|
Post by Bob on Jul 25, 2012 13:57:45 GMT -8
Here it is! The Final Battle! In one corner, the kind and goofy President of Esthar...Laguna! In the other corner, the sexy general of Alexandria...Beatrix!
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Jul 25, 2012 19:59:21 GMT -8
Beatrix gets my vote. Obviously, Laguna will win, but I don't want it to be in a clean sweep. So . . . Beatrix.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 25, 2012 20:18:29 GMT -8
I'm still very torn on this one. I look forward to the Beatrix scene a lot more than the Laguna scenes, so she has a big plus for her. The Beatrix scene is just plain fun. Laguna can be fun, but as Dale has mentioned, it can be jarring. I often return to Squall and the gang and forget what I was doing. I think they just poorly timed them or something. We're going to help Rinoa and....sleepy time. When we come back, I've totally forgotten where we were going. But, while Beatrix has a plus in that regard, I do enjoy some of the Laguna bits, so it's mostly the placement of them that I have a hard time with. I like the scenes in Deling City and fighting the Ruby Dragon and all that stuff. I think the only thing I dislike is being a Monster Hunter in Winhill, but that doesn't take too terribly long.
Character-wise, I probably prefer Laguna. He, unlike Beatrix, gets a huge plot arc as the game spans his whole friggin adult life. Being a soldier, falling in lust, having his heart broken, falling in love, touring the world, helping the moombas, becoming president...this dude has a full life of helping people. And I really love that he's the big reveal president of Esthar. When I first got to that town and like, Odine takes Rinoa, there's all this secrecy, super high tech, blah blah blah, I was SO expecting the city to be evil, so to see that it's run by possibly the nicest guy in the whole world was a huge shocker.
Then there's Beatrix, who has a role, but not nearly as large. She is confused, but eventually changes her ways. In a way, she's an expansion of FF4's Cecil. He started as a Dark Knight and followed orders, then questioned the king and headed down the path of righteousness. Beatrix is similar. She took orders from a corrupt queen, then they did some unspeakable things and her faith in the queen began to falter. She held on as long as she could, but eventually realized that she was on the wrong side. Unfortunately, I kinda think it took her too long. It was only when she hit a contradiction that she finally made a decision. 1. Protect princess 2. Help queen kill princess ....DOES NOT COMPUTE! BEEP BOOP CLIMHAZZARD! I think I'd like her plot and personality just a bit more if she had made a more conscious decision like Cecil did rather than making a decision when she was put into a logical corner.
Also: Beatrix has the most practical armor ever. It's perfect. You see, all anybody is going to see is her boobs, right? So they're going to say "mmmm, boobies." Then, when they remember this is the slaughteriest general ever, they'll say "oh wait, KILL!" So where are they going to attack? Well, they just SAW that her friggin CHEST is exposed, so may as well aim for the ol' heart! So BEATRIX knows that all she has to do is defend her boobs! ...and then Climhazzard! It's so simple!
HOWEVER, in the continued "improbability" discussion, Laguna is part Spider-Man. His limit involves swinging from a rope...whip...thingy, and yet, there is not always something above him! Just like Spider-Man! And because boobs and Spider-Man are equally awesome (depending on the boobs), I'll call this category a cancellation.
SO....they're all tied up. 2-2. Hmm....Laguna DOES have two eyes....
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Jul 25, 2012 21:27:59 GMT -8
Even though I have occasionally jumped on the Laguna Love Wagon... it wasn't terribly hard for me to vote for Beatrix. Really, much of the reason that I had Laguna go this far in the first place was because his competition was pretty weak. Beating Kiros, Lebreau, and Banon are kind of givens for most characters. Whereas Beatrix clawed her way to the finals by toppling Larsa and freaking Sephiroth. I dunno... just based on that fact alone makes me inclined to vote Beatrix.
In terms of plot relevance these two are really tough to compare, since both of them are supplements to the plot, rather than integral parts of the plot. Laguna's life story is meant to fill in some gaps in the plot, explain Esthar, and give purpose to the subplot involving Ellone, but Laguna's story in and of itself is irrelevant to the major plot. Likewise, Beatrix only serves to flesh out Alexandria and later Steiner, and to provide a tertiary villain for the first half of the game (or maybe quaternary? FF9 has a hella lot of villains).
In terms of combat, Beatrix obviously wins. Laguna's limit break is nothing special, and his stats and abilities are entirely dependent on Squalls, so whereas Beatrix is a badass, Laguna is only ever as strong as Squall, and never more.
But I think what really finishes it off for me is that Laguna, like so many people in FF8, is basically a static character. That's kind of the joke; that no matter what he goes through, he never really changes. He's still joking, dopey, lovable Laguna, whether he's part of the Galbadian Army, fighting Ruby Dragons, ruling Esthar, or being a journalist. He's always the same. Whereas Beatrix has a complete 180, and becomes almost an entirely different character by the end of the story. Even though we spend less time with Beatrix, the time we do spend with her has more depth and meaning and change.
So boobs win in the end. As they always do.
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on Jul 26, 2012 2:06:03 GMT -8
I think you underestimate how much we like Beatrix, Dale This is far from a clean sweep, and a tough final. Originally I was thinking Laguna, but Fleck does make a good point - she beat Larsa and Sephiroth, both of whom made it to the Runner Up Finals. She's beaten down some of the toughest competition there is, and only has Laguna left. Laguna has certainly had an easier ride getting here, having not had to face any character with significant depth or plot relevance, meaning he's pretty much won by default up to this point. But that doesn't mean he isn't worthy, and is definitely one of the 'big four' of this competition. Laguna's story may not be integral to the plot, but one thing I do find when playing FF8 is that I really love those bits where you get to play as him, and find myself far more invested in his story arc way more than Squall & co. The battle music in particular rocked. All his segments are interesting, pretty varied and not only develop his character, but also serve as background plot for various characters/locations, and when you get to a place that you recognise from a Laguna flashback (particularly on the first play through), you can't help but explore the shit out of that place and talk to everyone in hopes for clues about Laguna. Hell, even everyone's criticisms of him on TGP only serve to prove what I like about this character. Dale says he's boring. I fully agree, he's a pretty boring dude. He's had one of the most interesting lives in the world of FF8, but he's still just a guy who would be happiest reading the morning paper in his slippers. Tying into this, Fleck criticised how static the character is, but to me that just suggests how strong of a character he is. The dude has to deal with being responsible for putting his best friends out of commission by getting them lost and in trouble, finding out the woman he first loved has moved on without him, settling down with a new woman and her daughter, only to have the woman fall ill and die, etc etc. But he sticks by his guns, is a nice dude and it's perhaps his past failings that spur him on to help the moombas in Esthar and start the ball rolling to eventually becoming President. It certainly wasn't his goal, but it's something he earned through merit of his personality and efforts. Bob said that the monster hunting segment in Winhill was boring. Again, gotta agree with you there. It was boring, but that's also kinda the point. After a life of adventure as a soldier with his buddies, he's been reduced to killing Caterchipillars each day in a tiny village. It's the kind of life he always wanted, but wasn't necessarily happy with due to the way his life had gone up until that point. He hadn't earned his life of morning papers and slippers yet, and he was still too hung up on Julia to appreciate the good thing he had going with Raine. So, the more I think about it, the more I think I have to vote Laguna. Beatrix is fantastic and my favourite female FF character, period, but she just can't really stand up against a character whom we pretty much get the life story of, and is as developed as much as most major, playable characters. Things might have been different if we'd seen more of Beatrix behind the scenes in FF9, but unfortunately we usually only got to see her from the perspectives of the main characters. Beatrix loses out here for the same reason I voted Sephiroth over her before. Might be just as well Beatrix won that round though. If it came to Sephiroth vs Laguna, I could be thinking it over over for days XD
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Jul 26, 2012 8:46:11 GMT -8
I think you underestimate how much we like Beatrix, Dale No. I did not. You still voted for Laguna.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 26, 2012 11:18:02 GMT -8
He's trolling you, Count. Don't give in....Don't....give.....innnnn.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Jul 26, 2012 11:19:14 GMT -8
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
*grabs popcorn*
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on Jul 26, 2012 12:35:44 GMT -8
I HAVE NO REGRETS!
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 26, 2012 14:06:53 GMT -8
I'M GOING LAGUNA! I like him, he contributes to the plot, and he reminds me a lot of me. People are kinda talking about him having no depth, but...I see depth. Because he reminds me of me. I think you see it most in his facial expressions in the ending CG, but you see it a few other times, too. He's a goofy guy, but he has a very serious side, he just doesn't show it often. I like that you see him looking at Raine's grave and he's not all happy dorky. He's in serious mode. But then, when Ellone, Kiros, and Ward show up, he switches gears a bit.
Also, I've never been one to describe "doing a 180" as a plot/character arc. Ooh boy, change. Sometimes, constant is good, too. Beatrix changes by learning she can reveal her softer side and that she has a thing for large, squishy men. She goes from being a ruthless bitch to a sympathetic...un-bitch. Don't get me wrong, I like the switch because it shows her development. She's not a bad person, she was just being told to do bad things and had unquestioning loyalty. Then, she learned to think for herself. I think that's great, I just don't think that people need to change for them to have an arc. Laguna doesn't change his personality because his personality is already aces. No, he changes himself. He starts as a soldier, becomes a journalist, becomes a revolutionist, and finally a president. That's a pretty damn good arc, lads.
And so, I'm going with the moombas here. LAGUNA!
And so, since I'm the fifth vote and we seem to always take in five or fewer votes, I'm calling it. The best guest according to The Goat Pen is....LAGUNA!
1st Place: Laguna Loire 2nd Place: Beatrix 3rd Place: Larsiroth
Thanks for voting, everybody! I like doing these polls, even if only five or fewer people consistently vote. I'd like to do more things like this in the future. Hell, not even Final Fantasy related (if there is such a thing). Feel free to put up your own, this was just something I've wanted to do for a while. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Jul 26, 2012 15:07:39 GMT -8
... I just don't think that people need to change for them to have an arc. Yes they do. Change is not only fundamental to a character arc, it's the very definition of an arc. From Wikipedia: "A character arc is the status of the character as it unfolds throughout the story, the storyline or series of episodes. Characters begin the story with a certain viewpoint and, through events in the story, that viewpoint changes." While Laguna's roles change drastically, his viewpoint is completely static. He's really the only character in fiction that I can think of who manages to serve for two opposing armies (being aligned with Galbadia and Esthar in the course of the game) without having the slightest change in his worldview. Which is kind of an event in and of itself. Anyway, I'm being mean and nit-picky because BOO BEATRIX SHOULD HAVE WON! The votes were rigged! Someone paid off the refs! Laguna made an illegal forward pass! But yeah, we really seem to like the concept of polls, so we should just flood the hell out of the forums with POLLS! GLORIOUS POLLS!
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 26, 2012 17:07:14 GMT -8
Well, I'm not so much talking about a "character arc" so much as a story arc. But still, his viewpoint has to change at some point. Starts off with Galbadia, later leads the moomba revolution and becomes president for the other guys. SOMETHING happened, we just didn't see it.
There's kinda two elements to this for me. One, is I'm always against cliche, so while I know that saying "having a character arc is cliche" is almost like saying "a story that has people in it is cliche," I'm just not one to really see the harm in it. Granted, as you mentioned, FF8 is FULL of characters like this as Squall is pretty much the only person to have any change to him, but I don't think it's a necessity. Sometimes, somebody just starts the story off in the right mindset.
My other thing is just a personal thing that really shouldn't factor in, but it does, and that's this weird real-world (as in not related to fiction) belief that people always make huge mistakes and it's okay. "Yeah, when I was 17 I knocked up three different chicks and abandoned them all. Gosh, I was such a terrible teenager!" I won't get into a huge rant about it, but as a teacher, I see a lot of kids who have heard adults talk about TERRIBLE things they'd done "when they were their age" as if it was just what you do...so guess what the kids do. Yeah, TERRIBLE THINGS. Why? Because this is their "young and dumb" age and they're allowed to. If mommy can brush it under the rug, then I can, too. My point to that tangent is just there ARE people who make good decisions throughout their whole lives. Laguna (see, I'm bringin' this senseless tangent back around) is just one of those guys. I suppose his mistake was fighting for the wrong army, too? But he just...never did anything personally wrong. Led a good life. But these characters don't friggin exist in fiction and it kinda ticks me off. Not everybody needs to change, y'know?
It's a hard point to argue here because I'm not criticizing Beatrix at all. Her story is good. Her character arc is good. I have nothing negative to say about it. I'm mostly emphasizing that I don't see the need for a character arc. Laguna isn't just a random NPC that always says, "The weather sure is nice," when you talk to him. He does things.
And screw you and your "Beatrix should've won" stuff! Everybody KNOWS that most of the FF Tactics cast should've won! Talk about character arcs, how 'bout fuckin' DELITA! Now THERE'S a man with a badass character arc. Goes from being sane to OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO CORRUPT THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD BECAUSE TETAAAAAAAA TOOOOOTS! Or...y'know...Olan. Because he rocks. FFT had badass Guests.
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Jul 26, 2012 18:43:37 GMT -8
He's trolling you, Count. Don't give in....Don't....give.....innnnn. No, I wasn't. Not even close. He said I underestimate how much everyone likes Beatrix, and yet . . . he still voted for Laguna over, and I was pointing out accordingly. That was it.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Jul 26, 2012 19:16:14 GMT -8
OH IT'S ON, BOB! Don't think you can be all "let's agree to disagree" or "well, in my humble opinion..." NOPE! NOT HAPPENING. If Count and Dale won't fight to the death, then YOU AND I MUST RUMBLE!
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're arguing that static characters, at least static characters who have a positive moral outlook, are preferable to dynamic characters who eventually earn a positive moral outlook, because they are already right, and do not need to come to the truth. They already know what is right and what is wrong, which makes them morally superior (at least in the course of the story), because they do not spend any time debating morality or anything, nor do they need to. Dynamic characters spend at least some time in the story being either wrong or morally grey, which makes them less moral than the static character, when you consider their average morality through the course of the story. Sound more or less like what you're arguing?
Now, neither of us are arguing that all characters should be static or all characters should be dynamic. Both of us at least know enough about writing to realize that is boring. All stories need a mix of the two. But you DO seem to be arguing that, on some level or another, morally strong static characters are superior to dynamic ones.
The problem with static characters is twofold: for one, they are predictable, and for two, they are unrealistic.
Their predictability comes from the fact that, being static characters, they do not change. Not changing means that, given some sort of outside action, they will respond to it in a very narrow set of possible reactions. That's not just to say that "When asked to save the day, Laguna will save the day." It goes beyond just their actions, but also their perception of their actions. Laguna will save the world, because he's a nice guy who saves worlds. That's basically the extent of his character. He's not going to be morally conflicted about his choices, and he's going to have difficulty empathizing with people who disagree with him, because to do so would be to risk altering his character. Laguna's actions and his perceptions of his actions are restricted, making him predictable. Yes, in Laguna's case, it makes him an astonishingly good role model, but it also makes him unrealistic, which brings me to my second point.
Static characters who exist in the plot for any length of time are unrealistic because people are expected to change when confronted with increasing data. The longer a character spends in the plot, the more changes they are expected to undergo, and the more they resist that change, the less relatable they are. A person who can go to war, cross the world, get kidnapped and sent to forced labor, and then become president without changing in the slightest is unrealistic to the point of being a joke. A no, Laguna doesn't change off screen. He admits to Julia that he dislikes being in the military, but he does it so he can see the world. When he no longer needs Galbadia to finance his travels, he abandons them. Laguna's circumstances change, but his fundamental character of a "nice, helpful, curious guy" is unaltered.
But the thing is, anyone who has lived life knows that it's not always easy to stay true to yourself 100% of the time, and when we see characters who do it effortlessly, like Laguna, we wonder how they do it. What happened in Laguna's life that gave him the strength of character needed to resist apocalyptic changes unscathed? We never know. He just is.
Again, that makes Laguna a great role model, but it does not make him human. He's an ideal, a Mary Sue. He's a dream to be aspired to, not an actual person.
Whereas with Beatrix, because she is a dynamic character, we can infer more about her past than we can with Laguna. Beatrix is strong-willed and has been tempered by long years of strict military service. She starts off as almost a machine, living in service of Alexandria. However, through the act of changing, we are able to see who she really is. Before, the player is left to assume that Beatrix is just a psycho-bitch, but it's revealed that she has a deep passion for protecting her home country, a passion that is so deep that she was unable to see it when Alexandria slipped into corruption. However, once she recognizes that she is serving a corrupt regime, she rebels against it. By changing sides, she takes Brahne and both alienates and proves her more wrong. We get additional perspectives, because Beatrix accomplishes the work of two characters: showing what it's like to serve Alexandria and what it's like to resist. Furthermore, her change adds legitimacy to her former evil, as now we see that she wasn't a machine, but only misguided. We come to understand more about a character that we assumed was one-dimensional. The act of changing, even if it's only a little change, reveals character and plot and humanizes characters. But when a character is static, they are doomed to be symbols, unrelatable non-humans who exist to personify a concept. It's difficult to become truly attached to static characters, because they represent an unattainable ideal.
So while we spend much more time with Laguna, that time is used less effectively, because we have to watch as change unfolds around Laguna. But with Beatrix, we see a lot more in a much shorter span of time, because her dynamic nature reveals character, humanity, and depth faster and more naturally.
No, a character does not have to do a full Beatrix 180 in order to be dynamic, but they have to be susceptible to change, even if they only change what they eat for breakfast.
It seems like you resist the idea of dynamic characters because you dislike the idea of people in real life having to undergo some sort of crucible in order to become good. You don't like the idea that people have to be bad in order to be good, because you feel it takes away the legitimacy of your upstanding behavior, because you never really had a rebellious period. You have a point here, and people who assume that teenage rebellion is not only a given, but a necessary part of development are a bit screwy themselves. The ultimate problem here is that conflict is good for stories, but is bad for real life, and people who assume that conflict should be in real life or that non-conflict should be in stories are missing the point.
Anyway, that's my ramble. I'm sure I have a point in there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 26, 2012 19:55:12 GMT -8
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're arguing that static characters, at least static characters who have a positive moral outlook, are preferable to dynamic characters who eventually earn a positive moral outlook, because they are already right, and do not need to come to the truth. They already know what is right and what is wrong, which makes them morally superior (at least in the course of the story), because they do not spend any time debating morality or anything, nor do they need to. Dynamic characters spend at least some time in the story being either wrong or morally grey, which makes them less moral than the static character, when you consider their average morality through the course of the story. Sound more or less like what you're arguing? Nope, not at all what I was saying. But I'll argue nonetheless! My argument is that it isn't a bad thing to have a static-ish character if that character has already achieved goodness (or badness if a villain). I mean, bottom line, all I'm saying is that I like Laguna. My only point was that I don't believe a good character has to go through a good character arc. Everybody changes, some more than others, but that doesn't mean I like or dislike the character more. I know you're different because you generally rated FF characters as higher if they had a good character arc. I'm different. I like the characters for who they are, not what they do. I associate the "what they do" more with the plot than the character. Obviously, characters with more change are harder to rank. Like Hope. Hope's a total douche in the beginning, but once he's done being a douche, he's a decent character. So when it comes to ranking a character like this, do you evaluate how he begins? How he ends? Both? And for me, a character like Laguna that is consistently awesome is...awesome. I can understand people not loving him, but I like him. And for me, I agree that Beatrix accomplishes more in her limited screen time, but Laguna establishes a lot, too. We rank on different things. I'm generally leaving plot out of my character rankings and treating it mostly as "if I were to go out to lunch with these guys, who would make me giggle the most?" Tee hee! ....Well, not quite. But rating them largely on "do I like their character?" not "do I like their character arc." That was why I went Laguna. My whole rant was just to say that "I can like static characters if done right." Laguna, for me, was done right. Part of what swayed me was when Count talked about visiting Laguna locations. I loved doing that, too. First trip to Winhill, Deling, Esthar, etc. It doesn't do a ton for immediate plot, but I like that his scenes show future locations. But y'know, like I said on one of the battles, probably Larsa v Beatrix, these two were ridiculously close. It's like a 9.6 versus a 9.5. Laguna, to me, is a 9.6 and Beatrix is a 9.5 in my made-up numbers. Point is: he barely won, hence why I voted so late. Also: I'm not a Mary Sue We skip around Laguna's life so much that you really just don't see any turmoil. I'm sure my life could be portrayed as such, too. Hell, skip long enough portions of lives and anybody can be portrayed as a Dudley Do-Right. I'll bet that at some point, when Raine dies, Laguna finds out and blames Ellone! Then, he follows her EVERYWHERE trying to kill her. He even gets a umm...katar from Kiros and is just about to stab her when a missile is shot at them and she saves him by grabbing his back and falling a billion stories! But in the end, he realizes it wasn't her fault that her mom died and he loves her. Aww.
|
|