With the controversy regarding Fire Emblem: Warriors fortunately dying down, I’d actually like to touch back up on a more serious topic with a mature discussion and I suppose, discuss the frustrations I have as a huge fan of the Fire Emblem series.

First, I think I’d like to establish my own values on the series, so as to provide insight on my own biases and opinions to this somewhat controversial topic. The point of this is to hopefully add some reflexivity to what I say, allowing you all to judge what I say based on this bias.

I’m a ‘veteran’ Fire Emblem fan, having started with Blazing Sword of which I played as a kid. I’ve played every entry after Blazing Sword (BS to Echoes), however I do consider myself a pretty big advocate of the older generation. Awakening left me bitter, although I did end up opening up to Fates, even if I view the game as a missed opportunity. Contrary to my opinion on the newer games, I am incredibly grateful for Fire Emblem: Awakening for allowing the series to not only continue, but currently thrive (I really enjoyed Echoes).

Whilst there are gameplay issues I have with the newer games, my dislike for the newer generation stems from the tonal shift and reliance on character archetypes. Whilst in a way, I liked this focus shift in making each side character more identifiable and personal, I feel like the characters have ultimately regressed. In the older games, the main flaws in the characters were the sheer number of overshadowed characters, some neglected to the point you’d struggle to even describe a personality for them (eg. Geitz, Zeiss, Aran, Vika). Even some ‘main’ characters suffered from this, Lilina and Caeda are most identifiable as they are heroines with virtually no story presence.

I do see it commonly stated that older generations of Fire Emblem had stereotypical characters (Sain & Serra are most notable) and this is true, however I think this is a false equivalence that undermines the real issue. The real issue isn’t the existence of archetypal characters, the real issue lies in the prevalence and projection of stereotypical characters. Rather than personality traits being an addition to the character, it has become a rigid requirement for a character to function in the newer generation games. This is particularly due to marriage mechanic, as each character needs to appeal as a potential love interest or else be disregarded entirely. This individualisation is facilitated most easily through archetypes such as tsunderes, creepy girl, childhood friend, unrequited love, etc. You can see this character direction trend growing as it is prevalent in Fire Emblem: Heroes, where they really amplified Shanna’s gungho attitude, Clarisse being a ‘tsundere’ and Rebecca’s farmer background when these traits weren’t very identifiable at first. It should note, my opinion is unfavourable with the general consensus, where characters I viewed as particularly dislikeable due to the extremities of their archetypes (Tharja, Gaius and especially Owain) are actually the most polled, so I would like to hear others opinions on the matter regardless of your stance on the topic.

Foxcade provides a great analysis on the topic of marketing and ‘waifu wars’, and I feel like I should mention this trend here. I don’t think the marriage mechanic is inherently bad (eg. I liked it in Geneology), however I think the way Awakening and Fates presented this was detrimental to character writing. Whilst yes, there were characters who actively hurt other characters development (eg. Peri) and pairings that made absolutely no sense (Subaki & Selena), ultimately my biggest issue is how the pairing facilitates a false attachment between the player and the character. What I mean by this is, as players choose a character for various reasons (looks, personality, in-game usability, skill inheritance), an attachment between the player and character is created automatically and thus, aspects such as characterisation and development become secondary, when instead they should be a main focus.

I am not saying that this type of approach is inherently bad. For example, a similar series would be ‘Persona’. Most important characters fit into common narrative archetypes. The difference (at least, personally) is that the exploration into the Persona characters is a lot more in-depth, relatable and well... better written. Any archetypal associations don’t feel like a reliance, which they do with Awakening and Fates.

With that all out of the way... I would actually like to praise Shadows of Valentia. The characterisation in this game has been the best out of the series yet and honestly makes me very hopeful for the future. I honestly would look forward to a ‘marriage-centred’ or ‘Avatar-centred’ game in the future if they adopted the characterisation from Echoes. I would love to actually go and write an essay about what I enjoyed about Echoes characterisation, however I feel like I’ve already done enough raving before I put everyone to sleep. From the top of my head:

• Consistent and enjoyable characterisation. Eg. Gray and Tobin are both just average joes and fit the role story-wise despite their prevalence, however weren’t boring or overshadowed in the slightest – a common trend for most ‘average/farmer’ characters.
• Side character development or interesting plot relevance that isn’t apparent right away (Clive, Sonya)
• Some deep support conversations. Genny and Sonya spring to mind as a particularly endearing one that developed both characters greatly.
• Believable and well-explored relationships. The Pegasus sisters had a close, believable sibling bond. Gray and Tobin actually felt like best bros, etc.
• No reliance on character archetypes. Characters such as Est, Clair and Python who may be attributed to particular stereotypes weren’t obnoxious in the slightest and added diversity without seeming like a quirk. The only character who failed to meet this criteria was Faye. Potentially Deen as well.
• Base conversations provided deeper history and insight into the characters, even better than a large majority of support conversations from all past games, despite being one-sided discussions. For example, Leon’s first crush being another soldier he followed to battle had died, Luthier’s inexperience in social issue, Catria’s insecurities about her personality in comparison to her sisters(as well as a nice nod to her thinking about Marth), Tatiana internal conflict (realising her own selfishness for not wanting Zeke’s memories to come back, even at his or his potential families expense).