Why does ever Fire Emblem game have to have an archetype?

[Just call me AL]

The mere fact that you can even do something like that when the chars are so drastically different, both mechanically and narratively, is simply beyond my fucking understanding. She isn't even your first mage, that's Lugh, and he has green hair and is male so he fits practically more things than she does, lol. Tangential relations like this are just so dumb.

Trying to enforce an archetype judging by the criteria of "lol it's this unit who joins at x point" is exactly what RJW is complaining about. Especially when there's other stuff that brings more characters to mind more clearly than their jointime. It's the same thing when trying to label Fury or Florina as "Caedas" when the only things they have in common is the fact that they're your first pegasus knight in their games. Whereas other characters such as Nanna or Lilina (the latter of whom clearly was based off of Caeda) have more going for them such as a previous connection with their game's main character. It would make more sense for archetypes to be defined by story similarities rather than unit similarities.

[Irysa]

Yeah and trying to stick more arbitary archetypes onto chars because of a single story trait is just as bad as "they're the same class and join at kinda the same time".

A lot of you hate Banzai but even a quick glance at his old archetype topic showed how flaky some of the comparisons really are between games, going purely by plot. Even our most consistent archetype, that of the Jeigan, is split because of inconsistencies to do with long term use/growth rates/age of the character/role as an advisor and other nonsense, and technically chars like Sothe mechanically function as a jeigan despite missing the horse...

Edited August 27, 2014 by Irysa

[electricwolf]

Quite a few people talk about archetypes as though they are a definite 'thing' and an uncreative, horrible thing at that.

Not to mention that a number of the archetypes are really forced. Just take a look at the FE:Wiki page on archetypes: Beowolf? That's just a character recruited for money. There's little else that links the characters there and to suddenly resign every gold-recruitable character to a archetype seems like lunacy to me. Some are riddled with exceptions, like the Minerva: red armor, female dracoknight. Haar, Cormag, Zeiss and Heath don't fit the definition apart from being a class and you really can't consign a character to an archetype based on just being a class (Gordins, Draugs, Julians etc.) otherwise you're going to end up classifying every character into an archetype.

People also don't seem to realise that there are reasons for certain archetypes being an almost permanent staple in Fire Emblem.

If you don't have the Jagen/Oifey, you're almost certainly going to get destroyed on the likes of Lunatic mode. They're also fairly useful to introducing the player to mechanics such as rescuing, weapon levels (as they can typically wield weapons the main lord will be unable to for some time) and provide a means of guidance for the lord and for the player by offering helpful tips, hints and doling out the almost mandatory start-game-exposition.

If you don't get an early-ish archer then you're almost certainly being restricted to 3/4 of the physical weapon types, the majority of ranged physical attacks and new players won't have the opportunity to learn about weapon ranges. The fact they all seem to share roughly similar character traits is because if you get a low level character at the start of the game, it doesn't make the most sense from them to be a grizzled veteran. I was surprised in FE8 when level 1 unpromoted Garcia was a fabled military leader who is mystically crapper than you'd expect from someone of that reputation.

"But these characters all have roughly similar stat advantages and disadvantages."

Yeah, probably because getting a mediocre-fighter with fantastic RES would send off quite a few peoples 'bench immediately' alarm. It doesn't take a genius to recognise that over 13 games you're going to get some rough repetition among stat spreads and growths.

"But that doesn't explain Red/Green Cavaliers."

Red and Green are simple colors. I think it'd be more noteworthy if the next set of cavaliers had one in turquoise, one in sepia and one in mint. For the same reason as a number of big companies only use simple colour logos, you're not going to try and over-complicate things.

The fact that the R/G cavs have different personalities is just common sense. You're not going to make two characters that do exactly the same thing as that just wouldn't be good for supports and would seem really lazy.

And they turn up early to give you a lesson in the weapon triangle. You've probably already waded through a bandit chapter with your sword-lord so now they're going to put a few mercs and maybe a thief in the level to encourage using their lances or maybe they'll start throwing in soldiers to really punish you if you make a mistake relating to the weapon triangle.

If you try and make a game in an established series while avoiding major archetypes, themes or the like, you're probably going to create a game that quite a few fans don't like or don't consider a classic game in the series. While I'm not trying to speak out against trying new things once in a while, the way quite a few threads have been lately I wouldn't be surprised if the next idea on these forums would be for a modern-day thriller about an ethnic minority, disabled transgender character fighting against white, middle-class, fedora-clad neckbeards.

[MeteoSage]

I've tend to imagine the archetypes holding up more statistically than character wise, but each archetype is different, like the Beowulf archetype. Some of them are flat out stupid though. The Minerva one in particular holds up poorly for all the reasons mentioned before as does the Merric and Gordin archetypes, while ones like the Ogma archetype and Navarre archetype are much better defined, yet still with some variation.

I like the archetypes though, even if the RNG gods often see to it that the character doesn't always fit the mold exactly. It would be nice for some new changes in stat distribution though.

[RJWalker]

One more example that bugs me. Putting Lehran in the Gotoh Archetype. Tell me this. What is the primary purpose of the Gotoh Archetype?

A powerful character that you're given at the very end so that players who don't have a good enough team can stand a chance.

Now tell me this. Is anyone who is capable of recruiting Lehran actually going to need him? You need a second playthrough as well as do a bunch of arbritary stuff just to get him. Anyone who was able to do all these things simply isn't going to need Lehran's help. Sure, he's still helpful even for those who don't need him but he fails at fulfilling the main purpose of his archetype.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Ranger Jack Walker

[dondon151]

the argument over archetypes shows the problem encountered by attempting to apply essentialism to fire emblem units. it's useful to have archetypes, even if their features are not consistent from game to game.

[Jotari]

One more example that bugs me. Putting Lehran in the Gotoh Archetype. Tell me this. What is the primary purpose of the Gotoh Archetype?

A powerful character that you're given at the very end so that players who don't have a good enough team can stand a chance.

Now tell me this. Is anyone who is capable of recruiting Lehran actually going to need him? You need a second playthrough as well as do a bunch of arbritary stuff just to get him. Anyone who was able to do all these things simply isn't going to need Lehran's help. Sure, he's still helpful even for those who don't need him but he fails at fulfilling the main purpose of his archetype.

He doesn't even come with an offensive weapon. You need to walk him over and trade him one of the blessed weapons your mages have in order to make him anything more than a staffbot.

[MeteoSage]

There's always the NPC archetypes as well.

The bandit twins (Paul/Jasmine, Vincent/Victor) in particular come to mind.

[Etria]

Because there are very few, if none at all, characters that are not a type already. Heck, some archtypes exist since the beginning of literature. And they're not bad in themselves and it's stupid that they're hated so. It's all a matter of how they are used and written. A stereotypical goody two shoes can be extremely interesting due to how he is written, what obstacles he meets and how he deals with personal blows.

That said, I don't find that personality-wise there are too many similar FE characters, especially not inside the same archtype. Some archtypes, though, are also very ... odd.

[IceBrand]

One more example that bugs me. Putting Lehran in the Gotoh Archetype. Tell me this. What is the primary purpose of the Gotoh Archetype?

A powerful character that you're given at the very end so that players who don't have a good enough team can stand a chance.

Now tell me this. Is anyone who is capable of recruiting Lehran actually going to need him? You need a second playthrough as well as do a bunch of arbritary stuff just to get him. Anyone who was able to do all these things simply isn't going to need Lehran's help. Sure, he's still helpful even for those who don't need him but he fails at fulfilling the main purpose of his archetype.

If anything, the Laguz Royals fit that Archetype.

[Rehab]

Imagining an entry in the series where a bunch of beginning chapters in a row start off with you in control of only one unit against many, a different one each time

Even with a setup as loosely defined as that, they could probably still find a way to use past unit distribution tendencies, but people arguing about whether "an archer who you're forced to solo a level full of peg knights with" fits "the Gordin archetype" would be beautiful