>>32106177>I totally called it. You're really going with the "they don't count" path.N-NANI?!
>that requires simplifying them and making them disproportionateThey looked like normal humans with normal amount of detail. Only like pic related of my previous post, they had small kids with rounder faces, like kids do have in real life.
>how simple the human characters areThey're as normal as they get.
>robot kid, knight and the Dog-like teacherThe robot still seems to have a body same as the other kids, just detailed differently. Can't see clearly, so not sure. As for the knight, I didn't even notice him, and I still can't clearly see him, so I don't know how cartoony he is, so no comment on this.
>usual cartoon tropeWe're talking about artstyle and the LOOK. Not the tropes.
>follows your rulesCorrection: the very definition of cartoon, not my rules.
>I personally wouldn't call something so serious a cartoon because of one character.Again, the serious tone has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.
And no, I wouldn't call Berserk a cartoon, but the artstyle Puck is usually depicted in is cartoony.
>You don't even know how many series are starting this season do youHow about correcting me instead, then? Admittedly, I made a mistake here. I checked the wrong season by mistake. Counting continuing shows, because I'm not going to bother with taking them out again, Winter season, at least according to MAL, had a total of 210 shows. There's a lot more cartoons included in this, such as Shin-chan and Doraemon, so the numbers are still probably the same.
>And just out of curiosity what would you consider Avatar?I wouldn't dare call it an anime, but it's not a cartoon, at the very least. As far as artstyle is concerned though, it is anime.
>have varying degrees of disproportionate designs>because I say so!The only unrealistic part is their faces, with big round eyes, non-existent lips and nose. The rest is literally the same as any human.
