CaptainBuggles
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 399
I'm in the camp where he's not bad, I just wish he were handled a little better.
To elaborate:
Battle style: I wish for more internal consistency on how Ash battles, because it often strikes me as like... "consistently inconsistent". They made him like speedy offense mixed with general wildcard vibes, someone who goes in with bare-bones planning and then takes risks and looks for further insight as he goes... But sometimes it feels like it just became an excuse to have him do things that shouldn't have worked, or at least without foreshadowing or prior knowledge that he could, which essentially feels like the same thing. There's a big difference between "That surprised me because I hadn't thought of it," and "That surprised me because there was no prior indication it was possible,". (and the first is pretty much always better than the second) However, I do still think the battle doesn't need to be "realistic" or "perfectly following the games". I just want as much internal consistency and follow-through as possible.
By extension, this would also make it easier to accept whenever he is doing really good. He'd be going solely by what has been established as a possibility, not just by whatever the plot suddenly does or doesn't let him have.
Character: His attitude is good, but I wish he had at least a little more depth. Not a ton, that would only bog the show down... And I do know that the audience is often supposed to insert themselves into him, so that's another thing to keep in mind. But still, a couple more layers wouldn't be a bad thing.
To elaborate:
Battle style: I wish for more internal consistency on how Ash battles, because it often strikes me as like... "consistently inconsistent". They made him like speedy offense mixed with general wildcard vibes, someone who goes in with bare-bones planning and then takes risks and looks for further insight as he goes... But sometimes it feels like it just became an excuse to have him do things that shouldn't have worked, or at least without foreshadowing or prior knowledge that he could, which essentially feels like the same thing. There's a big difference between "That surprised me because I hadn't thought of it," and "That surprised me because there was no prior indication it was possible,". (and the first is pretty much always better than the second) However, I do still think the battle doesn't need to be "realistic" or "perfectly following the games". I just want as much internal consistency and follow-through as possible.
By extension, this would also make it easier to accept whenever he is doing really good. He'd be going solely by what has been established as a possibility, not just by whatever the plot suddenly does or doesn't let him have.
Character: His attitude is good, but I wish he had at least a little more depth. Not a ton, that would only bog the show down... And I do know that the audience is often supposed to insert themselves into him, so that's another thing to keep in mind. But still, a couple more layers wouldn't be a bad thing.