Character Development

Most people use it to refer to a character changing

Battle Tendency says otherwise.
Good story overall (except the ending), everything was generally fun and funny, Kars,Caesar, and Joseph were given reasons for existing and each had their own philosophies they follow to the point where they butt heads with each other (particularly only Joseph with the other two) and Joseph did not change a single thing about his personality from the beginning to the end of the Part

character development is a meme. 9 times out of 10 it just means taking a shitty and annoying character and making him less shitty and annoying, when the author could have just made him not shitty and annoying in the first place

Why are you wasting your time thinking about the opinions of 14 year olds?

But he did change his outlook and learned to respect his opponents through fighting, while at the beginning he was a joker who felt himself to be above it all.

I mean, it's not Shakespeare, but it's false to say that there's no development in BT.

Most people are retarded.

i think what's important or at least what people look for in "character development" is a sense of the character having an inner psyche, and when plot stuff happens to them / they have make decisions etc, that this is felt within the inner world of the character.

the way a lot of anime does it is pretty cliched, though, by abusing things like childhood flashbacks to relate everything about the current character to some lingering obsession from their past, often to extents that are hard to take seriously.

But he did respect his opponents? From Donovan to the German Tacos Soldiers to Satania and Whammu, he immediately acknowledged their strengths (yes, he mentions the sneakiness of Donovan and the intelligence of the German Tacos) and didn't fight them out of them being "evil" but by virtue that they did something against someone important to him / they're trying to start a fight with him / they're a threat against humanity
>The brass knuckles guy
If he met him again by the end of Part 2 he'd still have disrespected him the same way because he really was an idiot that pissed Joseph off

A story doesn't NEED anything. However, having a character grow from point A to point B can be gratifying to witness, whether it's a positive or negative growth.

BT is the worst part though

Strange way to spell SDC

VA is the absolute worst.

Yes, but BT would have been just as good if Joseph didn't change. If anything, BT showed that Joseph stayed true to himself from start to end, which is what saved him against Kars

DiU is the worst.

It's a plus point but not everything. If the character is already too insufferable then no amount of development can salvage them.

>If the character is already too insufferable then no amount of development can salvage them.
what if the character arc is literally about growing out of being an insufferable faggot? random example: Kotarou from Rewrite is an edgy bitch of a child who grows into a sad old man. Actually, maybe not the best example, we get to know him as a sad old man (though he doesn't know it -- it's complicated) before we learn he was once a faggot.

This is a pretty common shounen battle or romance trope. Kid starts off whimpy, gains confidence over time, by the end he's a ripped chad who marries his sweetheart.

BT has Joseph who’s boring outside of his antics and Whammu. The rest of the cast is bland and the ending is undeniably the biggest asspull, the absolute biggest asspull in all of Jojo

>best MC
>best music
>best villains
>best pacing

>best MC
Not in a million years

Can you Jojofags take your part circlejerk to a Jojo thread?

Continued
>best music
Anime exclusive
>best villains
Kars and the other pillarmen are shit
>best pacing
You’re only saying that because it’s short you retard. It’s beginning is boring and the training “arc” is done in a timeskip

That's exactly who I had in mind kek

I actually really love when it subverts this
>main character is a shitty person
>things happen
>main character seems to learn from this
>episode focuses on how they seem to change for the better
>the reasoning was completely unrelated to what is morally better, MC was a piece of shit all along

Every story revolves around a conflict. The protagonist is connected to that conflict. He wants to resolve the conflict, but in his current state, he is incapable of doing so. By growing as a person, he is able to resolve the conflict, and the story reaches a natural conclusion. This cannot be made simpler. It's the basic building blocks of storytelling that have existed for tens of thousands of years. There can be exceptions, but you have to actually be a good writer to pull that one off. Note that not all characters need to be dynamic. There is plenty of room for static characters in a story, and they can even be main characters. But almost never are they the protagonist. Note that none of this applies to pop culture garbage that is the literary equivalent of fast food. Or to manga with 1000 chapters who have no meaningful growth at all for the characters despite the conflict constantly escalating because they are required to maintain the status quo.

Attached: 1549955051565.jpg (449x496, 21K)

Eren dissagree

Attached: 1558966815364.jpg (5000x760, 1.25M)

Yea Forums just can't into static characters

This is the present state of Yea Forums - Shounen Jump Generals

>thinking Eren was ever insufferable
you don't deserve Chadren, shonencuck

It's not impossible, but in most formats you have characters you're suppose to get an emotional connection with and there is some kind of conflict they're involved in.
The drama comes from wanting the characters to succeed against adversity. For a story to be satisfying you need the character to earn the victory in some way. To make something that wasn't possible for them possible.
Alternatively, if the character faces no adversity or is handed his victories there is no drama and there is no tension, which can be fine for some stories, comedies for example, but is inexcusable in others.
Making the impossible possible requires a change in the character, where the events in the story affect them and change them. This also functions as a way to engage the reader/watcher because the story affects to the character they care about.
Alternatively a story that doesn't affect the characters is something the reader has less of a reason to care about.
All of the above is true for both the emotional inner world of the characters and the outside world where they conflict with others. Most attempts to only have one of those end up feeling flat.

Attached: 1481183471204.png (854x480, 470K)

As always, everything in moderation.
If you have a character that doesn't change then they come off stiff and one dimension. If you have a character that changes too much then it looks like they have no real principles at all.

>You aren't allowed to have characters stay true to themselves from start to end!
It depends. It's perfectly acceptable if it's SoL.
If the character sees an insane shit and constantly goes picrelated without any explanation, it's just a bad writing.

Attached: 1562331729660.jpg (466x460, 25K)

It all depends on the situation and the moment. Someone saying a story NEEDS something, it means they're retarded and don't know what they're talking about. Trying to force a formula to something that needs to be creative to be enjoyable just makes it harder for truly original stories to be born

That's his physical age change

The novelty of a static character lies in what value they provide FOR THE DYNAMIC CHARACTER.

SOMEONE has to change. You can have a static protag and dynamic support and even a dynamic antagonist, but having all static characters makes a boring story.

What we need is a female character getting a hair extension, chiks lopping their hair off needs to stop.

Because long hair represents impurity in Japanese culture from what I've heard.

Addendum: if change isn't one of the story's themes, dynamic characters aren't a requirement. I could read about a fictional city's history or a simple fight scene without the need of a person learning a lesson.

Based nips

But long hair is good too.

This. It was actually a decent thread until they came along

Rather than "change", development can also be characterization. Pic related, a healthy balance between evolution and "providing a deeper understanding of the character"

Attached: x9 (1).png (828x1200, 496K)

>MC gets through a conflict that requires them to change
>Shows that they've changed, even getting a haircut to symbolise it
>It's all literally just for show and the actual change is a long road away

Come on op don't be retarded now

Without progression of the character and being effected by the enviroment by the world he/her is in a very bad way of writing a story.

well, yes. jojo is not a plot-oriented series or one that really tries to hit you with any kind of emotional resonance or a real story that character development would help (much) with. the actual plot details of each part are in essence set dressing for cool characters, fun character interactions, fights, designs, powers, etc. It's like the sentai example I gave.

except vento aureo, maybe? that's the only one that doesn't have an extremely straight-forward one-sentence summary like "the gang go to egypt to kill dio" or "jojo has to win a race". Actually that's a reason I find it one of the weakest parts.

It's pretty super rare to have no change at all though, most of the series have something change in the character no matter how minor like having friends or a new perspective.

Attached: Hikaru-.jpg (1280x720, 115K)

Simple fight scenes are not exactly a story though, and wouldn't the city be the character? Or well, the people in it.

>can't summarize a simple straightforward story like vento aureo for some reason
>thinks "jojo has to win race" is a good summary for steel ball run
yikes

Go the Clockwork Orange way and have the MC revert to being an asshole. Or don't depending on where you are from in the world or how the author feels that day.

>used goods
>no character development this season
>still the most popular geah

Attached: idiot.jpg (569x448, 74K)

What is wrong with the MC being able to handle the conflict in the beginning? I don't need to see someone go from zero to hero every time, sometimes a person is competent and prepared from the start.
How this works varies from story to story. If its a story that has multiple heel turns and dynamic changes this doesn't work properly. But in a more realistic plot it can fit well.

Chris got perfect development in S1, G and arguably AXZ. Now she can be just a bro and it'd be enough

Attached: 1460907971335.jpg (1280x2800, 377K)

Character development is often used as shorthand for characters changing themselves. But change alone doesn't necessarily make for a good story. If a character changes in a way that doesn't feel natural, or changes in a way that dissatisfies the audience, then character development can actually be a bad thing. But the reason it gets praised so much is because the opposite (where a character never changes) very easily leads to an unsatisfying story. Which is because you know from the get-go how every conflict involving that character will go. Isekai stories where the main character has a single tool to solve every problem are a prime modern-day example. Simply by watching the first episode, you know how every conflict in that show will play out. It's simply not interesting if the approach to a problem never changes*. If someone tells you a joke, you may or may not laugh, but if they continue to tell the same joke verbatim, no matter how funny you thought it was at first you will stop laughing eventually.

*Note: exceptions exist. If you are /really into/ the way a character solves a problem and find it satisfying to watch even if you can predict it ahead of time, then character development will not be necessary. Also, comedies often throw out these kinds of rules, because absurdity is inherent to them (i.e. One Punch Man).

Attached: 1552468190282.jpg (718x718, 69K)

>friends get mad because she doesn't take airsoft seriously enough
>takes airsoft seriously
>friends get mad because she's taking airshit too seriously
Really miss the Spec Ops: The Line posting though.

Attached: 1401809194709.jpg (640x627, 230K)

I don't see how that has to do with character development though.
For example, say, a spec ops team will approach a recon assignment in a different way compared to a sabotage assignment. Doesn't mean that any character development occurred, they just needed a different approach to deal with different problems.
The example you've given re isekais seems to be just when all you've got is a hammer approach.

Development can be subtle yet positive and still allow for the character to adhere to their core status and beliefs, but I'm sure you can't wrap your underdeveloped brain around that.

A fight scene as a story is the author's choreography on display, plus the shifting of emotions. The technical accuracy has its appeal.

>wouldn't the city be the character
That is true in a sense, but the appeal of a fictional city is the mystery lurking within its founding.

>A fight scene as a story is the author's choreography on display, plus the shifting of emotions. The technical accuracy has its appeal.
Well, not exactly what I would count as a story, but then again short stories do exist.

>That is true in a sense, but the appeal of a fictional city is the mystery lurking within its founding.
Perhaps, but RL cities do have interesting history at times, no reason fictional ones don't. Also hints at the wider world too.
Like say DC, it can tell you that there was once a war of between the british and americans, and that the brits were apparently strong enough at the time to just come into your capital and burn down the White House.

The example you gave knows that its main draw is the specific plan to accomplish the mission.

seems to be referring to stories that think it can coast on novelty alone, without even bothering to present a mystery.

I don't mind, sometimes the girls just look better with shorter hair.

But do you want them developed or not?

>It's a dumb meme
fucking plebs, when they gonna learn?

Attached: fctvgyb56.jpg (300x168, 9K)

character dev doesn't mean that he have to go from asshole to nice guy, any change in relationship and how he act around is character dev and it makes them more enjoyable, if you have a static character that barely emote about everything around him despite betrayal from friends and the kingdom that he's supposed to serve I doubt you would like him anyway

No I am a lolicon

Yes, which is why I'm wondering what that has to do with character development.
Although perhaps I'm being too narrow in what I'm defining it as.

I think user's point there was that development is currently being desired so much right now in response to an influx of bad stories in which an ABSENCE of development is prominent.

There's really two types of development regarding a character's initial nature: change (towards a positive or negative result), and elaboration (towards sound or flimsy logic).

I get elaboration, but what does sound or flimsy logic mean?
Is it something like char has trait A because of B where the relevance of B is strong or weak?

People also wants the MC to struggle a LOT otherwise he's a gary stu.

"Sound logic" is a character's reasoning for his current personality being understandable to the reader. For example, if the reader went through the exact same misery as a character who hates certain people in the present, they would understand why said character hates said people.

"Flimsy logic" is when a character's reasoning is incomplete, a symptom of the author not valuing the reader's time. For example, a character choking on an orange once is generally not enough to justify their current desire to make all oranges extinct.

Addendum: in both examples, their stories can end with those characters still hating those people and still wanting all oranges extinct, respectively, but the mystery of the former is solved whereas the mystery of the latter isn't.

Ah right, thats what I figured.
Although I've always thought and still do frankly that that is more character depth.
Meh, w/e, its all semantics in the end.
With that said, I do agree that more important characters should have development then.
Otherwise it should as well be an FPS protagonist.

True to themselves? This is some weird projection, user.