Jump to content

Which characters did you dislike in the game?


Recommended Posts

Oh yeah, I forgot to give Phila anti-props. What happened to her could've had some kind of impact on me as a player IF they'd...

1) Developed her as a competent character so I actually liked her to start with

2) Killed her off in a way that wasn't just meh

3) Showed anyone actually mourning her or conveyed that her life had an impact. A couple of throwaway references in Cordelia supports didn't do the job, no.

She's set up to be some kind of beloved mentor figure and then handled like a redshirt extra.

Phila is a [failed] attempt at the second coming of Manhya, like oh so many other things.

Problem is, while they did pretty damn well in making Chrom into Sigurd and Ricken be Azel, and Robin be Julius and Julia at the same time, this... just didn't work.

She's supposed to be an important Peg Knight, and then they recreate the Silessean Civil War with her.

Worse though, is how pathetic everyone gets in that scenario. Oh no, some archers [not even snipers, just archers]! We -must- run! *Rolls eyes*

Bah, those should've been promoted, [and the one that killed Phila probably should've been Draco] just to show -some- threat, because that scenario had none. ESPECIALLY after Emmeryn "died". Why they didn't blitz Gangrel right then and there is... just stupid. And yes, Aversa is defeatable at that point in the game. [it's called "Bows"]

Edited by Airship Canon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What really surprises me is the number of people liking and disliking characters based on their morals. Tharja is a nasty piece of work and if she really existed, I would hope never to have the misfortune of meeting her. But it's a game and I find her entertaining. Finding a character irritating is one thing but to refuse to be entertained because of misplaced morals seems a shame.

At last, somebody else.

I found Severa and Tharja funny/amusing because of their tendency to act like dicks byy annoying other characters, the same reason I liked Morrigan in Dragon Age

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I never noticed this...

Morgan

Hmm... I wonder why I have no memory of my mother... All my memories of Father are so crisp and clear... I remember what an amazing tactician he was, all the time we studied together... But nothing at all about my mother. It's one big blank.

Tharja

What are you doing?

[マーク]

うーん、どうして私は母さんのこと

覚えてないんでしょう…?▼

父さんのことはあんなにちゃんと

覚えてるのに…▼

父さんが立派な軍師だったってことも

一緒に勉強したことも覚えてるのに…▼

なーんで母さんのことは

きれいさっぱり忘れてしまったのか…▼

[サーリャ]

通行の邪魔よ…マーク。▼

"You're in my way, Marc."

Mother of the year, folks.

Not mean, mean... but still...

What is this supposed to prove? It looks like English!Tharja isnt half as nasty as "get out of my way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phila is a [failed] attempt at the second coming of Manhya, like oh so many other things.

Problem is, while they did pretty damn well in making Chrom into Sigurd and Ricken be Azel, and Robin be Julius and Julia at the same time, this... just didn't work.

She's supposed to be an important Peg Knight, and then they recreate the Silessean Civil War with her.

Worse though, is how pathetic everyone gets in that scenario. Oh no, some archers [not even snipers, just archers]! We -must- run! *Rolls eyes*

Bah, those should've been promoted, [and the one that killed Phila probably should've been Draco] just to show -some- threat, because that scenario had none. ESPECIALLY after Emmeryn "died". Why they didn't blitz Gangrel right then and there is... just stupid. And yes, Aversa is defeatable at that point in the game. [it's called "Bows"]

except you forget that Sigurd, Azel, and Julius/Julia are way better than the ones you compared them to Edited by Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't really dislike hardly anyone as a character. There are some who I dislike as people and would probably smack in the face (or refuse to touch with a 50-foot pole in Tharja's case) if they really existed, but as characters I don't really have any huge beef with any of them, only disappointment in the writers.

Kellam's gimmick being overused has already been mentioned multiple times.

Ranger Jack Walker wrote up a wonderful essay on how they did Cain had a way better survivor story than Cordelia and I agree with it.

Nah's probably the one I have the lowest opinion of out of the cast. To be honest, if anyone treated me the way she treats others I'd probably just refuse to even interact with them unless it was somehow absolutely necessary.

Also, Gangrel's motivations (as revealed in his supports with MaMU) alone would've gone a long way towards incorporating both the transition to Valm and Gangrel's recruitment into the main storyline more effectively.

Tharja as a character is alright but the writers' trying to pass off child and spousal abuse as comedic ain't even a little bit cool.

Frankly, a lot of my complaints have to do more with how characters are written and incorporated into the story than the characters themselves, since I feel that giving these same concepts for characters to a better writing staff would solve almost all their problems, as well as those with the story.

Edited by Starlight36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, a lot of my complaints have to do more with how characters are written and incorporated into the story than the characters themselves

Cut! Right here, this is exactly how I feel about them all, yeah sure I haven't finished, but I believe I gotten far enough to formluate opinions

since I feel that giving these same concepts for characters to a better writing staff would solve almost all their problems, as well as those with the story.

And people seemed to be under the impression that 8-4 was the godsend of localisations, I wonder where those people are now? Though I would say a competent writing staff

I remember there were some on this forum that glorified it too heavily, but it's terrible now

Thank you for the compliment.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=43458&p=2660877 (I'f anyone's interested)

Well, if it counts, after you said that it made me think more about the more unnoticed and seemingly miniscule things that build on character developing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Gangrel's motivations (as revealed in his supports with MaMU) alone would've gone a long way towards incorporating both the transition to Valm and Gangrel's recruitment into the main storyline more effectively.

Gangrel was a character who only became interesting in the Spotpass map and beyond, i.e. his supports.

I wish they did more with him, as in general I'm a fan of psychotic characters. But then again, this can be said of almost every character in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except you forget that Sigurd, Azel, and Julius/Julia are way better than the ones you compared them to

Not really, no.

I love FE4, but really, the characters weren't all that spectacular. It ran strong plot, excellent villains, and great world building, but poor characters. Awakening is like the exact opposite of that-- weak plot, poor villains, mediocre world building, but strong characters [save for NPCs]. >_<;;

Chrom, I feel is way better handled than Sigurd.

There's no questioning that Ricken is a better character than Azel- especially considering Azel, as a secondary character in a game that had no supports, really didn't have a whole lot going for him.

As far as Julius and Julia go, the fact that Julia's Einherjar and what her expected personality were totally freaking different goes to show exactly how little of Julia there actually is. Now, yes, she's fine. She's out done by Robin in every manner. Julius on the other hand is splutteringly insane, and frankly, I'd say for a point that Grima!Robin is better handled, and they have virtually identical backstory. Julius wasn't a good character- final boss, sorta, but really his acts as a villain take a huge backseat to Manfroy. Grima however, in part due to how you see him in the Future Past, is at least, for a stupid, cocky villain who needed a good read of the "Evil Overlord List" is much better characterized. [Julius also has that downside of Ishtar. I mean... she loves him. Why? He doesn't do anything to get it. And he really doesn't care for her. Sure, he'll warp her around and won't let her die [until the final arc for whatever reason] but he's seen as extremely cold. Never really elaborated on.]

Not to say Grima is all that great either, but better than Julius, yeah. As an overall, Robin does do quite well as a combination of the twins.

[However, Validar is an equivalent to Manfroy. And wow. No. Validar, you're awful as a villain.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could go into a long-winded post about why I like Shadow Dragon's character building over Awakening's, but that would be a massive topic derailment.

What really surprises me is the number of people liking and disliking characters based on their morals. Tharja is a nasty piece of work and if she really existed, I would hope never to have the misfortune of meeting her. But it's a game and I find her entertaining. Finding a character irritating is one thing but to refuse to be entertained because of misplaced morals seems a shame.

I, for one, do not tolerate whiny, immature, entitled pains in the ass, real or fictitious; thus, my dislike of Severa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, no.

I love FE4, but really, the characters weren't all that spectacular. It ran strong plot, excellent villains, and great world building, but poor characters. Awakening is like the exact opposite of that-- weak plot, poor villains, mediocre world building, but strong characters [save for NPCs]. >_<;;

Chrom, I feel is way better handled than Sigurd.

There's no questioning that Ricken is a better character than Azel- especially considering Azel, as a secondary character in a game that had no supports, really didn't have a whole lot going for him.

As far as Julius and Julia go, the fact that Julia's Einherjar and what her expected personality were totally freaking different goes to show exactly how little of Julia there actually is. Now, yes, she's fine. She's out done by Robin in every manner. Julius on the other hand is splutteringly insane, and frankly, I'd say for a point that Grima!Robin is better handled, and they have virtually identical backstory. Julius wasn't a good character- final boss, sorta, but really his acts as a villain take a huge backseat to Manfroy. Grima however, in part due to how you see him in the Future Past, is at least, for a stupid, cocky villain who needed a good read of the "Evil Overlord List" is much better characterized. [Julius also has that downside of Ishtar. I mean... she loves him. Why? He doesn't do anything to get it. And he really doesn't care for her. Sure, he'll warp her around and won't let her die [until the final arc for whatever reason] but he's seen as extremely cold. Never really elaborated on.]

Not to say Grima is all that great either, but better than Julius, yeah. As an overall, Robin does do quite well as a combination of the twins.

[However, Validar is an equivalent to Manfroy. And wow. No. Validar, you're awful as a villain.]

This sounds like your using the times against each other, you're talking a case of game that had supports to make char development vs. game that did not, if you do it that way, this is the natural result, so... yeah... this really isn't a dispute

And Julius kind of loved Ishtar... in his own little way, I seem to recall his getting jealous over Reinhart in FE5 when he learned that he was Ishtar's personal knight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question, does the Fire Emblem series have any games were the villain isn't evil for evil's sake? A villain who has his/her own troubles? One you might want to kill, but at the same time, pity? Anything like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julius showing Ishtar the garden in FE5. He isn't really cold to her. Their relationship is actually one of my favorites in the entire series. But we're derailing.

Quick question, does the Fire Emblem series have any games were the villain isn't evil for evil's sake? A villain who has his/her own troubles? One you might want to kill, but at the same time, pity? Anything like that?

Not evil for evil's sake? 6, 7, 8, and 10 immediately come to mind.



And I completely agree with Starlight's distinction between disliking someone as a character and as a person.

Edited by Sublime Manic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everyone one of them except Awakening.

Even Medeus was arguably right about humans.

Not going to comment about Rudolf.

There's Arvis and Travant.

Zephiel's life is full of suck.

As is Nergal's when you learn his true story.

Lyon's the most tragic villain in the series.

The logic used by the villains of FE9 and 10 is too strange to feel empathy for them.

So, yeah, all except Awakening, every game has a really major villain who's not evil for the sake of evil.

Gangrel and Walhart could have been those types of villains except instead of using them to show diversity, their only purpose is to continue to hammer in that Emmeryn is a 'Too good for this sinful earth' saint or something.

And no, Robin is not a better character than Julius and Julia. Those 2 might not be particularly well developed, especially Julia but Robin is just such an awful character.

Edited by Ranger Jack Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might want to add Linus and Lloyd to that list. Idoun too, but she's a bit of a different case.

Do note that that's not to say the past FEs weren't without scumbags with no redeeming qualities (FE5 in particular comes to mind), they just also happened to have well done villains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might want to add Linus and Lloyd to that list. Idoun too, but she's a bit of a different case.

Do note that that's not to say the past FEs weren't without scumbags with no redeeming qualities (FE5 in particular comes to mind), they just also happened to have well done villains.

The senators of FE10 and a lot of Begnion officers also appears to be just jerks with no empathy. They kill people(even subordinates and peace messengers) on a whim, are full of themselves, support slavery and are incredibly selfish and self-righteous on top of that.

You then have Ashnard, the Black Knight and the 'real mastermind'(just as to not spoil the hypothetical readers that didn't play FE10. Those who played know whom I'm talking about) who are villains that do not do it for the sake of the evulz.

(I also think Neasala is a great 'gray morality character'. You can use him as a playable character yet he's greedy, treacherous and smug, but he has hidden depths that can make him quite sympathetic, likes his commitment to his country and his duty as a king.

Edited by LuxSpes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Nah is a potentially more abusive wife than Tharja (see Nah x Inigo), so it's probably for the best that you haven't seen much of her.

Oh hell yes, I watched a clip on YouTube to see how Nah x Inigo works out, a few weeks ago and .... wow.... just, wow....

If you think Tharja is bad, Nah doubles it 100 % imo

rape basically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You then have Ashnard, the Black Knight and the 'real mastermind'(just as to not spoil the hypothetical readers that didn't play FE10. Those who played know whom I'm talking about) who are villains that do it for the sake of the evulz.

I honestly disagree with this, in Ashnard' case, he was attempting to create a world of based on the law of nature, 'survival of the fittest' whatnot, I don't see his goal as evil at all, in fact, I can honestly say that I would fight for a world like that, even though I don't follow the 'smite makes right' logic

Black Knight also wasn't evil for the sake of it either, he had a specific goal in mind of defeating the strongest man he ever knew of and would trample whatever got in his way, if it weren't cooperative

and the Mastermind(I'll take a cue from you and not spoil that)

also, was not evil for the sake of it, he had great disdain for the residents of Tellius due to their endless fighting, which was born from the one event that basically warped his mind, so he wanted to wipe them all out and start over not out and out evil but still

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everyone one of them except Awakening.

Even Medeus was arguably right about humans.

Not going to comment about Rudolf.

There's Arvis and Travant.

Here's the thing about Arvis and Travant: they were even written by developers who kept in mind that they weren't necessarily the villains and that Sigurd, Seliph and Leif weren't necessarily pure heroes. Check this out. It definitely comes through with Arvis and with FE5!Travant (FE4!Travant not so much), and even with a lesser bad guy like Blume. They're not cartoon villains. They're antagonists set against our protagonists, and we favor our protags because they're protags, and we're given some hints that we should look past that narrative bias.

Whereas Validar is a... cartoon villain. Yeah, Gangrel and Walhart get a little bit of development but it's mostly via Spotpass which is "too little, too late" in my book.

I also thought Lyon was a grade-A loser, personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gangrel and Walhart, yeah, they could have been used to show a different perspective. But all the game tries to do is show us that they're wrong and Emmeryn is right.

And about Emmeryn, is it just me or does she seem, suicidal? Not in the 'stupid' way but rather, she seems almost eager to sacrifice herself. In Chapter 5, she walks into an obvious trap with barely any gaurds, in chapter 6, when attacked by assassins, she tells Chrom to leave her and flee, there's chapter 9 and lastly her paralogue, where again, she wanders off to sacrifice herself.

It's almost as if she wants to die. That would have been a VERY interesting development. Like she's tired of it all or something. Could have been used for some great character development but the game doesn't seem to be intending this interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gangrel and Walhart, yeah, they could have been used to show a different perspective. But all the game tries to do is show us that they're wrong and Emmeryn is right.

And about Emmeryn, is it just me or does she seem, suicidal? Not in the 'stupid' way but rather, she seems almost eager to sacrifice herself. In Chapter 5, she walks into an obvious trap with barely any gaurds, in chapter 6, when attacked by assassins, she tells Chrom to leave her and flee, there's chapter 9 and lastly her paralogue, where again, she wanders off to sacrifice herself.

It's almost as if she wants to die. That would have been a VERY interesting development. Like she's tired of it all or something. Could have been used for some great character development but the game doesn't seem to be intending this interpretation.

I don't know. I genuinely thought they were going someplace interesting with the morality of the Ylisse royals re: pacifism during the first plot arc. Fortunately I kept notes: "It's like he's making a conscious choice, a deliberate leap of faith, to believe the best in people, the same way Ylisse has made a concious choice to embrace peace under Emmeryn's rule after what seems to have been a disastrous reign by their father. It feels genuine, and when people play dirty Chrom doesn't hesitate to push back. He's all right." I did NOT feel that way after completing the game.

Maybe Emm had access to visions of the Bad Future and knew she was supposed to die and was trying to bring it about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gangrel and Walhart, yeah, they could have been used to show a different perspective. But all the game tries to do is show us that they're wrong and Emmeryn is right.

And about Emmeryn, is it just me or does she seem, suicidal? Not in the 'stupid' way but rather, she seems almost eager to sacrifice herself. In Chapter 5, she walks into an obvious trap with barely any gaurds, in chapter 6, when attacked by assassins, she tells Chrom to leave her and flee, there's chapter 9 and lastly her paralogue, where again, she wanders off to sacrifice herself.

It's almost as if she wants to die. That would have been a VERY interesting development. Like she's tired of it all or something. Could have been used for some great character development but the game doesn't seem to be intending this interpretation.

It isn't intending that interpretation, it's just that she'd sacrifice anything for the safety of her kingdom and doesn't hold grudges. Like how it's built up that she was widely hated when she became the ruler of Ylisse and still forgives citizens who pelted her with stones.

She basically wants to avoid bloodshed or confrontation at any cost, hence how Gangrel was trying to instigate wars with Ylisse for years before the start of the game yet she wants to reason with him during chapter 5. She just isn't a vindictive character, the only reason she sacrifices herself is because she'd consider the consequences of Plegia gaining the Fire Emblem in exchange for her life more severe than her dying.

Her being tired of it and wanting to end her life and relinquish her responsibility would be at odds with her characterization. It'd be interesting just for only how inconsistent it'd be.

"But all the game tries to do is show us that they're wrong and Emmeryn is right.."

Emmeryn is wrong in every situation except when she sacrifices herself for the Fire Emblem's(or the worlds) safety? Chrom calls her out on going back to the palace because she thinks she's needed there where she's subsequently captured, Chrom, "Marth" and co. staying during the assassination attempt is the only reason she lives despite her idea of how to protect them, her going to Gangrels trap in chapter 5 to save Maribelle only jump started the war she was trying to avoid.

In comparison to Gangrel and Walhart she's right once and that's only because her philosophy means she isn't harming anyone to reach her ideals, but she's wrong or fails almost every time in practice against what she stands against(violence, revenge, peace through conquering everything) unless everyone including her enemies see eye to eye with her..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fire Emblem may have had evil for evils sake villains. However, they seem to be designed more like personifications of literal evil. Something that twists the good in people in order to cause bad.

And those people are usually the main antagonists and receive actual development.

Alvis and Manfroy is probably the best example in FE4 is probably the most obvious example.

FE3 had Medeus as the final boss but the main antagonist is Hardin.

FE5 had you fighting the Freedge most of the time. They Freedge only wanted to protect their people and their country. Even Reidrick seems more motivated by cowardice then anything.

Tear Ring Saga went really crazy with that. Even most regular bosses are highly sympathetic. There are just a few bad people in the entire game.

FE6 had Zephidel who wanted to create a better world.

FE7 had the Black Fang as main antagonists. They were well intentioned but mislead by Nergal.

FE8 had Lyon as a well developed main antagonist, used by the shallow Demon King.

FE9 had Crimea and Daein as near identical countries... but one of them had a king taking advantage of the population's racism and nationalism to create his personal paradise.

FE10 had tons of good antagonists as well as good people who did things that lead to bad things in the centuries to come.

The game went as far as making a player controlled team take the role of an antagonist.

Ashera? She gave up half of herself to ensure the safety of the Beorc and Laguz.The Ashera in the present is vastly different from the one in the past.

Yune? Her emotional grief ended up being destructive. Sephiran? Gave up on humanity after suffering tons of grief in the milenia he tried to fix it.

Deghinsea? He made people fear Yune and suppressed the the branded in the hopes of

Micaiah and Pelleas? They wanted to protect there people. Naesala? Same. The rebels in Part 2? They feared that their queen would lead their country to ruin.

The Begnion troops in Part 3 were protecting their country from an invasion. Hence they end up as your allies in Part 3 when circumstances change.

And Lekain's troops believed themselves fighting against the dark god.

Zelgius can kiss my ass, though.

In the end, the Senators, Jarold (may not be intended, though) and Ludveck are the only antagonists motivated by selfishness... as individuals and not representatives of the people following them.

Edited by BrightBow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly disagree with this, in Ashnard' case, he was attempting to create a world of based on the law of nature, 'survival of the fittest' whatnot, I don't see his goal as evil at all, in fact, I can honestly say that I would fight for a world like that, even though I don't follow the 'smite makes right' logic

Black Knight also wasn't evil for the sake of it either, he had a specific goal in mind of defeating the strongest man he ever knew of and would trample whatever got in his way, if it weren't cooperative

and the Mastermind(I'll take a cue from you and not spoil that)

also, was not evil for the sake of it, he had great disdain for the residents of Tellius due to their endless fighting, which was born from the one event that basically warped his mind, so he wanted to wipe them all out and start over not out and out evil but still

Sorry, I made a typo.

I in fact meant that they weren't doing it for evil's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...