yhunata said: This cannot be correct. 'Fluidity' in animation is defined by how well one is able to infer movement from different frames. 'Bad' is a value judgment. Neither of these are 'objective', opinion or no opinion. The only thing 'objective' you can say about animation is assertions such asIntroverTurtle said: I think "animation is fluid" or "animation was bad" is pretty much the only thing objective about even that. Then again, this is simply my opinion, which is subjective.mattbenz99 said: How would you put animation objectively on a scale? And what if they waste frames?because there are some points that objectively does exist. you can objectively judge the animation as an example. you can also compare it to other shows of the same type. yes enjoyment is always subjective but there is an objective. "This show is released in 540p." "This show is in D65K gray scale." "This episode is 23 minutes long." "1 minute and 40 seconds of this episode was spent on static frames." Any kind of assertion that attempts to state the relevance of the above, or any idea which infers from the above, are 'subjective', such as the following: "This show is beautifully animated with lots of bright colors, and contrasting dark scenes." "The animation is excellent, with the background comprised of a number of cel-drawings that bring the world to life." "This show is too short to show proper character development." "The colors are dull." |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
mattbenz99 said: Correct.just because you like something does not make it good or bad. mattbenz99 said: Those 'flaws' are known only through your perception of the Inuyasha narrative, thus the only manner in which it makes sense that you 'like' something that is 'flawed' is that you've judged positive value from your sense of Inuyasha that compensates for the aspects of negative value. The assertion "I like Inuyasha despite flaws" cannot be rationally taken as meaning that you 'subjectively' enjoy Inuyasha despite 'objective flaws'; rather, it must be taken as that the parts which you subjectively enjoy about Inuyasha outweighs the parts that you subjectively do not enjoy.i like inuyasha but i can point out all the flaws in it. i can point out how repetitive it is and that there are some parts that contradict each other but i still like it despite the flaws. mattbenz99 said: No, there is no gray area whatsoever.yes there is a grey are but to say that nothing can be considered better than something else is wrong. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
elite-sama said: mattbenz99 said: Correct.just because you like something does not make it good or bad. mattbenz99 said: Those 'flaws' are known only through your perception of the Inuyasha narrative, thus the only manner in which it makes sense that you 'like' something that is 'flawed' is that you've judged positive value from your sense of Inuyasha that compensates for the aspects of negative value. The assertion "I like Inuyasha despite flaws" cannot be rationally taken as meaning that you 'subjectively' enjoy Inuyasha despite 'objective flaws'; rather, it must be taken as that the parts which you subjectively enjoy about Inuyasha outweighs the parts that you subjectively do not enjoy.i like inuyasha but i can point out all the flaws in it. i can point out how repetitive it is and that there are some parts that contradict each other but i still like it despite the flaws. mattbenz99 said: No, there is no gray area whatsoever.yes there is a grey are but to say that nothing can be considered better than something else is wrong. you know what fuck this. when you start getting into the question is there truly such thing as objective you start getting into a philosophical debate and that is one thing i refuse to get into on this forum. |
| Just because you know how to use a torrent does not give you the god given right to pirate. My actual list: https://kitsu.io/users/mattbenz99/library check out my youtube channel for my review: https://www.youtube.com/user/mattbenz99 |
mattbenz99 said: Philosophy is merely a study of the consequences when logic is applied to reality such that every debate that invokes logic can be philosophical. I find it odd that a person draws arbitrary lines in the sand; since he had no qualms using the word 'objective', one would suppose he would have no objection to the question of what 'objective' means -- after all, why use a word when you don't know what it means? What you mean to say is that you refuse to get into a debate where the possibility of your views being questioned exists, since it is quite difficult, admittedly, to question someone who uses vague terminology.you know what fuck this. when you start getting into the question is there truly such thing as objective you start getting into a philosophical debate and that is one thing i refuse to get into on this forum. One must realize, if he had read this thread carefully, that nowhere within did I state that 'objectivity' does not exist, only that one could not assert thoughts which can be taken to be 'objective'. That you mistook the latter for the former means either that you planned your escape in haste, or that you cannot even conceive of a difference so fundamental as your judgment against something and the actual thing. You're confused between assertion of observation (e.g. "this book is 10-inches long") and assertions of judgment (e.g. "this book is too long"). While this is undoubtedly a question of philosophy, it is also a question of grammar, science, and psychology, which underlines how aloof someone must be to ignore this question. For if one chooses to be ignorant of the consequences of his usage of a word 'objective', why should he in consistency care about how he uses any other word x? He could be in law school and invent his own interpretation of 'due process' that's incompatible with anything else; or he could be in medicine and use his own terminology of 'protein' and refer to all calories as 'protein'; or he could be in construction and confuse what he determines to be 'loud' with OSHA's regulation of measurable loudness. Such a person, no matter what discipline he's in, is doomed to fail in life. I can only hope that whatever college you attend in Montreal has professors with the grit to distill within you a sense of what critical thinking is about. That one day you'd happen to wander about this old thread and notice, "That guy... It isn't just his name..." |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I believe in objective truths in storytelling because I have yet to meet anyone who can honestly say that a stick figure drawing is as "good" as the Sistine Chapel. They can lie and say that to them it is, but we all know it isn't. The key is to create objective measurements. |
| Let's go bowling. |
Gorim said: Finally, someone who knows what he's talking about.People are too hung up on the fact that they want their well vindicated opinions to be objective truths. I guess it's because it sounds cool (I guess?) to be objectivily right about something, calling your opinion objective does give it some sort of superior feeling even if it's an opinion that can be argued against with similar well validated reasoning. Rhetoric skills of giving rational arguments based on examples ≠ objective truth about quality of an art work. Well they will have to wait for a while. Even if you'll explain giving multiple examples of why Madokas pacing was better than that of Infinite Harems its not going to become an objective truth. Instead it's going to become your well adressed subjective opinion on that matter. Whether it is objective or not shouldn't be even relevant to anyone. People are going to appreciate your own personal insight on that matter and heck might even share your opinion. Even every person in the world could share your opinion about Joe's pub having worse lay out than Taj Mahal, but it won't become an objective truth even so. Because even if the case was now that we thought Joes pubs architectual layout was something horrible, esthetic sense can change over the course of history and there lies an undeniable possibility that in the future your "objective truth measurment" might be proven wrong because majority of people would now consider architecture of Taj Mahal garbage even though it seems unlikely from todays point of view. There's nothing good or bad about being subjective or objective in the first place. Subjectivity and different perspectives and wide insight from different people are what makes reviews so interesting. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
miereneronaile said: Well, no. My argument isn't about beliefs, but knowledge. StopDropAndBowl said: I believe in objective truths in storytelling because I have yet to meet anyone who can honestly say that a stick figure drawing is as "good" as the Sistine Chapel. They can lie and say that to them it is, but we all know it isn't. The key is to create objective measurements. The ammount of people who believe one thing is better than another has absolutely no relationship to the quality of that thing being objective. Your argument can be used to say that twilight is one of the best series ever written, and its virtually undeniable because lots of people think its good. We know Twilight is not the best thing ever written. It is a fact that it isn't. I have no interest in pretending that Twilight has as much objective value in the realm of storytelling as the collected works of William Shakespeare. We can all pretend otherwise if you want, but I tend to not have the time or patience for that kind of thing. Holding myself rigidly to some position that has yet to be logically supported for no other reason then it sounds intelligent is not really an attractive idea. You can believe in your subjectivity all you want, but I'm gonna rest comfortably in the knowledge of objectivity. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Yet, that is exactly what you are doing when you hold that Twilight has some sort of 'bad' property as it exists in nature that is independent of anyone's perception of it. And what's more is that you claim to have 'knowledge' of such a property, despite that no scientific evidence exists to substantiate that claim.Holding myself rigidly to some position that has yet to be logically supported for no other reason then it sounds intelligent is not really an attractive idea. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RichardSherman said: Oh no, PLEASE not this again =_= They are bringing back the much unneeded "objectivity train." Everyone hop aboard!! |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| So long as people can analyze the exact same thing and disagree on its merits and faults, there will never be such a thing as an objective analysis of a show. People like to say that the pacing of a show was tedious, or that a character's decisions in a show were inconsistent, and play them off as objective criticism. However, these statements are based on your own perceptions and experiences. Sure, you can say that SAO's romance was poorly implemented (and I agree), but this is likely because you've experienced other romances unfolding on screen, and therefore you get an idea of how YOU think a good romance develops. But as soon as you let your thoughts come into play, your criticism becomes subjective. By definition, objectivity is freedom from personal prejudice, a state of disinterest. An objective analysis of a show would simply be a series of statements about the material aspects of the show: for example, who directed it, how many episodes it has, and when it aired. In other words, it wouldn't even be an analysis. |
 |
Arararraragi-kun said: Objective in this case = a majority of (mature) people's subjective opinionsHonestly why ? there is no such thing a saying '' this anime is objectively better than that anime'' I don't understand that logic like at all and what pisses me off is how delusional these people are, they basically think if they put aside personal enjoyment out of their opinion on some anime then somehow their opinion becomes objective, like seriously how dumb is that?! In their deluded mind this A/ [ oh my god I luv dis animu cuz it's so epic and coolz ] is a subjective opinion meanwhile this B/ [ I disliked this anime because the characters are flat and one dimensional and the plot has a slow pace and the main character doesn't have proper character development and the writing through out the story is terrible and the OST didn't match the atmosphere of the anime ] is objective. ^That is completely wrong and just shows their flawed logic. The A example is just a subjective opinion that's isn't backed up with reasons he simply just loved the anime, The B example is also a subjective opinion but it has reasons behind his dislike. An example of people like this is that reviewer Dracon-something, his reviews are the most subjective and biased things I have ever seen or heard in my life he constantly shits on ''fanboys'' yet he is exactly the same he only focus of the ''flaws'' of the show nothing more and nothing less. I actually don't want this to turn into flame and spam about him, I am just curious on everybody's opinion as to why some people believe in objectivity... Do they want to feel special and somehow superior? Are they doing it sarcastically ? What is your view on objectivity vs subjectivity ? adjective not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. |
| My Reviews and Rants: http://bunny1ov3r.wordpress.com/ 痛就是爱 |
| Because saying "objective" is easier than "carefully thought out and refined unbiased opinion based on facts, comparison, and reasoning that can be argued and well defended given the standards and guidelines that have been placed on art and story telling throughout history"? |
 |
Shrabster said: How about "criticism"?Because saying "objective" is easier than "carefully thought out and refined unbiased opinion based on facts, comparison, and reasoning that can be argued and well defended given the standards and guidelines that have been placed on art and story telling throughout history"? |
This topic has not been locked and is still available for discussion. |
Shrabster said: Because saying "objective" is easier than "carefully thought out and refined unbiased opinion based on facts, comparison, and reasoning that can be argued and well defended given the standards and guidelines that have been placed on art and story telling throughout history"? There is no such thing as "unbiased" opinions. People without bias are people without taste, which cannot say one is good while the other is bad, because that would already imply any bias towards that they deem good or that they deem bad. Now stop this shit, we have 24 pages of things that have been already talked to death. |
| I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe. |
gamer2710 said: It doesn't make me feel as superior as objective does.Shrabster said: How about "criticism"?Because saying "objective" is easier than "carefully thought out and refined unbiased opinion based on facts, comparison, and reasoning that can be argued and well defended given the standards and guidelines that have been placed on art and story telling throughout history"? Orsonius said: Really? I was unaware in that completely serious post I made in a thread that has been almost entirely about arguing semantics. Shrabster said: Because saying "objective" is easier than "carefully thought out and refined unbiased opinion based on facts, comparison, and reasoning that can be argued and well defended given the standards and guidelines that have been placed on art and story telling throughout history"? There is no such thing as "unbiased" opinions. People without bias are people without taste, which cannot say one is good while the other is bad, because that would already imply any bias towards that they deem good or that they deem bad. Now stop this shit, we have 24 pages of things that have been already talked to death. |
ShrabsterJan 26, 2014 1:14 PM
|
Shrabster said: Though none of your views about anime, or any other storytelling medium, be objective as they are you opinions. Also FYI all opinions are biasedIt doesn't make me feel as superior as objective does. |
| Sup People and yes I am the physical manifestation of Shinji Ikari's Balls And this what elite-sama says to incest elite-sama said: I'm against it because I don't have a sister. It's not fair. |
Shrabster said: gamer2710 said: It doesn't make me feel as superior as objective does.Shrabster said: How about "criticism"?Because saying "objective" is easier than "carefully thought out and refined unbiased opinion based on facts, comparison, and reasoning that can be argued and well defended given the standards and guidelines that have been placed on art and story telling throughout history"? This is where you need to learn. The best way to feel superior is dismissing objectivity as it's unnecessary to put weight in your statements. Emphasizing on your own bias, building it and claiming it as a valid form to analyze and present criticism. That's what the real elites do (¿?). |
Shrabster said: Really? I was unaware in that completely serious post I made in a thread that has been almost entirely about arguing semantics. meh stop trolling dude. Watch some anime instead. |
| I am falling, I am fading, I am drowning, help me to breathe. |
| Using the word "objective" in the way you said is the same thing as using the word "perfect": since there are so many perspectives, it's impossible to find something completely objective or something completely perfect. By using this logic, you should also be complaining about the use of the word "perfect". When someone judges an anime, they are of course going to tell everyone their opinion of the anime whether objective or not as someone would set up something that they think is perfect based on their opinion of perfect. Considering this, would it really be wrong for someone to strive for an objective judgement of something? Also, how much you enjoyed something does not equal whether you think it's good or not. By that logic, I believe Mermaid Melody should deserve a 10/10 because I enjoyed it so much... by making fun of it. I also think that Durarara!!, Fairy Tail and Katekyo Hitman Reborn deserve a 10/10 because I enjoyed them a lot. Oh, and Attack on Titan deserves a 3 because I barely enjoyed it. ...You get the idea. |
| Basically people feel the need to have a milestone , to put it simple...... |
| "Love is a drug to our brain , it stops the thinking function and when you realize it wether you acomplish it or not you'll enter in one of the 3 withdrawal states : happy , sad or anger. Once this drug gets hold of you you'd better be prepaired beforehand." - Me |
| I once did an experiment, just for fun. I went and read many reviews for the same show written by different critics who were "objectively" reviewing it. My results: It was like each one had watched a different show. It was pretty amusing, actually. You had one guy explaining in detail why Character A was the worst part of the show and how so and so worked really well, while another said that Character A was in fact the best part of the show, etc. No one's objective, even when they claim to be. All those critics reviewing movies and giving objective scores? They're all just as subjective as you and me. The critics might have more experience, be better at noticing things, have more defined tastes....but at the end they're just opinions. I try to rate anime objectively, putting aside how much a character annoyed me or how much I thought a certain part was neat because it was fun to watch. However, I rate "objectively" knowing its objective only to me. There is no real objectivity when it comes to art. |
| My anime blog Latest Post: The Zero Requiem (Analysis of the Ending of Code Geass) |
Aines445 said: Perfect is the highest subjective value, not any where near the same as objective. It's like:Using the word "objective" in the way you said is the same thing as using the word "perfect". "What does a perfect girl look like?" "What does that girl actually look like?" If you think these two are the same questions, then maybe the only girl you've seen is in your dreams. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
elite-sama said: Aines445 said: Perfect is the highest subjective value, not any where near the same as objective. It's like:Using the word "objective" in the way you said is the same thing as using the word "perfect". "What does a perfect girl look like?" "What does that girl actually look like?" If you think these two are the same questions, then maybe the only girl you've seen is in your dreams. I didn't say that they had the same meaning, I only used the word perfect as an example to a word that can have many perspectives: while there is such a thing as objectivity, no one can agree on what that may be exactly. There may be people that have similar thoughts on it, but ultimately they have different perspectives. Perfect is more extreme, but still appliable as an example for what I was trying to say. Aines445 said: Using the word "objective" in the way you said is the same thing as using the word "perfect": since there are so many perspectives, it's impossible to find something completely objective or something completely perfect. Weird that you missed that whole chunk, just saying. |
LoneWolfRain said: People believe in objectivity because objectivity exists. People have the ability to analyze certain things that a story factually has, thus those components of the story are "objective." In other words, what's there is what's there. All in all, though, it's up to the person to decide whether or not any of those objective traits are good or bad. And that is why there is no such thing as objectivity in anime or any other form of story-telling. If you leave it up to a person to decide if something is good or not, it automatically becomes subjective from that point. |
 |
LoneWolfRain said: yhunata said: Yes, that persons feelings toward the content is subjective. I would never claim otherwise. But don't say "there is no such thing as objectivity in anime or any other form of story-telling," because I just explained how that isn't true.LoneWolfRain said: People believe in objectivity because objectivity exists. People have the ability to analyze certain things that a story factually has, thus those components of the story are "objective." In other words, what's there is what's there. All in all, though, it's up to the person to decide whether or not any of those objective traits are good or bad. And that is why there is no such thing as objectivity in anime or any other form of story-telling. If you leave it up to a person to decide if something is good or not, it automatically becomes subjective from that point. A person's opinion will never be objective. "Simon killed Lucy", that is a fact about something that happened. "The way Simon plunged the sword into Lucy's stomach was so well executed, it was horrific", that is an opinion about an action in the story, i.e. any objectivity it had was just lost. |
|
| The whole idea of objectivity regarding art comes from people thinking their opinion is the ultimate truth. People who claim to be objective usually have a superiority complex. Someone honestly believing he is 100% objective about something is pretty much as absurd as someone honestly believing he's the perfect human being and better than everyone else. |
| If you generalize, you're wrong. |
Bushishi said: i think this one subjective way to answer to this thread has already been posted.... was it really worth bumping this 2014 thread?Because, apparently, storytelling, ART, of the IMAGINATION, an infinite, anarchic space with no rules, which has almost countless ways to judge it, can only be judged in one single way like math, physics. There can only be "one objective way" to judge a story. If your opinion does not align with that way, then there's not even a fucking point in having an individual opinion, in the first place, so then why do people even listen to others' opinions, even though they'll just say, "You are objectively wrong"?! |
 |
romagia said: i think this one subjective way to answer to this thread has already been posted.... was it really worth bumping this 2014 thread? A three year old thread about a topic that's all over AD already ffs Bushishi said: Because, apparently, storytelling, ART, of the IMAGINATION, an infinite, anarchic space with no rules, which has almost countless ways to judge it, can only be judged in one single way like math, physics. 1: yes, because math isn't based on axiomas. We can totally proof it's real. 2: anything that has to do with science has been born from the imaginitive mind. So according to your definition is not objective. Okay, I'll now go draw a single line on all of my pieces of paper and present each as a piece of art. |
demonskul777 said: romagia said: i think this one subjective way to answer to this thread has already been posted.... was it really worth bumping this 2014 thread? A three year old thread about a topic that's all over AD already ffs Bushishi said: Because, apparently, storytelling, ART, of the IMAGINATION, an infinite, anarchic space with no rules, which has almost countless ways to judge it, can only be judged in one single way like math, physics. 1: yes, because math isn't based on axiomas. We can totally proof it's real. 2: anything that has to do with science has been born from the imaginitive mind. So according to your definition is not objective. Okay, I'll now go draw a single line on all of my pieces of paper and present each as a piece of art. Science is tied to a lot of physical things - biology, chemistry, astronomy. Fiction is completely abstract. How can you measure it? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: demonskul777 said: A three year old thread about a topic that's all over AD already ffs 1: yes, because math isn't based on axiomas. We can totally proof it's real. 2: anything that has to do with science has been born from the imaginitive mind. So according to your definition is not objective. Okay, I'll now go draw a single line on all of my pieces of paper and present each as a piece of art. Science is tied to a lot of physical things - biology, chemistry, astronomy. Fiction is completely abstract. How can you measure it? I'm sure if we wanted we could get a scale for that. But I didn't say it's not subjective. I was just mocking that person's explanation because he bumped up a three year old thread |
demonskul777 said: TheBrainintheJar said: Science is tied to a lot of physical things - biology, chemistry, astronomy. Fiction is completely abstract. How can you measure it? I'm sure if we wanted we could get a scale for that. But I didn't say it's not subjective. I was just mocking that person's explanation because he bumped up a three year old thread 'If we wanted'? It seems people really want objectivity in the arts. The subject keeps coming up but no one has yet put forward the apparatus that measures art. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Thanks for the read, dear Necromancer. |
 |
TheBrainintheJar said: demonskul777 said: I'm sure if we wanted we could get a scale for that. But I didn't say it's not subjective. I was just mocking that person's explanation because he bumped up a three year old thread 'If we wanted'? It seems people really want objectivity in the arts. The subject keeps coming up but no one has yet put forward the apparatus that measures art. I'm sure a lot of people have, but the majority doesn't agree with those proposed scales so they haven't gotten through. That might proof it's ultimate subjectivity to you, but there are also people who don't believe in science. Every objectivity known to us still is a form of consensus: do we see the same things? We assume so and the majority agrees to that, making observations "objective". "But I can see it. The numbers proof it." If I don't see it does that make me wrong? Two people (w/ decent vision) are in a room and one person says there is a plant, the other says there is not. Who's right? Basically that kind of thing, except on much larger scale and with 99+% of the people agreeing to seeing it But as for art the different ideas are just too broad, and those who like specific things for reasons don't want to see those reasons being marked as bad, so the majority is not going to agree on defining quality objectively. I'm 80% sure there is a bare minimum requirement that the majority would agree on, mostly related to the effort the creator put into the work, but nobody will accept an "objective minimum" because it would possibly endanger their other opinions. On the other hand I do agree with you that for certain works the scale would not be accurate, but for all I care we get multiple scales to judge specific types of works. Opinions will always exist, even on matters we consider objective, which is, yes, a contradictive statement. However if a person doesn't believe the provided "evidence", then you can do nothing to proof it to them. Objectivity itself at that point becomes a subjective matter, which doesn't work, so we have to believe in a few axiomas here and there. If we would apply that to art it would be all the same. I'm not disagreeing on art being subjective, but a lot of science used to be considered so as well and we just go along with assumptions, creating a grand-scale agreement that the majority of people now consider facts. But that kind of boils down to "does everything really exist" and that's a stupid question so let me be clearer on what I mean: The objective part of science is the part we observe, the things that exist; however laws, events etc. cannot be observed as well, and defining exactly how they occure and whether they exist is pure speculation and might just be wrong. I'm not saying I believe that myself, but it might be wrong, which means it's not objective. Same goes for studying art: the objective part, is the the part we can study and actually see, and the interpration of those is the subjective part. The difference between the two is that, for science, we assume specific parts are correct, for art we don't. EDIT: i missed my chance to quote Plato and sound intelligent |
metadataSep 29, 2016 6:24 AM
| Because they don't know what objectivity is. And the "but muh categorical imperative" argument is moot because categorical imperative is about morality not chinese cartoons. |
LobindeSep 29, 2016 8:02 AM
| because it has measurement in it... you people only can't see that thing :P |
Lobinde said: Because they don't know what objectivity is. And the "but muh categorical imperative" argument is moot because categorical imperative is about morality not chinese cartoons. I mean, people have been splitting up the definition and using it only partially, so I've just been arguing against the bias part of judgement, my bad. But I never used categoral imperative since that's literally meaningless in this context, though? Objectivity assumes that everyone can observe it, and I've only been saying that depending on how you seperate observation and existence that is not objectively the case for science. It's not like I disagree with it being subjective though, I just like opposing the majority, since that's a better writing exercise lmao |
metadataSep 29, 2016 9:14 AM
More topics from this board
» So is Shin-Chan actually G rated and the Funimation Dub was like Ghost Stories or is it Adult in nature like Oruchuban Ebichuvasipi4946 - 2 hours ago |
3 |
by vasipi4946
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Tell me why older anime is better that newer anime. ( 1 2 )fluffycow17 - Mar 24, 2021 |
58 |
by MasterTasuke
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » how often do you self insert or empathize with anime characters? and do you experience how good or bad the characters situation or experience is toodeg - 33 minutes ago |
8 |
by deg
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Why do people complain about "rapey" characters in anime?Alpha_1_Zero - Yesterday |
35 |
by logopolis
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» What if all characters, not just main, had infinite mana?Catalano - 5 hours ago |
5 |
by SgtBateMan
»»
9 minutes ago |