>>39503399Funny that you say that. Think about it like this - when you make a reference, it should be for a different type of demographic than the usual demographic, but are still relatable to the usual demographic of the content where you are placing said reference. Sure, you could make a reference for Pikachu or for Charizard for the billionth time, or you could try to be more original and clever and try to aim for a more obscure target (e.g. Luvdisc, Toxicroak, etc.), this way you may give a good experience for those that take notice to the reference. This is why references like
>>39501753,
>>39501776, and
>>39503639 are more appreciated, as they take upon a more obscure element of another franchise that some may just get and will enjoy the content some more than they previously have before, potentially becoming fans of the content that had the reference
>inb4 "But that's stupid to take a larger gamble than going for something more safe" or something similarIt's important to understand that references tend to be gambles in the first place, as they have the potential to make or break a moment. It's dependent on how the reference is done and what it tries to use for its context and targeted topic more than anything. It's a typical form of " the higher the risk, the higher the reward". But, making the reference actually work with context is most important, otherwise you waste the potential it could have had and have something jarring and/or pointless
