Good Cast vs Not Bad Cast

[VeloZer0]

It occurred to me the other day that when I think of a game with a good cast of characters what jumps out at me isn't having super deep and well developed characters, but just that don't have any characters that annoy me. Is it bad that I now no longer look for good characters, but that the absence of bad ones is enough to make me happy? Does anyone else feel this way?

[Ayen]

A little bit. It shows that creators has constantly lowered the bar so much that we're perfectly content if characters are at the very least passable. This problem isn't anything unique to RPGs or even video games. I find it in a lot of forms of mediums. Creators know they don't have to try as hard anymore so a lot of them will cut corners and give you the bare minimum and look good only by comparison to other more poorly written or executed characters that are out there. I don't know how well the actual ratio is, but there's still enough to make someone feel the way you do, Velo.

[Wolf Kanno]

I would say I'm in this category, most of my least favorite stories tend to involve having to deal with unlikable characters whereas casts I like tend to have a few I like and the rest I feel indifferent to as opposed to loathing. Bad characters just suck the joy out of a scene, even if you have a character you like in the same scene, I find I focus more on the character I dislike because they irritate me.

With that said, I have to like a majority of the characters to say I like a cast. It's a balancing act, but I do tend to like casts where I like everyone and the few I dislike are purposely written to be like that (Algus/Argath anyone?) but if the cast has too many characters I find annoying or the most obnoxious character is a major character with screen time, it does suck the joy out of the plot.

[Sephex]

It really depends. If you have good enough insurance one can easily afford a cast after a bone is broken. Even lazy doctors know how to set a bone just right, so making sure you have a cast that keeps the set bone in place is key. I had a friend that got some cheap sling-cast thing and it took forever for his arm to heal. To this day he says it feels weird. So yeah, opt for the best cast possible when needed.

[Laddy]

I think it depends on the game. A cynical and brooding game like Torment has a lot of very unpleasant, odd, and complex characters which suit the overall mood quite nicely. Conversely, a Tales game, which leans more towards idealism and adventure, is more prone to pleasant characters that, while having depth, aren't as complex as they would in other franchise.

[Fynn]

I don't really care, to be honest. I don't think one bad character will ruin a game for me. I can't even remember a cast that I didn't like that much in a game. Well, there was FFXIII where everyone was a big missed opportunity and FFX where everyone was a walking cliché, and then there's games like Persona 3 and 4 where I just adore the whole cast since they're all impeccably well-written. So yeah, I think I look for overall good casts, and I can't remember an instance when one bad character ruined it for me.

[Karifean]

I can't say I've ever genuinely disliked a main character in an RPG, so the casts that stand out to me are the ones with particularly good characters.

[Vyk]

I'm still pretty picky with my games and a cast with a majority of either likable or believable characters is generally required for games with a little focus on character. For me even a well written character can ruin it if they clash with the story. Not to deny creative freedoms but when a character is a little too upbeat after something terrible happens it completely clashes with the story and deflates any intensity it had just built up. Like Fynn I worry more about squandered resources

[Skyblade]

A bad main protagonist can easily ruin a game. Case in point: Final Fantasy Tactics.

However, it is worth noting that there is a difference between "bad" character and "not fully fleshed out" character. Just because a character is lacking in development or lacks moments of incredible depth, doesn't mean they're bad characters. Most people are actually pretty simple on a surface level, and without the proper circumstances arising, the depth they have will never show through.

Part of what ruins attempts at making a "super deep" character is creating utterly contrived situations that the characters are thrust into in order to show off their depth. Quiet, understated situations that highlight simple character design can work wonders at developing strong and realistic characters, even if they don't seem as "deep" or "fleshed out" as some others.

[Fynn]

A bad main protagonist can easily ruin a game. Case in point: Final Fantasy Tactics.

However, it is worth noting that there is a difference between "bad" character and "not fully fleshed out" character. Just because a character is lacking in development or lacks moments of incredible depth, doesn't mean they're bad characters. Most people are actually pretty simple on a surface level, and without the proper circumstances arising, the depth they have will never show through.

Part of what ruins attempts at making a "super deep" character is creating utterly contrived situations that the characters are thrust into in order to show off their depth. Quiet, understated situations that highlight simple character design can work wonders at developing strong and realistic characters, even if they don't seem as "deep" or "fleshed out" as some others.

I couldn't agree more. Like, I adore the casts of Digital Devil Saga and SMTIV but people accuse those games of failing to reach those same depths as Persona. Even if that's true, they're still far from flat.

[Vyk]

I think a good mixture of a competent cast, a competent world, and a competent story can go a long way to creating a better cohesive experience than like a great world and interesting story and terrible cast. And those games are way more than competent in all regards. Some may not be great in one or two aspects, but certainly far more than merely competent

[Loony BoB]

I can get past a bad character so long as they aren't extremely central to the storyline. Tidus, Seymour and Yuna all grated on me and it ruined what would have otherwise been a good game. I'm not saying they are 'bad' characters completely, I'm just saying that for me, they're bad. I don't really know if I can think of any "objectively bad" characters. Bland, sure. Divisive perhaps. Annoying, yes. But not "objectively bad."

[Pumpkin]

I'm weird about this. To enjoy a game to its fullest I need ONE character (at least) that I simply adore. The more the better. If I have that character I can put up with characters I actively dislike, bad story, and subpar gameplay much more. Unless every single other character was just awful.

If I don't have that one character and the cast just doesn't move me, it does hinder my enjoyment of a game by a good bit. Doesn't mean I'll dislike the game, but it'll never reach full potential for me.

Like Final Fantasy VII. I like Red XIII but I didn't love him. I didn't mind a few of them. I actively disliked a few of them. So because of that, I will never like the game as much as some others with worse stories and gameplay. Bravely Default had excellent gameplay and an interesting story but I didn't care much about the cast and so it ranks below games that are similar but not as well executed, all because of the characters. Xenogears has an amazing story, probably my favourite of any video game, but I didn't care much about the cast and so it overall ranks pretty low when compared to games with less interesting and well told stories.

I still like all of those games I mentioned, I'll still play them again, but I'll never like them as much as I could have