How much do characters have to develop?

It seems like many people consider 'character development' to be the hold grail of RPG making. Every game is slandered for having not enough development, unconvincing development, or implausible development. I wish to ask, what do you think about character development?

Does every character have to undergo a life altering epiphany? Is it poor writing to include a character who has all their :bou::bou::bou::bou: together at the start of the game? Is it too outlandish to have a character who goes through their entire ordeal and learns nothing? Is watching a character(s) grow the central focus of RPGs or just an element? Is it even necessary at all?

EDIT: @#$^#@. Can someone fix the typo in the thread name?

All of this is completely contingent of the skill of the writer. Nothing is inherently poor. I'm of the mind that any idea can drive a quality story with a talented enough writer at the helm. That said, most gamers wouldn't know quality writing even if it descended from heaven and granted them eternal life.

If we're discussing RPGs, I'm not sure how much versatility there is in terms of writing. I realize what I said two sentences ago, but RPGs are by definition a long-form type of fiction. The more experimental the writing, the more disconnected it may end up feeling for the player from the actual gameplay. It needs to be surrounded a premise that has sufficient legs to reach across 40+ hours. Watching a character grow fits nicely because it parallels with the game's length and how it works mechanically (leveling-up, learning abilities, developing new strategies, etc). Also, (in my opinion) the plot usually needs to be sufficiently broad (FFVI and VII, for example) so as to not exhaust itself and require a number of unnecessary episodes to draw out play time before the game reaches its mechanical and storyline climax (VIII, IX, X).

I insist on at least 12 units of character development.

It depends on the game, I guess. FFXIII had it down just right for me, but games like FFVIII where only a couple of characters really grow and change are okay too.

It depends for me if there is a character in the group who has experiences like the situational plot of the story, why would he change so vastly to events that he has grown used to? It wouldn't make sense for characters who have never had these experiences to not change or learn anything from them. The only situation I can relate to someone not learning from it is someone I know in real life who has gone to jail constantly for the same things and continues to put himself around those people and in those situations. I had thought he would've learned by now. This could be applied to a game somehow, but I am lacking in creative thought at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

Does every character have to undergo a life altering epiphany?

---

No. But in game's where story is a major element, or at least the driving force that keeps things moving along, having a character that doesn't even react to the situation they're in, or seems unaffected by it is hard to swallow. Especially since the character is the player's connection to the world and if you ask me, should generally reflect the players growth and reaction to events in some way, even if the player and characters feelings don't necessarily match up. And considering most RPG's deal with the likes of toppling empires, or saving worlds, with potential apocalyptic consequences for failure, show me someone who doesn't react to that in some way.

So no, they don't have to under go some major life changes. A character could stay largely the same but still be faced with some challenging events and come through largely who they were before. But their reactions and decisions had better damn well make sense and be consistent with the characters established personality and traits, because there's not much story wise that will sour me on a game faster than characters reacting or making decisions that suit where the writer wanted to force the story, and not where thing's naturally should have gone.

It really depends on the type of story and like Flying Arrow said, the quality of the writer. If the game has a large cast, I'm willing to accept a few characters fall through the cracks and never get any decent screentime but if its a small cast of six or seven characters and you pull the same B.S. its not as kosher.

As for how much growth, I feel its not so much the quantity as much as its the quality of the growth unless circumstances in the story dictate otherwise at which point, those better be good explanations. This all only works if the player finds it believable, I feel its possible for a character to have significant growth and even though circumstantial evidence does point towards said growth to be logical, if the whole scenario is incapable of maintaining suspension of disbelief then its still bad character growth.

An example would be a cowardly boy who slays a dragon and after the incident becomes very confident and stops whining and being cowardly completely. The character has been through a great ordeal that logically would affect him and raise his confidence but the speed of which his insecurities vanish after said incident and the near 180 degree change so quickly is a bit hard to swallow. Realistically it wouldn't be so neat and tidy. Perfect for a children's story but that kind of crap wouldn't fly in stories targeted towards an older audience.

I feel good character growth is not just how the events affect the character but also how the audience sees the characters. An example is Setzer from VI, who is for most of the game a care-free rogue who seems like he's doing everything just for the fun, then you see his past and your perception of the character is changed cause now his previous actions no longer seem like him being a goofball, but rather a tragic figure who is desperately trying to distract himself from his grief. In truth, Setzer's personal growth is minimal in VI, he eventually comes to terms with Daryl's death but his significant growth is more about how the player sees him, cause after the revelation of his past, a second playthrough of the game changes the context of the figure through hindsight. Still, I feel I should be quick to point out that you need both, not just one over the other.

If the player feels one character is a putz in the game and then they change due to incidents in the plot but it never alters the players perception of them being a putz then the character growth is still bad cause you've just made an unlikable or boring character. If the perception of the character changes due to revelations but the character themselves never deviate from their default personality quirk and even said revelations doesn't add a new level of context to the characters actions then its not good character growth, you've just created a Freudian excuse for them.

You need a little of column A and B, but where I feel many writers drop the bomb (myself included) is that the audience usually never needs dramatic moments to garner such a change, you can do simple things to change a character significantly without all the high emotional drama to garner it in. Red XIII takes a simply journey and is profoundly affected by the revelation of his father but this scene is insignificant to VII's entire story but still it does a great job to help the player grow to like the furball. :D

High drama does not equal good character growth. It depends on many more factors and the skill of the writer and the audiences willingness to accept the writer's skills to create anything meaningful.

These characters usually are somehow involved in large plots to destroy the world, and something like that would have a profound effect on you. That's why I expect characters to develop during the story. It doesn't always have to be in a big way, but having a very static reaction to everything gets boring. WK's example of Red XIII is a good one. His subplot didn't have much to do with the larger story, but it did help flesh out the character and give him some development. To me, that's good storytelling.

If you want a good example of great characters, play Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪

It depends on the game, I guess. FFXIII had it down just right for me.

---

Really? I thought that had some of the worst attempts at character developments ever. The whole situation just seemed so forced, and it seemed like they were just taking it in turns to reveal their 'tragic pasts' (and they all did have one).
I suppose this also linked in with the length of the game, which I felt was very short, so maybe they didn't have enough time to fully develop every character. But that's the writers' fault.
Basically for every charcter it went a little something like "Secrecy, tragic past revealed, comes to terms, soldiers through, next character".

I think the characters in FFXIII weren't bad, but the problem was that they were pretty much shoved down our throats as being the focal point of the whole story. There was really no supporting cast to speak of, which goes a long way to help flesh out these characters sometimes, and give you a break from having to focus on them. All the 'development' in that game felt very forced for that reason. It was almost like SE was literally saying 'hey look, character development!' (which they basically did in the reports). That left a bad taste in my mouth after I was done playing it. As for their personalities themselves, I didn't have a problem with them and thought they were a pretty colorful bunch. The way they were handled was just bad.

I believe that if the story is significant that the characters should grow and develop accordingly.

If a character goes through life altering experiences without learning anything, then the story should focus on less static characters because it sounds like that character would offer little other than being a player avatar. Some people prefer blank slate main characters or silent protagonists, but I think that they negatively impact any story.

I agree with VeloZer0's implied initial remark that "character development" isn't the metric ruler for quality in an RPG, like it's considered to be on these forums. It's almost a misappropriated term, since RPG developers use the phrase to describe the background progression system for the combat - how you develop your characters.

Anyway, these are games, not literature, and I'm pretty sure most of us are far from traditionally trained writing critics, and I'm a firm believer that there's more than 1 way to skin a cat, particularly in games. Shining Force has little to no character development, but the rest of the elements of the actual game come together to make it one of my favorite RPG's.

Quote:

---

How much do characters have to develop?

---

More than anyone did in FFXII, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

Does every character have to undergo a life altering epiphany?

---

No, but at least give me a reason to care about them. At least have SOMETHING happen to them. If they're a main character anyway. You can throw in all the one demensional supporting characters you want, but 20 hours into the game I should be somewhat aware of what my characters' feelings and intentions are.

One of the reasons I liked the first three FF's is that the characters didn't really say anything. You just got right down to the meat of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfen

One of the reasons I liked the first three FF's is that the characters didn't really say anything. You just got right down to the meat of the game.

---

Sometimes it's fun to just make up stuff they may be thinking, and create story lines for them. They can be deep serious characters or the four stooges that stumbled on a time machine. But as much as I like the original FF, I prefer a wonderful crafted story with well developed characters that you can relate to.