FFX's Antagonist
- Thread starter Nikkolas
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Lunatic Pandora
The Looney Panda
I read it somewhere that if the villain were to be Seymour, then the hero should have been Yuna because their stories are connected. That would make sense. Dissidia seems to have a mix of Final Bosses (i.e. Ultimecia) or villains that have some sort of conection with the heroes (i.e. Golbez) as the antagonists. Ans seeing that Jecht had a connection with Tidus
, he fits as the antagonist from FFX.
and was the final boss (as Sin)
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
Seymour is to FF X as Rufus Shinra is to FF VII. They're both important antagonists, but they're by no means the main antagonist, and so wouldn't work in Dissidia. Sin was the main antagonist of the game, but since that wouldn't have fit in the game they had a choice between Jecht and Yu Yevon. Yu Yevon wasn't even really a boss fight and had absolutely no connection to Tidus, so Jecht was the clear winner here.
In my opinion it was the perfect choice, as Jecht was the real final boss fight in the game and his connection to Tidus makes for interesting story points. Seymour would have been kinda random, and its not like the Chaos side needs more mages.
In my opinion it was the perfect choice, as Jecht was the real final boss fight in the game and his connection to Tidus makes for interesting story points. Seymour would have been kinda random, and its not like the Chaos side needs more mages.
I thought Seymour would have made more sense.
Jecht may have been the person Tidus hated most, but he was a good person. He may not have understood how to be a good father, but he was by no means a villain.
Seymour on the other hand, pissed Tidus off quite a bit as well. To the point where Seymour just became a smart ass around Tidus.
Not to mention that they were both after the same girl.
Jecht may have been the person Tidus hated most, but he was a good person. He may not have understood how to be a good father, but he was by no means a villain.
I mean sure he was Sin, but he didn't want to be Sin. He was hoping that Braska's pilgrimage would be the last pilgrimage. That Sin would finally be dead for good. And then when he did become Sin, he wanted nothing more than for Tidus to put him out of his misery so he wouldn't be forced to kill anymore.
Seymour on the other hand, pissed Tidus off quite a bit as well. To the point where Seymour just became a smart ass around Tidus.
Not to mention that they were both after the same girl.
Last edited:
Lunatic Pandora
The Looney Panda
But it's about the tension, you see. Jecht might not have been a bad guy or the true villain in FFX, but Tidus hated him. That's what happens to the other heroes/villains of Dissidia, they all have this atmosphere around them. Think of what the Emperor means to Firion or what Sephiroth means to Cloud and so on.
That's true, but the Emperor and Sephiroth are villains to begin with. It just doesn't make sense plot-wise, all of the others do (although Golbez is also debatable).
And when you think about it, the Cloud of Darkness doesn't have any real personal tension with the Onion knight. She's just a being that wants to return everything to the void, no personal ties to Onion Knight other than the fact that he's a warrior of light. Same with Squall and Ultimecia. Ultimecia just wanted to compress time, Squall just wanted to stop her, there was really very little more to their relationship than that. Now if it was Edea being possesed by Ultimecia, then there would be some personal issues.
Technically the Emperor didn't really have a whole lot of tension with Firion either, they just had opposing ideals and one tried to stop the other.
And there wasn't a lack of tension in Tidus's relationship with Seymour. Tidus hated his guts from the start and Seymour exploited it at every turn. Tidus would get plenty pissed at him, especially during the wedding scene. He had to be carried away by Kimahri as he yelled "Lemme go! I'm gonna kill that Seymour."
I'd say there's more tension between Seymour and Tidus than Firion and the Emperor.
True, there was more tension with Jecht, but I don't think Jecht was put in for the sake of tension, he's just more popular than Seymour. Square-Enix knows that popular characters sell big, so they chose Jecht.
And when you think about it, the Cloud of Darkness doesn't have any real personal tension with the Onion knight. She's just a being that wants to return everything to the void, no personal ties to Onion Knight other than the fact that he's a warrior of light. Same with Squall and Ultimecia. Ultimecia just wanted to compress time, Squall just wanted to stop her, there was really very little more to their relationship than that. Now if it was Edea being possesed by Ultimecia, then there would be some personal issues.
Technically the Emperor didn't really have a whole lot of tension with Firion either, they just had opposing ideals and one tried to stop the other.
And there wasn't a lack of tension in Tidus's relationship with Seymour. Tidus hated his guts from the start and Seymour exploited it at every turn. Tidus would get plenty pissed at him, especially during the wedding scene. He had to be carried away by Kimahri as he yelled "Lemme go! I'm gonna kill that Seymour."
I'd say there's more tension between Seymour and Tidus than Firion and the Emperor.
True, there was more tension with Jecht, but I don't think Jecht was put in for the sake of tension, he's just more popular than Seymour. Square-Enix knows that popular characters sell big, so they chose Jecht.
Last edited:
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
Jecht might not have been evil, but he was still an antagonist. Golbez had darkness in his heart even before Zemus, but he still wasn't truly evil either. Dissidia isn't looking for good vs evil, but rather protagonist vs antagonist. Not only does he work because of this, but he also has a relationship with Tidus far deeper than anything Seymour did. Tidus thought Seymour was a douche, but Jecht is the father he hated, which makes for better dialog and such.
That and without Jecht the game would be full of girly men. We need a bearded man's man who calls his son a crybaby to balance things out.
That and without Jecht the game would be full of girly men. We need a bearded man's man who calls his son a crybaby to balance things out.
I do agree that Jecht certainly does have a manly aura that pretty much every other Dissidia character lacks... xD
But I still don't think he's an antagonist. He just didn't know how to handle being a father openly, other than that he really did everything right. He selflessly gave his life in hopes that it would save Spira for instance.
And we see that he really opens up to Tidus in the sphere he leaves behind for him. Auron even goes out of his way to quote Jecht saying he loved Tidus but "he just didn't know how to express it".
Tidus admits that his anger may have just been because his mother never really payed attention to him when Jecht was around. Something that really wasn't Jechts fault.
The scenes in which Jecht shows off in front of Jecht (like when he performed the Jecht shot) actually seems to be his way of trying to raise Tidus in the only way he knows; Blitzball. Training Tidus was his dream, his goal.
"My dream is back in the other Zanarkand. I wanted to make that runt into a star blitz player. Show him the view from the top, you know.
But now I know there's no way home for me. I'm never gonna see him again. My dream's never gonna come true."
His motives for always pointing out Tidus's tendency to cry is also explained by his Jecht sphere. He says that he would understand if Tidus cried about Zanarkand, but that "There's a time when you have to stop crying and move on.".
The definition of "Antagonist" is said to be "The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama.".
I can't think of a single time Jecht willingly opposed Tidus. Sure he had his methods for a "tough love" kind of raising, but he was never in opposition to Tidus. He cared about Tidus.
But I still don't think he's an antagonist. He just didn't know how to handle being a father openly, other than that he really did everything right. He selflessly gave his life in hopes that it would save Spira for instance.
And we see that he really opens up to Tidus in the sphere he leaves behind for him. Auron even goes out of his way to quote Jecht saying he loved Tidus but "he just didn't know how to express it".
Tidus admits that his anger may have just been because his mother never really payed attention to him when Jecht was around. Something that really wasn't Jechts fault.
The scenes in which Jecht shows off in front of Jecht (like when he performed the Jecht shot) actually seems to be his way of trying to raise Tidus in the only way he knows; Blitzball. Training Tidus was his dream, his goal.
"My dream is back in the other Zanarkand. I wanted to make that runt into a star blitz player. Show him the view from the top, you know.
But now I know there's no way home for me. I'm never gonna see him again. My dream's never gonna come true."
His motives for always pointing out Tidus's tendency to cry is also explained by his Jecht sphere. He says that he would understand if Tidus cried about Zanarkand, but that "There's a time when you have to stop crying and move on.".
The definition of "Antagonist" is said to be "The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama.".
I can't think of a single time Jecht willingly opposed Tidus. Sure he had his methods for a "tough love" kind of raising, but he was never in opposition to Tidus. He cared about Tidus.
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
By your own definition Jecht is an antagonist though. Motivation or willingness isn't a factor in what makes an antagonist, its just one who opposes the protagonist. Jecht, both as Sin and Tidus' father, opposes the main characters throughout FF X.
I don't see how Jecht opposes Tidus as a father, but I'll focus on the larger issue, namely, whether Jecht opposes Tidus as Sin.
This may be getting a little philosophical, but I ask you this: How do you define Jecht?
Is it his body; the flesh pulled over his bones or the blood flowing in his veins? Is it the sound of his voice or the people who hear him?
Or is it his personality; the choices he makes and the things he enjoys or hates. Is a person more closely defined by their soul than their flesh?
If my flesh catches fire and is burnt beyond all recognition, and my lungs are damaged so I cannot speak, and I find that I have a disease that affects my blood cells and all my friends leave me, if all of this happens and I am still alive... Am I any less myself than I was before?
Provided we are excluding any emotional trauma from all of this of course, my personality remains in tact.
Or perhaps someone severs my arm and runs away with it, and then they proceed to beat you with it, can you say "Vladislak opposes me!" and still maintain complete honesty?
If you think it's true, that the flesh defines the man, then I have nothing more to say other than that I disagree.
I find that a person is defined by their personality or soul.
And don't say there's no such thing as "souls", because whether there is or isn't in real life, we know there are souls in the world of FFX. There wouldn't be fiends in FFX's world without there first being unsent souls.
Motives, willingness, and intentions mean everything to our personalities and souls. It's how our personalities communicate with our bodies. My soul has beliefs on a subject that prompt me to tell my body into doing something, it does these actions and one can say the soul willingly told the body to do them.
Whereas if my body were to do something that my soul did not command, it would be against the will of my soul, and thus the actions would have nothing to do with the soul.
We can say that if these actions opposed someone, the soul did not oppose them, since it never gave a command of the sort, it's simply trapped inside the body as a spectator.
I assume you can understand from this where I would go with relation to Jecht and Sin, so I won't elaborate on that unless you really need me to.
This may be getting a little philosophical, but I ask you this: How do you define Jecht?
Is it his body; the flesh pulled over his bones or the blood flowing in his veins? Is it the sound of his voice or the people who hear him?
Or is it his personality; the choices he makes and the things he enjoys or hates. Is a person more closely defined by their soul than their flesh?
If my flesh catches fire and is burnt beyond all recognition, and my lungs are damaged so I cannot speak, and I find that I have a disease that affects my blood cells and all my friends leave me, if all of this happens and I am still alive... Am I any less myself than I was before?
Provided we are excluding any emotional trauma from all of this of course, my personality remains in tact.
Or perhaps someone severs my arm and runs away with it, and then they proceed to beat you with it, can you say "Vladislak opposes me!" and still maintain complete honesty?
If you think it's true, that the flesh defines the man, then I have nothing more to say other than that I disagree.
I find that a person is defined by their personality or soul.
And don't say there's no such thing as "souls", because whether there is or isn't in real life, we know there are souls in the world of FFX. There wouldn't be fiends in FFX's world without there first being unsent souls.
Motives, willingness, and intentions mean everything to our personalities and souls. It's how our personalities communicate with our bodies. My soul has beliefs on a subject that prompt me to tell my body into doing something, it does these actions and one can say the soul willingly told the body to do them.
Whereas if my body were to do something that my soul did not command, it would be against the will of my soul, and thus the actions would have nothing to do with the soul.
We can say that if these actions opposed someone, the soul did not oppose them, since it never gave a command of the sort, it's simply trapped inside the body as a spectator.
I assume you can understand from this where I would go with relation to Jecht and Sin, so I won't elaborate on that unless you really need me to.
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
Now you're just getting needlessly philosophical. Tidus hated Jecht. Jecht was Sin and Sin was the antagonist of the game, and as such Jecht was an antagonist. Its really that simple.
Once again, one has absolutely no need whatsoever to be evil, malicious, or even willing to be an antagonist. All an antagonist is is an obstacle for the protagonist. Jecht fits the definition to a T, the problem is that over the years people confuse antagonist as a synonym for villain.
And then there's still the issue of relationship with Tidus, and Seymour has none. The creators even came out and said that if they'd used Yuna as FF X's protagonist Seymour would have starred opposite, but because they went with Tidus they didn't use him because he has nothing to do with him. Jecht just fits here, Seymour would be out of place.
Once again, one has absolutely no need whatsoever to be evil, malicious, or even willing to be an antagonist. All an antagonist is is an obstacle for the protagonist. Jecht fits the definition to a T, the problem is that over the years people confuse antagonist as a synonym for villain.
And then there's still the issue of relationship with Tidus, and Seymour has none. The creators even came out and said that if they'd used Yuna as FF X's protagonist Seymour would have starred opposite, but because they went with Tidus they didn't use him because he has nothing to do with him. Jecht just fits here, Seymour would be out of place.
I don't think I'm getting needlessly philosophical, I feel it was necessary to define Jecht. After all, if someone considered Jecht to be the same person as, say Sephiroth, then Jecht could be considered the antagonist of Cloud.
By defining his personality and soul we can tell whether Jecht is the opposition, or if it's someone/something else.
And I know that there's a difference between villains and antagonists, tecnhically Cloud is an antagonist from Sephiroth's perspective, because he opposes him.
But Jecht never actually opposed him, Yu Yevon did. The fact that he was something of a prisoner in his own body would mean that Yu Yevon is the opposition. Jecht welcomes Tidus's desire to kill him, he wants Tidus to succeed.
If you want someone to succeed you can't possibly oppose him, if it seems that way then it's someone else just using that person to oppose him, no differently than if someone used a handgun to oppose a police officer.
If someone hits you with a baseball bat, the bat doesn't oppose you, the person does. Jecht was just a tool.
By defining his personality and soul we can tell whether Jecht is the opposition, or if it's someone/something else.
And I know that there's a difference between villains and antagonists, tecnhically Cloud is an antagonist from Sephiroth's perspective, because he opposes him.
But Jecht never actually opposed him, Yu Yevon did. The fact that he was something of a prisoner in his own body would mean that Yu Yevon is the opposition. Jecht welcomes Tidus's desire to kill him, he wants Tidus to succeed.
If you want someone to succeed you can't possibly oppose him, if it seems that way then it's someone else just using that person to oppose him, no differently than if someone used a handgun to oppose a police officer.
If someone hits you with a baseball bat, the bat doesn't oppose you, the person does. Jecht was just a tool.
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
Jecht is Braska's Final Aeon, the true final boss of FF X. As such he is very much an obstacle to the protagonists. Yu Yevon wasn't really a boss fight as you couldn't lose against him, and he wouldn't have worked in Dissidia anyway, as he is not humanoid and has no connection to any of the characters. Picking Yu Yevon over Jecht would be like choosing Necron over Kuja for FF IX's antagonist.
Well I never said Yu Yevon would be a better choice. That would be ridiculous!
Rather, I was saying that Yu Yevon was what opposed Tidus using Jechts body.
As for the "true final boss" thing, where you can't lose to Yu Yevon (and therefore he's hardly a boss), that's just game mechanics. That's not plot related or anything, which is where Protagonists and Antagonists would be determined.
Otherwise Tidus and Jecht are just a bunch of computer coding really. xD
Rather, I was saying that Yu Yevon was what opposed Tidus using Jechts body.
As for the "true final boss" thing, where you can't lose to Yu Yevon (and therefore he's hardly a boss), that's just game mechanics. That's not plot related or anything, which is where Protagonists and Antagonists would be determined.
Otherwise Tidus and Jecht are just a bunch of computer coding really. xD
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
That's the point though. Yu Yevon is the top antagonist, but he's a terrible choice. Jecht is second only to Yu Yevon in terms of magnitude of antagonism, plus he works great as he has a relationship with Tidus. Jecht is the clear choice here in my opinion, choosing Seymour would be like choosing Rufus Shinra over Sephiroth.
While I agree that Yu Yevon would be ridiculous, that doesn't mean that Jecht would be the best runner up.
For plot purposes, Seymour's views are much more like Chaos' are than Jecht. He just makes sense on Chaos' side, Jecht doesn't fit in with a force that's all about destruction.
Seeing as he's not being controlled by Yu Yevon, he has no reason to join Chaos. Seymour on the other had was a rather sadistic guy, in the end he wanted to destroy Spira.
I agree that Jecht and Tidus have more of a relationship, and I enjoy Jecht's character more than Seymour, but there's just no reason for him to choose to be with Chaos.
For plot purposes, Seymour's views are much more like Chaos' are than Jecht. He just makes sense on Chaos' side, Jecht doesn't fit in with a force that's all about destruction.
Seeing as he's not being controlled by Yu Yevon, he has no reason to join Chaos. Seymour on the other had was a rather sadistic guy, in the end he wanted to destroy Spira.
I agree that Jecht and Tidus have more of a relationship, and I enjoy Jecht's character more than Seymour, but there's just no reason for him to choose to be with Chaos.
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
He was an antagonist, so he does make sense on Chaos side. Once again, they're picking antagonists to oppose the heroes, not just villains. Golbez isn't a villain either, he actually helps the Cosmos side throughout the story of Dissidia, but he makes more sense in the game than Zemus would have. In Dissidia it's all about characters with relationships to each other, not good vs evil.
Seymour is not the major antagonist in X, to put him in makes no sense, just like they didn't put Rufus in over Sephiroth, they wouldn't put Seymour in over X's final boss.
Seymour is not the major antagonist in X, to put him in makes no sense, just like they didn't put Rufus in over Sephiroth, they wouldn't put Seymour in over X's final boss.
I still disagree that Jecht is an antagonist, but I won't go into that so we can avoid having the same discussion all over again.
Instead, I'll take up the argument that Rufus and Seymour aren't a very good comparison.
Rufus just wanted riches, he wanted to control the people with fear and get rich. He never openly opposed anyone or anything unless they opposed him first, or in other words he never opposed anyone unless they prevented him from getting rich and powerful.
So in a cause-effect kind of situation, Rufus would be the effect while his opposition would be the cause.
Seymour on the other hand simply wanted to destroy Spira, it didn't matter if someone opposed him, he went out of his way to oppose all of Spira. In a cause-effect kind of situation, Seymour would be the cause while Tidus and his friends fighting back would be the effect.
While both characters played secondary roles to the main opposition in the games, Rufus didn't go out of his way to cause trouble unless someone went out of their way to trouble him.
Instead, I'll take up the argument that Rufus and Seymour aren't a very good comparison.
Rufus just wanted riches, he wanted to control the people with fear and get rich. He never openly opposed anyone or anything unless they opposed him first, or in other words he never opposed anyone unless they prevented him from getting rich and powerful.
So in a cause-effect kind of situation, Rufus would be the effect while his opposition would be the cause.
Seymour on the other hand simply wanted to destroy Spira, it didn't matter if someone opposed him, he went out of his way to oppose all of Spira. In a cause-effect kind of situation, Seymour would be the cause while Tidus and his friends fighting back would be the effect.
While both characters played secondary roles to the main opposition in the games, Rufus didn't go out of his way to cause trouble unless someone went out of their way to trouble him.
SOLDIERis1337
The Immaculate
You can disagree all you want, but because Jecht opposes the protagonists, he fits the definition to a T. Willingness has nothing to do with it.
And Rufus and Seymour have the same role in the story. They are both major antagonists but they are not the most important in the game. Rufus and ShinRa Inc clash with Cloud and Co. throughout the story and he is a major part of the game, but Sephiroth is the ultimate opponent of the crew and the real threat. In the same way Seymour fights the party many times in X and plays a big role, but Sin is the ultimate antagonist.
And Rufus and Seymour have the same role in the story. They are both major antagonists but they are not the most important in the game. Rufus and ShinRa Inc clash with Cloud and Co. throughout the story and he is a major part of the game, but Sephiroth is the ultimate opponent of the crew and the real threat. In the same way Seymour fights the party many times in X and plays a big role, but Sin is the ultimate antagonist.
Willingness has everything to do with it really. Something you can disagree with all you want.
And if you just think opposition only has to do with actions, then I could go back to the whole philosophical issue and ask how you define Jecht, in which case a soul being willing to do something is an action, the only kind of action a soul can make.
As I said, I define Jecht by his soul, so unless his soul acts to oppose Tidus, then he doesn't oppose Tidus and it's just a matter of circumstance.
And Rufus clashed with Cloud and co. because Cloud and co. deliberately opposed him. Seymour clashed with Tidus and co. because Seymour wanted to destroy Spira.
In one case, the villain was just trying to do something beneficial for himself, in the other the villain was trying to do something harmful to everyone else.
But regardless, that topic is, well... off topic. I think we should drop the Rufus vs. Seymour thing and get back to the Jecht issue.
And if you just think opposition only has to do with actions, then I could go back to the whole philosophical issue and ask how you define Jecht, in which case a soul being willing to do something is an action, the only kind of action a soul can make.
As I said, I define Jecht by his soul, so unless his soul acts to oppose Tidus, then he doesn't oppose Tidus and it's just a matter of circumstance.
And Rufus clashed with Cloud and co. because Cloud and co. deliberately opposed him. Seymour clashed with Tidus and co. because Seymour wanted to destroy Spira.
In one case, the villain was just trying to do something beneficial for himself, in the other the villain was trying to do something harmful to everyone else.
But regardless, that topic is, well... off topic. I think we should drop the Rufus vs. Seymour thing and get back to the Jecht issue.