who hung him the witcher himself can pull up next. Does he need it? Not really.
But sometimes all his attempts to abstract and drive past end in failure. Because despite the legends about the absence of feelings by witches, they still have feelings. And it is not always that Geralt can come past the apparent injustice, even though it threatens with problems.

Can you believe in such a character? And how many times have we ourselves vacillated between the options "to intervene and get in the face, but restore justice" and "pass by"? When the grandmother was cheated out in a store, a girl insolently snatched a bag from her hands, did the guy hold a group of teenagers in a corner and demand to call? What is better, to quarrel with the saleswoman for a couple of kopecks or keep silent? Chasing a thief and then half a day to fill out protocols and be a witness or just leave? Get in the face with a fist and maybe even a knife in the stomach or pretend to be deaf and blind? Worlds may be different, but people are the same everywhere.


Every action must have a reason. Each action will have consequences. Every author should remember that, because no matter how strange and different from our world he creates, these two laws always and everywhere act. One could call this the law of our Universe, but in other universes it will also act. A conditional amoeba somewhere in the neighboring galaxy also grows its teeth and legs not just like that, but in order to hunt better and defend better. And this is also a cause and effect.

Also popular now: