Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jotari said:

You see you're focusing on the wrong word there.

“If I had one major criticism about Awakening's characters, it's that they usually have one defining characteristic, and that same characteristic is stressed so much that it becomes overbearing and obnoxious (Cordelia's Chrom crush, Kjelle being a training-obsessed jackass, Sumia's clumsiness, Vaike's...uh, Vaikeness, Henry's bloodlust, etc.).”

That's it, that's the word that makes it their opinion. The I. It's his criticism, not an objective truth. I mean correct me if I'm wrong @twilifalchion then do clarify things, but I think someone saying that it is their criticism means it's something that they personally find. Same for Samz. And while I'm at it I might as well point out how this is the unpopular opinions thread, everything should be taken, by default, to be an opinion. Someone who believes differently to you isn't necessarily, and I would even go so far as to say rarely, is suggesting that you are fundamentally wrong for holding an opinion.

I’m not saying someone is wrong for holding an opinion but when you make a critique regardless of what it is. It is an argumentative claim whether you like it or not. Cause that’s just something inherent to criticism. You can’t point out a flaw without actually point out said flaw like you need to actually prove that the flaw exists in order to criticize it that’s just how criticism works. If that’s not the very definition of criticism, then I don’t what is. I’m just saying those flaws aren’t actually flaws and therefore not proper criticism

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not saying someone is wrong for holding an opinion but when you make a critique regardless of what it is. It is an argumentative claim whether you like it or not. Cause that’s just something inherent to criticism. You can’t point out a flaw without actually point out said flaw like you need to actually prove that the flaw exists in order to criticize it that’s just how criticism works. If that’s not the very definition of criticism, then I don’t what is. I’m just saying those flaws aren’t actually flaws and therefore not proper criticism

But they are though. Because what people are doing when they talk about their criticism is attempting to express in words the reason behind the emotional reaction the felt when they experienced the work in question. If we're to take your view then it suggests that no one can say anything about anything without it being treated as an objective fact. If I say "I like Shannam because he is a funny character," then I am not saying everyone else has to like Shannam because he is objectively funny. Likewise if I say "I don't like Shannam because his gimmick is stupid," I am not saying everyone has to hate Shannam and think his gimmick is stupid. When someone says something is their opinion, generally, it actually is their personal opinion. And in my own view, even when someone doesn't state it's their personal opinion (ie "Shannam is funny" or "Shannam is stupid") then it's best to assume that it is a personal opinion. Because very, very few people are arrogant enough to believe that their personal beliefs are objectively superior to everyone else's (well outside the realm of religion where it's a bit more common) and if they are, they're probably going to make that view known. Yes, making a critique in a thread like this is an argumentative claim, and we can argue over it, but that does not mean anyone is taking their opinion be objectively superior. They hold a belief and believe they know the reason for said belief. As I said earlier, that's the What of the things, the argument is trying to get down to the brass tax of the why of the thing.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

But they are though. Because what people are doing when they talk about their criticism is attempting to express in words the reason behind the emotional reaction the felt when they experienced the work in question. If we're to take your view then it suggests that no one can say anything about anything without it being treated as an objective fact. If I say "I like Shannam because he is a funny character," then I am not saying everyone else has to like Shannam because he is objectively funny. Likewise if I say "I don't like Shannam because his gimmick is stupid," I am not saying everyone has to hate Shannam and think his gimmick is stupid. When someone says something is their opinion, generally, it actually is their personal opinion. And in my own view, even when someone doesn't state it's their personal opinion (ie "Shannam is funny" or "Shannam is stupid") then it's best to assume that it is a personal opinion. Because very, very few people are arrogant enough to believe that their personal beliefs are objectively superior to everyone else's (well outside the realm of religion where it's a bit more common) and if they are, they're probably going to make that view known. Yes, making a crtitique in a thread like this is an argumentative claim, and we can argue over it, but that does not mean anyone is taking their opinion be objectively superior. They hold a belief and believe they know the reason for said belief. As I said earlier, that's the What of the things, the argument is trying to get down to the brass tax of the why of the thing.

I think you’re missing my point. I take no issue with people’s general opinions on anything not everything is a statement pf fact on that I agree. I’m just saying don’t say shit that isn’t true. I like Severa because I think she’s cute. That is an opinion. Not everyone has to agree with me on that. Saying I don’t like Severa because she is a cliche one note tsundere is not an opinion. It’s an argumentative claim that can be disproven or proven. Don’t try to justify your opinion with information that is blatently incorrect cause it just makes you look dumb. Like I don’t mind justifying your opinion on something but you might wanna get your facts straight first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ottservia said:

I think you’re missing my point. I take no issue with people’s general opinions on anything not everything is a statement pf fact on that I agree. I’m just saying don’t say shit that isn’t true. I like Severa because I think she’s cute. That is an opinion. Not everyone has to agree with me on that. Saying I don’t like Severa because she is a cliche one note tsundere is not an opinion. It’s an argumentative claim that can be disproven or proven. Don’t try to justify your opinion with information that is blatently incorrect cause it just makes you look dumb. Like I don’t mind justifying your opinion on something but you might wanna get your facts straight first.

How is one an opinion and the other not an opinion? Because from the sounds of it you're view is that anyone who disagrees with you isn't expressing an opinion. Some people do find Severa to be a cliche one note tsundere. It sounds like you're saying no one is allowed to say Severa is a cliche tsundere because you think you're personal view that she's not is an objective fact. Saying she's not a cliche and saying she is a cliche are both opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

How is one an opinion and the other not an opinion? Because from the sounds of it you're view is that anyone who disagrees with you isn't expressing an opinion. Some people do find Severa to be a cliche one note tsundere. It sounds like you're saying no one is allowed to say Severa is a cliche tsundere because you think you're personal view that she's not is an objective fact. Saying she's not a cliche and saying she is a cliche are both opinions.

Because one can be proven the other is entirely based on taste. Saying you don’t like Severa because she’s a tsundere is FINE why? Because people can have opinions. I never said people can’t disagree with me. To say she’s a one note character is just blatently not true though and THAT is my point. I don’t know how else to explain it any clearer than that. Cause there are layers and nuances to her character that is provable based in evidence from the text. That is what you call an argumentative claim and interpretation. Whether or note those nuances matter to you is up to personal taste but those nuances are there and I can prove it. Those nuances matter to me but they may not matter to someone else and that is separates subjective claims from more objective ones. I don’t know how else to explain it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Because one can be proven the other is entirely based on taste. Saying you don’t like Severa because she’s a tsundere is FINE why? Because people can have opinions. I never said people can’t disagree with me. To say she’s a one note character is just blatently not true though and THAT is my point. I don’t know how else to explain it any clearer than that. Cause there are layers and nuances to her character that is provable based in evidence from the text. That is what you call an argumentative claim and interpretation. Whether or note those nuances matter to you is up to personal taste but those nuances are there and I can prove it. Those nuances matter to me but they may not matter to someone else and that is separates subjective claims from more objective ones. I don’t know how else to explain it

And someone can find those layers and nuance as one note and cliche. You don't, fair enough, someone else might though. Because people hold different values, experiences and standards and that's why they find different traits as, well, different. Proving something is nuanced is the same as proving something is funny. It's a matter of opinion. This is doubly true when it comes to cliche which, when it comes down to it, is a comment on exposure more than quality. Things are only cliche in the larger context of all narrative a person has consumed.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

And someone can find those layers and nuance as one note and cliche.

Okay first of all that’s not what one note and cliche means by definition that is just incorrect. A 3 dimensional character is not one note or cliche. You’re just using the terms incorrectly like straight up that’s not what they mean at all. and that’s what I take issue with.

Secondly, if you still don’t like the character even when those things are pointed out that is completely okay. Nothing wrong with that. I would disagree but hey tastes will be tastes. Just don’t say something is one thing when it’s not like. Like Severa doesn’t wear Twintails and that’s why you don’t like her. Like that’s just a straight up false statement so why are you making that claim if it’s not true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Because one can be proven the other is entirely based on taste

Except people can interpret things in different ways; not everybody sees the world in the same color, y'know? One may interpret Cordelia as one-note because she is always exactly the same and predictable, while another may think she's one-note or not one-note for some other kind of reason, (perhaps all of her supports being the same? Eh, not sure as I haven't played awakening. Cordelia's just an example.) People can view different actions in different ways, hence why we have different opinions in the first place; interpretation is part of opinion, or at least I think so. Because obviously everything I think is always right.

EDIT:

Quote

Like Severa doesn’t wear Twintails and that’s why you don’t like her

Technically it could be a valid reason if you really put that much stock into character design. But that would be rather extreme.

Edited by Benice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay first of all that’s not what one note and cliche means by definition that is just incorrect. A 3 dimensional character is not one note or cliche. You’re just using the terms incorrectly like straight up that’s not what they mean at all. and that’s what I take issue with.

Secondly, if you still don’t like the character even when those things are pointed out that is completely okay. Nothing wrong with that. I would disagree but hey tastes will be tastes. Just don’t say something is one thing when it’s not like. Like Severa doesn’t wear Twintails and that’s why you don’t like her. Like that’s just a straight up false statement so why are you making that claim if it’s not true

Something that's layered does not really gel with being one note, but cliche can absolutely be nuanced and layered. That's why cliches become cliches in the first place, becuase they're usallly rather good archtypes that get over used. But that aside, the statement that Severa is nuanced is not an objective truth. It is your opinion. Just like me saying Shannam is funny is not an objective truth. It is my opinion. I can point to lines that are formed as jokes around Shannam, but that only proves why I find Shannam funny, not why he is objectively funny. The same is the case with Severa. The aspects that you find nuanced about her others are fully entitled to find trite. You're boiling down the concept of opinion to positive and negative reactions to things when it's a much wider concept.

10 minutes ago, Benice said:

 

Technically it could be a valid reason if you really put that much stock into character design. But that would be rather extreme.

The point there is that she does in fact where twintails. But to equate physical and abstract things as provable true is disingenuous.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The point there is that she does in fact where twintails. But to equate physical and abstract things as provable true is disingenuous

She does? I am very bigbrain. Apologies for that.

Edited by Benice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Something that's layered does not really gel with being one note, but cliche can absolutely be nuanced and layered. That's why cliches become cliches in the first place, becuase they're usallly rather good archtypes that get over used. But that aside, the statement that Severa is nuanced is not an objective truth. It is your opinion. Just like me saying Shannam is funny is not an objective truth. It is my opinion. I can point to lines that are formed as jokes around Shannam, but that only proves why I find Shannam funny, not why he is objectively funny. The same is the case with Severa. The aspects that you find nuanced about her others are fully entitled to find trite.

And that’s fine. If you personally find those aspects of her character annoying or whatever. I ain’t gonna try to argue with you because that’s your opinion just don’t go saying those are actual flaws in her character writing because they’re not. Don’t go criticizing her character based on things that are purely subjective and that’s really what I’m getting at here. People are fully entitled to their opinions. I never said they weren’t. It’s when they try to justify those opinions based in arguments and logic that don’t make much sense is what bothers me. Like I really don’t know how else to explain it anymore clearer than that. You want me to link a video or two that will better explain what I mean cause I can do that. It just feels like you’re not picking up what I’m putting down here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

And that’s fine. If you personally find those aspects of her character annoying or whatever. I ain’t gonna try to argue with you because that’s your opinion just don’t go saying those are actual flaws in her character writing because they’re not. Don’t go criticizing her character based on things that are purely subjective and that’s really what I’m getting at here. People are fully entitled to their opinions. I never said they weren’t. It’s when they try to justify those opinions based in arguments and logic that don’t make much sense is what bothers me. Like I really don’t know how else to explain it anymore clearer than that. You want me to link a video or two that will better explain what I mean cause I can do that. It just feels like you’re not picking up what I’m putting down here.

Once again, I'm not attacking Severa. There's no need to feel personally attacked. I've never once expressed an opinion on Severa, so posting a video examining her traits is missing the point, as it's not about Severa, it's about how people react to characters. Severa is just our example. We could rename our example Shannam or Ike or Freddie Mercury and it won't make a difference for the purpose of the conversation. I am getting what you're saying. You're saying that "Severa is objectively nuanced for reason X", correct? Only I disagree. Because I don't think that's an objective standard. I believe what the case is really "YOU find Severa subjectively nuanced for reason X". Because nuance, unlike pigtails, is not an provable trait. It is an opinion formed based on a person's own values system, exposure to similar elements and general interest. And other people, based on that, do not find X to be a collection of traits that cohesively mesh together well enough to be justifiable of the label nuance. Is there anything about that summation that you find inaccurate to your stated beliefs?

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Once again, I'm not attacking Severa. There's no need to feel personally attacked. I've never once expressed an opinion on Severa, so posting a video examining her traits is missing the point, as it's not about Severa, it's about how people react to characters. Severa is just our example. We could rename our example Shannam or Ike or Freddie Mercury and it won't make a difference for the purpose of the conversation. I am getting what you're saying. You're saying that "Severa is objectively nuanced for reason X", correct? Only I disagree. Because I don't think that's an objective standard. I believe what the case is really "YOU find Severa subjectively nuanced for reason X". Because nuance, unlike pigtails, is not an provable trait. It is an opinion formed based on a person's own values system, exposure to similar elements and general interest. And other people, based on that, do not find X to be a collection of traits that cohesively mesh together well enough to be justifiable of the label nuance. Is there anything about that summation that you find inaccurate to your stated beliefs?

Yeah that is a little bit of a misinterpretation of what I’ve been trying to get across this entire time. Cause my point in all this is that nuance and complexity is a provable facet of storytelling to say that it isn’t is to say that the quality of story telling is entirely subjective which I think we both can agree isn’t true and the video I mention isn’t about Severa at all. It’s just a video expressing the very point I’ve been trying to express this entire time in that people are just using incorrect or illogical statements or reasoning to try and justify their opinions on something and that’s fine to not like something despite acknowledging the ideas and nuances behind it. I will link it here if you so desire to watch it.

 

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predictable tropes annoy the everliving daylights out of me.  I prefer it if the writers attempt some creativity when making a character.

I also don't want to contort my mind to see how a character is different from a trope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Yeah that is a little bit of a misinterpretation of what I’ve been trying to get across this entire time. Cause my point in all this is that nuance and complexity is a provable facet of storytelling

Well now it sounds like you're not even listening to me, because I said exactly that.

20 minutes ago, Jotari said:

You're saying that "Severa is objectively nuanced for reason X"

It's a provable facet to the extent that it's something that exists. But it exists as a subjective reaction to something, identical to humor, coolness, beauty, sexiness, impressiveness and basically every other adjective. Do you think it is an objective fact that Camilla is sexy because she has big boobs that are shoved in the player's face? I think no, of course not, because not everyone things big showy boobs are sexy. Some people don't even like boobs at all. It is true that many people find her sexy, but it is not a universal truth that she is sexy.

And this,

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

that’s fine to not like something despite acknowledging the ideas and nuances behind it. I will link it here if you so desire to watch it.

 

is just this,

39 minutes ago, Jotari said:

 You're boiling down the concept of opinion to positive and negative reactions to things when it's a much wider concept.

 

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well now it sounds like you're not even listening to me, because I said exactly that.

It's a provable facet to the extent that it's something that exists. But it exists as a subjective reaction to something, identical to humor, coolness, beauty, sexiness, impressiveness and basically every other adjective. Do you think it is an objective fact that Camilla is sexy because she has big boobs that are shoved in the player's face? I think no, of course not, because not everyone things big showy boobs are sexy. Some people don't even like boobs at all. It is true that many people find her sexy, but it is not a universal truth that she is sexy.

And this,

is just this,

 

I still feel like you’re not understanding what I’m trying to say here. Cause regardless of anything, I aim for deeper and more nuanced discussion about the nature of story and trying to understand it. My feelings on stories are my own. I don’t expect anyone to agree with the feelings I hold for these characters and stories. It’s just how I feel about them. To that notion though, I dislike it when the discourse surrounding stories is made up of people using poor logical reasoning to try and form an argument that doesn’t make sense or is composed of largely biased or incorrect information. The video I linked discusses those exact sentiments. I hope that is a clear indication of the point I’ve been trying to make this whole time.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Fire Emblem Fan said:

Apparently, not liking Severa is an unpopular opinion. So, check that one off for me, I dislike her.

I dunno why but I was expecting this sort of opinion from you. I find that amusing but I mean nothing by it just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I still feel like you’re not understanding what I’m trying to say here. Cause regardless of anything, I aim for deeper and more nuanced discussion about the nature of story and trying to understand it. My feelings on stories are my own. I don’t expect anyone to agree with the feelings I hold for these characters and stories. It’s just how I feel about them. To that notion though, I dislike it when the discourse surrounding stories is made up of people using poor logical reasoning to try and form an argument that doesn’t make sense or is composed of largely biased or incorrect information. The video I linked discusses those exact sentiments. I hope that is a clear indication of the point I’ve been trying to make this whole time.

Well I feel you saying that I don't get what you're saying dismisses what I'm saying. And I think I stumbled onto a particularly good comparison just then (initially I was going to go down a whole music snob road but I think this is one that works particularly). You're saying nuance is an objectively proveable facet of story telling. Does this also apply to sexiness? You can say Severa is objectively complex and nuanced because she has mommy issues. That's your standard. You define something and back it up with evidence and that makes it objective. To whit, Camallia is objectively sexy because she has big breasts. That is a statement backed up with evidence. People like big boobs, Camilla has big boobs, she is objectively sexy. Only no, because objectively means it remains true without the input of personal feelings and experiences. For it to be an objective fact that Camilla is sexy, every single human on planet Earth would have to agree that she is sexy. When, while we can say broadly speaking a lot of people do, I hope you can agree it is ridiculous to suggest that everyone everywhere has to find her physically attractive. Many people don't, because they don't find big boobs appealing. Likewise, for Severa to be considered objectively nuanced, every single human, past present and future, would need to agree that she is nuanced. But they don't, ergo she is not objectively nuanced. You're taking opinion to only be the end result of the equation. Saying people must agree that she's nuanced, and afterwards can agree whether that's good or bad, when no, people absolutely can contest the factors that you personally consider contribute to nuance just like people can contest whether big boobs are personally appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well I feel you saying that I don't get what you're saying dismisses what I'm saying. And I think I stumbled onto a particularly good comparison just then (initially I was going to go down a whole music snob road but I think this is one that works particularly). You're saying nuance is an objectively proveable facet of story telling. Does this also apply to sexiness? You can say Severa is objectively complex and nuanced because she has mommy issues. That's your standard. You define something and back it up with evidence and that makes it objective. To whit, Camallia is objectively sexy because she has big breasts. That is a statement backed up with evidence. People like big boobs, Camilla has big boobs, she is objectively sexy. Only no, because objectively means it remains true without the input of personal feelings and experiences. For it to be an objective fact that Camilla is sexy, every single human on planet Earth would have to agree that she is sexy. When, while we can say broadly speaking a lot of people do, I hope you can agree it is ridiculous to suggest that everyone everywhere has to find her physically attractive. Many people don't, because they don't find big boobs appealing. Likewise, for Severa to be considered objectively nuanced, every single human, past present and future, would need to agree that she is nuanced. But they don't, ergo she is not objectively nuanced. You're taking opinion to only be the end result of the equation. Saying people must agree that she's nuanced, and afterwards can agree whether that's good or bad, when no, people absolutely can contest the factors that you personally consider contribute to nuance just like people can contest whether big boobs are personally appealing.

I’m not saying I disagree(even though to say that would suggest that story telling is entirely subjective when it isn’t but I don’t wanna go down that rabbit hole right now) but what you seem to be misunderstanding about my point is that I’m no so much concerned with the opinion itself but rather the reasoning behind it. Cause my whole point is that people can and will use poor logical reasoning to try and justify their claims when their reasoning makes absolutely no sense. The opinion itself is not the problem it’s how they came to that conclusion is what I’m getting at here. Like for example take Edelgard, to say you don’t like Edelgard because she planned Geralt’s death(and yes I have seen people make such claims) is kind of a ridiculous statement. To say you don’t like Edelgard is fine but the reason you say you do is just blatently incorrect when there are lines spoken by Edelgard herself to make that claim false in that Geralt’s death was not part of her plan at all and is something the agarthans just happened to do on their own. Do you see what I’m getting at here.

In regards to how this relates to the idea of story discussion is that you can't a claim without providing the proper evidence for said claim. To go back to Severa for a minute, It's indisputable fact that she does indeed have an inferiority complex stemming from her mom. That is a fact that cannot be denied, it's written right there in her roster entry. That is an objective fact about her character you cannot disagree with, so to claim that she's abrasive for no reason is an incorrect statement because there is a reason. Whether you agree with that reason is up to personal taste and opinion but the fact remains she has a reason to act the way that she does. These are all objective facts based in direct evidence from the text. Whether or not you relate to her character based on these facts is once again based solely on personal taste and preference. I relate to her character based on those attributes but not everyone will and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Any claim regarding the interpretation of a text is a valid so long as you can provide sufficient evidence for it. That's just how it is.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well I think it's useful to step back and see that no one, at least here, has said that it's an objective thing. Samz707 consistently said that it was their opinion and twilifalchion prefaced their criticism by saying they love Awakening but this it was problem they had, so it obviously wasn;t a condemnation of the entire a game and was about something specific that doesn't gel for them. I think a good rule of thumb would be that unless someone specifically says they think something is an objective fact, then it's best to assume they mean it's in their opinion. Doubly say if they literally say IMO or use the words "I find" or "I have".

7 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I dunno about you but that sounds like an argumentative claim to me and with the way it’s framed sounds negative which I take issue with because “gimmicks” are not necessarily a bad thing and awakening isn’t even all that bad with it in most cases. Hell I don’t even know where the “Cordelia is obsessed with Chrom” thing comes from cause it’s only a focal point in like a few support chains and the S-supports. Even her barracks dialogue doesn’t have much to do with it.

Both of you are correct in your interpretation of what I said. Perhaps I could have worded it better (it was a bit late when I wrote my comment and I probably wasn't in the best state of mind to be accurately writing about an opinion of mine). Yes, what I said was my subjective opinion on how Awakening characters tend to be treated in their supports. But it is fair to critique what I said if you have arguments against it. That is the basis of healthy debates and discussions. I have no problem with debating anyone, even if we never agree on anything, as long as they stick to the facts and don't fall into just attacking me personally, which Ottservia did not do. Although, to be accurate, I never actually said Cordelia was "obsessed with Chrom." It's just that in most of her supports with other characters, Chrom becomes part of the conversation in one way or another. When Frederick, Stahl, Lon'qu, Vaike, Virion, Libra, Henry, Ricken, Gregor, and Gaius all have supports that mention Chrom (even in a minor way), it is unsurprising when that aspect of Cordelia's character becomes her most remembered trait. Because of this, the genuinely interesting part of her that demonstrates a bad inferiority complex as shown in her supports with Robin are ignored in favor of "the Chrom crush."

This is why a good number of Awakening characters come across as trope-y or one-note: because most of their supports tend to focus on that one characteristic, with little deviation (as I stated above). Characters that tend to fall into this trap, from my perspective, are Owain, Cynthia, Henry, Stahl, Kellam, Anna, Tharja, Noire, Nah, Vaike, Sully, Kjelle, Gerome, Flavia, Basilio, Miriel, Sumia, and Gaius, among others. This is not to say that these characters are one-note or only have one single characteristic, just that the supports tend to focus on that to the neglect of the other aspects of their character. As Ottservia said, gimmicks are not inherently bad, but reliance on them as opposed to giving more variety within a character's development is not a thoughtful way of developing the characters within your story. For example, Severa (one of my favorite characters in Awakening) is a character who, while very much a tsundere, is also defined by her abandonment issues due to her parents dying when she was younger as well as her inferiority complex in relation to her mother. And her supports reflect this. In one way or another, Severa will start out being bossy, snarky, selfish, etc., but by the end of the supports that facade will have come down to reveal a person who just wants to be appreciated for who she is, and loved by someone who truly understands her (like her M!Robin support). But characters like her are in the minority, in my opinion, rather than representing the majority of the cast's character development. So yeah, I believe these to be fair criticisms on my part, but no one has to agree with me, and I know there are those who will flatly disagree, and that's fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Both of you are correct in your interpretation of what I said. Perhaps I could have worded it better (it was a bit late when I wrote my comment and I probably wasn't in the best state of mind to be accurately writing about an opinion of mine). Yes, what I said was my subjective opinion on how Awakening characters tend to be treated in their supports. But it is fair to critique what I said if you have arguments against it. That is the basis of healthy debates and discussions. I have no problem with debating anyone, even if we never agree on anything, as long as they stick to the facts and don't fall into just attacking me personally, which Ottservia did not do. Although, to be accurate, I never actually said Cordelia was "obsessed with Chrom." It's just that in most of her supports with other characters, Chrom becomes part of the conversation in one way or another. When Frederick, Stahl, Lon'qu, Vaike, Virion, Libra, Henry, Ricken, Gregor, and Gaius all have supports that mention Chrom (even in a minor way), it is unsurprising when that aspect of Cordelia's character becomes her most remembered trait. Because of this, the genuinely interesting part of her that demonstrates a bad inferiority complex as shown in her supports with Robin are ignored in favor of "the Chrom crush."

This is why a good number of Awakening characters come across as trope-y or one-note: because most of their supports tend to focus on that one characteristic, with little deviation (as I stated above). Characters that tend to fall into this trap, from my perspective, are Owain, Cynthia, Henry, Stahl, Kellam, Anna, Tharja, Noire, Nah, Vaike, Sully, Kjelle, Gerome, Flavia, Basilio, Miriel, Sumia, and Gaius, among others. This is not to say that these characters are one-note or only have one single characteristic, just that the supports tend to focus on that to the neglect of the other aspects of their character. As Ottservia said, gimmicks are not inherently bad, but reliance on them as opposed to giving more variety within a character's development is not a thoughtful way of developing the characters within your story. For example, Severa (one of my favorite characters in Awakening) is a character who, while very much a tsundere, is also defined by her abandonment issues due to her parents dying when she was younger as well as her inferiority complex in relation to her mother. And her supports reflect this. In one way or another, Severa will start out being bossy, snarky, selfish, etc., but by the end of the supports that facade will have come down to reveal a person who just wants to be appreciated for who she is, and loved by someone who truly understands her (like her M!Robin support). But characters like her are in the minority, in my opinion, rather than representing the majority of the cast's character development. So yeah, I believe these to be fair criticisms on my part, but no one has to agree with me, and I know there are those who will flatly disagree, and that's fine by me.

The only part about this assessment I would personally disagree with is the bolded portion. Cause even supports that tend to focus on such things can have meaningful nuance behind them like Cordelia’s support with Gregor or Owain’s support with Severa or Morgan. Even so a purely comedic support(like M!RobinxOwain) are not inherently bad either. They serve their purpose in telling a funny joke with effective setup and punchlines. Whether or not you find it funny though is still a subjective point regardless of anything because personal enjoyment is subjective. Still, supports like that have their place and it would be wrong to dismiss on the grounds that you did not personally enjoy them.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with statements such as "my point in all this is that nuance and complexity is a provable facet of storytelling" is that it isn't. What one may find nuanced or complex another individual may think to be bland and simple. The truth of it is that there is no absolute standard of good or bad quality for creative works such as art, video games, books, etc. There will always be that one person who loves Superman 64 for every person who hates it and thinks that it's the worst game ever. There are people who love Shadows of Valentia as their favorite FE game because they love the map design and you have people like me who dislike SoV because of the very same aspect of the game. There are people who find characters like Ike to be complex, nuanced characters, but I personally believe Ike to be a relatively simple character who is mostly defined by the events and characters around him rather than traits he himself possesses (apart from Greil's death, which becomes a driving force to destroy the BK). My point in this is that telling others they can't feel the way they do about certain issues because you say it is not factual is to stop others from expressing their opinions on any issue or topic. "Saying I don’t like Severa because she is a cliche one note tsundere is not an opinion." Yes, yes it is. If I feel that Severa is a one-note character who is only memorable for being a tsundere (which I don't), then I am entitled to feel that way free of criticism from someone else, even if they disagree. There is no need to be angry about having discussions. Debate is healthy, but being antagonistic towards others with whom you disagree is not healthy nor it is productive. If I got angry just because someone said "Lucina is dull," then what kind of person would I be try and criticize someone else for believing that? Should I be able to defend my opinions? Yes. But is having a defense of my opinions necessary to have the opinions I have? No.

Edited by twilitfalchion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I’m not saying I disagree(even though to say that would suggest that story telling is entirely subjective when it isn’t but I don’t wanna go down that rabbit hole right now) but what you seem to be misunderstanding about my point is that I’m no so much concerned with the opinion itself but rather the reasoning behind it. Cause my whole point is that people can and will use poor logical reasoning to try and justify their claims when their reasoning makes absolutely no sense. The opinion itself is not the problem it’s how they came to that conclusion is what I’m getting at here. Like for example take Edelgard, to say you don’t like Edelgard because she planned Geralt’s death(and yes I have seen people make such claims) is kind of a ridiculous statement. To say you don’t like Edelgard is fine but the reason you say you do is just blatently incorrect when there are lines spoken by Edelgard herself to make that claim false in that Geralt’s death was not part of her plan at all and is something the agarthans just happened to do on their own. Do you see what I’m getting at here.

In regards to how this relates to the idea of story discussion is that you can't a claim without providing the proper evidence for said claim. To go back to Severa for a minute, It's indisputable fact that she does indeed have an inferiority complex stemming from her mom. That is a fact that cannot be denied, it's written right there in her roster entry. That is an objective fact about her character you cannot disagree with, so to claim that she's abrasive for no reason is an incorrect statement because there is a reason. Whether you agree with that reason is up to personal taste and opinion but the fact remains she has a reason to act the way that she does. These are all objective facts based in direct evidence from the text. Whether or not you relate to her character based on these facts is once again based solely on personal taste and preference. I relate to her character based on those attributes but not everyone will and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Any claim regarding the interpretation of a text is a valid so long as you can provide sufficient evidence for it. That's just how it is.

Yes, it is pretty much indisputable that she has mommy issues, but having mommy issues does not make her objectively nuanced. Some people could find her nuanced because of it, other could find her trite and cliched. Because nuance, like beauty, is subjective based on each individuals standards and experiences. So to go back to the source of this, if someone says they find Awakening's cast gimmicky nature to be overbearing and obnoxious, that is a subjective opinion and should be treated as such. We can discuss the merits of the opinion absolutely, but the opinion should not be treated as if the arguer is saying this is the only reaction that's legitimate. Of course anyone who's arguing not from a position of devil's advocate will want to try and convince the opposing party to disagree with them, but that is not to suggest there is one universal truth.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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