[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by felix

Here's my problem the currently trendy "I don't like characters that are good at what they do" angle.

Anime has very recently had a stretch of extreme hyper-competency in some of its most prominent male leads.

SAO's Kirito, Mahouka's Tatsuya, Aldnoah.Zero's Inaho, and (from what I've heard) No Game No Life's Sora.

Each of these four anime shows have a strong fanbase, and each of these four anime shows were heavily talked about, among the most popular anime shows around when they aired. After this stretch of
hyper-competent male leads, maybe a lot of anime fans have a hunger for more flawed and more struggling and more emotionally colorful/expressive characters.

Sometimes the most popular characters of today are a response to too much of a certain type of character in the very recent past.

If you don't like current trends, then give it time - In a couple years, you may have some lead characters that are all responses to Re:Zero's Subaru.

It pains me to see people complain that a show is bad because the character was "too powerful" when really the problem is the world wasn't interesting enough to support that character.

I think you might be underestimating how people just want a change sometimes. A change from what was very recently dominant. They want to see a show go in a different direction with a different type of lead character. And I don't see anything illegitimate about this.

People seem to take this to the logical next step of "I don't like characters that are excellent at something." To give a recent example, in the series Alderamin on the Sky the main character, which is from the words of the story itself foreshadowed to become a great general,

This in itself is arguably a problem. Having an actual narrator voice tell you about how great the main character is and/or is going to be can easily come across as kinda obnoxious. For one thing, it's a pretty strong implied spoiler. I think people prefer excellence in their characters when it simply arises from their words and deeds, and we're not force-fed exposition telling us about how glorious this character is. It's fine if the main character gets some compliments or even glory, but it's probably best if this comes after the main character has accomplished something worthwhile.

I know I'm repeating myself but I want to emphasize as bluntly as possible: a LOT of people have a apparently very strong opinion that Mental/Psychological Problems are some kind of "key" feature of good characterization. It's extremely silly and unhealthy.

Why? Why is it extremely silly and unhealthy?

PTSD is a real thing. A very serious real thing. Just doing some read-ups on Vietnam war veterans should make that abundantly clear.

Many people like characters and stories that feel authentic. We like characters that feel human, warts and all. We often like to see characters handle horrible difficulties the way that we ourselves would likely handle them - Which is generally not with silky smooth hyper-competency.

If a character witnesses numerous loved ones die, for example, I want to see some evidence that s/he's been hurt and bereaved by that. I don't want to see someone that simply soldiers on like some sort of robot, showing little evidence of feelings of loss or despair.

Of course this varies depending on what the main character is put through. The less severe the situation, the less warranted heavy duty mental/psychological problems are. But if a main character is put through a truly hellish situation, than I want to see a human response to that, not one that would even make Star Trek's Spock blush. And I get the sense that I'm not alone here.


A lot of this comes down to "humans vs. heroes". I like watching heroes myself sometimes, as I'm a big fan of superheroes. But sometimes it's emotionally engaging to see a very human character struggle against difficult odds. And even with very heroic characters, a sense of human vulnerability (especially at a psychological/emotional level) can make them more relatable.