Should big character gimmicks be done away with? (FE characterization/writing discussion)

[Refa]

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's all well and good to say the characters should be deeper and less gimmicky, but there is a practicality to it. Fire Emblem has a lot of characters. Like well over a thousand. Each game they need to make literally dozens of characters that fit appropriately into the story, but are not so indispensable that they can't be killed. That is hard. Like really hard. They need to not only establish the characters as different and distinct to each other, but also every character they've already created before (even in the realm of archetypes). It's a monumental task. The fact that they home them in to just one key trait isn't surprising at all. It's practically a necessity. Yes, it would be nice to have better characters, but gimmicky characters are sometimes the only thing that's possible when there's just so much work to be done.

You can have easily identifiable character traits without them feeling like gimmicks, though.  That's just bad characterization, no excuses about it.  They've done it in past games, so there's nothing that's stopping me from believing that they can do it again.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Refa

[Ertrick36]

I think the first question is kind of pointless...  Who wants gimmicky, poorly written characters?  Is there anyone here who actually finds Effie's "I'm always hungry" gimmick funny?

I didn't play the Judgral games, nor have I beaten any of the FE's besides the last four ones (though I have played through them enough to get a general grasp of their overall writing style).  Shadow Dragon and Mystery didn't have too much character writing to begin with.  Mystery was mostly exposition dialogue, which is a different kind of bad altogether.

I can say that I hate that they feel the need to express first impressions through gimmicks.  Even my favorite character in Fates, Oboro, is introduced in this fashion (hur hur, I made a pun), with both her racism and adoration of Takumi being all-too-prominent.  I think the biggest issue with the last two games isn't so much characters being gimmicks, but rather their gimmicks being emphasized too much.  The gimmicks need to simmer down a bit and give the better aspects of these characters breathing room.

Also, I remember Thane or someone said something to similar effect...  It's severely unfair to compare the best aspects of the oldest games to the worst aspects of the newest games, or vice versa.  That's a straight up straw man argument, and I feel a lot of people tend to use it to justify their love of any era.  If you place a garbage can next to a golden statue, of course people are gonna say the statue is more beautiful (unless you're Frank Reynolds), and not many will look inside the can to see that it contains a piece of art of equal caliber to the statue, nor will they investigate as to why the art was put in there in the first place.

14 hours ago, DaloDask said:

Something I feel I should note about this poll is that there's no middle ground for wanting or wanting to get rid of gimmicks. Either 'Gimmicks are shit, get 'em out of here' or 'Oh man, gimmicks are amazing, everybody loves Peri right guys? guys?'

My main problem with this poll.  Also, I prefer to have varying degrees one way or the other, as I almost seldom venture towards extremes.  I don't know if I'm necessarily in the middle on the second choice, but I'm certainly not one of the extremes, either.  It's not a question you can answer with either a "yes", "no", or "meh".  In fact, I think there are a lot of layers to discuss in regards to the writing quality, and there's no simple answer.

14 hours ago, Baldrick said:

A gimmick character is acceptable if they:

- Provoke interesting reactions from the characters they support with

- Drop the gimmick when "shit gets real"

For the latter, base conversations need to come back so they can respond appropriately to the main plot.

Yeah, I do agree...  Many question why Arthur, a very heroic man of justice and righteousness, is willing to work for a king who orders his men to slaughter innocent civilians.  I'd like to have seen his thoughts on this.

14 hours ago, Lightchao42 said:

Take Kellam, for example. Most of the fanbase dismisses him as a walking meme, but how many supports focus on his lack of presence? You can look for yourself, but the answer is one (his support with Robin). His supports with Cordelia and Olivia involve it in some way, but they mostly focus on Cordelia's own attempts at stealth and Kellam helping Olivia (even if she thinks he's a talking tree). Every other support of his either barely mentions his gimmick or doesn't feature it at all.

And what about Cordelia? Only her supports with Gregor and Henry focus on her crush on Chrom (and those mostly focus on their attempts to help her about it), but from how the fanbase talks about her, you'd think her crush on Chrom was her entire character.

Kellam's gimmick is included in other supports (Donnel comes to mind), but he does, for the most part, have more to his character than just being a lacking presence.  Though first impressions are important, and as much as we shouldn't dismiss the high points of a character, we also shouldn't dismiss the low points.

As for Cordelia... that's wrong.  Her S-Support with Frederick is notorious for essentially making Fred into her sloppy second.  The rest of their supports are pretty much building up to that, as well.  And as others have said, it does come up more frequently than that; I think you're underplaying how often the gimmicks appear.

[Interdimensional Observer]

7 hours ago, Thane said:

I'm confused by this thread. I think the people who want more gimmicky characters rather than well-rounded ones on Serenes can be counted on one hand, making this thread seem like just another thread where we praise the glory of the older titles.

To be fair, most people criticize the latest games for fear they constitute a trend that will continue into the future. One reason why fewer people make topics about FE4's giant maps or other criticizable things in older games, because we know they didn't become a trend that would continue ad infinitum. If we already knew that FE Switch has no overly gimmicky characters, we wouldn't be complaining about it in FEs 13 and 14 so much.

Nostalgia I'll admit is a second reason.

35 minutes ago, Slumber said:

They've done characters with "gimmicks" in the past, like Canas, who likes books, but they use that in a way that makes Canas well rounded.

Canas I will concur is a good character- but even he gets a garbage support in the form of Vaida.

Raven, I bring him up because a recent topic on him led me to read all of his supports, is probably one notch down from Canas. Not bad, the Rebecca support is great, the Priscilla and Lucius ones are little too edgy, but otherwise solid, his Bartre is a mixed bag, and his Wil may make you want to will your own death.

FE7 Bartre on his own (sans FE6 knowledge) is one note and bad across the board. Karel, another 6&7 character who also lusts for battle in FE7, is done a decent bit better, but his Geitz support is an atrocity.

Regarding Pent- being older and married help him (and Canas) so much. Despite having a mere 2 supports with everyone not his wife, Pent manages to deliver again and again (his Hawkeye is weak, but blame Hawkeye). Quality need not the full CBA support chain, nor romance.

[Thane]

37 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:

Also, I remember Thane or someone said something to similar effect...  It's severely unfair to compare the best aspects of the oldest games to the worst aspects of the newest games, or vice versa.  That's a straight up straw man argument, and I feel a lot of people tend to use it to justify their love of any era.

That's indeed something I've said multiple times and something I feel happens all too frequently in this fandom. This is not to say that there's nothing to critique about Awakening and Fates, goodness knows I give the latter in particular a very hard time, but it's pretty tiring to see regardless, and can at its worst come across as being blinded by nostalgia, cherry picking examples and hypocrisy. 

Hell, I remember reading several old posts from around 2009 where people bashed the Tellius games for including cat girls, Path of Radiance being too easy and Radiant Dawn having the Blood Pact, among other things. By only focusing on the bad things you can make any game sound thoroughly stupid. 

I just don't get this obsession with trying to arbitrarily divide the fanbase between old fans and new fans, especially since the fandom has never been united to begin with.

Now, before someone tells me that gimmicks didn't use to be such a big problem in older titles, let me just stop you right there and say that I agree with you. The current support system is in dire need of a revamp which we might be getting in Shadows of Valentia. I just think the issue is overblown, and that the older titles had their fair share of issues as well, so I don't think it's as easy as just turning back the clock and implement an older system.

13 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

To be fair, most people criticize the latest games for fear they constitute a trend that will continue into the future. One reason why fewer people make topics about FE4's giant maps or other criticizable things in older games, because we know they didn't become a trend that would continue ad infinitum. If we already knew that FE Switch has no overly gimmicky characters, we wouldn't be complaining about it in FEs 13 and 14 so much.

Naturally, and that sort of discussion is great, but there's a difference between criticizing something and fine-combing it for flaws and comparing them to the best older titles have to offer. Had I started the series with Blazing Blade, chances are I wouldn't have felt a strong desire continuing to play the series because there are so many characters I find bad in that game, and I'd take a harmless, ridiculous gimmick like being unable to be seen over an edgelord like Jaffar and Karel any day of the week.

[Res]

2 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

I think the first question is kind of pointless...  Who wants gimmicky, poorly written characters?  Is there anyone here who actually finds Effie's "I'm always hungry" gimmick funny?

I can say that I hate that they feel the need to express first impressions through gimmicks.  Even my favorite character in Fates, Oboro, is introduced in this fashion (hur hur, I made a pun), with both her racism and adoration of Takumi being all-too-prominent.  I think the biggest issue with the last two games isn't so much characters being gimmicks, but rather their gimmicks being emphasized too much.  The gimmicks need to simmer down a bit and give the better aspects of these characters breathing room.

Actually I'm in at least one group where Effie is a firm favourite of several people, so yes.

I wouldn't call Oboro's traits (both of which have very reasonable, realistic explanations) gimmicks. 

[Ertrick36]

1 hour ago, Res said:

Actually I'm in at least one group where Effie is a firm favourite of several people, so yes.

I wouldn't call Oboro's traits (both of which have very reasonable, realistic explanations) gimmicks. 

I wasn't expecting anyone to answer that... well actually, maybe I half expected someone to.  I guess every character has their fans, but I do think those fans would at least like to see the writers integrate a character like Effie more into the story.  I think I'd like every character more if they responded to the world around them instead of them just feeling totally detached from these events narratively-speaking, and I most certainly am woeful that the only characters who remain relevant are the royals.  Though that's partially because I don't really like most of them.  Not hate; just am not a big fan of them.

Also, when I say "gimmick" in regards to Oboro, what I have in mind is her "demon face" that's sometimes comically instinctive.  It gets to the point where she scares little children and, in a discussion with Benny, she can't "revert" to a normal face because she's "super sensitive about any negative emotions from Nohrians" as if she has some almost telepathic connection to them.  Though I do admit her introduction isn't nearly as silly as this stuff, and I'll also admit that there weren't any support lines with her that I didn't like.  I only referred to it because it's just one example of how they try to cram the "most interesting" aspects of even a good character into a drawn out introduction.  Not the worst, but I'm not sure it's an intro that would pull in some who might otherwise appreciate her character.

3 hours ago, Thane said:

I just don't get this obsession with trying to arbitrarily divide the fanbase between old fans and new fans, especially since the fandom has never been united to begin with.

Now, before someone tells me that gimmicks didn't use to be such a big problem in older titles, let me just stop you right there and say that I agree with you. The current support system is in dire need of a revamp which we might be getting in Shadows of Valentia. I just think the issue is overblown, and that the older titles had their fair share of issues as well, so I don't think it's as easy as just turning back the clock and implement an older system.

Yeah, I'm a relatively new fan, but I like some of the old games as well.  I'll criticize any of the games, but I make a point to never attack a person for having a different opinion than I do or to avoid offering one-note opinions without elaborating.  Some treat differing opinions like an affront on everything they know and love.  And they also tend to take everything said on the internet too seriously.

And I have to wonder if the Echoes support system actually will fix it...  It seems to emulate the GBA support system, but those have their share of issues as well.  What it ultimately comes down to is the quality of the writing staff.  And I mean the whole staff, not just a few writers.  After all, Fates had some good writers, but the staff as a whole seemed to have plenty of shortcomings.  As long as there are holes in the team or the team doesn't work well together, there will always be significant flaws in the storytelling.

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Refa said:

You can have easily identifiable character traits without them feeling like gimmicks, though.  That's just bad characterization, no excuses about it.  They've done it in past games, so there's nothing that's stopping me from believing that they can do it again.

Well personally I think more gimmicky characterisation can be excusable given the context. How many other pieces of media can you think of that makes 80+ distinct characters every three years? And it's not even necessarily bad characterisation. Less deep perhaps, but some of these characters are immensely popular outside of the less core fanbase you have here. If a character can resonate and be appealing to a large number of people than I think it is succeeding in characterisation. Maybe not from a literary perspective but from a business perspective at least. Which ultimately is something that's a lot more important to IS.

[Refa]

9 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well personally I think more gimmicky characterisation can be excusable given the context. How many other pieces of media can you think of that makes 80+ distinct characters every three years? And it's not even necessarily bad characterisation. Less deep perhaps, but some of these characters are immensely popular outside of the less core fanbase you have here. If a character can resonate and be appealing to a large number of people than I think it is succeeding in characterisation. Maybe not from a literary perspective but from a business perspective at least. Which ultimately is something that's a lot more important to IS.

Sure, it's just the amount that frustrates me.  Older FE games had their fair share of gimmicky characters, I just think that (some, not all) of them were handled better.  I mean, yeah the newer characters are more popular, noone can deny that.  However, claiming the characterization is successful just because it's popular seems a little, well, cynical to me.  Frankly, IS' perspective shouldn't matter in this discussion.  When people are talking about what the series should or shouldn't do, they're not arguing from a business sense.

[Etrurian emperor]

I'm not against the concept of gimmick characters. At times it can be nice for a character to ad a little bit of color to the game. But its clear that there are to many characters who rely on their gimmicks. At times a support can just be two characters shoving their gimmick in each others, and the player's face and that can get tiring. 

I think a key aspect is to make sure that the characters are capable of subverting their gimmick and showing that there is more to them than meets the eye. Arthur is clearly one of the more extreme characters when it comes to his gimmicks and he even has two, being extremely unlucky and being a superhero. But there is also more to Arthur as shown by his supports with Azura and the implication that Arthur's heroism doesn't stem just from him being a fool but also from him being just that good of a guy.

Then there's Forrest. From our first glance we can see in what archtype Forrest belongs and with his refined manners, love of ''adorable'' things and him often being mistaken for a girl Forrest meets those expectations. But beneath that Forrest is also more strong willed than his appearance would suggest and he seems to posses some leadership skills you wouldn't expect him to have. Forrest is more than willing to lash out at people he feel don't respect him and its Forrest who briefly serves as the team's leader in Heirs of fate. 

On the other end of the spectrum you have characters like Setsuna or Kellam who never escapes their gimmicks. There really just isn't anything there should you remove the gimmick. 

Its also important that if a character relies on a gimmick you don't use the same one twice. Owain has been allowed to appear in a new game but unlike Inigo or Severa he hasn't really gotten any character growth and just relies on the wacky persona that made him so popular. This actually turned a character who's supposed to be completely out there into one of the more predictable characters in the game. Hayato too uses the same shota archtype  Ricken relied upon so strongly and so we have already seen most of the things he could possibly do.

[Augestein]

14 hours ago, Thane said:

I'm confused by this thread. I think the people who want more gimmicky characters rather than well-rounded ones on Serenes can be counted on one hand, making this thread seem like just another thread where we praise the glory of the older titles. 

Of course I want more well-developed characters who rely less on gimmicks. If they can make most characters interesting and feel like a part of the world without implementing some nonsense quirk, then that'd be fantastic. I think few would disagree with that.

Yeah. This pretty much. I don't think I could have put it better myself. What kind of person would say "I want flat gimmicky characters," and honestly mean that? 

[Tamanoir]

Yeah, There were lots of really gimmicky characters in Blazing Sword : Bartre, as mentioned before, Farina (Being greedy.), Florina (Shy around guys), Sain  (womanizer), Lowen (not sure of himself, love food), and Serra (being Serra). Some of them are actually fan favorites, and some of my favourite characters of the game.

And this game include things like Dorcas X Vaida (Which nearly makes Beruka X Saizo C sounds good) in comparison, or Kent X Fiora (the one that makes Kent my most hated character of the serie). The Pegasi sister have their supports between each other that are actually quite good, but still.

And, everyone crticize Awakening, but no one mention Stahl. This guy have no clear gimmick, but everyone forgot him,rememebring all the more shiny characters. I find this quite contradicting...

Edited March 31, 2017 by Tamanoir

[Sasori]

8 minutes ago, Tamanoir said:

And, everyone crticize Awakening, but no one mention Stahl. This guy have no clear gimmick, but everyone forgot him,rememebring all the more shiny characters. I find this quite contradicting...

Wasn't Stahl being ungimmicky its own gimmick? I remember him being super avarage as the point of some of his supports.

But back to the topic. A gimmick here and there is fine and many past characters where somewhat archtypical too with the dumb brute, the womaniser, etc. I start having a problem when every piece of dialogue is the exact same. Setsuna for example shows something other then being spacy and falling into traps on maybe one or two ocassions. Her gimmick doesn't make her interesting and repeating the same joke over and over makes her boring and predictable. The same can be said for characters like Kellam.

Meanwhile a character like Virion is nothing new with his womanizing dandy personality, but he makes it work. Both by having something aside from the womanizing and because the character gets to show his standard personality types in more ways then one.

[Extrasolar]

16 hours ago, Thane said:

I'm confused by this thread. I think the people who want more gimmicky characters rather than well-rounded ones on Serenes can be counted on one hand, making this thread seem like just another thread where we praise the glory of the older titles. 

Of course I want more well-developed characters who rely less on gimmicks. If they can make most characters interesting and feel like a part of the world without implementing some nonsense quirk, then that'd be fantastic. I think few would disagree with that.

The purpose of this thread was to ask and discuss if character gimmicks as a whole should be done away with completely. You can still have characters with a gimmick that are well rounded, after all. Haar is one of them in my opinion. Some people dislike gimmicks on principle and want them gone, other people think that gimmicks spice up characters they otherwise have no interest in. I wanted to see everyone's perspectives on it.

And praising the glory of the older titles? I disagree. The older titles had many flat characters whose gimmicks were used as an "excuse" for a lack of personality (Ilyana, Ilyana, Ilyana), but I don't think it's incorrect to say that the earlier games had fewer instances of it, or more instances of more character past the gimmick. I know plenty of people that far prefer the gimmicks to the more subdued characters of earlier games, like the friend I talked about in the OP.

This thread is a way to discuss the whole thing, the strengths and flaws of both.

28 minutes ago, Tamanoir said:

And, everyone crticize Awakening, but no one mention Stahl. This guy have no clear gimmick, but everyone forgot him,rememebring all the more shiny characters. I find this quite contradicting...

I didn't forget him! Stahl is one of my favorite characters of Awakening, because he's one of the very much needed "normal" dudes. Well...he sort of has a quirk, with his messy hair and whatnot, but it never eclipses his character. He's a nice, reasonable and down to earth guy in the vein of Oscar, and I like that.

Some people consider him boring because of his lack of a really strong quirk, like they consider Oscar boring, but I couldn't disagree more.

1 hour ago, Augestein said:

Yeah. This pretty much. I don't think I could have put it better myself. What kind of person would say "I want flat gimmicky characters," and honestly mean that? 

Because gimmicks don't automatically equal flat characters. Kieran. Haar, etc. Also see the first response in the post.

1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its also important that if a character relies on a gimmick you don't use the same one twice. Owain has been allowed to appear in a new game but unlike Inigo or Severa he hasn't really gotten any character growth and just relies on the wacky persona that made him so popular.

Owain definitely shows there's more to him than his gimmick, especially in Fates. Have you read his comversations with Ophelia? He definitely knows when to drop the act and get serious. It's actually rather sweet. That's the first example that comes to mind, but I'm sure there are more. His conversations with Selena and Laslow, at least in A and S in Selena's case.

7 hours ago, Thane said:

I just don't get this obsession with trying to arbitrarily divide the fanbase between old fans and new fans, especially since the fandom has never been united to begin with.

This definitely isn't my intention. I don't see anything wrong with debating the differences between the older and newer titles. I'm aware that the older titles have their flaws and the newer titles have their strengths. I just find the differences and peoples' different points of view on the matter fascinating, that's all.

I can understand being a bit more sensitive to any criticism of the newer titles, especially when they're your favorites and I'll agree that the newer titles tend to draw more heat than they deserve, but I don't really like being accused of disproportionately criticizing the newer titles and/or praising the older titles to high heaven when I'm simply trying to talk about the differences between them. Not saying you're doing that on purpose, but that's just one of my pet peeves.

8 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

 It's severely unfair to compare the best aspects of the oldest games to the worst aspects of the newest games, or vice versa.  That's a straight up straw man argument, and I feel a lot of people tend to use it to justify their love of any era.

I don't understand how this applies in this situation. We're talking about characterization and character writing...so how can we not compare characterization and character writing in the older games to that of the newer games? How is that a strawman argument? Plenty of people have pointed out that the older games have flatly written and/or characters that focus strongly on their gimmicks too... Like...
 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Baldrick]

8 hours ago, Thane said:

 so I don't think it's as easy as just turning back the clock and implement an older system.

Isn't it? The highpoints of the 3DS era writing are as good as earlier eras, the system they use means the writing is mostly lowpoints. Radiant Dawn had the perfect system; everyone supports for maximum gameplay flexibility, but using base conversations meant characters only interacted if they had a good reason to.

[Augestein]

1 hour ago, Extrasolar said:

Because gimmicks don't automatically equal flat characters. Kieran. Haar, etc. Also see the first response in the post.

A character being what could be described as "overly enthusiastic for his knightly vows" isn't a gimmick. That's who he is. The man is completely and utterly defined by being a knight, and he has the utmost of pride in the fact that he's a knight. That's no gimmick. A gimmick is literally something done to attract attention. And the dialogue when you first meet Kieran isn't really like that, just a man that's upset that he's in prison and he intends to find his way out. Once he's free, he can concentrate on what was important to him once again. And that's great. He's a simple man, but not everyone needs to be super complicated. Characters like Florina aren't and are just as well off as characters like Dorcas. 

What you're describing as "gimmicks" are adjectives that describe the character. Those aren't gimmicks. Just facets of a character. Haar being lazy isn't a gimmick. Ilyana's food on the other hand, is a gimmick, because she literally has no real adjective to describe her outside of her hunger pangs. A gimmick is literally something like Setsuna falling into traps. That's not even a personality trait. Gimmicky characters are just flat out bad. Like Setsuna being spacey would be a decent adjective for her, and her absentmindedness causes her to fall into traps or wander places she shouldn't wouldn't actually be a bad character. What's wrong with that, is that the gimmick of "I fall into traps" is all her character does. It over encompasses these other traits faster than anything else. That's not good. 

Arthur's bad luck is a gimmick. But it's rounded out by the fact that he fancies himself a hero, and always keeps a positive spirit despite setbacks in his life. Arthur's hero complex is more of an attribute in most of his supports. Example: Arthur's support with Peri has Arthur's bad luck come into play, but it's not the main bulk of the support. The main problem in the support is Arthur trying to help Peri so that she doesn't go off and kill the merchant. Arthur wants to help her do things without killing people. Compare that to say : Arthur's support with Setsuna. Support 1 is Hahah bad luck. Support 2: Hahah traps. I have bad luck. Support 3: if we team up! We can overcome our bad luck. This could have been better if we had been made aware that Arthur's luck actually isn't "bad luck" but rather that he gets so fixated on the task at hand that he forgets to pay  attention to everything else. You could then have had Setsuna be aware enough to notice Arthur's flaws and vice versa. Neither support I mentioned is particularly good or interesting, but Setsuna's with Arthur is noticeably worse because there's nothing really of substance about it. We don't learn anything about them, and the conversation isn't particularly engaging-- it's the same thing we've seen over and over again from her. And to a certain extent, Arthur. 

1 hour ago, Extrasolar said:

Owain definitely shows there's more to him than his gimmick, especially in Fates. Have you read his comversations with Ophelia? He definitely knows when to drop the act and get serious. It's actually rather sweet. That's the first example that comes to mind, but I'm sure there are more. His conversations with Selena and Laslow, at least in A and S in Selena's case.

Owain's gimmick is shown to be a coping mechanism in Awakening and he's well aware of the fact that his behavior is off putting. You can see it in Morgan(M) supports, or even Inigo's supports with him. One that rolls with the way he behaves, and another that doesn't-- initially. Owain is considerably more well rounded than tons of gimmicky characters like Miriel and SCIENCE with an aptitude for speaking like an almost alien entity. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Augestein

[NekoKnight]

6 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Isn't it? The highpoints of the 3DS era writing are as good as earlier eras, the system they use means the writing is mostly lowpoints. Radiant Dawn had the perfect system; everyone supports for maximum gameplay flexibility, but using base conversations meant characters only interacted if they had a good reason to.

Base Conversations are a great addition that allow characters to respond to current events but they aren't sufficient for characterization. How much can you tell me about Vika or Nolan? The characters introduced in PoR could manage with the development they got in their game but the Radiant Dawn exclusive cast was left high and dry.

[bethany81707]

39 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Isn't it? The highpoints of the 3DS era writing are as good as earlier eras, the system they use means the writing is mostly lowpoints. Radiant Dawn had the perfect system; everyone supports for maximum gameplay flexibility, but using base conversations meant characters only interacted if they had a good reason to.

I agree, and I'm fairly sure that the (lingering) backlash against it is why we have full supports instead of templates in the 3DS era- which highlights why templates are useful.

[Baldrick]

27 minutes ago, NekoKnight said:

Base Conversations are a great addition that allow characters to respond to current events but they aren't sufficient for characterization. How much can you tell me about Vika or Nolan? The characters introduced in PoR could manage with the development they got in their game but the Radiant Dawn exclusive cast was left high and dry.

Nolan is well read, perceptive, calm and sensitive about his age.

Vika is slightly apprehensive and conciliatory (I can only remember one conversation she had, not sure if there's more).

[ChibiToastExplosion]

1 hour ago, Baldrick said:

Isn't it? The highpoints of the 3DS era writing are as good as earlier eras, the system they use means the writing is mostly lowpoints. Radiant Dawn had the perfect system; everyone supports for maximum gameplay flexibility, but using base conversations meant characters only interacted if they had a good reason to.

This this this. Base conversations are so much better for characterization than ABC because then they can be plot relevant and make sense. Then you can pair units up with support bonuses based on combat advantages, like say your sniper behind your general.

The support system was like the only thing RD did right.

[KoimanZX]

10 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

I think the first question is kind of pointless...  Who wants gimmicky, poorly written characters?  Is there anyone here who actually finds Effie's "I'm always hungry" gimmick funny?

 

I always thought that being this fairly small lady who is SUPER STRONK was here gimmick, with eating a lot and doing ludicrous workouts being part of it. The dainty, super-strong lady is a very common trope in Japanese media (and is supposed to be funny?)

5 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

 

Also, when I say "gimmick" in regards to Oboro, what I have in mind is her "demon face" that's sometimes comically instinctive.  It gets to the point where she scares little children and, in a discussion with Benny, she can't "revert" to a normal face because she's "super sensitive about any negative emotions from Nohrians" as if she has some almost telepathic connection to them.  Though I do admit her introduction isn't nearly as silly as this stuff, and I'll also admit that there weren't any support lines with her that I didn't like.  I only referred to it because it's just one example of how they try to cram the "most interesting" aspects of even a good character into a drawn out introduction.  Not the worst, but I'm not sure it's an intro that would pull in some who might otherwise appreciate her character.

 

The "demon-face lady" is also a common trope. Apparently the Japanese find it funny when people react to a woman with part of her face darkened and purple clouds with fear.

[Refa]

2 hours ago, Tamanoir said:

Yeah, There were lots of really gimmicky characters in Blazing Sword : Bartre, as mentioned before, Farina (Being greedy.), Florina (Shy around guys), Sain  (womanizer), Lowen (not sure of himself, love food), and Serra (being Serra). Some of them are actually fan favorites, and some of my favourite characters of the game.

And this game include things like Dorcas X Vaida (Which nearly makes Beruka X Saizo C sounds good) in comparison, or Kent X Fiora (the one that makes Kent my most hated character of the serie). The Pegasi sister have their supports between each other that are actually quite good, but still.

Those are character traits, not gimmicks (well, you could make an argument for Florina and Sain but you don't have much to go on for the other three).

At least Dorcas x Vaida doesn't lead to a romantic support...

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Refa said:

Sure, it's just the amount that frustrates me.  Older FE games had their fair share of gimmicky characters, I just think that (some, not all) of them were handled better.  I mean, yeah the newer characters are more popular, noone can deny that.  However, claiming the characterization is successful just because it's popular seems a little, well, cynical to me.  Frankly, IS' perspective shouldn't matter in this discussion.  When people are talking about what the series should or shouldn't do, they're not arguing from a business sense.

You're not wrong by any measure. I just wanted to present an alternate, objective, perspective so people can realise it's not down to the creators being lazy or bad at their jobs that we have characters like this. From an unobjective, personal standpoint I think they need to fix the problems with their main plots and characters first (of which there is much less excuse) before focusing on side characters.

[Thane]

7 hours ago, Baldrick said:

Isn't it? The highpoints of the 3DS era writing are as good as earlier eras, the system they use means the writing is mostly lowpoints. Radiant Dawn had the perfect system; everyone supports for maximum gameplay flexibility, but using base conversations meant characters only interacted if they had a good reason to.

I'd love the inclusion of base conversations again, but the Radiant Dawn "supports" meant diddly squat and are frequently one of the major complaints raised against it, and if you ask me it's for a good reason. 

[Tamanoir]

6 hours ago, Refa said:

Those are character traits, not gimmicks (well, you could make an argument for Florina and Sain but you don't have much to go on for the other three).

At least Dorcas x Vaida doesn't lead to a romantic support...

Farina too. Just lok at Fiora X Farina. This is a perfectly good support, then in the end of A, the writer remember she's supposed to be greedy, and ruin evrything. It's particularily bad, since C is just about them being sisters, and B offers us a good explanation to how she act. But they always feels like adding a money reference, even when it doesn't makes sense. And I really like Farina.

That's actually my main problem with Awakening and Fates. The main example, is if you compare Myrhh (or Fae, who doesn't have any Male support except Elphin) to Nowi. But having every supports ending on marriage limits what you can do, so they have to rely on gimmicks to makes characters with zero chemistry ends up together. Marriage isn't bad in itself, but when it leads to so many writing pitfalls, it's hard to defend it.

[eclipse]

Eh.

Unless the next FE has a significantly smaller cast, I don't think we'll see the end of gimmicks.  The larger the cast, the more interactions need to be written, and trying to make 50 complex characters that interact with each other is asking for disaster.

The past FE games had some really wonky convos (like what was up with Lute/Knoll?), along with some amazing ones (hello Legault).  Likewise, the most recent iteration of Fates had some really wonky convos (hi Soliel) and some amazing ones (most of what comes out of Benny's mouth).  While one can argue that the ratio of wonky/amazing has gone down, the sheer number of convos that have been written more than makes up for it IMO.  Imagine having to write a conversation between, say, Rebecca and Oswin, and then somehow have the two of them fall in love - it would probably be really messy, right down to justifying Wolt's existence.

The best "cure" for this IMO would be limited support conversations.  Just because Sue and Alan are in the same army doesn't mean that they have to talk, let alone marry!