Whol Liked Final Fantasy 12.

And Seymour as an antagonist was pathetic. mjarantilla

And yet Seymour is deeper than the majority of villains in Final Fantasy.:|

[QUOTE="ragrdoll21"][QUOTE="tidus222"]

i thought the story was terrible

worst story in a FF game since FF5

gameplay was also very repetitive and dull, having characters on auto attack most of the time

FFX was a far better game

if it wasnt for FFX the entire ps2 era of FF games would have been pathetic..

Riviera_Phantom

Even though i liked FFXII's battle system alot , politics or not. You NEED an emotional love story or some sort of connection like that or else it's not FF. It just makes the game that extra special. I have no doubt that if FFXII had a more engaging story for the mainstream FF fanbase it would be the best JRPG ever created.

No, you really do not need an emotional love story. You just need to connect to the characters. FFVI had a very small love story between Locke and Celes, but that was exceedingly minor. FFIV was similar; romance was not a major factor in that game, either.

Making love stories central to any kind of plot or character relationship generally tends to weaken said plots and character relationships unless done very well. Unfortunately, none of the love stories in the past FFs have been done particularly well.

The popularization of Final Fantasy has led to a collective dumbing down of storylines. Scenarios were getting more and more outlandish, character relationships more and more exaggerated and unbelievable, and reliance on cliches more and more pronounced. FFXII was a drastic change and a kick in the butt that the FF series needed. It's more subdued and more realistic than other FFs, and because of that it's better.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]And Seymour as an antagonist was pathetic. redCloudJ7

And yet Seymour is deeper than the majority of villains in Final Fantasy.:|

Why?

[QUOTE="redCloudJ7"]

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]And Seymour as an antagonist was pathetic. mjarantilla

And yet Seymour is deeper than the majority of villains in Final Fantasy.:|

Why?

Seymour has more backstory and character development than the majority of FF villains.

Is it worth playing.xjet039

It's a must play. Especially for any RPG fan I put it with the likes of DQVIII, Suikoden 3, and KH 1&2. It's the best FF since VII in my opinion.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="redCloudJ7"]

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]And Seymour as an antagonist was pathetic. redCloudJ7

And yet Seymour is deeper than the majority of villains in Final Fantasy.:|

Why?

Seymour has more backstory and character development than the majority of FF villains.

So? Some of the best villains in fiction have almost non-existent backstory, or at least they have backstory that is only implied rather than stated blatantly in exposition as Seymour's is. And character development? You're going to have to explain how Seymour's character development is any better than any other misguided megalomaniac who thinks he's doing the right thing but actually isn't, because I just don't see it.

So? Some of the best villains in fiction have almost non-existent backstory, or at least they have backstory that is only implied rather than stated blatantly in exposition as Seymour's is. And character development? You're going to have to explain how Seymour's character development is any better than any other misguided megalomaniac who thinks he's doing the right thing but actually isn't, because I just don't see it.

mjarantilla

So? The point was that he was deeper than the Majority of FF villains. Even though FF villains are pretty pathetic. Even my favorite Kefka.

Some of the best villains in fiction have almost non-existent backstory. According to who?

Seymour's character development comes from the development of his childhood. As a child Seymour was hated and outcasted. He was a victim of racism and hatred. The racism and hatred slowly began to warp him. His mother the only one he loved (And his support and stability. Died. She turned herself into an Aeion. His only support and stability vanished.

After the death of his mother he changed. His hatred grew for his father for being unable to protect him and his mother.After the death of his mother his ideologies become warped. His concept of saving the world is completely different than his mothers.

He still plans on saving the world for her sake and Spiras but it's completely different. He comes to the conclusion that if everyone was to die no one would feel pain ever again. No one would feel the pain that he felt. Thetorment that he had to persevere. For the sake of the Spira and his mother.

That he would create an everlasting peace. He decides to become Sin so he can kill everyone. He murders his father. And takes over as the leader of the Guado. And a Maestar of Yveon.

Is it worth playing.xjet039

I didn't like the new gameplay they had in FFXII. I find it quite boring.

i liked the dtail that game had..

very pretty graphics...

story was..not that much 2 offer just another boy meet girl who ends up a hero one way or another...

hahaha...

there was 2 CID's in the game..

want doctor.CID(correct me if im wrong) and another one was AL-CID

i liked AL-CID~he looks awesome and when i saw him 1st time at the..watever mountain(i tottaly 4got XD) i was like..

wow...he looks awesome...

Some of the best villains in fiction have almost non-existent backstory. According to who?

According to anyone and everyone. Did the Alien in the first Alien movie have backstory? Did Darth Vader in the first Star Wars? HAL9000? Dr. No? I could go on. Some of the best villains ARE the best villains because they were not complicated, because the writers did not feel some artificial need to complicate their characters.

Seymour's character development comes from the development of his childhood. As a child Seymour was hated and outcasted. He was a victim of racism and hatred. The racism and hatred slowly began to warp him. His mother the only one he loved (And his support and stability. Died. She turned herself into an Aeion. His only support and stability vanished.

After the death of his mother he changed. His hatred grew for his father for being unable to protect him and his mother.After the death of his mother his ideologies become warped. His concept of saving the world is completely different than his mothers.

He still plans on saving the world for her sake and Spiras but it's completely different. He comes to the conclusion that if everyone was to die no one would feel pain ever again. No one would feel the pain that he felt. Thetorment that he had to persevere. For the sake of the Spira and his mother.

That he would create an everlasting peace. He decides to become Sin so he can kill everyone. He murders his father. And takes over as the leader of the Guado. And a Maestar of Yveon.

That is a very good example of what I'm talking about: scenarios becoming more outlandish, character relationships becoming more exaggerated and unbelievable, and cliches becoming more pronounced. Trauma after trauma after trauma. It reads like an asylum psychiatrist's patient report. That's not "deep." That's just cliche of a higher order: unspeakable trauma causing what would otherwise have been unfeasible and unreasonable personality changes.

Maybe this plot device would have worked had it been written much earlier than the 1990s, but today's audience isn't (or rather, shouldn't) be impressed with such obvious emotional baiting by the FFX writers. It lacks any kind of subtlety or finesse or creativity.

I'd compare Seymour to Darth Vader in the "New Star Wars Trilogy." Is Darth Vader a better villain now because we know his backstory? Because we know that he was motivated to join the Dark Side to gain the power to save others because he couldn't save his mother? IMO, it cheapens him as a villain to cite such stereotypical reasoning behind his transformation into a galactic mass murderer, and it cheapens Seymour as a villain to use such simplistic psychology to justify off-the-wall behavior.

The best villains in fiction often have very simple, immediately understandable motivations for their actions, because that is how real people act. They shouldn't need to go into a long expository rant about why they want to destroy the world, and almost certainly they do not adhere to some kind of twisted personal lifetime philosophy. More often than not, their final goals evolve constantly, with one compromise following another until in their final incarnation they are completely twisted in comparison to their original good intentions.

That's what was great about Kefka, whom you brought up. World domination was not his lifelong goal since childhood like Seymour's was. Kefka's goals changed over the course of his life, IN REACTION to the circumstances he was placed in, and always in "small" (or rather, feasible) jumps that required a little moral compromise at each stage, so that by the end, he doesn't need a whole lot of encouragement to push Gestahl off that island.

Granted, Kefka is not the most well-written villain ever, but Seymour is pathetic by comparison.

Did the Alien in the first Alien movie have backstory? Did Darth Vader in the first Star Wars? HAL9000? Dr. No? I could go on. Some of the best villains ARE the best villains because they were not complicated, because the writers did not feel some artificial need to complicate their characters.

That's just cliche of a higher order: unspeakable trauma causing what would otherwise have been unfeasible and unreasonable personality changes.

The best villains in fiction often have very simple, immediately understandable motivations for their actions, because that is how real people act. They shouldn't need to go into a long expository rant about why they want to destroy the world, and almost certainly they do not adhere to some kind of twisted personal lifetime philosophy. More often than not, their final goals evolve constantly, with one compromise following another until in their final incarnation they are completely twisted in comparison to their original good intentions.

That's what was great about Kefka, whom you brought up. World domination was not his lifelong goal since childhood like Seymour's was. Kefka's goals changed over the course of his life, IN REACTION to the circumstances he was placed in, and always in "small" (or rather, feasible) jumps that required a little moral compromise at each stage, so that by the end, he doesn't need a whole lot of encouragement to push Gestahl off that island.

mjarantilla

The Villains you are naming are some of the most cliched/stereotypical villains in existance.

And your choice for best fictional villains are out of movies. :lol: :lol: :lol:

No. Most people aren't as one dimensional and shallow as the characters your describing. It doesn't matter if the characters motivations change if the foundation for them are cliched. If I wrote characters as shallow as the ones you described I would have failed my creative writing class.

It's funny how you mock Seymour. When kefka is far worse. Do you know why Kefka is the way he is? It is explained by an NPC in FF6. While under going the experimential magitek infusion.

The experiment went wrong warping his mind and turning him into a psychopath. He never made any moral compromises. The accident messed up his head. And his mind not functioning properly is what leads to his impulsive destructive behavior. Thats it.

You can't even comprehend Kefka. He doesn't even fit into the category you were describing. :lol:

He's even more cliched than Seymour. :lol:

Great customizationDireToad

And by customization you mean being able to choose who is in your party? Seriously, this game has little to no customization. You cannot customize the appearance of your character at all, with the exception of changing weapons. The skill tree may be customizable when comparaed to previous FFs, but not to other RPGs on the market.

I liked it for about 35 hours, but got bored and stopped. Almost became the first SquareEnix game I've liked, but didn't have enough substance or fun to carry a game of its length. Final Fantasy X was the last Final Fantasy I enjoyed, and I won't enjoy anymore since I refuse to play the new games series until Squaresoft is reborn.rond5566

[QUOTE="rond5566"]I liked it for about 35 hours, but got bored and stopped. Almost became the first SquareEnix game I've liked, but didn't have enough substance or fun to carry a game of its length. Final Fantasy X was the last Final Fantasy I enjoyed, and I won't enjoy anymore since I refuse to play the new games series until Squaresoft is reborn.jasonharris48

Exactly, which is why the series and the company are dead to me

The Villains you are naming are some of the most cliched/stereotypical villains in existance.

And your choice for best fictional villains are out of movies. :lol: :lol: :lol:redCloudJ7

Shows how much you know. Dr. No and HAL9000 are both characters in genre literature, and HAL9000 is considered one of the most menacing, most effective villains in modern fiction, and for good reason.

But choose any well-regarded villain from literature or film, and you'll see just how little their backstory actually affects their main story. Backstory exists only to provide a reason for behavior, but not decision or judgment. Not every every major decision is supposed to originate directly from a single backstory factoid, but that's exactly what you find in Seymour, and that's what makes him one of the most shallow and worthless villains, even in the Final Fantasy series.

No. Most people aren't as one dimensional and shallow as the characters your describing. It doesn't matter if the characters motivations change if the foundation for them are cliched. If I wrote characters as shallow as the ones you described I would have failed my creative writing class.redCloudJ7

Let me guess: high school creative writing?

As far as I'm concerned, you should have failed your creative writing class anyway if you have any praise for Seymour at all. Seymour is the product of a lazy writer, plain and simple. He is the product of a writer who spends all his time on the world, none of it on the story. It's easy to write a character history like Seymour's: a character history doesn't have to interact with any other major characters' personal lives, any sub-characters in the history can be written as one-shots (like Seymour's parents), and character histories can be written with no regard given at all to internal dramatic arcs.

It's much harder to write character DEVELOPMENT within a story. At least a couple of the villains I mention--Vader and HAL--go through fundamental character changes due to interaction with other major characters. Does Seymour go through change? Or is the desire to marry Yuna the only effect that the protagonists have on Seymour?

It's funny how you mock Seymour. When kefka is far worse. Do you know why Kefka is the way he is? It is explained by an NPC in FF6. While under going the experimential magitek infusion.

The experiment went wrong warping his mind and turning him into a psychopath. He never made any moral compromises. The accident messed up his head. And his mind not functioning properly is what leads to his impulsive destructive behavior. Thats it.

You can't even comprehend Kefka. He doesn't even fit into the category you were describing. :lol:

He's even more cliched than Seymour. :lol:redCloudJ7

Of COURSE I know how Kefka is the way he is. But that's my point: the twist caused by the experiment was just the first step (the fact that that was how he became a psychopath is one reason why I say he's not exactly the best written villain ever). Sure, the experiment turned him into a psychopath, but Kefka didn't AUTOMATICALLY want world domination like Seymour wanted to become Sin. He started the game as a lackey, same as Gestahl's other two generals, albeit more unhinged, and as the story progressed he worked his way to the top of the Imperial hierarchy.

So what makes Seymour any better? Childhood trauma? Please. :lol: Kefka goes from an ambitious lackey to a pitiless general, then to a genocidal mass murderer, and finally to cynical and bitter deity over the course of FFVI. Sure, the experiment unhinged him initially, but we actually witnessed a growth in Kefka's insanity, measureable and tangible from the simple contempt he shows at the beginning of the game to the final genocidal culmination of his madness at the very end. However crudely his growth is handled, at least it is still there.

But Seymour, he doesn't go through ANY kind of development. As you described, Seymour's ambition was set from the very beginning, even before the game. He didn't grow as a character, and he didn't change unless he was FORCED to change (by being killed and becoming an Unsent), and even that was just a superficial change. It changed his body, but did nothing to alter his personality except to frustrate and anger him. Whereas Kefka's ambition was an abstract concept but still understandable, as are all real character motivations, Seymour's ambition was a specific, concrete goal and remained inflexible throughout the story.

Backstory is not important because it is HISTORY. It does NOT occur within the story, and is therefore of secondary importance when it comes to actually defining a character. If a character does not develop within the story, like Seymour and like so many other video game characters, then backstory should not even be discussed. Just look at Gears of War. Marcus Fenix has an EXTENSIVE backstory. So does the Master Chief in Halo. Their motivations are clearly outlined in the backstories vignettes released by Epic and the Halo novels. But NONE OF IT MATTERS, and they are still lambasted as horribly shallow characters because they do not develop as characters WITHIN THE GAME. All the backstory in the world won't help a character whose role in a story is as crappily written as Seymour's.

On the other hand, characters with almost NO backstory whatsoever can become beloved and intricate characters solely due to their development and evolution within the bounds of their storylines, even if their backstories are never mentioned or developed past a general skeleton. Their real-time changes and reactions (NOT their past histories) are what make characters real, and ultimately what separate GOOD characters (those who learn and change as the story progresses) and BAD characters (who remain essentially the same, except in the most superficial ways, at the end as they were at the beginning).

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"][QUOTE="rond5566"]I liked it for about 35 hours, but got bored and stopped. Almost became the first SquareEnix game I've liked, but didn't have enough substance or fun to carry a game of its length. Final Fantasy X was the last Final Fantasy I enjoyed, and I won't enjoy anymore since I refuse to play the new games series until Squaresoft is reborn.rond5566

Exactly, which is why the series and the company are dead to me

Is it worth playing.xjet039

of course !!

best RPG with stunning graphics and awesome music .... what's not to like ?

FF12 definitely worth a play

Shows how much you know. Dr. No and HAL9000 are both characters in genre literature, and HAL9000 is considered one of the most menacing, most effective villains in modern fiction, and for good reason.

But choose any well-regarded villain from literature or film, and you'll see just how little their backstory actually affects their main story. Backstory exists only to provide a reason for behavior, but not decision or judgment. Not every every major decision is supposed to originate directly from a single backstory factoid, but that's exactly what you find in Seymour, and that's what makes him one of the most shallow and worthless villains, even in the Final Fantasy series.

Let me guess: high school creative writing?

As far as I'm concerned, you should have failed your creative writing class anyway if you have any praise for Seymour at all. Seymour is the product of a lazy writer, plain and simple. He is the product of a writer who spends all his time on the world, none of it on the story. It's easy to write a character history like Seymour's: a character history doesn't have to interact with any other major characters' personal lives, any sub-characters in the history can be written as one-shots (like Seymour's parents), and character histories can be written with no regard given at all to internal dramatic arcs.

It's much harder to write character DEVELOPMENT within a story. At least a couple of the villains I mention--Vader and HAL--go through fundamental character changes due to interaction with other major characters. Does Seymour go through change? Or is the desire to marry Yuna the only effect that the protagonists have on Seymour?

Of COURSE I know how Kefka is the way he is. But that's my point: the twist caused by the experiment was just the first step (the fact that that was how he became a psychopath is one reason why I say he's not exactly the best written villain ever). Sure, the experiment turned him into a psychopath, but Kefka didn't AUTOMATICALLY want world domination like Seymour wanted to become Sin. He started the game as a lackey, same as Gestahl's other two generals, albeit more unhinged, and as the story progressed he worked his way to the top of the Imperial hierarchy.

So what makes Seymour any better? Childhood trauma? Please. :lol: Kefka goes from an ambitious lackey to a pitiless general, then to a genocidal mass murderer, and finally to cynical and bitter deity over the course of FFVI. Sure, the experiment unhinged him initially, but we actually witnessed a growth in Kefka's insanity, measureable and tangible from the simple contempt he shows at the beginning of the game to the final genocidal culmination of his madness at the very end. However crudely his growth is handled, at least it is still there.

But Seymour, he doesn't go through ANY kind of development. As you described, Seymour's ambition was set from the very beginning, even before the game. He didn't grow as a character, and he didn't change unless he was FORCED to change (by being killed and becoming an Unsent), and even that was just a superficial change. It changed his body, but did nothing to alter his personality except to frustrate and anger him. Whereas Kefka's ambition was an abstract concept but still understandable, as are all real character motivations, Seymour's ambition was a specific, concrete goal and remained inflexible throughout the story.

Backstory is not important because it is HISTORY. It does NOT occur within the story, and is therefore of secondary importance when it comes to actually defining a character. If a character does not develop within the story, like Seymour and like so many other video game characters, then backstory should not even be discussed. Just look at Gears of War. Marcus Fenix has an EXTENSIVE backstory. So does the Master Chief in Halo. Their motivations are clearly outlined in the backstories vignettes released by Epic and the Halo novels. But NONE OF IT MATTERS, and they are still lambasted as horribly shallow characters because they do not develop as characters WITHIN THE GAME. All the backstory in the world won't help a character whose role in a story is as crappily written as Seymour's.

On the other hand, characters with almost NO backstory whatsoever can become beloved and intricate characters solely due to their development and evolution within the bounds of their storylines, even if their backstories are never mentioned or developed past a general skeleton. Their real-time changes and reactions (NOT their past histories) are what make characters real, and ultimately what separate GOOD characters (those who learn and change as the story progresses) and BAD characters (who remain essentially the same, except in the most superficial ways, at the end as they were at the beginning).

mjarantilla

HAL9000 was in Space Odyssey the movie. Besides you never clarified whether it was the book or movie. Back stories can exist for more than the one simplified reason you gave. At least Seymour has an adequate backstory. The writing for Kefka's backstory and motivations are worse than some of the college writing I've read.

College creative writing class actually.About 1/3 of the class failed.

Did you even read my earlier posts? I said Seymour is deeper thanmost FF villains. And I said FF villains are pathetic.

Kefka is the product of a writter who has only 5 hours to create a character. All of his motivations are the foundations of cliches.

Become all powerful. check. Slaughter people. check. Take Over the world. Check. Destroy the world. Check. Corny dialouge. Check. No substance. Check. 1 dimensional personality. Check.

Kefka is all the villain cliches pilled into a single character. His back story is a worthless pile of ****. His backstory is the foundation of quite possibly the biggest cliche ever. An Accident happened. And now I'm a bad guy. *Cue unbeliveably retarded music.* The only connection he has to other characters in the game is Terra. And Celes. And those are beyond minimal. Don't even get me started on FF6's storyline. It is extremely flawed.

Kefka did not even have a goal in the beginning of the game. He was a mindless lackey who thrived on destruction. He did not work his way up the top Imperial hierarchy. Everything fell into this one dimensional characters lap. He had the personality of a five year old kid. His dialouge is the very definintion of cliche. "Phooey" "Son of a Submariner" his personality wasnt even close to being unique.

Nothing was planned. He did not really change. If something bothered or annoyed him he destroyed it. Thats the only thing he ever did. He planned nothing. He had no goal to raise through the ranks. He was a completely one dimensional character. His personality did not change whatsoever. Killing Leo and Gestahl was never intentional. It was because they annoyed him.

Seymour has more depth in his personality than Kefka. He has superior dialouge. He is more intelligent. He posses a higher level of diction. And is a more layered individual. He is more interesting than Kefka. And Seymour can be taken far more seriously as a villain than Kefka ever could.

Seymour has far better characterization than Kefka. We know far more about Seymour than we know about Kefka.

Kefka is completely comical. From the momenthe is first introduced to the moment he dies. From the very beginning of the game we see Kefka as a mass murderer. Ordering Terra to destroy the city and kill everyone. He has not developed at all. The only thing that changes is the scale of his killings. Because he gains immense power.

Not himself developing as a character. He doesn't have a conscious. He doesn't struggle with moral decisions. Its just destroy destroy destroy.

At least we see Seymour using the excuse to kill everyone repeatedaly as a way of constantly keeping his conscious clear. So that he doesn't doubt himself. Kefka doesn't have anything.

The equivalent of a seven year old writing a villain. Is what Kefka is.

The problem with Final Fantsy 12 is gameplay. For the 80 plus hours I spent with game. I actually didn't play. I sat there holding the controller in my hands watching my characters fight on screen. While the gambits (AI) did everything. If i'm not playing the game then IT ISNT GAMEPLAY.

redCloudJ7

There is no law against controlling the chars yourself. I controlled virtually everything except for a few basic commands.

BTW: I'm amazed that nobody flamed me for saying that my favourite FF was IX

HAL9000 was in Space Odyssey the movie. Besides you never clarified whether it was the book or movieredCloudJ7

I shouldn't have had to. Asimov had as much a hand in writing both the book and the movie. HAL9000 being in both doesn't minimize the character in the slightest.

Back stories can exist for more than the one simplified reason you gave.redCloudJ7

No, not when it comes to a backstory's effects on the individual character it was written for. If we expanded the scope to include a backstory's effect on the plot, sure, but we aren't.

Kefka is the product of a writter who has only 5 hours to create a character. All of his motivations are the foundations of cliches.redCloudJ7

So is Seymour. The only difference is that Seymour draws from "new" cliches developed in a more cynical era of writing. Funny how you blasted Darth Vader, when that is exactly what Seymour is like (the "New Trilogy" Vader, that is). In Seymour's creation, Square employed the same simplistic psychologies that Lucas did in creating Vader's backstory.

His back story is a worthless pile of ****. His backstory is the foundation of quite possibly the biggest cliche ever. redCloudJ7

No kidding. But like I said, backstory doesn't matter. Unless the backstory actually plays an active role in the plot and isn't just an excuse for the character to go on a rampage, it's unimportant.

Kefka did not even have a goal in the beginning of the game. He was a mindless lackey who thrived on destruction. He did not work his way up the top Imperial hierarchy. Everything fell into this one dimensional characters lap. He had the personality of a five year old kid. His dialouge is the very definintion of cliche. "Phooey" "Son of a Submariner" his personality wasnt even close to being unique.

Nothing was planned. He did not really change. If something bothered or annoyed him he destroyed it. Thats the only thing he ever did. He planned nothing. He had no goal to raise through the ranks. He was a completely one dimensional character. His personality did not change whatsoever. Killing Leo and Gestahl was never intentional. It was because they annoyed him.redCloudJ7

Methinks you should play it again. You seem fixated completely on disliking Kefka solely based on his personality. Guess what? Personalities don't change that easily. Yeah, he killed without remorse. Yeah, he didn't give a **** what others thought and disposed of them when they became inconvenient. That was his character. Kefka was a coward, and spineless, and a bully, and what makes him a better villain than Seymour is that we see HOW he acquires the power to indulge in his primal urges.

Kefka only disposes of Leo and Gestahl because they annoyed him? Yes, but he manipulated them into those positions to begin with. And each time he disposed of an enemy, he moved up. Was his advancement well written? No, absolutely not, but it was there, and the simple fact that the FFVI writers actually showed his progress alongside the protagonists, growing AND outpacing them, places him ahead of Seymour.

What does Seymour do during the game to gain his power?

Seymour has more depth in his personality than Kefka. He has superior dialouge. He is more intelligent. He posses a higher level of diction. And is a more layered individual. He is more interesting than Kefka. And Seymour can be taken far more seriously as a villain than Kefka ever could.redCloudJ7

Firstly, I wouldn't compare dialogue or vocabulary just yet. FFVI was written primarily for a Japanese audience, whereas FFX (thanks to FF's worldwide popularization) was written for an international but mainly Western audience. Even the best localization team will lose a lot in the translation of something written for a primarily Japanese audience.

Second, what exactly do you mean by "more depth to his personality" and "a more layered individual"?

Third, what does ANY of this have to do with his character development (or lack thereof)? It takes more effort to write dialogue for a character like Seymour, I'll admit that, but the qualities you praise him for have the story value of a lead weight if Seymour shows no growth or change during the story.

Kefka is completely comical. From the momenthe is first introduced to the moment he dies. From the very beginning of the game we see Kefka as a mass murderer. Ordering Terra to destroy the city and kill everyone. He has not developed at all. The only thing that changes is the scale of his killings. Because he gains immense power.

Not himself developing as a character. He doesn't have a conscious. He doesn't struggle with moral decisions. Its just destroy destroy destroy.

At least we see Seymour using the excuse to kill everyone repeatedaly as a way of constantly keeping his conscious clear. So that he doesn't doubt himself. Kefka doesn't have anything.

redCloudJ7

Again, that's just Kefka's personality: he indulges himself when he feels he has the freedom to do so. But the fact is, he DOESN'T have the freedom to do so, at least not all the time. The restrictions on his personality that others like Leo and Gestahl force upon him is what motivates him. It actually is Kefka's character that dictates his reactions to situations, unlike Seymour, whose personality, near as I can tell, plays virtually no role in the decisions he makes. Any personality he has, as near as I can tell, is completely subsumed by an inane childhood trauma designed solely to drive forward the plot.

FFX is everything a story should NOT be. For all the polish that went into developing the characters and plot, the writers got the most fundamental elements completely wrong. Seymour could be a good villain as he is, but not in FFX. Kinda like Vaan and Penelo in FFXII, who might be alright by themselves, but don't really feel like they belong in the greater story. I just get the impression that Seymour belongs in a different story, and that the writers of FFX were just prodding him along like a horse without blinders, trying to keep him on the track while the character itself wanted to do something else.

No, not when it comes to a backstory's effects on the individual character it was written for. If we expanded the scope to include a backstory's effect on the plot, sure, but we aren't.

So is Seymour. The only difference is that Seymour draws from "new" cliches developed in a more cynical era of writing. Funny how you blasted Darth Vader, when that is exactly what Seymour is like (the "New Trilogy" Vader, that is). In Seymour's creation, Square employed the same simplistic psychologies that Lucas did in creating Vader's backstory.

No kidding. But like I said, backstory doesn't matter. Unless the backstory actually plays an active role in the plot and isn't just an excuse for the character to go on a rampage, it's unimportant.

Methinks you should play it again. You seem fixated completely on disliking Kefka solely based on his personality. Guess what? Personalities don't change that easily. Yeah, he killed without remorse. Yeah, he didn't give a **** what others thought and disposed of them when they became inconvenient. That was his character. Kefka was a coward, and spineless, and a bully, and what makes him a better villain than Seymour is that we see HOW he acquires the power to indulge in his primal urges.

Kefka only disposes of Leo and Gestahl because they annoyed him? Yes, but he manipulated them into those positions to begin with. And each time he disposed of an enemy, he moved up. Was his advancement well written? No, absolutely not, but it was there, and the simple fact that the FFVI writers actually showed his progress alongside the protagonists, growing AND outpacing them, places him ahead of Seymour.

What does Seymour do during the game to gain his power?

You don't know what I mean by Seymour being more in depth in his personality?

Firstly, I wouldn't compare dialogue or vocabulary just yet. FFVI was written primarily for a Japanese audience, whereas FFX (thanks to FF's worldwide popularization) was written for an international but mainly Western audience. Even the best localization team will lose a lot in the translation of something written for a primarily Japanese audience.

Second, what exactly do you mean by "more depth to his personality" and "a more layered individual"?

Third, what does ANY of this have to do with his character development (or lack thereof)? It takes more effort to write dialogue for a character like Seymour, I'll admit that, but the qualities you praise him for have the story value of a lead weight if Seymour shows no growth or change during the story.

Again, that's just Kefka's personality: he indulges himself when he feels he has the freedom to do so. But the fact is, he DOESN'T have the freedom to do so, at least not all the time. The restrictions on his personality that others like Leo and Gestahl force upon him is what motivates him. It actually is Kefka's character that dictates his reactions to situations, unlike Seymour, whose personality, near as I can tell, plays virtually no role in the decisions he makes. Any personality he has, as near as I can tell, is completely subsumed by an inane childhood trauma designed solely to drive forward the plot.

FFX is everything a story should NOT be. For all the polish that went into developing the characters and plot, the writers got the most fundamental elements completely wrong. Seymour could be a good villain as he is, but not in FFX. Kinda like Vaan and Penelo in FFXII, who might be alright by themselves, but don't really feel like they belong in the greater story. I just get the impression that Seymour belongs in a different story, and that the writers of FFX were just prodding him along like a horse without blinders, trying to keep him on the track while the character itself wanted to do something else.

mjarantilla

:roll: It's obvious you don't know what your talking about. Back-story is used to create well- rounded characters. Whether or not its used in direct correlation to the main plot is the authors choice.I t's the basis of the Shreklisch Onion Layer model.

The problem is that Kefka's is an extremely flat character. One dimensional character. He does not even meet the basic requirements of a well-rounded character. He is not believable. He is not realistic. Kefka can not be taken seriously as a villain at any level. Even the so called "atrocities" he commits are nothing but comical. How he acquires power is completely irrelevant it does nothing for his flat characterization. His one dimensional personality. And his utter lack of dynamic character development.

Actually Kefka didn't manipulate anyone. He ambushed the main characters when the met up with espers. He attacked the main characters and the espers but not Leo. When Leo tried to kill Kefka, he defended himself and killed Leo. Killing Leo was never apart of Kefka's plans or goals. And his ranked never increased.

He never manipulated Gestahl. Gestahl ordered kefka to follow him. So they could obtain the power of the three goddess statues. When Kefka was stabbed by Celes he went berserk and started moving the statues. Gestahl said Kefka was insane and tried to kill him. By casting fire 3.

Kefka lucked out. He stood between the statues and the spell was reflected. Kefka then commanded the statues to strike down Gestahl with a lightning attack. The lightning attack hit Gestahl and disabled him. Kefka laughed. And kicked Gestahl off the floating land. killing Gestahl was never apart of Gestahl's plans. It was an impulsive reaction to defending himself. Your beginning tomake stuff up.

The writing of dialouge in the early 1990's (mainly before playstation 1) is a complete joke. Even on the newly translated FF6. Kekfa's dialouge is completely ludicirious compared to Seymours. And Dialouge is very important in characterization of deep characters (Not saying Seymours' exceptionally deep but compared to Kefka.......).

What do you think character development is? One character changing as a story goes along.

:lol: That is a common misconception.

Character development is apart of characterization through which a author informs the reader about the character's personality, history, thought-processes,etc

There are round characters and flat characters. There are also static and dynamic character's. The more detail and information we possess about the character the more round the character is. The less information the flatter the character is. The more realistic character Seymour. Compared to the more over exaggerated cartoon character kefka.

Then there is the static and dynamic charcter development. Dynamic character is one who changes significantly during the course of the story. Changes considered to qualify a character as dynamic include changes in insight or understanding, changes in commitment, and changes in values. Changes in circumstance, even physical circumstance, do not apply unless they result in some change within the character's self.

Static characters basically don't change. AKA Kefka and Seymour.

The reason Seymour is is a superior villain than Kefka is that he is more well rounded. He is more believable and realistic than Kefka. We have far more information and detail about him his thought-processes, his philosphoies and his ideoliogies. We know his more about Seymours' history.

Seymour is more human than Kefka. By Seymour's dialouge we can tell that he is well educated. Intelligent. Somewhat unique character. And has a high social and financial status.We clearly see his ambitions and motivations. His standing within Yevon and its religious community. He is clearly a more defined and well rounded (crafted) character and villain than Kefka ever was.

Kefka is completely comical. While Seymour is cliched. Kefka is all the villain cliches pilled into a single character. His backstory is the foundation of quite possibly the biggest cliche ever.

Kefka is not a well rounded character he is very very flat and what makes things even worse is that he has static character development. From the very beginning of the game we see Kefka as a mass murderer. Ordering Terra to destroy the city and kill everyone. He has not had any dynamic character developement at all. The only thing that changes is the scale of his killings. Because he stumbles into immense power.

Seymour has far more emotional depth as a character than kefka. At least we see Seymour repeatedly justfying his actions. For the greater good of Spira. Trying to keepfrom doubting himself. And his personal beliefs. Kefka has absolutely nothing.

We might as well give a piece of toast Kefka's personality. Not like there would be a huge difference. Except that the piece of toast enjoys destruction. Wait! I just had an ephiany.A piece of toast as a villain. Thats absolutely brilliant (don't steal my idea).

The equivalent of a seven year old writing a villain. Is what Kefka is.

i was actually kind of dissapointed in 12 its ok but not as good as it could been. Im prob the only person in the world that loves ff x prob my favorite oneBlackfriend8