This post is objectively incorrect, to put in bluntly.
How can something be objectively incorrect when they are simply opinions? Except for the foreshadowing part, which could arguably be interpreted as objective criteria, but I was complaining about the
lack of foreshadowing of Demise, not the absence of it, which is a subjective statement.
Now, first off, I don't understand the whole "Ghirahim is a poor villain" argument to any extent. You are by all means not obligated to like him, but you cannot deny that he was an effective villain.
Oh, but I most certainly can deny that he was an effective villain! Thank God for my freedom to think!
Anyways, jokes aside, I have mixed feelings about Ghirahim. I love him one day, and I hate him the next. As I said before, he was an excellent idea but was executed poorly. Nintendo was obviously trying to make us feel more emotionally connected to the characters in Skyward Sword. Now they did this succesfully with several characters, i.e Groose and Fi (my opinion), however I thin they flopped when it came to Ghirahim. Did he have a semblance of awesome-sauce? Yes. Was he funny? Absoloutley. However, his role as an actual
villain was mediocre IMO. I stated in my first post why I think he failed, but I'll state it again here. He created a lack of urgency in the game from the get-go. His procrastination to get to the point made him seem harmless, his silly antics made me not fear for Zedas safety. He simply created an overall lack of urgency for me in the game. It picked up near the end, but that was at the end, too late.
Instead of claiming that he lacked intelligence and/or seriousness without any valid evidence whatsoever other than "Because I said so" maybe you should elaborate on your opinion a tad more because perhaps I'm simply a raging fanboy who can't handle that his precious Ghirahim is being insulted.
Judging from this post I think you are a raging fanboy, but meh.
Evidence
- Procrastinates which creates an anti-climactic atmosphere.
- Dances, flaunts his tounge, talks about himself constantly, etc. <-- (Not serious attribute)
- Battles are repetitve, showing that he has learned nothing from his previous defeats.
- He appears in the middle of a cut scene near the end of the game and just steals Zelda, while seemingly effortlessly knocks down Link. (This does not support my lack of intelligence/seriousness argument, but it was certainly awkward. How can he just easily knock down Link after we have defeated him so many times before?)
- At the end of the game we learn that he is simply Demise's tool for resurrection. A unique plot twist, but it deteriorates the idea of him being his own actual person with individual emotions. Rather, he is doing everything he is doing because Demise told him to.
I remember having more arguments for this, but it's been a while since I've played it. I hope this is a sufficient amount, if not, I'll try to think of more.
Anyways, back to my point, out of any Zelda villain, Ghirahim is the one that was encountered the most frequently. He obviously had many plans, which shows that he didn't lack intelligence. He discovered the 2nd Gate of Time, came close to snatching Zelda on multiple occasions, and most importantly his plan was a success.
Your right, we did encounter him the most, I loved that aspect of him. However, I fail to see how this would make him a better villain. His encounters were filled with as much tension as two loose strings (lol). A good example of how Nintendo had an excellent idea (encountering the villain more throughout your journey), but executed it poorly (creating a complete lack of tension/conflict between the player and the villain).
Also, what do you mean he had many plans? His plan was to capture Zelda the whole time. It might have changed once when
the player discovered the second Gate of Time, but that's it. I can understand your point thought.
How many villains out there, let alone Zelda villains, had their plans succeed? Very few.
Umm..., the point of beating a Zelda game is to defeat the main villain (Ganondorf, Demise, Vaati, etc.). So your wrong. No villains in he Zelda series were succesful. When were Ghirahim's plans succesful? Resurrecting Demise could be considered a success I suppose, but we defeated him in the end, making it unsuccesful.
And he did have a decent amount of character development. Ghirahim's personality went from being calm to insane by the end of the game while still retaining the traits that made him an engrossing character. His personality didn't make a complete 180, instead, it was developed throughout the game where the events directly affected his mood. Also, I fail to see how being the 'evil' version of Fi is a bad thing since their personalities are completely different. Fi is cold and calculating while Ghirahim is flamboyant and expressive, I mean seriously, if anything, they're opposites in personality. As for the discussion whether he is a main villain or not..... yeah I don't feel like reposting a paragraph I wrote yesterday, but I can show you it if you like.
I do not remember stating that Ghirahim had a stagnet personality? He did develop, which again was a great idea on Nintendo's part. However, it was executed poorly because the "insane" part didn't come out until nearly the end of the game.
And you obviously did not pay enough attention to my post. I specifically stated that the tragedy of Ghirahim being Fi's counterpart is not in that fact itself, but because he is not the main villain. Again, this is more so my frustration with Demise's anti-climactic ending, so I will not elaborate.
Lastly, and perhaps the most incredibly oblivious, unintelligent, and disheartening thing about your post is the fact that you claimed Demise had no foreshadowing. Let's take a look at a video shall we?
[video=youtube;1K5h6vGzq-E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K5h6vGzq-E[/video]
Go to about 3:35 for when he starts the game.
Oh wow, would you take a look at that. No more than 5 freaking seconds into the game do we see the Imprisoned, who by the way if you haven't noticed since you seem to be completely brain dead towards everything so far, is Demise. I hardly call that lack of foreshadowing.
That was quite a rude post I made, again there's no problem with disliking Ghirahim, Demise, or Skyward Sword entirely, but if you want to form a constructive argument, put a bit of thought into your opinions.
Thank you.
Lol, I just realized after reading this portion of your post that I made you
so angry by bashing Ghirahim and Demise.
Anywho, I realize that there is foreshadowing of Demise in the game. Looking back at my post I realize I said "absoloutley no foreshadowing of Demise..." It should have said, "lack of foreshadowing." My apologies.
