Support NeoGAF

[etiolate]

I avoid "teh mature" games.

Ditto.

The best part of 'kiddy' games is making mature jokes out of them! In ToS, when they talk about putting the 'demon seed' in Clara I about died laughing. Having some mature humor with kiddy games is much more enjoyable than taking mature games seriously. How many of us put SSBM characters into improper poses?

 

[Flynn]

Let's clarify some terms.

Kiddie is not a word.

Cute is a bit more accurate, but not totally on base.

The games we're talking about have a simplified, more-abstract cartoon-style.

The games we call, "Teh mature" are games that attempt to be more graphically realistic and contain a lion's share of violence, language and sex. Apart from their urge to be more representational, I'd call their purile fixation with extremes more juvenile than mature.

Very few games are truly mature.

 

[Itabugaki]

No, infact I prefer games with a kiddy design. Billy Hatcher and the Gaint Egg is one of my favorite games this gen.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Let's clarify some terms.

Kiddie is not a word.

Cute is a bit more accurate, but not totally on base.

The games we're talking about have a simplified, more-abstract cartoon-style.

The games we call, "Teh mature" are games that attempt to be more graphically realistic and contain a lion's share of violence, language and sex. Apart from their urge to be more representational, I'd call their purile fixation with extremes more juvenile than mature.

Very few games are truly mature.

Some games can be too cute as some games cna be too mature. There was no need for garbage like BMX XXX which had no real purpose at all. Mature games get jumped just as much as kiddie games now. I don't really have a problem with either though, although I find that sometimes mature games can just try way too hard and end up being more annoying than anything (as proof by BMX XXX again). Although they can also be accused of being mature to the point of being juvenile when they aren't (MGS, GTA, Manhunt ect).

 

[Tellaerin]

I don't mind cute. Hell, I love cute. (Sanrio4Eva, baybee!) The problem for me is that some of the character designs coming out of Japan lately just aren't what I personally consider cute.

I'm none too keen on WW Link, for instance--I don't think the character looks cute at all. He reminds me of a particular species of low-budget 60's American animation characters, with the wide head and football-shaped eyes, and it's a look that I find distinctly unappealing. If Nintendo had used a more 'traditional' design for the cel-shaded Link (making him look like some of the manual art for the early games, for instance), I'd've warmed to the idea of controlling this character rather than being turned off by it. Animal Crossing's another one--I'm interested in the game, but my interest is offset by the fact that the avatar I'm controlling in the game world is (to me, at least) butt-ugly. The prospect of having this troll-child represent me, and having to look at said troll-child for countless hours of play, is distinctly unappealing to me. Then there was the game whose title escapes me at the moment, the one with the characters who all looked like humanoid woodpeckers with these thin, elongated needle-noses... ugh. I'm sure there are people who find that stuff cute, but I'm not one of them.

Do keep in mind that Nintendo's not the only company cranking out so-called 'cute' games that don't appeal to me, though. Katamari Damashii is another game where I've heard the main character called 'charming' and 'cute', and I just don't see it. That gangly, caplet-headed... thing is just bizarre-looking, and and his father the King is even worse. Weird, maybe, but weird doesn't automatically equate to cute with me.

So cuteness isn't the problem. Art styles I don't like are the problem.

 

[madara]

No. I have a dick, and I don't need to constantly reassure myself and others about it, via games.

Exactly!

 

[Saint Cornelius]

I avoid "teh mature" games.

You're on to something, there

 

[6.8]

Avoiding games that are bad takes too much reasearch. I won't try to avoid games that are kiddy or mature, that would merely complicate things.

 

[cvxfreak]

I *LOVE* Nintendo games.

IAWTP

Cutesy haters can go suck it.

 

[ge-man]

I'm more ashamed of playing games where women have ridiculous proportions, and are sent out to battle in thongs than I am of playing "kiddy" games.

I actually am the same way. I have absolutely no qualms going into the store and buying an Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon type of game. It's a whole different matter with something like DOA:XVB. And this is coming from someone who watches porno regularly.

 

[dark10x]

The style employed in a game honestly doesn't bother me, but when done right, it can really aid the experience. If a game has good gameplay, I'll play it regardless. Being "cute" doesn't bother me at all (in fact, I find it charming sometimes).

Some design choices DO bother me a bit, though. For example, I hate the characters starring in Banjo Kazooie so much that it prevented me from fully enjoying the game. All the "Hyuck hyuck"s just got on my nerves. It wasn't cute, it was stupid. I feel the same way when a game tries to be way too "mature" or (especially) games that employ blatant sexual stereotypes. It just feels insulting...

 

[6.8]

Exactly dark. A style is a style. It can bring good, but it also can bring back. It depends on the execution more than anything else.

 

[User 406]

Of course not. I've had lots of fun with games like Dark Cloud, Disgaea, Ratchet & Clank, and Dual Hearts.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Being an artist who draws things in just about every style imaginable, no, the art style and overall look of a game isn't something I'm going to be inherently prejudiced against, of all people.

I'm still amazed by the comment one person made (and this was a woman, mind you, not a guy insecure about his -- *cough*) that Super Mario Sunshine was obviously for 10 year olds because of the happy colors used, and Nintendo was behind the times for not making an adult Mario. WTF??? This is like complaining that Disney is behind the times for not making a Mickey Mouse modeled after Fritz the Cat! Talk about total lack of comprehension of what you're looking at.

My personal preference can lean toward abstract and artistically stylized games though, which often (but not always) means animated and cartoon style, or "cute". I don't care for most super-representational games, but that's mostly because I see them as having little artistic value. The developers and artists just try to replicate photographs of the real world ("You're in teh Matrix dude!") because this is what is "cool" and "hot" and people want (or so they think). They want to be in teh Matrix and play stuff that puts them In The Game (remember that over-used hype line for game ads?), and a lot of people seem to lack the imagination to concieve of "immersion" as being anything other than total photo-realism.

There are some "realistic" games I like, and invariably, they're ones which are more stylized than they appear at first glance and pay more attention to artistic direction.

 

[DDayton]

Ahem.

Realism in games stinks because the only "realistic" aspect of the game is the graphics.

Games need a style that matches the gameplay.

(Note: I grudgingly admit that -some- sports titles offer vaugely realistic gameplay.)

 

[dark10x]

Ahem.

Realism in games stinks because the only "realistic" aspect of the game is the graphics.

Games need a style that matches the gameplay.

(Note: I grudgingly admit that -some- sports titles offer vaugely realistic gameplay.)

Well that's just as close-minded as those who won't play "cartoon-ish" games...

Look at something like Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, or Half-Life 2. None of those games offer "realistic" gameplay, but their more realistic environments really aid the game itself. I'm not entirely certain what kind of style/design choices you would make if you had your say in the development of these games. Those visuals are much more realistic than something like Mario, but just as in Mario, the visuals are tailored for the game. Realistic visuals are not the problem...it is the style of visuals combined with chosen gameplay that can cause problems.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

If I found a "cute" game fun I'd probably play it. However, I just don't. I don't like kid themed games. Pikmin was ok, but that's about the effect it had on me. I'd rather be playing something else. I hate the Sims games, ugh. The most mainstream game I've ever played that had some kid appeal in the past 7 or 8 years is RollerCoaster Tycoon.

 

[IJoel]

I don't care for stigmas placed on games. If the gameplay appeals to me, I'll buy it, kiddy or not kiddy.

 

[DDayton]

Well that's just as close-minded as those who won't play "cartoon-ish" games...

Look at something like Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, or Half-Life 2. None of those games offer "realistic" gameplay, but their more realistic environments really aid the game itself. I'm not entirely certain what kind of style/design choices you would make if you had your say in the development of these games. Those visuals are much more realistic than something like Mario, but just as in Mario, the visuals are tailored for the game. Realistic visuals are not the problem...it is the style of visuals combined with chosen gameplay that can cause problems.

Well, yes, they are -more- realistic, but they are still stylistic. I am talking more about the urge to aim for photorealism at every level. If you saw a movie where a person what shot 13 times, but kept walking along with no real impact, you'd be confused -- in a game, that's par for the course. If you want "super realism" in a game, make the gameplay reflect it. At this point even our most realistic PC and console games aren't able to completely mimic real life in the graphics department, so it's still a minor issue... but when/if we get to the photo realism stage, it might make some folks think about their design choices.

(Me? Closeminded? NEVER!)

 

[Solid]

I don't care if a game looks kiddie or not, if the design dosen't appeal to me I don't buy the game. Simple as that.

 

[slayn]

ironically, I like cute in my video games but despise it in my anime.

I didn't mind ToS as a game at all, I liked the character designs (though I liked previous tales games designs more)

I would have despised it, and all other tales, as an anime.

I have no clue why.

 

[Che]

I play games for fun, nothing else matters to me.

IAWTP. Who the hell cares if it's too cute or not, EXCEPT of course these 14 year olds who wanna buy teh mature stuff.

 

[Christberg]

Well, I wouldn't call M&L's story "mature", but the writing is definitely top-notch. And Pikmin... the captain's logs and cuteness of the Pikmin (even in death) made for some bittersweet moments.

I think the semantics of what I was trying to get across may have been a bit off, so I'll have to rephrase a bit: As an adult, the premise, story and writing in some of Nintendo's more recent efforts have simply destroyed the average, more "adult oriented" titles that have been put out, this generation or any other, in my humble opinion.

I'll get flamed for saying this (if I don't get ignored anyway) but I think the above mentioned titles have considerably better writing than a lot of titles that have been highly praised for it like Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid for example, but have been overlooked for this exact quality a lot and so, given the opportunity I like to bring it up.

TWW's ending, for example, takes Ganondorf who was basically a simple evil archetype of a character and makes him suddenly much more interesting. By the end of Pikmin, you understand the motivations of both Olimar and the Pikmin, and some of it isn't all positive. In Mario and Luigi, Luigi has gone from being a palette swapped blob of pixels to being a really humorous, cowardly sidekick charicature that fits him well.

Contrasting that with, say, the newer Final Fantasy titles where they've tried harder and harder to make the main character as some sort of complex angst ridden teenager and failed to make anything compelling or likeable about any of them and I find myself yearning for the simple archetype characters from the earlier titles in the series that despite not being particularly in depth were at least understandable, and more importantly, likeable. (Speaking of which, goes back to playing ToS)

 

[NotMSRP]

American culture shuns cuteness. Don't know why.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

Quick IQ test question. Find the one that doesn't belong with the others.

 

[Flynn]

I think the semantics of what I was trying to get across may have been a bit off, so I'll have to rephrase a bit: As an adult, the premise, story and writing in some of Nintendo's more recent efforts have simply destroyed the average, more "adult oriented" titles that have been put out, this generation or any other, in my humble opinion.

I'll get flamed for saying this (if I don't get ignored anyway) but I think the above mentioned titles have considerably better writing than a lot of titles that have been highly praised for it like Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid for example, but have been overlooked for this exact quality a lot and so, given the opportunity I like to bring it up.

TWW's ending, for example, takes Ganondorf who was basically a simple evil archetype of a character and makes him suddenly much more interesting. By the end of Pikmin, you understand the motivations of both Olimar and the Pikmin, and some of it isn't all positive. In Mario and Luigi, Luigi has gone from being a palette swapped blob of pixels to being a really humorous, cowardly sidekick charicature that fits him well.

Contrasting that with, say, the newer Final Fantasy titles where they've tried harder and harder to make the main character as some sort of complex angst ridden teenager and failed to make anything compelling or likeable about any of them and I find myself yearning for the simple archetype characters from the earlier titles in the series that despite not being particularly in depth were at least understandable, and more importantly, likeable. (Speaking of which, goes back to playing ToS)

Cheers.

I hope this perspective starts to grow in gaming. I find the writing in many so-called adult games to be incredibly lacking. Rockstar is a prime example. For a company that puts out AAA games, they can barely manage scripts on the level of straight-to-video movies. They've got a long way to go.

On the other hand, the nuance found in The Wind Waker and even Animal Crossing reach a level of artistic maturity comparably only to the works of Hayao Miyazake.

It's a shame that the "mature" game makers can't get it together and deliver great stories and dialogue on par with masters of truly mature action like William Friedkin, Sergio Leone or Sam Peckinpah.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I dont mind either, but i prefer a stylish "kiddie" style than an attempt at mimic'ing reality but ending up bland and generic.

If someone overlooks these games or others in the same style because of how it looks, well its a goddamn shame they even dare call themselves a gamer. Oh my god, what if someone is watching me while im playing games and go tell all my friends how kiddi and not mature i am /rolleyes

Somehow i have a feeling that those that are insecure playing these games are in majority teenagers..

 

[SolidSnakex]

Contrasting that with, say, the newer Final Fantasy titles where they've tried harder and harder to make the main character as some sort of complex angst ridden teenager and failed to make anything compelling or likeable about any of them and I find myself yearning for the simple archetype characters from the earlier titles in the series that despite not being particularly in depth were at least understandable, and more importantly, likeable. (Speaking of which, goes back to playing ToS)

Do characters have to be completely likeable to be good characters? Squall is probably better than 99% of RPG heroes out there as far as character development goes, but you've got people who thinks he's an ass, and others who love him. I think that's a good sign of character development. A character shouldn't always be liked, there should be enough motivation to feel both ways about them. I hate it when game scripts push so hard for you to like a character they never want to make them the bad guy in the scenario. Squall was that, there were reasons to hate him and reasons to like him. I personally prefer characters like that who're complex and aren't your simple heros like say Zidane from FFIX who was basically your typical "i'm a good guy, really" character. He had nothing complex about his personality he was just a character build for everyone to like. That to me is boring character development. When there's nothing more to them than a typical cliche good guy routine that the majority of games seem to do now. We could do alot better if we had more characters like Squall. Chracters that personalities range more outside of being so one sided that it borders on the annoying.

I don't see why EVERY character needs to be completely likeable. It's just boring and not only that it's so damn cliche. You mention recent FF's, all of them are you typical likeable characters with the exception of Squall. They just have more going on with them than previous characters but they're still what you get in the majority of RPG's. A typical character who's built with no other intentions than to have everyone like him/her.

 

[slayn]

Squall, of course, being the only good example for recent FF games ;P

Squall was one of the best characters in any FF game ever... but take him away and I don't see a whole lot of great characters left and those that ARE left are all in FF8 as well.

So I can understand someone generalizing over them when thinking about "recent FF games."

edit:

that being said, a lot of people need to be able to relate to the main character. Perhaps thats a better way of saying it than liking them. If they can't relate, and can't understand the thinking of the main character they feel listening to him is a jumbled waste of words.

and there are a LOT of people that just can't relate to squall. You really either have to be like that, or know someone who is like that to "get him"

 

[SolidSnakex]

Squall, of course, being the only good example for recent FF games ;P

Squall was one of the best characters in any FF game ever... but take him away and I don't see a whole lot of great characters left and those that ARE left are all in FF8 as well.

So I can understand someone generalizing over them when thinking about "recent FF games."

Yah because take him away and you've just got a bunch of cliche's of what a hero has become. It shouldn't be recent FF's it should be FF's in general. There was so much backlash against Squalls character though that I don't think they'll ever try to make another character like him, atleast not in a FF.

 

[slayn]

Yah because take him away and you've just got a bunch of cliche's of what a hero has become. It shouldn't be recent FF's it should be FF's in general. There was so much backlash against Squalls character though that I don't think they'll ever try to make another character like him, atleast not in a FF.

I meant characters in general, not just the hero. The main character is indeed, usually the weak point for FF games. Squall being the exception.

also since you responded after my edit, I'll tell you to go read my edit =P
I think it clarifies what the person intended, rather than what they said.

 

[Flynn]

Quick IQ test question. Find the one that doesn't belong with the others.

Nice.

 

[MetatronM]

I find that more often than not, games that are deemed to look "kiddie" by gaming board denizons are simply games that have some imagination to them. There are some exceptions to the rule, of course, but for the most part, I'm keener on playing something that's wacky and imaginative than FPS #149.

I'll take the Wind Wakers, Katamari Damacys, and Super Monkey Balls of the gaming world over stuff like Riddick, Psi-Ops, and even Splinter Cell any day of the week.

 

[Flynn]

Though he's often way off base Scott McLoud's Understanding Comics has some insights into our discussion.

In the book he speaks of simplified art styles and their ability to boil down people to their most basic parts, thereby making them easier to relate to for all people no matter race, creed or color.

Take Mickey Mouse and Tommy Vercetti.

Micky Mouse, an abstract blending of a human and rodent, is an easier blank type for readers to project themselves onto than say, an Italian mobster -- a character already waist deep in history.

Also, there's a lot to be said for the emotional precision available in the face of a cartoon character. The eyes and mouth can be changed to simple, recognizable shapes that are nearly universally interpreted as corresponding emotions.

Pretty much all of the expressions of a character from say, Silent Hill, evoke one emotion -- the creeps.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I solely play BMX XXX and The Guy Game.

 

[SolidSnakex]

that being said, a lot of people need to be able to relate to the main character. Perhaps thats a better way of saying it than liking them. If they can't relate, and can't understand the thinking of the main character they feel listening to him is a jumbled waste of words.

and there are a LOT of people that just can't relate to squall. You really either have to be like that, or know someone who is like that to "get him"

I can understand that then. I just don't get why anyone would want a character to be so one sided in terms of personality. Most heroes have no complexity in personality they're just dull good guys and thats it through the entire game.

Atleast we've got SMT3 and it's "hero".

 

[JayFro]

I avoid most Nintendo cutesy games for the same reason I no longer watch cartoons. Most people change drastically in what they like as they get older (I'm 27). It isn't about being mature enough to play these kiddy games, that's one of the worst possible arguments I've ever heard. What matters to me is the content and how the game plays and challenges me. Most of those games have very simplistic gameplay which doesn't appeal all that much to me.


I don't drive a bright pink car for a reason to, I don't like the color.

 

[Guileless]

I'm also 27. I enjoy Pokemon and Kirby games, and I'm not afraid to admit it here on the Internet. Of course, when people see my playing those games, that's a little different. I do try to avoid that.

But the most embarrased I ever have been was with the distinctly non-kiddie Final Fantasy VIII (God I hate that game)--the scene where the protagonist and his lover are out in space (I've blocked out the names), he saves her, that awful song w/lyrics plays: I think my roomate at the time who saw that scene, who I'm still friends with, wonders about me to this day.

 

[Flynn]

I'm also 27. I enjoy Pokemon and Kirby games, and I'm not afraid to admit it here on the Internet. Of course, when people see my playing those games, that's a little different. I do try to avoid that.

But the most embarrased I ever have been was with the distinctly non-kiddie Final Fantasy VIII (God I hate that game)--the scene where the protagonist and his lover are out in space (I've blocked out the names), he saves her, that awful song w/lyrics plays: I think my roomate at the time who saw that scene, who I'm still friends with, wonders about me to this day.

I actually went to one of those shopping mall Pokemon tournaments sponsored by Nintendo.

I got Mew, my gym badges and owned by a 9-year-old kid in my third round.

I suspect that some of the parents thought I was either retarded or a child molester.

 

[Tellaerin]

Do characters have to be completely likeable to be good characters? Squall is probably better than 99% of RPG heroes out there as far as character development goes, but you've got people who thinks he's an ass, and others who love him. I think that's a good sign of character development. A character shouldn't always be liked, there should be enough motivation to feel both ways about them. I hate it when game scripts push so hard for you to like a character they never want to make them the bad guy in the scenario. Squall was that, there were reasons to hate him and reasons to like him. I personally prefer characters like that who're complex and aren't your simple heros like say Zidane from FFIX who was basically your typical "i'm a good guy, really" character. He had nothing complex about his personality he was just a character build for everyone to like. That to me is boring character development. When there's nothing more to them than a typical cliche good guy routine that the majority of games seem to do now. We could do alot better if we had more characters like Squall. Chracters that personalities range more outside of being so one sided that it borders on the annoying.

I don't see why EVERY character needs to be completely likeable. It's just boring and not only that it's so damn cliche. You mention recent FF's, all of them are you typical likeable characters with the exception of Squall. They just have more going on with them than previous characters but they're still what you get in the majority of RPG's. A typical character who's built with no other intentions than to have everyone like him/her.

As a medium, videogames impose some unique demands on characterization due to their interactivity. In a novel or film, you're strictly an observer. If you don't like a particular character, you're limited to watching the story unfold and hoping that he'll get his comeuppance before the end.

Things are different in a game, where you're given some measure of control over what transpires in the game world. For example, in FF VIII, I could not stand Squall, as you're probably aware. Even so, if the story was being presented through a conventional medium, I might still have found it tolerable. The problem was that the game placed me in the position where I was being forced to guide this man I despised to victory. Since he was the lead character, the game placed his life in my hands... then demanded that I protect it in order to win, even though I'd rather do anything but.

As a player, an active participant rather than a passive observer, I hated that. I didn't want to protect Squall. I wanted to walk him in front of one of the trains in an act of suicide, then complete the game with a character I actually liked. I resented the fact that I had to invest time and effort to powering up this asshole and helping him to win battles, just so I could watch him mistreat his comrades some more. The fact that I despised the lead character made the on-rails narrative nearly unbearable, perhaps the only time I've ever felt this way about a JRPG.

My point? An unlikeable lead character can ruin a player's enjoyment of a game to a far greater extent than would be the case in other media. Making sure the viewpoint character/player-surrogate is likeable may make him/her bland in some peoples' eyes (though there's no reason a character can't be complex and easy to like), but it also ensures that more people will actually enjoy participating in the fiction of the game.

 

[belgurdo]

American culture shuns cuteness. Don't know why.

And Japanese culture has run it into the ground.

 

[SolidSnakex]

My point? An unlikeable lead character can ruin a player's enjoyment of a game to a far greater extent than would be the case in other media. Making sure the viewpoint character/player-surrogate is likeable may make him/her bland in some peoples' eyes (though there's no reason a character can't be complex and easy to like), but it also ensures that more people will actually enjoy participating in the fiction of the game.

It can make them unplayable too (making them just likeable and nothing else). Those characters aren't interesting because almost every single main character is like that. I've found myself completing less and less RPG's now due to that. I just can't stand characters like that. They're boring and completely uninteresting. I'd actually like it if I could hate one of the main characters because that'd atleast make them interesting.

 

[Vitten]

Generally I don't mind but I have my limits. Like would you play a 'Barbie' game if one came out and had awesome gameplay all of a sudden ? Guess not huh ..

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I actually went to one of those shopping mall Pokemon tournaments sponsored by Nintendo.

I got Mew, my gym badges and owned by a 9-year-old kid in my third round.

I suspect that some of the parents thought I was either retarded or a child molester.

I hope you don't mind.

 

[Flynn]

I hope you don't mind.

Mind? No, I love it!

 

[Guileless]

I suspect that some of the parents thought I was either retarded or a child molester.

We've all been there dude. Seriously though, I admire you for pursuing your hobby despite what other people think.

 

[Christberg]

Do characters have to be completely likeable to be good characters? Squall is probably better than 99% of RPG heroes out there as far as character development goes, but you've got people who thinks he's an ass, and others who love him. I think that's a good sign of character development. A character shouldn't always be liked, there should be enough motivation to feel both ways about them. I hate it when game scripts push so hard for you to like a character they never want to make them the bad guy in the scenario. Squall was that, there were reasons to hate him and reasons to like him. I personally prefer characters like that who're complex and aren't your simple heros like say Zidane from FFIX who was basically your typical "i'm a good guy, really" character. He had nothing complex about his personality he was just a character build for everyone to like. That to me is boring character development. When there's nothing more to them than a typical cliche good guy routine that the majority of games seem to do now. We could do alot better if we had more characters like Squall. Chracters that personalities range more outside of being so one sided that it borders on the annoying.

I don't see why EVERY character needs to be completely likeable. It's just boring and not only that it's so damn cliche. You mention recent FF's, all of them are you typical likeable characters with the exception of Squall. They just have more going on with them than previous characters but they're still what you get in the majority of RPG's. A typical character who's built with no other intentions than to have everyone like him/her.

Actually, "recent FF's" includes FF7,8,and X. The main character in all of these games I don't find to be somebody who you want to root for, or are entirely believable as heroes. The thing about RPGs is that it all comes back to the cliche- if you're going to have a guy who's going to save the kingdom, world, etc. etc. you get the idea that character has to be one who you actually want to do this. That doesn't mean the character has to be a stereotypical hero/good guy archetype by any stretch. It just means you have to A:actually want the particular character to do so (I'm repeating myself, I know) and B:Be interested in how they develop and what motivates them to do the deeds that they're doing.

A prime example of a character who isn't likeable but is a great hero can be found in Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. One of the "Samurai" the village hires is basically a drunk bandit but at the end of the film when he's got all the swords stuck in the mound and he says "I must kill many" you WANT him to be the hero and you feel for him.

Visualize Keanu Reeves as the main character in Commando and that's how a lot of the newer FF main characters come off to me.

Tellaerin's pretty much nailed everything else I want to say. I was going to insert a spiel about how since your controlling an avatar the above mentioned issue becomes considerably more pertinent and how Squall is too much of a jerk to be likeable, and never really comes off as being anything but an insecure dork instead of a strong quiet loner like he should have but that's already been brought up (very well, I might add) in his post.