Do you dislike any popular video game characters?

[null]

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

I would disagree with this as I feel both games do have stories they want to tell. They’re just more light hearted in tone. I feel like tonally they’re very similar(or at least awakening is) to fairy tail or one piece. Overall light hearted but serious when it needs to be. Fates is more tonally similar to something like danganronpa or fate in some instances. Honestly fates does feel very visual novelly in structure but eh. I honestly don’t see the problem with stories having a more light hearted tone or more comedy centric supports. If everything is deep and serious all the time that gets tiring fast. You need that levity every so often.

I think Path of Radiance (maybe RD as well but I haven't played it yet) had it near-perfect in its balancing of a mostly serious tone with a few light-hearted moments here and there. Since the main focus of the FE series in general is war between groups and nations, it doesn't make much sense to have comedy be the prevailing mood throughout the games' stories. 

[Ottservia]

Just now, twilitfalchion said:

I think Path of Radiance (maybe RD as well but I haven't played it yet) had it near-perfect in its balancing of a mostly serious tone with a few light-hearted moments here and there. Since the main focus of the FE series in general is war between groups and nations, it doesn't make much sense to have comedy be the prevailing mood throughout the games' stories. 

But the thing is Awakening isn’t comedic at all in its tone. The only time awakening has any form of comedy is maybe a few instances in the beginning(where the tone is already very light hearted), DLC dialogue, or supports. The main story is mostly a general shounen story about characters overcoming personal struggle. Like I don’t understand this whole criticism of awakening being nothing but a light hearted adventure with no serious conflict cause there is plenty of serious and meaningful conflict within the story where the characters face adversity and hardship. Like need I mention chapter 10 or chapter 9 or the moment Lucina comes to the resolve to kill Robin for the sake of the world or just the main theme of the game in general in overcoming the failures of the past through working together. Are those not serious and meaningful conflicts. Like I don’t get it at all. That criticism just feels extremely tone deaf to me in regards to what Awakening’s story is about.

[Samz707]

5 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

But the thing is Awakening isn’t comedic at all in its tone. The only time awakening has any form of comedy is maybe a few instances in the beginning(where the tone is already very light hearted), DLC dialogue, or supports. The main story is mostly a general shounen story about characters overcoming personal struggle. Like I don’t understand this whole criticism of awakening being nothing but a light hearted adventure with no serious conflict cause there is plenty of serious and meaningful conflict within the story where the characters face adversity and hardship. Like need I mention chapter 10 or chapter 9 or the moment Lucina comes to the resolve to kill Robin for the sake of the world or just the main theme of the game in general in overcoming the failures of the past through working together. Are those not serious and meaningful conflicts. Like I don’t get it at all. That criticism just feels extremely tone deaf to me in regards to what Awakening’s story is about.

The light-heartedness can still be poorly placed.

Case in point, Virion's comedic intro completely clashes with the entire scene that literally just happened and is I think one of the worst character introductions I've seen in a video game. (Not that I see many terrible ones but good god is it obnoxious.)

Also I feel being heavily comedic in a Perma-death game is kinda a bad idea, for obvious reasons in that Anime trope hijinks (That I personally find pretty much just annoying anyway.) don't exactly mesh well with the fact someone possibly just died/got crippled and can never fight because plot-armor in the previous battle, if anything it kinda makes the cast look like they're not actually friends when they just don't react. (Yes I know other FE games don't do that mostly but they never tried to tell me that almost everyone got along and were friends so Awakening just draws attention to it when the "friends" never comment when another one dies.)

Edited June 24, 2020 by Samz707

[null]

5 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

But the thing is Awakening isn’t comedic at all in its tone. The only time awakening has any form of comedy is maybe a few instances in the beginning(where the tone is already very light hearted), DLC dialogue, or supports. The main story is mostly a general shounen story about characters overcoming personal struggle. Like I don’t understand this whole criticism of awakening being nothing but a light hearted adventure with no serious conflict cause there is plenty of serious and meaningful conflict within the story where the characters face adversity and hardship. Like need I mention chapter 10 or chapter 9 or the moment Lucina comes to the resolve to kill Robin for the sake of the world or just the main theme of the game in general in overcoming the failures of the past through working together. Are those not serious and meaningful conflicts. Like I don’t get it at all. That criticism just feels extremely tone deaf to me in regards to what Awakening’s story is about.

It's not to say that they aren't serious, but that the prevalence of comedic moments scattered throughout the game makes the serious moments less meaningful when they do come up. In contrast, Path of Radiance's (as well as other FE games) tone begins somewhat lighthearted while progressively becoming more and more intense until the game's end. It's a different approach, and one that I prefer. But I understand if you prefer the Fateswakening approach to storytelling. That's your subjective preference and that's fine.

Edited June 24, 2020 by twilitfalchion

[Ottservia]

14 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

It's not to say that they aren't serious, but that the prevalence of comedic moments scattered throughout the game makes the serious moments less meaningful when they do come up. In contrast, Path of Radiance's (as well as other FE games) tone begins somewhat lighthearted while progressively becoming more and more intense until the game's end. It's a different approach, and one that I prefer. But I understand if you prefer the Fateswakening approach to storytelling. That's your subjective preference and that's fine.

Okay but aside from the virion and Kellam introductions tell me where in the main story does the comedy ever take center stage to devalue any dramatic weight the story has? Maybe if you just so happen to get a more comedic support afterward but that’s not the fault of the main story just a random string of events that effect your personal experience. Other than though the story never really lightens the mood drastically enough to the point of devaluing the weight of the current situation. I mean yeah there’s the Sumia punching Chrom moment but that’s just a trope from shounen stories in general and is placed appropriately to lighten the scene in order to inspire hope to both the player and the characters. Chrom needed that punch to the face to snap out of it. Like again am I missing something? But I just don’t see how this is an objective flaw to the game’s writing. It may be a personal problem to some because tastes will be tastes but I don’t see how it is in any way a fair unbiased criticism of the game because to me at least that criticism holds zero weight.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Ottservia

[null]

6 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It may be a personal problem to some because tastes will be tastes but I don’t see how it is in any way a fair unbiased criticism of the game because to me at least that criticism holds zero weight.

That's the entire point of what I said. That it is my personal opinion. I never said that it was objectively good or bad or even spoke as if what I was saying was objective truth. There is no objective standard to what is good or bad in storytelling. It's all a matter of perspective. Personally, I have come to dislike the Fateswakening approach to storytelling, and for the most part, I don't like anime tropes in Fire Emblem. I don't think anime tropes generally belong in a game series that is about medieval-esque warring amongst factions. But that is how I feel and you don't have to agree with me, as you clearly do not.

Edited June 24, 2020 by twilitfalchion

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

That's the entire point of what I said. That it is my personal opinion. I never said that it was objectively good or bad or even spoke as if what I was saying was objective truth. There is no objective standard to what is good or bad in storytelling. It's all a matter of perspective. Personally, I have come to dislike the Fateswakening approach to storytelling, and for the most part, I don't like anime tropes in Fire Emblem. I don't think anime tropes generally belong in a game series that is about medieval-esque warring amongst factions. But that is how I feel and you don't have to agree with me, as you clearly do not.

No I understand all of that. I’m just saying you’re complaints make no sense. I can understand if you don’t like something that’s fine but what gets me is that you’re just saying something that’s not true. I’ve played PoR and Sacred stones and personally I find them to be no more light hearted or serious than awakening in terms of overall tone. They’re both stories that take themselves seriously when they need to and both stories never devalue the dramatic weight those moments have. Like I have to ask, did we play the same game? Cause the complaints being raised here I just simply don’t see except in maybe a few minor instances. Am I missing something? Am I just crazy? Cause I feel like if it was such a major problem that some people make it out to be then I’d least be able to see it to some prominent degree but I don’t. Not to sound pretentious or anything but these complaints just don’t make sense to me because from my numerous play throughs I never really ran into these problems. Character introductions and recruitment(like Gaius, Virion, kellam, and Anna) I get because yeah awakening does tend to make those more of a joke even in more serious scenes which makes them feel jarring but the whole of the overarching narrative being like that? I don’t see it at all because there are no major instances of that happening. So again I ask did we play the same game? Am I just crazy? Or what?

[Samz707]

40 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Okay but aside from the virion and Kellam introductions tell me where in the main story does the comedy ever take center stage to devalue any dramatic weight the story has? Maybe if you just so happen to get a more comedic support afterward but that’s not the fault of the main story just a random string of events that effect your personal experience. Other than though the story never really lightens the mood drastically enough to the point of devaluing the weight of the current situation. I mean yeah there’s the Sumia punching Chrom moment but that’s just a trope from shounen stories in general and is placed appropriately to lighten the scene in order to inspire hope to both the player and the characters. Chrom needed that punch to the face to snap out of it. Like again am I missing something? But I just don’t see how this is an objective flaw to the game’s writing. It may be a personal problem to some because tastes will be tastes but I don’t see how it is in any way a fair unbiased criticism of the game because to me at least that criticism holds zero weight.

It can honestly be something as simple as refusing to acknowledge stuff other FE games did.

Fe7 has us killing honest good Caelin troops because Lundgren is forcing them to fight us, this is treated as a bit of a reveal (since the characters assume the assassins are in with Lundgren intially if I remember) and the cast are honestly shocked and angered by this and bring it up when fighting Lundgren, we kill innocents essentially because we're forced to fight them but the case react oppropriately.

FE Awakening We kill border guards over a contrived misunderstanding at a checkpoint (Also did we really just go to get the help of a nearby nation without sending a messenger or something? also no, I do not believe that in a perma-death series, we are generally not killing enemy units because that's stupid to me.), no one comments on it and the actual leader of the checkpoint is kinda more upset she attacked royalty rather than any deaths on anyone's side, neither do the Shepards seemingly care at all they just killed innocents or if any of their own died. 

So the FE7 cast acknowledge "Oh crap we just basically killed innocent people doing their job" while the "Heroic" (because frankly they just come off as not very heroic people to be honest.) Shepards seemingly don't care they just killed essentially innocents over a misunderstanding. (And it never comes up again so this fight honestly never even needed to exist.)

So in trying to be "Lighthearted" and dodge the issue entirely....Awakening, for me personally, makes the cast look actually like worse overall people than Lyndis' Legion and seemingly lacking any sense of regret for killing innocents.

Again, Perma death so I don't think me setting a dude on fire with a fireball is going to just have him wake up later, I think it's safe to say when I deplete someone's health with a fireball he's extra crispy.

Also Sully kicks Virion because woman on man abuse is totally funny and totally doesn't make the woman look like a horrible violent person and some of the supports (such as Female Robin and Chrom) are just lame jokes that don't actually make the characters feel like they're bonding that make me want to stop reading supports altogether.

And by that logic I could argue you clearly really like Awakening and are therefore biased for it.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Samz707

[Ottservia]

2 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

FE Awakening We kill border guards over a contrived misunderstanding at a checkpoint (Also did we really just go to get the help of a nearby nation without sending a messenger or something? also no, I do not believe that in a perma-death series, we are generally not killing enemy units because that's stupid to me.), no one comments on it and the actual leader of the checkpoint is kinda more upset she attacked royalty rather than any deaths on anyone's side, neither do the Shepards seemingly care at all they just killed innocents or if any of their own died. 

No one(at least canonically) died in this chapter we’ve discussed this. You thinking anyone did is no more than personal headcanon which makes any criticism from that completely moot.

 

3 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Also Sully kicks Virion because woman on man abuse is totally funny and totally doesn't make the woman look like a horrible violent person.

 

Once again this is a subjective stance being pushed as a criticism when it’s not. I found it funny but does that mean I find actual woman on man abuse funny? No, that’s sick. Why would I even think this is abuse to begin with? It’s just basic slapstick. It’s not presented as abuse. Like I said you’re ignoring context.

[null]

17 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No I understand all of that. I’m just saying you’re complaints make no sense. I can understand if you don’t like something that’s fine but what gets me is that you’re just saying something that’s not true.

True according to whom? My experience with Awakening is obviously going to be different than yours because I see things differently than you do. Just because you feel that the story is more serious and I do not does not automatically make it so what I'm saying is untrue. The problem with what you're saying is that you're conflating subjective criticisms with objective fact. If I think, for example, that Ike is a bland character, but you do not, is either of us right or wrong, true or inaccurate? No. Because what I see as bland or boring is different from what you see as bland or boring. You can't just say something is untrue because you disagree with it. That doesn't constitute healthy debate and it weakens your overall arguments.

[Samz707]

16 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

No one(at least canonically) died in this chapter we’ve discussed this. You thinking anyone did is no more than personal headcanon which makes any criticism from that completely moot.

 

Once again this is a subjective stance being pushed as a criticism when it’s not. I found it funny but does that mean I find actual woman on man abuse funny? No, that’s sick. Why would I even think this is abuse to begin with? It’s just basic slapstick. It’s not presented as abuse. Like I said you’re ignoring context.

Where is it stated no one died? (And even then, thats a terrible contrivance and some pretty godawful writing which still doesn't change the fact the Shepards don't care if any of their own die nor do they show concern for the people they just cut down.)

Again, we're in a perma-death series, generally if one of my people get hit a bit with swords/arrows (even just twice in the case of Donnel), they die on the spot pretty quickly, I do not believe that me setting dudes on fire with the fireball or zap them with lightning, that they're simply just sleeping off what would logically be kinda horrific injuries.

In a game with Perma-death,  I'm pretty sure it's logical to assume that "People die when they are killed" and that by killing someone when I deplete their life that they are in-universe dead, that's how it works roughly 90 percent of the time in most FE games, it's how it works logically and it just in general doesn't make sense for people to magically walk off injuries (Yes I know magic heals injuries but it's established that you generally can't bring someone back from the dead, this isn't Konosuba where you can die every other day and come back, you die in FE, you're generally dead for good.) 

If my own units die 100 percent of the time, plot armor not withstanding, I think it's safe to assume the weaker, enemy units die from roughly the same punishment, I don't think its a Headcanon to assume "People die when they are killed.".

That's how most FE games work and that's how most strategy games (Such as X-com or Jagged Alliance. )work, you fill something with lead, burn it, crush it or slash it til' it stops moving/vanishes from the battlefield, it is dead. 

I don't see how assuming the basic rules of the game applying both ways is a headcanon.

It's slapstick that is just "woman attack man funny", it wouldn't be funny if it was the other way around to most people nor does Virion really deserve being kicked in the first place.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Samz707

[Etrurian emperor]

When it comes to tone the new style does mesh up at times. Being able to summon Felicia to have some skinship with her right after she saw her sister burning herself alive is probably a very good example. Or just anything about Peri. In Disgaea where everyone is an over the top evil demon she would have worked very well. She might actually have been funny. In Fates she's neither funny nor does she work well. All Peri's antics do is makes you wonder why Corrin and Xander are described as good people. They clearly don't mind Peri being a mass murderer yet they strangely become very angry when Hans and Iago do their mass murdering. 

[Ottservia]

3 minutes ago, twilitfalchion said:

True according to whom? My experience with Awakening is obviously going to be different than yours because I see things differently than you do. Just because you feel that the story is more serious and I do not does not automatically make it so what I'm saying is untrue. The problem with what you're saying is that you're conflating subjective criticisms with objective fact. If I think, for example, that Ike is a bland character, but you do not, is either of us right or wrong, true or inaccurate? No. Because what I see as bland or boring is different from what you see as bland or boring. You can't just say something is untrue because you disagree with it. That doesn't constitute healthy debate and it weakens your overall arguments.

*sigh* thank you for missing my point entirely. There’s a difference in saying Ike is a bland character and saying Ike is a bad character. I find Ike to be a bland character but I don’t think he’s a bad character by any means. Saying Ike is bad because he is bland is where I draw issue. That is what I mean you say something that isn’t true. Ike is by no means a bad character. His arc is clear and he served the role in his story well. I have no real criticism to levy at him even if I personally don’t care for his character. You’re telling me I can’t separate objective and subjective critique but I am perfectly capable of doing so. To say Ike doesn’t grow as a character is blatently incorrect. He does it’s just very subtle. To say that he’s bland because he doesn’t is just not a true statement. No he has moments of growth that make him into a compelling protagonist. I don’t find him interesting or anything but I can at least acknowledge that much because I can at least try to set aside my personal biases for the sake of fair criticism. 
 

Awakening is light hearted, yes, but to say it’s overall comedic in tone is just not true because it’s not. At that point I have to ask how you came to that conclusion. To say that would be to imply the story has no sense of dramatic weight or meaningful conflict which there is plenty of so that argument holds no water. Let me remind you of what you said:

1 hour ago, twilitfalchion said:

but that the prevalence of comedic moments scattered throughout the game makes the serious moments less meaningful when they do come up.

Which isn’t true. The comedic moments in awakening don’t devalue the serious ones at least later on because like I said Virion, Gaius, and Kellam’s recruitment dialogues are very tonally out of place on that I will agree and I can understand where people take issue because yeah it’s an actual problem that can be backed up. However to say the entire story is overall comedic in tone and devalues it’s serious moments is something I just don’t understand because there’s nothing within the story to back up that claim. when Lucina pulls a sword on Robin, there are no jokes, no slapstick, nothing to imply comedy. It’s a very serious scene and there’s no comedy before or after to devalue it. The same goes for Emmeryn’s death or even yen’fey’s. These moments are never devalued because of comedy. The story never has that problem. I mean if you feel that way fine you can feel that way but don’t try to justify it when you can’t.

[null]

10 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Saying Ike is bad because he is bland is where I draw issue. That is what I mean you say something that isn’t true. Ike is by no means a bad character. His arc is clear and he served the role in his story well. I have no real criticism to levy at him even if I personally don’t care for his character. You’re telling me I can’t separate objective and subjective critique but I am perfectly capable of doing so. To say Ike doesn’t grow as a character is blatently incorrect. He does it’s just very subtle. To say that he’s bland because he doesn’t is just not a true statement. No he has moments of growth that make him into a compelling protagonist. I don’t find him interesting or anything but I can at least acknowledge that much because I can at least try to set aside my personal biases for the sake of fair criticism. 

I never said that Ike is a bad character because he is bland. I said he's bland, plain and simple. And, for instance, if I believe that Ike doesn't grow as a character, then I am entitled to that opinion. Because that's what it is--an opinion. You keep saying that certain story aspects are either true or untrue, whether a character grows is purely subjective.

11 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Awakening is light hearted, yes, but to say it’s overall comedic in tone is just not true because it’s not. At that point I have to ask how you came to that conclusion. To say that would be to imply the story has no sense of dramatic weight or meaningful conflict which there is plenty of so that argument holds no water. Let me remind you of what you said:

 

This is once again where subjective opinion comes into play. If I think that Awakening is comedic in tone, then you have no right to dismiss my thoughts on the game's story because you think otherwise. Likewise, if I feel as though comedic moments occur more often than I would prefer, then I am yet again entitled to feel as such, because people's sensitivities to comedy, tragedy, etc. vary greatly.

At this point, I'm done with this discussion, not because I refuse to debate you, but because (1) I don't want to derail this thread into something it wasn't meant for as the past several comments have kind of done already, and (2) because having my statements and opinions be misconstrued and dismissed is rather frustrating, especially since it looks like won't be agreeing anyway. Thanks for the meaningful conversation.

[Samven]

As far as characters in-general go, I'm not a huge fan of Sephiroth.  I think he starts off very strong but his motivation and end goal just aren't anything Squeenix hasn't done before - and they seem very removed from what he apparently wanted during the Nibelheim flashbacks.  I like a villain with a bit more of a personal motivation.  Plus, this is purely an aesthetic choice but I just find the whole, "Flies with one wing" trope incredibly silly.

Regarding Fire Emblem, I'm not a big fan of Marth.  I just think he's kinda bland and uninteresting.  Ditto the Black Knight.  I don't hate him, I just don't really get the hype.  To me, Ashnard's devotion to Social Darwinism was both scarier and more interesting.  I appreciated that he was a villain who didn't think he was above his own monstrous ideology, it made him seem like someone who had thought through the logical consequences of his actions and fully accepted them for what they are.  Someone who is prepared to go that far with full knowledge of what they do is just way more intimidating to me than some yahoo in an iron mask.

Catchy theme song, though.

[henrymidfields]

Fire Emblem:
While I am not fond of the majority of Fates/Awakening characters, Corrin kind of takes the cake for me, especially in Conquest. At least with the majority of the Lords, they don't act like doormats over to their archenemy, and they seem to have something that gives them the charisma to lead. Ike? Well, we all know how much of a badass he was, and how in pre-modern days, the badass led the army. Roy? Well he's the one who actually did the homework on the Elibean version of Sun Tzu. Leaf? Well, I don't think he started with either, but he found out that he needed to grow up quickly, and he did so. Corrin? All I could think of is how naive and spineless he was until the very few final chapters. No growing up, no learning etc.

That being said, I also kind of dislike Ike as well. To a small extent, I didn't really like how he ended up shafting Micaiah after his own story in the prequel, but mainly I resent the fact that, when he got into Smash, he failed to properly bill the Tellius games for future fans, get people to buy the games, and just took the publicity himself instead.

Persona:

While there isn't really anyone that I actively hate, I think Naoto Shirogane was one of the few subpar characters in a series of otherwise compelling casts. Firstly, I expected her social link to be an examination of her struggle with ageism and sexism that has not been properly picked up by the media who was only interested in Naoto's celebrity status. And I expected scenes showing conflicts with the police who brushes off Naoto as a proverbial whiny princess, or even sexually harass her. Or maybe other townsfolks in Inaba who just assume her to be an amateur because their sexist/ageist prejudices, in spite of her being on television as an actual professional. Instead, it was just a series of detective games by her grandfather, which says relatively little about her inner conflicts.

Worse, she could (and should!) have been involved in Persona 5 (both mainstory and Scramble) alongside with Sae, and she could have expanded the cynical world of law enforcement from her own eyes. Perhaps she ended up being disgraced from being a celebrity detective due to sexism, and/or because her narrative did not match up with Shido's. Perhaps we could have a scene of her and Akechi plotting against each other. Perhaps the moral of the story for her is that her celebrity status means nothing if others don't follow her. It cannot be that difficult to write her in while keeping it series-newcomer-friendly because the story would still be written as if you're still meeting her for the first time as you're now playing from Ren/Akira's viewpoint and no longer Yu/Souji. Mitsuru (and the Shadow Operatives in general) has the same problem as well, though I like Mitsuru in P3 better than Naoto in P4.

Everything else:

Luigi (a former all-right character turned into a sissy dago coward)
Peach (Another retarded sissy who keeps getting kidnapped despite managed to get into Smash. Seriously, fuck you, bitch.)
Spirit Tracks Zelda (Oh my Naga, her childish personality was so annoying...)

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by henrymidfields

[zenya]

When it comes to popular characters, I hate Caspar and Seteth with a PASSION. Caspar never changes and while I understand his motivation, I just hate how inconsiderate and hardheaded he is. And with Seteth... I hate how popular he is in the fandom. I understand that he just wants to protect his daughter but he's overbearing to the point of annoyance. Also, he just kind of stands by while chaos is going on in the church and just saying to Rhea, "are you... sure this is morally right..." when it comes to Byleth like lol. 

In response to the discussion: I'm seeing a lot of people say that they ''prefer Edelgard as a villain'' but honestly, I don't get that stance, unless you're saying she's supposed to be a villain with a just cause... does her uprooting of the status quo, even if the status quo is wrong, make her a villain? Trying to make things equal and not rely on crests... doesn't sound very villainous to me. And hey, don't get me wrong, Rhea is one of my favorite, if not my favorite, Three Houses characters. I just don't really get where the idea of Edelgard being a villain is coming from.

Edited June 30, 2020 by zenya

[starburst]

Is Four Houses popular? I do not mean in here but in general. If it is, then I hate the girl with the stripper hat. Always have, always will.

[Etrurian emperor]

Lu Bu is kinda popular and even iconic in his own little circles. Do not pursue Lu Bu and all that. 

I've never been impressed by him. Lu Bu is famous for being this unstoppable enemy who you can only flee from. Maybe its due to my late entry into the Warriors franchise but I don't understand this reputation at all. It could be that Lu Bu really was impressive in earlier games but whenever the story allows you to fight him for real he always ended up being extremely easy. In my first Warriors game it only took a single musou attack to defeat him. Ever since I've always viewed Lu Bu as kinda pathetic and unworthy of the type. 

Aside from that Lu Bu is also just kinda boring. Just an angry dude who wants to fight all the time and betrays everyone he works for. Lu Bu dying pretty much immediately into the Three Kingdoms story doesn't really help either. That also prevents me from liking him in other series. Everyone was hyped when Lu Bu got into Total War but I didn't see the hype in a character who died very early in the story and got defeated in all the wars he took part in.