tbh wasn't nasu being moderated by a team when he was writing masterpieces like tsukihime and garden of sinners?
tbh one of the reasons nasuverse is powerful because it is so massive. It is way larger then shinza and umineko combined and draws from a heck load of philosophy and science fiction. If Msada/umineko got to grow bigger as a franchise they would probably surpass nasuverse
I don't believe he maintained the Fantasy Tree, although he was planning to replace it with his own power. All things considered, even the fraction of his might he had available surpassed a Fantasy Tree (35% I believe), considering he planned to maintain Olympus alongside.
Pretty sure not. KNK was released before Type-Moon was even a thing, 1998 or 1999 - IIRC, it was Nasu and Takeuchi alone who did basically everything. What I'm sure is that he wouldn't have had the money to hire any sort of team, though. KNK was the first true work of Nasu, and "the second" at least in conception, as Mahou Tsukai no Yoru was technically first drafted in 1996.
Olympus - Section 9
Yeah. Even if it's said by Kirschtaria that he was using 90% of his ME to keep things running, when he partially powers up it's said his power grew exponentially. So, even if he had 10% of his ME, he had a lot less than 10% of his "destructive power"/fighting capacity.
Yeah, the way Nasu wrote her with the established facts are what make her a complex and intriguing character.
Damn, so he still had 10-35% of his power while maintaining all that? Pretty impressive considering a Fantasy Tree operates at the level Qin Shi Huang and Surtur were at even when not fully matured.
Nasuverse is the most mainstream VN verse to my knowledge. And honestly it's for good reason. It had a really strong start that got love from audiences. Umineko isn't too far behind, with it being known as one of the top VNs ever. Dies Irae, and shinza as a whole, is a bit of a weird case though. While it's a classic in Japan, because of not only its shit development process, the fact that it was a commercial flop, and because it was considered the untranslatable VN, it was never really all that mainstream for western audiences.
yeah, masadaverse got shafted.
It's going fairly well now. Masada made a boatload of money off Avesta, so much so that he's making a VN version of it. And he's making Aditya as well. Hopefully things turn up in terms of its mainstream quality
That's what you get when you name and deify functions/parts of a Dyson Sphere.
How about Ace Attorney? When it come to VN in large audience, it's either Nasuverse or Ace Attorney iirc
I definitely can though, an antagonist is a character on its own and Johan only fulfills his role as a symbol and lacks complexity in itself.
That's not entirely true, no. While I agree there is hints of his psychological condition, it is not nealy as fleshed out as Shiki's, so you cannot really argue against that.
Okay, but that wasn't my point. What I'm telling you is that Shiki has the upper hand in emotional depth and character journey.
It quite literally does though, that's what makes her a character with a lot more substance than Johan. Also being more complex, with a lot more areas explored as a character than Johan does, since his primary function is to be a narrative tool to deliver a symbolic meaning, which Shiki also does by herself in her own work. Essentially, he lacks the "universality" that makes a character a lot more meaningful than a character that just delivers one specific message instead of what is "existence" and "humanity" as a whole.
I understand the first part, but how does that even make Johan "the far better character" ? Because while I can understand preferences based upon different criteria, I still don't see why he would be superior in any way except maybe his narrative impact, so why is that ? From what I've established, Shiki is more complex (concept and psyche at the same time), has more depth, has the better character journey, and can much more play both as a symbolic and "human" character than Johan does.
As for your first assessment, I can ask you the same question. If they are not comparable on some factors because they are from different works and narratives, why would you compare Johan's role to say he's better than Shiki when they don't even have the same concept ?
I definitely agree with this, among other factors.
Some people just can't get their head around the idea of personal taste and subjective preferences and will go to awkward places to justify them.
Well no you can't because that's not what an antagonist is. An antagonist doesn't need to develop or grow. That's a ridiculous misconception when it comes to character writing.
And like I said, that's just not true at all. It being subtle does not mean it isn't fleshed out because it absolutely is. And yes, Johan is supposed to be a human character. He isn't supposed to appear human at first, and that changes throughout the story. As for psychological depth, you shot yourself in the foot there by arguing that. The entire story of Monster is centered around figuring out the psychological nuances of Johan and specifically his motivations and goals.
Neither of which are important for an antagonist to begin with, so this isn't a good argument anyway.
It literally shouldn't. Like, it's genuinely stupid to say that an antagonist, regardless of how good they are, need to develop in order to be better or comparable to a character that does develop. That's dumb. I'll give a counter example. Most people who've seen The Dark Knight trilogy would probably agree that the Joker is the best character in the trilogy. It's not hard to see why. Yet he's a character that literally does not develop from beginning to end. We know next to nothing about his backstory, we don't explore his psyche, etc., but he's still put head and shoulders above characters who do have high levels of psychological depth and good development.
I never said he was far better because of that, I'm saying you cannot compare Shiki's psychological depth to Johan's because fundamentally the two stories are built differently. KnK explores her psychology but it isn't a story built around that, unlike Monster.
Because half of your comparisons and points to Shiki can't logically apply to Johan because he's an antagonist. There isn't a specific type of antagonist that needs to be there in order for them to be good. And having an emotional core is just absolutely not necessary. Hell, it's better for the audience to not be overly attached to the antagonist because they're the literal antagonist of the story.
That's not what Johan's there for, what? Did you read Monster? The empty bed isn't the point. The point of the empty bed is that it's clear that someone existed there, that person being Johan. Johan regains his identity.
I literally explained it. He's a more complex character with his ontological insecurity crisis, his complex yet simple motivations, and the story itself depicting what could drive a kid to such nihilism. And the contrast between that and him by the end when he's proven wrong and regains his humanity is done better than her. The devil-like nature, the nihilism, the identity crisis he has, the ontological insecurity, etc. make him a more complex character.
Stopping the back and forth jerk off competition W.
W
He's a human like the rest of us. Don't blame him for that.
Yes I know that. I'm just disappointed.
We can blame him for making a bad decision and then doubling down on it over and over again.
He once tried to close a thread that 10 staff members agreed with just because DT disagreed. I didn't expect him to do anything better
Wow. I used to think Ant was "perfect"
Bro made a grammatical mistake I was in disbelief ant was falling apart
Dread ****** up the fun now they made peace it was a fun watch
Shiki is a weird case tbh.
What makes you think Shiki(void) is within description?
Because she quite literally has an identity that can be described, and there is zero implication that I have seen that she doesn't fall under that. You even described her, to paraphrase, as the personality of the Root, or something akin to that. That itself would further put this into doubt.
What exactly makes you think you are describing her correctly? Remember what the root is described as. "Because swirl of the root is called swirl of the Root, it was no longer " ". The same applies to Void. Because void shiki was called void shiki, it was no longer void shiki.
Why would that apply to shiki. Her name remains shiki. Nothing about that changed. There isn't really much of an implication that calling her shiki means that it's no longer shiki but something else entirely. I feel that you need some explicit evidence for that, which I doubt actually exists
Void Shiki is a made up name. Her void personality is not shiki.
Evidence?
You read the book and watched the movies right? Void Shiki is Akasha. Shiki Ryougi is just a girl with the MEoDP abilities. She has different personalities including the Void personality which is Akasha. But once she becomes Void, she is no longer Shiki. She becomes Void/Nothingness/Akasha.
The point is that you could describe shiki in a certain way. You could say she has black hair and it would be true. You could say she actually has a description. Hell, the fact that she literally became the root when she wasn't one with it earlier implies that it's not actually beyond all description
Again, Shiki wasn't always the root. Everyone knows that. Once she becomes the root, she became known as Void Shiki. Void Shiki IS the root. Shiki is merely a vessel. The person that was talking to Mikiya at the epilogue wasn't Shiki. That was Void. That one is beyond description. Whatever you see or you're able to describe is always going to be wrong. Void probably allowed itself to be seen for us to understand. After all, it can do anything. Even the impossible.
