how do you define a well written character?/what makes you like/dislike a character?

[Ottservia]

On 12/20/2018 at 5:23 PM, Roland said:

In every other Fire Emblem game, there was at least 7 to 12 characters that I liked, while with Awakening and Fates there were only 2. 

I take slight issue with this statement because it implies that just because you like a character that makes them a “good” character. This is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. There are plenty of characters I like that I can safely say are poorly written(corrin, soleil, and to a lesser degree peri being the most prominent examples that spring to mind) and vice versa. There are plenty of characters I dislike/don’t care for that I can consider well written(celica(to some extent anyway), makoto from persona 5, virion, and shiro). You see liking/disliking a character has very little relevance to analyzing a character’s objective writing quality at least to me anyway. I mean you can like or dislike any character for any reason because that’s just your subjective opinion and you are completely entitled to that. However I take issue when you try and present that as an argument as to why a character is well or poorly written.

Not to say any of the arguments presented on this thread are purely objective because that’s impossible but they are backed up with deep logical reasoning and not just because they “like” this character and nothing more.

apologies if I sound hostile or harsh it’s just that this is a little bit of sore spot for me.

[Jotari]

10 hours ago, Otts486 said:

I take slight issue with this statement because it implies that just because you like a character that makes them a “good” character. This is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. There are plenty of characters I like that I can safely say are poorly written(corrin, soleil, and to a lesser degree peri being the most prominent examples that spring to mind) and vice versa. There are plenty of characters I dislike/don’t care for that I can consider well written(celica(to some extent anyway), makoto from persona 5, virion, and shiro). You see liking/disliking a character has very little relevance to analyzing a character’s objective writing quality at least to me anyway. I mean you can like or dislike any character for any reason because that’s just your subjective opinion and you are completely entitled to that. However I take issue when you try and present that as an argument as to why a character is well or poorly written.

Not to say any of the arguments presented on this thread are purely objective because that’s impossible but they are backed up with deep logical reasoning and not just because they “like” this character and nothing more.

apologies if I sound hostile or harsh it’s just that this is a little bit of sore spot for me.

I'd add to that we're dealing with visual characters in this series too. People could like a character purely based on their appearance with the writing being completely ancillary, and I don't just mean breasts, this would go for a lot of pre Game Boy Advance characters who have little to no dialogue. Galzus for example is a character I really like, but not because he's particularly deeply written, but because he has a bad ass sprite, really high stats and chases your party with dangerous music playing. For something like a video game these factors are definitely important for creating a good narrative around a character, but I can't exactly say it's part of how a character is written.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Jotari

[god_ewan]

#1 is character design. How a character looks is the first thing you notice. For example Tibarn’s design shows that he would rather act than talk and that he is a strong fighter.

#2 is personality. How a character acts and speaks is the second thing you notice. For example the Black Knight has little to say and acts quickly and efficiently.

#3 is how dimensional a character is. Meaning what a character talks about or why they act. For example Camilla is very one dimensional. Everything is about Corrin. Everything she says or does involves Corrin. 

#4 is a character’s presence and development. How often a character is involved in the plot. The more screen time a character gets the more developed they are. For example Ike being a main character has huge character development throughout two games. 

[Mylady]

On 24/11/2018 at 5:18 PM, Glaceon Mage said:

#1 thing is don't bore me, a character can be a real jerk but if the character is at least vaguely interesting while being a jerk I'll still at least not hate them as a character.  

Characters that fail this include FE10 Ike, Validar, Garon, Grima (in FE13).  There's nothing interesting there.  They're either a bland gary stu (Ike), or villains who are just too mustache twirling (the rest).  

#2 is don't take screentime that could have been easily given to someone more interesting/get shoved in my face.  

So this. I just dislike when characters are shoved in my face when they are really flawed but it's overlooked. Being too perfect and everybody loves them, or being really flawed and nobody calls them on their bs is bad and unrealistic. I also hate characters that are mainly love interest of someone but have no chemistry, or they exist just to be pretty damsels in distress, or knights in shiny armor. In the same vein, characters that are just fanservice without anything more going on are bad imo...

 

I don't dislike tropes if they are applied on comedic side characters or they have an interesting subplot or background showing why they are like that though. Fire Emblem has a lot of units, so I understand that it's not possible to develop all of them with the same quality 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mylady

[Integrity]

good night thread you weren't very good to begin with and yet we hardly knew ye