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

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[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.

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: 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.

Again, I'm not going to counter every one of your points because I wanted to end this before it became a "debate," but I will say that I think you're applying depth to VI that isn't there, such as the opera scene being intended to represent Celes' inner loneliness. I don't think it did, but I think if you search for things within games you can find meaning behind things that were never intended to have any meaning in the first place. The reason why Celes was chosen for the Opera was because she is Locke's love interest. Although their development as a couple is staggered and underdeveloped.

And no, I don't think they have distinct personalities for the most part. If any, they are very vague. There are some elements unique to each character, but overall they do not show consistent personalities. So what one character would say another character easily could have said, and I feel the same way about VII. Of course, there are exceptions like Cyan, Kefka, Sephiroth, and Barret. But other characters like Cloud and Terra do not really have distinct personalities. That's the biggest problem I have with VI and VII. One character may have a personality, but little backstory, depth, etc. Another character may have a considerable amount of backstory, but may lack a distinct personality.

... I guess I am responding to some of your points after all. If you respond to this with a counter point I will provide a summary of my thoughts on your thoughts and VI.

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

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

[QUOTE="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.

hakanakumono

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.

Again, I'm not going to counter every one of your points because I wanted to end this before it became a "debate," but I will say that I think you're applying depth to VI that isn't there, such as the opera scene being intended to represent Celes' inner loneliness. I don't think it did, but I think if you search for things within games you can find meaning behind things that were never intended to have any meaning in the first place. The reason why Celes was chosen for the Opera was because she is Locke's love interest. Although their development as a couple is staggered and underdeveloped.

And no, I don't think they have distinct personalities for the most part. If any, they are very vague. There are some elements unique to each character, but overall they do not show consistent personalities. So what one character would say another character easily could have said, and I feel the same way about VII. Of course, there are exceptions like Cyan, Kefka, Sephiroth, and Barret. But other characters like Cloud and Terra do not really have distinct personalities. That's the biggest problem I have with VI and VII. One character may have a personality, but little backstory, depth, etc. Another character may have a considerable amount of backstory, but may lack a distinct personality.

... I guess I am responding to some of your points after all. If you respond to this with a counter point I will provide a summary of my thoughts on your thoughts and VI.

[QUOTE="i-rock-socks"][QUOTE="Bretten2"]

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

muthsera666

oh ok...

that makes sense, you mean villains like...

like...

give me a minute

...

whats his name... you know the guy... he was all like

"you know what im gonna do today... im ******* gonna destroy the universe"

then he kills like 300 people

it was like reading a biography of my life

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="i-rock-socks"] as opposed to all those super realistic villains out there i-rock-socks

oh ok...

that makes sense, you mean villains like...

like...

give me a minute

...

whats his name... you know the guy... he was all like

"you know what im gonna do today... im ******* gonna destroy the universe"

then he kills like 300 people

it was like reading a biography of my life

[QUOTE="i-rock-socks"]

[QUOTE="muthsera666"] Realistic in terms of motivations and actions and thoughts, I would assume.muthsera666

oh ok...

that makes sense, you mean villains like...

like...

give me a minute

...

whats his name... you know the guy... he was all like

"you know what im gonna do today... im ******* gonna destroy the universe"

then he kills like 300 people

it was like reading a biography of my life

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] VII pace was excellent, until you leave Midgar, then it lagged and had very little focus until the end, except for some memorable scenes. I think out of all the FF's, VI was the only game where I never questioned what was going on, unlike the PS FF's. Another of FFVI's strength is that the human element strongly outwieghed the fantasy element, unlike the other FF's, except for somewhat XII. Terra and Celes are actually pretty deep in personality and Celes is one of the most dynamic conflicted characters in the series. The Opera scene wasn't just for show, it was actually character development for Celes in an Opera role....Maria in the Opera paralleled what Celes wasn't going through and her loneliness. The game's backstory and the Esper's (another strength for FFVI, its human element was also its metaphysical one) revolves around Terra, making her along with Celes, the deepest character in the game. Terra's journey to find what it meant to be human was a main focus of the game, expertly pulled off. What made Kefka especially special at the time is he was a human bad guy, not some dark lord from the great beyond or an evil emperor, which added to the games themes. The evil wasn't supernatural, it was human. Kefka represneted VI's themes a whole lot better than Sephiroth did with VII. My fave character in VI is not Kefka at all, its Terra and Celes.

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.

texasgoldrush

Again, I'm not going to counter every one of your points because I wanted to end this before it became a "debate," but I will say that I think you're applying depth to VI that isn't there, such as the opera scene being intended to represent Celes' inner loneliness. I don't think it did, but I think if you search for things within games you can find meaning behind things that were never intended to have any meaning in the first place. The reason why Celes was chosen for the Opera was because she is Locke's love interest. Although their development as a couple is staggered and underdeveloped.

And no, I don't think they have distinct personalities for the most part. If any, they are very vague. There are some elements unique to each character, but overall they do not show consistent personalities. So what one character would say another character easily could have said, and I feel the same way about VII. Of course, there are exceptions like Cyan, Kefka, Sephiroth, and Barret. But other characters like Cloud and Terra do not really have distinct personalities. That's the biggest problem I have with VI and VII. One character may have a personality, but little backstory, depth, etc. Another character may have a considerable amount of backstory, but may lack a distinct personality.

... I guess I am responding to some of your points after all. If you respond to this with a counter point I will provide a summary of my thoughts on your thoughts and VI.

I think you've fooled yourself into believing that there exists depth that isn't there at all. I believe that VI has issues with inconsistent depth and characters (although some do have distinct personalities like Edgar). I also think that you'll fool yourself in believing anything and everything is superior in VI by making some sort of sideways justification for it.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Again, I'm not going to counter every one of your points because I wanted to end this before it became a "debate," but I will say that I think you're applying depth to VI that isn't there, such as the opera scene being intended to represent Celes' inner loneliness. I don't think it did, but I think if you search for things within games you can find meaning behind things that were never intended to have any meaning in the first place. The reason why Celes was chosen for the Opera was because she is Locke's love interest. Although their development as a couple is staggered and underdeveloped.

And no, I don't think they have distinct personalities for the most part. If any, they are very vague. There are some elements unique to each character, but overall they do not show consistent personalities. So what one character would say another character easily could have said, and I feel the same way about VII. Of course, there are exceptions like Cyan, Kefka, Sephiroth, and Barret. But other characters like Cloud and Terra do not really have distinct personalities. That's the biggest problem I have with VI and VII. One character may have a personality, but little backstory, depth, etc. Another character may have a considerable amount of backstory, but may lack a distinct personality.

... I guess I am responding to some of your points after all. If you respond to this with a counter point I will provide a summary of my thoughts on your thoughts and VI.

I think you've fooled yourself into believing that there exists depth that isn't there at all. I believe that VI has issues with inconsistent depth and characters (although some do have distinct personalities like Edgar). I also think that you'll fool yourself in believing anything and everything is superior in VI by making some sort of sideways justification for it.

[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

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] The depth is there....the opera role is definately part of Celes developement as a character...what cements this? The music. "Aria Di Mazzo Carattere" and "Celes Theme" are lietmoifs of eachother and sound very similar. This and "Celes Theme" is played during Celes's darkest moments, moments of loneliness. And your seeing something that is not there about Locke and Celes relationship. It is supposed to be vague, more of a friendship than a romance. The GBA version does screw this up, but in the original Japanese version, it is basically a friendship, not a romance. They do have distinctive personallities, especially in the World of Balance. In the World of Ruin, it could be true due to the open ended nature, but only because of that (lines in the script are credited to party), but the characters are pretty distinct. And Terra has one of the most distinct personalities in the entire series, especially at the end. She is a character without any hatred in her heart, a rarity in video gaming in general, even with all the horrible things that are done to her. As well, she takes the most uncliched role a heroine in the gaming world can take, a "mother" to children. While Locke, Edgar, Sabin, and Setzer maybe be more similair, they too actually have pretty distinct personalities, especially in the Japanese version.

texasgoldrush

I think you've fooled yourself into believing that there exists depth that isn't there at all. I believe that VI has issues with inconsistent depth and characters (although some do have distinct personalities like Edgar). I also think that you'll fool yourself in believing anything and everything is superior in VI by making some sort of sideways justification for it.

Celes' theme was incorporated into the Opera because it showcases Celes. If it were Terra and a romantic interest, her theme would have been worked into the Opera. Terra's theme is worked into the original world map. I could say that Terra's theme was used because it means that she symbolizes the human spirit, but that's not why it was chosen. It bears no significance. Stop trying to find something in nothing.

Characters should always have depth. The characters of VI do need depth. They would benefit greatly from depth. I like Celes and VI, but I completely disagree with you.

[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 truesmerlus

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I think you've fooled yourself into believing that there exists depth that isn't there at all. I believe that VI has issues with inconsistent depth and characters (although some do have distinct personalities like Edgar). I also think that you'll fool yourself in believing anything and everything is superior in VI by making some sort of sideways justification for it.

Celes' theme was incorporated into the Opera because it showcases Celes. If it were Terra and a romantic interest, her theme would have been worked into the Opera. Terra's theme is worked into the original world map. I could say that Terra's theme was used because it means that she symbolizes the human spirit, but that's not why it was chosen. It bears no significance. Stop trying to find something in nothing.

Characters should always have depth. The characters of VI do need depth. They would benefit greatly from depth. I like Celes and VI, but I completely disagree with you.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] There is depth, you just don't see it....if the Opera wasn't part of Celes's character development, than why does a sadder verison of opera solo play when she attempts to throw herslef off a cliff to her death? The reason is, that these events in someways parallel "Aria Di Mezzo Carattere" is sung by a princess whose hero and love is away, and "Maria" feels lonely, waiting for "Draco" to come. On the Solitary Island, after Cid's death, Celes belived that everyone is dead, especially Locke, and that she is all alone. Locke doesn't come, but a sign that he is alive comes after Celes recovers from her failed suicide attempt. "Celes Theme", the sadder version of "Aria" plays during the attempt. The Opera role is definatly part of her character and it was one of the most brilliant design choices made in the game, followed by its brilliant execution. This game's cast all have distinct personalities, all of them. You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. All have their needed depth as well. The exceptions are Mog, Gogo, and Umaro, but they are pretty minor. Gau's character development scene is harder to find so some may thing he was underdeveloped. They are not the deepest characters in gaming...but they don't need to be!!!!!!!!texasgoldrush

Celes' theme was incorporated into the Opera because it showcases Celes. If it were Terra and a romantic interest, her theme would have been worked into the Opera. Terra's theme is worked into the original world map. I could say that Terra's theme was used because it means that she symbolizes the human spirit, but that's not why it was chosen. It bears no significance. Stop trying to find something in nothing.

Characters should always have depth. The characters of VI do need depth. They would benefit greatly from depth. I like Celes and VI, but I completely disagree with you.

No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong. The reason why it includes her theme is because Celes is the star of the show. And really, playing VI I've never considered Celes to be a lonely character nor have noticed any reccuring themes of loneliness. I think you're simply looking for things that're not there. How is "Terra's Theme" not really her theme? Of course it's her theme. But that's not the point. Final Fantasy IX works the theme song into the world map. Does that have any significance? No. It's just because melodies in games are often worked into many different tracks.

It does detract from the story. The "thematic depth" is barely "deep" at all. It is a vague element of depth. It exists as a weak connection to the real world, but the characters are not real world characters. I do think that it was brilliant for it's time and I do think that it has aged well. But I think you're giving it far more credit than it deserves. That being said, I need to finish my GBA playthrough now.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Celes' theme was incorporated into the Opera because it showcases Celes. If it were Terra and a romantic interest, her theme would have been worked into the Opera. Terra's theme is worked into the original world map. I could say that Terra's theme was used because it means that she symbolizes the human spirit, but that's not why it was chosen. It bears no significance. Stop trying to find something in nothing.

Characters should always have depth. The characters of VI do need depth. They would benefit greatly from depth. I like Celes and VI, but I completely disagree with you.

No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong. The reason why it includes her theme is because Celes is the star of the show. And really, playing VI I've never considered Celes to be a lonely character nor have noticed any reccuring themes of loneliness. I think you're simply looking for things that're not there. How is "Terra's Theme" not really her theme? Of course it's her theme. But that's not the point. Final Fantasy IX works the theme song into the world map. Does that have any significance? No. It's just because melodies in games are often worked into many different tracks.

It does detract from the story. The "thematic depth" is barely "deep" at all. It is a vague element of depth. It exists as a weak connection to the real world, but the characters are not real world characters. I do think that it was brilliant for it's time and I do think that it has aged well. But I think you're giving it far more credit than it deserves. That being said, I need to finish my GBA playthrough now.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Celes's Theme stems from the Opera song, not the other way around. Consider this, other than Terra, Celes's Theme is not played at the character's introduction. Celes Theme plays in only two parts...well after the opera, a both scenes which she feels alone. For Terra, "Awakening" is really her theme, not "Terra's Theme". Like I said, the characters were as only deep as they need to have been, the depth you think is missing does not detract from the story. But for VI, thematic depth is the most important and they intergrated that into the characters rather brilliantly. In a remake, should they add depth, absolutely but carefully as well. But as of right now, VI's story was brilliant for its time, and it still stands on its own today. It has aged incredibily well.texasgoldrush

No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong. The reason why it includes her theme is because Celes is the star of the show. And really, playing VI I've never considered Celes to be a lonely character nor have noticed any reccuring themes of loneliness. I think you're simply looking for things that're not there. How is "Terra's Theme" not really her theme? Of course it's her theme. But that's not the point. Final Fantasy IX works the theme song into the world map. Does that have any significance? No. It's just because melodies in games are often worked into many different tracks.

It does detract from the story. The "thematic depth" is barely "deep" at all. It is a vague element of depth. It exists as a weak connection to the real world, but the characters are not real world characters. I do think that it was brilliant for it's time and I do think that it has aged well. But I think you're giving it far more credit than it deserves. That being said, I need to finish my GBA playthrough now.

It doesn't matter what order it's played. It matters which was written first. I don't think that Celes is lonely at all. I think you're trying to place an emotion upon Celes to create a false sense of depth. Celes is briefly lonely, not because of her character's backstory, but because she is all alone in the world of ruin. It's a human emotion that Celes experiences, but it doesn't mean that she is lonely as a character. Her loneliness does not stem from the Empire and being turned into a "traitor." That does not lead to loneliness. The message in VI is clear that Celes is not alone as long as she has the band of comrades she has aquired.

Kefka. He was a good villain, but ultimately flawed due to a lack of depth. It also detracts from all of the themes that the game touches upon. It touches upon loss, love, etc ... but it doesn't explore them. It simply brings them up as a topic and leaves them hanging. VI would benefit from depth ... all of VI would.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]Or maybe realistic like a charismatic leader that takes advantage of a nation of people downtrodden and clamoring for hope. A man who finds a common enemy among the populace to focus the problems of the nation, the problems of the people, his own insecurities. He then sentences millions of people to death for their ethnicity and has the people of the nation grate ful to him for his devotion to his nation and the interests of purifying it of its corruption. Sound familiar? Hitler is a good example of a realistic villain. So, I suggest you can the sarcasm, and act with a bit more decorum.i-rock-socks

ummm? hitler was real. and listing qualities of a real person when this is an argument about videogame villains (who arent real) you know why "videogame" villains arent realistic? its because they arent real. and every videogame villain ive ever seen is unrealistic (and trust me ive seen plenty). and if you want to come off as condescending, i really suggest you make a valid point

Well, it's really hard for something real to be realistic. Because it's real. Things that are real can be realistic because they are taking on the traits of the real, thus making them realistic. Therefore, the claim that something fictitious cannot be realistic because it is not real doesn't work.

I'm glad that you picked up on the condescenion, because it was a reply to your undue sarcasm. There isn't any condescenion in this post, and if you refrain from undue sarcasm in your future replies, I will be more than happy to continue in such a vein.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong. The reason why it includes her theme is because Celes is the star of the show. And really, playing VI I've never considered Celes to be a lonely character nor have noticed any reccuring themes of loneliness. I think you're simply looking for things that're not there. How is "Terra's Theme" not really her theme? Of course it's her theme. But that's not the point. Final Fantasy IX works the theme song into the world map. Does that have any significance? No. It's just because melodies in games are often worked into many different tracks.

It does detract from the story. The "thematic depth" is barely "deep" at all. It is a vague element of depth. It exists as a weak connection to the real world, but the characters are not real world characters. I do think that it was brilliant for it's time and I do think that it has aged well. But I think you're giving it far more credit than it deserves. That being said, I need to finish my GBA playthrough now.

It doesn't matter what order it's played. It matters which was written first. I don't think that Celes is lonely at all. I think you're trying to place an emotion upon Celes to create a false sense of depth. Celes is briefly lonely, not because of her character's backstory, but because she is all alone in the world of ruin. It's a human emotion that Celes experiences, but it doesn't mean that she is lonely as a character. Her loneliness does not stem from the Empire and being turned into a "traitor." That does not lead to loneliness. The message in VI is clear that Celes is not alone as long as she has the band of comrades she has aquired.

Kefka. He was a good villain, but ultimately flawed due to a lack of depth. It also detracts from all of the themes that the game touches upon. It touches upon loss, love, etc ... but it doesn't explore them. It simply brings them up as a topic and leaves them hanging. VI would benefit from depth ... all of VI would.

Never heard of him/her. Must be some old Nintendo crap, in which case I disagree.

[QUOTE="i-rock-socks"]

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]Or maybe realistic like a charismatic leader that takes advantage of a nation of people downtrodden and clamoring for hope. A man who finds a common enemy among the populace to focus the problems of the nation, the problems of the people, his own insecurities. He then sentences millions of people to death for their ethnicity and has the people of the nation grate ful to him for his devotion to his nation and the interests of purifying it of its corruption. Sound familiar? Hitler is a good example of a realistic villain. So, I suggest you can the sarcasm, and act with a bit more decorum.muthsera666

ummm? hitler was real. and listing qualities of a real person when this is an argument about videogame villains (who arent real) you know why "videogame" villains arent realistic? its because they arent real. and every videogame villain ive ever seen is unrealistic (and trust me ive seen plenty). and if you want to come off as condescending, i really suggest you make a valid point

Well, it's really hard for something real to be realistic. Because it's real. Things that are real can be realistic because they are taking on the traits of the real, thus making them realistic. Therefore, the claim that something fictitious cannot be realistic because it is not real doesn't work.

I'm glad that you picked up on the condescenion, because it was a reply to your undue sarcasm. There isn't any condescenion in this post, and if you refrain from undue sarcasm in your future replies, I will be more than happy to continue in such a vein.

I semi-agree. My personal favorite kind of villain is evil. Rotten-to-the-core evil and Kefka sorta qualifies. Global genocide and obliteration is evil. But honestly they do give him a reason why he's evil (some kind of melding or something).

For this reason my personal favorite villain is Majora, with Kefka coming in at a close second.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

It doesn't matter what order it's played. It matters which was written first. I don't think that Celes is lonely at all. I think you're trying to place an emotion upon Celes to create a false sense of depth. Celes is briefly lonely, not because of her character's backstory, but because she is all alone in the world of ruin. It's a human emotion that Celes experiences, but it doesn't mean that she is lonely as a character. Her loneliness does not stem from the Empire and being turned into a "traitor." That does not lead to loneliness. The message in VI is clear that Celes is not alone as long as she has the band of comrades she has aquired.

Kefka. He was a good villain, but ultimately flawed due to a lack of depth. It also detracts from all of the themes that the game touches upon. It touches upon loss, love, etc ... but it doesn't explore them. It simply brings them up as a topic and leaves them hanging. VI would benefit from depth ... all of VI would.

Sorry, but I think you're full of BS. :s

I semi-agree. My personal favorite kind of villain is evil. Rotten-to-the-core evil and Kefka sorta qualifies. Global genocide and obliteration is evil. But honestly they do give him a reason why he's evil (some kind of melding or something).

For this reason my personal favorite villain is Majora, with Kefka coming in at a close second.

DAMN!

this thread is getting some heated and deep debate

and i thought i loved FF6 lol

i can understand people not liking kefka

but how could you deny his greatness

example: i dont like Bentley's but their still good cars

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] But the fact is she is lonely and at first she hides it, she has no one (except for maybe Cid) that cares for her and she is cold and distant. She was used to her loneliness and when you first rescue her, was somewhat resigned to her fate of execution. She realizes how alone she really was without Locke anfter Cid dies. Everything that defined her character is intensified in the moment on Solitary Island. Celes journey was to learn how to be codependant, which was the opposite of Terra's journey to be independant. FFVI strength is that it never left its themes hanging, unlike VII. It explores the loss of a loved one in great detail. Almost every party member suffers a loss of someone close to them and each characters loss has a different message to them. Terra's loss of Leo is about the loss of a guide and to figure what he stood for. Locke's loss was about always telling someone how you feel about them, Celes loss of Cid (canonically, as he can survive) was about realizing the sacrifices one makes for another, Edgar and Sabin's loss of their father tests them as brothers, Cyan's loss of his family was about living on after the loss, Setzer's loss of Daryl is about realizing what the loved one's life represented, and for Shadow, some people never recover, especially if one feels guilty. Strago also fell into deep despair, thinking he lost Relm. And for love, it goes into detail on that as well. Motherly love - Terra, Companionship/ Romantic Love - Celes and Locke, Brotherly Love - Edgar and Sabin, Love of nation - Cyan, Guardian love (Fatherly in this case) - Strago and Relm. Then there is the theme of freedom, summed up at the end when Terra takes off her ponytail and hangs on the front of the airship. The thematic depth is FFVI's greatest strength.texasgoldrush

Sorry, but I think you're full of BS. :s

I did actually. But I take VI for what it is, not for what I wish it was.

DAMN!

this thread is getting some heated and deep debate

and i thought i loved FF6 lol

i can understand people not liking kefka

but how could you deny his greatness

example: i dont like Bentley's but their still good cars

i-rock-socks

Kefka is awesome.

The can be compared, just like all villains....in 99% of stories, the villain has a flaw in his logic or plan that allows the hero to win or makes the villain lose. And Kefka did not stop killing people who opposed him after he achieved god-like status, he targeted them with the Light of Judgement, especially as a warning to others. He basically almost completely wiped out Narshe's population, a town that successfully resisted him in the past. He did it so to force others to think that there is no hope. Kefka basically wanted to see people suffer and realize for themselves that there is no hope after he achieved ultimate power. He actually did not kill randomly, he targeted people that gave people hope. He does change his plans to destroy everything when he battles the party, seeing that he could not kill everyones hopes and dreams. But he is insane, no doubt about it. No one knows why he wants to do this, other than it gives him pleasure. He was also mental destroyed by the magitek infusion, part of the reason the way he is. Basically he is a byproduct of Gesthal and his evil intentions that come back to kill him.texasgoldrush

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Sorry, but I think you're full of BS. :s

I did actually. But I take VI for what it is, not for what I wish it was.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] The can be compared, just like all villains....in 99% of stories, the villain has a flaw in his logic or plan that allows the hero to win or makes the villain lose. And Kefka did not stop killing people who opposed him after he achieved god-like status, he targeted them with the Light of Judgement, especially as a warning to others. He basically almost completely wiped out Narshe's population, a town that successfully resisted him in the past. He did it so to force others to think that there is no hope. Kefka basically wanted to see people suffer and realize for themselves that there is no hope after he achieved ultimate power. He actually did not kill randomly, he targeted people that gave people hope. He does change his plans to destroy everything when he battles the party, seeing that he could not kill everyones hopes and dreams. But he is insane, no doubt about it. No one knows why he wants to do this, other than it gives him pleasure. He was also mental destroyed by the magitek infusion, part of the reason the way he is. Basically he is a byproduct of Gesthal and his evil intentions that come back to kill him.smerlus

This seems a solid choice. The man is one warped son of a sandworm.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] The can be compared, just like all villains....in 99% of stories, the villain has a flaw in his logic or plan that allows the hero to win or makes the villain lose. And Kefka did not stop killing people who opposed him after he achieved god-like status, he targeted them with the Light of Judgement, especially as a warning to others. He basically almost completely wiped out Narshe's population, a town that successfully resisted him in the past. He did it so to force others to think that there is no hope. Kefka basically wanted to see people suffer and realize for themselves that there is no hope after he achieved ultimate power. He actually did not kill randomly, he targeted people that gave people hope. He does change his plans to destroy everything when he battles the party, seeing that he could not kill everyones hopes and dreams. But he is insane, no doubt about it. No one knows why he wants to do this, other than it gives him pleasure. He was also mental destroyed by the magitek infusion, part of the reason the way he is. Basically he is a byproduct of Gesthal and his evil intentions that come back to kill him.texasgoldrush

i never said that "something fictitious cannot be realistic because it is not real" you assumed that, which maybe you should stop doing, cause its not working for you. just that video game villains arent and cant be realistic, cause if they were realistic, their would be no game. gameplay can be realistic graphics can be realistic but villains are always over the top, because if they werent, they wouldnt be villains in the first place because its rather unrealistic for someone to find out his mothers an alien, then decide to become one with the planet to obtain god-like status or when you crash your car and the villain is just standing over you, able to shoot you, but holding off until you allies have the ability to help the only exception to that is when you never or rarely ever see said villain, and even then and you apparently dont know what condescending means, or maybe you think your being clever and ill use sarcasm as i so please, and if you think its "undue" ... ... too bad? yes, too badi-rock-socks

You're argument, even without the personal attacks, doesn't make sense. You state that villains in video games are not realistic because they are over the top, right? Realistic means taking on a facsimile of the real. Hitler was real and ordered the deaths of millions of people. Therefore, a character in a video game laying waste to a country and killing millions would be realistic in certain contexts.

You need to stop making personal attacks and make a solid argument.

[QUOTE="i-rock-socks"]i never said that "something fictitious cannot be realistic because it is not real" you assumed that, which maybe you should stop doing, cause its not working for you. just that video game villains arent and cant be realistic, cause if they were realistic, their would be no game. gameplay can be realistic graphics can be realistic but villains are always over the top, because if they werent, they wouldnt be villains in the first place because its rather unrealistic for someone to find out his mothers an alien, then decide to become one with the planet to obtain god-like status or when you crash your car and the villain is just standing over you, able to shoot you, but holding off until you allies have the ability to help the only exception to that is when you never or rarely ever see said villain, and even then and you apparently dont know what condescending means, or maybe you think your being clever and ill use sarcasm as i so please, and if you think its "undue" ... ... too bad? yes, too badmuthsera666

You're argument, even without the personal attacks, doesn't make sense. You state that villains in video games are not realistic because they are over the top, right? Realistic means taking on a facsimile of the real. Hitler was real and ordered the deaths of millions of people. Therefore, a character in a video game laying waste to a country and killing millions would be realistic in certain contexts.

You need to stop making personal attacks and make a solid argument.

but then by your context, anything could be considered realistic

and if that were the case, why have the word in the first place

and my argument is solid, you just refuse to acknowledge it cause you dont agree, or because i hurt your feelings

and as for the "personal attacks" maybe if you stopped asking for them, ud stop getting them, but i doubt thatll happen

and i find it funny you keep up bringing up hitler and you have yet to bring up one valid example

this isnt a history lesson, this is a debate about game villains

and you say im not making a "solid argument" :D

I did like Kefka as a villain, though I do agree with others that he could have benefitted from some depth.

But other than the lack of depth, I still liked him as a villain. Kefka was able to make me hate him for the things he had done, and a good villain to me is a villain that makes me really want to defeat them.

Kefka was a good villain, though not the best video game villain, or even best FF villain, IMO.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] The can be compared, just like all villains....in 99% of stories, the villain has a flaw in his logic or plan that allows the hero to win or makes the villain lose. And Kefka did not stop killing people who opposed him after he achieved god-like status, he targeted them with the Light of Judgement, especially as a warning to others. He basically almost completely wiped out Narshe's population, a town that successfully resisted him in the past. He did it so to force others to think that there is no hope. Kefka basically wanted to see people suffer and realize for themselves that there is no hope after he achieved ultimate power. He actually did not kill randomly, he targeted people that gave people hope. He does change his plans to destroy everything when he battles the party, seeing that he could not kill everyones hopes and dreams. But he is insane, no doubt about it. No one knows why he wants to do this, other than it gives him pleasure. He was also mental destroyed by the magitek infusion, part of the reason the way he is. Basically he is a byproduct of Gesthal and his evil intentions that come back to kill him.smerlus

You put into words what I wasn't able to. Thanks.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="smerlus"] Once again. there is a large difference in character flaw and writing flaw. Up to Kefka's rise to power, he personally killed every person that opposed him. Emperor Ghestahl (sp), General Leo, Dozens of Espers. He personally killed them all. Then when he gets the power of a God he kills random people. You say "he didn't kill random people, he killed the people of Narshe" But since but you ignore that the "people of Narshe" are random people that didn't have a standout character among them. He doesn't kill a single person that was actually a threat to him after he gained his power and that is horrible writing. I know you're not going to see it because you seem to have some infatuation with this game but it is there. As others have pointed out, you're filling all these plotholes with your own personal theories. Right now I can look up the plot to FF III and some of the characters on numerous sites and none of them will mention the stuff you've mentioned in here. It's probably because it doesn't exist and you've used these plot holes to fill in your own interpretations.smerlus

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] The can be compared, just like all villains....in 99% of stories, the villain has a flaw in his logic or plan that allows the hero to win or makes the villain lose. And Kefka did not stop killing people who opposed him after he achieved god-like status, he targeted them with the Light of Judgement, especially as a warning to others. He basically almost completely wiped out Narshe's population, a town that successfully resisted him in the past. He did it so to force others to think that there is no hope. Kefka basically wanted to see people suffer and realize for themselves that there is no hope after he achieved ultimate power. He actually did not kill randomly, he targeted people that gave people hope. He does change his plans to destroy everything when he battles the party, seeing that he could not kill everyones hopes and dreams. But he is insane, no doubt about it. No one knows why he wants to do this, other than it gives him pleasure. He was also mental destroyed by the magitek infusion, part of the reason the way he is. Basically he is a byproduct of Gesthal and his evil intentions that come back to kill him.hakanakumono

You put into words what I wasn't able to. Thanks.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"] Once again. there is a large difference in character flaw and writing flaw. Up to Kefka's rise to power, he personally killed every person that opposed him. Emperor Ghestahl (sp), General Leo, Dozens of Espers. He personally killed them all. Then when he gets the power of a God he kills random people. You say "he didn't kill random people, he killed the people of Narshe" But since but you ignore that the "people of Narshe" are random people that didn't have a standout character among them. He doesn't kill a single person that was actually a threat to him after he gained his power and that is horrible writing. I know you're not going to see it because you seem to have some infatuation with this game but it is there. As others have pointed out, you're filling all these plotholes with your own personal theories. Right now I can look up the plot to FF III and some of the characters on numerous sites and none of them will mention the stuff you've mentioned in here. It's probably because it doesn't exist and you've used these plot holes to fill in your own interpretations.texasgoldrush

You put into words what I wasn't able to. Thanks.

You'll probably just take the script and provide extensive analysis of a single line that doesn't add up or isn't supported by the rest of the game. I don't think you have a very strong understanding of VI. You've already misinterpreted Celes to be a lonely character. I also suspect that you're confusing themes with topics the game pulls up.

A theme is "love has no boundaries," which is an extremely cliche'd theme that is touched upon in VI. Calling VI "thematically deep" would be like callilng a movie about a sasquatch and a human who fall in love "thematically deep." Not really.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Narshe had the mayor of the town as well as Arvis (he was probably killed in Vector though along with Banon at some point, one of my criticisms is they never revealed the fate of those characters). Narshe's troops were in Vector after the Esper's attacked, so they resisted the empire. They also beat him off in the past when Kefka came for the Esper. Purely a revenge attack. Narshe in the WoR is a monster area. He also stuck South Figaro with the light of judgement, probably for resisting him, but they rebuilt their town. Why struck Tzan when Celes arrives, a targeted attack. You can get these details by talking to townspeople, but most people don't do this. You can miss depth in this game.texasgoldrush

Serial killers do not kill random people, they target certain traits in people and thus target very specific types of people. These traits generally relate to the killers' pasts. In a sense, if these people were "characters" they would have the very "backstories" that Kefka does not. Kefka is a weak character. He is an effective villain, but a weak character. Stop trying to make excuses for his lack of depth.

You are essentially arguing that depth is unimportant and that is an argument that you can never win because you have already lost.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

You put into words what I wasn't able to. Thanks.

You'll probably just take the script and provide extensive analysis of a single line that doesn't add up or isn't supported by the rest of the game. I don't think you have a very strong understanding of VI. You've already misinterpreted Celes to be a lonely character. I also suspect that you're confusing themes with topics the game pulls up.

A theme is "love has no boundaries," which is an extremely cliche'd theme that is touched upon in VI. Calling VI "thematically deep" would be like callilng a movie about a sasquatch and a human who fall in love "thematically deep." Not really.

L

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Name me one thing I said that you think I am wrong.....I can pull the game script and prove that I am right, especially on the thematic depth you say doesn't exist.texasgoldrush

You'll probably just take the script and provide extensive analysis of a single line that doesn't add up or isn't supported by the rest of the game. I don't think you have a very strong understanding of VI. You've already misinterpreted Celes to be a lonely character. I also suspect that you're confusing themes with topics the game pulls up.

A theme is "love has no boundaries," which is an extremely cliche'd theme that is touched upon in VI. Calling VI "thematically deep" would be like callilng a movie about a sasquatch and a human who fall in love "thematically deep." Not really.

"Loss" isn't a theme, it's a subject that is barely touched upon in VI.

"Love" isn't a theme, but "Love has no boundaries" wasn't explored with very much depth in VI either. It's an element of VI, but it's exploration is shallow at most.

Yes, VI was far more serious than the previous Final Fantasies. Which is why if it was 1994, we would consider Final Fantasy VI to be a game of considerable depth. It was outdone in 1997.

Again, you use the word "deep." Where is the depth? There are parentless children in VI. Multiple parentless children. But the game does not explore the subject of "parentless children." The story involves them, but it doesn't explore them. You seem to think that anything that exists in the plot is a "deep exploration" simply because they're included. It doesn't work that way. Here's an example:

"There was a parentless child. He was sad because he had no parents. He went to meet them one day but he found out they were dead. Then he had a sandwich. The end." This "short story" is just as much of a "deep exploration" of parentless children as VI includes.

Again, you're drawing the conclusion that she's lonely. Where are you drawing this conclusion from? You seem to have admitted that she is not even "lonely" throughout the whole game. Hopelessness and loneliness are completely unrelated, aside from both being negative emotions.

You seem to be picking out all of the human emotions and experiences that you can find in VI and calling them "deep explorations" or "depth." Just becaus a game character is lonely, happy, sad, hopeless, etc doesn't mean that these give the game any depth. The subject matter presented in VI is shallow. It does not go to any great depth with these concepts.

L[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

You'll probably just take the script and provide extensive analysis of a single line that doesn't add up or isn't supported by the rest of the game. I don't think you have a very strong understanding of VI. You've already misinterpreted Celes to be a lonely character. I also suspect that you're confusing themes with topics the game pulls up.

A theme is "love has no boundaries," which is an extremely cliche'd theme that is touched upon in VI. Calling VI "thematically deep" would be like callilng a movie about a sasquatch and a human who fall in love "thematically deep." Not really.

"Loss" isn't a theme, it's a subject that is barely touched upon in VI.

"Love" isn't a theme, but "Love has no boundaries" wasn't explored with very much depth in VI either. It's an element of VI, but it's exploration is shallow at most.

Yes, VI was far more serious than the previous Final Fantasies. Which is why if it was 1994, we would consider Final Fantasy VI to be a game of considerable depth. It was outdone in 1997.

Again, you use the word "deep." Where is the depth? There are parentless children in VI. Multiple parentless children. But the game does not explore the subject of "parentless children." The story involves them, but it doesn't explore them. You seem to think that anything that exists in the plot is a "deep exploration" simply because they're included. It doesn't work that way. Here's an example:

"There was a parentless child. He was sad because he had no parents. He went to meet them one day but he found out they were dead. Then he had a sandwich. The end." This "short story" is just as much of a "deep exploration" of parentless children as VI includes.

Again, you're drawing the conclusion that she's lonely. Where are you drawing this conclusion from? You seem to have admitted that she is not even "lonely" throughout the whole game. Hopelessness and loneliness are completely unrelated, aside from both being negative emotions.

You seem to be picking out all of the human emotions and experiences that you can find in VI and calling them "deep explorations" or "depth." Just becaus a game character is lonely, happy, sad, hopeless, etc doesn't mean that these give the game any depth. The subject matter presented in VI is shallow. It does not go to any great depth with these concepts.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

L[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] You probably can't name me anything. I can prove you wrong its not too hard. Like I said, they portray the theme of loss with incredible depth...you can't argue that. The theme of love is well represented as well, true it is cliche, but this game is the one that started this cliche for the most part. Unlike the past FF's, this one had much more serious themes and issues, some are explored in detail and some are mentioned. Another theme, parentless children, is explored deep in this game. Lets see Terra, Celes, Relm, Gau, and the Mobliz children are either abandoned by or lose their parents and Gau was even thrown away by this father a second time. No I did not misinterpret Celes as a lonely character, she is, when Locke first rescues her, she doesn't even thank him and even tells him to leave her for the executioner. At the point in the game, she is not only lonely, she is used to be lonely and content with it. Hopelessness comes with it as well. It is her friendship with Locke that gives her hope. FFVI is one of the top rated RPG's of all time, if not THE top rated...why? Because its story and themes were brilliantly executed and it stands the test of time. IGN and X-Play named it the top RPG OF ALL TIME, and Gamespy leads in that direction as well.texasgoldrush

"Loss" isn't a theme, it's a subject that is barely touched upon in VI.

"Love" isn't a theme, but "Love has no boundaries" wasn't explored with very much depth in VI either. It's an element of VI, but it's exploration is shallow at most.

Yes, VI was far more serious than the previous Final Fantasies. Which is why if it was 1994, we would consider Final Fantasy VI to be a game of considerable depth. It was outdone in 1997.

Again, you use the word "deep." Where is the depth? There are parentless children in VI. Multiple parentless children. But the game does not explore the subject of "parentless children." The story involves them, but it doesn't explore them. You seem to think that anything that exists in the plot is a "deep exploration" simply because they're included. It doesn't work that way. Here's an example:

"There was a parentless child. He was sad because he had no parents. He went to meet them one day but he found out they were dead. Then he had a sandwich. The end." This "short story" is just as much of a "deep exploration" of parentless children as VI includes.

Again, you're drawing the conclusion that she's lonely. Where are you drawing this conclusion from? You seem to have admitted that she is not even "lonely" throughout the whole game. Hopelessness and loneliness are completely unrelated, aside from both being negative emotions.

You seem to be picking out all of the human emotions and experiences that you can find in VI and calling them "deep explorations" or "depth." Just becaus a game character is lonely, happy, sad, hopeless, etc doesn't mean that these give the game any depth. The subject matter presented in VI is shallow. It does not go to any great depth with these concepts.

I've played VI multiple times and am on a playthrough right now.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand what depth is. Yes, many characters in VI experience loss. That does not mean that VI goes into depth about loss. VI features loss, it doesn't explore it. You're confusing depth with the mere existence of a subject being featured within a game. Yes, the characters in VI do experience emotions and yes it does give them more depth than if they were to have no backstories at all. But the depth in VI amounts to very little.

If VI is deep then any game where a character experiences emotions is deep. That is simply false.

Terra spends VI trying to find out what it means to be Terra, not to be human. The problem is that it just isn't fleshed out. That's the problem with VI. Yes, we do get to know bits and pieces of information about the characters, but it isn't really fleshed out. There seem to be gaps int he development of the characters. As if we missed scenes or dialogue to communicate a gradual growth. It's like watching a DVD that skips half of the important moments.

Yes, VI includes characters more human than any Final Fantasy before it. And yes, they have far more depth than any Final Fantasy characters before them. But they are incomplete and VI is a premature effort in videogame storytelling. I love VI for what it is, but it definitely needs a lot of work if it is going to be placed next to modern standards. Which is why I want Square Enix to remake it. Take the serious elements in VI and flesh them out, because they were not in the original. VI has so much unrealized potential and it's a shame.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

"Loss" isn't a theme, it's a subject that is barely touched upon in VI.

"Love" isn't a theme, but "Love has no boundaries" wasn't explored with very much depth in VI either. It's an element of VI, but it's exploration is shallow at most.

Yes, VI was far more serious than the previous Final Fantasies. Which is why if it was 1994, we would consider Final Fantasy VI to be a game of considerable depth. It was outdone in 1997.

Again, you use the word "deep." Where is the depth? There are parentless children in VI. Multiple parentless children. But the game does not explore the subject of "parentless children." The story involves them, but it doesn't explore them. You seem to think that anything that exists in the plot is a "deep exploration" simply because they're included. It doesn't work that way. Here's an example:

"There was a parentless child. He was sad because he had no parents. He went to meet them one day but he found out they were dead. Then he had a sandwich. The end." This "short story" is just as much of a "deep exploration" of parentless children as VI includes.

Again, you're drawing the conclusion that she's lonely. Where are you drawing this conclusion from? You seem to have admitted that she is not even "lonely" throughout the whole game. Hopelessness and loneliness are completely unrelated, aside from both being negative emotions.

You seem to be picking out all of the human emotions and experiences that you can find in VI and calling them "deep explorations" or "depth." Just becaus a game character is lonely, happy, sad, hopeless, etc doesn't mean that these give the game any depth. The subject matter presented in VI is shallow. It does not go to any great depth with these concepts.

I've played VI multiple times and am on a playthrough right now.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand what depth is. Yes, many characters in VI experience loss. That does not mean that VI goes into depth about loss. VI features loss, it doesn't explore it. You're confusing depth with the mere existence of a subject being featured within a game. Yes, the characters in VI do experience emotions and yes it does give them more depth than if they were to have no backstories at all. But the depth in VI amounts to very little.

If VI is deep then any game where a character experiences emotions is deep. That is simply false.

Terra spends VI trying to find out what it means to be Terra, not to be human. The problem is that it just isn't fleshed out. That's the problem with VI. Yes, we do get to know bits and pieces of information about the characters, but it isn't really fleshed out. There seem to be gaps int he development of the characters. As if we missed scenes or dialogue to communicate a gradual growth. It's like watching a DVD that skips half of the important moments.

Yes, VI includes characters more human than any Final Fantasy before it. And yes, they have far more depth than any Final Fantasy characters before them. But they are incomplete and VI is a premature effort in videogame storytelling. I love VI for what it is, but it definitely needs a lot of work if it is going to be placed next to modern standards. Which is why I want Square Enix to remake it. Take the serious elements in VI and flesh them out, because they were not in the original. VI has so much unrealized potential and it's a shame.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Your post above shows that you have not even played FFVI to a great extent...you are either blind or did not play the game. Almost EVERY party member suffers loss, either during the course of the story or before the story. In the World of Ruin, many of the character's plotlines are finished when they do find a way to deal with the loss. Cyan even has a whole dungeon in his plotline where he is trapped in his despair over losing his family and the party has to assist him. Each characters loss has different aspects and messages about loss and its even explicitly told in the game, especially by Rachel before she departs and gives Locke the Phoenix Esper and Elaine and Owain tell Cyan to live on with them in his heart. Ever wonder why Locke has the tendecy to protect women? Its because he feels he failed to protect Rachel and lost her (and Rachel actually was protecting Locke in the mines). What really hurts Locke though is that he wasn't there in Rachel died, when she uttered his name. I guess I will show you the scene.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zguR3ngGhCQ And it is not just these two scenes, the loss of Rachel dogs him the whole game. Its the reason why he saves Terra and Celes and is protective of them. And for love, its THE reason why Terra fights. Although most believe the game has no main character, some believe Terra is and she is the Dissidia representitive. Terra is trying to find out the entire game what it means to be human and why to fight. Terra is in an obervational role, observing death and destruction from what the Empire and Kefka brought, but also the care of her companions. But she finds what it means to love when she cares for the orphans who are left parentless and alone due to Kefka and tormented by Humbaba. She finally finds it when she learns that Duane and Katarin are pregnant and she wrecks Humbaba and reveals her Esper self. Love is her answer....and her connection with the children prevents her from dying at the end of the game. Then there is Celes's relationship with Locke, Sabin and Edgar's brotherly relationship, and Strago's love for his "Granddaughter"....who Shadow abandoned, struggling with the guilt over the loss of his companion. Its not just human emotions, its WHAT the characters say...and no in 1997 they didn't surpass this game themewise. Bascially FFVII throw a bunch of themes out and didn't even use them properly or effectively in the plot. The later games were much more consistant, but don't match VI's level.texasgoldrush

I've played VI multiple times and am on a playthrough right now.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand what depth is. Yes, many characters in VI experience loss. That does not mean that VI goes into depth about loss. VI features loss, it doesn't explore it. You're confusing depth with the mere existence of a subject being featured within a game. Yes, the characters in VI do experience emotions and yes it does give them more depth than if they were to have no backstories at all. But the depth in VI amounts to very little.

If VI is deep then any game where a character experiences emotions is deep. That is simply false.

Terra spends VI trying to find out what it means to be Terra, not to be human. The problem is that it just isn't fleshed out. That's the problem with VI. Yes, we do get to know bits and pieces of information about the characters, but it isn't really fleshed out. There seem to be gaps int he development of the characters. As if we missed scenes or dialogue to communicate a gradual growth. It's like watching a DVD that skips half of the important moments.

Yes, VI includes characters more human than any Final Fantasy before it. And yes, they have far more depth than any Final Fantasy characters before them. But they are incomplete and VI is a premature effort in videogame storytelling. I love VI for what it is, but it definitely needs a lot of work if it is going to be placed next to modern standards. Which is why I want Square Enix to remake it. Take the serious elements in VI and flesh them out, because they were not in the original. VI has so much unrealized potential and it's a shame.

The more this thread goes on the less credible you make yourself out to be. The characters of VI are developed enough because Square didn't waste time on "uneeded development?" There's no such thing as uneeded development. VI needs more development and the fact that it is missing is simply a shame.

The idea that VI can stand alongside of Silent Hill 2 is an absloute joke. You're using lists compiled by websites that are clearly not reliable when it comes to assessing game content. The best evidence you can find is "look, these people think its good!" The fact is that Final Fantasy VI doesn't 5% of the development seen in Silent Hill 2 and definitely does not meet up to modern standards. VII, VIII, IX, and X were all much more developed than VI. Only XII rivals VI in lack of character development in recent Final Fantasy games.

Cyan's development is there, but it's barely there. We are given fragments of information among gameplay. Yes, there is a whole area devoted to Cyan, but only a fraction of a percent actually features any development.

Doma: We learn that Cyan loses his loved ones to Kefka

Phantom Train: We see that they're boarding the train tot he world of the dead.

Dream World: Cyan needs to move on and accept that they're dead.

World of Ruin: Cyan wants to comfort a woman who was torn from a loved one.

That is the full extent of the development. It's barely anything at all. Cyan's total development amounts to a very short paragraph. It's not fleshed out.

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I've played VI multiple times and am on a playthrough right now.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand what depth is. Yes, many characters in VI experience loss. That does not mean that VI goes into depth about loss. VI features loss, it doesn't explore it. You're confusing depth with the mere existence of a subject being featured within a game. Yes, the characters in VI do experience emotions and yes it does give them more depth than if they were to have no backstories at all. But the depth in VI amounts to very little.

If VI is deep then any game where a character experiences emotions is deep. That is simply false.

Terra spends VI trying to find out what it means to be Terra, not to be human. The problem is that it just isn't fleshed out. That's the problem with VI. Yes, we do get to know bits and pieces of information about the characters, but it isn't really fleshed out. There seem to be gaps int he development of the characters. As if we missed scenes or dialogue to communicate a gradual growth. It's like watching a DVD that skips half of the important moments.

Yes, VI includes characters more human than any Final Fantasy before it. And yes, they have far more depth than any Final Fantasy characters before them. But they are incomplete and VI is a premature effort in videogame storytelling. I love VI for what it is, but it definitely needs a lot of work if it is going to be placed next to modern standards. Which is why I want Square Enix to remake it. Take the serious elements in VI and flesh them out, because they were not in the original. VI has so much unrealized potential and it's a shame.

The more this thread goes on the less credible you make yourself out to be. The characters of VI are developed enough because Square didn't waste time on "uneeded development?" There's no such thing as uneeded development. VI needs more development and the fact that it is missing is simply a shame.

The idea that VI can stand alongside of Silent Hill 2 is an absloute joke. You're using lists compiled by websites that are clearly not reliable when it comes to assessing game content. The best evidence you can find is "look, these people think its good!" The fact is that Final Fantasy VI doesn't 5% of the development seen in Silent Hill 2 and definitely does not meet up to modern standards. VII, VIII, IX, and X were all much more developed than VI. Only XII rivals VI in lack of character development in recent Final Fantasy games.

Cyan's development is there, but it's barely there. We are given fragments of information among gameplay. Yes, there is a whole area devoted to Cyan, but only a fraction of a percent actually features any development.

Doma: We learn that Cyan loses his loved ones to Kefka

Phantom Train: We see that they're boarding the train tot he world of the dead.

Dream World: Cyan needs to move on and accept that they're dead.

World of Ruin: Cyan wants to comfort a woman who was torn from a loved one.

That is the full extent of the development. It's barely anything at all. Cyan's total development amounts to a very short paragraph. It's not fleshed out.

Actually he didn't target the party because he wanted to meet them in his tower (if they survive his guardians) to try to prove them wrong in a battle of ideas and kill them personally....but the party ticks him off when they have an answer for him, then he goes random, or attempts to. He actually says he is waiting for them right before the battle. Like I said, he underestimated the party, his fatal mistake. Basically he wanted to rule a broken world and get pleasure out of it. Think about it, what would give a psycho sadist more pleasure, watching people die slowly and miserably, or killing people quickly....its obvious. Kefka represents all the ugliness that humanity can do, he is basically a symbol and a force. A force that must be challanged and defeated. That is Kefka's purpose. The scary thing is, there are people like this, who kill and hurt for pleasure...for example, The Zodiac Killer in the 70's. Or that Bind Torture and Kill guy (the BTK Killer) who killed random women. It is not easy to understand people like these and why they seek pleasure in doing this. Kefka is actually more realistic that you think......basically he is one of those types in a fantasy universe.texasgoldrush

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] It is possible to miss key character development scenes if you don't know what to do or who you should take in your party. Many of these character development scenes are in fact optional and some are easily skippable. But the characters are as developed with as much depth as they need the majority of the time. Not all the characters however are the same. Sabin and Edgar, as well as Kefka, are static characters, but they still have some development. Terra and Celes are dynamic characters and they are developed enough to be effective. Every part of the characters do not have to be fleshed out, its not needed. Also, you get some character and setting development from talking to townspeople, something most players who follow walkthroughs don't do. No, Terra is trying to find out her humanity (which was taken from her throughout her life), and it is fully developed. She even has a flashback of her birth and how she came to be captured by the Empire. She is clearly developed enough for the story. The thing is FFVI doesn't focus on one character like VII, VIII, IX, and X (two characters) do. How does it handle this? By developing the characters as much as they need to be developed, no waste time on uneeded development. True, if there is a remake, they could add depth, but the fact is FFVI actually does stand with modern games. Take Gameradar's Top 15 Stories of all time list. FFVI is the only JRPG on the list, and it shares company with Metal Gear Solid, Bioshock, Half Life 2, Silent Hill 2 and story driven games like the Longest Journey. I love FFVI for what it is, one of the greatest RPGs ever made that still holds up to modern standards. How else does it shoot up from #56 to #9 from IGN's Best Game Ever list in 2005 and the list in 2007. They explore "loss", that is what I am telling you. If it was just featured, a character would die, then we move on. Loss sticks with the characters because it is explored. Take Cyan's dream sequence for example, you are basically exploring what Cyan is feeling about his loss, including an image of the Phantom Train, and images of his family in the dreamlike version of Doma. The whole World of Ruin is about loss and coming to terms with it and finding hope. Oh yeah, more Cyan, turns out when you get him he is pretending to be a lady in Maranda's boyfriend, who also died. Both refuse to let go and live a lie until Cyan is found by the party and writes a letter of truth to the woman.texasgoldrush

The more this thread goes on the less credible you make yourself out to be. The characters of VI are developed enough because Square didn't waste time on "uneeded development?" There's no such thing as uneeded development. VI needs more development and the fact that it is missing is simply a shame.

The idea that VI can stand alongside of Silent Hill 2 is an absloute joke. You're using lists compiled by websites that are clearly not reliable when it comes to assessing game content. The best evidence you can find is "look, these people think its good!" The fact is that Final Fantasy VI doesn't 5% of the development seen in Silent Hill 2 and definitely does not meet up to modern standards. VII, VIII, IX, and X were all much more developed than VI. Only XII rivals VI in lack of character development in recent Final Fantasy games.

Cyan's development is there, but it's barely there. We are given fragments of information among gameplay. Yes, there is a whole area devoted to Cyan, but only a fraction of a percent actually features any development.

Doma: We learn that Cyan loses his loved ones to Kefka

Phantom Train: We see that they're boarding the train tot he world of the dead.

Dream World: Cyan needs to move on and accept that they're dead.

World of Ruin: Cyan wants to comfort a woman who was torn from a loved one.

That is the full extent of the development. It's barely anything at all. Cyan's total development amounts to a very short paragraph. It's not fleshed out.

It doesn't matter, Silent Hill 2 is still lightyears ahead of Final Fantasy VI. Xenogears is ahead of Final Fantasy VI. Final Fantasy VIII is ahead of Final Fantasy VI. Parasite Eve is ahead of Final Fantasy VI.

It's a memorable cast, but their development is incomplete. VI is far from flawless.

That's not part of Cyan's development as a character. It's just a character who initially distrusts another, then comes to trust them within a brief time frame int he storyline. Again, I don't think you really understand VI or even how to analyze information within the plot. Not everything is important to a character's development.

That's why all of these people in this thread are coming to back you up right? Oh wait ...