What Makes A Great Character And Story?

A lot of things make a character pop. We are humans and deeply flawed individuals, and the way we can relate to characters is to look at their flaws and their environment. Erm - I would say that, while struggles may be similar, I think characters have a lot more ground to cover because they also influence our behavior, if that makes sense.

So if I was to see a great character, if I was to say that a character is great, I would remember this character mainly because of their flaws. Just for example, off the top of my head, perhaps Harry Potter. I think one of his flaws as a character is that he's quite, as he grows up, he's quite, erm - impulsive. Sometimes he doesn't think through the consequences of his actions. That's why, in the story, we see him make some mistakes. He thinks he is taking some responsibility, but in truth, he's acting out of impulse.

And that's mainly it.

Okay, I think that's difficult. Most writers make, at least, decent characters. I think an unbearable character is not necessarily a bad character, just unbearable, which might be the intention of the writer. Is it really bad?

I'd say a bad character would be something that goes against the grain of its own self. This is so difficult; not even Gary Stus or Mary Sues fit the mold of a bad character. Because most of the time, stories with overpowered abilities or just “perfect“ characters, usually have struggles that try to undermine some of their abilities, I guess. I'd say, something that goes against the grain of the character. So, let's just say the character's happy, and at the same time sad, try to combine this in a way that doesn't make any sense. It just feels like the character is paused or something like that. I don't have any examples.

I don't deem any character as bad, but perhaps, not what I would add to my character.

There are plenty of those. Mediocre, the character that I guess has no relevance to the story. I'm a firm believer in secondary characters and extras having a lot of impact, even if it is behind the scenes. If a character is just there to be there, to me that's mediocre.

I read this not too long ago: there are 29,000 people that we come in contact with in our lives, and I'm pretty sure that those 29,000 people have had some impact on our lives, even if it's just remote. Someone leaving a five-pound note on the floor—we haven't met that person, but that person has impacted our lives positively on that day. So if someone doesn't add anything positive or negative to our lives, then that's not someone worth having, I guess.

I went before on his flaws; I think growth is also important in this instance. When you look at Kratos, going from a character focused on vengeance and retribution, literally a God of War, to becoming a God of War that practices different aspects of war. In terms of calmness, in the latest games, of course, having a good head on your shoulders but being ready for battle. That definitely makes a great character— the story and how they approach the struggles.

A great story can only be possible by having a great background. The struggles of the main character are obviously very important. But without a great background, without a great world for that story to be set in, it can all feel like nothing. An example off the top of my head would be that there are so many stories that are great simply because of the background that they have.

I mostly read fantasy.

World-building. If the story happens somewhere, where the main characters are not the end-all-be-all, I think we have the potential for the story to go further than what the main character experiences.

For example, Harry Potter again—I'm committing blasphemy here, but I have not read the books. (Both laugh). Err - I know that outside of Harry Potter himself, there's a great amount of lore put into the story of Harry Potter that makes it a world that works on its own.

We have a game called Hogwarts Legacy; Harry Potter's not present at all. He's not mentioned or anything like that. But the world works because the small parts combine into this one great story.

I didn't pick neccessarily, I got take to, I think it was Ravenclaw.

It's not bad. I'd say, Ravenclaw, it does fit with me, or Slytherin.

I guess it's necessary drama. More fire, quite literally. If you look at it, it's something writers do now and again.

I'm going to go the opposite of it this time. Having a world where the secondary characters have too much of an impact.
When the main characters just don't make sense in what the main story is going for and what the story aims for, that would be a mediocre story because nothing fits in. I don't have any examples because I am not someone who reads mediocre stories. I must have seen them growing up; I just never vibed with them because it never made sense. Oh! Oh, and the overuse of plot twists. Just using too many plot devices with no regard for pacing and things like that. That's on the writing side. Mediocre stories, I don't think they are, like — how can I explain this - there's this one book or writer that doesn't have a mediocre story, but has a mediocre start to his story because of the way it's written. The writer's ability, the overuse of plot twists, and over us of plot twists, and plot devices.

Why?

What do you think makes a mediocre story?

Pacing.

Sorry to interrupt. I actually thought the minute Loki, or Atreus, went with the Giants, that's when the game would be cut off. Because I thought there would be more of a fleshed bit on Thor's family, and things of that nature. Before we got into fights with the Gods themselves.

You're completely right there, you're completely right. I think, I'm going to get heated for this, but I thing the Last of Us Two was a great story, but the pacing was completely, I don't want to say too much, because I might get heated on, but I didn't like the pacing at all.

I liked the story because I guess it was a natural progression of what mnight happen if vengence takes place. But, at the same time I was confilcted with how everything was dealt with. The last hours of the game just felt like, this does not fit here. This does fit here. It doesn't sit well with me.
But I see you have --. (Laughs), What do you think of last of us 2?

Fair enough. Did you play the first one?

Like me, if you had played them you would have had a different opinion of the story. But there was a lot of uproar killing one of the main characters of the last game, Joel. Wait, did I spoil it for you?

I just spoiled it then.

No, I haven't watched it.

Please do spoil it for me, I don't think I'll watch it on my own.

I don't want to make any spoilers, but I think that was the main concern that caused the uproar. I'll leave it there. Hopefully you do enjoy the games. I have a feeling I know what your opinion will be.