Steampunk

I said FE Sues aren't any more Sue-ish than any other major Nintendo character and I've spent the past several posts debating this, so apparently someone does care. Read some of my older posts, and you'll find I said the exact same thing: it' really doesn't matter whether they are or not. If someone wants to debate it though, I am going to defend my statement. Unless I'm not supposed/allowed to in this thread. If so, sorry about that. I'm not asking anyone to do that. If you're going to jump on me for something, at least jump on me for something I've actually said or done. Calling Mario a Sue is a little facetious (just a little), but it emphasizes the point I was trying to make.

And I explained there is no definition of Mary Sue, only common themes and traits. I also explained why Mary Sues are considered poorly/underdeveloped characters even though working definitions don't outright state it. Shall I go through it again? He is a character in a story. Stories aren't simply than words on a page. They are action. Does Mario do any action in his video games? Yes, he does. I knew a person who studied drama in university who auditioned to be part of the Blue Man group. The people interviewing him asked him to tell them a story about something that happened to him in real life. When he was done, they asked him to tell the same story without saying a word. You don't need a Shakespearean screenplay for something to be a story. Mario is a character in that story. But even still, there are many Mario games. Did Super Mario Sunshine have a plot? Or perhaps Paper Mario? Or Super Mario RPG? We can also debate whether or not the Mario Party and Sports games should be considered (even though they are technically canon). We can also look at the Mario Wiki's description of Mario, which reads pretty Sue-ish. It's a bit of a stretch with Tiki, I will admit. Still, I can see how she'd be considered one. They don't have to be plot-central (though they usually are) so much as author-fantasizing.

Welcome to Serenes Forest. Hope you enjoy your stay, and stick around for a while. It's a pretty good community, so I think you'll like it here.

You are absolutely correct. I said that quite clearly in my previous post. Do you actually read the things I write? I'm still waiting for you to actually address anything I said about Samus being a Sue. I don't need a lecture in rhetoric; the fact that you've dodged my argument instead of refuting it tells me I've made my point just fine. Sorry, but three strikes and you're out. Your last couple of responses have nothing to do with what I'm arguing, so there's no point in continuing to annoy everyone else trying to post in this thread since you aren't going to refute my post anyway. If you ever want to seriously discuss this, I'll be happy to pick up where we left off. Until then, I think you said it best in your post in the video game influence thread: Funny, philosophy and semantics only seem to apply when you say so. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Then you should spend more time reading about how they actually refute arguments and less time obsessing over their word choice. More specifically, you should learn how to identify the context which something is being discussed and stay within the bounds of that context. Using philosophy to argue against a literary definition for a literary term isn't the best approach. That's great. I'm glad to hear you're expanding your intellectual horizons. Unfortunately, this debate is about a literary concept, not philosophy. You are absolutely correct. I know next to nothing about the philosophy of semantics, and I don't think there's any shame in admitting that. I do know rhetorical argumentation, and have enough experience with it to know when someone doesn't have a refutation but doesn't want to "lose" the debate. I've seen it from others several times, and have been there myself more than once. I'm not lecturing you in anything. I'm telling you to address the points I bring up instead of nit-picking the word choice. If you actually had a counter-argument, you wouldn't be doing that in the first place; so you latch on to the only thing you can argue, which is semantics. That's an unwinnable debate for either side in this case because 1) Mary Sue doesn't have a universal definition, only common themes, 2) we can spend the rest of our lives arguing over the meaning of every last word in whatever working definition we establish, and 3) Mary Sue is a literary concept, so philosophical semantics really doesn't fit here because we are taking the term out of its intended context (literature) and debating its meaning in philosophical terms (stripped of its literary context). So if you don't have any real points to argue and just want to talk about word choice, I think we're done here. You're using philosophy to argue something that is not being debated in a philosophical context. Mary Sue may be a philosophical concept, but it's use in this thread and its general meaning relates to literature. Can't speak for anyone else, but it makes more sense to me to discuss a literary topic in literary terms. That's one problem with people who argue semantics: they get caught up in what they think the word should mean that they forget language doesn't conform to their ideas of how something should be defined. That's why we have working definitions, and why many dictionaries (and Wikipedia, for that matter) will list multiple entries for the same term in different contexts (literature, mathematics, physics, etc)

If you've got legitimate counterpoints to raise, please raise them and don't waste my time attacking semantics. People only do that if they don't have a real counter argument but have to have the last word. I think you're smarter than that. Anyone who's spent any time studying character development in a creative writing understands why I said they are underdeveloped and I also explained in my previous post (albeit very briefly) how they are so. If you still don't understand it, I can refer you a book or two on the matter that provide a lot of insight in what makes characters deep and interesting and why "perfect" characters should be avoided.

I'd bring a lot of guns with me and become a merchant. Seriously though, probably a halberdier/soldier because I imagine it would be a lot easier to learn how to fight with a spear/pike than a sword. Plus my armor and shield would look boss. If not that, then a Manakete because if its worth doing, it's worth overdoing.

Must be. I have never seen/heard a single person complain about her being a tomboy specifically. Most haters I've come across just find her annoying Second verse same as the first. People around here are saying this or what?

She leads the Daein army to fight on behalf of Begnion senators who are, for the sake of plot, the one of "bad guys" in Radiant Dawn. Since she's on the wrong side of the conflict (as far as the story is concerned), the negative side of her actions are emphasized to facilitate her moral dilemma and also to help the player accept fighting the same people that were originally assumed to be the heroes. It's a technique story writers use. Basically, if you demonize someone, you don't feel as bad about killing them that sort of thing. On the other hand, the avatar is the hero of Awakening, so the story writers have to pass off his actions as heroic regardless of the not-so-pleasant implications. It's not so much a matter of everyone loving Robin no matter what as it is the story team wanting you to view it in a positive light. It all comes down to how the writers want you to feel about a certain event. Micaiah's actions are terrible because that's how you're supposed to think of it, and the avatar's choices are okay because they're fighting for the right side and you're supposed to support them. Sorry for taking a satchel charge to the Fourth Wall. I'll try to get it patched up ASAP. Edit: missed this post for some reason. My eyes must be going South on me. So what are you saying here? They're poorly developed/underdeveloped characters? That's exactly what a Mary Sue is: a particular class of underdeveloped good guy. It's a collection of what are considered humanity's finest qualities poured in to one generic "perfect man/woman" hero. I'll pick on Samus in particular because I love Samus and we always hurt the ones we love. How is it not Mary Sue-like of Samus to completely destroy two space pirate strongholds and exterminate two of the deadliest creatures in the galaxy all by herself using "lost" technology of a super-advanced, super secretive alien race (who raised her as an orphan because she's the sole survivor of some disaster) that only she can use? That's not to say she's a bad character. It works under the circumstances, but she is an underdeveloped character because she has precisely one dimension. She doesn't lie or steal. She doesn't have any addictions or chemical dependencies. She doesn't make morally questionable decisions. She doesn't put herself first in any given situation. She has 1 gear, and it's called "Savior of All Humanity." Samus doesn't have one single flaw or fallibility. She is completely selfless, courageous, and never fails. Mario and Link are the same way. There's no depth to their character. There are no shades of grey here. They are a compilation of what people consider to be the best qualities a person can have blended together into one generic "always saves the day" hero or heroine. It makes for a quick solution for a simple problem (a generic hero for a video game with shallow plot), but they are still Mary Sues whether we like them or not. Samus Aran is probably my most favorite heroine, but I have to be honest and say she is horribly imbalanced. There's no underlying motivation for why she does what she does. She's a hero, so she does heroic shit just because she's a hero and that's what heroes do. When all this comes together, we have a character with extraordinary ability and pure benevolence who never fails, and always ends up being the last best hope for humanity. If there were more people in the Metroid games, she'd probably be as popular as Ike is in FE9 and FE10. I say that because the scan logs from the Metroid Prime games that talk about Samus only have the best things to say about her. In fact, I recall one scan log from Metroid Prime 2 that smacks of hero worship from one of the dead soldiers. I'm not saying Ike or MU are any more deep or complex as characters, but they aren't really Mary Sues. The motivations for why these characters fight is much clearer than simply "I'm the hero." They also rely on other characters instead of them taking care of business while everyone else is along for the right. Ike has Soren do all the heavy thinking, Titania helps manage the company, Oscar cooks, Boyd is...Boyd, and he also has Volke around to do god knows what behind the scenes. That doesn't make him a complex character, but he's not a Sue either.

Yeah snap judgments are pretty unfair, but I don't think there's anything wrong with not liking Sully if you think she's genuinely annoying. I just don't think people should assume that everyone hates her for sexist reasons. I can see how a gung-ho, blustery attitude can wear out its welcome.

I don't see anything wrong with a new type. I remember when Dark and Steel were first introduced in the original Gold & Silver. Those two elements turned out alright. Sure, they don't have to introduce new elements, but they also didn't have to split Special in to Spec Att and Spec Def. They didn't have to introduce personalities or abilities. They didn't have to develop a breeding system, held items, double/triple battles, etc. They could have left the Gen I games alone and we could still be playing Pokemon Black with the Gen I battle system where pokemon fired off attacks at each other like battleships exchanging broadsides. Instead, they chose to implement new ideas to improve the product and add depth to the game. People took took advantage of these additions and innovated new ways of playing the game. With as many Pokemon they've got now, it's going to be really tough to have new ones that don't cover the same ground as the older ones. A new element or two would let them introduce new Pokemon that aren't recycled old ones with a different body. Who cares if it shakes the battle system up a little? Learn how to use the changes to your advantage like the Gen I veterans did in Gen II and Gen III.

It's really a matter of personal preference. Some men like women to be "one of the guys," and other men prefer more feminine women. It's really no different from women who like tough, masculine, alpha male guys vs. women who prefer more sensitive, delicate men. Nothing wrong with it. If you're going to marry someone, have children with them, and presumably spend the rest of your life with them, I wouldn't hold it against someone if they were a little particular in what they wanted in a life partner. Also, I forgot to mention Gerome. He looks like the Dick Grayson Nightwing, which is awesome.

Orly? The only people I can think of who don't like those characters (within their own universe) are the people who get their asses kicked by them. If we consider the Mario sports games canon, even Mario's enemies like him well enough to take in some leisurely activities with him without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the face while he's serving in Tennis. If we include the Sonic X cartoon (since Mary Sue applies to games, movies/tv, books, etc), Sonic is widely loved by the people living in whatever that city is called (I think there's even an episode dedicated to Sonic's rabid fans). Even if we only look at the games, the only time Sonic is disliked (iirc) is when people falsely believe he's turned evil in SA2. Link seems pretty well liked in all the Zelda Games I've played (going all the way back to LoZ 2, random strangers are more than happy to help him out and completely ignore him destroying their grass and pottery). Samus is a respected and revered bounty hunter, and the Metroid Wiki describers her as "of prestige fame." Not really sure where you get the idea they aren't liked. Unless you mean their nemeses, in which that would go without saying. Where you sit depends entirely on where you stand. Technically Micaiah was fighting for the "bad guys," so her acts would be portrayed as horrible. MU was fighting for the "good guys," so his actions would be considered brilliant. Unfortunately, good and bad, moral and immoral are not fixed ideas. They're pretty relative and more flexible than a slinky.

This description can fit just about every main video game character ever made. Link from LoZ, Samus Aran from Metroid, Mario from SMB, the Vault Dweller/Courier from Fallout 3/NV, Sonic from Sonic the Hedgehog, the list goes on. You could also argue that many supporting cast characters from Fire Emblem are Sues with this logic. There's no way Tiki, a really old (yet still young and beautiful) dragon priestess with the power to destroy the world, could be considered a Mary Sue right? The avatar character certainly gives the impression of being an expert at everything, since (s)he can play any class in the game (with gender restrictions), but I don't know think it's because the developers meant for MU to be an expert at everything. Rather, I think it's for character customization: letting the player choose what class or type of character they want to play. Everyone likes the avatar? Sure. It's a Nintendo game. Everyone is best friends with every other character in the army. MU certainly saves the day with cunning, but the avatar is a strategist: it's his/her job to outwit the opposition (like Soren, the strategic golden boy in Radiant Dawn). What about ability? Not so much. MU is only one unit in an entire army, and I personally don't solo maps with my avatar character on a regular basis unless he's over-leveled for the map. As for being a self insert...well, My Unit is My Unit: the whole point of the character is to think of him/her as you. Don't think self insertion applies in this case since the character is supposed to be a proxy of the player, like the Vault Dweller/Courier in the Fallout games. Just for kicks, here's a link to a Mary Sue test: http://forum.bravofleet.com/showthread.php?31-Bravo-Fleet-Mary-Sue-Test I know it's for Star Trek, but since that's where the term originated from, I suppose it's fitting. Maybe someone could make a Fire Emblem Sue Test based on this one. Anyway, think of each character as you answer those questions and that will give you an idea of where they rank. Only if you give a shit, though.

Love Cherche because A) redheads make life worth living and B) anyone strong enough make a wyvern behave by bashing it with a stick is A-OK in my book. Not only is her name sexy as hell, but she really seems to have an inner strength "tougher than I look" thing going, which I love. I just wish she had better reclass options. I wasn't impressed with her class set. I also like Tharja. She's a really dangerous unit, and I like the whole thing with her daughter. It's a different take on things, and I always respect a fresh approach. Her spouse and daughter conversations are pretty unique and stand apart from the cookie cutter "your my parents I love you guys/your our child we love you so much" thing everyone else has. What she did wasn't nice or morally right, but I think the dark, twisted Byronic Hero is a damn sight more intresting than a "baby face" Boy Scout hero. She injects some much needed shades of grey into a group of knights in shining armor IMHO, but maybe that's just me. Plus the implied date-rape in a Nintendo game made me do a double-take. How times have changed... Love Gregor because the guy is hilarious and awesome on the field. I also enjoy Henry because he gives no f***s about anything, which I respect. I also got a special place in my heart for Olivia. I remember when I first made her a myrmidon. The very first enemy she attacked, she yelled "stop staring!" and critted them to hell and back. That had me laughing for a good while, and it's been all uphill since then. As for characters I dislike, I found Viron annoying. I could handle the arrogance and "Don Juan-esque" demeanor until I found out why he was with Chrom's group. Thought that was pretty douchey, regardless of whether it was justified or not. Also didn't like Yarne. I guess I can see him being upset about the hand life dealt him, but I thought he complained too much and I got tired of it.

Staff kills are funny but I still love Laguz punching people to death better. If Caineghis could kill Ashera with a haymaker, all would be right with the universe.

Halberdier and Wyvern units never disappoint. They're probably my two favorite classes. Also like Snipers. For Laguz, probably have to go with Cat or Hawk.

Crossbows aren't completely useless. You can sell them for some gold.

Yeah, I'm not sure why the devs put so many under-leveled units in the DB chapters. I think Meg looks cute and I might try to use her on an Easy or Normal mode run for shits and giggles, but she's under-leveled when she joins and fails at her only job: to take hits. Her sword doesn't do her any favors in Easy/Normal either.

Just gonna throw this out there: The Wicker Man, Nick Cage Version. Seriously, this is either the best worst movie ever made or the worst best movie. I'm not sure which. Either way, this will have you doubled over and the "bad guys" win. What more can you ask for?

Just curious what difficulty people like playing on video games. A lot of people like ball-busting hard. Personally, I am more recreational than competitive and enjoy a more easy-going approach. What's your poison, and why?

Don't know the context of this one, but it's technically true. Canada is part of the North American continent, thus could justifiably be considered "American." Many South American countries also consider themselves "American." That's part of the reason I got in the habit of referring to America as the US or "The States". Technically, "America" refers to the combined North and South American continents. Don't know if it's been posted yet, but who can forget about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww She's never going to live that down.

There are always going to be people who don't really understand your challenges, though you might try to help educate friends and family if you feel they are criticizing you unfairly for things that are simply not realistic given your physical situation. Get them some books on the condition or simply tell them your experiences. A person cannot simply look at someone and know these things unless they've spent a good deal of time studying it or have lived it themselves. Also, they may be trying to encourage you, as said earlier. Don't assume that, just because they are pushing for you to go beyond your capabilities and to never be satisfied with the status quo, that there is any maliciousness or ugliness behind it. Unfortunately, as cliche as it sounds, the only way you can grow and evolve as a person is to push yourself and go outside your comfort zone. Best of luck to you. I don't have experience with physical disabilities, but I'm familiar with these types of challenges with mental disabilities.

3DS code (North America): 2922 - 0373 - 6749 Resident Evil Revelations: Vince Add me for some epic Raid Mode-age Might add more codes/usernames if I get a chance tonight.