Well, words are still part of communication and if your definition of a word is significantly different from other people's, they simply won't understand what you are on about. At the moment you present a very subjective view on a matter and say it's the truth, which simply doesn't work. Perhaps you could reform the original question and start a discussion from a more objective point of view and, f.ex., talk about "forced character change" or "bad character development".
Character Development is a "thing" and I hate it.
- Thread starter CODE-D
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Character development as far as I'm concerned is any change in the character's thinking. If the movie presents you with a bland character and you're forced to put up with it throughout the whole thing, then you have a right to complain. If the character is interesting to begin with, I'm fine with it staying that way.
All stories are about character development unless they're about metaphor. And sometimes even then.
If you don't like character development, you're basically saying "I don't like characters stronger than a stereotype." And even pre-school cartoons stray away from that.
If you don't like character development, you're basically saying "I don't like characters stronger than a stereotype." And even pre-school cartoons stray away from that.
Must disagree with you. Character development has ALWAYS been crucial to storytelling, always. Pick up more or less any Shakespeare play and you will see characters around whom the story takes place, evolve over the course of the five acts.CODE-D said:
You have effectively two forms drama/story-telling. You have character-based and you have story-based. That has always, and will always be the case. In the former, the reader/viewer/player is interested the character(s), who they are, what motivates them, how they came to be there, the problems and how those problems affect/change them. With story based stories, the focus is less on the characters than the situation they are in or the world they inhabit. The problems, the solutions and how their actions alter the story.
When you take the standard 3-act storytelling method (setup, conflict, resolution), by far the most common (at least in the west) it is easy to see how storytellers work. The first 5-10 minutes of the film/game, the setup, introduces us to and establishes the main characters and lays the groundwork for the main story, the conflict. What happens there is the meat of the piece and will usually revolve around the characters, the story/world or sometimes both.
To say that character development has only become important recently is grossly incorrect. People have been studying and writing essays about Macbeth, Hamlet and Othello for decades, if not centuries. We like reading books because we're interested in what happens to the protagonist. And in game terms, it has been just as important and relevant for years. BioWare games for example always manage to have both intertwined very well, as far back as Baldur's Gate. Who has played that and doesn't remember how Imoen changed after Spellhold? Or Viconia/Jaheira during their romances?
I don't think you understand what "character development" means. In the general sense. Honestly the meaning is tied to that nebulous field of English and interpretation so it's understandable but honestly I think you're speaking French while I'm speaking English and any discussion isn't going to go anywhere with that situation.
You say character devolpment is unimportant, but then you describe character development in full and say that's what we need. What a character says devolps them, what a character does in a situation develops them. How others treats them develops them. That is chracter devolpment. Character development is not a character constantly changing, in fact if there's anything it's a slow and gradual one.
it's really difficult to connect to characters that already have a fleshed out character.
the compelling part of most storys is the developing of characters: the finding out of who they are, as they discover it as well.
this is what connects you to the story. what would mass effect have been like if shepard already had a pre-defined past and outlook on life?
what would lord of the rings have been like without the internal conflict between Smeagol and Gollum?
they wouuld both have been shallow, crappy stories, and you know it.
the compelling part of most storys is the developing of characters: the finding out of who they are, as they discover it as well.
this is what connects you to the story. what would mass effect have been like if shepard already had a pre-defined past and outlook on life?
what would lord of the rings have been like without the internal conflict between Smeagol and Gollum?
they wouuld both have been shallow, crappy stories, and you know it.
a character that isn't changed by the events in a story results in a really boring story, in most great stories the really interesting thing isn't the events themselves but how those events affect the characters and even the world around them, a story with no character development and change in those characters just ruins any immersion you can possibly have, admittedly if characters keep changing for no reason other than to further the story it ruins the immersion as well but I'd prefer that to no development at all.
What is this...?
What about a character piece? Would that not be entirely devoted to character development? Or tragedies? I don't see your problem with character development? You don't like forced character development? Well then you dislike poor character development, not the idea of character development.
Character development is a natural part of most good stories, a character has to learn and grow as the story unfolds.
Surely this is a non-argument. Character development is such a broad term, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about?
What about a character piece? Would that not be entirely devoted to character development? Or tragedies? I don't see your problem with character development? You don't like forced character development? Well then you dislike poor character development, not the idea of character development.
Character development is a natural part of most good stories, a character has to learn and grow as the story unfolds.
Surely this is a non-argument. Character development is such a broad term, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about?
It seems that despite "taking forever", you still missed my point. What you spoke of in your last sentence IS character development. Any time the way that they think, feel or behave is detailed= development. And it's not a "thing", it's been a necessity of a narrative for ages- just look at the greek myths. The character arcs are what made the tales so timeless and tragic, not just the monsters and witches. Granted character development needs to be handled well to be truly enjoyable, but that goes for every element of storytelling.CODE-D said:
Learning about characters through dialogue? What happened to "show, don't tell?" If I'm to believe a character is my hero or villain, I'd like proof, not them just telling me so. And please try not to be snippy when you asked us for our opinion and took your own significant time to tell us yours.
Yeah, character development is kind of overrated. You know who is basically a static character? Odysseus. (In fact, most of Homer's characters are static.)
Character development *can* be part of a good story, but many very good stories are told without much character development at all. I agree with OP that TV shows in particular often fall into the trap of too much character development - an episode where a character changes is all fine and good, but when you pile up changes on each character each season, it gets to a point where it becomes silly.
Character development *can* be part of a good story, but many very good stories are told without much character development at all. I agree with OP that TV shows in particular often fall into the trap of too much character development - an episode where a character changes is all fine and good, but when you pile up changes on each character each season, it gets to a point where it becomes silly.
you might disagree, but you're still wrong. What you see as development is just the initial impression you get when you first meet that character, which is portrayed through those things you listed. If your character never changes and stays flat through the story (which most characters do because there's no need for them to be rounded) then that's fine and we don't need to know anything really. But if the character is suddenly struck by an epiphany and changes his way, I'd like to know what the Hell happened in his past to affect his outlook. You don't like fleshed out characters in your game. That's cool. Just don't belittle something that adds so much to our gaming experience just because of your personal taste.CODE-D said:
I think that the term is overused and misused. What's important is making the character believable and relatable. Most people don't go through dramatic changes in their life all of the time, and such things are required to be interesting.
What I like is fleshed out characters. Because we media consumers are all addicted to fictional characters and need to know more about them.
What I like is fleshed out characters. Because we media consumers are all addicted to fictional characters and need to know more about them.