Support NeoGAF

[croten]

There's nothing bad about the gameplay. You want bad gameplay? Go play that shitty fighter they played for Scrublords last week.

If you play a Final Fantasy game, or really any JRPG and expect an oustandingly deep and sensical story then you clearly don't know what genre you're even playing.

Maybe because when I play games and see a female character, I don't judge them like a piece of meat based upon if they're good waifu material or not.



Other people are free to hate it for their own reasons, but as I mentioned above those are the most common complaints I see and the basis for them is ridiculous.

I'm sorry but what? The main focus of most JRPGs are their story. I don't mind it being nonsensical but FF13's is poorly written.
My point about lightning is exactly that though, she was made to be waifu bait yet she's boring and terrible.

 

[Skrams]

I said that their characters were poorly written tropes, not racist.

These are Japanese ideas of what black people would be like: family men reminiscent of Lethal Weapon's Murtaugh, if anything.

Conflicted men who struggle with being put in danger and trying to raise a family.

I was quoting Mara on his comment about him being racist, so that's why I talked about that.

Yeah, this explains it better than I ever could. Racist wasn't the proper word for it. Tropey is more fitting

I understand this and that's what I was getting at. He's a trope, but I still find the tropes appealing. I'm fine with it since I enjoy his dialogue, his motivations, and how his motivations contrast with what other certain characters did.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I was quoting Mara on his comment about him being racist, so that's why I talked about that.

I understand this and that's what I was getting at. He's a trope, but I still find the tropes appealing. I'm fine with it since I enjoy his dialogue, his motivations, and how his motivations contrast with what other certain characters did.

Recycling tropes is the hallmark of poor writing.

If a JRPG wants me to be invested in the Story, then the writers need to hide the seams better.

If I can tell that Lighting is Cloud, Sazh is Barret, and other character are similar to other characters from previous installments, then I can't be invested in the story if all I see is the other characters and not lightning and Sazh.

It takes you out of the story and with FF13, it was clear that they wanted to tell a story.

All this being said, Sazh is much more likable than the Other characters thus far, but good characterization is not how Likable someone is.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

Yoru no Yatterman is fucking rad, you guys.

It's like if Team Rocket became the heroes out to defeat the Tyrannical Ash Ketchum.

 

[Skrams]

All this being said, Sazh is much more likable than the Other characters thus far, but good characterization is not how Likable someone is.

I find myself able to look past the fact that he's tropey and enjoy the character still. That's probably just the difference between us. I understand being tropey means the character isn't original which means it's poor characterization/writing to some people. I don't get hung up on him being like a Barret due to having a child and being a Danny Glover. I enjoy the character he is during the game and that's kind of it.

Calling Lightning a Cloud is kind of an insult to Cloud too. He shows a lot more character in the first few hours of FF7 compared to the majority of FF13.

 

[VidulaSaix]

This is why I don't bother arguing with people about hardly anything anymore. People just can't enjoy anything anymore without it having some sort of deep meaning to it. It's too late in the morning for me to even get into this right now.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I find myself able to look past the fact that he's tropey and enjoy the character still. That's probably just the difference between us. I understand being tropey means the character isn't original which means it's poor characterization/writing to some people. I don't get hung up on him being like a Barret due to having a child and being a Danny Glover. I enjoy the character he is during the game and that's kind of it.

Calling Lightning a Cloud is kind of an insult to Cloud too. He shows a lot more character in the first few hours of FF7 compared to the majority of FF13.

FF7 spoiler:

I can't insult Cloud. Not if

Spoiler

hes a shell of a person since stealing/assuming Zach Fair's identity.

In the beginning of FF7 we just know he's helping Barret.

In the beginning of FF13 we just know Sazh is caught in the middle of what Lightning is after.

Motivations are switched.

 

[Village]

Recycling tropes is the hallmark of poor writing.

If a JRPG wants me to be invested in the Story, then the writers need to hide the seams better.

If I can tell that Lighting is Cloud, Sazh is Barret, and other character are similar to other characters from previous installments, then I can't be invested in the story if all I see is the other characters and not lightning and Sazh.

It takes you out of the story and with FF13, it was clear that they wanted to tell a story.

All this being said, Sazh is much more likable than the Other characters thus far, but good characterization is not how Likable someone is.

Your avatar

O H O;;

 

[croten]

This is why I don't bother arguing with people about hardly anything anymore. People just can't enjoy anything anymore without it having some sort of deep meaning to it. It's too late in the morning for me to even get into this right now.

I don't remember ever saying that.

 

[Skrams]

FF7 spoiler:

I can't insult Cloud. Not if

Spoiler

hes a shell of a person since stealing/assuming Zach Fair's identity.

In the beginning of FF7 we just know he's helping Barret.

In the beginning of FF13 we just know Sazh is caught in the middle of what Lightning is after.

Motivations are switched.

Not even referring to anything surrounding the spoiler. I'm referring to simple character interactions with others like Tifa, Aeris, and the Avalanche crew. Then you get crossdressing. There's not much else to say about Sazh either. You only see Barret while I see Sazh. I don't find them both being black and having children a wall that I can't overcome in my brain.

Your avatar

O H O;;

I can't tell if this is a jab or not at Kamina being unoriginal.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Not even referring to anything surrounding the spoiler. I'm referring to simple character interactions with others like Tifa, Aeris, and the Avalanche crew. Then you get crossdressing. There's not much else to say about Sazh either. You only see Barret while I see Sazh. I don't find them both being black and having children a wall that I can't overcome in my brain.

I can't tell if this is a jab or not at Kamina being unoriginal.

It's not a wall I can't overcome. It's an annoyance of Japanese writing and characterization.

Also, Kamina is absolutely trope-y as fuck. A lot of TTGL is!

 

[Seraphis Cain]

Caught up on Rolling Girls. Really enjoyable show so far. Good stuff, anime, good stuff.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

Caught up on Rolling Girls. Really enjoyable show so far. Good stuff, anime, good stuff.

Gonna start that after I get caught up on Kuroko. Heard good things.

 

[Skrams]

It's not a wall I can't overcome. It's an annoyance of Japanese writing and characterization.

Also, Kamina is absolutely trope-y as fuck. A lot of TTGL is!

Kind of casting a wide net by saying Japanese writing and characterization in general. I'd just blame the people at Square for still looking back at the glory days for ideas.

And yeah, that's why I couldn't understand if Village was being "oh cool avatar," or "lul saying Sazh is tropes, but Kamina avatar."

But yeah, Sazh and Kamina are both cool despite them being born in another's shadow.

Caught up on Rolling Girls. Really enjoyable show so far. Good stuff, anime, good stuff.

Enjoying it after 3 episodes too. Hopefully it keeps up some of the action though.

Nobody in TTGL is original or "deep". They are however well written.

I'd like to say I find Sazh well written, but maybe that's just in relation to the rest of the cast. Even if I ignore the rest of the cast kind of sucking I still feel like I'd consider him a better than average written character.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Kind of casting a wide net by saying Japanese writing and characterization in general. I'd just blame the people at Square for still looking back at the glory days for ideas.

And yeah, that's why I couldn't understand if Village was being "oh cool avatar," or "lul saying Sazh is tropes, but Kamina avatar."

But yeah, Sazh and Kamina are both cool despite them being born in another's shadow.

Not writing in general, but yes Square Enix is relying on old magic to keep their company alive and that's why I can understand the poor reception FF13 received in places that were not Japan.

I should not have to wait for Gran Pulse for me to see the game and it's systems open up, 30 hours after the fact.

I also should not feel like I'm treading familiar ground with characters or narratives, as JRPGs are propped up or knocked down by how well their narrative is.

 

[Skrams]

Not writing in general, but yes Square Enix is relying on old magic to keep their company alive and that's why I can understand the poor reception FF13 received in places that were not Japan.

I should not have to wait for Gran Pulse for me to see the game and it's systems open up.

I can't tell who at Square thought that people should be so restricted in gameplay and just things to do until 30+ hours into the game. FF7 gives you materia after the first hour and that feels way better than anything done in the first 3 of FF13.

I'd also say the same tricks back then won't impress people the same way now. Can't live off the graphics are pretty train forever. Or at least you shouldn't be able to.

Tropes isn't inherently the sign of a bad character. It depends on how you utilize them. Simon, Kamina and pretty much everyone is an unoriginal trope and born out of another's shadow, but they are written in such a way that their tropyness works strongly in both their and the show's favor.

I do think Sazh is closer to achieving the same in comparison to anyone else in the game, but I'd say he's at best decent. The tropes and tropy characters function in coherence with the show's theme and goal, whereas Sazh is merely tropy when he didn't have to be. again, I like Sazh and I like him way more than anyone else in the game, but the use of tropes in TTGL and FF13 and the tropey nature of their characters are not too similar.

I can understand that. Tropes being there for the sake of tropes versus using the tropes in more interesting ways to further the story. They're not at all similar and I agree. This all just stemmed out of the avatar comment which I still am sort of unsure if it was jab or not at character unoriginality. Sure, I'll take decent for Sazh. Good enough for me. I enjoy me some tired old man just wanting to be with his family again.

 

[Alfebit]

So I finished Jojo part 2.

Spoiler

So Speedwagon didn't die but he still wasn't cool. Joseph on the other hand was a baller. I like Bloody Stream better than Sono Chi no Sadame. Piller men theme was super hype.

Loved it, looking forward to catching up on part 3.

Yoru no Yatterman is fucking rad, you guys.

It's like if Team Rocket became the heroes out to defeat the Tyrannical Ash Ketchum.

Adding it to my list.

Your avatar

O H O;;

Right? Gaia Online was terrible. I wasted too much time on it.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

FUCKING KUROKO!

That's just a random move in the first match!

 

[Skrams]

Yeah if it was a jab, it wasn't a very good one, but it's understandable. And hey, you don't have to take decent for Sazh, if you find him to be a genuinely good character, that's perfectly fine. I like Sazh too, so I can understand =P.

Man, I really like Sazh. He's the fondest memory I have of FF13. Not saying much, but still. He's the shining light in the pile of nothing.

So I finished Jojo part 2.

Spoiler

So Speedwagon didn't die but he still wasn't cool. Joseph on the other hand was a baller. I like Bloody Stream better than Sono Chi no Sadame. Piller men theme was super hype.

Loved it, looking forward to catching up on part 3.

You sure got baited super hard into thinking Speedwagon does cool things. He's comical relief and he's pretty good at it, but not much else. The coolest thing he sets up is the Speedwagon Foundation. Stroheim is the best Part 2 character though. Also yeah, Bloody Stream is the best opening of JoJo.

FUCKING KUROKO!

Debating whether I should watch this or just continue watching Slam Dunk instead. One seems like it's half Free and half hype basketball while the other has fun characters and hype basketball.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

Debating whether I should watch this or just continue watching Slam Dunk instead. One seems like it's half Free and half hype basketball while the other has fun characters and hype basketball.

There's really not that much Free stuff in there, it's mainly hype basketball with hype characters. Give it a shot and join us in KurokoGAF!

 

[DoktorEvil]

Yeah if it was a jab, it wasn't a very good one, but it's understandable. And hey, you don't have to take decent for Sazh, if you find him to be a genuinely good character, that's perfectly fine. I like Sazh too, so I can understand =P.

That leads into a question I've had regarding media in general.

What's a good character?

 

[Alfebit]

You sure got baited super hard into thinking Speedwagon does cool things. He's comical relief and he's pretty good at it, but not much else. The coolest thing he sets up is the Speedwagon Foundation. Stroheim is the best Part 2 character though. Also yeah, Blood Stream is the best opening of JoJo.

Stroheim was pretty great. He was insane but he loved it. I gotta respect him for that.

 

[Village]

I can't tell if this is a jab or not at Kamina being unoriginal.

It just made me think about somethings

 

[Skrams]

Give it a shot and join us in KurokoGAF!

Heh. Sure, I'll see if I can power through Season 1 and 2 to catch up.

That leads into a question I've had regarding media in general.

What's a good character?

That's a rabbit hole to jump down into. At the very least a good character needs to be relatable in a way. I feel like you need to be able to see a bit of yourself in the character or at least parts of the world that you've experienced. I don't relate to the meth cooking of Walter White, but I can see his place in the world when he was a teacher or a parent and just constantly being shat on since I've seen those kinds of people before.

Even if it's a fantasy setting that doesn't stop characters from having a same kind of demeanor or thought process for things that you might or others might too.

Stroheim was pretty great. He was insane but he loved it. I gotta respect him for that.

It's really weird that the most patriotic character in fiction I can think of is a Nazi. I mean, he's a Nazi, but fucking he just loves it. It's hard for me not to salute him every time he does some insane shit.

Depends on the show and purpose of said character within the storyline and how well it is implemented within said storyline, I guess. There aren't many, if any, criteria that can be applied to any and all shows and characters.

I have the same memory, albeit to a much lesser extent, but then I wonder whether my appreciation of the character is also due to everything else around him being shit.

I wonder that as well when thinking about him. I think I'd still like him if he was in another FF with better characters though. His dialogue and actions make me think he'd be pretty alright.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

What's a good character?

I often think about this while writing or trying to articulate whether or not something is objectively of a high quality or is subjectively catered to my interests.

The first stop on finding out comes from looking at the definitions of the words, as you should always always always do. A character is defined as a person in a story. That's about it. Good in the qualitative sense is defined as the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.

So, saying a character is a good character in a technical sense is completely subjective. What you personally set as a standard is what dictates what you find to be a good character. What you personally value is what has value.

From the general sense, I'd say a character that is consistent is the closest thing to being objectively good. A character that is established to have a pattern of thought and that the writer sticks to it.

One way to tell is to try and write a fanfic of something. This is why fanfiction is actually a great writing exercise, because you're taking pre-existing characters and putting them into your own scenarios. If the character has enough personality and thought put into their creation, anyone should be able to write that character into other, completely original situations and have them act and react as though it was the original writer putting them in there.

This is why Mary Sue characters are so often looked down on, they're only there to serve whatever purpose the writer wants and are given very little personality to accompany it. Kirito has very little personality, so he can be written into just about any scenario and have it work.

A good character has a personality and a mind of its own. You'll often hear writers refer to their characters as their children. That's because that's what it feels like. You're giving an idea an identity of its own, a good character should be a breathing and living thing. Not a plot device.

At least to me, that's a good character.

 

[Xiraiya]

Doesn't that sound familiar?
Didn't square do that in the 90s with FF7 and the off shoot of games that came along with FF7??

What off shoot games?

 

[Banana Aeon]

What off shoot games?

I assume Parasite Eve.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I often think about this while writing or trying to articulate whether or not something is objectively of a high quality or is subjectively catered to my interests.

The first stop on finding out comes from looking at the definitions of the words, as you should always always always do. A character is defined as a person in a story. That's about it. Good in the qualitative sense is defined as the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.

So, saying a character is a good character in a technical sense is completely subjective. What you personally set as a standard is what dictates what you find to be a good character. What you personally value is what has value.

From the general sense, I'd say a character that is consistent is the closest thing to being objectively good. A character that is established to have a pattern of thought and that the writer sticks to it.

One way to tell is to try and write a fanfic of something. This is why fanfiction is actually a great writing exercise, because you're taking pre-existing characters and putting them into your own scenarios. If the character has enough personality and thought put into their creation, anyone should be able to write that character into other, completely original situations and have them act and react as though it was the original writer putting them in there.

This is why Mary Sue characters are so often looked down on, they're only there to serve whatever purpose the writer wants and are given very little personality to accompany it. Kirito has very little personality, so he can be written into just about any scenario and have it work.

A good character has a personality and a mind of its own. You'll often hear writers refer to their characters as their children. That's because that's what it feels like. You're giving an idea an identity of its own, a good character should be a breathing and living thing. Not a plot device.

At least to me, that's a good character.

Thanks for the clarification.

I can understand how frustrating it can be for a writer to try and conceive a wholly original character and yet fall into tropes because of lazy writing, complacent consumers, or a combination of the 2.

What off shoot games?

Every Square game that was not Final Fantasy in the PSX era.

 

[RecursiveFault]

One way to tell is to try and write a fanfic of something. This is why fanfiction is actually a great writing exercise, because you're taking pre-existing characters and putting them into your own scenarios. If the character has enough personality and thought put into their creation, anyone should be able to write that character into other, completely original situations and have them act and react as though it was the original writer putting them in there.
This is why Mary Sue characters are so often looked down on, they're only there to serve whatever purpose the writer wants and are given very little personality to accompany it. Kirito has very little personality, so he can be written into just about any scenario and have it work.
A good character has a personality and a mind of its own. You'll often hear writers refer to their characters as their children. That's because that's what it feels like. You're giving an idea an identity of its own, a good character should be a breathing and living thing. Not a plot device.
At least to me, that's a good character.

Consistency in a character is pretty much the core of character writing, I agree. The development of a character is usually them learning and shifting their opinion or gaining knowledge etc, and watching them react realistically based on previous actions really works.

Appealing to people's emotions is another element, creating "likeabilty", but that's not writing quality, just wide subjective appeal. There's skill involved in doing that, but it's not the same as an objectively well-made character.

Edit: And I really liked reading that argument. I love when they start from semantics, and you hit the nail on the head imo. 7/10

 

[Xiraiya]

Every Square game that was not Final Fantasy in the PSX era.

Did they all look FF7 though? when you say assets in terms of games, you're literally talking about models and map pieces and the items and stuff that make up that particular game, the only argument for that anyone can really make is the similarities between FF8 and Parasyte eve, but that's more to do with PE and FF8 sharing the same engine.

I often think about this while writing or trying to articulate whether or not something is objectively of a high quality or is subjectively catered to my interests.
The first stop on finding out comes from looking at the definitions of the words, as you should always always always do. A character is defined as a person in a story. That's about it. Good in the qualitative sense is defined as the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
So, saying a character is a good character in a technical sense is completely subjective. What you personally set as a standard is what dictates what you find to be a good character. What you personally value is what has value.
From the general sense, I'd say a character that is consistent is the closest thing to being objectively good. A character that is established to have a pattern of thought and that the writer sticks to it.
One way to tell is to try and write a fanfic of something. This is why fanfiction is actually a great writing exercise, because you're taking pre-existing characters and putting them into your own scenarios. If the character has enough personality and thought put into their creation, anyone should be able to write that character into other, completely original situations and have them act and react as though it was the original writer putting them in there.
This is why Mary Sue characters are so often looked down on, they're only there to serve whatever purpose the writer wants and are given very little personality to accompany it. Kirito has very little personality, so he can be written into just about any scenario and have it work.
A good character has a personality and a mind of its own. You'll often hear writers refer to their characters as their children. That's because that's what it feels like. You're giving an idea an identity of its own, a good character should be a breathing and living thing. Not a plot device.
At least to me, that's a good character.

So in your terms a good character is a character with a personality, while I don't disagree with your logic, there are plenty of characters with personality that are total garbage in their quality as a character, so I think it takes more than that to make a good character, well honestly it depends on the context of which that character exists.

 

[croten]

Did they all look FF7 though? when you say assets in terms of games, you're literally talking about models and map pieces and the items and stuff that make up that particular game, the only argument for that anyone can really make is the similarities between FF8 and Parasyte eve, but that's more to do with PE and FF8 sharing the same engine.

FF7 was originally meant to be set in New York, it doesn't take much to assume that many of the maps in Parasite Eve came from that.

 

[RecursiveFault]

So in your terms a good character is a character with a personality, while I don't disagree with your logic, there are plenty of characters with personality that are total garbage in their quality as a character, so I think it takes more than that to make a good character, well honestly it depends on the context of which that character exists.

Note that he's just saying that if you wanted an objective measure it's probably as close as you can get. He basically mirrors your comment saying it's still a thing by thing basis.

 

[DAREALGUMMY]

Omg shut up nerds.

Spoiler

ear infections suck and make me irritable

 

[Skrams]

Appealing to people's emotions is another element, creating "likeabilty", but that's not writing quality, just wide subjective appeal. There's skill involved in doing that, but it's not the same as an objectively well-made character.

Edit: And I really liked reading that argument. I love when they start from semantics, and you hit the nail on the head imo. 7/10

People talking about writing in terms of objectively versus subjectively is always weird to me. No matter what anyone does I still feel you'll never truly have an objectively well written 100/10 no disputes character. Everyone always has something that they'll get caught up on no matter how good the character could possibly objectively be. It's art anyway, so I never get why anyone bothers using the word. I'd only apply it to purely technical aspects of things usually.

I assume you're also talking about my relatability thing. I just find that's always a good first step in creating a "good" character. Whether that's objective or not then who knows.

Also yeah, I always feel weird being caught up in not debates where I can easily see that it just started from me talking about one thing and not the other. I usually want to bail since I stop caring halfway through, but then I'd be losing important internet fights and lose internet cred.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Did they all look FF7 though? when you say assets in terms of games, you're literally talking about models and map pieces and the items and stuff that make up that particular game, the only argument for that anyone can really make is the similarities between FF8 and Parasyte eve, but that's more to do with PE and FF8 sharing the same engine.

So in your terms a good character is a character with a personality, while I don't disagree with your logic, there are plenty of characters with personality that are total garbage in their quality as a character, so I think it takes more than that to make a good character, well honestly it depends on the context of which that character exists.

All square games of that era share the same(or similar) in game engine with different battle systems. It's still pre-rendered backgrounds intermixed with CGI.

Is it so far gone to say that assets from FF7 were diverted into other projects and were put into experimental projects?

 

[RecursiveFault]

Omg shut up nerds.

Spoiler

ear infections suck and make me irritable

Hang in there~

People talking about writing in terms of objectively versus subjectively is always weird to me. No matter what anyone does I still feel you'll never truly have an objectively well written 100/10 no disputes character. Everyone always has something that they'll get caught up on no matter how good the character could possibly objectively be. It's art anyway, so I never get why anyone bothers using the word. I'd only apply it to purely technical aspects of things usually.

Also yeah, I always feel weird being caught up in not debates where I can easily see that it just started from me talking about one thing and not the other. I usually want to bail since I stop caring halfway through, but then I'd be losing important internet fights and lose internet cred.

Nothing's perfect, but we can generally at least compare characters subjectively and objectively on some level, whether it's insignificant or not. Even with painting, you can admire technical skills of painting, separate from the package itself and how they work as a cohesive whole within it.

Also, I dunno. If I'm ever really not interested I stop replying or concede, but if you're talking about this one, we just build off previous topics. We're basically talking as a group sometimes, don't feel like you have to stay involved? I dunno.

I assume you're also talking about my relatability thing. I just find that's always a good first step in creating a "good" character. Whether that's objective or not then who knows.

I actually don't think every character has to be likeable. I'd honestly want more examples of ones that are assholes. Your point was that you can relate to them on a basic level, but I'd really say that's just a permutation of Aaron's point of consistency. You can follow their emotions and train of thought. Being able to understand at least, generally, leads to sympathy, if not empathy.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

So in your terms a good character is a character with a personality, while I don't disagree with your logic, there are plenty of characters with personality that are total garbage in their quality as a character, so I think it takes more than that to make a good character, well honestly it depends on the context of which that character exists.

Not exactly, what I said was more in reference to a character being consistent. The easiest way to quantify that would be through both personality and their thought processes. And by that, I don't even mean a good personality. Shinji is a good character, because his personality and method of thinking are kept consistent to someone who is depressed. Shinji's personality itself is shit. Personality itself isn't the key component, it's the consistency that comes along with it.

 

[Xiraiya]

Is it so far gone to say that assets from FF7 were diverted into other projects and were put into experimental projects?

I don't know, I don't really care honestly, it is what it is.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

Relatability is a good way to create a likable and popular character and honestly, yeah, a good way to start a good one. Mainly because writing from a relatable place isn't just about getting people to like that character, it's about writing what you know. If you have felt a very strong single emotion, then writing a character defined by feeling that emotion is going to be a lot easier than if you've never felt or experienced anything like that.

Really good writers can just write whatever and have it be spot on without any knowledge or experience, but expecting yourself, or most people really, to write at that level is outrageous, which is why there are so many characters that people like that are relatable. It's easy. And something being easy isn't a bad thing, like many make it out to be, if you can do something well then the difficulty of it doesn't matter.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Not exactly, what I said was more in reference to a character being consistent. The easiest way to qualify that would be through both personality and their thought processes. And by that, I don't even mean a good personality. Shinji is a good character, because his personality and method of thinking are kept consistent to someone who is depressed. Shinji's personality itself is shit. Personality itself isn't the key component, it's the consistency that comes along with it.

Shinji is so well written than people hate him before they even watch his arc

People talking about writing in terms of objectively versus subjectively is always weird to me. No matter what anyone does I still feel you'll never truly have an objectively well written 100/10 no disputes character. Everyone always has something that they'll get caught up on no matter how good the character could possibly objectively be. It's art anyway, so I never get why anyone bothers using the word. I'd only apply it to purely technical aspects of things usually.

I assume you're also talking about my relatability thing. I just find that's always a good first step in creating a "good" character. Whether that's objective or not then who knows.

Also yeah, I always feel weird being caught up in not debates where I can easily see that it just started from me talking about one thing and not the other. I usually want to bail since I stop caring halfway through, but then I'd be losing important internet fights and lose internet cred.

I'd like to stop you right there and say that it's not just art, but also a formula and science.

Recognizing societal trends and capitalizing on those trends plays into the formula.

There's also technical and mechanical way a character should act emotionally and methodically in a worlds setting.

 

[Xiraiya]

Time to go and play P3P I think.

 

[RecursiveFault]

I'd like to stop you right there and say that it's not just art, but also a formula and science.
Recognizing societal trends and capitalizing on those trends plays into the formula.
There's also technical and mechanical way a character should act emotionally and methodically in a worlds setting.

Every art form has technical aspects. Painters have to paint, music has composition and sonorous qualities, and all of that is a part of how they execute. Even those things can be judged subjectively, you can personally enjoy them, but it's not like you can't compare usage of prose or something.

Time to go and play P3P I think.

Thanks for the constructive comment

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

Thanks for the constructive comment

Discussion has changed entirely because of that insightful gif and comment. Where would we be without him?

 

[Xiraiya]

Thanks for the constructive comment

I don't really have anything to say on the matter, I have my views and ideals on what makes a good character but effort.

 

[RecursiveFault]

Discussion has changed entirely because of that insightful gif and comment. Where would we be without him?

In a van, down by the river

I don't really have anything to say on the matter, I have my views and ideals on what makes a good character but effort.

I mean, it's goofy to complain about post quality in here, but I'm just not sure why you felt compelled to post "I don't want to post".

 

[Skrams]

Nothing's perfect, but we can generally at least compare characters subjectively and objectively on some level, whether it's insignificant or not. Even with painting, you can admire technical skills of painting, separate from the package itself and how they work as a cohesive whole within it.

Also, I dunno. If I'm ever really not interested I stop replying or concede, but if you're talking about this one, we just build off previous topics. We're basically talking as a group sometimes, don't feel like you have to stay involved? I dunno.

I actually don't think every character has to be likeable. I'd honestly want more examples of ones that are assholes. Your point was that you can relate to them on a basic level, but I'd really say that's just a permutation of Aaron's point of consistency. You can follow their emotions and train of thought. Being able to understand at least, generally, leads to sympathy, if not empathy.

It's fine to admire the technical aspects of a painting and how that can fall back into the subject matter of a painting. Just eventually it all becomes subjective to me. If a guy thinks Kirito is the better black swordsman and Guts is dumb then whatever. I can't really point at an objective thing anymore. I can just think he's dumb and that's his opinion he has over the subject.

Also I'd feel like a jerk for just saying tapping out of a talk and saying nah, bye. I usually would like people to see where I'm coming from and at least have that before we agree to disagree or whatever ends a talk going around in circles.

I didn't necessarily mean likeable either. Being able to follow the mindset of them is one thing, but I was thinking just being able to understand that mindset from the beginning because you've been there or have seen others there. I've not seen Evangelion, but I'm to believe part of it revolves around depressive tendencies of repeating actions and not believing it'll get better. A person who's gone through depression or seen it second hand would see the signs, but someone who hasn't might totally miss the point of it. It's just one of those things that I feel like you need to have parts of your character be relatable so the person can better understand character actions from the get go. A really good writer could probably get you into that character mindset without you having to be able to relate through a memory or something another though.

I'd like to stop you right there and say that it's not just art, but also a formula and science.

Recognizing societal trends and capitalizing on those trends plays into the formula.

There's also technical and mechanical way a character should act emotionally and methodically in a worlds setting.

What you're saying sounds a little too rigid for writing to me. As if writing is math and there's always a perfect solution for character actions and story themes. Or I'm just misunderstanding you.



This is an alright time to mention I just finished episode 13 of Gintama. It's funny at times, but I'm not finding it hilarious majority of the time yet. People keep saying 25 or so is when it starts picking it up, so eh. I'll stick through because why not. Might just take Vidula's advice and watch an episode or two every day or so. It's just a little tempting to marathon it since I want to see it get better sooner.

 

[Xiraiya]

I mean, it's goofy to complain about post quality in here, but I'm just not sure why you felt compelled to post "I don't want to post".

I was saying I want to play some P3P, I just maxed out the old couple S-link yesterday.

 

[RecursiveFault]

It's fine to admire the technical aspects of a painting and how that can fall back into the subject matter of a painting. Just eventually it all becomes subjective to me. If a guy thinks Kirito is the better black swordsman and Guts is dumb then whatever. I can't really point at an objective thing anymore. I can just think he's dumb and that's his opinion he has over the subject.

Also I'd feel like a jerk for just saying tapping out of a talk and saying nah, bye. I usually would like people to see where I'm coming from and at least have that before we agree to disagree or whatever ends a talk going around in circles.

I didn't necessarily mean likeable either. Being able to follow the mindset of them is one thing, but I was thinking just being able to understand that mindset from the beginning because you've been there or have seen others there. I've not seen Evangelion, but I'm to believe part of it revolves around depressive tendencies of repeating actions and not believing it'll get better. A person who's gone through depression or seen it second hand would see the signs, but someone who hasn't might totally miss the point of it. It's just one of those things that I feel like you need to have parts of your character be relatable so the person can better understand character actions from the get go. A really good writer could probably get you into that character mindset without you having to be able to relate through a memory or something another though.

Yeah sure, even objective comparison of aspects can be interpreted subjectively. You can still quite literally point out the differences in complexity and depth and consistency between characters, but whether someone enjoys that or if it works as part of the package is a separate thing. It's not something that will change opinions. I see what you mean about leaving in a conversation too.

If you don't write a character that anyone could relate to, it certainly changes how different people will see your work. I think it's not wrong to do so, but you're inherently limiting your intended audience to some degree. Though being able to follow their process of thought to understand why they do things is still important.

I was saying I want to play some P3P, I just maxed out the old couple S-link yesterday.

Hm. Alright. I guess I misinterpreted the tone as dismissive and passive aggressive. Sorry.

 

[demidar]

Hm. Alright. I guess I misinterpreted the tone as dismissive and passive aggressive. Sorry.

That's how I interpreted it as well so you're not alone.

 

[Xiraiya]

Hm. Alright. I guess I misinterpreted the tone as dismissive and passive aggressive. Sorry.

No it's fine, I had nothing I cared to add, I was going to go play stuff regardless.