>>53272175>if you genuinely want to discuss itI mean yeah I do, I just kinda lean toward the negative because it's
fun I think I'm being pretty chill since it's not like I'm saying everyone who likes it is a retard with shit taste or anything-- I don't think they are because I totally get how some of these characterizations might appeal to people, and I admire that there's an official work that goes so off the rails like this despite many of these choices not personally appealing to me. The way I'm talking about it sounds over the top probably but I'm not taking it too seriously.
>edgeventuresyeah that's not me
>a lot of the main characters do feel like the author is just arbitrarily assigning gimmicksOkay nice sometimes I wonder if that's just me. It goes for some of the portrayals of NPCs too but I'm not gonna talk about that here since that's not as consistent
>i don't agree with the way this character is portrayed, so it isn't a good characterHope I didn't completely come off like that. What I meant was more that the gimmick tends to overshadow the characters a lot (and/or sometimes feel out of place with like the setting itself, it's hard to articulate) and sometimes feels like a hurdle toward me really liking them or, like, seeing them as an actual person instead of a gimmick.
That's why I think something like DPA which not only did the weird gimmicks (even a similar jungle kid/feral child thing) and changed names but also changed appearances more dramatically makes it easier to accept the characters for who they are since they just feel more legitimately original. It's definitely a personal thing.
>pre-developed ideas of what the characters have to act likeFor me it's less "they have to act like THIS" and more "ugh, why did he have them act like THAT?!" Like the specific choices feel so off the wall sometimes
But yeah I'm not completely negative about it and maybe might post about it more once I read more of it in full
