Anyone hope IF's characters will be less shallow?

[Thane]

If we want to talk about gimmicky characters, I think Ilyana and Oliver are right up there with Kellam.

[Raguna]

In her defense, Ilyana had the benefit of the 5-support system of the Path of Radiance games so people would have to play the game a good amount of time while adding her in sufficient stages with one of her conversations partners. Oliver is a gimmicky character, but that was more because he wasn't suppose to even survive and show off Begnion's corruption.

I would still defend Ilyana however because she genuinely dislikes war and questions why they fight it in Radiant Dawn even when they don't dislike the other side if you let her fight against Micaiah and in the same stage if she's pitted against Zihark, she realizes that what he fights for is false and recruits him to her side. Also Zihark was the only guy who wasn't duped by her constant hunger to buy her food so she's also a tricky person to be with since she can usually manipulate other to buy her stuff without much effort. She has depth, not the deepest, but not so shallow either.

[Thane]

In her defense, Ilyana had the benefit of the 5-support system of the Path of Radiance games so people would have to play the game a good amount of time while adding her in sufficient stages with one of her conversations partners. Oliver is a gimmicky character, but that was more because he wasn't suppose to even survive and show off Begnion's corruption.

I would still defend Ilyana however because she genuinely dislikes war and questions why they fight it in Radiant Dawn even when they don't dislike the other side if you let her fight against Micaiah and in the same stage if she's pitted against Zihark, she realizes that what he fights for is false and recruits him to her side. Also Zihark was the only guy who wasn't duped by her constant hunger to buy her food so she's also a tricky person to be with since she can usually manipulate other to buy her stuff without much effort. She has depth, not the deepest, but not so shallow either.

I get what you're saying, but according to a lot of people who like to harp on Awakening's cast, that wouldn't be enough, since most characters in Awakening would have similar stories to tell. Just take Severa, someone who's pretty much in there to be a token tsundere, who tries to save someone in her paralogue and then manipulates her father into shopping with her.

[Honey Bunny]

In her defense, Ilyana had the benefit of the 5-support system of the Path of Radiance games so people would have to play the game a good amount of time while adding her in sufficient stages with one of her conversations partners. Oliver is a gimmicky character, but that was more because he wasn't suppose to even survive and show off Begnion's corruption.

I would still defend Ilyana however because she genuinely dislikes war and questions why they fight it in Radiant Dawn even when they don't dislike the other side if you let her fight against Micaiah and in the same stage if she's pitted against Zihark, she realizes that what he fights for is false and recruits him to her side. Also Zihark was the only guy who wasn't duped by her constant hunger to buy her food so she's also a tricky person to be with since she can usually manipulate other to buy her stuff without much effort. She has depth, not the deepest, but not so shallow either.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Thane on this. Even though me and a few others have pointed that Kellam isn't the shallowest character in the universe people still harp on about him. Once I get my hands on Path of Radiance I'll try out Ilyana though. Sounds like she could be interesting.

[BlueL]

I didn't consider Awakening's characters overall to be shallow. Just that some were better than others. On the surface a lot of them are basically tropes. Lon'qu the silent assassin with a hidden past, Frederick the butler, Cordelia the Catria of the group, Gaius the candy lover. But if you dig deeper they are much more complex. Why does Lon'qu hate women and avoid ppl? He was a street orchin who befriended a girl but failed to save her when she was killed. Thus he carries a fear that any women who gets close to him will die. Why is Cordelia always so curt and afraid of being called genius? Inside she feels guilty bc of her fellow pegasus knights sacrifice. She has survivor's guilt. Why is she the Catria? Because Chrom is a chick magnet. Eventually she gets over him and falls for whoever she actually spends time with. Is Gaius just a candy loving criminal? No he is actually much nicer for example saving Mariabelle in the past, helping Chrom learn to relax a bit, repaying bubbles for keeping his secret. Is Tharja just a typical stalker? No she is actually a child-abuser who plays mix and match curses on her daughter yet still loves her (sort of)

Then of course there is Mariabelle and Kellam who are incredibly shallow imo except for a laugh when you go to sell Kellam's stuff.

But I wouldn't call Awakening's characters shallow and tbh shallow characters have always been a part of FE anyways. Not every single character can have an extensive background detailing their entire lifestory. Otherwise they wouldn't be side characters, they would be main characters.

I was with you until you called Maribelle shallow (incredibly shallow at that), but regardless posts like this make me wish there was some kind of like button on these forums.

I wonder if some of the people claiming the all or most of the supports are shallow actually read more than one or two supports for most characters. Not liking them because their "cartoon-y" or "trope-y" is subjective (neither inherently makes a character bad), but I think it's just false saying most of the supports are shallow. At least more shallow than in any typical FE game.

It could have definitely benefited from more platonic supports though.

Edited April 21, 2015 by BlueL

[falcoknights]

i mean, i'm not hoping for too much, but i do hope that the supports revolve around more than one thing for each character and explore more facets of them, as it makes them more complex- gaius and libra's a support is a good example of that, imo.

so if the supports explore more and have more of a variety of topics, then i'd probably be very happy and pleased with just that- i say probably because well, anything can go wrong when it comes to supports a lot of the time.

Edited April 21, 2015 by falcoknights

[Thane]

I was with you until you called Maribelle shallow (incredibly shallow at that), but regardless posts like this make me wish there was some kind of like button on these forums.

I wonder if some of the people claiming the all or most of the supports are shallow actually read more than one or two supports for most characters. Not liking them because their "cartoon-y" or "trope-y" is subjective (neither inherently makes a character bad), but I think it's just false saying most of the supports are shallow. At least more shallow than in any typical FE game.

It could have definitely benefited from more platonic supports though.

Fully agree with this. I've seen more than a few people, for instance, claim that Virion is a boring, shallow character based on pretty much one support conversation, and when they decide to read the rest, they come to realize he's actually a fairly interesting. There's one thing if you just don't like him regardless, but I wouldn't say he's shallow by any means.

I really do think Awakening's cast gets far more flak than it deserves. Yes, some characters are too gimmicky and don't have well-rounded supports, a lot of the romance feels rushed due to the format and there should be more platonic relationships. However, that's bound to happen in a game with as many characters as Fire Emblem, and Awakening did manage to make a lot of their characters likeable and memorable; even the more shallow ones do actually have some good lines.

Also, like I stated earlier, it may just have to do with the fact that I really didn't enjoy Radiant Dawn, but you can't complain about Awakening's characters and then praise Ilyana and Oliver, for instance.

Lastly, Maribelle is considered shallow? What.

[Irysa]

Context doesn't equate to depth. A character having a reason for being one dimensional isn't remarkable in itself, what creates depth is the creation of scenarios wherein a character's natural inclinations are challenged, and they demonstrate ability to reapply themselves and move past it, generally via a readjustment of some kind to their outlook. That's what makes a character arc in a story. Having said that, there are most certainly "generic" character arcs as well, but the arc itself being unoriginal isn't the issue, it's the presentation of the narrative THROUGH that arc.

Awakening does a passable job of pulling off basic, midly entertaining character arcs in it's scripts. However the reason people complain about the "shallowness" of the cast is due to the fact that considering the raw size of each character's support log, very few units bring anything different to the table between each set of scripts. They're incessantly repetitive, not just in highlighting personality traits at the start, but the actual process from which they move through to advance. To exemplify this, unit levelup quotes, ingame battle lines, barracks banter, event tiles, etc, are generally static, and all embody the "initial" state of a character. This only serves to further retract from whatever supposed "development" the cast go through. There are a fair amount of supports in the game that give greater insight into a character's motivations and goals, but for the most part, a character's primary endearing qualities to an individual are determined from the get go with their initial demeanour. The end result is that most characters are practically caricatures more than characters, relying on exaggerated traits as ways to be defined against anyone else.

Look at it this way - what gives Lucina (comparative) "depth" in Awakening isn't the context of "she came from a bad future" - it's that she's a character full of internal turmoil and conflict. She tries to distance herself from her own feelings and put her duty above all else, but she can't maintain that facade at all times (Marth no More). She tries to be an affirmative leader, but her inexperience causes her to fumble frequently and she doesn't have the resolve to stand against people she sees as superior to her (Post C15 dialogue, Post Battle C17 with Basilio, various exchanges with Chrom etc). She's torn between a burden of responsibility to her own future and the current timeline. (Post C21 "Might I have a Word?" scene). She is easily the character who is most frequently challenged in a meaningful way by non trivial situations throughout the game, despite being (at best) a tertiary protagonist. As a result, I view her as the most "human" member of the cast.

Now in Awakening's defence, it's not like the majority of the series actually does a comparatively better job on a case-by-case examination of supports, and you'll notice I didn't bring up Lucina's supports either, since she suffers from the same issues as everyone else in them (besides her Chrom support). The difference is that the older games simply didn't (or didn't have the capability to) impose a strong impression of an indivdual character incessantly like Awakening does. There's a downtime, a measure of blandness that helps to break up your impression of each character, where Awakening is acutely focused almost all the time. Without this downtime, it's essentially a gamble on whether each gimmick hits your funnybone or turns your cute radar on to whether you find the character endearing or not. This is really polarising and is why a lot of people just end up so disdainful about the cast in this game, as aspects that they actively dislike are being highlighted all the time, only serving to further a player's distaste.

tl;dr - Awakening's supports and characters aren't strictly speaking "worse" than previous games, but suffer from overexposure and hyperexaggeration more than neccessarily "bad writing".

Edited April 21, 2015 by Irysa

[Thane]

That's very well put, and I agree with you. The quantity of supports in Awakening, most likely as a result of the child feature, have been criticized and rightly so, since it's rather off-putting to marry Cordelia to someone, only to have her complain about Chrom not loving her in the next support.

However, what bothers me in this whole debate is that Awakening's cast get so much flak by people who haven't even bothered reading some of the better support conversations. I've only played Path of Radiance, Radiant Dawn and Awakening, so my opinion may not be worth that much when I say that deep, complex characters and stories aren't something I relate to the Fire Emblem series, but that's why I just find it odd when people complain about the writing, rather than putting it like you did.

[Irysa]

People often highlight Cordelia (and Yarne sometimes), but honestly nearly the whole cast has the same issue. The kids aren't any better.

[spoiler=Kjelle x Lucina A]

Kjelle:
Indeed. I'm sorry, Lucina. I know at times my ego can be difficult to deal with. I may be strong, but I am aware I'm not strong enough to win a war alone.

Lucina:
I'm pleased to hear it.

Kjelle:
I still think strength is important! That's not changing. But maybe it's time I started being more...inclusive?

Lucina:
Oh? What did you have in mind?

Kjelle:
Yes, I'll train the rest of this sorry lot until they meet my standards!

Lucina:
Excellent! I'm sure the others will be thrilled to have your help in training.

Kjelle:
We'll get a tougher fighting force, and I won't have to look at weaklings all day! It's a win-win arrangement!

Lucina:
Assuming everyone is able to kepe up with your training...

Kjelle:
As you said, we're all equals. No exceptions, no special treatment! It's time these Shepherds were truly run through their paces! Now, a daily 10-mile run would be a good start. Then perhaps...100 log-lifts? 200?

Lucina:
Perhaps this wasn't such a grand idea after all...

[spoiler=Kjelle x Brady C]
Brady:
Then ya gotta train me, Kjelle! Ya just gotta!

Kjelle:
No.

Brady:
What?! How can you say no? I'm pleadin' with ya here!

Kjelle:
I'm busy enough with my own training. I don't have the time to waste on you. Besides, you're frail. If you snapped in two an hour into my training regimen, we'd be short a healer.

Brady:
...Guess there ain't much I can say to that little number. Too weak even to get less weak...Gah, look at me! What a Melvin!

Kjelle:
Hey, don't let it get you down....Or just let it get you down somewhere else. I'm busy. *disappears*

Brady:
Yeesh. No harsh truth a total lack of sympathy can't make worse...

Like, I can go on, but you get the idea.

Anyway, it's not that "deep complex characters" are some kind of longstanding series tradition (there are a few though), rather the tradition is more "there are a lot of individual, unique characters" and starting around FE6 or so became "there are a lot of individual, unique characters with distinct personalities". It's honestly pretty ambitious to go further than that, and attempt to pull off "depth" for all of the units (or at least most of them) in games with such large casts, but I'm a little surprised you'd say you felt there was no significant difference in the Tellius games, given that they actually did at least try to go the extra mile. The Tellius games put a significant amount of effort into giving a substantial amount of side characters plot important roles and extra development by integrating them into the main script, or at least having them respond to it through base conversations. There are a bunch of throwaways undeniably, but the way the support system worked in FE9 allowed it to be more connected to the narrative as well, given that the timing for particular support conversations often coincided with main plot developments. I wouldn't say that makes those characters "deep" or "complex" (buzzwords anyway) but it helps make them easier to empathise with, and feel more character and less caricature.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Irysa

[Book Bro]

tl;dr - Awakening's supports and characters aren't strictly speaking "worse" than previous games, but suffer from overexposure and hyperexaggeration more than neccessarily "bad writing".

Great post, totally agreed.

[TheCaptain]

The biggest problem I have with Awakening and it's characters/supports isn't that the characters are "shallow", as their personalities are pretty well developed, but my problem is with lack of back story. Yeah, there are plenty of small references, mostly about family and really general things about them, but we don't get to learn that much about any significant events the characters went through prior to the game like we do with many characters in other FEs.

[BlueL]

Context doesn't equate to depth. A character having a reason for being one dimensional isn't remarkable in itself, what creates depth is the creation of scenarios wherein a character's natural inclinations are challenged, and they demonstrate ability to reapply themselves and move past it, generally via a readjustment of some kind to their outlook. That's what makes a character arc in a story. Having said that, there are most certainly "generic" character arcs as well, but the arc itself being unoriginal isn't the issue, it's the presentation of the narrative THROUGH that arc.

Awakening does a passable job of pulling off basic, midly entertaining character arcs in it's scripts. However the reason people complain about the "shallowness" of the cast is due to the fact that considering the raw size of each character's support log, very few units bring anything different to the table between each set of scripts. They're incessantly repetitive, not just in highlighting personality traits at the start, but the actual process from which they move through to advance. To exemplify this, unit levelup quotes, ingame battle lines, barracks banter, event tiles, etc, are generally static, and all embody the "initial" state of a character. This only serves to further retract from whatever supposed "development" the cast go through. There are a fair amount of supports in the game that give greater insight into a character's motivations and goals, but for the most part, a character's primary endearing qualities to an individual are determined from the get go with their initial demeanour. The end result is that most characters are practically caricatures more than characters, relying on exaggerated traits as ways to be defined against anyone else.

Look at it this way - what gives Lucina (comparative) "depth" in Awakening isn't the context of "she came from a bad future" - it's that she's a character full of internal turmoil and conflict. She tries to distance herself from her own feelings and put her duty above all else, but she can't maintain that facade at all times (Marth no More). She tries to be an affirmative leader, but her inexperience causes her to fumble frequently and she doesn't have the resolve to stand against people she sees as superior to her (Post C15 dialogue, Post Battle C17 with Basilio, various exchanges with Chrom etc). She's torn between a burden of responsibility to her own future and the current timeline. (Post C21 "Might I have a Word?" scene). She is easily the character who is most frequently challenged in a meaningful way by non trivial situations throughout the game, despite being (at best) a tertiary protagonist. As a result, I view her as the most "human" member of the cast.

Now in Awakening's defence, it's not like the majority of the series actually does a comparatively better job on a case-by-case examination of supports, and you'll notice I didn't bring up Lucina's supports either, since she suffers from the same issues as everyone else in them (besides her Chrom support). The difference is that the older games simply didn't (or didn't have the capability to) impose a strong impression of an indivdual character incessantly like Awakening does. There's a downtime, a measure of blandness that helps to break up your impression of each character, where Awakening is acutely focused almost all the time. Without this downtime, it's essentially a gamble on whether each gimmick hits your funnybone or turns your cute radar on to whether you find the character endearing or not. This is really polarising and is why a lot of people just end up so disdainful about the cast in this game, as aspects that they actively dislike are being highlighted all the time, only serving to further a player's distaste.

tl;dr - Awakening's supports and characters aren't strictly speaking "worse" than previous games, but suffer from overexposure and hyperexaggeration more than neccessarily "bad writing".

I appreciate a well-written and thought out critique rather than the typical whining that all the supports involve pies, lack any relationship building or all one-dimensional. I think most of your post is spot-on.

But as far as overexposure, I don't really agree with: "They're incessantly repetitive, not just in highlighting personality traits at the start, but the actual process from which they move through to advance. To exemplify this, unit levelup quotes, ingame battle lines, barracks banter, event tiles, etc, are generally static, and all embody the "initial" state of a character. This only serves to further retract from whatever supposed "development" the cast go through."

Yes their lines are all static in those situations you mentioned, but would we really expect their dialogue in those change when (or if) the characters developed in their supports? Characters that do show development in one or some supports don't often show it in their other supports (referring to Fire Emblem supports in general). Likewise, I don't think development or new events (outside of marriage) that occur in supports should be expected to be reflected in the situations you mentioned. So I don't think that it "retracts" the development they go through, unless it was development related to the main story. Supports are more like optional side stories. So I think it's fair that those situations you mentioned generally show their "initial" state of character, although I wouldn't criticize anyone for wanting to see multiple sides of the characters in all those non-support dialogues/lines.

As for being hyperexaggerated, I disagree that most of the characters suffer from being hyperexaggerated, only a few are truly hyperexaggerated. A lot of the cast is exaggerated. But I think most of the characters who are exaggerated are done so in a non-annoying or gimmicky fashion. It just that there are so many of them compared to past games that even the ones who only slightly bigger than life get grouped in with ones who really are exaggerated. When you combined that with how many of the supports can be "trivial", people call them cartoony or tropey. But I don't think most of the cast is so exaggerated that it's harder to empathize with them.

Of course I also don't think not being able to empathize or relate to a character prevents them from being interesting or likeable.

Edited April 21, 2015 by BlueL

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

well i'm certain out of every trait that cordelia has, and she has alot of different traits, they could've used something other then "i love chrom" for her level up and barrack quotes.

hell not all of her supports revolve around that, so why must her other lines do?

hell on some sites she's called "cuckdelia" or fans of her are called 'cucks" same with whoever she ends up supporting, even if it had nothing to do with chrom (like Kellam's supports with her)

Edited April 21, 2015 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Irysa]

But as far as overexposure, I don't really agree with: "They're incessantly repetitive, not just in highlighting personality traits at the start, but the actual process from which they move through to advance. To exemplify this, unit levelup quotes, ingame battle lines, barracks banter, event tiles, etc, are generally static, and all embody the "initial" state of a character. This only serves to further retract from whatever supposed "development" the cast go through."

Yes their lines are all static in those situations you mentioned, but would we really expect their dialogue in those change when (or if) the characters developed in their supports? Characters that do show development in one or some supports don't often show it in their other supports (referring to Fire Emblem supports in general). Likewise, I don't think development or new events (outside of marriage) that occur in supports should be expected to be reflected in the situations you mentioned. So I don't think that it "retracts" the development they go through, unless it was development related to the main story. Supports are more like optional side stories. So I think it's fair that those situations you mentioned generally show their "initial" state of character, although I wouldn't criticize anyone for wanting to see multiple sides of the characters in all those non-support dialogues/lines.

Actually yes, I'm going to be frank - if people want more meaningful development, there are going to be cases in which dialogue should be different to reflect changes in a person's attitude. Seriously, take Maribelle - she has so many support conversations that centre around her learning about common life, and gaining newfound respect for non nobility; and yet she still slags off with classist rhetoric in over half her other non support related dialogue. And that's not just in a "random banter" aspect, I mean adjusting actual support conversations too. Path of Radiance did it previously, so there's a precedent. Ultimately, it's a quality over quantity issue though, and if we're in dreamland and asking for everything to be perfect, then the sky's the limit. How about I say Brady's growth rates increase after Kjelle puts him through her training regimen?

Perhaps it's defeatist, since I don't geninuely expect them to put the effort in for such things anyway, but all these extra ways of adding emphasis to each individual unit come at a cost because they highlight the same problems the old support systems had; lack of meaningful development across a support so as to maintain an initial image, or potentially meaningful development squandered for practical/mechanical reasons. I would simply like to move past such problems, although I wouldn't hold my breath on such things being given as much attention as I'd like. That being said, it's not a dealbreaker or anything, but I'd like to think we can always hold things to a higher standard.

As for being hyperexaggerated, I disagree that most of the characters suffer from being hyperexaggerated, only a few are truly hyperexaggerated. A lot of the cast is exaggerated. But I think most of the characters who are exaggerated are done so in a non-annoying or gimmicky fashion. It just that there are so many of them compared to past games that even the ones who only slightly bigger than life get grouped in with ones who really are exaggerated. When you combined that with how many of the supports can be "trivial", people call them cartoony or tropey. But I don't think most of the cast is so exaggerated that it's harder to empathize with them.

Well yes, it's hardly a first for FE to have exaggerated characters. Most fictious works tend to. But to say that "only a few" are hyperexaggerated is a gross understatement. Owain's chuunibyou, Kellam's dissapearing act, Tharja's yandere/lack of empathy, Severa's tsundere, Noire's two personality gimmick, Miriel's kuudere ("That is a ring"), Cynthia's feudal tokusatsu obsession, Lon'qu's gynophobia, Donnel embodying every country bumpkin stereotype in the book, Yarne taking "lovable coward" to extremes, etc etc etc. Seriously, it's probably going to take less time for me to list people that don't fit under such labels. These characters aren't just larger than life, they're almost entirely defined by those things in their entire manner. That is to me a textbook definition of hyperexaggerated.

Of course I also don't think not being able to empathize or relate to a character prevents them from being interesting or likeable.

Sure, but it's harder to appreciate characters you may not neccessarily be predisposed to like on a superficial level when there's no sense of a human past there to empathise with. Which goes back to what I said about it basically being a gamble - it's a fact that far more players have completely polarising views about individual most liked or most loathed characters in this game compared to any other in the series. That isn't a coincedence.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Irysa

[TwinBlade]

I don't really have high hopes that the characters will be all that complex. We have two sides to a game, and both are full sized games I guess, so they might be taking short cuts to get the game done quicker. I really hope not, but I'm definitely not getting my hopes up too high.

[Respite&Nepenthe]

No. I want the characters as one-dimensional as possible.

Heh, but in all seriousness, characters don't NEED to be incredibly complex for the game to be fun. Characters are important, don't misunderstand, but a simple character can be fun, too.

[BlueL]

Sorry this looks sloppy, I did all this from my phone as I'm without a computer.

Actually yes, I'm going to be frank - if people want more meaningful development, there are going to be cases in which dialogue should be different to reflect changes in a person's attitude. Seriously, take Maribelle - she has so many support conversations that centre around her learning about common life, and gaining newfound respect for non nobility; and yet she still slags off with classist rhetoric in over half her other non support related dialogue. And that's not just in a "random banter" aspect, I mean adjusting actual support conversations too. Path of Radiance did it previously, so there's a precedent. Ultimately, it's a quality over quantity issue though, and if we're in dreamland and asking for everything to be perfect, then the sky's the limit. How about I say Brady's growth rates increase after Kjelle puts him through her training regimen?

Perhaps it's defeatist, since I don't geninuely expect them to put the effort in for such things anyway, but all these extra ways of adding emphasis to each individual unit come at a cost because they highlight the same problems the old support systems had; lack of meaningful development across a support so as to maintain an initial image, or potentially meaningful development squandered for practical/mechanical reasons. I would simply like to move past such problems, although I wouldn't hold my breath on such things being given as much attention as I'd like. That being said, it's not a dealbreaker or anything, but I'd like to think we can always hold things to a higher standard.

[\quote]

Oh I don't disagree with that. At least some supports should be adjusted. I'd like it if it happened as well, and you used a perfect example with Maribelle. I sadly haven't gotten to play RD yet, so I was unaware that they've done it before, I just knew I'd never see. It in the GBA ones.

My point was them not adjusting general banter and supports to reflect development, particularly the former, shouldn't be counted as a negative. Like you said, it's just them failing to reach what would be a great ideal. I also dislike the people who act like it's flaw specific to Awakening not seen in other good Fire Emblem games.

Well yes, it's hardly a first for FE to have exaggerated characters. Most fictious works tend to. But to say that "only a few" are hyperexaggerated is a gross understatement. Owain's chuunibyou, Kellam's dissapearing act, Tharja's yandere/lack of empathy, Severa's tsundere, Noire's two personality gimmick, Miriel's kuudere ("That is a ring"), Cynthia's feudal tokusatsu obsession, Lon'qu's gynophobia, Donnel embodying every country bumpkin stereotype in the book, Yarne taking "lovable coward" to extremes, etc etc etc. Seriously, it's probably going to take less time for me to list people that don't fit under such labels. These characters aren't just larger than life, they're almost entirely defined by those things in their entire manner. That is to me a textbook definition of hyperexaggerated. [\quote]

When I said they aren't hyperexaggerated, I didn't mean the stereotypes they fall into, so much as how they are handled. Yes for some Characters their exaggerated traits are almost always there (Kellam's invisibility, Tharja being a yandere, etc) but with some of the others you mentioned like Noire who have plenty of individual supports and even entire support groups where their "gimmick" never comes up. So while they still have those stereotypes as their defining trait, it doesn't dominate their supports the way people who claim they are extremely shallow (compared to last FE games) claim.

Additionally, it wouldn't make sense of some of their "gimmicks" weren't present a lot (ex: Lon'qu's gynophobia or Owain being a character), though I admit those are the minority.

Sure, but it's harder to appreciate characters you may not neccessarily be predisposed to like on a superficial level when there's no sense of a human past there to empathise with. Which goes back to what I said about it basically being a gamble - it's a fact that far more players have completely polarising views about individual most liked or most loathed characters in this game compared to any other in the series. That isn't a coincedence.

Very, VERY true. I happened to find several of the exaggerations done in an enjoyable way that made me like the characters.

Edited April 22, 2015 by BlueL