Video games news, releases, esports and culture — all the biggest gaming stories in one place.
RPG companions need to be hateable, otherwise nobody’s going to love them
PC Gamer argues that memorable role-playing game companions should be capable of irritating, disappointing or alienating players, rather than being designed to be universally likeable. The author’s view is that this friction makes relationships feel more human and gives players a stronger reason to care when characters grow, reconcile or reveal deeper qualities.
The piece distinguishes deliberately challenging writing from simply poor characterisation: a companion needs understandable motives, personality and room to develop. It suggests that disagreement within a party, and the possibility that players may initially dislike someone, can create more lasting attachment than a cast made up entirely of agreeable allies.
In short
- Flawed companions can create stronger player attachment.
- Conflict and growth make party relationships feel human.
- Being hateable is not the same as being badly written.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Characters with genuine flaws and the capacity to frustrate players create more authentic human relationships and memorable emotional arcs; when a companion overcomes their limitations or reconciles with the player after conflict, that payoff feels far more meaningful than unconditional likability ever could. This approach distinguishes sophisticated character writing from generic design by giving players genuine reasons to invest in growth and change rather than simply enjoying agreeable companions.
The case against
Players invest considerable time and resources in games as entertainment and escapism, and a universally likeable companion can create equally powerful emotional bonds whilst respecting the player's desire for enjoyment without imposed friction. Furthermore, the distinction between intentional complexity and poor characterisation is often subjective; what one designer frames as meaningful flaws another player may simply experience as a frustrating character, making it a risky philosophy that assumes players want conflict with their party rather than camaraderie.
Explained simply
Role-playing games often let players travel with companion characters who join their party, help in battles and take part in conversations. These characters can have their own beliefs, personal histories and reactions to the player’s choices, making them a major part of the story.
Games have long used companions to create tension as well as friendship. A character may disagree with the player, behave selfishly or make mistakes, but their actions can feel meaningful if the game explains their reasons and lets them change over time.
The debate matters because companions can shape how players experience a game’s world and story. Writers must balance characters who are distinctive and difficult with ones whose behaviour still feels believable, rather than frustrating for no clear reason.