What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[NaotoUzumaki]

I agree fates has its problems but I refuse to not acknowledge it’s good ideas and truths. This is why I criticize fates this harshly because I care about it. And yeah Xander outright tell you about his arc for f sake. I’m an autistic person and I saw and understood it first time while half asleep. You do have good arguments so not ottservia ain’t wrong. She or he criticized me for my post and told why he or she felt that way about three houses. Can anybody just acknowledge ottservia points? I mean there straight up irritate from being told their in the wrong that it turned to this. Can we have a devil advocate here please?

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Personally I don’t see what’s so wrong about people liking a character solely for being attractive. I don’t see how that’s a problem. People can like whatever they want for whatever reason they want. And I find it kind concerning that people dismiss a female character’s merits because boobs. Like a character being sexy doesn’t suddenly take away from the nuance of their character and why people relate to them. Oftentimes the fact that they have massive bozangas is just a bonus. And again what’s so wrong with liking a character solely for that reason?

People can like what they want and I can have a negative opinion because of why people like things.  That's how free speech works.  Though I have other issues about what you said, so either I have huge issues with how you look at female characters, or your message got lost in your words.

[Ottservia]

28 minutes ago, eclipse said:

People can like what they want and I can have a negative opinion because of why people like things.  That's how free speech works. 

True and I can think that’s a highly arrogant view of things but that’s just me. We don’t judge people for liking male characters for just their looks so why should we do the same for people who like female characters. Seems like a bit of a double standard to me. And that’s not the only hypocritical thing here.

 

31 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Though I have other issues about what you said, so either I have huge issues with how you look at female characters, or your message got lost in your words.

Look all I’m saying if that if you believe there are people who only like characters like Camilla, Charlotte, or whatever because they’re hot not only is that extremely reductive and disrespectful to both the character and the people who like them but there’s also a hint of body shaming in there if you ask me. It’s just reductive and to be frank I despise it. Just because a character is sexy looking that doesn’t automatically make them any less of a compelling character. I like Severa because she’s sexy and cute. I also like her because I relate to her as a character on a deep personal level. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And again so what if I like a character for superficial reasons?  What’s wrong with that? Who gives you the authority to judge or shame others for why they like something. Unless you are legitimately hurting someone else no one should feel ashamed for liking something

[AnonymousSpeed]

20 hours ago, Benice said:

*There is a part of me that very much likes Camilla's design, but he is kept in a box in the basement.

Do you keep this part of you tied to a radiator?

[Dark Holy Elf]

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's another unpopular opinion I have. I just can't see the appeal of watching someone else play Fire Emblem. Someone talking about Fire Emblem and the strategies they use, or even their experiences iron manning, sure, that's interesting, but watching people actually play it? I'd rather just do that myself. Of course, I feel that way about all video games and even sports in general.

I basically agree with this, with some caveats.

I do, sometimes, watch sports. In the case of sports I'm watching people who are way, way better at something (athleticism) than I am, and I admire it. With Fire Emblem I don't really get that. Not to say nobody out there is "better" at it than I am, but to the extent that they are, this doesn't come across well in a video (this is true of most video games IMO), and would if anything come across better in what they write about the subject. As for people who aren't better than me at the game... well, I'm not interested in watching non-friends play video games any more than I am in watching a couple random non-friends people play tennis. I do like watching friends play, though, because we can talk about the experience after.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I also find his specific objections to Ike as a leader pretty reasonable.

Shinon does make some reasonable points but IMO the game deliberately undermines them by making Shinon as unlikable/wrong as possible. It's very clear that the devs don't want you to agree with Shinon because of all the negative traits he has, even though I agree that in this instance he has a point.

[joevar]

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

And even if we were to throw objectivity into the matter, Tokyo Mirage Sessions did underperform, people did feel turned off by it and their feelings are entirely legitimate (which is a damn shame as the gameplay was great).

damn shame really, i really like TMS, whether it be the gameplay, colorful art, and some other aspect. but somehow didnt manage to finish it or have the motivation to do so... is that count as objectivity that there is a problem underlying somewhere that i get turned off?

Quote

Strawmanning is creating a strawman or a fake argument and attacking that instead of the actual point being made. I’m not

funny that i've seen this exact behavior been done several times, or if need to be specific with example, done to me at least once. oh well, its easier to remember and point other's fault than our own.

2 hours ago, NaotoUzumaki said:

Can we have a devil advocate here please?

i thought the very thread is for that already that people automatically become one. or just me that misunderstood your specific intention there

7 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Is that an unpopular opinion? Merlinus dumb and bad? If so, I guess I haven't gone completely off topic, haha.

thats more like popular? the unpopular one i think would be that Merlinus is actually smart that he racks his brain so much his hair falling out. he keeps thinking how to make/lead his lord (2 generation of lords, maybe even 3) without making them looks incompetent by stating advice that actually wrong but also obviously so, then the lord can suggest something else better.

but nah, i would still say merlinus dumb and become bald for different reason XD

 

[eclipse]

22 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

True and I can think that’s a highly arrogant view of things but that’s just me. We don’t judge people for liking male characters for just their looks so why should we do the same for people who like female characters. Seems like a bit of a double standard to me. And that’s not the only hypocritical thing here.

You're either refusing to acknowledge or incapable of seeing the world outside of your own head.  Depending on how this goes, it could also be a warnable offense, so tread carefully.

24 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Look all I’m saying if that if you believe there are people who only like characters like Camilla, Charlotte, or whatever because they’re hot not only is that extremely reductive and disrespectful to both the character and the people who like them but there’s also a hint of body shaming in there if you ask me. It’s just reductive and to be frank I despise it. Just because a character is sexy looking that doesn’t automatically make them any less of a compelling character. I like Severa because she’s sexy and cute. I also like her because I relate to her as a character on a deep personal level. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And again so what if I like a character for superficial reasons?  What’s wrong with that? Who gives you the authority to judge or shame others for why they like something. Unless you are legitimately hurting someone else no one should feel ashamed for liking something

Have you ever bothered asking women how they feel about this?

[Ottservia]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

Have you ever bothered asking women how they feel about this?

I have actually plenty of women I know both online and in real life. Some straight, some bisexual, and some lesbian. And they fully agree with me. I know plenty of female artists too who like to draw sexy female characters because they’re lesbian and into that sort of thing. Like where should I find shame in finding women attractive. It’s not like I’m hurting anyone. Why should lesbian or bisexual women feel shame in finding other women attractive? And it’s not like anyone is getting hurt. It’s just a drawing of a fictional character after all

[AnonymousSpeed]

7 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Have you ever bothered asking women how they feel about this?

As much as I don't agree with Otts here, I don't really get how this objection is supposed to work. Firstly because there are women who like characters for superficial reasons (including finding them attractive). He can't ask "women how they feel" because "women" are not a singular entity with a singular opinion. If you feel like that's just me being semantic (and forgive me in that case) and you're talking about general feeling, whether a certain demographic tends to think something is true or not doesn't make it true or not.

[eclipse]

15 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I have actually plenty of women I know both online and in real life. Some straight, some bisexual, and some lesbian. And they fully agree with me. I know plenty of female artists too who like to draw sexy female characters because they’re lesbian and into that sort of thing. Like where should I find shame in finding women attractive. It’s not like I’m hurting anyone. Why should lesbian or bisexual women feel shame in finding other women attractive? And it’s not like anyone is getting hurt. It’s just a drawing of a fictional character after all

Try finding women that don't agree with you, because echo chambers aren't healthy.

11 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

As much as I don't agree with Otts here, I don't really get how this objection is supposed to work. Firstly because there are women who like characters for superficial reasons (including finding them attractive). He can't ask "women how they feel" because "women" are not a singular entity with a singular opinion. If you feel like that's just me being semantic (and forgive me in that case) and you're talking about general feeling, whether a certain demographic tends to think something is true or not doesn't make it true or not.

Are you trolling or not?  Asking seriously, because you do it so often that I have a hard time believing you.

[Ottservia]

22 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Try finding women that don't agree with you, because echo chambers aren't healthy.

Even if I did and I have, that doesn’t erase the fact that lesbian and bisexual women like boobs too. Unless of course you mean to imply their opinions don’t matter in this conversation but that would be homophobic. I can also name plenty of examples of sexual and fan servicey pieces of media made by women like Nekopara for instance. Women also make up over 40% of comiket vendors who sell pornographic doujins. The Senran Kagura fanbase is 45% women over the age of 25 despite how fanservicey the franchise is. I could keep going but I think you get my point. If you’re trying to accuse me of sexism here it’s not going to work.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Ottservia

[eclipse]

38 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Even if I did and I have, that doesn’t erase the fact that lesbian and bisexual women like boobs too. Unless of course you mean to imply their opinions don’t matter in this conversation but that would be homophobic. I can also name plenty of examples of sexual and fan servicey pieces of media made by women like Nekopara for instance. Women also make up over 40% of comiket vendors who sell pornographic doujins. The Senran Kagura fanbase is 45% women over the age of 25 despite how fanservicey the franchise is. I could keep going but I think you get my point. If you’re trying to accuse me of sexism here it’s not going to work.

I told you to tread carefully, and you willfully ignored it.  Quite frankly, my opinion of you is in the gutter for trying to gish gallop your way out of the point.

[Lorneus]

@Ottservia Okay, I missed quite a bit of dialogue that interests me, so this is bound to be long. I'll try to separate each topic in a spoiler box to not create a scrolling vortex.

On more vs less supports:

Spoiler

While it is true that having more supports creates more opportunities for character development, there are certain points I find faulty in the context of Fire Emblem for the "more is always better" argument. There are other ways to incite more character development, such as prolonging certain supports to include more details or including characters in the story. The problem I have with supports in the 3DS era is not so much that "more is worse" but that the formula can sometimes undermine the interactions. Certain characters would benefit from having less supports because their personality makes them less talkative or more guarded around others, and they wouldn't normally interact with certain people. Having every character be able to support every other character can push the writers in a corner. Not that it's impossible to create meaningful supports for every one of them, but it becomes harder to either justify it or create something new as you create more and more supports.

Take Panne. I find her a pretty well written character overall. She has the avatar support that is very sub-par imo, but generally speaking, her supports are at least interesting. However, if you look at, say, her supports with Henry and Ricken, it doesn't showcase much differences. She tries to send away the guy because she despises him for a specific reason, the guy insists, she learns of their backstory and resonates with it because of her loneliness and roots, and she shows a more understanding side though her annoyance is still high. Both show that she can give someone a chance if they're genuine enough with her and that her hate of humans is more safeguard than actual racism. Henry's is a tad more effective as it showcases her trauma better with the plegian, but Ricken's doesn't really give much more. I find it would've been more effective to break the formula here and give her supports with some of the children, like Brady, who could've gotten good chemistry and has a relevant theme to her character.

BTW, I'm not counting S supports in those analysis as those can be quite forced and imo often don't bring anything else than try to justify the characters being in love. Some can bring in a bit more info, but it's too rare to make a meaningful comparison.

On Fates' themes/ giving something a fair chance until you can make sense of it:

Spoiler

I will resonate with others on this thread with the phrasing of the latter argument. I don't remember it exactly and I don't remember exactly where it was located so it would become a bit of a chore to look into again, but basically, it sounded like if you think something is nonsensical, you are bound to find sense in it in time if you keep changing your angle. While I understand you probably meant to not take things at face value and consider other angles before writing something off as stupid, it comes off as disingenuous and a little condescending, as if the opinion you are advancing is the only one that matters and everyone would agree if they thought about it more. I also think it is fair that plotholes or even minor contrivances can take someone out of a story and have them despise it. Storytelling resonates on different levels for different people, and some need more hermetic plots than others to feel invested. 

Or rather, what I am trying to advance is, on the same argument you made, because you found an angle in which the story came off as resonating and interesting doesn't mean you haven't searched for an angle where you would realize you have problems with the story. This is where the argument of "themes interpretation is subjective" comes into play. You can find both good and bad in any storytelling, and depending on the lens you decide to look at it from, you can appreciate it differently. What makes it good or bad to you is what ends up being important to you in that story.

On character attractiveness being a valid appreciation point:

Spoiler

I would agree with you on this. It's perfectly fine for someone to like a character for its appearance. I find Charlotte's design particularly interesting because it uses its overly sexualized traits for its characterization, and that comes from a gay guy. Well, her design is not why I appreciate her, it's more on the writing front for her, but still, if someone just didn't like her personality but appreciated her design, then that's completely valid. If she didn't have that personality and level of writing, I wouldn't have given a second look at Charlotte, but because it works well, I actually appreciate the character on both ends. That said... I guess the point is moot for sexualization given my attraction standards.

For another example, I quite like Vaike. I don't think he's the best written character in the series by far, though he does have some moments where he can shine, and I am fully aware I am attracted to lovable goofs and to his physique, but I can safely say I like Vaike, even if I can't say I appreciate him to his full potential or that his writing is godly or anything like that.

So all in all, sexualization of a character and good writing on them is indeed not mutually exclusive. If a character like Camilla or Sonia (FE7) exists, to me, it's fine. They can also represent the part of the population that is more open to or intrigued by overt sexuality. If that is the standard, then that can be a problem in a game for a wide audience, as it is best used in games catered to lecherousness and can undermine efforts in one that tries to give more, as it can come off as disingenuous or lazy pandering. 

So uh, sorry for that very wordy comment. I know I tend to be quite lengthy in my writing to an unhealthy degree, but as I stand right now, if I try to summarize things, I often end up writing even more in the end... I'm open to more discussion however!

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 hour ago, Lorneus said:

For another example, I quite like Vaike. I don't think he's the best written character in the series by far, though he does have some moments where he can shine, and I am fully aware I am attracted to lovable goofs and to his physique, but I can safely say I like Vaike, even if I can't say I appreciate him to his full potential or that his writing is godly or anything like that.

I on the other don't dislike Vaike. But his personality gives his physique a feeling of "California stoner who oft gets a little wasted, but rarely develops a case of the munchies afterwards". Not exactly the kind of thing I'm into. And I severely doubt it's what the writers intended, because I saw a random statistic on a valid journalistic website in the past week or so saying that while over 40% of the US's and Canada's populations have tried pot at least once, less than 2% of Japan has. Still, I'll keep the silly headcanon.😛

1 hour ago, Lorneus said:

So all in all, sexualization of a character and good writing on them is indeed not mutually exclusive.

I recall on an episode of National Geographic's StarTalk there was an interview with an advice column writer on relationships. The (gay) man did declare that it is possible for lust to turn to love, and love to lust. That some of us would be unwilling to admit to our real or hypothetical children that their parents' lasting bonds were formed after a one-night stand. This is true in relationships regardless of orientation.

Now, I do not know if a fictional character looking physically attractive might lead you to appreciate them on a nonsexual level later. Although, I do have firsthand experience with the reverse phenomena, that being pixel characters who I fell in love with in sex-free writing, and only later started spooning in my head. A certain Daichi Shijima being the most recent example to spring to mind. Met him and cherished his writing in 2012. I came back to him in 2020, personality remained 99% as lovable as before, and I don't entirely know why, but... 😆.

So indeed, no mutual exclusivity, although not exactly as you meant it. Here, the connection between the two things has little to do with what the authors could have possibly intended, and everything to do with how individuals react in their own unique ways to what is presented to them.

1 hour ago, Lorneus said:

I know I tend to be quite lengthy in my writing to an unhealthy degree, but as I stand right now, if I try to summarize things, I often end up writing even more in the end...

As do I. And I take forever proofreading, editing, and then then editing again my posts. Being overly meticulous isn't a terrible thing, unless it means you take 30-45 minutes to make a post that should require a third or half of that. I still end up doing that anyhow.😅

Edited December 23, 2021 by Interdimensional Observer

[joevar]

58 minutes ago, Lorneus said:

So all in all, sexualization of a character and good writing on them is indeed not mutually exclusive. If a character like Camilla or Sonia (FE7) exists, to me, it's fine. They can also represent the part of the population that is more open to or intrigued by overt sexuality. If that is the standard, then that can be a problem in a game for a wide audience, as it is best used in games catered to lecherousness and can undermine efforts in one that tries to give more, as it can come off as disingenuous or lazy pandering. 

correct me if im wrong on this, but i think majority of people that complaint about that is exactly because of that. to put it in very simple terms: its out of place, hence people complaining.

so when the most vocal defense about it talks about general application of sexualization, people taste in real life,  that will not resolve the complaint and make it broader discussion than necessary

oh to be clear @Lorneus im not targeting you, just merely use your words that i feel just right (since im not good writer). please excuse me.

i have some example to draw comparison in both real life (which is stretching it too far) and other games about where (might some of) the problem lies

[Jotari]

If you like a character solely because of how they look, then you're not liking the character. You're liking a piece of porn. Of course a character can look sexy and still be likable, but what makes them a character isn't their cupsize, it's how they feel, act, react to their world. Not taking into account who a character is and only what they look like isn't appreciating a character. It's somewhat similar to liking a character solely because they're American. Which sounds ridiculous,  but there is subconscious bias that movies do take advantages of in that way. Both by casting the majority of their cast with conventionally attractive people and by doing stuff like making Tom Cruise American in the Last Samurai even though he's based on a French guy.

[lenticular]

Welp, I've been doing my utmost to keep far, far away from this cursed trainwreck of a thread, but I guess I've failed my wisdom save versus leaving well the fuck alone on this one.

5 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Even if I did and I have, that doesn’t erase the fact that lesbian and bisexual women like boobs too. Unless of course you mean to imply their opinions don’t matter in this conversation but that would be homophobic.

So, hi. Queer woman here. Speaking only for myself, of course, because queer women are not a monolithic group and we have many varying and different opinions. For myself, though, when I see female characters -- be they in video games or other media -- I typically relate to them in two different ways.The first is external: is she an interesting character who drives the narative? Is she someone I would get along with if I met in real life? Do I find her physically attractive and enjoy looking at her? The second way is empathetic: can I imagine myself in her shoes? Is she having experiences similar to what I have had? Do I want to be her?

In cases of blatantly sexual objectification, the latter almost invariably wins out. I don't feel horny because, hey, hot woman, I feel creeped out because I see objectification and find it gross and creepy. And then I feel even further creeped out when I realise that it is something that is ostensibly being done for my benefit, as the player/viewer. The game (or whatever) is making me complicit in the objectification, and I am not OK with that.

This is especially the case when it comes to skeevy camera direction that unduly focuses on butt and boobs. If a woman is being presented as being comfortable with her sexuality then I can get behind that. At least in theory. Sometimes not, because it's handled attrociously, but if it's done well then I'm all for it. But when it's all about the camera lingering on boobs and butt, then that isn't something that the character is doing; that's something that is being done to the character. The focus is not on the character but on the person watching.

Even for characters I otherwise like (eg, Manuela from Three Houses or Miranda Lawson from Mass Effect 2) that sort of treatment will sour me on the character. I can't think about either of those two characters without feeling just a little bit skeevy and gross. For characters that I am otherwise indifferent to (eg, Camilla from Fates), it means that the creepy objectification is the dominant memory and emtion I have when I think of them.

[Jotari]

48 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Welp, I've been doing my utmost to keep far, far away from this cursed trainwreck of a thread, but I guess I've failed my wisdom save versus leaving well the fuck alone on this one.

Clearly none of us are very wise.

[Kori]

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

True and I can think that’s a highly arrogant view of things but that’s just me. We don’t judge people for liking male characters for just their looks so why should we do the same for people who like female characters. Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.

Oh, there is plenty of judging and shaming people for only liking male characters because of their looks. It just tends to be aimed at women, or at least at people perceived to be women on the internet, with the stereotyped target being teenage girls (and/or girls interested in m/m content). If you've never run into that, good for you.

6 hours ago, Lorneus said:

While it is true that having more supports creates more opportunities for character development, there are certain points I find faulty in the context of Fire Emblem for the "more is always better" argument. There are other ways to incite more character development, such as prolonging certain supports to include more details or including characters in the story. The problem I have with supports in the 3DS era is not so much that "more is worse" but that the formula can sometimes undermine the interactions. Certain characters would benefit from having less supports because their personality makes them less talkative or more guarded around others, and they wouldn't normally interact with certain people. Having every character be able to support every other character can push the writers in a corner. Not that it's impossible to create meaningful supports for every one of them, but it becomes harder to either justify it or create something new as you create more and more supports.

That brings to mind PoR (and other older FEs, this is just the only one where I know examples off the top of my head), where some characters' limited support list is in itself a piece of characterization. It could be interesting to try and come up with a full as-many-as-the-game-will-allow (7?) support set for Soren, Volke, or Stefan, but if the game did it, some of their character might be diluted in the process.

1 hour ago, lenticular said:

So, hi. Queer woman here. Speaking only for myself, of course, because queer women are not a monolithic group and we have many varying and different opinions. For myself, though, when I see female characters -- be they in video games or other media -- I typically relate to them in two different ways.The first is external: is she an interesting character who drives the narative? Is she someone I would get along with if I met in real life? Do I find her physically attractive and enjoy looking at her? The second way is empathetic: can I imagine myself in her shoes? Is she having experiences similar to what I have had? Do I want to be her?

In cases of blatantly sexual objectification, the latter almost invariably wins out. I don't feel horny because, hey, hot woman, I feel creeped out because I see objectification and find it gross and creepy. And then I feel even further creeped out when I realise that it is something that is ostensibly being done for my benefit, as the player/viewer. The game (or whatever) is making me complicit in the objectification, and I am not OK with that.

This is especially the case when it comes to skeevy camera direction that unduly focuses on butt and boobs. If a woman is being presented as being comfortable with her sexuality then I can get behind that. At least in theory. Sometimes not, because it's handled attrociously, but if it's done well then I'm all for it. But when it's all about the camera lingering on boobs and butt, then that isn't something that the character is doing; that's something that is being done to the character. The focus is not on the character but on the person watching.

Even for characters I otherwise like (eg, Manuela from Three Houses or Miranda Lawson from Mass Effect 2) that sort of treatment will sour me on the character. I can't think about either of those two characters without feeling just a little bit skeevy and gross. For characters that I am otherwise indifferent to (eg, Camilla from Fates), it means that the creepy objectification is the dominant memory and emtion I have when I think of them.

As another queer woman, this is exactly my feeling. And yes, sometimes the bad handling still ruins something that I could be fine with in theory - see Sonya (SoV), who I have no problem with, I quite like her character and her (SoV, Heroes fell back into the titillation pit) art, vs Camilla.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Kori

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Kori said:

 

That brings to mind PoR, where some characters' limited support list is in itself a piece of characterization. It could be interesting to try and come up with a full as-many-as-the-game-will-allow (7?) support set for Soren, Volke, or Stefan, but if the game did it, some of their character might be diluted in the process.

 

So since that conversation I've been think about how completely impractical it would be to have full supports in Radiant Dawn. I mentioned Naesala and Laura as an example. You could find something for them to talk about, maybe Naesala deciding to help out with the Monastery or Orphanage whatever, butbthen youd also need to find something for Laura to talk about with like Bastian and Brom and stuff. Though also realistically if they were to give Radiant Dawn supports they'd split them by army. But even giving Laura full supports with everyone in Part 1 would probably stretch things. Laura is an under developed character, yes, but I also feel I know who she is rather well because she's also a simple character (which isn't a bad thing). There's only so much hidden depths you can give to a character like that. What is want from Laura supports would be Aran, obviously, maybe Tormod for a similar upbringing and to give her perspective on Laguz, maybe Sothe so she can give some context on what the Mad Kings War was like for her and then for a non part 1 character, Rhys to discuss religion with. I don't feel like I need much more than that to fully explore who someone like Laura is.

Second character I want to talk about is Volug. Because, like, how can you possibly give him a full cast support list? He doesn't speak the language. An argument might be that that just makes for a bad character, but I disagree, I like the foreign element he brings and if you translate his dialogue he's surprisingly sardonic. To give him full supports you'd either need to lose this defining aspect of his character or have a bunch of supports in which other characters don't understand him. I could maybe do with one support written about communication problems, but not dozens (and I should note that how they address this issue in Radiant Dawn's generic supports is the bold move of ignoring it completely).

Last character I want to talk about supporting the full cast that wouldn't work is Oliver. He's a joke character, and a rather good one in my opinion. But the whole point is that he's ridiculous and shouldn't be there. His gimmick would get really boring really quickly if he were supporting with a bunch of people. I'd like to see him support Reyson, obviously, and Sanaki too due to his weird multilayer treason he has towards her. Maybe Meg for an off beat support just to see how he'd react to her, but I don't love Oliver so much that I would be eager to read his beauty rating for literally everyone in the cast. Especially considering his join time it'd mean you'd be unlocking all his supports at once, if its even viable to unlock any supports. I think even if it were a 3DS game he'd have to be be an avatarsexual character by virtue of his join time alone. And that's another issue with Radiant Dawn, he's not the only character that joins late, you get a bunch of characters just before the end of the game where it wouldn't even be practical for them to have more than one or two supports anyway.

There's more I could say about other characters, but the main point is that full cast supports, or even full army supports split between Ike and Micaiah certainly wouldn't work. Radiant Dawn wasn't designed that way. The subsequent nonremake games were designed that way however and that affected both the way the cast works in gameplay and the way the cast for a into the narrative.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Jotari

[Lorneus]

7 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I on the other don't dislike Vaike. But his personality gives his physique a feeling of "California stoner who oft gets a little wasted, but rarely develops a case of the munchies afterwards".

I... can definitely see it XD I don't know why dumb characters attract me in video games but not in real life like that, but it happens too often for me to write it off. My guess is that they tend to make me laugh and it's an important detail to me, plus they tend to have looks that I like for some reason or another.

7 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Now, I do not know if a fictional character looking physically attractive might lead you to appreciate them on a nonsexual level later. Although, I do have firsthand experience with the reverse phenomena, that being pixel characters who I fell in love with in sex-free writing, and only later started spooning in my head. A certain Daichi Shijima being the most recent example to spring to mind. Met him and cherished his writing in 2012. I came back to him in 2020, personality remained 99% as lovable as before, and I don't entirely know why, but... 😆.

Haha, I've felt that in manga too, tbh. To me, I think it's personality + drama that triggers it. Though I guess it's not entirely the same cause I'm ususally not tht interested in sex scenes and the like so I tend to imagine more a relationship or a scenario.

7 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

As do I. And I take forever proofreading, editing, and then then editing again my posts. Being overly meticulous isn't a terrible thing, unless it means you take 30-45 minutes to make a post that should require a third or half of that. I still end up doing that anyhow.😅

Oh gods, feel you there. About 50% of the time I spent in my written productions back in primary/high school were spent removing words cause I was at double the required length XD

7 hours ago, joevar said:

so when the most vocal defense about it talks about general application of sexualization, people taste in real life,  that will not resolve the complaint and make it broader discussion than necessary

I wouldn't say you're not a good writer. That's pretty eloquent and brings in a good point I had yet to think about. It is true Fates can have jarring tones at times, and Camilla's whole idea can be quite part of it. I still think she's an effective character for what she's meant to be if you take her story elements only, but her style could have been differently put together to fit the gritty tones of the story better, considering her reputation and all.

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

If you like a character solely because of how they look, then you're not liking the character. You're liking a piece of porn.

In this context, probably, yes, but I don't think it's 100% true. Some games have characters with barely any dialogue and minimal story, so you can like the character for its CG without being lecherous about it. A bit like you would appreciate a painting. I understand that I digress out of discussion a little with that, but it made me think of that.

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

This is especially the case when it comes to skeevy camera direction that unduly focuses on butt and boobs. If a woman is being presented as being comfortable with her sexuality then I can get behind that. At least in theory. Sometimes not, because it's handled attrociously, but if it's done well then I'm all for it. But when it's all about the camera lingering on boobs and butt, then that isn't something that the character is doing; that's something that is being done to the character. The focus is not on the character but on the person watching.

Even for characters I otherwise like (eg, Manuela from Three Houses or Miranda Lawson from Mass Effect 2) that sort of treatment will sour me on the character. I can't think about either of those two characters without feeling just a little bit skeevy and gross. For characters that I am otherwise indifferent to (eg, Camilla from Fates), it means that the creepy objectification is the dominant memory and emtion I have when I think of them.

Ah, yeah. The presentation scene of Camilla... and actually all royal girls for that matter, was quite jarring to say the least. And I can definitely understand the sentiment for Manuela and Miranda. I tend to not like fanservice for the sake of fanservice. I prefer when they give a reason, something that makes sense behind it, even if I can see the authorial intent. For instance, showing someone in the shower just to be "LOOK! THEY'RE NAKED!" is something pretty random and annoying to me. However, if the character has something on their body that reveals something about them and they would've kept it to themselves otherwise (scars, tattoos, marks of self-harm, etc.) then even if I know it could've been revealed in another way, I'm okay with it, because at least they're doing something with it.

2 hours ago, Kori said:

That brings to mind PoR (and other older FEs, this is just the only one where I know examples off the top of my head), where some characters' limited support list is in itself a piece of characterization. It could be interesting to try and come up with a full as-many-as-the-game-will-allow (7?) support set for Soren, Volke, or Stefan, but if the game did it, some of their character might be diluted in the process.

I quite like that take, yeah. While the whole argument about "less is more" seemed to be more pinpointing quantity of text to provide an idea, that's an important distinction that I think was left out so far.

Sadly, I haven't played enough of PoR to say, but it seems everyone praises supports and general characterization/story in that one, so I should really get back to it XD But yeah, I think Volke is a particularly good example, and having Fateswakening levels of support would probably make it more jarring than about any other character I can currently think about. 

19 minutes ago, Jotari said:

There's more I could say about other characters, but the main point is that full cast supports, or even full army supports split between Ike and Micaiah certainly wouldn't work. Radiant Dawn wasn't designed that way. The subsequent nonremake games were designed that way however and that affected both the way the cast works in gameplay and the way the cast for a into the narrative.

Didn't want to quote the whole block, but basically, I agree with the stance on those characters and which supports would be interesting, effective and non-repetitive. I think I never truly appreciate the story-building of Radiant Dawn, and how it managed to give interesting and rounded characters without supports (I am in the same vein of having played RD before even touching PoR) even if I really liked the story itself. I can definitely get this out of this whole conversation at least! 

[Shrimpica]

I mean, as much as degenerate Fates is, it's female characters are pretty strong.

No stupid damsels in distress or super idiocy moments like in most of the series.

I will qoute @Saint Rubenio from another Thread 

Quote

Camilla may be Camilla, but you know what? When the game establishes her as one of the continent's most powerful warriors, it actually sticks to its guns. She is an excellent asset when she's on your side and a terrifying foe when she isn't.

Then there's Echoes, where they try to tell you that Mathilda is kind of a big deal, but then she's introduced in the most disgraceful conditions possible, never does anything notable and then quits to be a housewife at the end of the game. What a waste.

And it isn't just Echoes, it's pretty much most of the series (with some exceptions like Tellius, 3H and maybe Caeda) where female Characters are treated quite badly and have their big idiocy moments.

[Jotari]

32 minutes ago, Lorneus said:

In this context, probably, yes, but I don't think it's 100% true. Some games have characters with barely any dialogue and minimal story, so you can like the character for its CG without being lecherous about it. A bit like you would appreciate a painting. I understand that I digress out of discussion a little with that, but it made me think of that.
 

Even if you take lecherousness out of it and you like a character based only on the visuals, you're not appreciating the character, just the artwork. Closest would probably be an expression a character can have to convey a very specific emotion, but again, that's still appreciating the artwork and not the writing that drives the character.

17 minutes ago, Father Shrimpas said:

I mean, as much as degenerate Fates is, it's female characters are pretty strong.

No stupid damsels in distress or super idiocy moments like in most of the series.

I will qoute @Saint Rubenio from another Thread 

And it isn't just Echoes, it's pretty much most of the series (with some exceptions like Tellius, 3H and maybe Caeda) where female Characters are treated quite badly and have their big idiocy moments.

I think that's a bit disingenuous to the series. Gaiden is a particularly bad example for female characters in the series, as it damsels literally every one of it's female characters (counting Celica, Mae and Genny as being damseled in the ending). But that was probably more from it's desire to recruit characters in towns rather than any inherent maliciousness. As has been pointed out, they do the exact same thing for Jesse, Valbar, Lyon and Kamui too. Outside of Gaiden you can find examples of capable female characters throughout the series. Before Gaiden we had Shadow Dragon with Minverva as a reputable strong warrior who backs it up (though her actual gameplay usefulness varies from game to game, she is always considered a formidable fighter by the series itself. Old Mystery kind of undercuts that a bit with the mass abdications to make Hero King Marth, but just like Gaiden's damseling, that's not exclusive to female characters as Yubello and Hardin's brother presumably do the exact same thing (and Ellrion and or Merric in Khaden I guess? If Marth ever put Khaden under his rule, can't remember every ending right now, I think not). The most powerful character in Archanea's cannon, Tiki, is also female. Hopping over to Jugdral we get some very strong female characters, both in gameplay and in personality with the likes of Arya and Mareeta. And taking "strong" to mean an actual "good" character and not just "woman who is a man", Olwen is a particularly strong character who stands up for her moral principles in the face of everything else. Julia, I wouldn't consider a particularly strong character, but they still let her be the one to take down the final boss. Hilda, definitely a strong villain. In fact Jugdral's quite egalitarian in it's assignment of genders it allows you to fight. I don't think Fire Emblem has ever been particularly misogynistic, it's always allowed you to deploy female characters in a setting where realistically they just wouldn't be fighting (anyone ever play the Inazuma series? First game in that series doesn't let you have any female characters because mixed gendered soccer leagues aren't a thing, nuts to that I say, if you can summon demons on the football field then a girl can kick a ball). Yes, there are definitely some examples that rub people the wrong way with female characters being captured or acting stupid, but there are plenty of male examples of such things too. We've just talked about Merlinus and how he is wrong literally all the time. What has definitely changed though is the ratio of female characters to male characters in games, where before it was probably somewhere around 20% of the cast while now it's almost an even 50% split.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Jotari

[Shrimpica]

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

As has been pointed out, they do the exact same thing for Jesse, Valbar, Lyon and Kamui too

they don't get Konrad ex Machina'd

They don't trust evil purple man

They weren't in a prison cell or in a pathetic state while rescued, they were fighting.

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Hopping over to Jugdral we get some very strong female characters, both in gameplay and in personality with the likes of Arya and Mareeta.

Did we forget Deirdre? Ms. ''I brith Seliph then get kidnapped''?

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Julia, I wouldn't consider a particularly strong character, but they still let her be the one to take down the final boss

they also let her be mind controlled for a while.

Then again Girls in chains/mind controlled happens so often in Kaga's games it might be his fetish. Especially when you consider his non FE games.

26 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't think Fire Emblem has ever been particularly misogynistic

Oh it had strong Female side characters, yes, but strong Female Main characters? 

Only Elincia and Edelgard come to mind imo.

And even Edelgard has the whole twistd shtick.

Fates doesn't atleast let it's female MCs (by that, the royal princesses of each faction) fall into any of the idiot stuff the series did before, despite Fates' very bad writing.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Father Shrimpas

[Jotari]

12 minutes ago, Father Shrimpas said:

they don't get Konrad ex Machina'd

 

They don't trust evil purple man

They weren't in a prison cell or in a pathetic state while rescued, they were fighting.

Did we forget Deirdre? Ms. ''I brith Seliph then get kidnapped''?

they also let her be mind controlled for a while.

Then again Girls in chains/mind controlled happens so often in Kaga's games it might be his fetish. Especially when you consider his non FE games.

Oh it had strong Female side characters, yes, but strong Female Main characters? 

Only Elincia and Edelgard come to mind imo.

And even Edelgard has the whole twistd shtick.

Well Alm gets Celica ex machina'd from Berkut's seven years of bad luck. All the kids, the majority of which are male also get saved by Mycen in the opening. But I don't really want to go all analyzing things point by point as it's the larger trend that matters. Yes, some of Fire Emblem's female protagonists have been a bit bad, but the same can be said for some of it's male characters. Seliph is dry as sand paper on the character front, Marth has basically no arc in Mystery of the Emblem and just listens to exposition for half the plot (and while we're in Archanea, brainwashed to be evil, Hardin says hello) and my opinions on Shadows of Valentia's Alm are well documented. I can understand why people have these critisisms and feel they exclusively hit the female characters, but I feel that's mainly because there, for the most part (and despite Heroe's attempts to mask otherwise), there are just a lot fewer female characters overall which makes the common tropes the series uses (a lot of the time gameplay motivated) seem more problematic. Like if you changed absolutely nothing about how Morva is handled in Sacred Stones except that he now has breasts, people would see Morvena showing up only to immediately get zombified as problematic while it doesn't seem like it's part of any sort of pattern if he's a male character (because there are a lot more male characters to break up such patterns when they're used).

Edited December 23, 2021 by Jotari