How much does a character's performance as a unit affect whether or not you like him/her?

[Shadow Mir]

As far as I'm concerned, it largely depends on how they do as a unit - how they are as a character usually has no bearing (since if I'm using them enough to get their supports, odds are I either like them enough to want to use them)... unless they're either obviously more trouble than they're worth to bring up to speed (e.g  Nino) or just really bad (e.g. Meg). However, both of those aren't mutually exclusive.

[Rapaille]

In my eyes there are 3 important aspects to Fire Emblem characters; Writing, design and viability. When I'm asked what I think of a character I would judge them on these categories and then come to a general consensus in which all categories weigh equally. That is if I was always honest and judged all characters equally which isn't the case since I'm a human.

There are cases where a unit is objectively really bad at one or two categories but I still like them. Deirdre is a character who has very little personality and isn't good as a unit, yet I still like her a lot because of her design even though there are characters that score higher then her technically. Same with Tiltyu but her personality and Rutger when it comes to viability.

This of course can also be the other way around. Micaiah scores pretty high when it comes to design and below average when it comes to viability yet I dislike her personality so much that she's one of my least favourite characters despite technically scoring just as high as Deirdre or Tiltyu. Same with the trainees in Sacred stones, there design is good and their personality is decent yet I dislike them so much as units that they score really low whenever I make a list.

I would say that writing and unit viability weigh equally but that simply isn't always the case since there are many cases that I'm clearly bias for one reason or another. The way I look at character also changes with my mood so it's hard to come to a general consensus.

Edited February 4, 2019 by LJwalhout

[TheWildestCat]

My problem is that most units I like are important enough to wear they have to be saved, but other than that they are kind of another character. Although depending on the game, i.e. Echoes where you can talk to the units in the towns and listen to supports, it's really hard to judge them other than performance on the battle field.

[Interdimensional Observer]

There has been a number of times when a character being awesome in gameplay has led me to like them, and other cases where someone got shortchanged and then I pitied them. But on the whole, gameplay-character separation for me. I'll use who I must, I'll like who I choose.

[Tuvy2]

I could care less if a unit is good, I only care about design and character, you will never catch me using Seth in sacred stones, or using Jill in PoR or RD, they may be good units, but I hate them.

[Landmaster]

Personality is a biggy, a unit can be great but if I don't find them interesting as a character, I likely won't even use them (ex. the oldest Fates siblings). However, even if I don't really like a character's personality, if they're a good unit, they can grow on me.

Personality-wise, I'm not too fond of Delthea, but she was such a good unit, I started to really like her, even if I still don't necessarily like her character traits. Likewise, as you mentioned Python, he was trash for most of the game but he was funny so I had to keep using him till he got gud~ 

[Shadow Mir]

3 hours ago, TheWildestCat said:

My problem is that most units I like are important enough to wear they have to be saved, but other than that they are kind of another character. Although depending on the game, i.e. Echoes where you can talk to the units in the towns and listen to supports, it's really hard to judge them other than performance on the battle field.

I agree with the bolded, especially in the context of Archanea. Considering that most Archanea characters had little to no dialogue, performance on the battlefield was all you could look at.

[MagicCanonBalls]

I often find myself softened up to strong characters after realizing how amazing they are in combat, even though I may not like them at first, like Ike and Camilla. Especially Camilla, she gives me a shiver down the spine every time she mentions about killing whoever she is talking to, because I know she is definitely capable of doing that. So for me, if a character sees enough action in battle, I would eventually found something for me to like that character. Recently I am playing Birthright Lunatic and training Orochi as Witch for the first time, I disliked her... flair during my last BR and Revelation playthrough. But oh my god she is definitely fantastic at nuking things magically with Horse Spirit. And now I like her more because she looks good as a witch and her conversation with Ryoma is decent and warming (pair them up for speed bonus for Orochi).

But of course, sometimes I get crazy enough about a character I would try to use them even though they are bad units, although that seldom happen. So far only Arlen, Stefan, Frey, Athena and Cain make that list. 

[Zihark11]

My Favorite character is Zihark and there are clearly better Swordsman in PoR and RD but ive always just loved his design and his personality. He is in no way a bad unit either there are just better. 

[Strullemia]

Overall I don't really have any favorite FE characters that I would consider awful or even bad so I do think that it probably matters a bit at least. 

After all characters like Julia, Tine, Tailtiu, Sanaki, Micaiah and Nyx aren't considered the best of units.

[ConquestVeteran]

If you ask me, a character's writing and performance have an equal amount of weight. I could love a character's combat capabilities, but if they're a bland or poorly written character, I'd rather use a more interesting unit. On the other side of the spectrum, if a character has a really fleshed out and unique personality, but their performance is lackluster, I just wouldn't bother trying to use them. I don't expect every single character to have insane growths or an extremely developed personality, but I at least expect decent combat capabilities and personality from each unit.

[Kori]

15 hours ago, Critical Sniper said:

but the only reason she has that trait is to appeal to the radical demographic that exists today (Lol do these fems even play videogames?

We do. As much, if not more, than you. But I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word waifu uncritically to believe that.

Personality and design over performance for me, though a unit I like being good will improve my opinion of them if only because it makes using them more fun. I'll grind for my favorites and feed them kills if that's needed, but I will make them work; on the other hand, if I don't like them, they're on the bench as soon as I can put them there, regardless of how useful they might be. (Hi Ryoma, bye Ryoma.)

[Hanes]

4 minutes ago, Kori said:

We do. As much, if not more, than you. But I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word waifu uncritically to believe that.

I'm talking about the radical fems but ok. Lol @bolded I'm playing way more because I've got more time and I'm not wasting my time on journalism to CNN xd. (That last part is assuming you do accept you're a rad fem)

EDIT: Rebecca is still my cute waifu hrmph!

Edited February 4, 2019 by Critical Sniper

[Shadow Mir]

29 minutes ago, ConquestVeteran said:

If you ask me, a character's writing and performance have an equal amount of weight. I could love a character's combat capabilities, but if they're a bland or poorly written character, I'd rather use a more interesting unit. On the other side of the spectrum, if a character has a really fleshed out and unique personality, but their performance is lackluster, I just wouldn't bother trying to use them. I don't expect every single character to have insane growths or an extremely developed personality, but I at least expect decent combat capabilities and personality from each unit.

What about in, say, the Archanea saga, where most units don't have much of a personality?

[Kori]

1 hour ago, Critical Sniper said:

I'm talking about the radical fems but ok. Lol @bolded I'm playing way more because I've got more time and I'm not wasting my time on journalism to CNN xd. (That last part is assuming you do accept you're a rad fem)

EDIT: Rebecca is still my cute waifu hrmph!

My bad, then : you said Miriel was "a feminist", not radical, so I assumed that's what you meant in general and that you were referring to feminism as a whole by "radical demographic". (Since I've seen it done, usually by people expressing a similar distaste for "feminist" female characters.) Rad fems are a disgrace and I have nothing to do with them.

Good for you, I suppose.

[ConquestVeteran]

1 hour ago, Shadow Mir said:

What about in, say, the Archanea saga, where most units don't have much of a personality?

I haven't played those, but if I did, I would just base my opinion on their combat capabilities.

[Hanes]

6 minutes ago, Kori said:

My bad, then : you said Miriel was "a feminist", not radical, so I assumed that's what you meant in general and that you were referring to feminism as a whole by "radical demographic". (Since I've seen it done, usually by people expressing a similar distaste for "feminist" female characters.) Rad fems are a disgrace and I have nothing to do with them.

Good for you, I suppose.

Oh yeah but I wanted to say that the only reason she is a feminist is to appease to the radical feminists as I suppose feminists don't immediately go "YES MIRIEL! WOOO!!!" I didn't know some people call normal feminists "Radical" probably just incels but I think something even the far-right can accept is that female rights are not a bad.

Oh ok, *hugs Rebecca strongly*

[Hawkwing]

While my favorite Fire Emblem characters of all time manage to combine personalities I enjoy with stellar gameplay performance, I tend to separate the two depending on the context.

I am fine using a unit I don't personally care about if they can get the job done, as well as letting a character who's personality I enjoy sit a map out if they'll be more of a hindrance than an asset. It helps that the units I don't like will be unlocking more supports, which may or may change my opinion of the character.

Meanwhile, if the conversation/topic is about why I like or dislike a character as, well, a character, then I'll give my reasons using the story, supports, and, if there's gameplay and story integration involved, how they work in the game itself.

I don't know if I'm just lucky, or if I simply haven't played enough games in the series yet, but I have noticed that many of the characters I like also tend to do well in gameplay, while the cahracters I don't really enjoy tend to be the ones I struggle to get a use out of. This isn't universal, of course, but it is an interesting personal trend I noticed.

[Nephenoren]

I find it strange that so few people rate performance under writing. For me the only thing relevant is how much easier a character makes a game. For example; I like Makalov in FE9 because mounts are op in that game, he joins with ok bases and good growths and it's easy to use mounts. However, I dislike him in FE10 because he's got bad bases, isn't very helpful in most of the CRK maps, has very low availability compared to say Titania or Oscar and is weaker than a lot of enemies.

[Flere210]

It's the opposite for me. I usually prefer to use people that i like or that i never used before with no regard for efficiency, so i hate when an unit is so good that i feel bad for chosing to not use them. In particular, i feel that 90% of the Jeigan are terrible implementation of the "crutch character" archetype and i have to force myself to use them. The ony exception are Oifey and frederick because they actually get outscaled by a decent margin (plus frederick has that one critical strike quote).

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

At the latest Heroes showed me that favorism has no place in FE for me. 

Only the unit's performance matters for me. 

Otherwise I never would dare using Nowi or Camilla. 

Heroes is the biggest irony for me: Nowi, my least favorite FE character ever, became my first 5* +10 unit.

[starburst]

For me, how much I like the unit is more important to how good that unit is. And I stressed the word 'like' because it has a broader meaning than how well its character is developed.
Sometimes I am interested in a unit purely based on their design (Cherche, even though I have not played Awakening), some others it is their voice what draws my attention (Felicia), or their in-battle phrases ('A hunting I will go'), or their gimmicks (Odin), and so on.

If anything, I think that the inverse of the title is true for me: How much I like a unit is what determines whether or not I will use it.

I always play Conquest as Corrinette, yet Jakob always ends the game around L5 (or dies in a tragical accident in Chapter 6.) I dislike his character, his interactions, his fake accent... I understand that it can be a useful unit if re-classed through different seals, but I simply cannot stand him. (I also think he is overrated as fuck, for even Lunatic goes just as smooth without him, but that is a discussion for another time.)

I have barely used Beruka because I find her design unappealing. I do not use Percy or Kana because they are kids (contrasted to other teenage units), and Percy's case is particularly gross since one can even marry a child. I do not like Soleil and Nyx's voice actress... And so on.

So, yeah, Fire Emblem is a strategy game, but how much I like the characters defines how the army is composed and thus my gameplay.

[Sand55]

I definitely lean more toward the writing side of things, but a unit’s performance still colors my opinion. I find it tends to work on my opinion more when performance and personality match up, if that makes any sense. Like, going back to the Python example, I noticed he had really low accuracy and speed, and started to associate that with his lazy personality. So pretty soon, despite his humorous sass, I began to be dissatisfied with Python. I began to attribute his poor performance to his laziness, and started to think of him as being a detriment to the team because he didn’t pull his own weight in battle, not because he couldn’t, but because he decided to be lazy and not try very hard.

In Sacred Stones I respected Seth more because he was so effective in battle. It expanded his character from “loyal” to “loyal and efficient”.  If he’d been a sucker in battle, I might have viewed him as a pretty incompetent general, but as someone who is really efficient in battle, it seems like he has the skill and knowledge to back up his rank, and it makes me respect him, and like him, more.

Y’know, at the beginning of this I said I judged more based on writing, but while writing this I convinced myself otherwise. I think the writing and performance both reflect significantly on who the characters are, so I guess I kind of judge both equally.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Sand55

[Shadow Mir]

On 2/6/2019 at 7:24 AM, starburst said:

For me, how much I like the unit is more important to how good that unit is. And I stressed the word 'like' because it has a broader meaning than how well its character is developed.
Sometimes I am interested in a unit purely based on their design (Cherche, even though I have not played Awakening), some others it is their voice what draws my attention (Felicia), or their in-battle phrases ('A hunting I will go'), or their gimmicks (Odin), and so on.

If anything, I think that the inverse of the title is true for me: How much I like a unit is what determines whether or not I will use it.

I always play Conquest as Corrinette, yet Jakob always ends the game around L5 (or dies in a tragical accident in Chapter 6.) I dislike his character, his interactions, his fake accent... I understand that it can be a useful unit if re-classed through different seals, but I simply cannot stand him. (I also think he is overrated as fuck, for even Lunatic goes just as smooth without him, but that is a discussion for another time.)

I have barely used Beruka because I find her design unappealing. I do not use Percy or Kana because they are kids (contrasted to other teenage units), and Percy's case is particularly gross since one can even marry a child. I do not like Soleil and Nyx's voice actress... And so on.

So, yeah, Fire Emblem is a strategy game, but how much I like the characters defines how the army is composed and thus my gameplay.

On that note, is there any real reason why you always use a female Corrin? Because I don't really care for the male half of the cast. Anyway, I feel the same way to an extent - design and performance on the battlefield, among others, are taken into account when deciding who I use. Another one is my history with the character. Which explains why I don't like Jill from the Tellius saga - she ALWAYS disappointed me when I attempted to use her (ergo, continually getting bad level ups). Ditto for Niles from Fates (he, too, is someone who the fandom overhypes to holy hell and back. Coincidence?).

Edited February 7, 2019 by Shadow Mir

[Avarice Shadow]

It's more about their performance for me, but I do like some characters who are terrible units like, Forde from FE8 and Lyre from FE10.