Originally Posted by
Sir Bahamut
It's nice of you to point out that it's quite lacking without actually giving a single example, after only having 'glanced over it'. Do you always give such thorough reasoning behind your sweeping statements? Anyway, so you think Ultimecia should have spilled her heart out to us in some heart-wrenching scene instead, then? Ultimecia is at least a realistic enough villain to not stereotypically spill out her master plan and tormented life before attacking the hero :rolleyes2
Further, unless you actually care to back up your previous statement of flaws in the theory, there ISN'T a lot of theorising and 'leaps of assumption' necessary to substantiate the theory. The only assumption is that Ultimecias actions will be recorded in history. The rest is pure logic, based on the history of humanity.
Of course, if you think that any character who is explained only indirectly is instantly void of character, and that Ultimecia would literally have to spell it out to us for her to have any value, then I think you're missing out on a whole lot. It's true as has been said, Square didn't want to focus on Ultimecia, but that does NOT mean they decided to just forget about her and slap the insanity mark on her forehead and call her a villain. They simply decided to give us her story indirectly, so that we would actually have to look at what she's saying (her speach at Galbadia being a key point, other key point calling Squall "the legendary SeeD destined to face her").
By the way, if you intend to actually come with any arguments next post, please do more than 'glance over it', or I won't even bother responding.