Jump to content

What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

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.

No it's not. Because one person might be of the opinion that all the little things connect while someone else might be of the opinion that they don't. The existence of the little things does not prove the existence of the connections. The connections comes from perceptive, which is a lenses that is viewed through experience, exposure and personal standards.

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

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.

We've had that conversation before, in which I posited that the themes of Shadows of Valentia (which I backed up with evidence) was a male power fantasy glorifying violence. So no, themes, messages and ideas are not objective either. They are derived. At best you can say they're objective only by asking the author directly what they are and having them confirmed.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 minutes ago, Jotari said:

No it's not. Because one person might be of the opinion that all the little things connect while someone else might be of the opinion that they don't. The existence of the little things does not prove the existence of the connections. The connections comes from perceptive, which is a lenses that is viewed through experience, exposure and personal standards.

The connections don’t necessarily have to though. There is objectivity to it. I can prove a volitile emotional response is the result of trauma. That is a connection I can make and prove with psychological analysis. Two characters being foils to one another is something else I can prove because I can prove that differences, subtle or blatent, exist between them. That is another connection I can prove. I can prove two characters are similar. I can prove two characters are different. I can prove a character’s personality is the result of trauma through the subtle details in how they act and carry themselves. In that way nuance is provable.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

The connections don’t necessarily have to though. There is objectivity to it. I can prove a volitile emotional response is the result of trauma. That is a connection I can make and prove with psychological analysis. Two characters being foils to one another is something else I can prove because I can prove that differences, subtle or blatent, exist between them. That is another connection I can prove. I can prove two characters are similar. I can prove two characters are different. I can prove a character’s personality is the result of trauma through the subtle details in how they act and carry themselves. In that way nuance is provable.

But you can't prove that them working in tandem makes it nuanced. Only that you find it nuanced. Just like proving Camilla has big boobs doesn't prove she's sexy, only that a given person finds her sexy. The simple fact here is that people disagree with you. The mere fact that people disagree and have different views on nuance means it is subjective. The only other alternative is that you are the only person in the world who can detect nuance and that everyone else can't see what's blatantly obvious is an idiot. Do you think everyone who disagrees with your views is an idiot?

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jotari said:

But you can't prove that them working in tandem makes it nuanced. Only that you find it nuanced. Just like proving Camilla has big boobs doesn't prove she's sexy, only that a given person finds her sexy.

By the definition of nuanced posed in which we were discussing yes it is provable. It’s objective fact that Camilla’s bust is designed to make her look sexy. Cause it is a fact that people are attracted to big boobs. It’s meant to appeal to that attraction. If you don’t have that attraction then it’s not gonna work for you. That is subjective opinion and preference. What isn’t subjective is the fact that she designed to be sexy. I mean why else would she be designed with big boobs and visible panties with an entire cutscene dedicated to panning shots of her ass and tits. There’s a clear intent being made there and every aspect of the character’s design is meant to convey that. That fact can’t be denied but whether or not it’s attractive to you personally is up to your personal taste.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Promptly changing the subject...

For me, both Ike and Chrom are relatively dull characters who are only made important or interesting because of the other characters and story events that give them more depth and meaning in the context of their respective worlds.

Edited by twilitfalchion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Promptly changing the subject...

For me, both Ike and Chrom are relatively dull characters who are only made important or interesting because of the other characters and story events that give them more depth and meaning in the context of their respective worlds.

Isn’t that true of every character in all of existence though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Time for another unpopular opinion!
SoV is the worst FE game I've played. Yes, Fates was better in that it at least didn't bore me and I finished it. Basically everything about Alm and his particular path was so incredibly boring that I couldn't stand to finish the game.

I completely agree. The presentation, music, voice acting, and setting were so excellently done that I was surprised to find myself struggling to continue playing because the gameplay itself was so uninteresting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Isn’t that true of every character in all of existence though?

Not necessarily. Some characters’ backstories or personalities are so strong and well defined that they stand on their own apart from the support of other characters, but they also benefit even more from having external support if it’s there. For example, compare Eliwood with Hector or Lyn. Both Lyn and Hector have sufficiently distinct personalities and backstories to make them stand on their own. But, to me, Eliwood would be a much weaker character if he did not have his fellow lords and cast of characters to experience the journey with him.

Edited by twilitfalchion
Some extra thoughts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, twilitfalchion said:

Not necessarily. Some characters’ backstories or personalities are so strong and well defined that they stand on their own apart from the support of other characters, but benefit even more from having it anyway.

But backstory is a story event, that’s why it exists to give context to the character’s personality and their role in the story. That’s just how writing works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ottservia said:

But backstory is a story event, that’s why it exists to give context to the character’s personality and their role in the story. That’s just how writing works. 

No it's not, he's referring to character personality and agency in the story, which can be present despite the other characters or because of them. Either way is bad, you typically want a balance. He's saying that Ike and Chrom are only interesting because of the people around them, not because of them themselves and to him that's bad. Sometimes you need to not just think you're the end all be all of writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

But backstory is a story event, that’s why it exists to give context to the character’s personality and their role in the story. That’s just how writing works. 

I understand that (considering I’m a writer myself). But backstory is not necessarily sufficient to make a character stand on their own. Personality is a major contributing factor in making main characters distinguish themselves from the rest of the cast. And, in my personal opinion, both Chrom and Ike lack that.

Edited by twilitfalchion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Promptly changing the subject...

For me, both Ike and Chrom are relatively dull characters who are only made important or interesting because of the other characters and story events that give them more depth and meaning in the context of their respective worlds.

Oh good, so it isn't just me that finds Ike dull. I do like Chrom though.

But this is why I favor Marth since Marth has formed his own ideals and beliefs, and has to always struggle with dealing with it. Honestly, if the devs actually bothered to give his game a proper remake, it'd be way better. But even if all we got is a polished up version of Marth's game, it's still rather decent to give his character actual depth.

15 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Time for another unpopular opinion!
SoV is the worst FE game I've played. Yes, Fates was better in that it at least didn't bore me and I finished it. Basically everything about Alm and his particular path was so incredibly boring that I couldn't stand to finish the game.

Alm would be way better as a protag if he was actually how Awakening presented him as. Him being someone that already has all the answers, it makes you wonder what he even means that Celica helps him keep track of things? Celica didn't even stick with him for most of the journey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

No it's not, he's referring to character personality and agency in the story, which can be present despite the other characters or because of them. Either way is bad, you typically want a balance. He's saying that Ike and Chrom are only interesting because of the people around them, not because of them themselves and to him that's bad. Sometimes you need to not just think you're the end all be all of writing.

I mean every character in a story is only interesting because of the context surrounding their circumstances and the struggles and conflicts they are forced to face. I don’t claim to be any kind of academic authority. I just feel like pointing out the flaws in someone’s logic as I see them. I'm just some shmuck on the internet expressing my thoughts and opinions on things. What kind of authority do I have?

12 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

I understand that (considering I’m a writer myself). But backstory is not necessarily sufficient to make a character stand on their own. Personality is a major contributing factor in making main characters distinguish themselves from the rest of the cast. And, in my personal opinion, both Chrom and Ike lack that.

Oh yeah that's a fair argument to make. I like both characters personally but yeah they are pretty generic shounen protagonist all things considered

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omegaxis1 said:

But this is why I favor Marth since Marth has formed his own ideals and beliefs, and has to always struggle with dealing with it. Honestly, if the devs actually bothered to give his game a proper remake, it'd be way better. But even if all we got is a polished up version of Marth's game, it's still rather decent to give his character actual depth.

Yeah, I agree with you. Marth is a very compelling character with a distinct personality (that shows itself more prominently in the DS remakes) and he deserves to have his character expounded upon free from technical or developmental limitations. I honestly wouldn’t mind either another game in the Archanea series or a fully realized remake of FE1 and FE3 in one package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

This is simply not true. There are plenty of characters in various creative media who are most notably defined by their personality and character above all else.

yeah but a character's personality(like that of a real person's) is a result of their circumstances and backstory, no? Their personalities are defined by their backstories and interactions with other characters and the world around them. At least in regards to the idea of storytelling and writing. I will agree there are some creative mediums where a character is simply defined by a list of personality traits someone kind a threw on a checklist. Y'know like any vocaloid character.

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

but a character's personality(like that of a real person's) is a result of their circumstances and backstory, no?

Again, not necessarily. Hector, according to the game's story, was always a strong, brash, even obnoxious individual who spoke whatever came to his mind, apart from the experiences and adventures he would later have. Likewise, Corrin, despite being raised isolated in Castle Krakenburg for the majority of his life, was an honorable, sensitive, morally-focused character who would not be expected to be as such given his upbringing. So no, that is not always the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Again, not necessarily. Hector, according to the game's story, was always a strong, brash, even obnoxious individual who spoke whatever came to his mind, apart from the experiences and adventures he would later have. Likewise, Corrin, despite being raised isolated in Castle Krakenburg for the majority of his life, was an honorable, sensitive, morally-focused character who would not be expected to be as such given his upbringing. So no, that is not always the case.

Actually, not quite. Hector's backstory made him embrace his masculinity to toxic levels. He's a guy that had to be strong and it got to the point that he no longer knew how to cry. Not when his parents died, not when his brother died. It's why he admitted to envying Lyn, because she can cry and he can't, and what made her cry for him from learning of his brother's death.

Corrin's personality and wanting to leave his home is a result of his longing for freedom because of how he was always isolated from the outside world. He had good people that took care of him in the forms of Flora, Felicia, and Jackob. 

I would say that a person's backstory definitely has merit to how one reacts and why one acts as they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

yeah but a character's personality(like that of a real person's) is a result of their circumstances and backstory, no? Their personalities are defined by their backstories and interactions with other characters and the world around them. At least in regards to the idea of storytelling and writing. I will agree there are some creative mediums where a character is simply defined by a list of personality traits someone kind a threw on a checklist. Y'know like any vocaloid character.

This is a "nature vs. nurture" argument, but alas, it's well beyond the scope of this thread.  Eliwood and Hector illustrate this in their C support, where Hector falls asleep in class and Eliwood teases him about it.  Such things aren't brought about by any sort of event in their life, that's just the way they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2020 at 10:48 PM, Jotari said:

If 9 supports are about the exact same thing and the 10th features some character depth, it isn't really a testament to nuance. Gimmicky characters are no stranger to Fire Emblem (love me some Shannam), but Awakening's choice to make almost the entire cast gimmick based does make the writing style quite tiresome.

Except that Awakenings supports don't work that way? I understand if you were being theoretical, but again, very few conversations in Awakening actually focus on the characters gimmicks. More often than not, things like Kellam's lack of presence, Gaius's love of candy, Virion's flirtations, and so on are used either to start the conversation or pop up as a joke to continue it. Rarely is it the actual meat of the discussion.

I understand annoyance at how often a characters gimmick is used for this purpose. Heck, I agree with the criticism for certain support chains. Yet the presence of such jokes or conversation starters does not mean they are the only thing about the support. Ricken mentioning that that he's not a child in a single line of his support with Gregor doesn't change the fact that the discussion revolved around Ricken asking Gregor about what happened in certain battle with the aim to record what happened and review the information to become a better fighter, gaining an appreciation of the old man in the process. Nor does a character being surprised by Kellam seemingly appearing out of nowhere mean that the rest of support is about his ridiculous stealth abilities. Yes, some characters gimmicks are overused, but that doesn't automatically mean that said characters entire existence revolves around said gimmick.

This is why I hate seeing the complaint that Awakenings characters are all "one-note", especially when their listed "gimmick" is different in the characters actual supports and/or doesn't appear as often as it's made out to be. Yet at the same time I can't really blame anyone for holding this opinion, because Awakenings characters are overly reliant on their supports to round them out. This makes it rewarding to use a unit and see them become more fleshed out, but if the player doesn't, then they're stuck with a questionable first impression. That is the reason why I say that the handling of Awakenings cast is a double-edged sword, even if I think the quality of characters themselves is pretty solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eclipse said:

Enemy-only witches were not fun to deal with, which is why I haven't bothered starting another SoV run.

Yeah I love Echoes but seriously screw witches, they're seemingly inconsistent with their teleports (Delthea teleports very far away from you while other witches seem to close the distance a bit more and of course Delthea can't actually teleport once you recruit her because that makes sense.) and there's no real way to predict when/where they teleport so all you can do is really just hunker down and wait for them to come to you while ensuring everyone's healed up til' their all dead in my experience.

If they at least couldn't move right after teleporting they'd be less unfair.

 

Edited by Samz707
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the recent trend of more in-depth narratives with stories you have to do shit like moving from place to place to advance. Things that you can't just skip without consequence once you've seen it. It makes replaying games like Echoes and 3H a pain in the ass.

Edited by Alastor15243
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Edelgard is probably the most inconsistent of the 3H house leaders. Her motives don't match up in her own route at a couple points, and her supports seem to contradict some of her story things in her own route.

8 hours ago, twilitfalchion said:

I understand that (considering I’m a writer myself).

Writers unite!

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...