Characters who are overrated, underrated, or misunderstood

Dark_Chaos said:
Because people have different tastes. Not everyone is going to like the same character :S

He wouldn't have existed if otakus hadn't existed. He was created for the sole purpose of pleasing basement dwellers and other losers

Comic_Sans said:
He wouldn't have existed if otakus hadn't existed. He was created for the sole purpose of pleasing basement dwellers and other losers

Dark_Chaos said:
I think he still would have existed actually, regardless of otaku.

Comic_Sans said:
Hah

No

jal90 said:
Which is a groundless illusion the moment you realize that the character keeps getting as much focus and emotional background now as she had in the previous arcs.

JD2411 said:
The characters in One Piece don't really get any other development outside of their introduction arc.

jal90 said:

I know you said this for the sake of being a contrarian :P but you are actually confirming my point there, just in a less elegant and more negative way.

jal90 said:

I know you said this for the sake of being a contrarian :P but you are actually confirming my point there, just in a less elegant and more negative way.

KamSung said:
Zeref. Can't possibly explain it without spoiling. Probably Acnologia too, or well that's what I'm hoping for.

Dark_Chaos said:
Why do you think this?

corwin_r said:


What development do they get, though? Luffy makes even Naruto seem like a profound character, the guy switches between 2 gears, food and nakama mode. The rest of the cast are walking repetitions of the same gags over and over again (Brook - "Can I see your panties", "Yohoho" "It's because I don't have -body part x-"; Sanji with being an enamored buffoon; Chopper and Franky sharing the same aesthetics with Luffy and being impressed over the same childish things, and Zoro with getting lost). Robin is a pair of tits, and so is Nami, with the occasional outburst.

It's ironic, considering he's among the main characters I like least, but Usopp might be the best written character, since he actually displays a variety of emotions, other than being a walking joke. His wavering resolve, fear and insecurities and short-term bravery, make him a believable character at least.

Comic_Sans said:
''Many'' as in ''basement dwelling otakus with low self esteem'' or ''autistic horny thirteen-year-old boys''?

Imaishi said:
damn nice edge

Comic_Sans said:
Because it's obvious that he was designed as a blank slate so that basement dwelling losers could insert themselves into his place and that he wouldn't have been invented if his otaku fans hadn't existed, just like Twilight and FSoG wouldn't have been created if retarded chicks who think that overly possessive partner = true love hadn't existed

Dark_Chaos said:
But he isn't a blank slate though, not in the slightest.

Comic_Sans said:
Develop

Dark_Chaos said:
Yes, he gets development.

Comic_Sans said:
''Development'' and ''Being a Mary Sue with an already unnaturally high power and harem level that only becomes higher and higher as the story progresses'' are two completely different things

Try again

Comic_Sans said:
''Development'' and ''Being a Mary Sue with an already unnaturally high power and harem level that only becomes higher and higher as the story progresses'' are two completely different things

Try again

Dark_Chaos said:
Whether he is a "Mary Sue" or not is up to the individual viewer. Even if he were a "Mary Sue", it has nothing to do with his development.

gedata said:
I guess hackneyed romance does count as development. There was also the slight signs PTSD that were written backwards into the story in GGO with that flashback to Kirito cutting up some dudes in battle during the SAO arc, which is a pretty lousy way to handle characterization.

Comic_Sans said:
Mary Sues can't develop

Dark_Chaos said:
Why do you think that?

Comic_Sans said:
What romance?

Comic_Sans said:
Something that is already perfect by definition can't develop

gedata said:
You're saying the way he tames Asuna into devoting her whole identity into being his loyal glop depository doesn't count as romance?

Dark_Chaos said:
Kirito is far from perfect though, as we've seen.

Didn't you watch Sword Art Online too? :S

Illyricus said:
A discussion involving SAO?

Comic_Sans said:
Mary Sues are perfect by definition

Dark_Chaos said:
I'm pretty sure Mary Sues aren't perfect though :S Are they?

Regardless, Kirito is not perfect.

Comic_Sans said:
Herre fucking jävlar

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Comic_Sans said:
He's a Mary Sue

jal90 said:
Nami has displayed a reasonably huge range of emotions and is one of the characters better treated by Oda overall in the story. In a lot of arcs and in many of her decisions you can track her background and past story quite easily, in the same way you can do with Usopp, by the way (which is among other reasons why I believe people miss the point with his cowardice regarding the last events).

Examples include her very noticeable sense of empathy that very often leads her to get emotionally attached to other's causes

as well as her protective behaviour with people she recognizes as weak or in trouble, which is something that has conditioned the way she behaves in many arcs. I always say that she is the main catalyst of the emotions in the arcs, the one that gets moved or personally attached in a stronger way.

Not to mention that so far she's the one who has been asked to directly confront her own past, twice, and asked to make an emotionally compromising decision in both occasions.

In general, she is a character that relates her motivations and attitude very strongly to the way her past has shaped her, more noticeably than the rest. I don't know if I would talk about development, since part of this portrayal implies static and fixed character traits, like emotional bias and compulsions, but she surely gets a lot of focus in that sense and quite consistantly in the series.

Dark_Chaos said:
I don't see anything in there that says Mary Sues are perfect.

Is he though? I don't think he is.

Comic_Sans said:
''A fictional character, usually female, whose implausible talents and likeability weaken the story.''

It's literally there

Comic_Sans said:
And I say he is

Mischievous said:
Time to make SAO sign.

Dark_Chaos said:
It's literally not there.

Fair do's if you think that. However, I think otherwise.

Comic_Sans said:
It's implied

Dark_Chaos said:
It's really not.

Dark_Chaos said:
I'd appreciate it if you gave me links to things I didn't already know about. I like to learn new things after all.

Comic_Sans said:
So why did you not read between the lines when you read that wiktionary article?

Dark_Chaos said:
Was there a need to?

Lap1 said:
Calling someone who barely wins his fights a Stu? Thats outrageous!
Calling a crybaby perfect? How does it work?
Implausible talents? how is that?

Comic_Sans said:
Yes

Dark_Chaos said:
Are you sure? I don't think there was.

Dark_Chaos said:

Why would you make that assumption? I don't see the link :S