>>48440037My argument is that the character is pointless. A contrived conflict whose purpose is to show off character traits of said pointless character is pointless by virtue of the character themself being pointless. Its pointless by inferrence if the character is pointless. If the character was necessary it would have a point.
Why should we care about the character of someone pointless?
In order for the lab solution to not be pointless you need to argue zinnia is, in fact, necessary for the story first, then the scene has a purpose by virtue of the character having a purpose.
>it isn't R/SNo shit, its got worse writing because they jammed unecessary extra stuff in that they needed to retcon into existence. You can't look at oras in a vacuum when a more minimalist version of the plot already exists. You analyze the changes and if they add anything of value. Zinnia's presence doesn't throughout the game, because the aqua/magma conflict didn't need more context to make sense. One team is "good" the other are saturday morning cartoon evil (depending on version). Claiming they needed someone manipulating them in the background is ridiculous.
>She has a purposeNo. The story/game required a character to fill the role of guide. It didn't need a new character and had existing characters which could've filled the role.
It also didn't need an antogonist here, since the threat was existential("nature"). They also had no need to introduce new characters for future use, or to expand the setting as this was an epilogue with no sequel.
My whole argument is that the version of the plot I suggested is better because it removes the pointless contrived conflict, doesn't introduce a new character at the end of the story, still has enough conflict/tension and fits the game better (not skipping the sky pillar dungeon). In essence the only thing lost is zinnia's character.
