What is your unpopular Fire Emblem opinion?

[Shrimpica]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

Makes stuff like Luna more usable.

*laughs in Lysithea*

 

1 hour ago, Samz707 said:

For me, Pair-up just adds trial and error in Awakening.

Yeah, in Awakening. Not in Fates

[Alastor15243]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Lower stats however does make it much easier for more newly recruited units to catch up. It also increases the potency of stat boosters (which by and large haven't been scaled with stat inflation).

Soooort of. That's definitely true with HP and proc skills and things like the tenuous scaling of crit rates in most games, but most stats interact with each other in a direct add-subtract kind of way. In many ways, a unit with non-HP stats of 10 across the board will fare just as well against an enemy with 6 across the board as one with 200 would fare against someone with 196. A stat booster would have the same impact on the former unit's performance as the latter.

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Shrimperor said:

*laughs in Lysithea*

 

Yeah, in Awakening. Not in Fates

Highly doubt Fates makes it not terrible.

I don't like having gimped units just to force in a pair-up system and I don't like basically controlling only 5-6 units a battle.

In addition to issues that probably would still exist, like using up weapon durability with attacks I don't want.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Samz707

[Alastor15243]

5 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Highly doubt Fates makes it not terrible.

I don't like having gimped units just to force in a pair-up system and I don't like basically controlling only 5-6 units a battle.

In addition to issues that probably would still exist, like using up weapon durability with attacks I don't want.

 

 

1: Guard stance isn't necessary for every unit all the time, in fact it's frequently advantageous not to use it and to use attack stance instead.

2: There is no weapon durability in Fates.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

*laughs in Lysithea*

 

Yeah, in Awakening. Not in Fates

Is your argument that Lysithea is really good with Luna? Because my argument is the exact opposite. Luna becomes better the more inflated stats are to the point where it becomes far too good as your negating like 30-40 points of resistance.

1 hour ago, Alastor15243 said:

Soooort of. That's definitely true with HP and proc skills and things like the tenuous scaling of crit rates in most games, but most stats interact with each other in a direct add-subtract kind of way. In many ways, a unit with non-HP stats of 10 across the board will fare just as well against an enemy with 6 across the board as one with 200 would fare against someone with 196. A stat booster would have the same impact on the former unit's performance as the latter.

But in system where a unit can get 196 stat points, it means each individual stat point is far easier to acquire and thus is of less value. Take a stat that adds 2 to a non HP stat. If a unit only has 10 in that stat by mid end game then +2 points is a massive boost. But if a unit has 200 then the +2 will let them deal the same amount of extra damage on an enemy, but it's also going to make less a difference as they'll be getting +5s per level anyway. Of course if enemies scale exactly 1:1 then they'll always just be dealing an extra 2 points of damage, but all the different classes and units means that's obviously not true. Especially with classes that aren't as strong in certain stats. +2 to a sword master could make a massive difference when there's a 20 cap.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Jotari

[Samz707]

25 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

1: Guard stance isn't necessary for every unit all the time, in fact it's frequently advantageous not to use it and to use attack stance instead.

2: There is no weapon durability in Fates.

My actual point was that the attack stance is bad in Awakening since you can't accurately predict it, at least negating damage has no negatives (Unless it turns out there's some skill in Awakening  that only works if your hurt I guess.), but in Awakening, dual strike frequently kills enemies you need to block off other enemies.

Also I'd really rather have weapon durability but pair-up dual strike means you're frequently wasting attacks in my experience, hence why I'd rather have it gone than Weapon Durability. (And if you have both, have fun wasting rare/powerful weapons out of your own control.)

[Alastor15243]

Just now, Samz707 said:

My actual point was that the attack stance is bad in Awakening since you can't accurately predict it, at least negating damage has no negatives (Unless it turns out there's some skill in Awakening  that only works if your hurt I guess.), but in Awakening, dual strike frequently kills enemies you need to block off other enemies.

But you can predict it in Fates. It's guaranteed to trigger every time and they tell you how much damage it'll do and the odds to hit. Honestly, it sounds like Fates addresses all of your complaints.

[Benice]

4 hours ago, Samz707 said:

For me, Pair-up just adds trial and error in Awakening. (and I hate trial and error in strategy games, alot.)

Pair up don't work in awakening-It works very well in Fates. Fates fixes every single on your problems-it is 100% in your control-You have choice whether to block or attack. The RNG has no say, aside from "Is it a hit/crit." It is 100% predictable and reliable.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Highly doubt Fates makes it not terrible.

Maybe instead of assuming things maybe you should actually play fates to see for yourself cause as others have mentioned. Fates pretty much fixes all of your problems with how it works in awakening.

[Florete]

2 hours ago, Samz707 said:

but in Awakening, dual strike frequently kills enemies you need to block off other enemies.

And in Fates, you can pair up and never get a dual strike.

I think it's worth noting that over the last couple pages multiple people have defended the pair up/stance system in Fates specifically, not Awakening. Fates took the busted pair up system from Awakening and perfected it.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Samz707 said:

My actual point was that the attack stance is bad in Awakening since you can't accurately predict it, at least negating damage has no negatives (Unless it turns out there's some skill in Awakening  that only works if your hurt I guess.), but in Awakening, dual strike frequently kills enemies you need to block off other enemies.

Also I'd really rather have weapon durability but pair-up dual strike means you're frequently wasting attacks in my experience, hence why I'd rather have it gone than Weapon Durability. (And if you have both, have fun wasting rare/powerful weapons out of your own control.)

Well there's counter, though it's no where near as useful a skill on players as it is on enemies. Vengence is a bit more useful on players since you can get it up to a 100% proc rate but the damage boost is still a bit too minor compared to some other skills. Vantage might be the most useful skill that you need to get hurt for. But it's not like dual guard is going to be proccing every attack, there is plenty of time to put you in hurt range if you want to built a strategy like that and once your there your better off staying there and nuking anything that tries to kill you.

[Samz707]

2 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Maybe instead of assuming things maybe you should actually play fates to see for yourself cause as others have mentioned. Fates pretty much fixes all of your problems with how it works in awakening.

I don't intend to frankly, I've heard alot of stuff about Fates that sound like stuff that'd infuriate me (Like Peri or Corrin.) and pretty much nothing I'd like, it simply does not sound like an experience I'd like and it doubles down on alot of stuff I dislike from Awakening. (Gratuitous fan-service and Avatar-worship for starters.) 

And making the Ballista unable to actually kill anyone is pretty much a decision that takes the fun out of them.

Even if it worked, I don't like having to half my already limited unit cap, I'd rather have 12-10 dudes instead of 5, it just feels like an excuse to force grinding since I'll eventually somewhat need units to stop sucking on their own, pair-up isn't a fun mechanic to me and Awakening being as broken as it is just makes it more annoying.

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Samz707

[Shrimpica]

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

Because my argument is the exact opposite.

Oh. Since you said you wanted Luna usable i thought you meant current Luna is useless

10 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

And making the Ballista unable to actually kill anyone is pretty much a decision that takes the fun out of them.

Because they have Aoe in fates. Would be busted if you could kill 5 units with one attack

10 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Even if it worked, I don't like having to half my already limited unit cap, I'd rather have 12-10 dudes instead of 5

again, that's not how it workes in Fates, but we already explained that many times and you keep ignoring it

[Samz707]

1 minute ago, Shrimperor said:

Oh. Since you said you wanted Luna usable i thought you meant current Luna is useless

Because they have Aoe in fates. Would be busted if you could kill 5 units with one attack

again, that's not how it workes in Fates, but we already explained that many times and you keep ignoring it

I don't know about the unit caps in Fates.

Regardless, as I was meaning to say, Fates doesn't really seem like it'd appeal to me at all in alot more ways than just Pair-up.

[ping]

I think I got one:

No Fire Emblem story has even been made better by its game's support conversations.
(Judgement pending for 3H, since Deltre seemingly refuses to continue a LP of that game past chapter 3)

Thing is, support conversations are quite universally not relevant to the main story. The characters talking to each other are very often not relevant (or not relevant any more) to the main story. Even conversations that I like quite a bit, like Duessel and Amelia, do not have any impact on the actual story. Whether or not Duessel remembers Amelia's mum has literally zero impact on the rest of the story. Whether or not Eirika and Forde hook up has literally zero impact on the rest of the story, even though the former is one of the two main characters of the main story.

In terms of their writing, Fire Emblem games, starting with Binding Blade, have been thoroughly cut in two: Here's the main story, with the evil empire a-conquerin' and suddenly dragons, there's the episodical slice-of-life with wacky hijinks, romance, anime tropes, and the occasional wholesome episode - the latter in itself divided in a plethora of little storys that don't interact with each other, either.

I believe this has been brought up to criticize Awakening and Fates' writing - Support!Xander and Story!Xander being two different characters; Virion basically resetting his progression from "daft letch" to "actually thoughtful" in each of his support chains; Fates' entire "support" half of its writing literally taking place in a parallel dimension - but frankly, this has been the case since the GBA games. Support convos disrupt the pacing (look how long the Amelia/Duessel A support is), often don't make sense (Forde is napping and fucking canvas painting on the battlefield), completely disrupt the current mood of the game (Roy: "Oh god, Cecilia is fighting Zephiel! We much help her posthaste!"  - Lalum: "LORD ROY YOU PEEKED AT MY BUTT SO NOW WE MUST MAKE OUT")

The one game that I can (partially) leave out of this would be Path of Radiance. For one, support convos now take place between fights (which greatly reduced the disbelief that you have to suspend), but most importantly: A lot of the PoR supports are actually adding to the main story specifically! Of course, you still have the silly little Pygmalion sequence between Calill and Nephenee, or Makalov being a little shit, but a ton of the convos revolve around the racism between Beorc and Laguz, around overcoming prejudices and fears of the unfamiliar. However, let's leave that aside for a moment so that I can keep the headline a bit provocative  

Anyway, that's part 2 of my essay about why there's nothing wrong with Shadow Dragon's writing and why it was wasted on the Fire Emblem community.

Spoiler

OK, that last line was intentionally inflammatory. Don't take it too seriously, even though I do think that the FE fanbase can be too preoccupied with what a FE game is "supposed to look like" and should give the game a chance for what it is instead of complaining what it isn't.

Oh, part 1 is just "Yes, they did change and improve the gameplay considerably compared to FE1/3."

 

[Florete]

22 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

I don't know about the unit caps in Fates.

The point is that you're very unlikely to pair up everyone in Fates, unlike in Awakening. I usually have 2-3 pairs at most and 7-10 single units, depending on how many I can bring.

If you haven't played the game and don't intend to ever, you should probably hold back on criticisms of it.

[Saint Rubenio]

6 minutes ago, ping said:

Anyway, that's part 2 of my essay about why there's nothing wrong with Shadow Dragon's writing and why it was wasted on the Fire Emblem community.

I thought this was the thread to go for opinions that I don't completely agree with.

[null]

9 minutes ago, ping said:

Anyway, that's part 2 of my essay about why there's nothing wrong with Shadow Dragon's writing and why it was wasted on the Fire Emblem community.

Seconded. SD has one of my favorite stories in the series, despite its overall simplicity. It’s the game the made me love Marth as a character.

[Saint Rubenio]

2 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

It’s the game the made me love Marth as a character.

No kidding. He's been one of my top lords since the moment he sassed Malledus for giving him exposition.fe

All jokes aside, though, I don't think enough people appreciate just how awesome the Shadow Dragon prologue is. Most FEs tell you that the protagonist has suffered, murder Daddy off-screen, and that's it. In Shadow Dragon, you get to feel all that in your own bones, and it's glorious. Not to mention that moment in Prologue IV. Nothing short of brilliant, in my opinion.

[DragonFlames]

45 minutes ago, ping said:

Anyway, that's part 2 of my essay about why there's nothing wrong with Shadow Dragon's writing and why it was wasted on the Fire Emblem community.

35 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

Seconded. SD has one of my favorite stories in the series, despite its overall simplicity. It’s the game the made me love Marth as a character.

30 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

No kidding. He's been one of my top lords since the moment he sassed Malledus for giving him exposition.fe

All jokes aside, though, I don't think enough people appreciate just how awesome the Shadow Dragon prologue is. Most FEs tell you that the protagonist has suffered, murder Daddy off-screen, and that's it. In Shadow Dragon, you get to feel all that in your own bones, and it's glorious. Not to mention that moment in Prologue IV. Nothing short of brilliant, in my opinion.

I agree: Shadow Dragon is great.
I really like that game. Forged effective weaponry utterly breaks it (hello, Wing Spear!), but to me, that's part of the appeal.
I also like the story and the way it is told, even if it was kind of jarring at first (coming from PoR and RD, the lack of support or base conversations felt a bit off to me who thought those things were staples), and many of the characters have one, maybe two lines total in the entire game (one of which is their death quote). And I really like Marth as a main character, as well.

The chance to play the Prologue is actually the reason why I never really touched the harder difficulties.

[AnonymousSpeed]

11 hours ago, Seazas said:

Which is just your subjective take like how pair up being an unnecessary nuisance is my own subjective opinion. 

"Subjective" doesn't mean "without justification"

11 hours ago, Seazas said:

Having to constantly interact with a terrible mechanic isn't exactly going to make the appeal skyrocket but whatever. Still find it terrible and shoving it down my throat will not help with such matters. As stated before, I prefer adjutants for this very reason since it doesn't bend a lot of the game's balance to significantly include pair up.

You don't have to like pair up, but people tell you they disagree and like it. Instead of saying why you dislike it, you say you don't like having to use it, but it took some coercion to get you to elaborate on why don't like using it. Then you keep doubling down on not liking it because you have to use instead of not liking it for reasons that make using it "terrible."

9 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Well, they are though? if they're still around that (usually) means they're solid mechanics that work well (Usually anyway.), something new inherently is arguably less valid because it could not work, (Like the Three Houses Monestary, which feels like an unfinished Alpha that was rushed in which is kinda bad for the literal selling point new feature.) it could work but I've definitely played games with new mechanics in a series that I've felt "Yeah I'm not going to ever miss this if it never ever comes back.", by the nature of being new they aren't as tried and tested as old mechanics.

This is actually a very interesting argument I don't disagree with. Sort of.

The new things aren't less valid inherently but they are less likely to be valid. It doesn't apply to video games so much because even long running franchises have only been around for 30 years or so, and the "test" they pass to keep existing isn't super strenuous or anything (this works better for things like social structures, which had to survive the onslaught of reality for centuries). We could all tell Fire Emblem High School was going to be a bad idea but the trope has endured for longer than Fire Emblem has existed.

So I don't disagree, they aren't tried and tested and plenty of new mechanics I could do without, but Fates pair up was pretty good. As some other people said-

6 hours ago, Samz707 said:

Highly doubt Fates makes it not terrible.

It actually does exactly that. There are tradeoffs to pairing up, you can rely on shield gauge (more or less, I'm not great at knowing what order enemies will attack in and that does affect which attack gets blocked), but it doesn't trigger so often as to break everything. It's a good system, I like it. It also takes "rescue" and all the movement options that gave you and ups them to a hundred. No judgement if you're still cautious, of course.

6 hours ago, Jotari said:

But in system where a unit can get 196 stat points, it means each individual stat point is far easier to acquire and thus is of less value. Take a stat that adds 2 to a non HP stat. If a unit only has 10 in that stat by mid end game then +2 points is a massive boost. But if a unit has 200 then the +2 will let them deal the same amount of extra damage on an enemy, but it's also going to make less a difference as they'll be getting +5s per level anyway. Of course if enemies scale exactly 1:1 then they'll always just be dealing an extra 2 points of damage, but all the different classes and units means that's obviously not true. Especially with classes that aren't as strong in certain stats. +2 to a sword master could make a massive difference when there's a 20 cap.

Not necessarily. The value of something isn't strictly proportional to scarcity, it's the use you get out of it which matters. Fire Emblem generally scales linearly enough that the results are fairly similar before you get to crazy skills, whether you cap stats at 20 or 60. So +2 has similar use. I value the 20 stat caps because it makes it easier to train up the scrubs and harder for a unit to juggernaut everything, but the limit it applies is simple and consistent enough to not feel like an arbitrary mechanic that's just there to limit one man armies.

48 minutes ago, ping said:

Thing is, support conversations are quite universally not relevant to the main story.

Yeah, just sort of a sad necessity of their format.

48 minutes ago, ping said:

OK, that last line was intentionally inflammatory. Don't take it too seriously, even though I do think that the FE fanbase can be too preoccupied with what a FE game is "supposed to look like" and should give the game a chance for what it is instead of complaining what it isn't.

what don't apologize you were right.

[Interdimensional Observer]

My stance on SD's narrative is that it's an expertly crafted loaf of white bread. It's baked to perfection, but it's white bread, not a lot to it. IS could've done more, NM did more despite following the sales flop of SD (which itself had been preceded by other sales declines, all of which did more), and NM wasn't planned to be a loving swan song like Awakening either. 

Considering NM began the avatar-worship however and that that is part of the plot and character "more" of NM, that is a something of a serious drawback. Although Shadow Dragon and Binding Blade get accused of being dry crackers -which they are😉-, it doesn't excuse the opposite accusation of games like Blazing Sword and Modern FE™️ where the games are 16-layer cakes with an insufferable cacophony of incompatible flavors called "characters" -which they are😜-. On the latter error, shall I introduce you to Golden Sun: Dark Dawn, 8 talking characters on the team, so little of meaning was ever said by any of them. 

I'd say there's a middle ground here, but what I find middle-ground to others may be more of those fruit pies with bottoms so soggy that they fall apart the moment if you try lifting them out of the tins because IS shoved too much fruit (characters) into the pie crust (the game itself).

I can see what SD was going for, it wasn't a bad idea, but it didn't address the lack of a Hardin bond leading into Mystery, and certain moments like the flight to Pyrathi could've taken it slower.  Besides these, I would liked a few alternative facial expressions for Marth (ala FE3B2), several carefully selected character additions to the main story interactions (Hardin and Minerva, maybe Caeda- leaders), and some additional lore details and minutiae leading up to the battles. Nowadays, I'm obsessed with the notion of a necessity of ebb-and-flow between heroes and villains in FE, SD has the issue of passive, inactive villains letting Marth always take the momentum, although the opposite of where the villains are always winning and directing the heroes until the final battle is bad too.

 

1 hour ago, ping said:

No Fire Emblem story has even been made better by its game's support conversations.

I don't see the problem with this assertion. Story =/ supports for me, they're two totally different things, to be judged totally independently of one another. Supports can't do too much of significance to help the main story, because supports are ultimately optional and missable.

 

1 hour ago, ping said:

In terms of their writing, Fire Emblem games, starting with Binding Blade, have been thoroughly cut in two: Here's the main story, with the evil empire a-conquerin' and suddenly dragons, there's the episodical slice-of-life with wacky hijinks, romance, anime tropes, and the occasional wholesome episode - the latter in itself divided in a plethora of little storys that don't interact with each other, either.

Ever read Shakespeare's Henry V? There is a tiny scene where the French princess to be sent to wed Henry V is being crudely taught English by an old lady, it's basically "mock the Frenchie for how they botch English ha ha ha!". But the rest of the play is serious. Or what of Hamlet where the titular character's "Man interests me not, nor woman" is supposed to be a little innuendo, as is the case with telling Ophelia to get to a "nunnery", which at the time could be slang for "brothel"? Or what of Arthurian myth, where the serious spiritual quest for the Holy Grail is sat besides the scandalous love triangle and the epic fun of knights jousting each other off their horses as their lances break and then they clobber each other against the ground with their swords?

Light and dour are not wholly incompatible.🙃

And I don't disagree with you at all on the Part 2 "They did improve the gameplay" part of the SD stuff. Few who have asserted that have likely played 1 or 3. Not to mention SD began Weapon Rank Bonuses and Reclass, two now-essential (especially the latter) additions to the FE formula. -Would've been nice had SD included the Rescue command though.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Interdimensional Observer

[Ottservia]

1 hour ago, ping said:

Thing is, support conversations are quite universally not relevant to the main story.

I wouldn’t say that necessarily. There are plenty of supports that can offer plenty of thematic significance to the main story. Like how a lot of parent-child supports in awakening often involve the parent making amends for not being there for their kids and trying to correct their mistakes. Which in turn leads into awakening’s overall message of being overcome the failures of the past through working together. 
 

also as for another unpopular opinion. I honestly believe “avatar worship” is a completely empty criticism that makes no sense and doesn’t really say much of anything in the end. It’s not really a criticism at all when you get right down to it. I don’t think avatar worship even really exists in the characters it’s attributed too(except for maybe Kris but I haven’t played new mystery yet so). It’s just a completely dissmissive and reductive statement that ultimately adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to hurt discourse surrounding the discussion of understanding storytelling.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Ottservia

[Interdimensional Observer]

28 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

also as for another unpopular opinion. I honestly believe “avatar worship” is a completely empty criticism that makes no sense and doesn’t really say much of anything in the end. It’s not really a criticism at all when you get right down to it.

How about if it's worded like this?:

• Character A is too perfect and can do no wrong, thus, I find them boring.
  • Perfection in a main character is a trait I personally find bad, or at least in the instance of Character A.
  • You say Character A suffers or is flawed? I rebut that the suffering or flaws do not properly balance with the appearance of perfection as shown in the results of their actions and encomia given to them by others. Their divine nature drags along their superficial flaws of their mortal one as if they were but thin air, making the appearance of perfection seem sadly real.
  • Every time a person gives praise to Character A, I'm reminded of the imbalance of Character A.
  • You say Corrin isn't supposed to be perfect? I say you're nuts and how can you see Alm as seemingly perfect but not Corrin?😛

...I'm not taking a stance on Modern FE™️ and it's "perfect characters". Only a presenting an argument to see if you find it flawed.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Interdimensional Observer

[Ottservia]

5 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Perfection in a main character is a trait I personally find bad, or at least in the instance of Character A.

This isn’t really a criticism as it is simply a subjective statement of personal preference. It’s not wrong to feel this way but it’s not really a criticism.

 

6 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Every time a person gives praise to Character A, I'm reminded of the imbalance of Character A.

Again this is more so a statement of personal opinion than it is an argument with any real weight.

 

6 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

You say Character A suffers or is flawed? I rebut that the suffering or flaws do not properly balance with the appearance of perfection as shown in the results of their actions and encomia given to them by others. Their divine nature drags along their superficial flaws of their mortal one as if they were but thin air, making the appearance of perfection seem sadly real.

It really depends on the story and what it’s trying to say. Like perfect characters can work and have been proven to work. A character doesn’t need flaws for a story to function. All a “character flaw” really does in a story is to help instigate conflict and give meaning to said conflict and characters involved. There are plenty of ways to instigate conflict in a story without giving the protagonist a “character flaw”. You could write a static protagonist where  they don’t undergo any meaningful growth but insight growth in others and the world around them. The conflict there is more so in that world itself is flawed and needs to change. The reason I find that criticism empty because it’s mostly subjective and completely dissmissive of the vast number of ways a story can be told. It’s a reductive statement. When most people complain about “avatar worship” they claim it to be contrived and unrealistic but here’s the thing. Storytelling is inherently contrived and unrealistic.  Storytelling is artificial by nature. Nothing in a story happens naturally as everything in a story is there to help get across its ideas. To complain that a story is unrealistic or contrived is ultimately pointless because stories are contrived by definition. No story is ever truly realistic. To say something is contrived is to say that it was constructed but all stories are constructed. All stories are artificial. That’s just the nature of what storytelling is. It’s just kind of moot point to criticize something inherent to storytelling. 
 

If you need an example just look at dialogue. Real life conversation is a fucking mess with people stuttering, stammering, interrupting each other, forgetting what they were about to say, changing their minds or opinions, points being poorly formed but still understood due to familiarity both sides have with each other etc. Scripted dialogue made for the purposes of storytelling is not like this. Scripted dialogue is meant to be clear and understandable with denser and layered meanings. It’s set at a literacy well above two people talking to each other. The only times the above stuff happens in scripted dialogue is when it’s implemented purposefully by the author for the sake of characterization or creating tension/conflict or whatever other reason the author has in mind. If you think about it that way, any story with dialogue meant to convey greater meaning is contrived and unrealistic by definition.