>>11836751The difference is that N is a sympathetic villain. Nobody else in the franchise has been so far. In fact, to date the villains have been downright cartoony; objectively and unapologetically evil aims that seem centered around actively being villainous for villainy's sake.
N is a sympathetic antagonist, to the point of the game coming across as grey vs grey, morally. I DON'T believe GameFreak intentionally wrote in a character who thought pokemon were treated unfairly and expected an audience/player reaction that was universally or even MOSTLY "fuck that shit".
N presents a difficult moral question, and intentionally so. In fact, N is probably closer to Ash Ketchum in terms of his relationship with pokemon than any protag/player of the main series games so far; are you telling me that a philosophy that's so close to the TV series' protagonist was actually dreamt up as unambiguously villainous?
Your analysis works fine for Ghetsis, although his craftiness is pretty fresh, but it doesn't apply to N. The whole point OF Ghetsis is to provide an unambiguous villain and not provide a "canon answer" to N's arguments in-universe.
That already makes N a far more complex character than anyone in pokemon to date. N is the only character who is presented as cutting against the grain, of challenging the extant order within the pokemon universe, without being intentionally made into an evil stock-character.
Can that be said of Giovanni, or anyone else you'd compare N to? I really don't think so. I don't think pokemon has ever presented a situation meant to make the player question whether they were on the wrong side of a conflict, which N is clearly meant to do. This is reinforced by the Plasma split in B2/W2, where the villains themselves have split between HURDURR DOMINATE DA WORLD and the ones who actually believed in the revolutionary cause.
Or maybe I'm just an odd man out for thinking N was right and reading too much into what was meant to be a stock plot.
