Is character development important to you?

[pulse2]

Just been 'avin a peek at old Joystiq 'ere and came across this: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/01/bungie-on-developing-the-character-of-master-chief/

So, based on Master Chief's ....erm...lack of development, does a chatty character make you feel more or less immersed in your game?

What about enemies? Do you feel Sephiroth would be less threatening if he blabbered on like the pope final boss guy in FF13?

 

[MrAkuma201]

Character development is a great thing that can make games so much better. Its the difference between a good and grate game.

 

[RatRace123]

Master Chief was only not developed in the games, in other media he was actually a decently fleshed out character.

As for the main topic, I prefer characters to grow over the course of the game, I don't want them blathering on and on, but if a character starts at someplace and ends the game at a different place (different world view, gained/lost respect for something) I feel like it adds to the experience.

It's not as necessary in some games as it is in others.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Development isn't always necessary. The TF2 crew never change at all, and they all have personality. Even in character heavy games it's not needed to make good characters. See HK-47.

 

[pulse2]

anc[is]Development isn't always necessary. The TF2 crew never change at all, and they all have personality. Even in character heavy games it's not needed to make good characters. See HK-47.

But then are you playing that game for fun or are you playing it to understand what is going on?

I ask that because one could say that Kratos for example lacks development, ruining the experience for some people, while others such as myself played and enjoyed it because it was just fun, yeah, Kratos needs anger management, but hey, he's just doing what most bald gun totting characters are doing. In that sense, if I played Mass Effect or Heavy Rain, I'd expect more development because the development is required in order to make the games enjoyable.

I don't think I'd enjoy Mass Effect as much if it was just another straight up third person shooter.

 

[MetallicMonkey]

It really depends on the game, but for the most part, I like character development in games. It helps me get more into the game when the character has a reason for their actions.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

anc[is]Development isn't always necessary. The TF2 crew never change at all, and they all have personality. Even in character heavy games it's not needed to make good characters. See HK-47.

But then are you playing that game for fun or are you playing it to understand what is going on?

I ask that because one could say that Kratos for example lacks development, ruining the experience for some people, while others such as myself played and enjoyed it because it was just fun, yeah, Kratos needs anger management, but hey, he's just doing what most bald gun totting characters are doing. In that sense, if I played Mass Effect or Heavy Rain, I'd expect more development because the development is required in order to make the games enjoyable.

I don't think I'd enjoy Mass Effect as much if it was just another straight up third person shooter.

Guess I should have read the article. I had this thought in my head but couldn't find a way to type it eloquently. There are many kinds of characters, non changing ones (HK), ones where the story is a big deal (all of ME), silent protagonists, etc. They can all be done well and they can all be done poorly. Anything poorly done can make the game worse, and vice versa. Also kinda depends on the mood your in I suppose. Sometimes just shooting teh aliums or stabbing tons of dudes is fun. But I agree, ME2 would have been much much worse with poor characters, especially since they were 3/4 of the game

 

[Sovereignty]

I don't like chatty characters... But I do like when they speak a bit and a story/history is established for them. What point is an RPG without character depth?

 

[Nexoram]

It it somewhat important to me in novels and films. In some games...not really that much. In any case the main plot/storyline should still be the main focus for any story-telling medium. Would you play Duke Nukem if he told you his life story and not didn't rip off alien heads with his elbows?

 

[IBlackKiteI]

It depends on what game it is, how much it relies on characters.

I'm not sure about Halo, it seems to try have great characters but for the most part fails miserably.
But then again great characters aren't so much needed for that game.

But screw immersion.

All you need is a good, fun game, you don't need to believe you are the protagonist.

 

[The Madman]

Depends on the game and whether or not they're trying to tell a story or not. In a game like Halo, I honestly couldn't care less about Master Chief. He is what he needs to be; an anonymous badass. And that suits the style of game and the type of story it's trying to tell just fine.

If however a game is trying to tell a legitimate story then character growth is essential, I don't think many developers realize just how important it is actually. The Longest Journey wouldn't be one of my absolute favourite games and stories told within a game if not for the sympathetic protagonist and her development as a character throughout the course of a game. It's what drives the story and what makes the player want to keep playing; the need to know not just how a story ends, but more importantly its impact on the characters within it.

That said even a more shootemup or gameplay oriented game can be improved with a sympathetic protagonist. Doesn't even need a particularly good story, if the character is interesting enough people will care. Psychonauts would still have been a damned fun game without raz for example, but the game was made better for his presence.

 

[Tupolev]

Whether character development is necessary or not depends on if the game is attempting a storytelling style that demands drive through character development. Halo's Master Chief works fine because the Halo trilogy doesn't; storytelling problems in Halo 2 are more a result of development hell than lack of character development, and in Halo 3, well... yeah, Halo 3 is just plain sketchy storytelling period (except for those terminals, they're quite well-written). Halo: Reach, however, does suffer in the storytelling department because its storytelling style does demand character development which doesn't really happen.

There are great ways to go about storytelling without character drive; the problem arises when you develop a story that does need character drive and it fails to happen.

 

[end_boss]

Depends on the game. If I'm playing an adventure game, then yes. If I'm playing Final Fight, then no.

 

[Nova Helix]

Depends completely on the game.
Mass Effect 2 would be nothing more than an average shooter with some rpg elements without awesome and in-depth character development.
Borderlands has no character development and is a blast. I know I am a huge guy that hits things, and thats all I need to know.

 

[SimuLord]

As a general matter, the writing, story, and characters should always be secondary to what I myself am trying to accomplish in the game---the gameplay is first, foremost, and absolute.

One thing I love about New Vegas is that the story manages to be incredibly well-written and nuanced without any "development" really occurring. You come into the world as it is and you leave it having made changes that were the work of the Courier and the Courier alone. And the game NEVER imposes its view of what the Courier is or should be (this in contrast to Extra Credits' frankly fatuous wish for a developed backstory, completely missing the point of the tabula-rasa character being a vital immersion component in a sandbox game.)

What results is a game that makes a hell of an argument for being the best game I've ever played. (and, incidentally, explains my deep dislike of Mass Effect and Metal Gear Solid alike and my belief that GTA3 was the best Grand Theft Auto game.)

 

[CactiComplex]

Depends on the game, for me. I wouldn't expect (or really want, to be honest) much character development in a straight-out hack and slash game, but in RPGs in-particular I do like developed (or developing over the course of the game (hideous phrasing in context, really sorry)) characters. Then again, some RPGs have a story that draws you in so much that not much character development is needed. So, yeah, depends on the game.

 

[Bobbity]

Character development is only important to me if it's done well. I'd rather see well written book with no character growth than a still well written piece of work involving poorly done/completely cliche character growth. A well written thing with good character growth does, in my opinion, trump both.

 

[darth.pixie]

It's important to me, but it can be done without characters being chatty. One or two lines that are adequate and in character can reveal just as much as a two page monologue if the timing and wording are right.

Also, a character can be developed by another character, by actions or by writings they leave behind. (Sarevok and Jon Irenicus' journal for example). It's best to do it during the course of the game instead of immediatly.

And yes, Sephiroth would be less threatening. But he's a great character even without being chatty.

 

[imPacT31]

anc[is]Development isn't always necessary. The TF2 crew never change at all, and they all have personality.

Right ... because the "Meet the Team" videos and updates never expanded on the personalities and character behind classes of Team Fortress 2.

While character development certainly is important, I don't think it is always necessary. In some instances it serves far better to leave it to the player to decipher their character's motivations, while others require the player to control a character who clearly exists beyond their influence.