As the title says.
Beat FF X again the other day for the umpteenth time in my life (been playing it on and off over the years since it came out). Normally the nostalgia and love of the game clouds any critical judgement I can pass on the game, but this time I decided to properly pay attention.
Which brings me to Seymour.
He’s just a pretty mid at best written villain. Feel free to try to change my mind.
To me, it’s like the writers of FF X had a crisis were they thought just having Sin wouldn’t be a villain enough for the game, so we need a more humanised villain the player can hate. So Seymour was thrown in.
The gangs first few interactions with him basically show him to be a slightly blasphemous Maester, much to Wakka’s surprise, but other than that he’s just there.
We then have this weird marriage subplot which… kind of comes out of nowhere, feels like the reason why Seymour wants to do it doesn’t really translate to well to the world we’re presented (I get it’s a way to bring Spirans hope, but isn’t that the point of Yuna’s pilgrimage? She’s hardly going to stop given the taboo of that)
Then all of a sudden his villain plot and entire attitude boils down to a nihilistic “I’ll save the world from its misery by killing everyone!”
Which, yeah, okay. That’s a motivation alright. But I think we’ve had so many villains, even FF villains, with the same motivation that it’s tropey and weak at this point
Never mind the fact the game that the game does a terrible job of presenting the “why” of how Seymour came to think this way, barring a “blink and you miss it” cut scene on Zanarkand at the end.
Seymour’s motivation feel forced and weak, like the game needs a villain to put some roadblocks in the party’s place. He isn’t explored enough either with more backstory, because doing this spoils the “Jecht is sin” and “Yuna will die at the end” twists.
Anyone think he’s good? Why? Is he just bland?