winstein

I have resolved to write my comment on the Count to 100 with a Twist thread when it's completed. After all, I was an active participant and I wouldn't be surprised if my contribution to the goal was almost half of the posts posted (not exactly, but something like 47 - 48%). The reason I participated when I can is due to the fact that it would be unattractive, nay daunting to post in a thread where the goal is so far away, so I went to contribute as much as I can for that particular cycle because I want to be able to get a 5th winner. It went extremely slowly but thanks to @Shmoopie things picked up the pace and we even cleared larger numbers in a short time.

Admittedly, I am a little disappointed that I didn't get it mainly because for this cycle, I counted very frequently. The fact that a fresh participant only counted at the end can be an unfortunate part of the nature of that game: anybody can post, and as long as they show up in the end, they are declared the winner. I suppose part of me kind of expected the possibility that somebody who practically stumbled in the thread at the right time or waited for the right moment to get the last count. The winner that will be recorded will be that poster, and thus the contributions of everybody else who made it possible will be forgotten or unknown.

As I have mentioned within the thread, probably at around the count of 18, I will not be participating in a new cycle even if anybody wants to start it. The reason being that it's a slog to go through it. The main drive I have had while the 5th cycle was going on is that I want to be able to see a winner even if my contributions did not lead to that. Now that that's done, we shall see if everybody else will want to start again. After all, most of the old guard who made that thread active are now gone, and I am essentially gone too. Will anybody wants to perform the counting cycle again, or would a new cycle seem insurmountable as to not bother trying? That's up to the others, but for my part, I am over this as far as I am concerned.

So that's my thoughts about it. Finally, I would like to congratulate @Sheldon Cooper for getting the last count.

Thank you for reading.

A character depicted in a very different style might be liked by different people, but at the same time not everybody takes a new style well. One of the more recent examples would be Sonic Boom, where Sonic and friends have some interesting changes, especially Knuckles. But some properties managed to gracefully adapt to a new style, such as Mario since his various takes seem to exist in harmony with each other, like his Paper Mario incarnation, the Mario & Luigi look and Super Mario-kun. I do have a stylistic change that I am not satisfied with, even though it's not being used for a long time already. That's to say that I am not immune to having a style I disliked. And what is it? It's Doraemon's 1979 anime art style.

For reference, this is how Doraemon look like in the manga, the 1979 anime and 2005 anime:


As I am more accustomed and dare I say more at home with Doraemon's manga artstyle (despite my first foray to the world of Doraemon through the 1979 anime), the 1979 anime's artstyle came off as off-putting, something akin to what a bootleg product would look like. Of course, it's not really a bootleg since it's an official incarnation of Doraemon. To elaborate, you know how a bootleg version of a character has similar characteristics to the original but it has some features that made them different, kind of like some bootleg products where Mario wears green overalls but still have an "M"? That's the sort of feeling I got about 1979's style: The two examples I can cite are how Gian's eyes are differently portrayed from the original (yet his mother and sister are accurately portrayed based on the manga), and how they change Shizuka's hair from black to brown. The overall roundness that I'm used to in the original manga is portrayed kind of differently in the 1979 anime, where the style is akin to squares with round corners.

When the 2005 anime's artstyle came around, I am more receptive to the artstyle changes for being more faithful to the manga. I think it's for the best that it happened because Fujiko's manga characters are faithfully portrayed in Japan, such as in museums.

Thank you for reading.

When I was in college, I was managing some newspaper comics since I usually cut certain strips out and paste them into a book for collecting. One collegemate noticed me doing my interest, and one thing he mentioned that he likes Kee's World (a Malaysian comic strip) because the characters are cute. Here are a few such comic strips to pique your curiosity:




This left an impression on me as I was not fond of Kee's World due to how basic and mundane it is, compared to (if I recall correctly) the more "sophisticated and more entertaining" American comic strips. It does raise my opinion on this comic strip, and now I no longer think of it as a waste of space. It boils down to how something I didn't like is liked by somebody, and also why I am happy whenever somebody mentioned something they love even though I am not the target audience, within reason (such as when the spirit of a work is not at odds at what I find acceptable).

Thank you for reading.

I can't quite describe the feeling properly whenever I see a series with a varied choice of character designs. There's a sense of contradiction since the characters do not tend to share something in common with each other, and yet they nonetheless exist in the same universe. But at the same time, it's not totally unrealistic since seeing them together is like a curtain call: no matter the differences, they are all in it together. There is also a sense of fun because it's just cool to see differing characters hanging out with each other, and I am sure this is the feeling Smash fans must have had when they see the Ultimate mural.

The series that inspired that sort of feeling is Puyo Puyo, since in their first game the characters that are chosen are generally quirky. You have a fish with hands and legs (who still have regular appearances), an elf with a gigantic foot, a bespectacled eggplant, an elephant that causes the field to shake and a skeleton who drinks tea. The series does have other quirky characters, but for the first game, it has that strangeness that is not present in either Kirby's Avalanche or Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine, more so the former since the latter uses obscure robots that are only shown in one episode. Not saying that Kirby is not quirky itself, but since it's already established by using characters from its then-best game Kirby's Adventure, the surprise factor is just not present.


For a more unpopular example, I present the Denki Blocks! characters. It's also a puzzle game, but when I've seen a playthrough, it occurred to me how much I have missed: the other characters are unrelated and it's funny to me for that reason. You have a mole, a trio of dark-skinned fairies and a jester monkey duo (called Rough and Tumble) among others.


And to end it all, I have to present a more popular and familiar one: the Mario series. It goes without saying that for a series as long-running and productive as Mario, eventually there will be a ton of characters that will look like an eccentric family, and I am counting that outer Mario cast like those in Donkey Kong, Yoshi and Wario under this umbrella.

(Credit to @Dimentio for this image; check out her Fan Creations thread!)

Really, these aren't the only examples of a cast with various shapes and sizes, as there are quite a few that are not listed, such as Pokemon and its monster-collecting ilk like Yokai Watch. Ultimately what I like about diverse character designs is that they work in harmony even if they have their differences.

Thank you for reading.

It's interesting how Mario characters are usually paired, but how Sonic characters are instead put in groups of three.

The birth of this idea for Mario would probably be at Mario Tennis (N64), where one particular character was made to fulfill a pairing, and that is none other than Waluigi. Daisy basically returned after her sporadic appearances for the same reason, and similarly, Birdo even got a more regular limelight (that unfortunately petered out eventually). It isn't until Mario Kart: Double Dash that this idea is cemented, as every character has another character with the same attribute (their special item).

As for Sonic, I believe the power trio of Sonic, Tails and Knuckles are established very early on in Sonic 3, but it's not been an ongoing idea until Sonic Adventure 2, where not only Sonic got his two regular pals as his team, but Shadow also has two pals that he teamed up. It's not until Sonic Heroes that it's cemented, as every character is assigned the attribute of Speed, Fly and Power due to how Sonic's pals are formed. In fact, the Chaotix was brought back due to being designed with the team aspect in mind, and not to mention Shadow's robot pal Omega is part of his team until now. Up till now, only Sonic and Shadow has consistent teammates, but Amy's pals basically rotated (with Amy being the only consistent member). In some ways it might feel a bit restricted, but I suppose that's the way things are now for the dynamic of Sonic characters.

Thank you for reading.

There are some games where the music I associated with them are neither the theme song of the game (eg: Bob-omb Battlefield in Super Mario 64), first level in the game (eg: Super Mario Bros.), nor is it the most emblematic song of the game (eg: You Are Not Alone in Final Fantasy IX). It's usually because it's the first song I've heard for that game, which is mainly through previews or watching/hearing from it not from the beginning. Here are a few that I recall:

Mario Party 3: Mustn't Panic (played in Eatsa Pizza)
Mario Party 8: Friendly Competition
Tales of Legendia: Chasing Shirley (I have never played nor see this game before; just the soundtrack)

Come to think of it, there aren't as many examples about this as I thought.

Thank you for reading.

Cartoon characters come in all shapes and sizes, but it is more amazing if the artist acknowledges the character design if they are unusual, and design things that they can plausibly interact with. One way to tell if the cartoonist cares about the design is the way they ride a bike, due to how you operate it (by pedalling).

Let's start with a more familiar (good) example in the Mario boards: Wario. Wario's legs are extremely short, so he cannot ride a standard bike unless it's modified to suit his stature. In fact, his signature motorcycle is designed for his proportions in mind!


Doraemon has a similarly short stature, but one thing that's basically offhandedly shown is that he can extend his arms to a certain extent (which could be why he can put the Bamboo Copter on his head), which is not unusual since he's a robot after all. However, his legs are short and don't seem to extend. In one of the stories he had to use the bicycle as an emergency, and this is how he can feasibly ride the bicycle:



Even if the characters are short, if the bikes are designed after them, then it goes to show that the artist cared that they are short, such as how the characters in Peanuts ride motorcycles (as strange as that sound) in "You're A Good Sport, Charlie Brown".


Perhaps I should list a bad example too. After all, it takes a bad example to be able to acknowledge a good example, which is what transpired the topic. Calvin & Hobbes may have been a meaningful and well-loved comic, but it does have some flaws. I get the impression that the artist forgot that the child characters are as short as babies, and so a lot of things will not be easily and feasibly used by them if held under scrutiny (stairs is another big thing) because they are designed for adults who have regular proportions.

(Note: The bicycle may move on its own but only when no other characters shows up, and this comic is an example)

So basically, if a character with unusual proportions is designed, make sure the things that they regularly use are fit for them, or failing that, have them adapt to it, similar to how people without certain limbs adapt to driving a car.

Thank you for reading.

There's something that we took for granted when it comes to child characters in animation/cartoons, yet at the same time it's not realistic. Namely, it's the fact that child characters are able to accomplish things that are far advanced for their age.

Take Ash Ketchum for example: he's supposed to be a 10-year-old, but he is somehow able to do a lot of athletic feats that I couldn't even imagine that I could do, even back then. As an example, Ash can scale rocky walls without any issue, and he can somehow climb a tree and jump pretty high! That's not to mention how heavy some Pokemon are, yet Ash can lift them no problemo. (In case you cannot tell: Hippopotas is 49.5kg/109.1 pounds)

(It wouldn't surprise me if Ash can lift Hippowdon or Tyranitar, which are heavier than the Pokemon he's actually carried)

This is not restricted to physical feats. Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes is incredibly advanced intellectually for his age (6 years old), and his vocabulary and thinking are both complex to boot. The things he learned at school are things I will never imagine myself learning even at 6 years old myself, like the fact that they learned geography. Oddly enough, their mathematics are more on par with what 6 year olds learn, although the math problem he once faced (as Tracer Bullet) is on par with his other subjects.


(If you are a 6 year old human (not cartoon character) and you can solve this problem, you are a genius)

If you, like me, aren't familiar with the outside world at a younger age, these things can be seen as something normal. For example, in the Calvin example above, I used to think that Americans have a far more advanced education system than us Malaysians. I like to imagine that when aliens look at what we watch or read, they would have came to certain conclusions themselves, like how children can already become incredibly advanced athletes.

Thank you for reading.

https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/en/showData.jsp?ID=EMTM.018178032
Thought this might intrest you

It doesn't really matter to most people regarding cartoons, but it amazes me if a cartoon character is drawn with 5 fingers, rather than the de-facto standard 4 fingers that a lot of famous ones do. Note that this excludes cartoons drawn in realistic style since having five-fingered hands are a pre-requisite. I am talking about the ones where the characters have a more abstract cartoonish design.

What I am saying is: when I see a new character that is cartoonish by design, I would take the time to see how many fingers they have.

There are some cartoon characters that I didn't know are five-fingered from the beginning, such as Popeye and the Peanuts kids (and Snoopy). The images below should give you a clear indication that even old characters are not necessarily four-fingered folks, unlike Mickey, Elmer Fudd and Felix.


To a lesser extent, there's Sonic since his very design is clearly designed after old characters like Mickey and Felix (though, his DiC cartoons gave him four fingers). And then there's obviously Mario, who has five-fingered hands for most of his history. Amazingly, the DiC Mario cartoons rendered him with five fingers when it was the norm to draw characters with four (not all original human characters were drawn that way, I must add).

I know of the negative connotations in Japan in regards to four fingers, which might be why if they were to get around the problem of showing less fingers, they do it in a more abstract manner: joint fingers. (Note: Doraemon's human cast have five-fingered hands)



Even Pokemon's designs are not exempt to this. The first time I have noticed the more abstract hand design is Gothitelle, a Generation 5 Pokemon, whereas it's not uncommon for Gen 1 Pokemon with hands to have five fingers. You should see the difference between Geodude and its Alolan counterpart for the change in design philosophy:



And that's it for another of my crazy observation of the day.

Thank you for reading.

It's fascinating when something received love for a different reason than intended. For example, Super Paper Mario is typically advertised for the ability to flip between 2D and 3D, but it turned out that fans took to this game (or got repulsed from it) for an entirely different reason: the story. Sometimes I wonder if this game would have been successful if the marketing of this game hinges on the story rather than the gameplay twist.

Geno is a similar case: he is from Super Mario RPG and his role is basically one-and-done (come alive from a doll and ascended from it in the same game), but he's far more known in Smash for the fans who wanted him, instead of among the Mario fans, where he's pretty insignificant, especially compared to other Mario RPG characters.

Basically my point is that in life, what people love about something is not necessarily what the creators expected.

Thank you for reading.

The phenomenon where the same character with different designs are treated as different entities are intriguing, especially in an official setting since this idea is quite popular with fans. The fact that it's already commonly done officially, under the guise of multiple universes makes the idea an expectation, such as the various comic book superheroes, many long-running video game characters (including Sonic and Mega Man) and quite a number of cartoon characters.

The first time I really noticed this was in Sonic Generations, because it was basically the pivotal point where "Classic" Sonic is treated as its own entity while "Modern" Sonic is treated as another, despite the fact that that game treated it as a meeting between past and present self. Another thing that cemented my fascination further is how there was one user poll (which I can't find anymore, so I can't link it) that treated Eggman of Sonic (2006) as a different Eggman. I wouldn't be surprised if fans felt similarly: Sonic and his animal friends may be treated as the same characters as in Sonic Adventure due to the similar designs, but Eggman is quite different from Sonic Adventure that people treated it as a different Eggman, even though the game presumably doesn't make a case for distinguishing both designs. So really, in terms of overall character, do any of you feel similarly: [1] Sonic (modern) = Sonic (2006) [2] Eggman (modern) ≠ Eggman (2006)?

Thank you for reading.

Personally, I found body fusion in which the individual characters are fused but retained their characteristics to be a creepy idea. I don't mean like when they fuse into a new character, like how Yu-Gi-Oh handled fusions, or something like Steven Universe's fusion dances (which by the way was surprisingly not creepy until they showed the ugly side of it). I mean something like this:



In case you don't know about the Spongebob one, that one is due to the teleporter mishap by Sandy, where Spongebob was teleported between Squidward's arm, and bringing Spongebob back to her caused Squidward to be teleported, resulting in the fusion you see above. The episode did have a worse fusion later on that I suggest saving your eyes from seeing, unless you are that curious.

You might not know the picture on the left, but it's from Donald's Quack Pack, which have the Duck triplets (Huey, Dewey and Louie) being teenagers. Anyway, that image is from the episode "Pardon My Molecules", where there is a machine that fuses two things and it was used to fuse a washing machine and a television earlier. Huey and Dewey ended up in the machine to hide from their pursuers (Louie hid behind the fused appliance) and an unknowing and unintentional action by their pursuer fused them to the side. The same episode also has a fusion that I found equally creepy: one character's face fused with an abstract painting, giving him a very odd look that I can't imagine how it would look in real life.



Perhaps the reason I find these types of fusion to be horrifying is perhaps stemmed from the fear that something similar would happen to me. I know it's mostly fantasy, but when something like that happened, I imagine that it's very difficult to reverse. I imagine this is something people don't find horrifying, but it certainly did it for me, but I got over it unless a new idea comes up, like how in Adventure Time, there was a story explaining Magic Man's mayhem where he fused the limbs (both arms and legs) of the people in Mars (I don't believe the scene was depicted as a present event or a flashback, but that would have been a nightmare to see).

Thank you for reading.

Apparently in Japan, Joe & Mac 2: Lost in the Tropics is known as "Caveman Combat 3: The Protagonists Are Joe & Mac Again". Note that the Japanese Caveman Combat indeed doesn't have Joe and Mac in the second game. That subtitle is funny in a way that pointing out the obvious is funny.

That's like calling Super Mario Bros. 3 "Super Mario Bros 3: The Antagonist is Bowser Again" (obviously US-centric since SMB2 is a different game).

Thank you for reading.

Christmas is so ubiquitous as a holiday that it's very difficult to think of a show or series that does not celebrate it. The famous characters like Mickey Mouse, Snoopy and even NiGHTs have some form of Christmas special that any famous show will inevitably have a Christmas thing going on, even if the characters aren't necessarily Christians. This goes beyond the West from what I have seen, for some Japanese stories celebrate Christmas too, like Doraemon. For bonus points, it involves Santa Claus in some form.

By comparison, if the characters celebrates Hanukkah, you can tell what the characters' background is, because you can tell they are Jewish. Rugrats is one example of the characters being Jewish, but perhaps a series that I didn't know have Jewish characters is Baby Blues, where the main family practise Jewish traditions on that day.

It would be fascination to know a work that doesn't celebrate Christmas even when presented the opportunity, meaning that it either doesn't:
1) Take place before Christmas is made
2) Takes place in a limited time frame outside the Christmas period (example: a story that takes place entirely on Labour Day)

It sounded like I am complaining about something that happens all around the world, but I need to point out that I am merely making an observation on something, because it's very easy to assume that traditions are the norm that we didn't really give much thought about it.

Thank you for reading.

Pac-Man sure have met a lot of unorthodox characters, huh? I guess that's part of the charm.

Pac-Man Arcade Golf: human golfers


Pac-Man Party: a yeti, a cat and a robot with an eyeball


Pac Land: Fairies


Pac-Man World 3: a strange person with a big head and a small body


Pac-Man 2: The New Adventures: A ghost witch and her gum monster


Pac-Man Pizza Parlor: Pizza parlour owners and their customers


Pac-Man Fever: Four deformed versions human characters from other Namco games


Thank you for reading.

I've got something to confess: it still amazes me every time somebody told me that I draw well.

Thank you for reading.

Related to my previous post, specifically, the fine print, one of my worries when I type out my thoughts is the concern that it might be incomprehensible. This is especially the case because at times I struggle to explain things to other people when speaking. This is why writing is my preferred way of communicating, because it allows me to ponder more easily on saying what I think, figuratively speaking. It felt like a failure on my part if somebody still doesn't understand what I wanted to say. (With that said, I think I did pretty well with my previous post.)

I felt the need to have something to explain because I am sure if I have an opinion without explaining, it would be upsetting for the other. Like for example, I am not as fond of Meta Knight as most Kirby fans, but I made sure to explain why I thought that's the case. At least that way, it is understandable on why that's the case. (And also to more or less justify thanking people for reading)

Thank you for reading.

One thing that I am kind of bothered is when somebody claims that a fan game/mod/level editor is superior to the official product. I know that the passion of fans to make something like that is to be admired, but it's also unfair because they have quite a number of advantages over the original. For example, works from fans have plenty of time in the world to realise them, and ironically, the reason they could even have them in the first place is that they have the original game to compare and build upon.

An example of this can be seen in Super Mario Maker. Since fans made level editors existed for quite a long time, any criticism tends to be around how much more robust their work is compared to the original product. Moreover, whenever the official product added some new features, fans could implement it because they are far more flexible to do that. The official product simply has simpler accessibility, has the support of a bigger company, and can be enjoyed by millions, so it's not objectively inferior. I suppose if the servers are down that could be an issue, which is one clear advantage a fan work has over the official product.

Smash Bros is another one. Project M is viewed as superior mainly because it focuses on something that hardcore fans value the most: balance. While balance is a reason that the game is enjoyed by competitive players, it's built upon existing Smash games so it's not superior since they have plenty of time in the world to do balancing and modify the game in the image of Melee (a game that existed first).

I'm not claiming that it's a bad thing that you enjoyed a fan game for having something that the official product doesn't have, just as how it's valid to enjoy a game because a character you prefer to play as is modded in, but that it's unfair if you don't view the whole picture. In other words, there's a reason it's a fan work, so viewing a fan work like as if it's a competitor to the official product is disingenuous.

(Sorry if they sounded like my thoughts were scattered; I struggled to make this one sound cohesive)

Thank you for reading.

I think this is going to be an unpopular opinion even among Kirby fans, but I always thought that the popularity of Marx is strange. I won't disagree that Marx is popular, but it's odd because his presence in the adventure where you meet him is minimal: only appearing in a beginning cutscene and as a final boss.

In Kirby Star Allies, every Dream Friend that you meet have a significant presence in the game they debuted in. For example, Taranza is the antagonist-turned-ally that Kirby chases throughout the adventure, Magolor is always around since the adventure kickstarted due to his broken ship, and then there's Rick, Kine and Coo, who are the animal friends you rescued and ride on. Even Gooey's basis is Kirby's Dreamland 3, which is NOT his debut game but he did have a significant presence in said game.

It's possible that he has the benefit of appearing in the most famous Kirby game, but even then I thought that Dyna Blade is a better representative for Super Star, by virtue of appearing in two of the sub-games. Too bad Dyna Blade is not Kirby-sized. I guess he is the most memorable final boss for being unsettling and difficult, and that Dyna Blade is hardly memorable among Kirby fans. My feeling regarding this matter extends to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, where I felt that Marx is an unsuitable boss, and instead, Dark Matter (or Magolor) is far more appropriate. I know Super Star is very well-loved, but there's too much Super Star representation in Smash Bros. already!

Another thought: since no other Kirby game used Milky Way Wishes' system of collecting abilities (rather than using Inhale to copy them), it's pretty ironic that Marx's popularity never rubbed off from anything else in that game (except NOVA I guess).

Thank you for reading.

Ever have one of those times where you wanted to add to the conversation in a chat, but everybody has already moved on? This happens to me quite often, since my time zone is largely incompatible with the majority.

As an example, on one chat, one person mentioned the ages of the fan artists in a Garfield book, where they quipped on how it's considered embarrassing to have their age published next to the images. In the image below, there's one with a mentioned age of 20-something and another 30-something.


I would have mentioned that there's no issue with this, because it shows that Garfield has accumulated a lot of fans since his debut, so it's not unusual that there are adult fans creating fan art for the character. Besides, I recall that Paws Inc. has no age restriction when they wanted fans to submit their fan art. Problem is: the conversation had since moved on for days, so it will not be right to just say it (except for a comment here, that is).

Thank you for reading.

It's pretty amazing that Pokemon Sword/Shield is sparse on the news, plus how there's the fact that there aren't any reliable leaks besides one or two that appeared before E3. Contrast that to Pokemon Sun/Moon where it seems like news on those games are quite abundant. What I am saying is that Pokemon Sword and Shield are the most tight-lipped games yet, in terms of pre-release information.

This is ironic to me because I wanted to avoid spoilers from Sun/Moon as much as possible, since I planned to get one of the games (although that didn't work out fully). Since I don't plan to get Sword/Shield, I wanted to know as much of the games as I can, but it seems that the Pokemon team has a different plan in mind.

Not that I mind them keeping things closer to their chest. In fact, I prefer this approach. This ensures that the players can delve into the games without as much of an expectation, which I haven't really felt since Generation 3. In that Generation, it was such a nice feeling to find out how Torchic evolved into a Fire/Fighting type, and I miss that sort of feeling.

Thank you for reading.

Are there any character whose description is scary, but they are in practice, not as scary as their description made them out to be? For me, that description falls to The Delightful Children Down the Lane (Codename: Kids Next Door).



In case you aren't aware of what they are, they are basically five children with varying descriptions, but they have a very cold demanour. Plus, they operate like a single entity like a hive mind. Not to mention: they talk in unison most of the time. Their uniforms (and one kid's helmet) are also somehow embedded to them, as if it's part of their body. In other words, they are different children that transformed into something that operates everything together.

Despite the description, they are somehow funny when depicted in the animated show, although they still have the element of horror regardless (including their sadistic tendencies).

Thank you for reading.

I just realized that your age now says '31'.

Sorry i'm late on this, but Happy Birthday!

If Mario founded a company to counter WarioWare, wouldn't it be "MarioMart"?