I get an uncomfortable feeling that I'm giving too much credit to knock-off characters-- that by lacking knowledge in early FE, I can't really praise any of the later games because I don't know what's what.
Well, elsewhere I just compared FE7's Serra to a '13 Ford Focus as held up against Malliesia's '95 Escort. Is one arguably a knockoff? Yeah. Does it bring things to the table not even dreamed of when the original came off the production line? Oh hell yeah.
But archetype debates really are ridiculous when people take FE7 (or 6, since more have played that than, say, FE5) as a starting point and work backward without grokking the actual source material. Original Cain and Abel are so sketchy as characters that people argue about them archetype-wise without even understanding that Noish and Alec from FE4 instituted the straight man/comic dynamic we're accustomed to now and the whole "archetype" look a break for FE2 and arguably FE5. Cain and Abel themselves don't fit into the straight man/comic dude box. Is FE8's Kyle modeled off Abel or Cain? Uh... IDK. Really, I don't know. Are we talking stats or storyline? Armor color or personality? Surface presentation or deeper characterization? Let's just call him Green and be done with it.
[And if you held me at gunpoint I'd say he's the Cain. Kyle stays by Ephraim in his default unpaired ending while Forde goes off to self-actualize via painting. That's my litmus test.]
Maybe it goes in the other direction, too? "Why am I obsessed over this 16-bit fool when some other guy came and did this schtick with a lot more text on the Gamecube?" kind of thing?
Oh, I've definitely felt that way.
And people will react to the archetype system in that way as long as it's used for arguments.
I find the whole archetype debate to be pretty ridiculous, TBH. It's about taking characters and locking them in boxes when many characters-- especially later ones-- are drawing off multiple sources of inspiration. Take Geoffrey. On the one hand, the blue mop of hair and trademark Brave Lance make him an obvious reference to Finn from the Jugdral games. (Obvious and inarguable given they're the only two characters out of 13 games who have that as their personal weapon.) But if anyone's carrying Finn's actual role in the Tellius games, right down to some awfully familiar bits of dialogue in FE9, it's Titania. So you have a really, really popular character (apparently the most popular in FE4 via fan poll and arguably popular enough that he got his own spin-off game in FE5) influencing a couple of different characters several games down the line. That sort of influence doesn't fit on an archetype checklist. Back to Geoffrey. If we have to associate all characters with some FE1 character as certain archetype lists would have it[*], then Geoff being a pre-promote guy on a horse would make him... A Midia. Or An Arran. Wait, isn't Arran a Jeigan? Geoffrey can't be a Jeigan because Titania's the Jeigan. Wait, what were we even talking about?
So I guess Geoffrey's The Midia because he's a prepromote paladin of noble background who's intensely loyal to his queen. Does that explain anything worthwhile about Geoffrey? Not really.
Archetypes exist and over the years IS has both amplified them and subverted them. But trying to shove someone like FE4's Ayra into the "Nyna" box on dubious grounds or sticking Tellius characters into boxes even though they're drawing on multiple sources of inspiration just seems like an exercise in futility to me. Not every character either begins or follows an archetype.
TL;DR many "archetype" arguments don't even seem to have a basis in any kind of reality to me.
* General Banzai. He's a fool. I don't throw that around as a rule but he's earned it, and for a lot more than just the archetype nonsense.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-04-27 08:11 pm (UTC)Well, elsewhere I just compared FE7's Serra to a '13 Ford Focus as held up against Malliesia's '95 Escort. Is one arguably a knockoff? Yeah. Does it bring things to the table not even dreamed of when the original came off the production line? Oh hell yeah.
But archetype debates really are ridiculous when people take FE7 (or 6, since more have played that than, say, FE5) as a starting point and work backward without grokking the actual source material. Original Cain and Abel are so sketchy as characters that people argue about them archetype-wise without even understanding that Noish and Alec from FE4 instituted the straight man/comic dynamic we're accustomed to now and the whole "archetype" look a break for FE2 and arguably FE5. Cain and Abel themselves don't fit into the straight man/comic dude box. Is FE8's Kyle modeled off Abel or Cain? Uh... IDK. Really, I don't know. Are we talking stats or storyline? Armor color or personality? Surface presentation or deeper characterization? Let's just call him Green and be done with it.
[And if you held me at gunpoint I'd say he's the Cain. Kyle stays by Ephraim in his default unpaired ending while Forde goes off to self-actualize via painting. That's my litmus test.]
Maybe it goes in the other direction, too? "Why am I obsessed over this 16-bit fool when some other guy came and did this schtick with a lot more text on the Gamecube?" kind of thing?
Oh, I've definitely felt that way.
And people will react to the archetype system in that way as long as it's used for arguments.
I find the whole archetype debate to be pretty ridiculous, TBH. It's about taking characters and locking them in boxes when many characters-- especially later ones-- are drawing off multiple sources of inspiration. Take Geoffrey. On the one hand, the blue mop of hair and trademark Brave Lance make him an obvious reference to Finn from the Jugdral games. (Obvious and inarguable given they're the only two characters out of 13 games who have that as their personal weapon.) But if anyone's carrying Finn's actual role in the Tellius games, right down to some awfully familiar bits of dialogue in FE9, it's Titania. So you have a really, really popular character (apparently the most popular in FE4 via fan poll and arguably popular enough that he got his own spin-off game in FE5) influencing a couple of different characters several games down the line. That sort of influence doesn't fit on an archetype checklist. Back to Geoffrey. If we have to associate all characters with some FE1 character as certain archetype lists would have it[*], then Geoff being a pre-promote guy on a horse would make him... A Midia. Or An Arran. Wait, isn't Arran a Jeigan? Geoffrey can't be a Jeigan because Titania's the Jeigan. Wait, what were we even talking about?
So I guess Geoffrey's The Midia because he's a prepromote paladin of noble background who's intensely loyal to his queen. Does that explain anything worthwhile about Geoffrey? Not really.
Archetypes exist and over the years IS has both amplified them and subverted them. But trying to shove someone like FE4's Ayra into the "Nyna" box on dubious grounds or sticking Tellius characters into boxes even though they're drawing on multiple sources of inspiration just seems like an exercise in futility to me. Not every character either begins or follows an archetype.
TL;DR many "archetype" arguments don't even seem to have a basis in any kind of reality to me.
* General Banzai. He's a fool. I don't throw that around as a rule but he's earned it, and for a lot more than just the archetype nonsense.