Jump to content
BlackSymphony

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

Nuts to all that. Fuck moral gray. I want another pure evil villain that fucks shit up with a smile on his face cause he’s evil and he knows it but he just doesn’t care. I want another villain who is just an arrogant bastard that kills orphans because he can. Like come on those villains are fun

Actually, i think that can coexist whit morally grey. The fire emblem game i am making up for fun as such a villain as the Gharnef. 

Basically, all the factions are trying to save the world in their own way that is irreconcilable whit the path chosen by the other factions, and then there is this asshole in the background eating popcorn and watching the fireworks while quoting Doflamingo Marineford speech.

Edited by Flere210

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NekoKnight said:

I'd say Ashnard fits the "completely evil" trope just right. There is nothing morally justified about that man but he has a purpose and a view of the world he wants to enforce. Lekain fits as well. In general though, I think the best stories have a mix of the completely unsympathetic and the antagonistic but not without reason kind of villains. To bring up Tellius one again, it's nice having Lekain balanced with the likes of Sephiran. Or Edelgard and the Slither bros.

The sad thing is that the Slither Bros could very, very easily have been written sympathetically.

Spoiler

There's a wealth of sympathy to be had in the remnants of a lost civilization that predates the dragon who arrived there and started establishing herself as this world's goddess, and is then completely wiped off the face of the earth as the continent becomes ruled by a religion that steals credit for creating the people they now rule. Hell, twist the aggressors around (or the alleged aggressors; for all we know the ancient members of Those Who Slither were completely in the right, Rhea is a liar, and the slitherers we see now are the result of lack of sunlight, isolation, and inbred madness), and Those Who Slither could have easily been not just sympathetic antagonists, but the heroes of the story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

I don't understand why people care about what other games look like when discussing the game they're playing unless the models are legit garbage. Three Houses looked great to me. Prerendered cut scenes could be smoother but most of the game was quite lovely. Does it really affect your enjoyment that much that other games in the same gen have "objectively better" graphics? I've heard people say that BotW looks like shit too.

I usually don't care about graphics, and I don't think Three Houses is a bad looking game. My gripe is how distracting the visual issues are. Battalions popping in and out of existence comes off as unpolished, and the 3DS games rarely, if ever, had a problem with battle animations repeating the same attack despite there being an animation for doubling, units weapons appearing out of thin air after being healed, or arrows traveling slowly, making it extremely glaring when these issues are commonplace in Three Houses. The simplistic dialogue sequences also add to the games slow pace, and cause it to look aged, as I expect those kind of animations from a RPG made during the early to mid 2000's, not 2019.

I know I've been coming off as negative towards Three Houses visually speaking, but unfortunately, I quite plainly have more things to critique than to praise about the games graphics and animations. There are some things I do enjoy about Three Houses aesthetically. I fricking love gauntlets, both to use and to watch, and while I knew I wanted the ability to punch enemies to death, I didn't know how satisfying it would actually be to use. I also really fricking love that kick, man. That sudden smack always makes my day. The games class designs are also pretty good, if a little unmemorable, and are a nice step away from the impractical and fanservicy designs of Awakening and Fates (with a few exceptions). It's just that, personally, the negatives outweigh the positives for me, and while again, I don't think Three Houses is a bad looking game, the things it gets wrong are too distracting for me to ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Specta said:

Personally, I don't really care about the idea of balancing units. I love having some units that are absolute trash and some units that destroy everyone and a bunch of rabble in between. Bring on the wild variety; it adds extra layers of fun gameplay for me 

Ah yes, finally someone else who enjoys unbalanced characters. I love using the worst characters in the game, (Hence my Trainees + Marisa only Sacred Stones run I'm on) and if you dislike OP units, don't use them!

 

Hector is the worst lord in FE7. (I'm gonna get cruicified for this, probably.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eclipse said:

I felt that Ashnard was practical - the view he had wasn't necessarily evil, just horribly unbalanced.  Lekain does a better job of it, but even then, he's understandable.  I think Valtome would be closer - we have no idea why he's being so unpleasant, but he is, and we have to deal with it.

"Understandable" is the key word here. All characters need motivations, whether they be things we can agree with morally or not. It's when a character is a petty asshole for no discernible reason (Iago) that we run into trouble. That said, this is only important for more plot significant villains, as such petty meanness can be fun in small doses (like Norris, the lovable shit-eater who happily sends off the people who informed on Elincia to work camps, only to be double crossed by Naesala 2 chapters later).

Just now, Alastor15243 said:

The sad thing is that the Slither Bros could very, very easily have been written sympathetically.

  Hide contents

There's a wealth of sympathy to be had in the remnants of a lost civilization that predates the dragon who arrived there and started establishing herself as this world's goddess, and is then completely wiped off the face of the earth as the continent becomes ruled by a religion that steals credit for creating the people they now rule. Hell, twist the aggressors around (or the alleged aggressors; for all we know the ancient members of Those Who Slither were completely in the right, Rhea is a liar, and the slitherers we see now are the result of lack of sunlight, isolation, and inbred madness), and Those Who Slither could have easily been not just sympathetic antagonists, but the heroes of the story.

 

I don't think we need them to be heroes, and their moral repulsiveness is what makes them a good foil to Edelgard. But we do need to see motivations for their actions beyond "because we can".

Just now, Hawkwing said:

I usually don't care about graphics, and I don't think Three Houses is a bad looking game. My gripe is how distracting the visual issues are. Battalions popping in and out of existence comes off as unpolished, and the 3DS games rarely, if ever, had a problem with battle animations repeating the same attack despite there being an animation for doubling, units weapons appearing out of thin air after being healed, or arrows traveling slowly, making it extremely glaring when these issues are commonplace in Three Houses. The simplistic dialogue sequences also add to the games slow pace, and cause it to look aged, as I expect those kind of animations from a RPG made during the early to mid 2000's, not 2019.

I can agree with this much. Before the game launched, I was concerned about visual clutter, too many soldier distracting you from your own units, but I think they went a little too far in the other direction with battalion units just not appearing in places they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NekoKnight said:

"Understandable" is the key word here. All characters need motivations, whether they be things we can agree with morally or not. It's when a character is a petty asshole for no discernible reason (Iago) that we run into trouble. That said, this is only important for more plot significant villains, as such petty meanness can be fun in small doses (like Norris, the lovable shit-eater who happily sends off the people who informed on Elincia to work camps, only to be double crossed by Naesala 2 chapters later).

If I can understand a villain's motives, and they're not totally nuts, I'm probably going to find them somewhat sympathetic.  Someone like Valtome is literally about himself - absolute narcissism can be a cheap cop-out, but in a world as politically heavy as Tellius, it's a weird breath of fresh air.

I forgot about Petrine, too.  Even if she doesn't get enough to establish her motivations, what little is said explains it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say, I also share some sentiment for antagonists who are just evil for evil's sake. Though I still prefer them to be more complex on average, sometimes I just want something simple for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Benice said:

Hector is the worst lord in FE7. (I'm gonna get cruicified for this, probably.)

Nah, you're not alone.

I guess I'll throw in another one. I really like how unbalanced Radiant Dawn can be. It makes it even more fun training up new units I haven't used before each run. It's not even too hard to train up most units in this game, so that's an extra plus for me!

I'll also agree with the sentiment that purely evil villains can be good, but they really need the charisma to pull it off.
I think the Fate series is pretty good with it, usually, Fate has some charismatic bastards you just have to love to hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An antagonist not being morally grey doesn't mean they are simple and an antagonist being morally grey doesn't necessarily mean they are complex. I'd say Azula from Avatar the Last Air Bender is more complex than most morally grey villains in FE and I don't think anyone would argue she's morally grey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Completely evil characters can be fun but they need a certain charisma or a dominating aura to work properly. Historically Fire Emblem has never really been good at that sort of villains. The recent villains who are pure evil like Garon, Surtr or Thales notably lack any sort of charisma and aside from mister phoenix mode they don't come off as particularly powerful.

When I think of totally evil villains I tend to think of Hades or Metalface. They have such an open glee about being very evil that its hard not to smile when seeing them do their craft. Them being incredibly powerful also ensures they are real threats rather than just goofballs. Metalface might speak with a hilarious British accent and make bad puns but he also repeatedly kicks the party to the curb and knows to hit them where it hurts emotionally. 

I think the closest that Fire Emblem has come to that sort of villain is the Heroes version of Julius. He's very clearly having a lot of fun being evil and he's got a bratty teenager persona that ensures he doesn't take things too seriously. Despite that he's still Satan. A very lazy and immature Satan that apparently spends his time burning insects according to Heroes. 

Ashnard was a pretty pure evil villain that was also quite a lot of fun. To the extent that I actually wish he had a bit more screen time in Path of Radiance. He's barely actually in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

random new 3H additions to the thread

  • I hate the usage of buzzwords/phrases like "nuanced" or "morally-gray" when discussing 3H's plot. It just seems like another excuse to justify one character as good, and another as bad which defeats the purpose of using the terms to not see the characters as black/white. For example, if you like Edelgard and hate Rhea, it's almost always like "Edelgard is morally gray, Rhea is a murderer/tyrant" or if you like Dimitri and hate Edelgard it's "Dimitri is a nuanced character, Edelgard is 100% murderer/tyrant". Gets old really quickly and it's a claim I see sooooo often in the 3H subforum
  • Dorothea isn't that good of a unit (unit not character), I frequently see her in the A or high B range in a lot of tier lists (and if she isn't that's usually the first point people argue over about). Meteor is cool but it's a luxury and the gambit boost/linked attack boost doesn't really make a difference to me and Physic is nice but she doesn't heal that much even with a Heal Staff (dual equip Magic + Heal staff and just switch between the 2) especially late game she heals around 20 ish HP. Not to mention she gets prone to get Magic screwed and really needs Warlock to really shine.
  • Annette and Flayn are underrated as units, more so with Flayn imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lunarly said:

 

  • I hate the usage of buzzwords/phrases like "nuanced" or "morally-gray" when discussing 3H's plot. It just seems like another excuse to justify one character as good, and another as bad which defeats the purpose of using the terms to not see the characters as black/white. For example, if you like Edelgard and hate Rhea, it's almost always like "Edelgard is morally gray, Rhea is a murderer/tyrant" or if you like Dimitri and hate Edelgard it's "Dimitri is a nuanced character, Edelgard is 100% murderer/tyrant". Gets old really quickly and it's a claim I see sooooo often in the 3H subforum.

It means that the characters can be subjectively evaluated.  Which IMO is a good thing, since I don't see too many people arguing the likes of the Lopto cult being a net good to their society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lunarly said:

random new 3H additions to the thread

  • Dorothea isn't that good of a unit (unit not character), I frequently see her in the A or high B range in a lot of tier lists (and if she isn't that's usually the first point people argue over about). Meteor is cool but it's a luxury and the gambit boost/linked attack boost doesn't really make a difference to me and Physic is nice but she doesn't heal that much even with a Heal Staff (dual equip Magic + Heal staff and just switch between the 2) especially late game she heals around 20 ish HP. Not to mention she gets prone to get Magic screwed and really needs Warlock to really shine.
  • Annette and Flayn are underrated as units, more so with Flayn imo.

Dorothea is a nightmare in the early game, because of her faith weakness. I couldn't get her to learn a basic healing spell before chapter 3. Chapter 2 and 3 are two of the hardest maps in Maddening, for sure, and here's a unit that can only gain exp with four thunder spells.. Assuming all four of those spells are picking up kills, she still doesn't consistently get one level per battle and just falls behind the rest of your crew until you get her heal. It also doesn't help that thunder's accuracy is hanging around 70 due to lack of support bonuses that early in the game. That having been said, she's a heck of a dancer. I know "she can be a dancer" is generally treated as a non-argument, but I think that role justifies her other qualities like Meteor support and sword proficiency leading to hexblade, one of the best attacks in the game with outrageous damage. I still regard her as low tier though, because every character has their best performance in mid game. And if I care to have a dedicated combat mage, I'm not choosing Dorothea. 

As for Flayn, I agree but find it's moreso Rescue that's underrated. It's seriously on the same level as warp for me, since you don't have to commit to a fight when you can pull back a unit in a bad spot. Whenever you have a free adjutant slot, let her gain levels and provide special ally boosts to Byleth, then when your deployment slots increase later, you can have her on the crew providing support with her great magic stat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of 3H units, the best dancer unit is Bernadetta. Pass + Rescue make her an extremely viable support option, I have no idea why anyone bothers making her a sniper or bow Knight since her damage output is so weak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jotari said:

Ashnard was a pretty pure evil villain that was also quite a lot of fun. To the extent that I actually wish he had a bit more screen time in Path of Radiance. He's barely actually in it.

My memories say to me no and yes to this statement.

No, because we do see plenty of him talking in his castle.

Yes, because Ike has little direct interaction with him, nor does Ashy do much outside of talking at his castle.

Maybe if he lusted to take a stab at Ike coincidentally as he approached Nevassa, but then we're left with why Ashy wouldn't finish the job then and there? Well, his plans, the same plans that keep him away from major interaction. However, given what Ashy's plan was, and his personal inclinations, maybe, while Ike was sailing to/in Begnion, Ashy could have decided to incense Gallia and revel in some firsthand fun by going to the Gallian border and collect a few tiger skins to turn into loincloths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fire Brand said:

On the topic of 3H units, the best dancer unit is Bernadetta. Pass + Rescue make her an extremely viable support option, I have no idea why anyone bothers making her a sniper or bow Knight since her damage output is so weak. 

Because of Encloser. Which imo is obe of the best skills in the game (and Shadows of Valentia). It essentially completely neutralises a threat for that turn and being able to do so from four range and canto away is amazing. Particularly useful against monster units as she can keep them pinned down while slowly breaking their shields.

3 hours ago, Lunarly said:

random new 3H additions to the thread

  • I hate the usage of buzzwords/phrases like "nuanced" or "morally-gray" when discussing 3H's plot. It just seems like another excuse to justify one character as good, and another as bad which defeats the purpose of using the terms to not see the characters as black/white. For example, if you like Edelgard and hate Rhea, it's almost always like "Edelgard is morally gray, Rhea is a murderer/tyrant" or if you like Dimitri and hate Edelgard it's "Dimitri is a nuanced character, Edelgard is 100% murderer/tyrant". Gets old really quickly and it's a claim I see sooooo often in the 3H subforum
  • Dorothea isn't that good of a unit (unit not character), I frequently see her in the A or high B range in a lot of tier lists (and if she isn't that's usually the first point people argue over about). Meteor is cool but it's a luxury and the gambit boost/linked attack boost doesn't really make a difference to me and Physic is nice but she doesn't heal that much even with a Heal Staff (dual equip Magic + Heal staff and just switch between the 2) especially late game she heals around 20 ish HP. Not to mention she gets prone to get Magic screwed and really needs Warlock to really shine.
  • Annette and Flayn are underrated as units, more so with Flayn imo.

I get what you're saying with that first comment, but I feel the salt should be thrown at the argument instead of the buzz words. As I feel those are words I would use to argue as I genuinely believe it (or well I'd probably say it attempts to be morally grey and nuanced as it does fall flat on its face at sone points).

52 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

My memories say to me no and yes to this statement.

No, because we do see plenty of him talking in his castle.

Yes, because Ike has little direct interaction with him, nor does Ashy do much outside of talking at his castle.

Maybe if he lusted to take a stab at Ike coincidentally as he approached Nevassa, but then we're left with why Ashy wouldn't finish the job then and there? Well, his plans, the same plans that keep him away from major interaction. However, given what Ashy's plan was, and his personal inclinations, maybe, while Ike was sailing to/in Begnion, Ashy could have decided to incense Gallia and revel in some firsthand fun by going to the Gallian border and collect a few tiger skins to turn into loincloths?

Attacking them on his ship and showing off Rajaion would have been nice too. Would have made it somewhat possible to figure out Ena's deal before it's revealed. Though again why would Ashnard be there when it's so far away from Daein and Crimea. The geography of the plot just makes any more of his appearances difficult. Though even some more castle scenes would be fun as I don't think there's an awful lot of them. Establishing Amaldhea and that he's meant to have a son would be nice too as, despite it being clear that Radiant Dawn was planned from the start, it feels a bit like a retcon.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 12:36 AM, Hawkwing said:

I usually don't care about graphics, and I don't think Three Houses is a bad looking game. My gripe is how distracting the visual issues are. [...] The simplistic dialogue sequences also add to the games slow pace, and cause it to look aged, as I expect those kind of animations from a RPG made during the early to mid 2000's, not 2019.

But it does look rough, mate. No kidding. The graphics look like several years old.

I am only a casual gamer. And I say this precisely to note that I am not one of those PC-gamers who demand 11K and 195 FPS just because.

Back in 2017 I got a New 3DS, wherein I also play Game Boy Advance and DS games. Well, every DS game looks "rough" when compared to a 3DS game. And it is expected, given that it was designed years before for an even slower console.

This feeling of "roughness" is the exact same impression that the graphics of Three Houses give me when compared to those of other Switch games. And the Switch already has the worse specifications of the current consoles! When compared to current PlayStation games, the graphics in Three Houses are a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, starburst said:

But it does look rough, mate. No kidding. The graphics look like several years old.

I am only a casual gamer. And I say this precisely to note that I am not one of those PC-gamers who demand 11K and 195 FPS just because.

Back in 2017 I got a New 3DS, wherein I also play Game Boy Advance and DS games. Well, every DS game looks "rough" when compared to a 3DS game. And it is expected, given that it was designed years before for an even slower console.

This feeling of "roughness" is the exact same impression that the graphics of Three Houses give me when compared to those of other Switch games. And the Switch already has the worse specifications of the current consoles! When compared to current PlayStation games, the graphics in Three Houses are a joke.

I agree. If I didn't know about the game beforehand, you could have told me that Three Houses was a Playstation 2 title released in the early 2000's, and I would have believed you. It actually kind of plays like a game from that era as well. Now, I love several games from the 2000's, which is why I don't believe Three Houses necessarily looks bad, but there are so many visual hiccups that I would list it as a negative when reviewing the game.

Considering Three Houses was delayed twice but still has little improvement graphically over its E3 reveal, I'm positive that the delays weren't meant for polishing the game but for replacing cut content and/or adding another route. It might also explain why certain elements of Three Houses come off as rushed.

On 1/29/2020 at 10:58 PM, NekoKnight said:

I can agree with this much. Before the game launched, I was concerned about visual clutter, too many soldier distracting you from your own units, but I think they went a little too far in the other direction with battalion units just not appearing in places they should.

Honestly, battalions came off less as trained soldiers combating the enemy and more as film extra's told to look like they're fighting and dying but not to actually hurt anyone. The fact they always retreated after the unit was killed also came off as black comedy, since even high ranking battalions would abandon their captain if they died, giving the impression that no one is loyal in Foldan. That said, this was their first attempt with this mechanic, and considering how every subsequent Fire Emblem game on the same system improves upon its predecessor animation-wise, I wouldn't be surprised if the next Fire Emblem game on the Switch fixes the issue and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 4:26 PM, eclipse said:

It means that the characters can be subjectively evaluated.  Which IMO is a good thing, since I don't see too many people arguing the likes of the Lopto cult being a net good to their society.

I mean that’s true but do they really gotta demonize another character in the story just to express love for their favorite? I personally don’t agree with that. I have my likes and dislikes and critiques of anything but I ain’t gonna say one character is shit just to make my favorite look better by comparison. It’s a problem I have with the anime community as well. 
 

Ugh I just dislike comparing characters like this in general. I mean comparison isn’t entirely bad but I hate when it’s done in a way that sounds like “Oh this character handles their trauma in a way I find more agreeable so they are an objectively better written character” like fuck off with that. People are different. Characters are different. We all handle our own issues in different ways. No one way is “more valid” than another. One way can certainly be more healthy but in regards to character writing that sort of judgement is for the most part moot because it’s those very flaws that ground a character to reality and make them relatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 6:12 AM, Lunarly said:

I hate the usage of buzzwords/phrases like "nuanced" or "morally-gray" when discussing 3H's plot. It just seems like another excuse to justify one character as good, and another as bad which defeats the purpose of using the terms to not see the characters as black/white. For example, if you like Edelgard and hate Rhea, it's almost always like "Edelgard is morally gray, Rhea is a murderer/tyrant" or if you like Dimitri and hate Edelgard it's "Dimitri is a nuanced character, Edelgard is 100% murderer/tyrant". Gets old really quickly and it's a claim I see sooooo often in the 3H subforum

While I wouldn't call those buzzwords, I agree with the general sentiment. Dimitri/Rhea/Edelgard are all morally grey, but that doesn't stop people from picking a camp and demonizing the other characters. Leave it to fans to make a nuanced conflict a black and white one. I suppose part of that is by design of the routes being biased in favor of one character but I think it's also a matter of tribalism.

18 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Ugh I just dislike comparing characters like this in general. I mean comparison isn’t entirely bad but I hate when it’s done in a way that sounds like “Oh this character handles their trauma in a way I find more agreeable so they are an objectively better written character” like fuck off with that. People are different. Characters are different. We all handle our own issues in different ways. No one way is “more valid” than another. One way can certainly be more healthy but in regards to character writing that sort of judgement is for the most part moot because it’s those very flaws that ground a character to reality and make them relatable.

Would you agree that it's possible for some characters to be better written than others? And if that is possible, that it's reasonable to compare two characters that you think differ in that writing quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NekoKnight said:
20 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

 

Would you agree that it's possible for some characters to be better written than others? And if that is possible, that it's reasonable to compare two characters that you think differ in that writing quality?

That’s a completely different situation though. I never said Comparison on its own is a bad thing because it isn’t. It’s completely possible for a character and a story to be better written than another. I think Ferdinand is just Tobin except infinitely more well written. Like I’m not gonna say Bernadetta is a worse written character than Marianne simply because I relate with Marianne more as a character and that her arc ends in a happier place cause that’s a subjective argument. It’s fine to have that opinion but it’s not an objective critique. What I will do though is compare the actual depth and nuance of the writing. Very surface level things. Again, I consider Ferdinand better than Tobin because Ferdie has actual depth to his inferiority complex unlike Tobin where it’s only brought up in like one base conversation and like no where else. It never manifests itself in support conversations or anything. It’s just kinda there. With Ferdinand we see how it how it affects his personality, demeanor, the way he carries himself, how he interacts with other characters etc. Am I saying Tobin has to be written exactly like Ferdinand to be good? No, I’m not because I understand that there are million different ways to write this type of character and no one way is necessarily the “right” way to do it. I’m simply criticizing the lack of depth on Tobin’s part and using Ferdinand as an example of what I mean when I say character has said depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

That’s a completely different situation though. I never said Comparison on its own is a bad thing because it isn’t. It’s completely possible for a character and a story to be better written than another. I think Ferdinand is just Tobin except infinitely more well written. Like I’m not gonna say Bernadetta is a worse written character than Marianne simply because I relate with Marianne more as a character and that her arc ends in a happier place cause that’s a subjective argument. It’s fine to have that opinion but it’s not an objective critique.

I guess it depends on the specific argument being made. Saying something like "Depression is more relatable than social anxiety so Marianne is a better character" is a poor argument but something like "Marianne's emotional issues are treated with more respect than Bernadetta's which usually have her freak outs for comedic purposes so Marianne is a more tastefully written character concerning emotional trauma" carries more weight.

To address your specific example, while it should be worded to inform on the subjective appeal, one could make the case that Marianne's arc is more agreeable because she has more growth.

 

Edited by NekoKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

I guess it depends on the specific argument being made. Saying something like "Depression is more relatable than social anxiety so Marianne is a better character" is a poor argument but something like "Marianne's emotional issues are treated with more respect than Bernadetta's which usually have her freak outs for comedic purposes so Marianne is a more tastefully written character concerning emotional trauma" carries more weight.

To address your specific example, while it should be worded to inform on the subjective appeal, one could make the case that Marianne's arc is more agreeable because she has more growth.

 

Yes, but that Argument only works under the assumption that a character has to grow in order to be well written when that’s simply not true. A stagnant static character can still be compelling and well written and Bernie is one such example. There is no such thing as an absolute rule in regards to story telling. You don’t necessarily have to like or agree with a story or character in order to consider them well written. I think villains like Adachi, Grima, and Gilgamesh are sociopathic bastards but that doesn’t mean they aren’t well written characters/villains in their own right. People may find Marianne’s arc more agreeable but that doesn’t make any better written of a character. Just because you agree or like something that doesn’t make it objectively good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ottservia said:

I mean that’s true but do they really gotta demonize another character in the story just to express love for their favorite? I personally don’t agree with that. I have my likes and dislikes and critiques of anything but I ain’t gonna say one character is shit just to make my favorite look better by comparison. It’s a problem I have with the anime community as well. 
 

Ugh I just dislike comparing characters like this in general. I mean comparison isn’t entirely bad but I hate when it’s done in a way that sounds like “Oh this character handles their trauma in a way I find more agreeable so they are an objectively better written character” like fuck off with that. People are different. Characters are different. We all handle our own issues in different ways. No one way is “more valid” than another. One way can certainly be more healthy but in regards to character writing that sort of judgement is for the most part moot because it’s those very flaws that ground a character to reality and make them relatable.

Oh, there's some objectively good/bad ways of handling things like trauma.  "I'm going to murder all of you because it's your fault that I'm screwed up" is unhealthy, and should be portrayed as such.  Glorifying it, or mocking a character who's trying to deal with their trauma is bad writing IMO.  I bring up others as a comparison because it's handy.  If you want to justify the actions of the Lopto cult, feel free to do so.

Likewise, having villains whose motives make very little sense is also my idea of bad writing.  Part of conflict is making it meaningful to both sides (that is, I don't necessarily have to agree with either, but there should be some sort of reason why they can't just talk it out or something), and there's very little meaning in beating up someone who exists solely to make the good guys look better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Oh, there's some objectively good/bad ways of handling things like trauma.  "I'm going to murder all of you because it's your fault that I'm screwed up" is unhealthy, and should be portrayed as such.  Glorifying it, or mocking a character who's trying to deal with their trauma is bad writing IMO.  I bring up others as a comparison because it's handy.  If you want to justify the actions of the Lopto cult, feel free to do so.

An interesting point but then you have the morally ambiguous instances like death note(not Fire Emblem I know but it’s the best example I have for this sort of thing). Where Light Yagami is very much so a sociopathic serial killer with a god complex. Thing is though the story actively rewards him for a lot of his morally questionable/heinous crimes like the killing 12 members of the FBI for the sake of self-preservation. It’s not necessarily glorifying his actions per say but it’s not portraying them as a bad thing either. The point of a narrative like that is to get you to question the idea of justice and whether or not Light or L is right in their pursuit of justice. The story never really leans one way or the other but it certainly gets you to think and that’s very much so the intent.

36 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Likewise, having villains whose motives make very little sense is also my idea of bad writing.  Part of conflict is making it meaningful to both sides (that is, I don't necessarily have to agree with either, but there should be some sort of reason why they can't just talk it out or something), and there's very little meaning in beating up someone who exists solely to make the good guys look better.

Ehh Adachi’s whole motivation was that he was bored and that he hates people and well Gilgamesh just has a superiority complex yet they still work imo. Villain writing is weird.

Share this post


Link to post
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...