- May 9, 2015
- Reaction score
You managed to somehow misrepresent what I said. I will go through my post, and show you the parts you seemingly missed or ignored:Doesn’t it work both ways if we use your argument? People who didn’t like the DPPt character designs have to stomach them for the second time with no creative elevation? Having two designs for a character statistically increases the probability that most people like at least one Design. Also, it just gives bonus creative points to just go back to the drawing board for a character after so many years.
"Do not give the characters redesigns because I may not like them" is a pretty weird reasoning, and a pretty drastic step to eliminate all creative work that goes in making a redesign. They can breathe fresh air into the characters. You cannot evaluate the quality of a redesign that doesn’t exist so this reasoning feels really weird to me.
That's true, but it's also a double-edged sword. Many of the new redesigns in ORAS were a downgrade, for example (imo). My point is, sometimes the conservative approach of not giving characters redesigns can be better. Both situations are subjective though.
Firstly, "a double-edged sword" is something that's problematic both ways. In other words, I am recognizing that not giving the characters new redesigns can also be problematic, hence why the sword is double-edged.
Second, I am explicitly saying this is just MY opinion.
Third, I repeat that the conservative approach of not giving characters redesigns CAN be better SOMETIMES, meaning "NOT ALWAYS".
Finally, I end up my entire post by saying that the whole concept of "good" designs and "bad" designs is subjective, so I am not saying that not redesigning the characters is an objectively better solution.
I hope you read my posts more carefully from now on, before criticizing them.