The difference between a Two-Dimensional character and a Three-Dimensional character

[lithiumvocals]

I'm a little tired of seeing all these threads like "Name a mechanic you can't stand", or "Remove a game from existence", or "What gamers do you hate?" So much negative energy. How about we try something a little different.

So, characters. A great many people who want to see gaming to evolve and mature say that games need "better characters". Does everyone know what they mean by that, though? Obviously, the inhabitants of video game worlds aren't exactly Atticus Finch. Some of our most celebrated characters have next to no characterization at all, including some italian who speaks only in grunts and yahoos, a faceless soldier who carries his girlfriend in his pocket, a man with brain damage who can only kill and speak in references, and an entire lineage of young boys who for some reason all have the same face, name, and high pitched "YAAAA!!!". But maybe some of us haven't actually thought about what it means to be a more developed character.

What makes a more developed character? Is it their motivations? Do characters with darker, more concrete, or more complex motivations stand the test of time? Maybe we need them to have flaws. Maybe if they have other issues to deal with as they're surviving the horde/saving the world/slaying dragons, we can connect with them better. Change/development seems to be a very popular. A character who doesn't change will never feel as sympathetic/despicable as one who does. One that I like to use is the crisis of faith. If the character is confronted with a situation that requires them to either reinforce or reject their current beliefs and they actually contemplate this decision, the character will be far more complex for it. Maybe it's not the character themselves, but the world they inhabit. If the setting is more detailed, the reactions from the characters make them more believable. Perhaps all one needs is well written dialogue or something just as simple.

However, does the use of the above make a character less two-dimensional and more fleshed out? Or is there something intrinsic and undefinable that separates the two groups? Can we simply create better characters by checking off boxes on a list of needed elements? Are better characters simply created through the imagination of the writer? I could probably list characters who contain a trait from above and still come across as 2D. Characters with "dark pasts" have become all but cliche, and loading a character down with too many flaws can lead them to become unintentionally insufferable. Also, since games are fundamentally different from books and movies, maybe none of the above apply. Maybe writing game characters is just different.

One last addition: is there anything truly wrong with having a character be two-dimensional? Again, many of our favorite characters are 2D. A static character isn't an inherent flaw. Archetypes have been used in countless stories. Many of them are simple, easy to define and memorable. Indiana Jones couldn't be considered complex, but he's witty, smart, and courageous. We love him for it.

So discussion time. What makes a character three-dimensional? Are there major differences between good book/movie characters and good game characters? Can you think of an example of a well written character that you consider to be two-dimensional?

Captcha: Commercial-Free TV. Apparently Dish has Ad-block.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

How about this for a three-dimensional character:

A character that has a conscious goal, desire, or motivation and also a separate, possibly even opposing unconscious one.

And, for a story to be equal to the task of carrying such a character, that story must make both goals clear without explaining them. There. I have revealed unto ye the secrets to creating a five-star book or screenplay.

And no, strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with a "two-dimensional" character (who would be a character who has only a conscious goal and no unconscious one). But then the story can't be about the character. Like, who cares about Mario? Okay, bad example, because there usually aren't any interesting Mario characters. Then Link. The game's not about Link. He doesn't wrestle with the duties of being the Hero of Whichever Noun Applies To This Game. The game's core is the twofold exploration of the environment, and of the different kinds of people there are in different parts of the world (thank you, Ocarina of Time, for giving us that, by the way).

And if you want an example of a three-dimensional character I'll let someone else say it because people mention Batman enough as it is.

DAMN IT!

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Spoiler: Behold the greatest one dimensional character ever

He doesn't grow, doesn't have much of a backstory, and doesn't have a great impact on the plot. He exists only to make the little devil on your shoulder giggle, and he does it well. Zero points if you saw this one coming.

 

[DoPo]

Some of our most celebrated characters have next to no characterization at all, including some italian who speaks only in grunts and yahoos, a faceless soldier who carries his girlfriend in his pocket, a man with brain damage who can only kill and speak in references, and an entire lineage of young boys who for some reason all have the same face, name, and high pitched "YAAAA!!!".

I don't think people like them as characters.

Anyway, a two dimensional character is shallow (duh) - like a cardboard cut-out. They are made to fill a place, rather than anything else, and any attempt in trying to "dig deeper" into them fails. Because they don't exist without the story.

A fleshed out characters have their own story, their own personality. They won't look totally awkward when being anywhere else than their intended place. You can identify them as people rather than just some prop used in a work.

It's not that hard, really.

 

[oplinger]

I was always taught that the three dimensions of character development were Surface traits, backstory, and decisions/behavior.

So, most of my favorite characters are 2D because they lack backstories, or it's just tacked on.

Some characters have backstories and surface traits, but make no real decisions...they just do what I do.

But 3D characters aren't really the hard part. Developing a character is just making it, real or strange.

Character growth is what I would like to see more of. There's a dilemma in games, they have problems to sort out, but they're never any different for it. They just solve it, and stay the exact same way in the end. For various reasons I think, most of the time I think the developers believe we won't like the character if they were different, but I really don't know.

I'm just certain character development is something any writer can do, and do well, but character growth is a massive snag that really bothers me.

 

[Mirroga]

The biggest problem in 2-dimensional characters is because they are just the Yes Man. They have no motivation, and just follow a higher up. Those kinds of characters make me feel like I'm only controlling a robot with a remote control rather than being immersed to the character.

BUT if the story dwells on the harshness and sometimes, moral problems of being a Yes Man, then you could make it work.

 

[Zhukov]

A properly constructed "three dimensional" character...

- Has a defined personality. You should be able to describe a character's personality without referring to their appearance, job or specific actions. Are they cheerful or downcast? Optimistic or pessimistic? Sarcastic or sincere? Driven or apathetic? Idealistic or pragmatic? Sociable or withdrawn? You get the idea.

- Has an established motivation. What are they trying to achieve and why?

- Undergoes change (referred to as "character development" or a "character arc") over the course of the story. Common (and somewhat cliche) character arcs include the withdrawn youngster who finds their self-confidence and place in the world ("coming of age"), the selfish jerk who discovers a cause and becomes part of something bigger, and the pious idealist who has their faith tested then either reinforced or broken.

Allow me to use some examples from the Mass Effect series.

- Urdnot Wrex.

In terms of personality he's dour yet generally affable, apathetic, world-waery, self-serving and takes a certain savage delight in violence. He starts out without much motivation, he's just there to do his job. However, in the first game something happens that shakes him from in apathy in a big way. Wrex starts to give a shit. From then on both his personality and motivation undergo change. He finds a goal: to save his people from their somewhat self-inflicted plight in whatever way he can. He becomes more cheerful and optimistic now that he has realised that it's possible to change things for the better.

- Liara T'soni.

She starts out awkward, sincere, blunt, and generally a believer in "doing the right thing". In terms of motivation she switches goals several times. To begin with she wants to find out what's happening with her mother and also sees an opportunity to further her research. Later on she becomes engaged in a quest for retribution and by the end of the series she's using the power she has gained to do what she can to save, well... everything. As she is pulled from her previously sheltered life and thrust into increasingly dire circumstances her personality and outlook changes to suit. She becomes cynical and pragmatic to the point of being callous. She builds up a veneer of cold efficiency while still trying to maintain some of her previous warmth underneath.

- Mordin Solus.

He is cheerful, frenetic, aggressively intelligent and extremely pragmatic, for which he makes no apologies. His motivation is to atone for his previous actions. However he is initially not honest about this, neither with others or, even more interestingly, with himself. Rather, his motivation is shown through his actions. Despite being a celebrated biologist who could have damn near any job he wanted, he chose to open a medical clinic in a violent slum. He then agreed to help in the mission to protect human colonists. He undergoes change when events force him to confront the visceral and tragic consequences of his past actions and to question their necessity. By the third game he has come full circle and is working to undo his previous works.

That's how you do it ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Terrible Opinions]

anc[is]

Spoiler: Behold the greatest one dimensional character ever

He doesn't grow, doesn't have much of a backstory, and doesn't have a great impact on the plot. He exists only to make the little devil on your shoulder giggle, and he does it well. Zero points if you saw this one coming.

But... he has plenty of backstory. More backstory than half the party. And he would have had a lot more impact on the plot of the sequel if not for certain... time constraints...

Backstory isn't actually necessary to have a three-dimensional character, though. How much do you know about Manny Calavera's past?