How much does a character's performance as a unit affect whether or not you like him/her?

[Erureido]

One prominent aspect I've seen about the Fire Emblem community over the years are opinions on the characters from each game. In fact, fans tend to be quite vocal about these opinions, whether it be expressing how much they love the character or how much the character makes their blood boil.

Most of the time, fans make their judgement regarding whether or not they like a character based on how the character is written in the story/supports. They may factor a character's performance as a unit partially into the opinion: perhaps the character is such a good unit that it enhances their love for the character, or vice versa. They might also completely disregard their character's performance as a unit; the character may be a bad unit, but the person still loves/him/her because they really like the character's personality, backstory, or anything else related to his/her writing.

However, I've also seen a good number of fans who state whether or not they like a character is based on how the character performs as a unit. Perhaps they love the character just because of how the character carried him/her during a play through, but they don't mind the character is badly written because the character's awesome gameplay utility is all that mattered for the person in the end. In other cases, a person who dislikes a character primarily because of how the character constantly held him/her back in every battle to the point of *possibly* being benched; however, the character may be well-written, and thus the person doesn't entirely dislike the character because they account for the character's writing quality.

To illustrate this with a specific example, let's look at Python from SoV.

Python is a character who many fans like because of his humorous & sarcastic personality coupled with his interesting backstory and fun banters with other characters. However, he also has a reputation for not being a particularly good unit. In fact, Python has his fair share of haters where they despise him because his accuracy isn't good for an archer and his low defenses make him vulnerable to many attacks. 

On the one hand, you've got fans who adore Python because of how he is written. He may be a bad unit, but they don't care about that. All they care about he's just this laid-back dude who has some really funny moments, and that's why they love him. Some, however, find themselves simply liking Python and not loving him because he held them back in many battles with his lackluster performance (though they still like Python because they consider him to be an interesting character). This ends up being a case where Python's gameplay had some weight in formulating the opinion.

On the other hand, you've got fans who detest Python because he was nothing but a hinderance in every battle. Even when someone tells them, "But Python has a funny personality and a compelling backstory," they respond back by saying, "I don't care. He sucks in battle!" Some of these fans might even find themselves hating Python when they interpret Python's sarcasm as something akin to a mean jerk. There might also some fans though that still strongly dislike Python because of his lackluster gameplay, but they admit he is funny, and thus Python's standing in the writing department had some weight in making them not completely hating him.

Now that I've provided all this context, I want to ask you all this question: how much does a character's performance as a unit affect whether or not you like him/her? I'm curious to see where you all stand on this.

------

For those that want to know where I stand regarding this question, I'm a person who makes this judgement almost entirely by how the character is written. After all, when it comes to fictional characters like those in video games, my biggest impressions in regards to them come from their personalities, backstories, their dialogues, and how much they resonate with me. This is quite true for me when it comes to Fire Emblem, where many of the characters that I like from the series come from how I loved how they are written and the characters I dislike come from how they are badly written in my eyes. I almost never regard a character's performance as a unit as a part of the opinion. I might acknowledge parts of it, but it usually has little weight to that opinion.

To illustrate, I love Oboro because I find her backstory tragic and sympathetic, and I really liked what how she is characterized in supports. She turned out to be one of my best units in my Fates play throughs, but I don't tend to think much about that when I explain to others why she's one of my favorite characters. Her performance as a unit is a separate matter to me. 

On the opposite spectrum, Faye is one of my least favorite characters because she comes across as an annoyingly one-note character who also acts very petty towards others with her obsession with Alm. She may be a really good Cleric who helped my army out a lot, but I tend to not think much of it.

In summary, how a character is written leaves a far bigger impression on me that affects my opinion on him/her, whereas how he/she helped me out in my battles did little in making me decide whether or not I like the character.

[Emperor Hardin]

It depends, there are times where I feel a character is too good so its more fun to use a bad character(s) and try to make them serviceable.

For Echoes, I think Valbar would be a better example then Python. Being an Archer is a massive advantage, while being an Armor is basically a death sentence, especially in the remake.

[Anacybele]

How a unit performs is partially relevant. Simply because if I'm inclined to use a unit, I'll see more of that character's support conversations and thus may like how they were written. I'll quickly bench a unit that isn't doing well and then I won't get support conversations for them.

[thecrimsonflash]

I like using meg and mist in radiant dawn, so with that,  I like who I like and performance means virtually nothing.

[property of nuvelle]

Mmm I'd say that being a bad unit won't really make me dislike a character, but being a good unit can make me like a character.

[Fire Emblem Fan]

Liking a character as a unit and liking a character as a character are two separate things for me. They don't generally correlate at all. There's a couple exceptions, of course, such as Peri; I won't use her regardless of her performance as a unit because she's SUCH a garbage character, and one of the only ones I'd say I actually dislike in the entire series.

[Hanes]

To me supports are unimportant in rating units because the text doesn't change anything like to incentivize you to read them the devs give you bonuses for it but usually I only get supports to make a good unit better. 

In fact there is 2 and only 2 exceptions and the first one is Miriel, I might just be annoyed by me playing Lunatic but my god I detest hearing her "Ugh" everytime she appears on screen and I fail to press start quickly makes me so mad because I'm the one suffering here not you! And plus she isn't even that good, I've already got Robin AKA The fear of the russian and the USA's military combined, so you pretending to be smart is infuriating and she is also a feminist. OH BOY! That's fine for a medieval world setting, but the only reason she has that trait is to appeal to the radical demographic that exists today (Lol do these fems even play videogames? I dunno but according to one stinky pile of cells the main point of every game is to rape so I don't think so because they are all equal minded). And it's not even like "Women are strong too you know?" feminism like Mia's and I love Mia! I want to fucking hug you and keep you all to myself and see you suffer no harm I mean AHEM. No it's like to quote one conversation:
Boey: I see there are many girls in this army.
Miriel: OMGZ YOUR MYSOGINY IM GOING TO BURN YOU!!!!!!!!`!@!21!!

I just really hate Miriel, she is decent but the low might of magic sucks, atleast she is superior to Ricken who has trash bases and join time.


Then the 2nd exception is Rebecca and she is the polar opposite of why I have Miriel as an exception, where as Miriel is an exception to my "Performance>Writing/Character" because I really hate her personality and annoying vocabulary (It's not that I don't understand her it's just that I don't like reading 18 letter long words every sentence as if I were trying to learn german) despite the fact she can be good; I like Rebecca because I think her personality is nice and that she is really cute and that's also why she is my waifu and I love her so much despite the fact that she isn't really good with those bases and lack of 1 range.


For the most part though I rate a unit by their performance and outside of these 2 there are very few other characters who I pay attention to their personality too but those really dont affect my opinion on their performance, such are for example: Arthur, Eirika, Eliwood and Hector and probably more I'm forgetting.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Critical Sniper

[Emperor Hardin]

There are some games that just don't allow you to use certain units, especially on hard. 

Like using Donnel on Awakening Lunatic, Bantu on any hard difficulty in the DS remakes, ETC.

That doesn't mean I dislike those characters.

While I haven't played Berwick Saga, yet there is a very interesting character in the game that is a very bad unit.

[Hanes]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Like using Donnel on Awakening Lunatic,

Boy isn't that impossible? I think Donnel is hard to use even on Normal though because he doesn't really go anywhere the other units do not.

[Emperor Hardin]

3 minutes ago, Critical Sniper said:

Boy isn't that impossible? I think Donnel is hard to use even on Normal though because he doesn't really go anywhere the other units do not.

Essentially.

I really don't get why they didn't give him a Lance class. Then again a lot of Fire Emblem games, Awakening included, are good at making terrible balancing decisions.

Like Shadows of Valentia making Barons even more of a dead-end class then they were in the original or everything about how Awakening handled galeforce.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Emperor Hardin

[Shadow Mir]

2 hours ago, Emperor Hardin said:

For Echoes, I think Valbar would be a better example then Python. Being an Archer is a massive advantage, while being an Armor is basically a death sentence, especially in the remake.

I dunno - I occasionally felt like I couldn't rely on my archers much, especially when they're most likely looking at FE6-esque hit rates against the stuff I really want dead *cough Cantors cough*. And don't get me started on Duma Tower, where Leon would more likely than not whiff against the stuff that's most annoying to deal with (Dread Fighters, Bow Knights).

Anyway, I tend to separate characters as characters and characters as units.

[Hanes]

7 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Like Shadows of Valentia making Barons even more of a dead-end class then they were in the original or everything about how Awakening handled galeforce.

Uh they are worse than in FE2? I always thought they were different since a lot of classes also only move at 4.

[Emperor Hardin]

2 minutes ago, Critical Sniper said:

Uh they are worse than in FE2? I always thought they were different since a lot of classes also only move at 4.

No they are worse in Echoes: Shadows of Valentia as it removed their scant few advantages like unrestricted warp and a movement giving ring.

[Hanes]

1 minute ago, Emperor Hardin said:

No they are worse in Echoes: Shadows of Valentia as it removed their scant few advantages like unrestricted warp and a movement giving ring.

Ah yeah but overall those nerf all the other units too as well though. Like infinite warp for no other unit exists either and nobody can get a movement giving ring (well there is it actually increases mov by 1 and speed by 10 iirc)

[Emperor Hardin]

1 minute ago, Critical Sniper said:

Ah yeah but overall those nerf all the other units too as well though. Like infinite warp for no other unit exists either and nobody can get a movement giving ring (well there is it actually increases mov by 1 and speed by 10 iirc)

Those skills were tailor made for Armored units though. In any run, you'd always give a Baron, the movement ring, whilst the other classes with good movement got the powerful weapons.

Dread Fighters are far much more powerful then they already were with their halve all magic skill.

Bow classes now have good skill growth(class), improving the growth rates of all archers.

So really only Barons are worse off.

[Hanes]

4 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Those skills were tailor made for Armored units though. In any run, you'd always give a Baron, the movement ring, whilst the other classes with good movement got the powerful weapons.

Dread Fighters are far much more powerful then they already were with their halve all magic skill.

Bow classes now have good skill growth(class), improving the growth rates of all archers.

So really only Barons are worse off.

I wouldn't call the 4 mov of other units good and plus you could use the movement ring for someone with already better move like Alm, to have him obliterate everything faster.

They did get the nerf of not being able to use the devil sword without penalties.

In general all classes have higher growths.

They get some ups and downs but they aren't bad. 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Critical Sniper

[Shadow Mir]

21 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Essentially.

I really don't get why they didn't give him a Lance class. Then again a lot of Fire Emblem games, Awakening included, are good at making terrible balancing decisions.

Like Shadows of Valentia making Barons even more of a dead-end class then they were in the original or everything about how Awakening handled galeforce.

I would sooner mention Shadow Dragon integrating the weapon triangle in a game that clearly wasn't designed with it in mind. Or how axe infantry get the short straw almost Every. Single. Damn. Game. Special mention to Fates for having some of the absolute worst foot axes to ever disgrace the series.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Shadow Mir

[Emperor Hardin]

6 minutes ago, Critical Sniper said:

I wouldn't call the 4 mov of other units good and plus you could use the movement ring for someone with already better move like Alm, to have him obliterate everything faster.

They did get the nerf of not being able to use the devil sword without penalties.

In general all classes have higher growths.

They get some ups and downs but they aren't bad. 

Only Baron had 4 move, as well as sage which preferred magic rings anyhow. Every other class had 7 or more move.

Alm had Falchion or one of the OP swords.

Not Baron, Valbar's stat growths are even lower.

Barons are terrible in Echoes: Shadows of Valentia and have no advantages. 

I love Echoes: Shadows of Valentia and I love its designs for Barons, but mechanically Baron is terrible in the game. The DS Remakes actually did a better job balancing classes.

3 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

I would sooner mention Shadow Dragon integrating the weapon triangle in a game that clearly wasn't designed with it in mind.

Better then Fire Emblem Warriors, that implementation of the weapon triangle was a disaster.

3 minutes ago, Shadow Mir said:

Or how axe infantry get the short straw almost Every. Single. Damn. Game.

I don't wanna hijack this topic, but again we've discussed that really isn't the case, particularly in games like FE5, POR, RD, the DS remakes, the TearRing Saga games, ETC. 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Emperor Hardin

[Shadow Mir]

4 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Better then Fire Emblem Warriors, that implementation of the weapon triangle was a disaster.

Are you trying to kid me? I have issues with some design choices FEW made, but the weapon triangle isn't one of them. On the other hand, I just cannot think of any good reason why the WT needed to exist in SD since the lance abundance leaves sword units at a huge disadvantage. Not gonna say anything about New Mystery, though I believe the enemy lineup was more balanced weapons wise.

[Emperor Hardin]

1 minute ago, Shadow Mir said:

Are you trying to kid me? I have issues with some design choices FEW made, but the weapon triangle isn't one of them. On the other hand, I just cannot think of any good reason why the WT needed to exist in SD since the lance abundance leaves sword units at a huge disadvantage. Not gonna say anything about New Mystery, though I believe the enemy lineup was more balanced weapons wise.

Fire Emblem warriors literally only has one single Lance moveset, that is easily worse then Shadow Dragon and thats all I'm gonna say.

[Shadow Mir]

3 minutes ago, Emperor Hardin said:

Fire Emblem warriors literally only has one single Lance moveset, that is easily worse then Shadow Dragon and thats all I'm gonna say.

*laughs* I'll grant that having only one lance moveset without DLC is an issue, but SD's implementation of the WT was unnecessary and didn't really add anything to the game.

[Emperor Hardin]

1 minute ago, Shadow Mir said:

*laughs* I'll grant that having only one lance moveset without DLC is an issue, but SD's implementation of the WT was unnecessary and didn't really add anything to the game.

And no Armored units, and facing sword enemies constantly, and over half the roster using swords...

[Shadow Mir]

1 minute ago, Emperor Hardin said:

And no Armored units, and facing sword enemies constantly, and over half the roster using swords...

Sounds a lot like how SD primarily pits you against lance using enemies to me. Anyway, I think the sword overload couldn't really be helped since most of the notable characters in the series use swords. As for the lack of armored units, that could be attributed to the lack of noteworthy (as in actually prominent in the story) armored units in the series (about the only one I can think of is Oswin, who isn't from a focus game).

[Tamanoir]

2 hours ago, Emperor Hardin said:

While I haven't played Berwick Saga, yet there is a very interesting character in the game that is a very bad unit.

Or Renault. A fantastic character, but a really mediocre unit.

I tend to judge character more on their posssibilties of growing than their performance in general. So I generally uses prepromotes less, and Est or Villager more. BEcause it's really satisfying to turn a unit from zero to hero and have it wreck everything, even if it's not the most efficient way of playing.

That said... It depends how strongly I feel about a character. If I'm not particularily interrested in a unit, its performance will prevail (Stahl being blessed in Awakening is a good example), and it may makes me truly appreciate the character, even if I didn't mind it to begin with
But if it's a character I really like or dislike, I will use them no matter how well they perform. A good example is FE7. I really like Lowen, and I really dislike Kent, so I will use Lowen and not Kent, despite Kent being a good unit.

[Etrurian emperor]

It plays a part but not a very big one. Pent destroying an army by himself and then remaining a great unit throughout the game definitely makes me like him. But there are also other reasons I like him.

Shinon is am amazing unit but it does nothing to stop him from being a scumbag and so I still don't like him.

Ryoma breaks Birthright but doesn't really have much of a personality beyond that so he's merely meh to me.