It was great becuase of:

1.) Nice graphics for the time
2.) Originality (or at least introduced many people to new ideas which has the same affect of being original)
3.) relatable story and characters, likable main character.



The reason originality matters so much in why it's great.. it's that even if another game comes along, say they remake final fantasy 7, and it has better graphics and the rest is pretty much unchanged. Most would agree that the game is straight up better. However, it probably won't have as great of impact on you as the first one did, because the first one gave you all those original ideas for the first time, whereas this is just rehashing them. So maybe some people might think FF 10 is actualyl a better game than FF 7 (for example), but because of people experiencing things for the first time in FF7 if the new game is actually better, the game FF 7 will have given them the greater amount of enjoyment, and be more memorable. So in short perhaps if you hand't played FF7 and you played it right now.. you might say another FF is better, but if you played FF 7 first there'd be a good chance you'd say it was better.


And I would say the story and characters do help it a lot. Cloud just acts badass from the get go, and he's arrogant he's Soldier 1st class... even though we know he's way weaker, i mean he's level 1 lol... And the materia system was sweet great versatility without too much hassle.

Oh, so he's a godmoder. We've seen plenty of enemies you can't run away from (some of them could fly also. And they had swords, too).


By the way on your disproof attempt at his claim... it's important to note that you can't just pick different characters you know that embody each of the traits he's list. Perhaps is the combination of traits that makes him, as he says, bad@ss.

Ultimately i think what makes a character bad@ss.. would be the power level they more or less have in the world they're presented in, and to some degree how people imagine that power level translating into our world's terms. You could say an ant is badass if he takes on 5 other ants... and you would think to yourself that's like a guy taking a small army of other guys. The second contributing factor would be personality. Are they arrogant? insightful? disprespectful? We need a sense of their outlook. If a person is super powerful but just acts like a pussy all day, he won't get this bad ass title. If we see a person that is ridiculously powerful, and says I'll take the world on and i don't care who tries to stop me, we'll probably think he's a bad ass. A story/game that gets a lot of attention and we care about will be the likely contributors to thsi list of bad@asses.

There are going to be certain qualities in common, some of it will be just up to the invdividual on what's "cool".

The fact you understand what he means shows their is some commonality in definition.

I think the most basic agreeable definitin of badass would be powerful. In most uses that seems to be what people are getting it. Poweful in what regard.. and other factors are sometimes relevant.

Someone can look badass. Someone can give a badass public speech (which here the idea would be you gave a good speec that owned the competition).