Areas of Practical Exploration

Having finished a draft for my literature review, I feel pretty informed about areas I can explore in terms of practical research.

My area of research has been pretty broad for a while, and I've been whittling it down, breaking in into different parts, obviously, as I've reflected upon regarding different aspects of culture affecting games and character design.

So, at last, having spent many hours of effort gaining a solid base of knowledge about culture within games, I have come up with several avenues of exploration:

• Stereotypes - of course, I've mentioned this one before. I think it will be interesting as a mini-project to see how stereotypes are received against non-stereotypical characters. 

• Redesigning existing characters - A while ago I touched upon this, pondering how the likes of Mario would look if they had come from a different culture. I want to explore this more to see the response/impact. 

• Non-human characters - It was mentioned in more than one book that it is possible non-human characters are received better across more cultures. I want to investigate this. 

• Fantasy characters -A lot of fantasy games/characters feature fictional cultures. I will concept some fantasy characters whose backstory/culture is fictional but inspired by real culture. 

• Style - this one is a given, regarding my fascination with the likes of Okami. I sort of touched on this last year in my games proposal, applying an Art Nouveau - big movement in Slavic countries inspired style to a game based around Slavic culture.

• Adapting to audiences - I will design a character who I will then adapt into different cultures based on my interpretations having researched these cultures. 

All of these mini-projects that I intend to explore will involve getting feedback from various others in order to determine how they might or might not relate or engage well with the outcomes I produce through them.

I will not spend long on each of them, perhaps a week at most, using them as quick experiments to gain an insight through practical research. This should help me to determine a solid project at the end of it. I aim to have tried and tested each avenue by mid-January. As for whether I'll stick to that time-frame or whether I will change direction heavily, only time and research will tell!

Of course I will look at some case studies, one being Okami. Another good case, in terms of a game that transferred well across cultures, is Fire Emblem.

And that's that. Job jobbed. Plan planned. Woo.

Ergodic Videogames

So this was something that made me have to think. 

Trying to define what ergodic videogames are, as termed by James Newman in an article for Games Studies (the online journal), was pretty difficult. But ultimately it comes down to conceptualization, I interpreted.

I found this journal when writing my plan for my literature review and it was pretty interesting once I got my head around it, supporting one of my thoughts about player-relation to the main characters that some players don't empathize or engage with a player-character, particularly in first-person shooter games as they are just an embodiment, as Newman describes it, which acts as a vehicle for the player to explore the world. 

He argues against most theorists that the player character's appearance is irrelevant to the player, and that it is the 'off-line players' - those who play the game with another but don't PHYSICALLY play - gain more of a relationship with the player-character as they are not directly assuming the role of that character. According to Newman there is more conceptualization on the off-line player's part, as the the primary player thinks less of the character who they play as and yet cannot see (with regards to first-person shooters). Newman sought to 'challenge the notion of identification and empathy in the primary-player-character relationship'. 

This argument is interesting in regards to how I might then approach culture in character design and how necessary it is to particular game cultures, i.e. is it necessary in certain types of games like first-person shooters which are far less narrative driven than RPG's? 

He concludes that the relationship 'between player and gameworld suggests that this linkage is best considered as an experiential whole that synthesizes action, location, scenario and not merely as a bond between subject and object within a world. While this could be true, I see this as a contradiction where I see that the 'experiential whole' is fleshed out by the presence of story and by extension a character. Even if the player does not empathize with the character whose shoes they have filled, they are likely to engage with non-player characters elsewhere in the game, which I feel Newman has overlooked in a sense.

At any rate, it might just make the cut of my lit review, depending on which angle I now decide to approach. I need to stop looking at things. Need to stop changing my plan O_o  There's too much I'd like to analyse and too little words! 

Culture at the Epicentre

So I've actually learned a considerable amount since my last post, and I'm beginning to think that my research could potentially take a slightly different turn. It's far too late tonight to go into too much about the handful of books that I've got all this from, so I'm basically summarizing what I've interpreted from it thus far.

When I've been looking into the relation between character and player, there always seem to be a connection with spatial awareness. So from what I've gathered, there seems to be a relation between all three. Not only that, but I've also come across the inclusion of story. Story has been discussed as a fuel for creating a good character, both visually and as a personality - in driving the player to want to know more about a character. This refers to who the character is, where they come from, their values etc. etc. Ultimately, this is their culture.

However the character's culture is often - in terms of the fictional word - determined by the environment and situation in which they live. A character who lives in an urban environment is likely to have a different culture to one from, let's say, the mountains. I've noticed that several theorists have claimed that characters from a more fantastical world and a fantasy culture are more relatable to players as the lack of realism means they have less expectation about what the character should be, and by extension the world in which the character lives. 

It is through a playable character that the player interacts with the environment within the game, and so the character is fundamental to the spatial awareness. Without the character as a vehicle, the player cannot explore this space, thus heightening the importance of the character to player relation. Of course, as I've established before, the character's culture affects how or why the player may or may not associate with them. 

Although some people have said in my survey that there is no particular impact on them because of a character's culture, it is inadvertently connected to creating both an engaging, individuated character whose role you would want to assume because something about them enticing you to do so, and a rich world to which that character should suitably fit. If not, then there is the risk of the player feeling detached because the character is designed impractically. Practicality is another aspect that has come up in my research, albeit briefly. 

In other words, within the fictional world, story, space, character and player are all interconnected in some way. To me culture is central to these, present in each aspect, because ultimately it affects the design beyond the fictional world (i.e. characters created by designers of different cultures and how they are perceived/accepted across different cultures) and the whole experience. 

To summarize, culture - both real and fictional -forges a character with whom a player can relate. Through this, a player can engage fully with the world they are put in through the eyes of their character and uncover the story through interacting with the environment in which the character lives.

Analysis of Research

So having got a number of people to do my surveys, I've got the majority back and, as I said before, I found it kind of intriguing what people said. I've compiled it into quantitative research, gathering statistical data reflecting whether they felt involved with the culture of their characters. 

Aside from only half of the favourite characters being the main character, only 45% of them were game characters. So oddly enough, people seem to prefer passive characters, even when it came to the game characters. Again, this makes me think about what I was talking about with the other half the other day. Maybe for some people that involvement in assuming the role of a character makes it easier to relate to other characters in the game, rather than the playable character who is just a digital avatar of themselves. Of course, this is an assumption I am making based upon what I have read and gathered from my survey thus far. It is still something to take into consideration. 

Interestingly enough, I was surprised by the majority answers given when it came to the impact of culture on their characters and them as players. 

 

These four charts show the ratios for whether culture is important in games, the impact of it, the depth it gives characters and whether people picked up on any sort of culture.

Almost everyone stated that yes, culture is important in games, however less than half agreed that it had a significant impact on them as a player. It seemed to be an even split for those who felt they could partly relate because of their characters culture, versus thought who didn't. From a quantitative point of view the large majority see the value in culture, and are able to recognize a prominent culture however the impact on the players appears to be minimal. Over half of the answers given were no that there was no significant impact.

While results show that culture helps to give depth to characters, it didn't particularly add to the character-player relation, more that it helped with character and story development.

Although, to look at it from a qualitative point of view, there were various reasons as to why people said yes or no to these questions. One person stated that actually yes, a character with culture enough to give it depth makes them more relatable because of their values and simply because of the depth of the character - portraying enough attributes on a general basis that the player could relate to.

On the contrary, another said that culture has very little to do with the relation between player and character because it is far more to do with the characters experiences and stress, situations with which players can familiarize. However these situations and moments of stress often happen due to the characters values and actions, which often stem from the character's cultural background, real or fiction.

If I was to draw a conclusion from my current data, from this first survey at any rate, I would say that it is the sub-culture that people seem to be drawn too more than anything like a character's nationality (only a few people really mentioned anything like nation or race) and that where culture appears to affect people most is through the character's actions, personalities, values, mindset and even skill-set - inner attributes as opposed to any physical aspects.

This is intriguing to me given that it doesn't correlate with what I've researched from books regarding storytelling through the character's physical design.

Although, I've yet to analyse the second survey that touched more on marketability. 

Thoughts for the Day

I was talking to my other half and my research, and he said something that suddenly made me stop and think. A few people who have helped me with my surveys have said that their favourite characters are NPC's, to whom they appear to relate better. Either that, or people have chosen films characters, both of which are passive - comparably to a character whose role you assume and acts as a 'surrogate while we play' (Dille and Platten, 2007). 

However may it is exactly that, as it was pointed out by Scott, and I quote that he said  'maybe its because they can sit back and reflect rather than to be actively using the character, similar to in a film why people get so attached is because they aren't so physically involved and can be driven down a path through story.'

Perhaps, since you are assuming the role of a character, some people don't relate to them because you aren't seeing them as another persona with whom to relate...because you ARE them. They are your avatar for the adventure you are playing. Instead it may be possible that players are relating to NPC's through the eyes of the character whose role they have indeed assumed. 

Of course this isn't always the case, as great numbers of people obviously relate to and connect strongly with their player character for various reasons, whether that's strictly the character's culture or not. I dunno: too philosophical, maybe? But that's my interesting thought for the day. I wonder if I could find anything that would back this up, or even rebuff it. Whatever the case, it would help me unravel a little bit more.

It actually relates to something I read in the book Quests by Jeff Howard, and in the book The Ultimate Guide to Video Game Writing and Design, which I am reading at the moment, which I'll reflect upon when I'm confident with my findings.  

It's not just about Appearances!

Or, according to the different regional box-arts of our favourite little pink blob, Kirby. 

So I found out that Kirby has always looked different on the box art for Japanese and North American versions, (again, the most common comparison!). For North America, Kirby always looks pretty angry, compared to the care-free, happy-go-lucky looking Kirby on the Japanese versions below. This has been commonplace for most of the games in the series (with a couple of exceptions).

Gamespot did an interview with Shinya Kumazaki, the director of the Kirby games, who explains why they have changed Kirby's facial expression for America. It is only his expression that changes, and nothing about his physical appearance. 

American versus Japanese box art.

In the interview, Kumazaki explains that the reason Kirby is 'cute' for the most part is because it is the strongest portrayal of Kirby. Apparently it 'appeals to the widest audience' and is particular effective in drawing in the Japanese audience, which is why he is always cute for Japanese box art (minus one game which I'll mention). It seems the Japanese market like 'cute'. 

On the other hand, North America are said to prefer the more hardcore side of Kirby. Kumazaki says that they are aware of Kirby having  ' a serious side as well'. Through feedback to HAL from Nintendo of America, it seems that the angry Kirby appeals well to the U.S market and that's what they would rather have. 

This is another example, and a different one at that, of how character's are localized. They don't necessarily have to be changed physically. In this case, Kirby's forefront attitude was changed. In a way, I think this is perhaps a cleverer way of localizing a character. Ultimately, the character has not had to physically change whatsoever. Kirby just looks more serious, more focused. He still looks cute though, so that image isn't lost. It's just that it's been adapted to suit a different market. 

Characters are more often than note featured on box art, and box art helps to sell a game. Reflecting on this, care needs to be taken in how a character is portrayed when it comes to marketing and being able to appeal to the target audience. 

To me, Kirby's change was a subtle change, because he's practically identical bar his expression and I think the message gets across quite easily. It's not dissimilar from how they changed Ratchet from Ratchet and Clank, as Hasegawa and Tsurumi explain in an interview (taken from the book Better Game Characters by Design). To make him more expressive for the Japanese market, his eyebrows were thickened and stripes were added to his body to reflect his wild nature. This was about expression, as was Kirby's alteration.

As long as it doesn't take away from the character, or present the wrong message about the character, I think it works well. In fact, perhaps this subtle localisation works better than changing a character too much visually. Especially if a character has a particular culture that is expressed through how they look (building upon what Sean Andrew Murray wrote about clothes telling a story), then it might just be the attitude of the character or its values that be necessary to change to appeal to an audience.

After all, it is often a character's values and behaviourism that attracts a player to it, as seems to show in my survey results thus far.

Another reason for localising a character might be because of cultural beliefs. I've been looking up why Karthus from League of Legends was changed for China. Something or rather to do with bones, but it's difficult to find a good point of reference. All I know so far is that his design was altered, and that forums speculate why.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-29-why-so-serious-nintendo-explains-angry-western-kirby
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/why-is-kirby-always-angry-in-the-us-nintendo-explains/1100-6419263/

Is subculture more prominent?

So I've had a handful of surveys back so far, and the results are actually quite interesting. Some of them are not what I was expecting, and it seems that people so far seem to pick up on the characters' sub-cultures and values more than culture. Of course, culture is connected to their values, or at least some of the answers indicate that the character's culture is related to their values, however again they are more focused on the sub-culture.

Interestingly enough, most of the favourite characters are actually quite general, in that they don't belong to specific culture, excluding the characters which belong to a fictional culture. Obviously, I need to wait for more people to reply with their answers for me to establish a conclusion, but I've just found it rather intriguing, some of the answers that have come back so far!

Thus far, my findings are leading to me to believe that perhaps I should be considering how to design a character from a particular culture both subtly and effectively, with a balance for marketability. 

So far, to answer my question, the impact of culture in character design appears to be minimal for those that I have asked so far, although there is value in it. 

Next steps

Having set my surveys underway, I'm establishing my next moves.

Obviously, research remains undergoing, of which I'm drowning in books and articles... feels like I'm wading. First I'm reading, then I'mm taking notes, then I'm reflecting, then I'm going off on tangents... then I'm building a confident starting point for actually beginning designing and sketching and experimenting visually.... SO MUCH WRITE UP! O_o


-ahem- Anyhow, yeah. This entry is less about what I've learned and more about what I'm now intending to do. Setting a structure for myself.

• Finish writing up/ reflecting upon current findings from further research.

• Explore why certain cultural games are successful and why some aren't across cultural borders.

• Begin visual exploration through the topic of 'stereotypes'. 

1. Designing characters based on my current knowledge of a select number of cultures
2. Redesigning them based on my NEW, researched knowledge of those cultures. 
3. Then beginning to flesh them out beyond just appearances. This would affect how I would develop them. 

So literally, Erdin just posted this in our MA group on Facebook!

I actually touched on something like this back when I was talking about Mario and his famous moustache. It was about iconic characters if they had come from other cultures. Perhaps I could consider exploring redesigning existing characters into different cultures!  

Oop. See. Tangent, AWAY! 

Surveys!

So I've sent out a couple of Surveys to gather a bit of information about whether culture really does have a significant presence among Western audiences, well, at least in the UK... because my contacts don't go that far!
Although that being said, I could create a survey on Survey Monkey.com to try and reach complete strangers far and wide. If i do that, it might be more reliable. We'll see.

Anyways, I've asked a number of people interested in games, but also some who are game designers and animators and other design students too. This will get me some info from other points of views.

By investigating what people say as a good character, both in design and inspiration, this will help me to determine how to approach character design so that my final outcome is marketable AND relatable. 

From these results, it could swing one way or another that culture should have a more subtle presence. Well it might not even be essential at all. Some people might not care. But, after all, this is why I'm conducting these surveys.

Now I just have to wait for them XD

Believable Characters

So in researching what makes a good character, other than what I've already established, I found these two articles on CreativeBloq. Both of these articles include advice from professional illustrators: Tony Foti and Sean Andrew Murray, respectively;

(1) http://www.creativebloq.com/character-design/4-top-character-design-secrets-101413322

(2) http://www.creativebloq.com/character-design/how-draw-believable-clothing-your-character-101413217

The opening sentence for article one (1) reads :'Original concepts for game characters start with an imaginative back story, says Illustrator Tony Foti'.

This is what grabbed my attention about this article most of all. Personally, I find that works which talk about character design are often solely focused on the physical design, the visuals of the character, however when considering the factor of cultures that are involved in the video game industry, the background and the story of the character becomes a very important factor. So this article was good for me in that it iterates the importance of story as a key aspect in character design.

A character with more depth often gives for a more easily relatable one, however it also means that if this character takes inspiration from a real-life culture, then it is important that it is accurate and not too specific for a wide audience to grow close to, as I already pointed out in my last blog entry. A character that is too niche is hard to digest for some people.

The more you learn about your own character and where its influences lay, then the easier it will be to establish a personality that many people would be able to relate to. Culturally speaking, this could mean taking a more subtle approach to integrating it into the design, or simply a more cleverly devised design - leading me onto why I found article two (2) relevant.

Again, this article also makes reference to having a good story. In other words a character should be fleshed out in character and personality, which in turn should show through their physical appearance and more specifically, as Murray speaks about, clothing. He uses this an example of a good medium through which to tell the character's story. Bringing it back to my particular topic of research, clothing can also be a very good indicator of a character's culture. This is all part of creating a layered character with whom the audience can engage with, because it HAS that depth.

I like Murray's example of the shaman-esque character.



A subtle touch, but as he rightly states it is the bones that draw the attention. It immediately made me think of a witch doctor. It is open to interpretation because it subtle, meaning more people can potentially engage with it, however there is a reference of culture there. Witch doctors are another name for African Shamans and Bone throwing was a technique used by these people.

These two articles touched upon the balance of character back-story and physical appearance with a little more depth than I had read until now. These clever design tips are perhaps key in creating a believable character whether it be highly fantasized, just as the shaman-like character above is. He has small but clear touches of culture (i,e, African Shaman) without being overbearing. Perhaps it is that because the fantasy in his design helps to mute the niche culture with which few people might actually wholly relate.

He is believable. Regardless of where a character's influences stem, they should be believable otherwise players will only feel detached from them.

Getting Clear on Culture

A while ago I mentioned a book that would be ideal for me to look at regarding my area of research. Better Game Character By Design dedicates a chapter to discussing culture and its involvement in games and character design. 

So I read up on this a week or so ago, and only just got round to writing up my notes into the blog! Woops! I found quite a lot and it led me onto another book as well, so this might be a long entry as I write up the many notes I took. :P 

Anyway, it mentioned a number of interesting points that I wasn't aware of, and it's tugged in a slightly unexpected direction in its mentioning of localization of characters according to the culture of the region in which a game is intended to be released.

The entire chapter was enlightening though, backing up what I initially thought about this subject not being explored enough. As I've already reflected upon before, it's dangerous territory when directly taking inspiration from culture by culture or for culture, because there's always the risk of running stereotypes. That being said, I've started exploration on how this might be combated and how audiences might prefer to see characters in terms of cultural influences i.e. more subtle references, maybe even fantasized versions of existing cultures. (How many times can I type that word in one paragraph?!) 

Not entirely sure what I've written about my findings from this so far, so I'll recap: culture is defined most commonly as national identities, however ethnicity is not so black and white. There are subcultures within those cultures and old and new traditions and customs that may or may not have intertwined in recent years. Once distinguishable cultures are becoming a blend of many. So this is one of the reasons that cultures in games and surrounding games is becoming a little more complex. Isbister covers this as an intro.

Three points are made, regarding stereotyping and why to go about avoiding stereotypes - for one thing, nowadays people might get easily offended! 

Nothing stays the same, and that makes 'culture' very hard to define, be it a fictional culture based upon a real one or a character inspired directly by an existing (or once existing) culture. This again runs the risk of stereotype. 

However I read upon a useful statement, that: 

'Designs that address basic human issues and qualities can be appealing when [...] appearance and behaviour come from an unfamiliar subculture' (Isbister, 2006). 

This, in my opinion, suggests that character relation to players goes deeper than just how they look. For example, as is pointed out in the interview with Hasegawa and Tsurumi, Japanese audiences hate Master Chief not only for his physical design, but for his apparent independence, as they are far more accustomed to 'collectivist cultures [...] value the harmony of the group and protecting each person...' (Isbister, 2006). 

Tidus and Yuna from Final Fantasy X is the example used here. 

They maintain Japanese behaviourisms, including looking out for and supporting each other as well as how they address each other with bows. The entire game involves Tidus supporting Yuna and others throughout the game.

One game that comes to mind for me is the Legend of Zelda series. Link always has a supporting character, whether it is Navi the Fairy from Ocarina of Time, or perhaps more notably Midna from Twilight Princess - in the end she in particular supports Link to the end despite ulterior motives in the beginning. The point is, Link can't complete his quest without her aid.

I learned that physical identity is important in 'social perception and interaction', Isbister says that ethnic similarities between player and character are 'perceived as more socially attractive'. This is particularly true for player-characters as they are a social substitute, effectively an avatar for the player in the game. (Isbister, 2006). So perhaps this is why it is difficult for characters and games to transfer regions without making changes, although apparently Japanese games transfer more easily to Western cultures.
 

This might explain why non-human characters seem to succeed globally. Just look at the phenomenon that was and still is Pokemon. It transcends cultural borders because it is so wildly adrift from reality that the cultural presence is almost unnoticed, despite it being typically Japanese. 

'Social roles are important to character design because they shape a player's expectations about how characters should interact more with one another in the game. If a character has a particular social role, the player with unconsciously apply his or her own cultural expectations for fulfilling that role and may be confused [...] if the character diverges from these expectations without explanation. This may be especially true if the character looks as if she or he belongs to the player's own cultural group'. (Isbister, 2006).

This passage particularly intrigued me because it seems to claim that a character is more relatable to a player, so long as BOTH the character's physical identity AND interactions/behaviours coincide with the player's own. But is this always true? For a character with a strict cultural identity that is closely related to the players, then most likely, however you cannot identify how far this truth stretches, in my opinion.  although I will agree with the statement that 'cultural and subcultural backgrounds have a profound effect on how [the player] perceives the game because of these existing expectations'. This is something that I could explore!  In fact, I am already looking into differentiating between what is good character design for people from different backgrounds. 

 Again, another questionable statement is made, regarding whether characters behaving a certain way can appeal and engage people whose customs include the same values. I could flip that, and ask what about those who don't have the same values. Are they automatically rejected or disregarded as being able to relate to those characters? Other reasons could constitute a relation between player and character, although I will agree with the statement that 'cultural and subcultural backgrounds have a profound effect on how [the player] perceives the game because of these existing expectations'.

I have already established that there's no easy way to design a good character, as it is very subjective to different groups and even individuals within those groups, but the end of the chapter provides some design pointers, a couple of which I would be very wise to heed: 

• 'Consider avoiding real races and cultural movements'
• 'Use simple human universals in character relationships'
• 'Be true to localization of your characters in their own world'

(Pages 60-61)

This has been pretty lengthy, analyzing what I researched back then. I will discuss what I learned from the following interview with Hasegawa and Tsurumi from Sony Entertainment Japan in a separate entry. And then obviously what this has led me onto, further regarding the necessity, hindrance and impact of culture. I have been currently reading up on a similar topic in the book 'The Business and Culture of Digital Games'. This too emphasizes how it is an important presence and the effect it has, however it has a wider scope, focusing on the entirety of games. It is good for me to get a view of the whole thing. 

Perhaps I will gain a bigger insight into other cultures beyond the obvious, and the biggest affect it might have on marketability. 

Fundamentals of Character Design

So while I've been researching, it's also occurred to me that it is a good idea to revise the foundation of what makes a good character. These fundamentals, the very aspects that together create a memorable character, are the basis upon which I will be building up further. In regards to that, I rewound a year or two, back to the lectures in 2nd Year on Character Design.

Those lectures kind of stuck with me and it was what prompted me into specializing in character design, essentially.

My point is, I want to review that which I've already learned, so to use it as a springboard to help me.
I remember taking away several points about what makes a character stand out, including: 

• Silhouette
• Colour palette 
• Visual grouping
• A distinctive feature

 

These are points also considered in text books that I have read. In Better Game Characters by Design, there is an interview with Ryoichi Hasegawa and Roppyaku Tsurumi from Sony Computer Entertainment Japan. In this interview both make references to the use of silhouette, with Hasegawa stating that 'the character's silhouette is more important than character details' (Isbister, 2006). I can agree with that when it comes to static images, because you can take far less about a character from a still image than you can when the character is in play. So the silhouette helps to recognize it.

I remember some of the examples used in the presentation Josh gave were some of the most iconic characters, and they are so iconic because almost everyone recognizes them even without having played their respective games.

Globally recognised silhouette of Sonic!

Josh referred to Cloud's 'Big Sword' during those talks. That's another point that Hasegawa also makes in the interview, referring to a character's 'special qualities'. What is it that the character has that is particularly recognisable, enough to make them stand out - much like Cloud's big sword? Interestingly enough, Hagesawa also claims that 'overseas' game designers' lack good special qualities in their characters, making them weak in comparison to Japanese character designs, (Isbister, 2006).
That's just something for me to think on.

Another point, which would be good to consider for culturally-inspired characters, is visual grouping. When you have a group of characters that belong to the same world, something has to connect them visually. Now, when talking about characters that may come from different fictional cultures within that world, that might not be as easy as it seems. So the aspects of it are important to remember, such as similar clothing, the art style, body language and not forgetting colours. With this in mind, I might consider that subtle visual influences of culture could be more effective in terms of a visual collective.

These fundamentals are a useful springboard, however it is important to remember that each video game culture has a different methodology of designing characters too. Obviously, I am bearing in mind how certain cultures, for example Japan, seldom accept a character designed from another culture because it simply does not fit their customs. A good character designer might follow these tips, however the depth of the character - their personality and behavioural patterns - might conflict with different audiences.