Most misunderstood Video Game characters

I also don't think many people here have read the Chronophantasma spoilers like we have either.

Sheet, I spoilered that part, damn it!

Still irrelevant. All that basically means is she made a choice, and I disagree with her decision. Even if I were to put myself in her shoes, my opinion doesn't change at all. Her actions, no matter how "justified", make her a threat to the continued existence of the world. So yeah, sorry. You gotta go.

I'd honestly say Aigis defeating her did more to quell her grief than that.

Are you a psychologist? Because even if this true, no psychologist worth their salt would ever say that Litchi's actions were excusable, either. Even if we acknowledge that everyone else is poor at helping her cope, none of that makes what she's doing OKAY.

Still don't care.

Still don't care. In fact, that just makes her involvement all the more pointless to me.

Still don't care.

So again, her desires are at opposition with the billions of other peoples' desires. Why should I care about hers? Because she's a main character? Is this Protagonist-Centered Morality at work?

Sorry, human nature is not an excuse here. Human nature is an excuse for a lot of crimes, including murder. I can understand a person who kills a cheating spouse—that doesn't excuse their actions, though. Nor does it make their actions allowable.

It doesn't matter how sympathetic, understandable or "human" Litchi's actions are. She's made herself into a threat. A character can be perfectly understandable while still being inexcusable.

Kuja from Final Fantasy IX is a far better example of that, in my opinion.

Yeah, I'm not a BB uber-fan or anything. I played the first one and the second, but I'm not really big fan, and I find the story pretty ridiculous. However, I don't see anything that should change my opinion of Litchi. And by the way, I never called her "unsympathetic scum"—I think you might be assuming that anyone who doesn't accept her tragedy must think of her that way. But, that isn't the case. All I said is, I have no sympathy for her actions because I draw the line at helping to destroy the world to achieve them.

As I said, I find her to be a villain (and no, just being sorry for her actions later doesn't remove her from that label). I don't hate her, and I don't like her. But I don't see grief as an excuse for her actions, either. Like I said—I see her as a villain and a threat—nothing more or less.

If you need to hold an official fanboy card to like a character, then there's something wrong with that character.

edited 5th Nov '13 4:55:22 AM by KingZeal

Aigis beating her and she still wants to snatch that key Aigis won fair and square. It's only after she let it out and Mitsuru offers her a shoulder to cry that she starts her path of getting better.

I didn't say her actions were excusable, but it was UNDERSTANDABLE. It wasn't an okay thing to do, yes I can agree to that, but if you look at her entire life, it was pretty understandable that she'd do that and became a threat. And I'm no psychologist, but it doesn't take a psychologist to read about grief-related sites to know! If she did receive a better psychology treatment, she might have gotten a better judgment call, but as it turns out, she never got one and as a result she ends up taking those decision. I don't excuse her decision, I don't condone it, but I can understand how she came up to that.

Is "Still don't care" your Catchphrase? It could be, I think.

Also I take it that if her desire is at opposition of other billions of men, you say in her shoes you would be capable to just wait out and die, become a mindless threat on your own and then start eating people you love? For your perceived great justice? Wow. Also, she's not the main protagonist, of course, but I just feel that people are missing out a lot of her tragedy elements.

Basically, though, you're missing the point that it wasn't that she became a threat. She just joins forces with the biggest threat in the world instead of preventing it. Just so you to know, that's different than completely becoming a threat on her own. It's still inexcusable.

I think I can sum it up that you were expecting that we excuse Litchi's actions and support her attempt on help blowing up the world. Well... no, she has to be stopped, yes. But when I said 'misunderstood', it more or less refers to the point that her actions were considered un-understandable and makes her unsympathetic. It doesn't excuse her actions, yes, but at least it makes her understandable and sympathetic even as we try to stop her.

You say you are neutral to Litchi, but the tone of your posts sound like insisting that she crossed the Moral Event Horizon and anyone who still likes her or sympathizes her (even if they don't excuse her actions) are trying to give her a Draco in Leather Pants treatment. I thought that sounds like you actually hate her, seriously.

And to reiterate, no I don't condone of her actions. But I still can understand her motivations, sympathize and still consider her a favorite character. The problem is how easy people think her actions are completely ununderstandable.

But at any rate, yeah. I think you just show yourself as an example on how you value things only on face-value, and that is why there's so many who consider her a scum whose past good deeds were suddenly erased (What's the difference between 'saying you have no sympathy on her' and 'call her an unsympathetic scum'? Sounds the same to me.). Basically, I think you see her from the POV of an 'Action Justice Series' with Black-and-White Morality at play. While it's your POV and I don't have any right to change it, I can understand why you'd hate her and think she's no longer the good person she was in the first game. I know how it feels, because I used to think like that as well, and while I'm not forcing you to do the same, I feel a lot better when I change my POV and treat her more as a tragic character. If you don't buy it, fine by me.

edited 5th Nov '13 5:20:20 AM by ChrisX

That's moot, though, because she didn't actually start spilling her feelings until after Aigis defeated her. Mitsuru flat out said that she was prepared to follow Yukari to the end, right or wrong, because she'd been in the same position a while ago. Mitsuru's understanding helped Yukari overcome her problems, but Aigis defeating her is what made overcoming them necessary in the first place.

Okay, so what? I understand it, too. That kind of eliminates the point of the thread, about her being a "misunderstood" character. I understand her problems, but I don't agree with them.

Here's the problem with the "her actions are understandable" argument: by that token, anyone who hates her "understandable", too. You said her decisions are "human nature"—well, in that case, it's also human nature to feel aggression and antagonistic toward someone who is a threat to you. (Well, not you personally, but to someone who lived in that fictional world or projected themselves into it.) It's a survival mechanism to immediately turn your aggression against someone who is threatening your life.

So, if Litchi's reaction is "understandable", then wouldn't that mean that people who hate her are just as much so? Neither is more "human nature" than the other.

Thanks for sharing.

False Dichotomy. There's a lot of room between "wait and die" and "help the world end".

I didn't say she was THE main protagonist. She's A protagonist, however, by virtue of being a playable character. My point is, why should I care about her tragedy when her tragedy will lead to more tragedy for other people? For example, I feel sorry for every kid who got bullied or picked on and thought shooting up their school was a means of coping. That doesn't change my opinion of their actions, though. As much as I may feel sympathy for them, my sympathy is also spread around for the other people they hurt.

No, it isn't. It makes her a threat that's helping a greater threat.

I don't hate her or really care. I just disagree with the idea that she's "misunderstood" just because she's a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds.

There's nothing "face value" about anything I said. That doesn't even make any sense, because aren't even disagreeing with what I say. You're just saying "Yeah, but" over and over.

Well, yeah. Helping to end the world flat out erases any good you did, because—you know, the end of the world is kind of going to erase it by definition.

The first is an opinion and the second is a judgment value. You can have no sympathy for someone and not think they're scum just as you can have sympathy for someone and still think they're scum.

"Good person" is not some magical thing you can be and be forever. Being "good" is as much a result of your actions as your intentions, and even then is relative. I don't call someone who is helping to destroy the world for their own feelings and who (based on what is flat out said in canon) aided the deaths of a lot of people as "good".

edited 5th Nov '13 5:55:35 AM by KingZeal

...This is the kind of thread that's easy to devolve into quote-warring, huh.

So to add some diversity to this thread, I think Original Dante is a terrible character. His personality is non-existent in 1, boring in 2, and grating in 3. The only time I could stand him was in 4, where he's aside character.

Dante is the type of character whose appeal comes from what he accomplishes, and not his demeanor.

To be honest, Dante's attitude would be comical (and not in a good way) on most—but because he can pull it off while swinging a motorcycle like nunchucks, he goes from "pathetic" to "intriguing".

I like Dante. Sure, he wasn't much to write home about in 1 and 2, but I liked his development (and found him hilarious) in 3, and in 4 he's one of my favorite characters ever.

I don't care about his accomplishments because I don't care about him as a character.

But if Aigis just beat her, she'd still be hung up at her grief. Mitsuru's presence was vital for Yukari's recovery. If Mitsuru wasn't there, who knows how she'd end up after Aigis beat her.

Do you mind expanding what you refer as 'a lot of room'?

You brought up Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds. While I can agree, it's also a source of misunderstanding. A lot would consider her just plain 'Destroyer Of Worlds', without even noticing how she came into that decision and all the struggles she experiences, just dismissing it as "Oh, she's just obsessed." That's the kind of misunderstanding I am talking about.

You speak as if I don't feel sympathy on those that would be victims. Let me say that yes, I do feel sympathy on those that would be victims. The problem is, most people would see it that the 'bullied kid' deserves no sympathy AT ALL. That's the kind of misunderstanding I see.

The one thing you also miss out is that her manipulator, Relius Clover, utilizes a lot of silver tongue and More than Mind Control, playing around with her guilt and insecurities to make her look not-forced. Are you saying that she should've 'manned up' and resist him at all cost? So the Manipulative Bastard is at fault, but the manipulated one also has an equal or even bigger share of blame for daring to be manipulated? This is kind of why I say she still has her good in her, because in the end of it, she was a manipulation victim of someone who plays around her untamed grief. If there wasn't such manipulations, she might not even think of it. And no, she doesn't have clairvoyance to know about his silver-tongueness or anything else we players know, she has a limited knowledge base.

I'm not sure about what you call 'good' is easily gone, but I think comforting Carl Clover when he's in depression, even when it has nothing to do with her mission or grief was something that doesn't go away, and her trying to dissuade Carl to follow her path (although Carl insists) is still signs that her good traits as a caring woman hasn't gone away.

... I agree with Ninety, though, this could be devolving into quote-warring. So I suggest that if you have any further response, my PM is always open.

Okay, the rest can go suggest others.

edited 5th Nov '13 6:45:56 AM by ChrisX

How about FFVI's Kefka? I rather think he's more obsessed than he is generically mad. Specifically, obsessed with power, which ties into the game's main themes.

Uhm, not to put a damper on things, but maybe we shouldn't simply state our dislike of certain characters? Complaint threads are forbidden, after all.

Yeah, isn't this about most misunderstood characters? I.E. characters who get a lot of hate what they don't really deserve?

To avoid quote-warring, I'll just respond.

My point with Litchi is that there's a line where a sympathetic person becomes a "threat" that has to be dealt with by any means necessary. That doesn't mean you can't feel sympathy for them, but that violence may become your default response to that person. In the case of Yukari, she became that up until the moment where she is defeated by Aigis. Luckily for her, her friends were there for her after she was defeated to talk some sense into her before anyone is actually hurt.

Even if I accept that Litchi is similar, she doesn't reach that point until (according to canon) she has caused pain and suffering to many others. That makes her a villain in my eyes—maybe an Anti-Villain certainly, but a villain. Though I wouldn't necessarily expect someone in Litchi's position to do nothing, she went the opposite end of the extreme and made her personal angst more important than the world at large. That pushes her over that boundary I mentioned before, where a well-intentioned person becomes just another threat.

If it is, it shouldn't be. "Misunderstood characters" should also include characters that get too much praise, or deserve praise but get it for the wrong reasons. Then again, maybe that would be going over into complaining mode, but to be fair so is the other option. Essentially, the underlying message is "the majority opinion is stupid and wrong, this is the REAL point of the character".

edited 5th Nov '13 7:36:41 AM by CPFMfan

Huh. Then again, my English isn't amazing and I don't always understand everything.

I guess on Dante, I really don't like how he was in 3. Being over the top isn't a bad thing, but then you come to a point where it just gets irritating. Like he cannot do one ting without showing off.

@TPPR: Oh no, that's not what I meant. This would be the perfect thread for poking holes in a fan-favourite and highlight downsides and flaws that people seem to gloss over. I was just saying that we should try to avoid posts like "I really dislike [character]".

... I don't even know.

Still, to make my point about Dante bit more solid, I really don't think that he is that great aside of his over-the-top aside. If you took all that away, he would be bit mediorce in my eyes. Not absolutely bland, but not some one I would really care about. Its how over-the-top he is what bugs me, and its one of main points of Dante.

"Devil May Cry" is a play on the phrase "Devil May Care", which means someone who just does not care and does things with little to no forethought. That describes Dante in a nutshell.

What makes Dante appealing is that he is entirely a creature of the present. Any pre-planning or scheming he does is more instinctual or coincidental than deliberate. He just does things, and his pure skill is enough to make it work. If you took away Dante's Crazy Awesome ability to just do impossible shit (like ride a missile or pull a sword out of his torso the wrong way), then yeah, he'd be just another schmuck.

Where the base is broken, however, is whether or not people agree with his demeanor. Truth be told, I don't find Dante particularly funny or entertaining when he's being hammy, but I find his hammy demeanor part of what shows he just doesn't play by our rules. He's above our rules . . . in the sense that he doesn't need them to succeed.

edited 5th Nov '13 7:52:26 AM by KingZeal

Well then, I guess I'll say that anyone who thinks the King is "the only truly good character in New Vegas", or even just "good", is drastically misunderstanding him. They seem to ignore hie xenophobia, the lack of fucks he gives in regard to his thugs attacking foreign civilians, his attempts to extort you/outright refusing if you ask him to stop the violence, him ignoring his lieutenant's sociopathic and violent behavior even when its right in his face, and him leading his entire gang to a slaughter by ordering a supremely arrogant attack on the NCR if you simply call him out on how much of a condescending overconfident dumbass he's being.

He's most definitely not a white spot in a grey world. He has some Pet the Dog moments, but he still has Suicidal Overconfidence and is Too Dumb to Live among other things. Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand after all. He's another grey in a grey world.

Also notable are Mr. House and ESPECIALLY Papa Khan from the same game. I'm convinced that many people don't even listen to the latter talk, seeing as how he's commonly seen as sympathetic or justified. Especially weird because the game has several characters say/show indirectly that Khan's motivations are bullshit ("the NCR fought back after me and my bandits attacked them and murdered tons of their civilians, including children? How DARE they?").

Kratos. This is one that I feel is missed by both fans and detractors alike. Kratos catches a lot of flak for being an angry, violent beast of a man who speaks only in murder and destroys everything he touches. Which is fair, because every word of it is true. That's actually the point of the character.

Kratos is a classic Greek tragedy; he's a Classic Hero as the Classic Heroes were originally depicted - in stark contrast to the modern reinterpretations thereof - a violent mountain of a man driven to accomplish his goal by brutally killing anything that would stand in his way. At the same time, he is a savage Deconstruction of said Hero, harkening back to classic Greek Tragedies.

The Tragedy is commonly known to be something great and terrible, but in the days of its origin, it was more specific. A Tragedy was a story about a Hero whose personal failings and weaknesses were ultimately the cause of his own unmaking. Nowhere is this more true than in Kratos, whose every appearance can be roughly described as a train wreck in motion, and it is always his own damn fault. He's physically incapable of accepting the consequences for his actions, sees enemies around every corner, and spends every moment of every game seeking VENGEANCE for the latest quasi-imagined slight, each of which he brought on himself.

At the same time that the God of War franchise tells us Kratos is a mountain of a man, they go out of their way to illustrate the casual cruelty and bloodthirst that makes him such. From the extended killing animations to his inability to lower his voice to below VIOLENT RAGE to every single character he encounters going out of their way to explain to the audience how awful of a person he is, the series is crafted to ensure that undercurrent is always present: that Kratos is a brutal, violent monster. It's no coincidence that every game in the series contains a sequence where Kratos must brutally kill an innocent person to solve a puzzle or open a door.

In a world filled with Macho Heroes who destroy everything in their path while boasting aloud how manly and awesome they are, Kratos is a cruel, brutal, unlikable monster. And that's the point.

edited 5th Nov '13 8:05:49 AM by TobiasDrake

Yeah, the game zig-zags between whether or not it wants to paint Caesar as an extreme essentialist (meaning everyone earns their place, but no role is better or worse than another) or just a flat out oppressive despot. However, there are more than enough points in the story where his actions have no justification other than fear-mongering or satisfying his own pride. Even if you try to argue that he needs to be feared and respected to maintain control, there's no indication that these ideals are more important to him than his immediate gratification.

I can't really call Kratos a Deconstruction when he's pretty much a walking example of Macho Masochism, Poe's Law, and Do Not Do This Cool Thing. It's kind of like Superman At Earths End, where Superman shoots all the bad guys dead and then yells about how guns caused all the world's problems. Well, yeah, but they just solved them, too.

edited 5th Nov '13 8:08:04 AM by KingZeal

I'm closing this. "Most misunderstood" is just another way of working around the rules about complaint threads. Cut it out, folks.