Final Fantasy IV remake for DS

I don't think luck was a part of it. He WAS scheming the entire time. He was planning the attack on Ghestal for a long while, which allowed him to destroy the world.

Besides, he was evil, but he was also brutally insane. He wasn't meant to be that generic 'evil but brilliant' villain that we see everywhere. He was meant to be evil and insane, but competent. It makes him all the better, and really, all the more hate able. He's not likeable at all, he's despicable and annoying, no redeeming qualities. As evil should be shown.

The trouble with Kefka is that not only is he scheming, he also lies to make himself look better. Like with Celes' betrayal. Knowing that he works like that, taking things as they come and then making it look like it was what he intended, you really can't be sure how much was plan, and how much was just stuff happening. Sure, power-hungry as he was he certainly intended to off Gestahl at some point, but I doubt he had planned to do it exactly how he did.

Where's the fun in hating someone designed to be hated? I like me villains charismatic. A person who you could get along with, if not for the small detail of their agenda including your eventual demise. That allows a deeper character, which in my opinion makes for a better villain.

Err, the whole paint of a villain is to hate them. The sheer hatred one feels for Kefka by the end of the game makes the final confrontation among the most intense and long awaited I've encountered.

When a villain is charismatic, it becomes self defeating. If you like a villain, then the final confrontation won't feel very tense or satisfying. Hence why I think Sephiroth is so sumpremely overrated. He treads in shades of grey, you can understand him, why he's doing what he's doing. And while he's sitting there discussing his reasons, causing you to understand his plight and allowing for understanding, Kefka will just walk up and kill him and laugh then run away, for no reason other than just being so purely evil.

A villain like Kefka is rare. More often than not, they're of the charismatic nature, like Sephiroth and so on. Kefka is a breath of fresh air, a villain who reminds us the point of a villain - To hate them.

Kefka forced people to worship him and would kill them off if they refused. After he became supreme ruler of the planet he came to the conclusion that mortal life is meaningless and so goes off to kill every last single lifeform on the planet. The final battle against Kefka he wasn't like he was throughout the game but actually serious. He wasn't joking, he never laughed, he was dead serious. I was more afraid then excited because he reshaped the entire world and turned it into a dark world when he was insane. And now he was serious. Kefka became magic by absorbing the power of the statues. That's bad@$$. Sephiroth is all calm and quiet and actually comes to Cloud telling him his plans. WTF? Why tell the heroes what your plan is then leave them alive so they have a chance to stop you?

Any who, I don't see how IV DS got into this discussion about Kefka. The villain we should be talking is the powerful Zemus who controlled Golbez and threw the entire world into chaos.

Originally posted by BackFire
Err, the whole paint of a villain is to hate them. The sheer hatred one feels for Kefka by the end of the game makes the final confrontation among the most intense and long awaited I've encountered.

When a villain is charismatic, it becomes self defeating. If you like a villain, then the final confrontation won't feel very tense or satisfying. Hence why I think Sephiroth is so sumpremely overrated. He treads in shades of grey, you can understand him, why he's doing what he's doing. And while he's sitting there discussing his reasons, causing you to understand his plight and allowing for understanding, Kefka will just walk up and kill him and laugh then run away, for no reason other than just being so purely evil.

A villain like Kefka is rare. More often than not, they're of the charismatic nature, like Sephiroth and so on. Kefka is a breath of fresh air, a villain who reminds us the point of a villain - To hate them.

Well, just personal preference, then. I like knowing the motivations for why this one person decided that they must go through with their huge, world-altering plan. And I like when they actually have a plan where they truly believe what they are doing is for the greater good.

As opposed to Kefka, who has no such plan. He simply wants the entire world to stop existing, just because he thinks it's all meaningless. His very intention is as comparatively bland to others' as he is to more interesting villains, such as Tales of the Abyss' Van.

See villains that think they are doing good really makes them seem confused where as Kefka knows he's doing bad and just doesn't give a rat's @$$. That's what's so bad@$$ about Kefka.

But villains who "know they're doing bad" seem so... unrealistic. No one actually does something without believing it to be in some way good. Those villains don't seem confused; they are dead sure that what they are doing is for the best. The heroes just happen to not agree with them on that point.

Dhaos from Tales of Phantasia, for example. He had the right idea, he just went about achieving it the wrong way. To the point where players were often forced to re-examine the entire quest and decide whether what they were doing was actually the "right" thing. Ultimately, if you thought about all the angles, you would reaffirm that the heroes were indeed in the right and Dhaos had to be stopped. That hardened your resolve and deepened your belief in the quest, making the final fight against Dhaos all the more powerful.

That sort of epic quality is why I prefer deeper, more realistic villains as opposed to the "Kekeke, I'm so evil! 😈" Kefka brand.

Kefka thought by ridding the world of every living thing he WAS doing good. As his philosophy was that everything was pointless and only worthy of being destroyed.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes read. It would become clear what game we were talking about had you read.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Well multiple Final Fantasy games were mentioned so I didn't know.

Geesh. Read.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by BackFire
Kefka thought by ridding the world of every living thing he WAS doing good. As his philosophy was that everything was pointless and only worthy of being destroyed.

But does he ever make the player think that maybe, just maybe, he's right?

I thought not.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
But does he ever make the player think that maybe, just maybe, he's right?

I thought not.

A villain who thinks he's doing right really isn't much of a villain. He thinks he's doing right and yet the heroes think he's doing wrong. Where as Kefka just doesn't give a crap.

Perhaps not, but he is much more of a character. A villain in the traditional sense, such as Kefka, or Garland/Chaos, simply cannot be as interesting or compelling as a more realistic, untraditional villain like Golden Sun's Alex.

Or at least, that is my opinion. I like plots with shades of grey, others like their stories and characters to be black and white.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
But does he ever make the player think that maybe, just maybe, he's right?

I thought not.

What the heck does that have to do with anything?

He makes the player think that HE thinks he's right, and he's all the more despicable for it.

It's like you don't even like actual villains, just enemies who are on the opposite side, with shades of grey and all that pretentious BS that's so trendy and cliche these days.

Kefka may not have had many shades of grey, but enough other characters did as to make the story not simplistic, as you are alluding to.

Wasn't your point that Kefka wasn't likeable? No, I don't like Kefka. He did his job, but in the end he was just the next in a long line of stereotypical villains.

Just because you don't like a certain villain style, it's "pretentious BS" that's "trendy and cliche"? Why do you think that style is used? In the real world, people never do things unless they think it is for the good of themselves or the greater good. "Shades of grey" villains emulate that, and are more realistic for it. Since plot is one of the most important aspects of an RP, I like my RP plots realistic, even if the world is not.

No, it's pretentious BS that's trendy in Cliche because it is trendy and cliche. I say pretentious because it usually is. The creators think that by making a villain that isn't all bad, it's inherently "deep" or "complex". And apparently people buy into that.

It's used so much because it's simply easier to create a villain with shades of grey, rather than a villain that is genuinely disgusting and hateable, hence why just about every RPG now has a villain like that, the kind you like, because they're easier to create and people are quick to gobble up the illusion that it makes the story more complex or plausable "Oh, he's trying to take over the world, but look, he gave a little boy money OOHH THOUGHT PROVOKING, he's not all bad! That's deep!!". Which is something I'd call utter nonsense. In real life there are people without shades of grey, who do horrific acts that any normal person would deam as purely evil and brutal.

And again, Kefka DID think what he was doing was good for himself and was for the greater good. By controlling the world and destroying everyone who opposed him, he felt he was making the world a better place, for him, which is the only person he cared about.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, it's pretentious BS that's trendy in Cliche because it is trendy and cliche. I say pretentious because it usually is. The creators think that by making a villain that isn't all bad, it's inherently "deep" or "complex". And apparently people buy into that.

Trouble with saying that is it's annoyingly hard to prove an opinion as fact.

It's used so much because it's simply easier to create a villain with shades of grey, rather than a villain that is genuinely disgusting and hateable...

Where did you get that idea? Have you ever attempted to write up characters of your own? I have, and from my myriad characters ranging in all brands of good and evil, I can definitely say "evil for the hell of it" villains are the easiest to write of the lot. It takes barely any effort at all. Simply write a scene with the guy kicking a few puppies, and people will hate him. They won't say he was a very interesting character, but they will hate him.

hence why just about every RPG now has a villain like that, the kind you like, because they're easier to create and people are quick to gobble up the illusion that it makes the story more complex or plausable "Oh, he's trying to take over the world, but look, he gave a little boy money OOHH THOUGHT PROVOKING, he's not all bad! That's deep!!". Which is something I'd call utter nonsense.

And the amusing hyperbole begins! 😱

I'd call your example utter nonsense, as well. Because it doesn't happen. I'll use Dhaos as an example again. He put the world on a path to eventual decay and destruction because doing so would allow him to save his own world. Obviously, it's wrong to destroy a world, but in his opinion he was committing a heroic act. He was noble, not doing random acts of insignificant kindness.

In real life there are people without shades of grey, who do horrific acts that any normal person would deam as purely evil and brutal.

Who?

And again, Kefka DID think what he was doing was good for himself and was for the greater good. By controlling the world and destroying everyone who opposed him, he felt he was making the world a better place, for him, which is the only person he cared about.

Er... no. His intent was to annihilate the world and everything in it, not rule it. He never felt he was making the world a better place, he felt the whole thing was absolutely meaningless and ought to be unmade, period.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Trouble with saying that is it's annoyingly hard to prove an opinion as fact.

Yes, hence why everything here is opinion, never implied otherwise.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Where did you get that idea? Have you ever attempted to write up characters of your own? I have, and from my myriad characters ranging in all brands of good and evil, I can definitely say "evil for the hell of it" villains are the easiest to write of the lot. It takes barely any effort at all. Simply write a scene with the guy kicking a few puppies, and people will hate him. They won't say he was a very interesting character, but they will hate him.

I have, and shades of grey villains seem easier than genuinely (key word) hateable and evil villains. The guy kicking dogs wouldn't be effective, because people would see it as a lazy and over the top way of making you hate him. I never felt Kefka went that way. He came close, I won't deny that, but just when you thought he might go over the top and hurt his own character development, he'd do something that felt very real, and very evil.

Again, if you want shades of grey, there are numerous characters that approach that side of things in the game (Shadow, Ghestal, General Leo), they purposely made Kefka as horrid as possible, they made him a true villain. The theme was Good vs Pure evil, it would have hurt the game, by a significant amount, to have a villain that wasn't fully evil. Other games can make it work because they build around the "there is no right" thought process, and make both sides somewhat understandable. This clearly wasn't their intent with this game.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
And the amusing hyperbole begins! 😱

I'd call your example utter nonsense, as well. Because it doesn't happen. I'll use Dhaos as an example again. He put the world on a path to eventual decay and destruction because doing so would allow him to save his own world. Obviously, it's wrong to destroy a world, but in his opinion he was committing a heroic act. He was noble, not doing random acts of insignificant kindness.

Hehehe, I'm glad you enjoyed my hyperbole, I enjoyed yours as well.

Chaos (Dhaos was a typo, no?) sounds like a legitimely good villain, than. I'm not saying good grey villains don't exist. Just denying the idea that having a character not be totally evil is inherently better, or by default more complex, it isn't always the case, I think.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Who?

Hitler? For one.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Er... no. His intent was to annihilate the world and everything in it, not rule it. He never felt he was making the world a better place, he felt the whole thing was absolutely meaningless and ought to be unmade, period.

Yes, he did feel he was making the world a better place for HIM. No one else mattered, just himself and his own brutal philosophy of life being utterly meaningless. He didn't want to destroy the world completely. Had this been the case, he would have, he left people alive purposely, he could have killed every single one of them once he was in control, but he wanted power, and he wanted destruction. He knew he couldn't have both if he killed everyone, so he left some alive, he allowed them to live in fear, so he could have power, and destroy them later, if need be.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, hence why everything here is opinion, never implied otherwise.

Then it's not because "it is," it's because "I think it is." Yes?

I have, and shades of grey villains seem easier than genuinely (key word) hateable and evil villains. The guy kicking dogs wouldn't be effective, because people would see it as a lazy and over the top way of making you hate him. I never felt Kefka went that way. He came close, I won't deny that, but just when you thought he might go over the top and hurt his own character development, he'd do something that felt very real, and very evil.

Kefka was an insane clown. He was all about being over the top. Like a comic book villain:

Kefka: I don't care what you do here, JUST GET ME THAT ESPER!!

Soldier: Lord Kefka! There're civilians here...!

Kefka: Exterminate everyone!

Soldier: But Narshe is neutral...

Kefka: Idiot!! Read my lips!! Dispose of any who oppose us! March!

Stubborn, ignorant of minions' distrust, shouty, and dealing in absolutes: exterminate everyone. What city is he going to attack next, Metropolis?

Again, if you want shades of grey, there are numerous characters that approach that side of things in the game (Shadow, Ghestal, General Leo), they purposely made Kefka as horrid as possible, they made him a true villain. The theme was Good vs Pure evil, it would have hurt the game, by a significant amount, to have a villain that wasn't fully evil. Other games can make it work because they build around the "there is no right" thought process, and make both sides somewhat understandable. This clearly wasn't their intent with this game.

And here I was under the impression the game had a unique theme for each of the main characters... which they, you know, spent the entire game developing. Since they're, like, the main characters and the story is about them.

Hehehe, I'm glad you enjoyed my hyperbole, I enjoyed yours as well.

Chaos (Dhaos was a typo, no?) sounds like a legitimely good villain, than. I'm not saying good grey villains don't exist. Just denying the idea that having a character not be totally evil is inherently better, or by default more complex, it isn't always the case, I think.

No, Dhaos was not a typo. He's the main villain of Tales of Phantasia, a game released a year after FFVI. Back when a sympathetic villain was still relatively unheard of.

Just being evil is a rather flat base for characterization, whereas being just opposed allows for much greater depth, simply because it's more to build off of. You can only do so much and still stay within the "pure evil" spectrum; a lot more is open to "shades of grey" villains.

Hitler? For one.

Godwin's Law. 😆

And even Hitler wasn't totally evil. He honestly thought he was facilitating the rule of the "Master Race." Yes, his views were wrong, but he wasn't the purest, abject manifestation of all that is, was, and ever shall be unholy.

Yes, he did feel he was making the world a better place for HIM. No one else mattered, just himself and his own brutal philosophy of life being utterly meaningless. He didn't want to destroy the world completely. Had this been the case, he would have, he left people alive purposely, he could have killed every single one of them once he was in control, but he wanted power, and he wanted destruction. He knew he couldn't have both if he killed everyone, so he left some alive, he allowed them to live in fear, so he could have power, and destroy them later, if need be.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. That may have been the temporary situation after he caused the World of Ruin, but I was talking about his final intentions. Endgame, just before the final battle:

Kefka: I will destroy everything... I will create a monument to non-existence!

Life will go on! There will always be people, and dreams!

Kefka: No! I will hunt them down. I will destroy it all! Destroy! Destroy! Destroy!!

Hmm... yeah, not seeing much desire to rule.

In my recollection of it all- which may be imperfect- Kefka did just strike me as a jumped up thug, which doesn;t really do it for me, and with comic book rantings. He really was just... 'there'.

Unlike Sephiroth in VII, who they gave a large amount of backstory to, which worked rather well.

(Also because Sephiroth was understated in person, rather than always ranting)

Kefka, essentially, is a nihilist, a view that is just as boring in real life as it is in fiction, and unless explored in a very specific way that's a crappy motivation for a bad guy.

It's even worse because, as I say, Kefka is just 'some guy' who ends up being powerful. At least the Emperor in Star Wars is representative of something of great cosmological significance, though really it only works because he is played well, and in any case the most iconic villain of Star Wars- and perhaps of all time in any medium- is Darth Vader, a character we have in far more motivational detail.

It's not much to do with shades of grey or pure evil. Both approaches work in different contexts according to how well you do them. Sure, just putting in a few random non-evil acts to a bad guy to try and make him more interesting is prety crappy, but then the litany of shades of grey bad guys in films over time that have achieved classic status is huge, and with good reason.

Kefka is pure evil, that's not a big problem, it is simply that to the best of my recollection I found him really boring.

Kefka is a nut case; a psycho who takes joy in killing like how he murdered General Leo from behind then took joy in killing the Emperor. Kefka begun to think of himself as a god and found mortal life pointless.

And isn't a dicussion on Kefka off topic on a Final Fantasy IV DS thread? If anything Zemus (and Golbez) should be the topic of discussion. Heck IV gave off one of the biggest video game twists I ever seen. The bad guy you were trying so hard to defeat turned out to be Cecil's brother. Golbez was bad@$$.