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

[Extrasolar]

Hey, so this is a discussion I've wanted to start for a while now, ever since recently I got into a debate with one of my friends who very much prefers the newer games to the older ones (they've played Awakening, Fates, and emulated Binding Blade and Blazing Blade). We started talking about writing fidelity in new vs. old, and we started talking about characterization. I am of the opinion that characterization was far more nuanced in the earlier games and characters were more interesting because of it, while my friend thinks that many of the characters in the earlier games came off bland and unremarkable.

From my point of view, it's not that we didn't always have gimmicks, but as a whole, I feel like characters in the earlier titles felt more like living, breathing people existing in a fantasy world, with their own hopes, dreams and goals.

Many of the newer characters feel, in my opinion, like parody characters written for a parody fantasy. There's nothing wrong with a joke...but I feel like a lot of characters are disproportionately focused on that joke. And then it stops being funny, and you're left with...not a whole lot remaining. Take Kellam, for example. He's a guy that disappears and is overlooked by everyone. And...there you go. That's the joke. That's all she wrote.

Since one of FE's strengths is its amazing characters, especially in comparison to other strategy RPGs which use generics, I find that shallower characterization could even end up harming the series as a whole. After all, it's you caring about characters that makes you want to keep them alive, right? At least, that's true for me.

Question time! Do you like character gimmicks? Do you think they should stick around in future characters/characterization, or do you wish they would be done away with entirely?

So how do you feel about characters with gimmicks or an exaggerated trait or  traits? Do you generally find them compelling?

Do you personally feel that there has been a drop in the quality of characterization or character writing in the Fire Emblem series? In your opinion, what are some of the most well-written and fleshed out characters of the series, and just for balance's sake, what are some of the worst or flattest in your opinion?

Edited April 1, 2017 by Extrasolar

[MetalAmethyst]

From the way I see it, I like some of the quirks, but they do need to tone down the "one joke" type characters. Personally, I love the characters in Awakening more so than in Fates--which, sadly, are the only main games I have played. That said, I only know from what I've read on the Fire Emblem Wiki about the characters.

[maybe]

i think gimmick characters can be funny if there's only a few of them

but more importantly, I think gimmick characters should actually be funny

like, if I could change around what the characters in fates (or at least conquest, I haven't played birthright) were like, I'd remove pretty much all the character gimmicks except arthur's

not only are there too many characters who revolve around one personality trait, but most of them aren't even very entertaining. arthur is the only gimmick character in fates whose gimmick I genuinely found funny, and I think the only other characters I like who have gimmicks are noire (one of my favorite FE characters) and haar. a lot of the time we just get characters like ilyana, whose gimmick is just that she likes food and nina, whose gimmick is that she loves yaoi. it just makes reading their dialogue really boring and predictable instead of actually enjoyable

anyway while I'm not about to say that the characters in the games prior to awakening were necessarily better written (not because I have any strong opinion either way but because I don't have too much knowledge of awakening and fates, i don't even have a 3ds anymore), I definitely did appreciate having less characters whose personalities revolve around one thing

i feel like awakening did a really good job with writing the characters and making them feel likable and human, but also managed to ruin that a lot of the time with a lot of the gimmick characters who don't feel like they could be even remotely real

honestly I think the reason they did that in the first place might be because they had to have most of the characters support with each other. in most other games the characters who can support with each other usually at least have some reason to talk to each other. but like, in gaius and panne's support, gaius is trying to get some candy and tries to get panne to help him get it.  they have no actual reason to be talking to each other, so it seemed like they just threw in gaius' candy gimmick and wrote a conversation around it that fits them.

so yeah I can't say I'm a fan of it and I definitely do prefer the games that have more characters whose personalities do not revolve around a single trait, but my main concern is that if you're gonna do it at all you should at least do it well.

what i'm saying is, yes

Edited March 30, 2017 by unique

[Extrasolar]

I feel like the biggest problem with gimmick characters that it seems to me that lately IS has been using the gimmick as a replacement for an actual personality or development. My friend says that all of the 3DS characters are memorable because of their strong traits...but I'd argue that "memorable" isn't necessarily a good thing, nor is it the same as "interesting" and "developed."

17 minutes ago, unique said:

i think gimmick characters can be funny if there's only a few of them

but more importantly, I think gimmick characters should actually be funny

I think this is an important point. One of my biggest problems with the increased lighthearted/silliness in FE characters is that when everything is silly and off the wall, suddenly it's not funny anymore. You need a down-to-earth "normal" guy in the midst of all of the insanity to give it all perspective.

Just speaking in Awakening terms, you have Frederick seemingly playing that role, if a bit uptight and humorless...and then he starts talking about putting up naked posters of Chrom. Um. What?!

I can get what they were going for - a subversion of expectations. But did they have to make one of their straight men just another wacky guy, if a bit more subdued than most other characters in the game? it's that whole "when everyone's special, no one is" thing all over again.

As for gimmick characters used to great effect: I present to you Kieran. Kieran is one of the funniest parts of the Tellius series in my opinion, just because he's so off the wall and weird in comparison to the more realistic Tellius characters. He stands out, and this may be me speaking personally, but his gimmick is very funny. He wouldn't be nearly as funny if you had every single character being just as wacky as him...but he also goes past his gimmick with his closeness to Oscar and his loyalty to the Crimean Knights.

17 minutes ago, unique said:

not only are there too many characters who revolve around one personality trait, but most of them aren't even very entertaining. arthur is the only gimmick character in fates whose gimmick I genuinely found funny, and I think the only other characters I like who have gimmicks are noire (one of my favorite FE characters) and haar. a lot of the time we just get characters like ilyana, whose gimmick is just that she likes food and nina, whose gimmick is that she loves yaoi. it just makes reading their dialogue really boring and predictable instead of actually enjoyable

Yeah, 100% agreed on this point. Haar, in my opinion, is a gimmick character done right. He's got his gimmick of apathy and being sleepy all the time, but you see other sides to his personality in the game itself - his intense loyalty to Shiharam, his "big brother" type mentorship to Jill, and he even proves that he's a lot more intelligent/perceptive than he looks. Basically, while his lethargy is exaggerated, he does feel like an actual person that could conceivably exist.

I know endless jokes have revolved around Setsuna being permanently under the influence of something, but I can't help but feel that Setsuna is a Haar done wrong. She's lethargic and mostly apathetic to everything...but what else? From what I remember of her characterization in Fates, she's clumsy and falls into traps all the time? Not really a believable person, there...

With many of the 3DS gimmick characters, I feel like they just...don't have much aside from their gimmick. Kellam is my favorite example of a gimmick completely taking over a character until nothing else is left.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Baldrick]

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.

 

[Lightchao42]

I think that the prominence of gimmicks, and the amount of personality they replace, is greatly exaggerated by the fanbase.

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.

I could go on, but I don't want this to be too long, so the point is that recent characters aren't nearly as "gimmicky" as people make them out to be.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

The structure of Supports in the 3DS game certainly oversaturates gimmicks to the point that they bury the good characterizations. Some characters just wouldn't get along but they're opposite sex, so I'll show you my gimmick if you show me yours. Character involvement in the story is 9 times out of 10 relegated to that's character's recruitment conversation/chapter, and that can hurt them too. Look at Conquest chapter 7 where you recruit Silas, Elise, Arthur, and Effie. This character introduction reel in the middle of battle drags on for several minutes while we hear about Arthur losing his map and then his backup map, and how Corrin's favorite food is veggie chowder and I just want to play the game. There's zero reason these introductions couldn't have been cut short and then been continued after the fighting. Base conversations would also serve a great place to put such dull chatter.

Gimmick characters existed, but with more nuance. Forde is commonly cited as having some of the highest quality supports of any game, and in every one he's caught painting or napping on the battlefield. It allegedly happens as often as Setsuna falls into a trap, and at first glance they look similarly ridiculous. But Setsuna falling into a trap isn't a result of some deep rooted emotions for her family, she just falls into traps a lot. But that's the holy grail being compared to a poisoned goblet. Does Bartre have more characterization than, say, Vaike? Without wikis, what can you tell me about Dozla's personality? Echidna? Treck? Brom? Sigrun? And when it comes down to it, Is it better to have characterizations you don't like, or none at all?

[Punished Dayni]

5 minutes ago, Lightchao42 said:

I think that the prominence of gimmicks, and the amount of personality they replace, is greatly exaggerated by the fanbase.

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.

I could go on, but I don't want this to be too long, so the point is that recent characters aren't nearly as "gimmicky" as people make them out to be.

Just because that one facet isn't all her conversations are on about, it's still in more supports that you give it credit for. Hell, even in Lon'qu's supports Chrom gets brought up as Cordelia's crush, even if Cordelia dismisses it there and then. Kellam's in particular uses his lack of presence in some form, like in Miriel where she's trying to discover how it works. There can be other things involved, but for these two their gimmick comes up quite often.

Sure, the fans can do a lot of exaggeration, but the supports in game do a lot of it themselves.

[DaloDask]

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?'

On a related note, gimmicks are definitely an issue that hampers Fates and Awakening, but a seeming bigger issue is that their actual character traits and major parts of their personality and background are locked behind the enormous wall of not only supports, but DLC. (An example being one of Gaius' best lines, only available through a DLC chapter if you have Libra talk to him)

There's also some shenanigans involved in localisation, mostly Fates, but Henry's definitely a note in Awakening's case.

My opinion is of indifference. Although I will say I think the big issue is that these games don't care about these characters in the main story at all, with them showing up on recruitment and that's about it, especially in Fates' case, which may explain why they feel the need to gimmick the shit out of them in order to hook player attention in to make them want to learn more. It certainly worked for me in regards to Conquest, given that the majority of Birthright's gimmicks are straitlaced ones, with Azama being the one that sticks out the most, as opposed to Conquest's merry band of miscreants, murderers and Benny.

[Extrasolar]

53 minutes 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.

But what other traits does he have besides being overlooked and nondescript? Sure, not every single word that comes out of his mouth or everything that happens to him is about his disappearing act...but what else is there to fill in that space? That's my big question here. I see it as a problem that his disappearing act is so ingrained in the minds of people that it's pretty much the only thing they can recall about him in the first place.
 

I'm definitely not denying that FE fandom hasn't been guilty of exaggeration (because that would be a blatant lie, and every fandom has characters that fall victim to over-exaggeration). It just seems that Awakening and Fates characters fall victim to this most often, because I'd argue that they're more or less built for it with the huge focus on a strong trait. Echoing what Dayni said above, many times the gimmicks do come up and/or are forced even into conversations where they don't otherwise belong. Granted, they may not be the main focus of the scene, but they're there, almost as though someone writing the support is checking off a box that reads "Remember to mention [x]'s gimmick in some way, shape or form!"

44 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

Look at Conquest chapter 7 where you recruit Silas, Elise, Arthur, and Effie. This character introduction reel in the middle of battle drags on for several minutes while we hear about Arthur losing his map and then his backup map, and how Corrin's favorite food is veggie chowder and I just want to play the game. There's zero reason these introductions couldn't have been cut short and then been continued after the fighting. Base conversations would also serve a great place to put such dull chatter.

Yeah, I'll agree that it can get frustrating at times. I see this as a symptom of FE's increased efforts at essentially "explaining" every single character/character gimmick the moment a character is introduced, rather than chilling out and developing the character more over time. To me, it's almost like they're afraid that the audience isn't going to be interested in a character if they don't immediately slap them with the character's joke, when that's not true at all. 

I much prefer shorter character introductions, and allowing us to gradually see the nuance in supports. It worked out for Soren and Shinon (went from one-note asshats to snarky, but extremely loyal asshat and racist asshat but with a soft spot for a lovable dork and an adorable kid).

Granted, those two are pretty central characters and non main characters tend to get very little space in the main story script, but isn't fleshing out character details like that what the support conversations are for?

44 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

Does Bartre have more characterization than, say, Vaike? Without wikis, what can you tell me about Dozla's personality? Echidna? Treck? Brom? Sigrun? And when it comes down to it, Is it better to have characterizations you don't like, or none at all?

For Bartre, I would say so. Granted...this might be a bit of an unfair comparison, since Bartre gets two games to develop with a 15 year gap between them while Vaike only has one. He goes from hotheaded, crude and hotblooded to a protective and wise father, which is definitely a huge step in development. Vaike is cocky, excitable and enjoys fighting...and yeah, there we go. But yeah, kind of an unfair comparison.

And I would say that Brom most definitely has a personality and development. He's an easygoing, friendly and fun guy, and a great father to a boatload of kids. He's a great friend to Nephenee especially. He immediately joins up with the militia to fight for Crimea's freedom when it's clear he'd rather be chillin' back with the family on the farm. When he and Meg meet up in RD it drives home a lot of that. (I can't speak on the Binding Blade characters or anything, since I never played Binding Blade.)

Sigrun... Yeah, I'll give you that one. She's kind of just there.

But to give my answer to your question, I'd say that a gimmick doesn't even count so much as a characterization, so it's a bit hard to compare the two. Would I have preferred if they made Sigrun obsessed with chocolate or something as an attempt to make her stand out? No. Because that just seems silly and unbelievable.

26 minutes ago, DaloDask said:

On a related note, gimmicks are definitely an issue that hampers Fates and Awakening, but a seeming bigger issue is that their actual character traits and major parts of their personality and background are locked behind the enormous wall of not only supports

Granted, this applies to all of the games with supports as a whole, especially for non-main characters. Tellius added base conversations to flesh out characterization more, which you got simply by playing the game. I thought that was a great move. Someone above said that they should come back as a way to expand characterization, and I definitely agree.

26 minutes 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?'

Yeah, you make a good point. My bad. I guess I'll add a "I don't care either way" option.

but yeah Peri is the absolute worst of the worst when it comes to gimmicks. even Ilyana wasn't so offensively bad in this case.

I mean, when your gimmick is "reads exactly like a 13-year-old Deviantart user wrote and designed the character as a hamfisted self-insert," then there's a few problems with your character writing...

Edited March 31, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Azure Sen]

As a whole, I'm not against gimmicky characters, as long as they're written well and they have more to them than their gimmick than appears at first glance. The problem with Awakening and Fates' gimmicky characters is that there's no thought put into them beyond their gimmicks, rather then them having one; this is most obvious with Setsuna, actual serial killer Peri, Keaton, Sophie and Mitama. I do however think the modern games get a disproportionate amount of backlash for having gimmicky characters with zero depth when characters like that have existed for as long as FE's had supports.

15 minutes ago, Lightchao42 said:

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.

Just because it's not the central focus of a lot of supports doesn't mean her crush isn't a huge part of her character. Every S Support of hers aside from Robin, Kellam and Donnel has her husbands basically going "well, I know I'll never replace Chrom in your heart, but let's get married anyway," and that's not even getting into her tile convos, her level up quotes, her barracks quotes, and Severa's recruitment mission. It doesn't help that her other character gimmick (being really good at everything and being oh so humble about it) makes her come off as forced at best, and that the actual interesting bits about her personality and backstory come up in all of one support.

In short, Cordelia is perhaps the foremost example of how not to write a gimmicky character well.

[Slumber]

Yes and yes.

Most characters came down to having incredibly shallow supports, with their gimmicks thrown in to spice it up(To quote some stupid character that will probably be in FE Switch that's obsessed with spice).

For real, Awakening was by far the worst, and I feel like we're past the eye of this shitstorm. It got better in Fates, but Fates had a whole different problem going on with the writing. Hopefully with Switch they just go back to doing personal stories with supports and conversations.

I don't need another 40 supports where a single character just spouts candy puns for lines and lines and lines of dialogue.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

26 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

For Bartre, I would say so. Granted...this might be a bit of an unfair comparison, since Bartre gets two games to develop with a 15 year gap between them while Vaike only has one. He goes from hotheaded, crude and hotblooded to a protective and wise father, which is definitely a huge step in development. Vaike is cocky, excitable and enjoys fighting...and yeah, there we go. But yeah, kind of an unfair comparison.
 

Hnh...? Oh right. I only first heard about him being Fir's dad recently (and that there was a path B in 6, I only played the game once a long time ago). I really meant 7's version of Bartre. The "Hnoooough! Words hurt head!" guy. Even his romantic support with Karla fails to match the quality of 3DS' worst S supports.

[NekoKnight]

As some others have suggested, I think it's okay for characters to have a notable quirk to them but ideally they should have:

1. A presence in the world.

2. More qualities than their initial quirk would suggest.

The problem I have with a lot of 3DS supports is that charcters seem to exist in a vacuum and don't feel like a part of their world. Conversations are built on Trope X meets Trope Y and many characters don't have a reason to talk to each other at all. 

An example of a good "gimmick" character is Oboro. She's introduced as scary-face Nohr-hater but she also has a passion for fashion and a good work ethic. She feels like she could exist in the world. And then you have Setsuna *insert clumsy gag here*

I like the occasional gag character but they should be the minority.

[Thor Odinson]

I feel like a character can have gimmicks or quirks, but it shouldn't be the main focus of their character. A few gimmicky supports here and there can be entertaining--which was my first reaction to awakening's supports, for example, but too many based on the same gimmicks can be really grating--as my later reactions to awakening's supports. More quality supports with a few humorous ones scattered for each person would improve the overall quality--and I really don't like the everyone supports everyone thing because the point of supports is to become friends with the person, but some people just have personality clashes and would honestly get along worse the longer they talk, realistically. IMO base supports should return to address those cases, where they should still interact because negative interaction is important in showing character interaction, but it should not be giving bonuses or god forbid getting fucking married.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Thor Odinson

[Pixelman]

I really don't care in the grand scheme of things. When they're fun, they're fun. When they aren't, they aren't.

Truthfully, I'm more interested in how they play gameplay-wise and how they look design-wise rather than how they act story/support-wise

[Res]

My concern with gimmicks is when they're cartoonishly unrealistic. I know they're fantasy games with magic and whatnot, but I still prefer the characters to be somewhat grounded in reality.

So Kellam being quiet/ignored/forgettable is fine, but to extend it to people literally not being *able* to see him is a little ridiculous.

Frederick being extremely devoted to Chrom is fine, but there wouldn't be anyone literally removing pebbles from the path - it'd be such an enormously tough task so as to be impossible. 

Setsuna is so completely inept that it's tough to imagine her surviving into adulthood, and it spoils her position as a competent soldier.

Arthur's bad luck is straight out of a cartoon.

On the other hand, while Cordelia's crush on Chrom doesn't particularly endear me to her, nor do I find it makes her character unrealistic - since it's not unbelievable that someone could have a strong crush. 

 

[Interdimensional Observer]

Every game has its dud supports and dud characters; as well as those who have their bad supports and then also their good ones. We have to accept that among dozens of characters and even more supports, that there will be some failures in every game.

Gimmicks help deal with this massive quantitative problem, as do repeats of character traits. Gimmicks shouldn't be extreme (Soleil could work better if she just loved being a gal pal/doing and chatting about girl stuff), nor the only thing that defines a character. And, in the case of a more extreme gimmick, giving it reasonable explanation could help somewhat (Camilla's unexplored concubine trauma war thing (which I replaced in a fanfict with having seen Garon beat her mommy to death)). 

I want to say more, but I feel my thoughts are too jumbled right now.

(I'm interested in knowing how the Sagas, which lack CBA supports but nonetheless seem to attempt characterization, fail or succeed in their task. (Feel free to nail me with your favorite FE skill, crit or spell virtually if you tire of me bringing up games I've never played.))

[Jedi]

3 hours ago, Gustavos said:

Without wikis, what can you tell me about Dozla's personality? Echidna? Treck? Brom? Sigrun? And when it comes down to it, Is it better to have characterizations you don't like, or none at all?

Dolza is a boisterous warrior who loves combat, always is looking for adventure, and protecting L'Arachel, Echidna wants desperately to rebuild the Western Isles so it can thrive again, Treck has quite the wild set of supports including his day dreaming that some have analyzed. 

Brom is a family man, and a country bumpkin who wants the best for Crimea and his family, and makes friends easily which is part of why he and Zihark are so close, and why he tries to marry off his daughter Meg to Zihark because he thinks Zihark is that upstanding a guy. 

Sigrun is deeply loyal to Sanaki and motherly to her soldiers, and you get this all from FE9's dialog in story. Along with the fact that she is a noble who doesn't agree with how the other nobles think.

That was all off the top of my head.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Jedi

[Thinks Their Own Way]

As gimmicky as someone like Peri maybe (I don't mind her), I can at least remember something about them. Opening up Sacred Stones on my phone, looking over my army; I forgot their were Cavaliers not named Seth in that game and they were the Cain and Abel archetypes as well. I know reasons as to why I like a character is different from others. Who am I to tell someone what kind of characters they are allowed or not allowed to write.

Ephraim is my favourite lord because while I believe his games tries hard to make him look cool; I thought he was cool, that's it. I find L'Arachel more annoying than any over the top 3DS character. I find Hector to be a massive prick. With Shadows of Valentia coming out, I'm really liking the idea of Celica's peace loving nature but finding the idea of Alm's aggressiveness insufferable. The main reason why I like Sanaki so much is because she cusses Ike out. I hate Arthur's patriotism and sense of justice, I hate Cordelia's obsession with Chrom but totally ok with Tharja and Camilla and I find Serra amusing.

[Refa]

7 hours ago, Extrasolar said:

Question time! Do you like character gimmicks? Do you think they should stick around in future characters/characterization, or do you wish they would be done away with entirely?

So how do you feel about characters with gimmicks or an exaggerated trait or  traits? Do you generally find them compelling?

Do you personally feel that there has been a drop in the quality of characterization or character writing in the Fire Emblem series? In your opinion, what are some of the most well-written and fleshed out characters of the series, and just for balance's sake, what are some of the worst or flattest in your opinion?

No, I don't like it when characters are easily defined by one trait, especially when that trait feels like it shouldn't define that character (likes to eat, is in love with Chrom, is a klutz, etc.).  It's more excusable with people like Lute or Arthur (although I'd prefer if they had more facets to them, of course; Lute might but it's been a while since I've used her in FE8) because her being a prodigy or him going out of his way to help people are a big part of who they are.  People have mentioned liking these one note characters but I don't think anyone would be opposed to them being more fleshed out (or at least, I'd hope not).  I'd prefer they not stick around in future games, as it feels like they use these gimmicks to endear people to characters without providing any of the substance afterwards.

I don't find it compelling because it ruins my immersion and feels like they exist just to pander to specific people (sometimes that person is me).

Yeah, I do.   Previous games had flat characters or people who straight out didn't talk, don't get me wrong.  HOWEVER, none of those characters felt out of place or unbelievable to me.  For example, Kyle is boring as fuck to me, but he doesn't actively hurt my enjoyment like when I read a lot of the supports in Awakening/Fates where a character just spouts their gimmick to another character.  Some of the most well written and fleshed out characters are Leaf, Soren, and Jill.  Some of the worst characters (who actually get dialogue, anyways) are Ilyana (FE10, she didn't bother me as much in FE9), Gaius, and Setsuna.

[Lord Tullus]

1 hour ago, I'm a Spheal said:

With Shadows of Valentia coming out, I'm really liking the idea of Celica's peace loving nature but finding the idea of Alm's aggressiveness insufferable. The main reason why I like Sanaki so much is because she cusses Ike out. I hate Arthur's patriotism and sense of justice, I hate Cordelia's obsession with Chrom but totally ok with Tharja and Camilla and I find Serra amusing.

So... you think an agressive protagonist who is a young, eager, battle hungry, inexperienced knucklehead like Alm is "insufferable" compared to Celica, who displays an opposite personality and varying goals? That's kinda the point.  The point is to have these characters progress and become more of a person over time, and if they are insufferable, let them be.  See if they change, and become better than their former selves.   A character can only be so much starting out.  The kind of person they are, their backgrounds, what environments they are exposed to, and even their genes (family traits or royal expectations based on heritage) play a role in who they are, what they set out to achieve, and how they do this.  Celica takes the more calm approach of finding why crops are failing, while alm takes the battle to the front of the empire, a brash and dangerous, but richous cause that someone had to put into motion.  If alm didn't start something, who would have?  The resistance force, based on what we know, probably would have failed if alm hadn't stepped up.  He takes action.  

What I'm trying to say here is that characters have traits and personalities that shape their actions throughout a story.  if these actions make them more believable of a character, then they are done well.  But give them a chance.  Don't write off characters because of simple traits that simplify how they start out.  See if they grow based on those traits, and then try to develop an opinion for that.  If what you like are memorable characters, then wouldn't alm be someone you like?  His traits, you may not like, but you can certainly remember him - he stands out from a bunch of the other lords with his attitude alone.  

As for other character traits, if they are one-note, and are focused on too much, they can ruin the potential a character has to develop.  Having too many of them makes an entire cast sink to the bottom of a life-deprived ocean, awash in garbage and dead tropes.  No one wants that.  No one wants a dead cast, or even worse, a cast that feels dead, because their defining features run stale.  Give me some variety in character traits.  Instead of one gimmick, give me three or four.  I'd like to have characters that have back stories and likes and dislikes of their own.

 Motivations, goals, interests, dreams.  These things make up interesting and thought provoking characters that reel in the theme of the story more-so than the main story itself could, in my opinion.  It's ok to have two or three gimmicky characters who play for laughs, or who have some sort of distortion of reality, there are real people who mess around, and are just good fun to be around - having a few characters who represent fun is nothing to do away with.  But having too many make the world feel empty, and the story's message falls flat when the characters aren't even in the world that is struggling to survive with only the protagonist to hold everything in place.  That's what Fates and (almost) awakening felt like to me, and I'd like this to be improved upon in future FE games.

 By contrast, FE 6 had some bland, and non-memorable characters, but at least in their supports they tried to resolve some problem or issue they had with the world around them or with one another.  Take Zealot and Juno's supports.  They try to discuss how they are feeling and about the future of Illia as a country.  It's not the most practical support, or even the most interesting.  But it feels like they respond to the problems of the world and are breathing, living people who I can care about if they die.  These goals, aspirations, and resolutions die with them.  With each character that dies in FE 6, for me at least, a resolution to some problem also dies.  In Fates?  meh.  Some guy with bad luck or a bloodthirsty maniac died, and I don't care if they die, because that's all that dies.  There are some exceptions, but that's how it is for me.  Give me a reason other than the character themself to keep them around, and I'll say, "now there's a successful side cast."

Edited March 31, 2017 by Lord Tullus

[Thane]

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.

[Jotari]

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.

[Slumber]

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.

Which is probably why IS should stay away from the "Everyone can support everyone" method of character writing.

By making so many supports(Particularly Awakening) for each character, to a certain point, their only defining traits ARE their gimmicks. 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. They picked and chose supports that made sense and would give Canas new things to say about his love of study and books.

We learn that he values studying these ancient magic tomes, even though these are the same tomes that left his brothers soulless husks. We learn that he highly regards spreading his knowledge, and he's likely one of the two people(The other being Karla) that makes meathead Bartre calm down and become more thoughtful. And on top of this, by learning that Nino is illiterate, he takes it upon himself to teach her to read, and through the process, learns that Nino is likely his niece. And then you get his amusing supports where Pent and Canas bond over their love of books, where Canas fanboys over Pent, until Pent learns that Canas is Niime's son, and Pent starts fanboying over Canas. It gets to the point where, yeah, even though Canas talks about books or studying in nearly every support, it doesn't feel like that's the only thing he has going on as a character.

Compare this to Miriel, who doesn't get anything remotely like this. Miriel's supports almost all boil down to "Study study study, books books books, nothing else is important", and berating anyone who isn't OCD about studying and books like she is(The sole exception being her S rank supports, where she accepts whoever you pair her with, but usually with some form of the line "I love you even though you aren't as smart as me").

Miriel just really doesn't get any dialogue of substance that really develops her, because she has to spread her gimmick thin by supporting with over 15 characters.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Slumber