Does a Character Have to Develop in Order for It to Be Good?

[Ventus]

I thought to put this in Fan Writing, as well as General Discussion....but it seems more of an Entertainment thread to me.

Throughout the various forms of writing, storyboarding, and story telling, people have considered characters to be good/bad based on how and if they develop overtime. There have been diverse terms thrown about, and one I hear quite often nowadays is that of the flat character - a character who is essentially one-dimensional and does not change. Most consider flat characters to simultaneously be bad characters, assuming they aren't placed in any manner that creates 'good' context.

I personally believe the opposite, that a character needn't change, needn't obtain more wit or possessions or any of that in order to be a good character. What say you?

 

[Kirino]

Character development is good, and can help to improve a character in many ways, but a character doesn't necessarily have to develop in order to be good. You don't have to go through some huge personality leap or anything to be a good character.

 

[Hero of Time]

I love character development, but sometimes the best characters are those who refuse to change or are just misunderstood.

 

[Castle]

Flat characters are not "bad" characters they just tend to be rather weak characters. Major exceptions exist, though, such as Indiana Jones. Dr. Jones is an extremely fascinating character with many riveting character traits and an exciting aesthetic. Jones is a deep character, but his character pretty much starts fully developed and hardly changes throughout the course of the films, if at all. He overcomes a character conflict with his father in Crusades, but other than that, not much. Overcoming that character conflict doesn't do anything to change his nature, even, but Indiana Jones is still one of literature's most fascinating characters.

In fact, flat characters lend themselves well to action films. Since less time is spent on exposition for the sake of character development, more time can be spent on explosions and car chases.

In written literature, dynamic characters are almost a necessity; at least as far as protagonists go. Without visuals, fiction must rely on written exposition. Dynamic characters are an essential way to have more going on in a medium consisting of nothing but words.

So, whether or not a flat character is "good" or "bad" depends almost entirely on what's being written. For video games, writers must decide what is more important; gameplay or story? The more dynamic the character, the more time must be spent on exposition and the less time players spend playing. This, of course, varies from game to game. Each member of Commander Shepard's squad in Mass Effect has his or her own character arc. A major focus on the second game in particular is placed on helping each character through their arc (the fate of the galaxy is at stake if you don't!!). Obviously, this is interesting. Games such as Halo are still fun, despite action hero Master Chief having little to no development throughout the series - or depth, for that matter - because Halo is all about the running and the gunning. That much is fun.