WHAT makes a good character and good character development

[Razberry Knight]

So I'm going to explain this and this will probably she'd light on what I believe makes an amazing character in video games.


First is their personality shows in the game play. Sort of like how Rydia wasn't able to use fire magic because she was traumatized by the fire attack to her home village.

Unfortunately this one isn't touched upon as a personality trait. But if it's ever done and expanded it would be great trait. So I'm moving on to what I expect strictly on cutacenes.


For characters, I expect them to show traits that work as both strengths and weaknesses both in the main story and just general side questing. Its great to see character feel strong or weak and not feel out of place.

I expect showing off both a large array of situations. Characters don't all react the same with everyone. Some piss off others and some make them more vulnerable.


This is more closer to what I expect from story though. A game can have great characters but story holding it back from having it shine. Pushing personalities and seeing the outcome and seeing that create the story (not the other way around) is what builds great characters. They are all individuals not this unanimous accepted group.


This is why I hate FF13, because after they reunite, the characters just start acting like a boring unit that does nothing to challenge any of the personalities enough to leave an impact. They act like they do, but they don't in the end. In the end they say the same stuff any of them would've said.

When personalities shiftis occurring they need to earn it. The ff13 characters have a small mini revelation and gain an eidolon. That is what kissed me off about ff13. None of the characters earned the personality changes. Having Cloud smile at the end of Advent Children felt real and not forced because it was building uo and even then it was small.

A good character in video game doesn't have to do anything epic, or be the main protagonist. Heck they don't even have to be relevant.

That is why I enjoyed Vaan in FF12 along with other characters. I saw a lot of character interaction and reaction. They we're a unit but they we're all fulfilling different roles because of their personalities. I forgive Vaan a lot more than te average gamer because he was for the most part consistent. He was obnoxious but not the typical obnoxious, he had his fun moments and he had his serious moments. Just by his personality it was clear he wasn't the leader but he still influenced and challenged other more relevant characters.

 

[ZaXo Ken'Ichi]

This is way too complicated of a subject to just narrow it down to "what makes a good character". In reality, what makes a good character, is understanding the role they're intended to play. That one aspect changes almost everything you should expect from said character.

For example, Vaan isn't a good character because of the few times he plays off of the others. Vaan is a good character because he plays his role as the player analog in Ivalice really well. I don't at all mean to plug my video here, so much as to make it so that I don't have to write out everything again, when you can just listen to it through the video:

Spoiler

If it doesn't start at 9 minutes and 41 seconds, then start there. It goes until about 15:10 or so (which explains why I don't want to write it all out, lol).

I also don't think there's anything wrong with the way the characters in XIII unify once they're all finally together. It's an ensemble cast, where -when together- they're all supposed to generally be around the same importance level as each other. What's more, they all finally have the same goal, and by the time Hope gets his Eidolon, they've all gone through their own personal changes. If you find that boring, that's fine. But I'd say it makes perfect sense, because the characters are being focused toward the main goal finally. The way they're written makes sense for the goals of the plot, so I wouldn't say they're poorly written (they do have problems, but so does every character in the series). I would say the way they act is consistent. Particularly once they reach Cocoon again, they're no longer supposed to be focused on anything but the main goal. So it makes sense that they'd be generally thinking the same thing in the situations they're placed into at that point. The plot doesn't need to be bogged down by any more personal issues at that point.

My point is, a good character is one that fits the narrative they're placed in, and meets the expectations of the person creating them. They're consistent (even if they're intended to be inconsistent, like the Joker, they need to be consistent in that inconsistency), they make decisions that make sense for that character, and they fit their role. But beyond those absolute basics, nearly everything else is malleable depending on the reason the character exists. Even a 'perfect' character can be perfect, and be written well, without being a Mary-Sue. The quality of a character is dependent on much more than a set of arbitrary requirements.

I don't disagree with your points per-se. I just think that most of it applies to specific characters, and not to others. The only one that I think is more universal (but not required) would be characters having traits reinforced in gameplay. They did the same thing with Garnet in FFIX, having the pain she'd gone through cause her to lose her voice. In battle, she then is essentially Silenced for the next few hours of the game. It's always a boon to the character and the story when their characteristics are shown through gameplay. But that's an incredibly difficult thing to do, and I think it's more like frosting on the cake. I don't think a character should be criticized for not doing so, outside of maybe some very specific circumstances.

 

[Razberry Knight]

This is way too complicated of a subject to just narrow it down to "what makes a good character". In reality, what makes a good character, is understanding the role they're intended to play. That one aspect changes almost everything you should expect from said character.

misconception. The story controlling a character and understanding ther own role doesn't always mean the end result is good.

I can have a character that does everything I sought out of them and more. For example, Batman V Superman's led author achieved exactly what Zak Snyder set out for. But does that inheritly make him good? It does not. What destroys this is at the concept level but in writing as you develop characters, as you make them human they start to mold the story not the other way around.

For example, Vaan isn't a good character because of the few times he plays off of the others. Vaan is a good character because he plays his role as the player analog in Ivalice really well. I don't at all mean to plug my video here, so much as to make it so that I don't have to write out everything again, when you can just listen to it through the video:

Spoiler

If it doesn't start at 9 minutes and 41 seconds, then start there. It goes until about 15:10 or so (which explains why I don't want to write it all out, lol).

that isn't what exactly makes a good character either. That just makes one that is enjoyable.

Vaan as a character chose to take the role he wanted. He was never the Role the story forced him to be.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with the way the characters in XIII unify once they're all finally together. It's an ensemble cast, where -when together- they're all supposed to generally be around the same importance level as each other. What's more, they all finally have the same goal, and by the time Hope gets his Eidolon, they've all gone through their own personal changes. If you find that boring, that's fine. But I'd say it makes perfect sense, because the characters are being focused toward the main goal finally. The way they're written makes sense for the goals of the plot, so I wouldn't say they're poorly written (they do have problems, but so does every character in the series). I would say the way they act is consistent. Particularly once they reach Cocoon again, they're no longer supposed to be focused on anything but the main goal. So it makes sense that they'd be generally thinking the same thing in the situations they're placed into at that point. The plot doesn't need to be bogged down by any more personal issues at that point.

consistency isn't always exactly a sign of good character writing either. a character can act consistently bad but let me bring up again Ff12 vs Ff13. They both want to achieve a group of misfits trying to get along for the common goal.

But at the end of the day these characters still act, treat, and say things differently from one another. They still maintain their individuality.

In ff13 they all give the same speech over and over and over. They act like theyee in unity, which is good, but at that point none of their personalities are retained. They have become generic, they all have the typical anime style writing.

My point is, a good character is one that fits the narrative they're placed in, and meets the expectations of the person creating them.

Couldn't disagree more. The process of a good character is so important that in certain times they mold the story and the narrative.

Yes the story controls it but a good character is one that doesn't feel like they are there making specific decisions just because the story asks for it.


And nothing I'm saying is exactly arbitrary. I genuinely believe characters controlling the story is what makes the best stories and characters out there. When we see into their minds and they make the story because they're real enough to do that. That often means putting the ending process last.

You are thinking of making a character fit the story, which can be a good character too, but even better characters are those that influence the story itself.

 

[Thule Esperada]

A good character should resonate with the games story and world. A bad character is someone who can be taken out of the story and nothing would need to change. Also a character whose only role in a story is that of a "mcguffin" is also not very compelling. For example, this is actually why I argue that Tidus is a much better character than Yuna. Tidus is an active character whose actions eventually change the world of Spira and he has a personality that claims a lot of presence and he matures a lot during the game, while Yuna is extremely passive, she is acted upon but she doesn't act herself, and she doesn't really develop as a character either. Yuna remains a meek doormat for the whole game, and only her motivation really changes, but motivation alone does not a character make. As such, whenever I hear respond to Tidus saying: "this is my story" with: "no, it's Yuna's", I get kinda annoyed, because Tidus IS the main character while Yuna is basically just a prop, as she doesn't contribute anything to the overral story herself. It's ultimately Tidus who convinces the party to reject Yevon after all.

I could write about the other party members, but I'm feeling too lazy.

 

[Razberry Knight]

I think the female cast has always been plagued with such a problem.

 

[ZaXo Ken'Ichi]

misconception. The story controlling a character and understanding ther own role doesn't always mean the end result is good.

I can have a character that does everything I sought out of them and more. For example, Batman V Superman's led author achieved exactly what Zak Snyder set out for. But does that inheritly make him good? It does not. What destroys this is at the concept level but in writing as you develop characters, as you make them human they start to mold the story not the other way around.

That's not what I was saying. What I meant was that a writer has to understand the role the character is meant to play... exactly what I said. I said nothing about the character or the role being more important. I simply meant that a character needs to fit the role. If the role you need filled is supposed to be a Superman style hero that always gives people the benefit of the doubt, you don't write in a character that shoots goons on sight and tortures people. And you probably shouldn't write in a villain who doesn't in some way contrast the hero's ideals.

And the opposite holds true as well. If you create a character that loves bunnies, you don't have them mold a story where thousands of bunnies die for no reason. Characters can mold stories, and stories can mold characters; thinking it only goes one way is shortsighted, and any author worth their words will tell you that often the characters change based on the plot, particularly in longer stories. Not really surprising, seeing as that's how personalities and ideals are shaped in the real world... We don't decide on our beliefs and choices until something in our real-life stories drives us to them. Giving a character too much control can be just as dangerous as giving the story too much control. But starting at either end works. Every author works differently, and either the character or the plot can mold the other, based on the preferences and skillset of the author. Often the best stories have both the story and characters molding each other. Sometimes you even want something like the setting to be the character, hence why for example the Chosen Undead in Dark Souls has no personality. It's a great character choice specifically because they have no character at all; they make space for Lordran to be the main character.

The reality is that you kind of missed my point entirely. You keep shooting down all of my points independently. You say I'm wrong because the character has to mold the story. You say I'm wrong because consistency alone doesn't make a good character. But from the very first sentence, I stated that my point was that there are many, many different aspects that help create a good character; some aspects mean more to certain types of characters, and others mean more to others. I then went on to list a few examples, not a be-all-end-all list of the only things that make up a good character. You're right, consistency alone doesn't make for a good character. Good thing I didn't say that in the slightest

I agree that you don't want it to feel like the character is doing out-of-character things just because the story says so. But that's a very different thing from writing a character who gets strung along in a chain of events that shapes them along the way. That's how most horror is supposed to be written for example, because you want your characters to feel as powerless as possible, so that the audience/player does too. Character control over a situation eliminates logical fear, meaning you want those characters to be as powerless as you can make them. And you'd be surprised how different stories and characters outside of western influence are. Many stories around the world are intentionally devoid of conflict and deep characterization, because they're supposed to be more peaceful, thematic exploration stories that aren't about the characters whatsoever. So are those characters bad, because they don't influence the story at all? Of course not. Every character and story is different, has different needs, and therefore, should have different expectations placed upon them.

Couldn't disagree more. The process of a good character is so important that in certain times they mold the story and the narrative.

Yes the story controls it but a good character is one that doesn't feel like they are there making specific decisions just because the story asks for it.

Again, all I was saying was that the character should fit the narrative. You know why the main character of Jupiter Ascending doesn't work? Because despite writing her into a heroic role, she's completely useless. She's supposed to be a hero, and all she does is gets rescued. If a writer comes up with a great plot idea first, there's no reason they can't create a character to fit that role; it doesn't have to be that way, but it also doesn't have to be the other way around. My point was just that they have to be a character that fits the role, and the goals of the narrative. And the opposite is also true. If you create a character first, you have to create a role and a narrative that fits them.

If the Joker was on Sesame Street (and it wasn't a parody), he'd be a bad character for that role, regardless of how good he can be in his original role. It's a symbiotic relationship. And having written stories by starting from a great character idea, a great plot idea, a great emotional idea, a great setting idea, etc., I can tell you that any starting point is valid, and every piece effects the other. Any approach can fail or succeed based on loads and loads of factors. And no approach is better than another. Saying otherwise is like saying the best music is always written starting with the guitar part, or the lyrics, or whatever else. In reality, the best music, the best stories, and the best characters are written starting with whatever that artist is most comfortable with. Any starting point can reach the same conclusion.

You are thinking of making a character fit the story, which can be a good character too, but even better characters are those that influence the story itself.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas, and it's disappointing that you treat them as if they are. A character can be created to fill a role, and still have an influence on the story. And a character can have influence on the story, and it can still make for a poor story or a poor character. A character who doesn't influence a story isn't inherently bad either. Sometimes that's the entire point of the narrative, is to showcase what it's like to be downtrodden, and have no control. For example, how else would you write a good tragedy about a slave of some sort, that ends in their unfortunate death, despite attempts at gaining freedom? The more control they have over the plot, the less logical their tragedy may become (not to mention the less likely you are to empathize with them... if they have a way out and don't use it for any reason that's illogical, the author has failed, and the audience won't connect. In that example, character control over the story is almost certainly always a bad thing). Again, all of this is dependent on so many factors, that you can't really just make a list of things that make a good character. The most you can do is make lists of things that can make for a good character. But even just trying to detail what situations those might make for a good character in, would become endlessly complicated.

A good character should resonate with the games story and world. A bad character is someone who can be taken out of the story and nothing would need to change. Also a character whose only role in a story is that of a "mcguffin" is also not very compelling. For example, this is actually why I argue that Tidus is a much better character than Yuna. Tidus is an active character whose actions eventually change the world of Spira and he has a personality that claims a lot of presence and he matures a lot during the game, while Yuna is extremely passive, she is acted upon but she doesn't act herself, and she doesn't really develop as a character either. Yuna remains a meek doormat for the whole game, and only her motivation really changes, but motivation alone does not a character make. As such, whenever I hear respond to Tidus saying: "this is my story" with: "no, it's Yuna's", I get kinda annoyed, because Tidus IS the main character while Yuna is basically just a prop, as she doesn't contribute anything to the overral story herself. It's ultimately Tidus who convinces the party to reject Yevon after all.

I could write about the other party members, but I'm feeling too lazy.

While it's correct that Yuna doesn't do much, this is another example of how making a good character is so complex. Yuna is a rather well made character. You couldn't remove her and keep the same story. Because -while she doesn't do much on her own- she still serves as the motivation behind everything. She's the central character, not the main character. In a way, you could argue that fits her into the 'damsel in distress' trope, but that's not always a bad thing. Any character archetype is valid; it all depends on how they're used. I'd say Yuna is a rather excellent example of that trope done rather well, and rather tastefully.

 

[Thule Esperada]

While it's correct that Yuna doesn't do much, this is another example of how making a good character is so complex. Yuna is a rather well made character. You couldn't remove her and keep the same story. Because -while she doesn't do much on her own- she still serves as the motivation behind everything. She's the central character, not the main character. In a way, you could argue that fits her into the 'damsel in distress' trope, but that's not always a bad thing. Any character archetype is valid; it all depends on how they're used. I'd say Yuna is a rather excellent example of that trope done rather well, and rather tastefully.

I guess. My gripe with her character I guess is that unlike the rest of the cast, Yuna doesn't really grow as a character. Or it's the fact that a lot of people exaggerate her role and importance and often ignore the other party members in favor. But yeah, Yuna isn't as bad as damsels in distress can get since she usually is working to free herself when the party comes to the rescue, so points for that.

 

[Razberry Knight]

ZaXo Ken'Ichi I disagree on many of your points because you are trying to say that so long as the author achieves what they want out of that character, that makes them a good character and good character development. I believe that even considering that as a factor is wrong even if you think it's one of many.


And I do believe there's a huge difference between characters molding the story and characters fitting into a role they're meant to fit in. Yes I do believe they are somewhat mutually exclusive but only because I have yet to see a story line where it feels like a character fits a path that was clearly the story and at the same time feel like they've had control the entire time. Especially in final fantasy game. All of these games sort of do the same and that's probably why FF13 was the worst out of them. Because the story is blatantly telling us the formula and has no shame. Rather than coming it up on their own or feeling like they know whqt they're doing or their decisions seem logical, they do what they do because the script tells them. Unfortunately not a lot of characters in ff series truly have full control where they do things I can say "yeah, I can see why he did that." Or " I would've came to the same conclusion if I was in that situation and had his persona".

Most of your entire point is that one of the main factors is that one of the processes of making a good character is knowing it's role and seeing how it plays out. But by not defining roles and just seeing person as play out and finding which person as react most to different characters that's where the roles are born.

And that's partly why I'm a little jaded on Final Fantasy XV. I feel like we're suppose to accept these characters as friends and that's fine but I have yet to see the strengths and weaknesses of any of the characters. Prompto who seems to be the odd one out is just as accepted as the rest yet no real conflict. Ill wait and see (you all know how I feel about this).

But let's look at another character: Luna.

I knew from the beginning just by how her character was structured she would be exactly what hajine tabata described. a character we want to find but won't reach. And I don't know about anyone foyu but you should be worried.


But what I want to see in Final Fantasy more than ever is characters challenge each others personalities, both strengths and weaknesses. I haven't seen it in a while where a character genuinely reacts to a personality that is just not compatible with theirs whatsoever.

I saw potential in ff13 for that but I never saw them go to naturally. For example hope accepting snow, or anyone accepting snow for that matter. Also taking a look at vanille who is genuinely annoying and yet no one calls her out.

 

[ZaXo Ken'Ichi]

...because you are trying to say that so long as the author achieves what they want out of that character, that makes them a good character and good character development.

*sigh*

That's not what I'm saying at all. Don't put words into my mouth please, or I'm not having this conversation with you. All I meant was that the author intentions with the story and character(s) are important. If they contradict each other, then it damages them both. Batman doesn't kill. So making him kill without then having some sort of reaction to it is a failure. The intention of the character and the plot don't mesh, creating inconsistencies.

Beyond that, what the author wants for the story is important when critiquing it. To use an example I often use dealing with game design... if I love first person shooters, but hate turn based games, I cannot say Final Fantasy VII is terrible because it's not a first person shooter. If the designer's intention wasn't to create a first person shooter, I can't fairly try to judge it as one. If one is writing a story about the female experience, it's not fair to criticize it for the main character not being male. You get my point? The intention of the author is indispensable, otherwise people would be running around saying Alien sucks because it's not a romance, the Harry Potter movies are terrible because they're not video games, and every game that isn't Final Fantasy IX is terrible because they aren't Final Fantasy IX. Sure, people can be personally upset about these realities. But that doesn't mean the products in question are actually of poor quality. And the only way you reach that understanding, is by also understanding the intentions/goals of the creation in question.

And I do believe there's a huge difference between characters molding the story and characters fitting into a role they're meant to fit in. Yes I do believe they are somewhat mutually exclusive but only because I have yet to see a story line where it feels like a character fits a path that was clearly the story and at the same time feel like they've had control the entire time. Especially in final fantasy game. All of these games sort of do the same and that's probably why FF13 was the worst out of them. Because the story is blatantly telling us the formula and has no shame. Rather than coming it up on their own or feeling like they know whqt they're doing or their decisions seem logical, they do what they do because the script tells them.

Again... having a story dictate what a character does, is not, not, not the same thing as having the script dictate what a character does in a way that's illogical or out-of-character. Story effecting the character is not the same as the God-like hand of the author effecting the character. We're not disagreeing here. You're forcing a disagreement by twisting my points.

Most of your entire point is that one of the main factors is that one of the processes of making a good character is knowing it's role and seeing how it plays out.

Not true. I didn't say that at all. I said nothing about 'seeing how it plays out' being a main factor or a requirement of any kind. All I said was that it's a valid way to approach storytelling, that in no way inherently results in lower quality characters. Stop... putting... words... in... my... mouth...

And that's partly why I'm a little jaded on Final Fantasy XV. I feel like we're suppose to accept these characters as friends and that's fine but I have yet to see the strengths and weaknesses of any of the characters. Prompto who seems to be the odd one out is just as accepted as the rest yet no real conflict. Ill wait and see (you all know how I feel about this).

I don't want to get into that conversation here. Regardless though, they're doing something wrong if they show you all the strengths and weaknesses of characters in the marketing. It ruins the surprise. I don't want to know everything from the get-go. I'm not worried, and I shouldn't be worried. Why? Because I'm not going to get myself caught up in over-analyzing minuscule amounts of information that lead to nothing.

Also taking a look at vanille who is genuinely annoying and yet no one calls her out.

*rolls eyes* Annoying is subjective. I found Vanille fine. But for future reference, most people call her out and indeed hate her. Don't know what your point is.

I'd also like to say that Final Fantasy XIII is not the worst of them. At very least it's mechanically a fabulously designed game. Definitely better balanced than most games in the series. So I personally would appreciate it if you didn't deal in absolutes like that. Try to have more respect for the hard work of those that created the game.

I guess. My gripe with her character I guess is that unlike the rest of the cast, Yuna doesn't really grow as a character. Or it's the fact that a lot of people exaggerate her role and importance and often ignore the other party members in favor. But yeah, Yuna isn't as bad as damsels in distress can get since she usually is working to free herself when the party comes to the rescue, so points for that.

That's fair enough. I personally felt that her growth was enough. I felt like at the beginning of the story she really struggled with the idea of being able to live through her pilgrimage (obviously). And by the end, she really did seem to believe that she could survive. She also became a bit more open and 'fun', even if she was still reserved. Not to mention that -if I recall correctly- she was the first follower of Yevon in the group to choose to stand up against the values of the religion. But I totally acknowledge that these were fairly small things.

 

[Razberry Knight]

*sigh*

That's not what I'm saying at all. Don't put words into my mouth please, or I'm not having this conversation with you.

the biggest hipocrit here. You do that all the time.

All I meant was that the author intentions with the story and character(s) are important.

not in determining whether a character is good or not. Its good if you want to create a character but not judging a character. A character can achieve something completely the opposite of what the author intended and still be a good character.

This isn't how to create a good character.

If they contradict each other, then it damages them both.

this is why i dont believe you are right, because that is simply not always the truth. Characters are often designed to be hated and yet gain fans regardless. For example Asuka Langley Soryu.

Beyond that, what the author wants for the story is important when critiquing it.

that's what the thread is about.

designer's intention wasn't to create a first person shooter, I can't fairly try to judge it as one. If one is writing a story about the female experience, it's not fair to criticize it for the main character not being male. You get my point? The intention of the author is indispensable, otherwise people would be running around saying Alien sucks because it's not a romance, the Harry Potter movies are terrible because they're not video games, and every game that isn't Final Fantasy IX is terrible because they aren't Final Fantasy IX. Sure, people can be personally upset about these realities. But that doesn't mean the products in question are actually of poor quality. And the only way you reach that understanding, is by also understanding the intentions/goals of the creation in question.

that's more on the lines of bias. To judge a character based on the intentions of the author isn't always there.

If the author intentionally wanted to aggregate the audience and make a character that just doesn't fit or achieves anything or progresses, can we call that character good?

Your main argument is that if a character works with the story and intentions of the author then it is a valid factor of determining a good character. I disagree. It would be nice, but it's simply not always the case.

Again... having a story dictate what a character does, is not, not, not the same thing as having the script dictate what a character does in a way that's illogical or out-of-character.

but it can. Therefore, nit a valid point to bring up to determining what makes characters good.

*rolls eyes* Annoying is subjective. I found Vanille fine. But for future reference, most people call her out and indeed hate her. Don't know what your point is.

I'm referring strictly within the story. And she was objectively annoying. She was a character that went against the atmosphere of most of the scenes. She became a l'cie and everyone is upset and she isnt. She skips around in the most dire situation and before we have any incentive to believe that as a good thing the other characters point it out within a few seconds.

Hardly anyone within the story actually called Vanille out. Vanille never had real confrontation with any of the characters. That includes Fang as well. For example: We had a ex military Female who is willing to punch a guy for his attitude and we also see a brooding young boy who lost his mother and we have this happy go lucky character who seems to be on everyone's good side.

Hope (due to God like powers of the script) immediately forgave Snow. It shouldn't have been that easy.

I'd also like to say that Final Fantasy XIII is not the worst of them. At very least it's mechanically a fabulously designed game. Definitely better balanced than most games in the series. So I personally would appreciate it if you didn't deal in absolutes like that. Try to have more respect for the hard work of those that created the game.

eff no....I hate that game with a passion. It is the absolute WORST game to ever come out of Square Enix. The characters are horrible I have to go over halfway into the game in order to have "some" freedom and even then the story makes it unbearable. I will say the truth about it. If it's balanced it's because it was more restricting. The problem with this game lies in many factors, but Im strictly talking about how character and character development fails.

 

[Shaissa]

Ok as far as good story and good character goes, I think they both do go hand-in-hand, although you can have a good character in a bad story and a great story with a bad/boring character, but in the end, they both have to move each other to make a great game, a character moves a story and a story moves a character, and that is where I will leave that part of the debate.

Now what creates a good character for me (I am going bring this a bit more out there than just in the Final Fantasy world, although I will do my best to keep it related to Final Fantasy)

1. A real personal struggle - I think this is where most games make or break a potential good character. The characters struggle personal struggle. Yes their can be a real danger to the world (like Sephiroth summoning a meteor to destroy it, or Shinra trying to drain the life out of Gaia) but if the characters in FFVII were not also dealing with a personal struggle that made them want to destroy these evils, I feel that the game would not of been as good and so many people wouldn't like the characters. An example of why I think many people didn't like XIII characters can also be seen in this I think. The characters in XIII just go down a path without knowing everyones real personal struggles, (I mean you do see their personal struggles, but it is so late in the game that it feels void.)

2. A character has to grow slowly from the story - Now for me the best example of this in the Final Fantasy series is Vivi. He was a shy quit kid who didn't want to fight, almost cowardly (not quite, but basically was at that point.) But as the story went on and you saw Vivi slowly see what he really was, and his experiences that he saw, and how other characters reacted in situations, he grew to this confident person who actually wanted to help save his friends and the other black mages like him, and he grew a lot through the story. I feel that the slow growth of events really helps you identify with the character, I feel some characters, like Vaan in FFXII, almost does no growing throughout the game, except for one incident, but that was it, and it made me really just not care or like Vaan at all. Vaan to me almost killed FFXII overall (although I think some of the other characters saved the game, but that is a whole different topic.)

3. Can't know everything up front - I feel like if you know everything about a character right away from the start, you get really bored of the character quickly, because you are not really learning anything new, again this is where I feel a lot of people can look at XIII and see where it went wrong. You knew almost everything about everyone right away and there was nothing new to learn or something else to learn about these characters, and that could be another downfall of the game. Now where I feel this is where FFX went right with many of the characters. Like not knowing everything about Tidus being a dream, or Auron being dead technically, and etc. Not knowing everything about a character helps goes back to the second point where you feel that growth with the character as the story goes on.

4. This one is for the villains really but I feel it should be said- You can't really feel sorry for the villains!!!! I feel so many times Final Fantasy/ Square Enix/ many video games/ movies/etc. go wrong, they make you hate the villain then try to create a story half way in or even later in the story that makes you try to feel sorry for the villain, like Seymour. Let us hate the villain! Now I am not saying that we can't see a tragic side for the villian, but don't create it like we should want to feel sorry for the villain that has tried to kill us 2000 times in the story, let us keep the hate! - This one might just be a personal opinion for sure, but it annoys me how many times recently many game companies have done this!

Now there are many more points and Razberry pointed a few of those points, but I feel at least the first three a major points to a good character.

 

[Razberry Knight]

I'm not saying good story and good characters don't go hand in hand. But I noticed when they put story over characters or when they force a character to fit the story, it doesn't work.

I saw that in final fantasy xiii where the story was literally doing something about it or die. I'm saying that is not a valid point simply because it's not true all the time. Its true only some of the time.

And again this is about how to judge a character, not create one.


And this was born because a user here was dumbfounded by the idea of me not liking a character and their main argument was they we're facing off Shiva.