Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 hours 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.

That's what I was getting at with this part.

22 hours ago, Jotari said:

 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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Having an inferiority complex is an explanation, not an excuse.  I still dislike her due to her actions.

And that’s fine, I never said it was an excuse. Do with the information what you will but don’t deny it’s existence and that’s what I’m getting at

31 minutes ago, Jotari said:

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.

Is that not what nuance means though? at least from my understanding of the term, it's basically all the small things that come together to create a larger whole. To prove something is indeed nuanced is to be able to examine the individual parts and see how they connect. Again to use Severa as an example, she only out right says she has an inferiority complex a couple of times in her mother support, her father support, her Robin supports, and her hot-spring scramble conversation with Lucina. Her other supports don't necessarily say it but there are plenty of hints of it cropping in her interactions with other characters. Take her Inigo support, where in he tells her she looks nice to which she responds with:

Severa: "ARE YOU MAKING FUN OF ME?! This camp is full of good-looking girls who will giggle and tee-hee all night long. I clearly despise you. So why chase me around?"

Note how she responds to the compliment. She shouts an accusatory claim that he's making fun of her or at the very least she's jumping to that conclusion. The fact that she is indeed shouting it can mean she's somewhat emotionally distraught by his comment. With that, plus everything else we know about her character in mind, we can likely infer she genuinely feels his compliment was not genuine as in she felt he didn't mean it which can be traced back to her inferiority complex in that she just generally feels she's so worthless to the point of feeling undeserving of praise. So, when someone does genuinely compliment her she's not used to hearing thus the volatile reaction of weird and mixed emotions. Speaking as someone with major self-esteem issues, I can say this kind of scenario is kind of realistic but that's just my personal bias talking. That aside, psychological studies have gone on record to say those with self-worth issues like this tend to not be able to take compliments which is what's happening here. All of this from just a few lines of dialogue which can then be reasonably traced back to the core of what is already known about her character. That is how I define nuance.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My unpopular opinion is that your time would be better spent reading actual works of textual criticism and theory rather than arguing unproductively about whether tsunderes are good on a Fire Emblem forum.

Edited by AnonymousSpeed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

My unpopular opinion is that your time would be better spent reading actual works of textual criticism and theory rather than arguing unproductively about whether tsunderes are good on a Fire Emblem forum.

I can agree to this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

And that’s fine, I never said it was an excuse. Do with the information what you will but don’t deny it’s existence and that’s what I’m getting at

Is that not what nuance means though? at least from my understanding of the term, it's basically all the small things that come together to create a larger whole. To prove something is indeed nuanced is to be able to examine the individual parts and see how they connect. Again to use Severa as an example, she only out right says she has an inferiority complex a couple of times in her mother support, her father support, her Robin supports, and her hot-spring scramble conversation with Lucina. Her other supports don't necessarily say it but there are plenty of hints of it cropping in her interactions with other characters. Take her Inigo support, where in he tells her she looks nice to which she responds with:

Severa: "ARE YOU MAKING FUN OF ME?! This camp is full of good-looking girls who will giggle and tee-hee all night long. I clearly despise you. So why chase me around?"

Note how she responds to the compliment. She shouts an accusatory claim that he's making fun of her or at the very least she's jumping to that conclusion. The fact that she is indeed shouting it can mean she's somewhat emotionally distraught by his comment. With that, plus everything else we know about her character in mind, we can likely infer she genuinely feels his compliment was not genuine as in she felt he didn't mean it which can be traced back to her inferiority complex in that she just generally feels she's so worthless to the point of feeling undeserving of praise. So, when someone does genuinely compliment her she's not used to hearing thus the volatile reaction of weird and mixed emotions. Speaking as someone with major self-esteem issues, I can say this kind of scenario is kind of realistic but that's just my personal bias talking. That aside, psychological studies have gone on record to say those with self-worth issues like this tend to not be able to take compliments which is what's happening here. All of this from just a few lines of dialogue which can then be reasonably traced back to the core of what is already known about her character. That is how I define nuance.

This seems to be a recurring thing with you where you try to prove the example right when the example is only an example. Whether Severa is nuanced or not is not the issue here. Talking about her does absolutely nothing for her argument because I'm not attacking Severa. We're talking about the nature of what nuance is. You're right, nuance is the small things that work well to give depth. However, someone can, and many I'm sure do, do not find the small things that make up the larger whole of Severa to be sufficiently interesting enough, or executed well enough or even competently enough to create a whole that can be justifiably labelled as nuanced. You can try and argue your perspective (not to me, because we're not having that argument) to try and convince people that those small things are working for her character, but that is your, personal, perspective. Others find the exact things that you feel work to be boring, repetitive and cliche. Just like people can find the things that I find funny about Shannam to be stupid or overplayed. And just like one person can find Camilla's boobs sexy while another can find them OTT.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jotari said:

This seems to be a recurring thing with you where you try to prove the example right when the example is only an example. Whether Severa is nuanced or not is not the issue here. Talking about her does absolutely nothing for her argument because I'm not attacking Severa. We're talking about the nature of what nuance is. You're right, nuance is the small things that work well to give depth. However, someone can, and many I'm sure do, do not find the small things that make up the larger whole of Severa to be sufficiently interesting enough, or executed well enough or even competently enough to create a whole that can be justifiably labelled as nuanced. You can try and argue your perspective (not to me, because we're not having that argument) to try and convince people that those small things are working for her character, but that is your, personal, perspective. Others find the exact things that you feel work to be boring, repetitive and cliche.

I only use Severa as an example to help prove my overall point in how I define nuance. That’s just how my mind generally works. My overall point in all of this though is those nuances do in fact exist and you shouldn’t dismiss them. Take the information I present how you will but don’t deny that information’s existence because it is indeed there and is irrefutable to some extent anyway. Whether or not you personally like the character based on this information is up to personal taste because investment and enjoyment are inherently subjective things that cannot be argued. I can acknowledge a character or story has ideas behind it but that doesn’t mean I’m automatically gonna be invested in it and the same is true of everyone else. What bothers me though is to dismiss those nuances on the basis of personal enjoyment. It’s fine to not like something or to say it’s boring or whatever cause those are subjective statements. To say a character is shallow or lacks depth despite clear evidence otherwise is what bothers me. Like I’m arguing with you that nuance is provable and somewhat objective. The Severa example was to showcase what I mean when I say you can prove nuance exists meaning it is not entirely subjective like you say it is cause if it was I would not be able to prove it as it would’ve been subjective which is not provable by definition. I never once said those nuances have to matter to people because they don’t. People can call these characters/stories all sorts of things from boring, to repetitive, or whatever. I’m just saying these nuances exist and that you shouldn’t deny their existence simply on the basis that it was boring to you personally.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I only use Severa as an example to help prove my overall point in how I define nuance. That’s just how my mind generally works. My overall point in all of this though is those nuances do in fact exist and you shouldn’t dismiss them. Take the information I present how you will but don’t deny that information’s existence because it is indeed there and is irrefutable to some extent anyway. Whether or not you personally like the character based on this information is up to personal taste because investment and enjoyment are inherently subjective things that cannot be argued. I can acknowledge a character or story has ideas behind it but that doesn’t mean I’m automatically gonna be invested in it and the same is true of everyone else. What bothers me though is to dismiss those nuances on the basis of personal enjoyment. It’s fine to not like something or to say it’s boring or whatever cause those are subjective statements. To say a character is shallow or lacks depth despite clear evidence otherwise is what bothers me.

It's not the nuances that are being dismissed, it's the nuanced worth of the personality traits that you personally think contribute to making her nuanced.  No one, I think, is going to deny that Severa has mommy issues, it's how useful those mommy issues contribute to her character that are in question. For a moment let's stop thinking about nuance as a binary and shift it to a spectrum. Things can be more or less nuanced than other things after all Maybe you find, I don't know let's go with Cordelia as she's adjacent, as a 5 on the nuanced scale due to how her insecurities play into her character. Then let's say you think Severa's mommy issues and their effect on her abrasiveness gives her an 8 on the nuance scale. Other people think those traits give her a zero.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jotari said:

It's not the nuances that are being dismissed, it's the nuanced worth of the personality traits that you personally think contribute to making her nuanced.  No one, I think, is going to deny that Severa has mommy issues, it's how useful those mommy issues contribute to her character that are in question. For a moment let's stop thinking about nuance as a binary and shift it to a spectrum. Things can be more or less nuanced than other things after all Maybe you find, I don't know let's go with Cordelia as she's adjacent, as a 5 on the nuanced scale due to how her insecurities play into her character. Then let's say you think Severa's mommy issues and their effect on her abrasiveness gives her an 8 on the nuance scale. Other people think those traits give her a zero.

Okay? I never said it was wrong to think that a character is boring or whatever. When did I ever say that? Like I keep repeating, it’s fine if you don’t care about all those nuances or themes or whatever but to deny those things exist despite clear evidence otherwise is just close minded ignorance. If you think a character is boring then fine. That’s subjective like whatever. But don’t say a character lacks depth or nuance when there is clear evidence to the contrary. I never said a it’s not okay to dislike something or to not care about nuance or any of that. What am I saying though is that you shouldn’t deny the fact that those nuances exist. I’m not saying you HAVE to agree with me in liking or disliking a character or that these nuances make them interesting. No that’s not what I’ve been saying. What I sm saying is that you should at least acknowledge the existence of the information presented. However you feel about that information is not my call to make. Like you seem to be working under the assumption that I am saying people aren’t allowed to voice their personal grievances on something. No I never said that not once. What I did say though is that I will take issue if the reasoning behind those grievances don’t make sense.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay? I never said it was wrong to think that a character is boring or whatever. When did I ever say that? 

You said

23 hours ago, Ottservia said:

 Saying I don’t like Severa because she is a cliche one note tsundere is not an opinion. 

Granted the exact word boring isn't there, but finding her boring will result in this opinion (because cliche does derive from being board with something you've seen too many times before after all). And on review I'm not sure what you're even talking about because I never once said the word boring in that specific post. In fact looking at your response you don't seem to have actually addressed anything I've said, just repeated what you said before. What about my whole spectrum perspective?

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Like I keep repeating, it’s fine if you don’t care about all those nuances or themes or whatever but to deny those things exist despite clear evidence otherwise is just close minded ignorance. If you think a character is boring then fine. That’s subjective like whatever. But don’t say a character lacks depth or nuance when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

There isn't. There simply isn't. There evidence for what you find to equate to depth, but not what I or anyone else has to equate to depth. You can present that evidence to try and convince others, but the result of that evidence is not an objective truth. It is a collection of traits that form an opinion. Severa has mommy issues is the trait. That this makes her nuanced is the resulting opinion. Just like Shannam is disguised as Shannan is the trait, this makes him funny is the opinion; or Camilla has big boobs is the trait and this makes her sexy is an opinion. Do you disagree with those examples?

13 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What am I saying though is that you shouldn’t deny the fact that those nuances exist. I’m not saying you HAVE to agree with me in liking or disliking a character or that these nuances make them interesting. No that’s not what I’ve been saying. What I sm saying is that you should at least acknowledge the existence of the information presented. However you feel about that information is not my call to make.

The source of this might be that you don't actually know what nuance is. You seemed to have suggested you did before, but you're opinion would make a lot of sense if you believe nuance = character trait. It doesn't. It's the expression of multiple character traits. Character traits are reasonably undeniable, but what those traits entail for the character are highly debatable.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Granted the exact word boring isn't there, but finding her boring will result in this opinion (because cliche does derive from being board with something you've seen too many times before after all).

That example I will admit my wording could’ve been better but based on at least my definition of cliche, to say that she is just a false statement.

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

There isn't. There simply isn't. There evidence for what you find to equate to depth, but not what I or anyone else has to equate to depth. You can present that evidence to try and convince others, but the result of that evidence is not an objective truth. It is a collection of traits that form an opinion. Severa has mommy issues is the trait. That this makes her nuanced is the resulting opinion. Just like Shannam is disguised as Shannan is the trait, this makes him funny is the opinion; or Camilla has big boobs is the trait and this makes her sexy is an opinion. Do you disagree with those examples?

Let me try to explain this to you in the best possible way I can cause I feel I’ve made my argument as sound as possible but I guess not. First let’s define what “depth” means cause I feel like where this whole misunderstanding is coming from. Depth to me is when a character has reasons for doing what they do and those reasons have explicit nuances that crop up and showcase themselves in different facets of their personality or other defining characteristics like appearance or super powers. All of which can be somewhat proven with evidence based in the text. The subjectivity of it comes as to whether or someone cares about those things or if they can relate to them. To take an example from persona 5. Makoto Nijima is a complex character brimming with depth. Her character is one of a typical Japanese honor student trying to get into a prestigious college. She’s smart, cool, calm, and calculating but also firm and assertive because as student council president she needs to be. She needs to live up to the expectations put on her by adults in order to please them so that she may get that letter of rec. this forces her into a position of being pressured to please the adults in her life(namely the princaple) by doing whatever they ask of her despite it going against what she feels is right. All she can do is just stay quiet and do as she’s told because that’s the expectation placed on her despite wanting to speak out against. It’s when she finally finds the strength to speak out against these expectations and injustices that she awakenes to her Persona in typical flashy anime fashion which puts her in a leather biker outfit which is her view of what a rebel looks like. Coming full circle in that it’s the opposite to what her belief of what authority is which is a policeman.

where am I going with all this? I don’t like Makoto. She’s just a boring character to me. All those themes and ideas regarding her character that I just pointed out simply don’t matter to me. It doesn’t make her character any less boring or uninteresting. Her character has depth and nuance to it but that’s not automatically gonna get me to care because I’m ultimately just disinterested in her character. From her design to her personality, nothing about her character really appeals to me on any level. I can acknowledge the nuances in her personality and design but again those things just don’t matter to me. Now would I say she’s a shallow character without depth? No definitely not that’s just blatently incorrect. Will I say her character is boring and uninteresting? Yes because to me she is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

That example I will admit my wording could’ve been better but based on at least my definition of cliche, to say that she is just a false statement.

Is your definition nthe same as the dictionary's? Namely something along the lines of

a phrase or opinion (or in this case a character) that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought

Because if that is your definition, then it is literally impossible to declare something as not a cliche, as cliche depends entirely, and I mean entirely, in the wider context of all media. Something that is not a cliche this year can become one a hundred years from no. Something that was a cliche a hundred years ago can be a fresh take. That's how cliche work. Things aren't clichés. They become clichés in comparison to other things.

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Let me try to explain this to you in the best possible way I can cause I feel I’ve made my argument as sound as possible but I guess not. First let’s define what “depth” means cause I feel like where this whole misunderstanding is coming from. Depth to me is when a character has reasons for doing what they do and those reasons have explicit nuances that crop up and showcase themselves in different facets of their personality or other defining characteristics like appearance or super powers. All of which can be somewhat proven with evidence based in the text. The subjectivity of it comes as to whether or someone cares about those things or if they can relate to them. To take an example from persona 5. Makoto Nijima is a complex character brimming with depth. Her character is one of a typical Japanese honor student trying to get into a prestigious college. She’s smart, cool, calm, and calculating but also firm and assertive because as student council president she needs to be. She needs to live up to the expectations put on her by adults in order to please them so that she may get that letter of rec. this forces her into a position of being pressured to please the adults in her life(namely the princaple) by doing whatever they ask of her despite it going against what she feels is right. All she can do is just stay quiet and do as she’s told because that’s the expectation placed on her despite wanting to speak out against. It’s when she finally finds the strength to speak out against these expectations and injustices that she awakenes to her Persona in typical flashy anime fashion which puts her in a leather biker outfit which is her view of what a rebel looks like. Coming full circle in that it’s the opposite to what her belief of what authority is which is a policeman.

where am I going with all this? I don’t like Makoto. She’s just a boring character to me. All those themes and ideas regarding her character that I just pointed out simply don’t matter to me. It doesn’t make her character any less boring or uninteresting. Her character has depth and nuance to it but that’s not automatically gonna get me to care because I’m ultimately just disinterested in her character. From her design to her personality, nothing about her character really appeals to me on any level. I can acknowledge the nuances in her personality and design but again those things just don’t matter to me. Now would I say she’s a shallow character without depth? No definitely not that’s just blatently incorrect. Will I say her character is boring and uninteresting? Yes because to me she is.

I am not equating nuance to enjoyment quality. That's not a battle you need to fight. Finding something both nuanced and boring is something I readily believe is possible. It's my opinion on basically every movie Hollywood churns out. The thing is your treating nuance and boring as different classes of word when they're not. They're both attributes. I could repeat every single argument you've made only substituting nuance for boring and claiming boring is an objective quality. 

Now instead of just repeating yourself in various ways do you think you could address my points? Because as hard as it is to believe, I do understand your perspective. I just don't agree with it. I think you're treating this argument the same way you're treating your philosophy, in that you're think you're innately and objectively correct in your viewpoint and the only issue is that you can't express it properly. No, you're expressing it fine. I just think you're wrong. Now instead of talking again about it objective and that you're not saying people cant find it bad, how about addressing these points.

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's not the nuances that are being dismissed, it's the nuanced worth of the personality traits that you personally think contribute to making her nuanced.  No one, I think, is going to deny that Severa has mommy issues, it's how useful those mommy issues contribute to her character that are in question. For a moment let's stop thinking about nuance as a binary and shift it to a spectrum. Things can be more or less nuanced than other things after all Maybe you find, I don't know let's go with Cordelia as she's adjacent, as a 5 on the nuanced scale due to how her insecurities play into her character. Then let's say you think Severa's mommy issues and their effect on her abrasiveness gives her an 8 on the nuance scale. Other people think those traits give her a zero.

 

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

 

There isn't. There simply isn't. There evidence for what you find to equate to depth, but not what I or anyone else has to equate to depth. You can present that evidence to try and convince others, but the result of that evidence is not an objective truth. It is a collection of traits that form an opinion. Severa has mommy issues is the trait. That this makes her nuanced is the resulting opinion. Just like Shannam is disguised as Shannan is the trait, this makes him funny is the opinion; or Camilla has big boobs is the trait and this makes her sexy is an opinion. Do you disagree with those examples?

The source of this might be that you don't actually know what nuance is. You seemed to have suggested you did before, but you're opinion would make a lot of sense if you believe nuance = character trait. It doesn't. It's the expression of multiple character traits. Character traits are reasonably undeniable, but what those traits entail for the character are highly debatable.

 

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly though, with how many works and ideas have surfaced everywhere in not just FE, it is hard to make something entirely original that doesn't fall into any trope.

I think cliches are fine but try not to use the most cliche ones, if that makes sense, basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's not the nuances that are being dismissed, it's the nuanced worth of the personality traits that you personally think contribute to making her nuanced.  No one, I think, is going to deny that Severa has mommy issues, it's how useful those mommy issues contribute to her character that are in question. For a moment let's stop thinking about nuance as a binary and shift it to a spectrum. Things can be more or less nuanced than other things after all Maybe you find, I don't know let's go with Cordelia as she's adjacent, as a 5 on the nuanced scale due to how her insecurities play into her character. Then let's say you think Severa's mommy issues and their effect on her abrasiveness gives her an 8 on the nuance scale. Other people think those traits give her a zero.

I have already addressed this point multiple times actually. Lemme figure out what exactly it is you’re trying to say here. You’re saying the idea of nuance in how people perceive it is subjective. I believe that to be incorrect cause it’s not. To suggest that would be to suggest that story quality as a whole is entirely subjective which we both know is incorrect. Yes, Severa has mommy issues and that is precisely what makes her nuanced because it bleeds into different facets of her personality and helps link the individual parts of her character together. That is something that can be proven. That is nuance. It’s not subjective to say those things add nuance to her character. There is only one definition of Nuance and I prove characters and stories are nuanced based on that definition. There are different definitions of what people find interesting or boring. I can point out the nuances of Severa’s but like you said no one is gonna rate her any higher simply because I do that. It is my personal opinion that these nuances make her character interesting and why I personally relate to her. Does everyone have to agree with me on that? No absolutely not. What I expect people to do is not to dissmiss the genuine arguments I make with the evidence regarding the nuance of her character because they disagree with me. Does this not address your argument? If it doesn’t how? Cause it tackles your argument just fine. You keep saying people have definitions of nuance when that’s not true. Hell you even contradict yourself when you accuse me of not understanding the meaning of nuance which if we go by your argument here is that you seem to be saying nuance is subjective. Which would not be the case if there was a single provable definition of nuance which you imply by accusing me of not understanding its definition. Therefore it is a contradiction based on the argument you seem to be making. The only other possible interpretation of your argument is, how people feel about nuance is subjective, which I completely agree. I just disagree that nuance itself is subjective. I could break down the argument word for word and show you how I came to this conclusion should you desire.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I have already addressed this point multiple times actually. Lemme figure out what exactly it is you’re trying to say here. You’re saying the idea of nuance in how people perceive it is subjective. I believe that to be incorrect cause it’s not. To suggest that would be to suggest that story quality as a whole is entirely subjective which we both know is incorrect. Yes, Severa has mommy issues and that is precisely what makes her nuanced because it bleeds into different facets of her personality and helps link the individual parts of her character together. That is something that can be proven. That is nuance. It’s not subjective to say those things add nuance to her character. There is only one definition of Nuance and I prove characters and stories are nuanced based on that definition. There are different definitions of what people find interesting or boring. I can point out the nuances of Severa’s but like you said no one is gonna rate her any higher simply because I do that. It is my personal opinion that these nuances make her character interesting and why I personally relate to her. Does everyone have to agree with me on that? No absolutely not. What I expect people to do is not to dissmiss the genuine arguments I make with the evidence regarding the nuance of her character because they disagree with me. Does this not address your argument? If it doesn’t how? Cause it tackles your argument just fine. You keep saying people have definitions of nuance when that’s not true. Hell you even contradict yourself when you accuse me of not understanding the meaning of nuance which if we go by your argument here is that you seem to be saying nuance is subjective. The other possible interpretation of this argument is that how people feel about nuance is subjective which I completely agree. I just disagree that nuance itself is subjective. I could break down the argument word for word and show you how I came to this conclusion should you desire.

No, it doesn't address it, because you're just saying I'm wrong, not proving it. You're just declaring nuance an objective term and then trying to prove that by giving examples of something you think is nuanced. I could do the exact same thing for basically anything. You bring up boring. What if I saw boring is an objective quality. You say boring is a subjective quality. I believe that to be incorrect, cause it's not. There is only one definition of boring, something that is tedious, dis-interesting or stale. Severa talks about her mother and her mommy issues repeatedly and is therefore boring. This is an objective truth and everyone must agree she is boring. Now people can agree whether her being boring is good or bad, but it is an undeniable truth that she is boring. Now, obviously I expect you to disagree with this stance, but that is literally how you're arguing that nuance is objective. Tell me, without talking about Severa at all (because this isn't about her), why boring is subjective and nuance isn't? People having multiple definitions of what boring is isn't the answer, because people don't, they have multiple different qualities and standards for what they find boring, just like they have multiple different qualities and stands for what they find nuanced. And saying nuance is objective because otherwise all story telling is subjective isn't a good argument, because then you're only arguing it because you refuse to face an uncomfortable truth. Not to mention that logic doesn't really follow at all, because nuance being objective or subjective has no more determination on the subjectivity or objectivity of narrative as a whole than boring does. Just like something with nuance can be subjectively unenjoyable, something lacking nuance entirely can be subjectively enjoyable to.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

No, it doesn't address it, because you're just saying I'm wrong, not proving it. You're just declaring nuance an objective term and then trying to prove that by giving examples of something you think is nuanced. I could do the exact same thing for basically anything. You bring up boring. What if I saw boring is an objective quality. TYou say boring is a subjective quality. I believe that to be incorrect, cause it's not. There is only one definition of boring, something that is tedious, dis-interesting or stale. Severa talks about her mother and her mommy issues repeatedly and is therefore boring. This is an objective truth and everyone must agree she is boring. Now people can agree whether her being boring is good or bad, but it is an undeniable truth that she is boring. Now, obviously I expect you to disagree with this stance, but that is literally how you're arguing that nuance is objective. Tell me, without talking about Severa at all (because this isn't about her), why boring is subjective and nuance isn't? People having multiple definitions of what boring is isn't the answer, because people don't, they have multiple different qualities and standards for what they find boring, just like they have multiple different qualities and stands for what they find nuanced. And saying nuance is objective because otherwise all story telling is subjective isn't a good argument, because then you're only arguing it because you refuse to face an uncomfortable truth. Not to mention that logic doesn't really follow at all, because nuance being objective or subjective has no more determination on the subjectivity or objectivity of narrative as a whole than boring does. Just like something with nuance can be subjectively unenjoyable, something lacking nuance entirely can be subjectively enjoyable to.

Okay lemme just ask you what is the core difference between objectivity and subjectivity? If we look at the definitions of each word. The core difference is that something that is objective can be proven while something subjective cannot. You cannot prove something is boring to you. It is impossible because no one is going to feel the exact same way about any piece of media. I find plenty of things boring like mario games for instance. They just don’t appeal to me. On that same token it is impossible to prove objectively that something is funny or enjoyable to me. That is impossible because how I feel about any piece of media is once again subjective. What I can prove though is that something objectively has nuance. That is objective because I can prove it. I can prove nuance exists with proper evidence to support my claim. In the same way I can objectively prove that an apple is red or that I weigh 130 pounds. That on its own means nuance is, at least on some level, objective. It’s something that has an objective measure. Whether you derive meaning from those nuances is subjective though. The power of bonds is a nuanced theme of awakening for as overused and “cliche” as it may be. Some people call it trite and that’s fine. They can find it boring, childish, “cliche”(by their definition I should stress), overdone, etc. all they want. Nothing wrong with feeling that way. Again, how someone feels about any piece of media is subjective. It’s up to personal taste. To say something is objective is to say that it can be proven. The ideas and nuances behind a story or character can in fact be proven but is still on some levels subjective because any interpretation of a text is valid so long as there is sufficient evidence to back up your claim. Again, the thing that separates an objective claim from a subjective one is that an objective claim can be proven on the basis of tangible evidence. I can prove I weigh 130 pounds with a scale designed to measure such things. That is objective. I can prove something has nuance by examining its individual pieces and proving that they do in fact connect in a cohesive way with a combination of textual evidence and logical deductive reasoning because that’s what nuance is. I cannot prove something is boring to me because that’s just my personal opinion. If a story or character is dull to me, then I’m gonna say it’s dull. Nothing anyone says is really going to change that opinion regardless of how much you can prove there are ideas at play here. It’s not going to change my mind because once again it’s subjective. It’s factually incorrect to say I weigh less than 130 pounds because the evidence for that is right there. How I feel about that weight is up to me personally. If I’m happy with it, then I’m happy with it. If I’m not, I’m not. How other people feel about that weight id also personal and subjective.

to use your Camilla example, Camilla has a fanservicey design. She has big boobs and doesn’t make any attempt to hide her panties. It is objective that she has big boobs. How I personally feel about that is subjective. It’s objective to say that the intent of her design is to make her look sexy. I personally don’t find her sexy so to me she is not sexy even though she is designed to look that way. I’m not denying the intent of the design just saying the intent is lost on me personally. 
 

in that same vain, it is objective to say something has nuance. How one personally feels about that nuance is subjective. I can say a story has a theme that it explores with the individual facets of its narrative. That is objective. Whether or not I agree or personally resonate with that theme is subjective. Whether those ideas make the story interesting is a subjective opinion. Like I said I’m not denying the intent. I’m just saying that intent is lost on me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay lemme just ask you what is the core difference between objectivity and subjectivity? If we look at the definitions of each word. The core difference is that something that is objective can be proven while something subjective cannot. You cannot prove something is boring to you. It is impossible because no one is going to feel the exact same way about any piece of media. I find plenty of things boring like mario games for instance. They just don’t appeal to me. On that same token it is impossible to prove objectively that something is funny or enjoyable to me. That is impossible because how I feel about any piece of media is once again subjective. What I can prove though is that something objectively has nuance. That is objective because I can prove it. I can prove nuance exists with proper evidence to support my claim. In the same way I can objectively prove that an apple is red or that I weigh 130 pounds. That on its own means nuance is, at least on some level, objective. It’s something that has an objective measure.

Once again, you're just declaring that it's objective. How is it that describing the things that makes something nuanced makes it objectively so, but describing the things that make it boring (or sexy, or funny) makes it subjective? You're just saying one is proveable and one is not proveable without saying why.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay lemme just ask you what is the core difference between objectivity and subjectivity? If we look at the definitions of each word. The core difference is that something that is objective can be proven while something subjective cannot. You cannot prove something is boring to you.

This is an inherently flawed definition though.

  • Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
  • Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

Strictly speaking, what is objective deals with facts, while what is subjective deals with personal sentiments or feelings. It is not about whether or not I can prove it to you; rather, expressing my opinion to you is the proof of my subjective belief, whereas objective truth is solely based on tangible facts, as you already stated.

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

What I can prove though is that something objectively has nuance.

  • Nuance - sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

Likewise, based on the definition of nuance, nuance within creative works (such as video games) is purely subjective, as it creates a feeling or meaning in my mind as the user/participant in the creative work. I understand you are very passionate about this topic, and I respect that. But to say that a creative work is objectively good, bad, or any descriptor is inherently wrong. I can say that a book has 100 pages. That is objective; the book does indeed possess 100 pages. But if I said that the book didn't really convey the meaning very well for me, then that is my subjective assessment of the qualities inherent to the book (nuance included). Someone else may think the book to be clearly understood; accordingly, that is their subjective assessment of how they perceived the book's qualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jotari said:

Once again, you're just declaring that it's objective. How is it that describing the things that makes something nuanced makes it objectively so, but describing the things that make it boring makes it subjective? You're just saying one is proveable and one is not proveable without saying why.

How do you want me to explain it then? It’s provable because there is evidence to support my claim. The difference is that there is evidence. It is objective fact that that I weigh 130 pounds. Why? Because I can measure that on a scale. I can prove a story has ideas and nuance because there is evidence within the text to allow me to do so. I can say a character is kind and compassionate because well there is direct evidence I can point to and that same evidence can allow me to say the different aspects of that character connect cohesively. I don’t know how else to explain it besides that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

How do you want me to explain it then? It’s provable because there is evidence to support my claim. The difference is that there is evidence. It is objective fact that that I weigh 130 pounds. Why? Because I can measure that on a scale. I can prove a story has ideas and nuance because there is evidence within the text to allow me to do so. I can say a character is kind and compassionate because well there is direct evidence I can point to and that same evidence can allow me to say the different aspects of that character connect cohesively. I don’t know how else to explain it besides that.

I can just as easily "prove" something is boring, sexy or funny with evidence too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I can just as easily "prove" something is boring, sexy or funny with evidence too.

No you can’t. It is impossible. How do you prove something is objectively boring? The only possible way you can do that is by looking directly at the nuerotransmitters in someone’s brain. The lack of dopamine indicates a lack of interest but that’s not universal because everyone reacts differently to the media presented to them. What I find funny is not something someone else finds funny. I find one punch man to be funny. I can’t prove that. How am I supposed to prove that beyond the fact that I laugh when I watch the show. But that’s not objective because he’s not gonna make everyone laugh. What is objective though is the jokes in the show themselves have thought and depth behind them with clear set ups and punchlines. What the joke is meant to be is objective. Whether or not that makes you laugh is subjective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ottservia
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance

By definition it's pretty subjective. Not everyone interprets the meaning behind nuance the same way. So yeah. Nuance is subjective, not objective, different people can interpret the same subtle glance differently and some will think it means something while others think it doesn't. It isn't objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

@Ottservia
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance

By definition it's pretty subjective. Not everyone interprets the meaning behind nuance the same way. So yeah. Nuance is subjective, not objective, different people can interpret the same subtle glance differently and some will think it means something while others think it doesn't. It isn't objective.

I’m not saying it’s entirely objective here cause there is a degree of subjectivity when it comes to analysis of any artform. I never once denied that people can feel differently about the different facets of story telling. How I feel about a character is not gonna be the same as to how someone else feels about a character. The way the different aspects of the character connect is something that can be proven and is thus at least somewhat objective. How people will interpret and react to those things is entirely subjective and that’s the point I’ve been trying to make here. It’s objective fact that Edelgard started a war for the purpose of changing Foldlan. Whether or not you feel that is a good reason is up to your personal tastes and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No you can’t. It is impossible. How do you prove something is objectively boring? The only possible way you can do that is by looking directly at the nuerotransmitters in someone’s brain. The lack of dopamine indicates a lack of interest but that’s not universal because everyone reacts differently to the media presented to them. What I find funny is not something someone else finds funny. I find one punch man to be funny. I can’t prove that. How am I supposed to prove that beyond the fact that I laugh when I watch the show. But that’s not objective because he’s not gonna make everyone laugh. What is objective though is the jokes in the show themselves have thought and depth behind them with clear set ups and punchlines. What the joke is meant to be is objective. Whether or not that makes you laugh is subjective

And what I find nuanced is not what someone else finds nuanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jotari said:

And what I find nuanced is not what someone else finds nuanced.

Well that depends on what you mean by nuance. By the definition I pose(and one that you seem to agree with) in that nuance is basically how all the little things connect to create a greater whole. That is something that can be proven and is objective. How those things make someone feel is not objective. It’s not universal fact. It’s universal fact that the individual parts of something can connect cohesively and that in it of itself can be proven. In that way nuance can be objective. If nuance is being defined as the meaning and emotions one experiences from a given work then it is subjective cause no two people are going react the same way to the same kind of media. Whatever the case, the messages, themes, and ideas found in any given story and how they’re explored is something that which you can prove. What you can’t prove is if someone will take anything away from that be it emotionally or whatever and that is my point.

Edited by Ottservia
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...