Printable View
No longer in the DS version, though. And even in the NES version, she had 2 attacks. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ReloadPsi
And for its time, I'd call that thingie original. Course, with Zeromus, NeoExDeath, Kefka, True Ultimecia and NEcron copying it, the originality is a bit gone now, allas...
i think sephiroth gets too much abuse, he can be challenging without KOTR or limit breaks. But i still agree he was pretty overated:rolleyes2
He isn't challaging if you set you materna right.
Exactly. Besides, on my first playthrough, I didn't have KotR and I still found him easy because I had good materia combos.Quote:
Originally Posted by jammi567
i went with seymor just because i hated him on a much more soulful level he was evil and disturbed while sepheroth was crazy evil.
Alright... I'm a little confused about this thread...
Is this hate as in "damn they were just a terribly lame villain" or is it "damn that person pisses me off, they are written so well cause they proceed to invoke such powerful emotions from me."?
I'll do both.
Seymour is the lamest villain in the series by far cause he is irrelevant to the plot of the game he's featured in. I believe he only exists cause the creators felt the player needed an antagonist they could talk to.
His crimes are weak compared to what every previous villain and even compared to what Yu-Yevon/Sin was doing in his own game. His motive was lame and I am sick and tired of these childhood crybaby stories. If you mentally remove him from the game you quickly realize that it hardly alters the plot in any significant way. He was practically the game's "flunky" villain, every time he shows up it's like...
Seymour: I'm here to smite these cause I'm crazy in the membrane!
Party: You again? (party bitch slaps him out of the way and proceeds to continue the plot)
Seymour: I'm here again to smite thee!
Party: WTF!? Didn't we kick you ass already?
Seymour: I'm different now! I'm ZOMBIE SEYMOUR!!!
(Party proceeds to bitch slap him out of the way and continue the plot... rinse, repeat, ad naseum...:rolleyes2 )
For villains that drove me to hate them cause they were done pretty well... I'm going to say Golbez, even if he wasn't the game's main villian he was still a man that drove me mad. Every time you meet him he finds new and more amusing ways to screw your party over. Whether he's brainwashing your friends, stealing crystals or just messing up the place he always seemed to be in control.
You literally spend most of FFIV just trying to catch up to him but he always finds a way to stay one step ahead of you. But you had to respect and admire him. He dressed snazzy, he was more powerful than you, and far more intelligent.
i hate kefka....i reaaallllyyy hate kefka! what a scum bag. trying to ruin the world. ive always thought sephiroth could destroy him.
I loved Seymour.
i'm gunna go with Kefka as i can never beat him
and surely because hes a little creep?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeneloRatsbane
I voted for all of them cos multiple poll.
Final Fantasy has lame villians.
Personally, I think Yu Yevon is the villain of FFX, Seymour is merely the antagonist, like Gilgamesh, the Turks, Beatrix, Riku and Ritz. The only major difference is that he doesn't switch to your side, which would have completely ruined his character.
One of the main conditions of being a villain is that they have to know that they're evil, which Seymour fails to fulfil decisively.Quote:
An antagonist is a character or group of characters, or, sometimes an institution of a happening who represents the opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In the classic style of story wherein the action consists of a hero fighting a villain, the two can be regarded as protagonist and antagonist, respectively.
Contrary to what some people commonly believe, the antagonist is not always the villain, but simply those who oppose the main character.
The same could be said for any of the antagonists I mentioned, except for Riku.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
That's what antagonists do. They let the villain do all the crimes. Though Seymour has a pretty impressive list for an antagonist.Quote:
His crimes are weak compared to what every previous villain and even compared to what Yu-Yevon/Sin was doing in his own game.
Compared to stuff like:Quote:
His motive was lame
"I'm enslaving the world because I hatehatehateHATE you!"
"If I can't exist, then I'll destroy all the universe!"
Seymour's motive, to send all of Spira into a spiral of death to end their suffering, is very deep.
That is a feature of most antagonists. Imagine FF7 without the Turks, FFTA without Ritz, etc.Quote:
If you mentally remove him from the game you quickly realize that it hardly alters the plot in any significant way.
Sounds like Gilgamesh, the Turks, and Riku Replica from CoM (without the zombie part) to me...Quote:
He was practically the game's "flunky" villain, every time he shows up it's like...
Seymour: I'm here to smite these cause I'm crazy in the membrane!
Party: You again? (party bitch slaps him out of the way and proceeds to continue the plot)
Seymour: I'm here again to smite thee!
Party: WTF!? Didn't we kick you ass already?
Seymour: I'm different now! I'm ZOMBIE SEYMOUR!!!
(Party proceeds to bitch slap him out of the way and continue the plot... rinse, repeat, ad naseum...:rolleyes2 )
Bahamut states within the game that Yu-Yevon is neither good nor evil (the nature of his appearance during the Final Battle only seems to confirm this), which makes him unable to gain the title of 'villain'.
While Seymour believes that what he is ultimately what is best for Spira, his methods of achieving his ends in addition to the sadistic glee he takes in accomplishing them (for reference, his conversation with Kimahri before the third battle with him) definitely makes him an villainous character.
But yeah, I wouldn't really call him a bad villain, even if his role in the plot is only equivalent to that of the supporting antagonists in other titles.
is that a joke or are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
I actually agree with you on this point but many FF fans consider Seymour to be the villain. My post can be thought more of a commentary on this odd phenomenon.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Firo Volondé
Actually, most of the main villains don't consider themselves evil either in their respected games. Hell I don't think any of them ever recognize it.Quote:
One of the main conditions of being a villain is that they have to know that they're evil, which Seymour fails to fulfil decisively.Quote:
An antagonist is a character or group of characters, or, sometimes an institution of a happening who represents the opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In the classic style of story wherein the action consists of a hero fighting a villain, the two can be regarded as protagonist and antagonist, respectively.
Contrary to what some people commonly believe, the antagonist is not always the villain, but simply those who oppose the main character.
Ritz is actually relevant to her plot but that's for another forum. With the exception of her and Riku as you said, it's true but you forget one thing that makes the Turks and Gilgamesh different from Seymour. Besides the addition of comic relief (and I know that's a moot point) the characters mentioned are all actually underlings to a major villain. They do their "flunky" work cause they are ordered to do so by the game's real villain cause you know... they are flunkies:D . Like your posted definition of antagonist, all of them eventually reveal they are rooting for the heroes and usually your final encounter with them has these characters revealing they are finally fighting for themselves rather than to achieve the goals of the main villain.Quote:
The same could be said for any of the antagonists I mentioned, except for Riku.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Seymour breaks this tradition, he fights only for himslef and eventually chases after Sin in hopes of using it as a vessel to carry out his insane plan. Yet despite his reletive independance from the actual main villain, he's pretty irrelevant, neither his motive, his role, or general purpose does anything to help or expand the storyline except to give your party something to do while they run around Spira collecting summons and searching for Zanarkand.
Hardly, chasing your party around and attacking the Al Bhed and Ronso while attempting to carry out a plan to wipe everything out (which he fails) is pretty weak to the sheer planetary and political strife caused by previous villains in the series. In fact, only the Ronso were really affected by Seymour which is greatly expanded on in X-2.Quote:
That's what antagonists do. They let the villain do all the crimes. Though Seymour has a pretty impressive list for an antagonist.Quote:
His crimes are weak compared to what every previous villain and even compared to what Yu-Yevon/Sin was doing in his own game.
Kuja has quite possibly the best motive of the villains in the series. You forget that he only tries to destroy everything towards the end of the game. His real motive for most of the game was to gain freedom from his servitude to Garland. He wanted to be free to do what he wanted. His "Destroy the world" motive is not generic either since Kuja is an artificial lifeform that (to him at least) was created to be perfect. His narcissism is different from previous villains.Quote:
Compared to stuff like:Quote:
His motive was lame
"I'm enslaving the world because I hatehatehateHATE you!"
"If I can't exist, then I'll destroy all the universe!"
Seymour's motive, to send all of Spira into a spiral of death to end their suffering, is very deep.
Kefka, though from a story standpoint is nothing more than a "crazy guy who becomes a god", is much more interesting from a symbolic level. First, he's one of four villains in the series that's actually human. He's also the only villain who does not have a real motive or sob story to explain why he holds his beliefs. Since we have no idea what Kefka was like before the Magitech experiments, blaming them is irrelevant. We only know it made him more crazy. He could have just as well had been an arrogant, cold hearted asshole who never cared about the life of others before as well and the experiments may have just made this more pronounced.
Since it's up to speculation, I don't think either side of the debate can truly use it as a "origin of evil". But Kefka does symbolically represent something that no other villain has before. He's everything wrong with humanity. He's a narcissist, a coward, cruel, wrathful, and a nihilist. That and he's basically a sociopath. He works well for VI cause VI's story is about fighting against human nature. To try and not repeat the mistakes of the past and to hold onto hope for a better tomorrow. Kefka is a wonderful antagonist and villain to coincide with such a theme. Though as a character he has the potential to give us some underlying cause for his insanity and cruelty, he offers nothing. It's just who he is and in the case of sociopaths that's the only true reason most of the time.
Kefka was the first villain (and still the only one to blatanly exclaim his ejoyment of it) to actually revel in the suffereing of others. He doesn'y wipe out humanity when he becomes a god, he destroys everything they have and wipe out's their loved ones so he can enjoy their suffering. He does this for a little more than a year and finally notices the cycle. No matter how amny times he destroyes humanities ambition, they continue to rebuild and hope for a better future. He can't fathom why one would struggle if they know the inheriant suffering that existence brings and thus comes to the conclusion that life is meaningless. That is when he decides to destroy everything...
I feel that is pretty damn deep as well.;)