>>22557696>How so?To take Digimon as an example (note that it's been like a decade since I've watched it so I might be fuzzy on the details), it relies entirely on convenience that the Digidestined run into progressively stronger enemies, and it makes you wonder what Myotismon was doing while they were fighting Etemon (just twiddling his thumbs, assumedly).
It's more exciting and that's what kids hook onto, but it's not really any more logical than Pokemon's shit.
>Because you're saying that if a 10 year old accomplishes ihis dreams on a show aimed at 4-5 year old kids is somehow bad.>potential doesnt cut it when you're supposed to present a hero. Specially to the kids watching the show.>what we're asking is not a constant winner, but some actual progress, and that requires either winning or learning from lossesAs an example. Slam Dunk kept the story within the skill bracket of the heroes (they only played against other high schools), and even then it didn't end with the heroes winning everything either. Whether they win everything is immaterial to the ideas of trying your best, doing what you love, etc.
Ideally, Pokemon would've aged Ash up as they went along and made him get better. Technically, he did do the latter until BW rolled around.
>You mean Like Ritchie, Cameron or that Blaziken guy?Ritchie was in the first league he ever did and he was at a severe handicap. It was a stupid reason, but at least it was explained.
The Blaziken guy was older than him, and they had a really close match.
Cameron was 100% bullshit though, I don't think even the animu thread would argue with you.
