Gamespy declares Kefka Palazzo to the greatest video game villain ever.

http://www.gamespy.com/

It was for the Dissidia profiles of villains they are doing.

While I do think there are more notable long standing villains in gaming....I do think even though Kefka was in a single game, he is the best villain of all time.

I don't know if I agree with that, I found him dry, predictable and not a very realistic villain!

Yeah, i agree with that. Kefka was a damn good villian.

Hmm, maybe I should get going on finishing Final Fantasy VI at some point..

What about the guy from BioShock. I've always found that the villains that are realistic, with distorted, though understandable, perceptions of the world are more frightening than many others.muthsera666

Kefka was one psychotic clown. Poisoning the water supply of a town is one of the least terrible things he's done which says a lot.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]What about the guy from BioShock. I've always found that the villains that are realistic, with distorted, though understandable, perceptions of the world are more frightening than many others.Lethalhazard

I agree with this. I don't mind if Kefka is the top evil dog. He is evil.ASK_Story

QFT. He also succeeded in an area that so many RPG villains failed: He accomplished what he set out to do.

What about the guy from BioShock. I've always found that the villains that are realistic, with distorted, though understandable, perceptions of the world are more frightening than many others.muthsera666

I have to agree with that pick. Kefka was, in my view, the perfect villain: ridiculously over the top such that you can't help but viciously hate and want to murder him, but not quite far enough that it becomes self-parody and kills the drama.

Kefka was one psychotic clown. Poisoning the water supply of a town is one of the least terrible things he's done which says a lot.

jazznate

pffft, he can't be as evil as dr cortex

I can't stand the "I'm evil because I like to hurt people or I'm evil because I like to show how evil I am!!!!" villain. When it's done really spectacularly well, it can be pretty good, but for the most part, you end up with villains like Nene. I'll even give a little on villains who are out for power or vengance like Sun Li or Jon Irenicus.

In the end though, give me a deep villain with motives that put him in conflict with the protagonist, yet still feels he's doing the right thing. Someone you can almost sympathize with, like Saren.

I can't stand the "I'm evil because I like to hurt people or I'm evil because I like to show how evil I am!!!!" villain. When it's done really spectacularly well, it can be pretty good, but for the most part, you end up with villains like Nene. I'll even give a little on villains who are out for power or vengance like Sun Li or Jon Irenicus.

In the end though, give me a deep villain with motives that put him in conflict with the protagonist, yet still feels he's doing the right thing. Someone you can almost sympathize with, like Saren.

[QUOTE="3KindgomsRandy"]

I can't stand the "I'm evil because I like to hurt people or I'm evil because I like to show how evil I am!!!!" villain. When it's done really spectacularly well, it can be pretty good, but for the most part, you end up with villains like Nene. I'll even give a little on villains who are out for power or vengance like Sun Li or Jon Irenicus.

In the end though, give me a deep villain with motives that put him in conflict with the protagonist, yet still feels he's doing the right thing. Someone you can almost sympathize with, like Saren.

texasgoldrush

No, I get all that, I guess I just find less satisfaction from that motivation than I do from the villain who inhabits the moral grey area where, if you switch your perspective to see from their eyes, you can almost agree with them. That makes a good villain for me.

As long as you enjoy the villain though, there are no wrong answers here.

I can't stand the "I'm evil because I like to hurt people or I'm evil because I like to show how evil I am!!!!" villain. When it's done really spectacularly well, it can be pretty good, but for the most part, you end up with villains like Nene. I'll even give a little on villains who are out for power or vengance like Sun Li or Jon Irenicus.

In the end though, give me a deep villain with motives that put him in conflict with the protagonist, yet still feels he's doing the right thing. Someone you can almost sympathize with, like Saren.

I can't stand the "I'm evil because I like to hurt people or I'm evil because I like to show how evil I am!!!!" villain. When it's done really spectacularly well, it can be pretty good, but for the most part, you end up with villains like Nene. I'll even give a little on villains who are out for power or vengance like Sun Li or Jon Irenicus.

In the end though, give me a deep villain with motives that put him in conflict with the protagonist, yet still feels he's doing the right thing. Someone you can almost sympathize with, like Saren.

Yeah, I gotta agree that Kefka is a very flat and uninteresting character. It's true that you can have a 1-dimensional villian that is insane and evil and have it work like the Joker, but the writing in FF3/6 just wasn't up to the task. Really, his only claim to fame at this point is that he is one of the few enemies in the world of JRPGs who isn't a total idiot, though he still isn't exactly smart.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Kefka is comparable to villains such as the Joker, Anton Chigurh of No Country For Old Men, or the Judge from the book Blood Meridian. Those that live by their own code that others don't understand, just them. And Kefka did have a motive, he wanted to prove that life is meaningless, that was is true motive....it was just like the Joker from Dark Knight, who was out to prove when the chips were down that they were no alturists. Both were proven wrong at the end. You have to look at who the villain is a foil of, in this case, Kefka is the foil of the two women (Terra and Celes) that he and the Empire abused. Both women believed in the end in the meaning of true love and both represented hope.texasgoldrush

I never heard of him so I disagree.. Obivously the greatest videogame Villain ever is Bowser. Or Donkey Kong.

Yeah, I gotta agree that Kefka is a very flat and uninteresting character. It's true that you can have a 1-dimensional villian that is insane and evil and have it work like the Joker, but the writing in FF3/6 just wasn't up to the task. Really, his only claim to fame at this point is that he is one of the few enemies in the world of JRPGs who isn't a total idiot, though he still isn't exactly smart.

AtomicTangerine

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="smerlus"] Joker is insane but he has a reason for his insanity (a chemical spill) and an understandable hatred for the man that caused that spill. The guy from No Country For Old Men had a code. Kefka kills whatever and when ever. it's not insanity, it's a poor character because they don't even attempt to show where the hatred comes from or how he got that way. There is no relating to a character that kills for no reason. the character is entirely unrealistic in almost every way.smerlus

In the end though, give me a deep villain with motives that put him in conflict with the protagonist, yet still feels he's doing the right thing. Someone you can almost sympathize with, like Saren.

3KindgomsRandy

While I agree with you, I don't think Saren was the best example of this since ultimately he didn't have much of a choice in which side to take.
I think that the villain from The Witcher, for example, fits your desciption of a deep villain much better.

But yeah, anyway, I never really liked Kefka as a villain - but I'd definitely give him points for actually succeeding in 'destroying' the world and becoming a god. Most villains don't get that far.

The reason why he didn't kill everyone at once quickly is because he wanted other people to feel that life is pointless.texasgoldrush

As much as I love Final Fantasy VI, I have to disagree. Kefka was a monumentally undeveloped character actually. At least they didn't pick Sephiroth. Too many Otakus have a stupid fascination with him for some reason.

I think I might be more inclined to go with Revolver Ocelot, and I don't even really like the MGS series all that much. It probably helps that the MGS series has such an inordinate amount of cutscenes and thus you are exposed to the characters - ridiculous though they may be - much more than in most other games.

After sitting here and thinking for a few minutes after typing that, I thought of another one: Gary Smith from Bully. They really just nailed that character somehow. They did a great job of making you feel a genuine hatred for him, something very few games have managed to pull off, as the characters are often too ludicrous and "gamey" to be taken seriously. (Yes, I realize that probably sounds contradictory after mentioning Ocelot.)

That's stupid. Kefka has no development as a character. He's a good villain, but even Sephiroth is better than Kefka, as much as I am sick and tired of Sephiroth.

As much as I love Final Fantasy VI, I have to disagree. Kefka was a monumentally undeveloped character actually. At least they didn't pick Sephiroth. Too many Otakus have a stupid fascination with him for some reason.

I think I might be more inclined to go with Revolver Ocelot, and I don't even really like the MGS series all that much. It probably helps that the MGS series has such an inordinate amount of cutscenes and thus you are exposed to the characters - ridiculous though they may be - much more than in most other games.

After sitting here and thinking for a few minutes after typing that, I thought of another one: Gary Smith from Bully. They really just nailed that character somehow. They really do a great job of making you feel a genuine hatred for him, something very few games have managed to pull off, as the characters are often too ludicrous and "gamey" to be taken seriously. (Yes, I realize that probably sounds contradictory after mentioning Ocelot.)

SpaceMoose

Sephiroth is a better villain than Kefka, but I am so sick and tired of Sephiroth ... and honestly, there are probably much better villains than the both of them. I'm not so sure about Ocelot though, just having played and finished the first 3 of the MGS series this month.

Albedo from Xenosaga was a better villain than Kefka and Sephiroth, but I'm not sure if he's the best.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

Yeah, I gotta agree that Kefka is a very flat and uninteresting character. It's true that you can have a 1-dimensional villian that is insane and evil and have it work like the Joker, but the writing in FF3/6 just wasn't up to the task. Really, his only claim to fame at this point is that he is one of the few enemies in the world of JRPGs who isn't a total idiot, though he still isn't exactly smart.

textwoasgoldrush

You're making the mistake of using your experience with the villains as evidence to support your claim. Kefka was a more effective villain to you personally, but that doesn't stop him from being one dimensional, next to Sephiroth who was far more developed than his predecessor or his successor (Ultimecia). A one dimensional character is always inferior to a character that has been developed.

Ultimately, if I were to put them in order of my personal preference I would place them Ultimecia, Kefka, Sephiroth. But I'm not going to make the mistake of mistaking my personal preferences for actual superiority. And please don't try to place character depth upon Kefka that doesn't exist in the first place. Kefka is an artifact of a period of time between strong storytelling efforts and weak storytellilng efforts. Kefka was not developed not because of some master plan to strengthen him as a villain, but rather because no need was seen by the developers in an age when storytelling in videogames was premature.

Sephiroth is a better villain than Kefka, but I am so sick and tired of Sephiroth ... hakanakumono

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Sephiroth is a better villain than Kefka, but I am so sick and tired of Sephiroth ... SpaceMoose

Well Sephiroth isn't the best villain. Which makes Kefka a terrible choice for best villain. I haven't decided on who is the best villain, but certainly isn't Kefka or Sephiroth. I'll have to think about this one.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]The reason why he didn't kill everyone at once quickly is because he wanted other people to feel that life is pointless.smerlus

[QUOTE="textwoasgoldrush"][QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

Yeah, I gotta agree that Kefka is a very flat and uninteresting character. It's true that you can have a 1-dimensional villian that is insane and evil and have it work like the Joker, but the writing in FF3/6 just wasn't up to the task. Really, his only claim to fame at this point is that he is one of the few enemies in the world of JRPGs who isn't a total idiot, though he still isn't exactly smart.

You're making the mistake of using your experience with the villains as evidence to support your claim. Kefka was a more effective villain to you personally, but that doesn't stop him from being one dimensional, next to Sephiroth who was far more developed than his predecessor or his successor (Ultimecia). A one dimensional character is always inferior to a character that has been developed.

Ultimately, if I were to put them in order of my personal preference I would place them Ultimecia, Kefka, Sephiroth. But I'm not going to make the mistake of mistaking my personal preferences for actual superiority. And please don't try to place character depth upon Kefka that doesn't exist in the first place. Kefka is an artifact of a period of time between strong storytelling efforts and weak storytellilng efforts. Kefka was not developed not because of some master plan to strengthen him as a villain, but rather because no need was seen by the developers in an age when storytelling in videogames was premature.

As much as I love Final Fantasy VI, I have to disagree. Kefka was a monumentally undeveloped character actually. At least they didn't pick Sephiroth. Too many Otakus have a stupid fascination with him for some reason.

I think I might be more inclined to go with Revolver Ocelot, and I don't even really like the MGS series all that much. It probably helps that the MGS series has such an inordinate amount of cutscenes and thus you are exposed to the characters - ridiculous though they may be - much more than in most other games.

After sitting here and thinking for a few minutes after typing that, I thought of another one: Gary Smith from Bully. They really just nailed that character somehow. They did a great job of making you feel a genuine hatred for him, something very few games have managed to pull off, as the characters are often too ludicrous and "gamey" to be taken seriously. (Yes, I realize that probably sounds contradictory after mentioning Ocelot.)

SpaceMoose

I'd say that arguing over which villain is the best is childish and immature.. Its like the whole "my dad can beat up your dad" schtick. What's the point?

Kefka's flaw in his plan was he did not take into account that people would not bend to his philosophy, such as the party. He thought that people would have all bent in a world of despair. He is wrong in his nihilistic philosophy, and thats why he loses because there was no way in his mind that people could find hope and life's meaning in his hopeless vision of the world. Like I said, he did not kill everbody at once quickly, because he wanted to make the survivors believe their lives were worthless while they suffer. But his logic was flawed. He did not forsee the once hopeless Celes making off that island and to start regrouping the party. He did not forsee the Figaro Brothers be steadfast in the determination or forsee Setzer snapping out of his despair. And he certainly did not forsee his "pet" (Terra) who he abused and robbed of her humanity, find what it means to be human and successfully counter all of Kefka's nihilistic arguments before the final battle. Kefka fails because he was so blinded by his hatred that he underestimated humanity and the will to live. Exactly like the Dark Knight's Joker. Joker was always one step ahead of Batman, Dent, and the police for most of the movie. But he put too much fiath in his twisted ideology and he was proven wrong when he expected to be proven right. The two ferry scene was the big example. The Joker believed that when all the chips were down, that there would be no true alturists and mankind would eat eachother. He expected to be proven right, and he actually expected one ferry to blow up the other before midnight struck, but midnight struck, neither boat detonated, and Joker, who was in control, unravels for the first time and is beaten by Batman. Unlike Kefka, he did win a partial victory by leading Dent down a dark path. SpaceMoose, I think character development can be overrated when talking about villains. For most types of villians, especially ones with good intentions or sympathetic qualities, do require great character development. Sadistically evil ones, do not necessarily need much character development, they run on level of threat or danger to the hero or anyone they cross. Kefka did not really need to be developed as much as many villains do and I think trying to develop a large backstory may in fact give some "excuses" for his behavior. He does however have a backstory, but only as much as he needs. Kefka's effectiveness comes in his level of threat and the theme and symbolism he represents. Look at Anton Chigurh of no Country For Old Men, in both the book and the movie, he is not really developed at all. But he has a high level of threat to anyone he comes across as he kills people randomly as well as representing madness and cruelty. This makes him an effective villain even though he is not well developed.texasgoldrush

I'd say that arguing over which villain is the best is childish and immature.. Its like the whole "my dad can beat up your dad" schtick. What's the point?

BladesOfAthena

I think you're mistakeing character flaws for flaws in writing. Kefka stays miles ahead of everyone in his plot for power and then once he gets it his plan falls apart. that's not a character flaw, that's bad writing. If a character is that much of a master tactician, he would never destroy thousand of lives but mysteriously leave all those that oppose him still living. You're doing way too many fill in the blanks with the plot holes the writers made in the game. And the boat scene in The Dark Knight was by far the worst part of the movie. Lastly. The guy from No Country would never be considered close to film's greatest villians so it once again prove that, while insane underdeveloped may stick in people's minds, they are throw away villains. Gaming stories are generally barely passable, and gaming journalists are wholly inept at picking a good story (many raved about FEAR's story as being one of the best in the horror genre) and the fact that Kefka would be even considered one of the best proves this to be truesmerlus

[QUOTE="smerlus"] I think you're mistakeing character flaws for flaws in writing. Kefka stays miles ahead of everyone in his plot for power and then once he gets it his plan falls apart. that's not a character flaw, that's bad writing. If a character is that much of a master tactician, he would never destroy thousand of lives but mysteriously leave all those that oppose him still living. You're doing way too many fill in the blanks with the plot holes the writers made in the game. And the boat scene in The Dark Knight was by far the worst part of the movie. Lastly. The guy from No Country would never be considered close to film's greatest villians so it once again prove that, while insane underdeveloped may stick in people's minds, they are throw away villains. Gaming stories are generally barely passable, and gaming journalists are wholly inept at picking a good story (many raved about FEAR's story as being one of the best in the horror genre) and the fact that Kefka would be even considered one of the best proves this to be truetexasgoldrush

But having the villian sit in his tower doing nothing and just waiting for the heroes to come kill him is the most cliche thing a video game villian can do. There is a huge difference between just underestimating the heroes and having a giant laser that can kill everybody and everything, and then choosing not to use it against the only people who are an actual threat.

I don't know if I agree with that, I found him dry, predictable and not a very realistic villain!

Bretten2

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="smerlus"] I think you're mistakeing character flaws for flaws in writing. Kefka stays miles ahead of everyone in his plot for power and then once he gets it his plan falls apart. that's not a character flaw, that's bad writing. If a character is that much of a master tactician, he would never destroy thousand of lives but mysteriously leave all those that oppose him still living. You're doing way too many fill in the blanks with the plot holes the writers made in the game. And the boat scene in The Dark Knight was by far the worst part of the movie. Lastly. The guy from No Country would never be considered close to film's greatest villians so it once again prove that, while insane underdeveloped may stick in people's minds, they are throw away villains. Gaming stories are generally barely passable, and gaming journalists are wholly inept at picking a good story (many raved about FEAR's story as being one of the best in the horror genre) and the fact that Kefka would be even considered one of the best proves this to be trueAtomicTangerine

But having the villian sit in his tower doing nothing and just waiting for the heroes to come kill him is the most cliche thing a video game villian can do. There is a huge difference between just underestimating the heroes and having a giant laser that can kill everybody and everything, and then choosing not to use it against the only people who are an actual threat.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="textwoasgoldrush"] It depends of the version.....the SNES version does weaken Kefka quite a bit (due to Nintendo's censorship policies at the time), but the writing in he original Japanese version and the GBA version are much better. Some of the lines he speaks are legendary though. He is actually pretty smart, one of the more intellegent villains out there. He is always one step ahead of everyone, including Emperor Gesthal. It is only after he achieves ultimate power that he makes his big mistake....underestimating the heroes. The major reason why this character is heraled is not design, but execution. His role in the story is executed near flawlessly. He is threatening the whole time, breaked cliches at the time, and his evil actions really did have impacts, like the impact of Cyan's loss of his family. This wasn't done a great deal in past RPGs. Another example of great execution is how much his influence he has off screen, such as the entire World of Ruin, where he only shows up at the end. The world was made in his image, one of suffering, misery, sorrow, and death. You can feel the environment, especially before getting the airship. Kefka is the perfect villain for the story. For the humanistics themes of the game (what it means to live), a complex sympathetic villain would not have been effective as a brutal, despicable one who despises and destroys human life. The messsage of hope in the end was made more powerful because of this fact. This is in contrast to the vastly overrated Sephiroth. While his design is great, the execution in the plot wasn't. He was supposed to draw some sympathy, but I didn't feel any for him. But I did not have strong hatred for him, he was just there. The only thing that really made him famous was her ran Aeris through with a sword. In the end, he was just another bad guy to put down, just like an avrage RPG. His motives were unclear but his plot was obvious. Basically, his complexity was wasted. Complexity is not always better. Kefka may have been simpler, but he was far more of an effective villain.texasgoldrush

You're making the mistake of using your experience with the villains as evidence to support your claim. Kefka was a more effective villain to you personally, but that doesn't stop him from being one dimensional, next to Sephiroth who was far more developed than his predecessor or his successor (Ultimecia). A one dimensional character is always inferior to a character that has been developed.

Ultimately, if I were to put them in order of my personal preference I would place them Ultimecia, Kefka, Sephiroth. But I'm not going to make the mistake of mistaking my personal preferences for actual superiority. And please don't try to place character depth upon Kefka that doesn't exist in the first place. Kefka is an artifact of a period of time between strong storytelling efforts and weak storytellilng efforts. Kefka was not developed not because of some master plan to strengthen him as a villain, but rather because no need was seen by the developers in an age when storytelling in videogames was premature.

Themes do not trump depth, themes are an element of depth within a storyline. VI happens to have some depth, which is why it employs human themes. But VII does as well, the primary one being that "Humans have a negative impact on the planet." It's important to note that "loss" is not a theme. Themes are sentences, not single words. Just wanted to clarify that for you.

There are two elements to villains. Their villany ("effectiveness") and their depth as a character. Sephiroth and Kefka are both very villainous and frequently show displays of horrible power. Sephiroth may have not had the "light of judgement" but he was certainly effective as a villain, which is why he is so sickeningly popular right now. The difference is that Sephiroth has depth. Kefka's lack of depth is not some master plan by the storywriters, its a missing piece of the puzzle that you're trying to rationalize by making it seem like Kefka is a better villain for it. But he's not. Kefka would be a better villain if he had depth.

Which is why I advocate VI having a remake. VI is by far the most advanced story of the early Final Fantasies but there are missing gaps in the storyline that need to be filled. It could easily achieve the best in the series if the characters and villain had more depth.

The themes of Vi however, are much better executed than the themes of VII. VII ws highly inconsistant in its themes and it just devolves into a Cloud vs Sephiroth battle. FFVI's themes were highly consistant and effective, especially the theme of losing loved ones, friends and family. VII would have been a much better game if it did center around the theme you listed above, but it didn't. It devolved into a rivalry and a revenge story.

True, depth does trump lack of depth most of the time, but a well executed story always trumps a poorly or average excuted one. FFVI had a much better executed storyline than VII. The pacing is one issue in VII (such as a snowboard section right after Aeris's death). VII also got extremely convoluted and all the later FF's share that trait. And FFVI is deeper than you think and sometimes you have to find that depth. Terra Branford and Celes Chere are extremely deep, multidimensional characters as well as dynamic characters. The other characters have as much depth to make them effective characters, no more and no less. Depth doesn't make a character compelling, emotional resonance does, and thats what VI excels at. I agree that Sephiroth is indeed the deeper villain, but Kefka is the better executed one. Sephiroth's popularity really stems from one scene, he would have been far more forgettable if it wasn't for that One Scene.

FFVI story and characters are extremely well praised, alot of times the best in the series. Gamesradar had this game as the only JRPG on the Best Stories of All Time list, even bashing FFVII in its entry. Kefka is Gamespy's best villain because he was a well excecuted one.

The themes of Vi however, are much better executed than the themes of VII. VII ws highly inconsistant in its themes and it just devolves into a Cloud vs Sephiroth battle. FFVI's themes were highly consistant and effective, especially the theme of losing loved ones, friends and family. VII would have been a much better game if it did center around the theme you listed above, but it didn't. It devolved into a rivalry and a revenge story.

True, depth does trump lack of depth most of the time, but a well executed story always trumps a poorly or average excuted one. FFVI had a much better executed storyline than VII. The pacing is one issue in VII (such as a snowboard section right after Aeris's death). VII also got extremely convoluted and all the later FF's share that trait. And FFVI is deeper than you think and sometimes you have to find that depth. Terra Branford and Celes Chere are extremely deep, multidimensional characters as well as dynamic characters. The other characters have as much depth to make them effective characters, no more and no less. Depth doesn't make a character compelling, emotional resonance does, and thats what VI excels at. I agree that Sephiroth is indeed the deeper villain, but Kefka is the better executed one. Sephiroth's popularity really stems from one scene, he would have been far more forgettable if it wasn't for that One Scene.

FFVI story and characters are extremely well praised, alot of times the best in the series. Gamesradar had this game as the only JRPG on the Best Stories of All Time list, even bashing FFVII in its entry. Kefka is Gamespy's best villain because he was a well excecuted one.

texasgoldrush

I will agree to this (bold), but I disagree with your reasoning as I felt that VII's pacing was the best in the series. I disagree with basically everything else, such as Terra and Celes having depth and Sephiroth's popularity dating back to one scene (there are many great scenes involving Sephiroth within the game). But I'm not going to make a list of all the things I disagree with and I don't feel like in engaging in a paragraph long counterpoint for each statement you made, so I'll abstain. I respect your opinions, although I disagree with them.

I will expand upon why I felt VI's execution was better than VII's. VII's execution problem is that sometimes the characters seem as if they have no distinct personality, especially Cloud. I felt that the plot twists exist for the sake of plot twists, when the evidence in the game supports what was eventually debunked in the game (Cloud's origin). This is not storyline related, but VI's graphics were far more consistent than VII's mess. It didn't know if it wanted to be realistic or super deformed and so we got this strange mixture of both, even in FMV.

Edit: Thinking more on it, it seems to me that the characters in VI lack distinct personalities as well. The same thing is true of many of the earlier Final Fantasies, and I don't think Final Fantasy characters were truly whole characters until VIII. And then it faltered in XII.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

The themes of Vi however, are much better executed than the themes of VII. VII ws highly inconsistant in its themes and it just devolves into a Cloud vs Sephiroth battle. FFVI's themes were highly consistant and effective, especially the theme of losing loved ones, friends and family. VII would have been a much better game if it did center around the theme you listed above, but it didn't. It devolved into a rivalry and a revenge story.

True, depth does trump lack of depth most of the time, but a well executed story always trumps a poorly or average excuted one. FFVI had a much better executed storyline than VII. The pacing is one issue in VII (such as a snowboard section right after Aeris's death). VII also got extremely convoluted and all the later FF's share that trait. And FFVI is deeper than you think and sometimes you have to find that depth. Terra Branford and Celes Chere are extremely deep, multidimensional characters as well as dynamic characters. The other characters have as much depth to make them effective characters, no more and no less. Depth doesn't make a character compelling, emotional resonance does, and thats what VI excels at. I agree that Sephiroth is indeed the deeper villain, but Kefka is the better executed one. Sephiroth's popularity really stems from one scene, he would have been far more forgettable if it wasn't for that One Scene.

FFVI story and characters are extremely well praised, alot of times the best in the series. Gamesradar had this game as the only JRPG on the Best Stories of All Time list, even bashing FFVII in its entry. Kefka is Gamespy's best villain because he was a well excecuted one.

hakanakumono

I will agree to this (bold), but I disagree with your reasoning as I felt that VII's pacing was the best in the series. I disagree with basically everything else, such as Terra and Celes having depth and Sephiroth's popularity dating back to one scene (there are many great scenes involving Sephiroth within the game). But I'm not going to make a list of all the things I disagree with and I don't feel like in engaging in a paragraph long counterpoint for each statement you made, so I'll abstain. I respect your opinions, although I disagree with them.

I will expand upon why I felt VI's execution was better than VII's. VII's execution problem is that sometimes the characters seem as if they have no distinct personality, especially Cloud. I felt that the plot twists exist for the sake of plot twists, when the evidence in the game supports what was eventually debunked in the game (Cloud's origin). This is not storyline related, but VI's graphics were far more consistent than VII's mess. It didn't know if it wanted to be realistic or super deformed and so we got this strange mixture of both, even in FMV.

Edit: VI didn't have distinct characters? Are you kidding? The characters were especially distinct from eachother. Each had their own personalities and motivations clearly different from the rest of the team. They were whole characters (well the main 8 are). They may not have been as deep has the characters later in the series, but the are deeper than you think.