Define your "Shallow Characterization" terms

[DioWallachia]

Simply as that. Lets just say for example that someone says that x character has a shallow characterization, what is the first thing that comes to your mind about that character? Or lets just say that someone says that a character of a series you like is a shallow character; Besides the inevitable fanboy rage, what other character comes to your mind as an example of why your favorite ISNT a shallow character??

 

[Zhukov]

Your post is a wee bit incomprehensible there mate.

If you're asking what makes a character "shallow", then I would say it is when they have no defining traits or aspects to their personality. Or, alternatively, when they have only one such trait to the exclusion of all else.

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

Character development is a term I often see get used incorrectly around her. It does not mean adding detail to a character, that's definition. It does not mean giving a character a backstory, that's, well... backstory. Rather, it refers to the change in the character over the course of their arc within the story. Common examples are the youth who comes of age and finds their place, the weary cynic who discovers a higher calling and the idealist who loses their innocent view of the world.

A character who possesses defining attributes (preferably more than one) and undergoes change over the course of the narrative will generally not be shallow.

 

[MiloP]

It's hard to crystalize what "bad" character development/characterization is, really. It falls into the "you'll know it when you see it" category.

In fact, scratch that, here is my parameter for shallow characterization - anyone who isn't Pinkie Pie.

 

[DioWallachia]

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

That is an interesting remark there, because it may call a flamewar in any second. You are going to get the shield prepared to explain these people why 99% of the characters are like Indiana Jones (they exist as escapism rather than real characters)

 

[Vegosiux]

Mary Sue - shallow

Stock character archetype with no actual relevance and is only there because it's "expected" in a work of a genre - shallow

Trying too hard with character development - often ends up cliched, and thus shallow

My main three gripes.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Everyone who ever appeared on Skins.

*Shudder*

 

[DoPo]

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

That is an interesting remark there, because it may call a flamewar in any second. You are going to get the shield prepared to explain these people why 99% of the characters are like Indiana Jones (they exist as escapism rather than real characters)

Well, Zhukov did explain it. I suppose what you're saying is "Prepare to repeat it over and over again".

OT: Well, pretty much what Zhukov said - the character lacks any defining traits (or very little that are exclusive). Look at Duke Nukem - wisecracking pile of muscles. That is the entire description of him. Also Mario (from Super Mario Bros) it's a dude that jumps on things. And so on and so forth. no depth and no actual characterisation. Now, if we look at a character that has more than a single sentence of traits, has weaknesses and struggles, actual story that defined them, and grows and changes during the story - that is depth.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Shallow characters are characters that are designed as a handful of character traits (characters with flaws can still be shallow), rather than as people. Most characters in fiction are shallow, and this is okay.

 

[Richardplex]

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

That is an interesting remark there, because it may call a flamewar in any second. You are going to get the shield prepared to explain these people why 99% of the characters are like Indiana Jones (they exist as escapism rather than real characters)

Well, Zhukov did explain it. I suppose what you're saying is "Prepare to repeat it over and over again".

OT: Well, pretty much what Zhukov said - the character lacks any defining traits (or very little that are exclusive). Look at Duke Nukem - wisecracking pile of muscles. That is the entire description of him. Also Mario (from Super Mario Bros) it's a dude that jumps on things. And so on and so forth. no depth and no actual characterisation. Now, if we look at a character that has more than a single sentence of traits, has weaknesses and struggles, actual story that defined them, and grows and changes during the story - that is depth.

That and many character's may have deep back stories, but that doesn't mean they have character development. Also, confusion that character development doesn't include when a character is totally different in a flashback - the change has to be in the present, the journey being important et cetera.

 

[Shiftygiant]

Shallow characterization is difficult because even if the character is shallow they have been characterized well. Hm. I guess when you see it you see it. Like Niko Bellic seemed bland and boring but was well characterized with in medias res, whilst say the cast of Homefront seemed interesting at first but were dull to have E.G. the female character who bitched and moaned how killing is hard and difficult whilst mowing the KPA down.

Everyone who ever appeared on Skins.

*Shudder*

Yeah and them to. Characters who seem interesting but really really really really really aren't. Really.

 

[Zhukov]

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

That is an interesting remark there, because it may call a flamewar in any second. You are going to get the shield prepared to explain these people why 99% of the characters are like Indiana Jones (they exist as escapism rather than real characters)

Eh, let 'em.

Besides, I don't deny that shallow characters can work in some situations. For example, say... the new Tintin movie would not have been improved by giving the titular hero a complex and conflicted personality.

 

[DioWallachia]

Another indication of shallow characterization is a lack of development. (For an example, look at 99.9% of all video game characters ever.)

That is an interesting remark there, because it may call a flamewar in any second. You are going to get the shield prepared to explain these people why 99% of the characters are like Indiana Jones (they exist as escapism rather than real characters)

Well, Zhukov did explain it. I suppose what you're saying is "Prepare to repeat it over and over again".

OT: Well, pretty much what Zhukov said - the character lacks any defining traits (or very little that are exclusive). Look at Duke Nukem - wisecracking pile of muscles. That is the entire description of him. Also Mario (from Super Mario Bros) it's a dude that jumps on things. And so on and so forth. no depth and no actual characterisation. Now, if we look at a character that has more than a single sentence of traits, has weaknesses and struggles, actual story that defined them, and grows and changes during the story - that is depth.

That and many character's may have deep back stories, but that doesn't mean they have character development. Also, confusion that character development doesn't include when a character is totally different in a flashback - the change has to be in the present, the journey being important et cetera.

But what if the journey/setting doesn't allow any character development? Like if the main character exist in a world where the Gods are assholes and are pulling a Groundhog Day (Eternal Loop) prank for milenias on the main character. If we begin the story in medias res, we have the MC as an stoic that no longer has any emotion after all this time, he could finally get to change during the time we are playing/seeing him but the gods will make sure that whatever Aesop or whatever thing he has learned disappears because it wont be as fun as before or because this Eternal Loop is like a epiphany prison that will free him if he manages to change its hearth. Does that mean that the shallow characterization is justified in this case? What other cases you think it will justify the character to not change at all?

 

[Zydrate]

A female character with "clumsy" in their list of descriptive words along with "Independent and hard working".


Hrnnnggg.

 

[oZode]

Simply as that. Lets just say for example that someone says that x character has a shallow characterization, what is the first thing that comes to your mind about that character? Or lets just say that someone says that a character of a series you like is a shallow character; Besides the inevitable fanboy rage, what other character comes to your mind as an example of why your favorite ISNT a shallow character??

I personally see it like this:

A shallow character is one that has one of the following:
-Staticness (never changes in anyway. Never is moved, or gets any payoff for their stubborn nature. Marcus Fenix is a good example of this, I mean he acts no different in gears 3 than he does in gears 1, it is so weird.)

-Is a 'reactive' character. (You know, that character who does nothing but react to the things around them. Very boring to me. It is like, I mean do something besides complain about what other people do!)

A "Deep" Character has both the following:
-Is a 'active' character. (The character does things that suit their nature. They do something that advances the plot of the story.)

-Dynamicness (You know, they change from their first inception.)


This way of looking at it is by all means flawed in numerous respects, for example as noted before some people try to hard to achieve the "traits" I consider deep.

 

[DioWallachia]

A female character with "clumsy" in their list of descriptive words along with "Independent and hard working".


Hrnnnggg.

You mean in the sense that someone put those thing in female characters but dont develop them because he though it will be enough? And since EVERYONE is doing it without thinking, it has become a cliche even if a decent writer could at least make something that doesnt suck

 

[Zydrate]

A female character with "clumsy" in their list of descriptive words along with "Independent and hard working".


Hrnnnggg.

You mean in the sense that someone put those thing in female characters but dont develop them because he though it will be enough? And since EVERYONE is doing it without thinking, it has become a cliche even if a decent writer could at least make something that doesnt suck

Clumsy just seems to be the go-to flaw for most modern protagonist in women-based movies and it's just really annoying at this point.

 

[Freechoice]

A female character with "clumsy" in their list of descriptive words along with "Independent and hard working".


Hrnnnggg.

You mean in the sense that someone put those thing in female characters but dont develop them because he though it will be enough? And since EVERYONE is doing it without thinking, it has become a cliche even if a decent writer could at least make something that doesnt suck

Clumsy just seems to be the go-to flaw for most modern protagonist in women-based movies and it's just really annoying at this point.

You might say it's a clumsily handled trait.

 

[Bealzibob]

Surprisingly it's Kamina from TTGL and less surprising also Shinji from evangelion. That is to say they are my shallow characters who can still be considered good because there is a wealth of just bad characters and it's a bit pointless to choose just one.

But more to the point I found Kamina to because kind of mary sue after the first episode. Getting through his problems by mere pig headedness and having everyone faun over him. I understood this was vital to Simons growth as a character but it's still not particularly enjoyable to watch. Shinji was just a wuss who had his obvious dad issues but the biggest problem is he stewed in them the whole series and still never overcame then. One of the few characters I know who manages a whole series without character growth.

EDIT: On how I compared them... I compare every annoying character who barely manages character growth to shinji (I consider "I suck and can't do this" to generally be bad characterization unless the rare occassion comes where their past makes me sympathize) and kamina is the only mary sue I've really had the misfortune of watching.

 

[daveman247]

Pretty much what everyone has already said.

What people havnt said yet though is stereotypes. Games LOVE putting stereotypes into them

You know these:

-The token black man : Says "yo", "fool" and "heeeeeell Yeeah boi" - basically acts "gangsta" And if they really want to go all the way this charcter will die before the game is done.

-Powerless female who needs saving by the man all the time.

-On the flipside: The woman who "do not need no man" *head jerk from side to side*

-Marine meathead who is meathead, who basically spouts one-liners all day.

-British dude who either is very well spoken and educated or is a cockney thug. Oh and tea, WE ALL must haz tea.

- Cynical old dude. Lamenting about "the good old days".

There is many more but i cant be bothered right now

 

[vrbtny]

-British dude who either is very well spoken and educated or is a cockney thug. Oh and tea, WE ALL must haz tea.

Unfortunately that stereotype can be rather accurate.... Oh, no, not me at all. *quickly downs Mug of Tea and hides it*

Cynical old dude. Lamenting about "the good old days".

That can be rather funny. I can't remember what it was from, but when the old dude laments "Ah, the good old days. When you could run over a few hippies and not be arrested for it."